If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
https://www.tfir.io/2019/05/15/why-l...p-failed-mark- shuttleworth/ https://linux.slashdot.org/story/19/.../why-linux-on- desktop-failed-a-discussion-with-mark-shuttleworth "Mark Shuttleworth, founder and CEO of Canonical, summed it in a few words: "I think the bigger challenge has been that we haven't invented anything in the Linux that was like deeply, powerfully ahead of its time." He also said that "if in the free software community we only allow ourselves to talk about things that look like something that already exists, then we're sort of defining ourselves as a series of forks and fragmentations." He added that it seems the desktop Linux people want to be angry at something. We wanted to do amazing things with Unity but the community won't let us do it, so here we are. He also commended Google folks for what they have built for Chrome OS." |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.]
On 2019-09-11, Wingnut McSprocket wrote: Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth This video interview has been out for a while but after I watched it I wondered 2 things: 1. Does Mark Shuttleworth really have the place to make sweeping statements about Linux in general, rather than just his own corner of the Linux world? 2. When did he start looking so tired and old!! Andrew -- You think that's air you're breathing now? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
Wingnut McSprocket wrote:
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth https://www.tfir.io/2019/05/15/why-l...p-failed-mark- shuttleworth/ https://linux.slashdot.org/story/19/.../why-linux-on- desktop-failed-a-discussion-with-mark-shuttleworth "Mark Shuttleworth, founder and CEO of Canonical, summed it in a few words: "I think the bigger challenge has been that we haven't invented anything in the Linux that was like deeply, powerfully ahead of its time." He also said that "if in the free software community we only allow ourselves to talk about things that look like something that already exists, then we're sort of defining ourselves as a series of forks and fragmentations." He added that it seems the desktop Linux people want to be angry at something. We wanted to do amazing things with Unity but the community won't let us do it, so here we are. He also commended Google folks for what they have built for Chrome OS." Excellent interview I had not seen. Thank you. And good to hear folks in the Linux community say these types of things. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 23:44:59 -0600, AnonLinuxUser
wrote: On 9/11/2019 6:51 PM, Rabid Robot wrote: On 2019-09-11 4:19 p.m., Wingnut McSprocket wrote: Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth https://www.tfir.io/2019/05/15/why-l...p-failed-mark- shuttleworth/ https://linux.slashdot.org/story/19/.../why-linux-on- desktop-failed-a-discussion-with-mark-shuttleworth "Mark Shuttleworth, founder and CEO of Canonical, summed it in a few words: "I think the bigger challenge has been that we haven't invented anything in the Linux that was like deeply, powerfully ahead of its time." He also said that "if in the free software community we only allow ourselves to talk about things that look like something that already exists, then we're sort of defining ourselves as a series of forks and fragmentations." He added that it seems the desktop Linux people want to be angry at something. We wanted to do amazing things with Unity but the community won't let us do it, so here we are. He also commended Google folks for what they have built for Chrome OS." I, for one, thought that Unity was pretty good and that some of the ideas were pretty clever but yeah, the Linux zealots are pretty resistant to any kind of decent innovation. If it doesn't look like it's from the 90s or the early 70s, it's not worth using apparently. McSprocket nym looks more like a snit sock puppet than anything else. He's used McNuggets from what I recall. I agree it appears to be a snit sock puppet but in the slim chance that it's not I will offer my 2 cents. I think Shuttleworth is right, over the years, desktop Linux hasn't been able to offer anything substantial to the user experience that has been better than Windows already offers. At least not for the typical, non programmer user. Linux's advantages of cost and source code mean nothing to the average person ordering a PC via Amazon. That being said, the biggest obstacle to Linux's acceptance as a desktop system has been Windows being pre-installed on systems. This is a huge disadvantage for Linux and coupled with the fact that Windows offers more, again useful to the average user, software, the user has no motivation to move to Linux. Hardware support, while not as much of a problem now, has definitely been a problem in the past and stunted Linux growth. Things like WinModems and WinPrinters, seriously moronic ideas IMHO, torpedoed Linux during the time frames where they were popular. Nvidia wasn't always friendly with Linux as well,although that has obviously changed. It might be too late though. I don't believe that fragmentation and multiple distributions have much of an effect, if any, in Linux adoption. A free market will sort itself out and the good will be accepted and the bad will disappear. The Linux community itself has also been a thorn in Linux's side. Again over the years and not so much now. Reputations are difficult to repair. As an example, ask some random person about Linux and you will certainly encounter some people who still believe Linux is a text based system needing a command line to run. Sad but true. Personally, I think Linux has matured and will be fine for the majority of desktop users who aren't gamers or need specialized applications. And while I like the open source concept and believe it is going to grow in popularity and ultimately become the de facto system, it's going to take a while. The good news is Linux is extremely popular in the server, embedded device market as well as of course Android etc. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
Mr. Hand wrote:
The Linux community itself has also been a thorn in Linux's side. Again over the years and not so much now. Reputations are difficult to repair. Although lying, freedom-hating trolls have often claimed otherwise, there is nothing wrong with the Linux community's reputation Even if there was, the vast majority of people would be unaware of it. Micro$oft has a bad reputation, and it hasn't harmed them. As an example, ask some random person about Linux and you will certainly encounter some people who still believe Linux is a text based system needing a command line to run. Sad but true. Neither sad nor true. The vast majority would have no idea. Those who had an idea would not be assuming what you claim. If anyone, at all, thinks that Linux is a "GUI-less operating system", they are a tiny, insignificant number of people. -- "Low brow, anti-social basement dwellers imbued with a self importance which combined with their hatred for anyone or any thing which is successful makes them nasty, vindictive, self important weenies." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:27:35 -0500, chrisv
wrote: Mr. Hand wrote: The Linux community itself has also been a thorn in Linux's side. Again over the years and not so much now. Reputations are difficult to repair. Although lying, freedom-hating trolls have often claimed otherwise, there is nothing wrong with the Linux community's reputation Actually there is. https://www.networkworld.com/article...ons-style.html "A prominent Linux kernel developer announced today in a blog post that she would step down from her direct work in the kernel community, saying that the community values blunt honesty, often containing profane and personal attacks above “basic human decency.” Sarah Sharp (who now goes by Sage Sharp), an Intel employee who until recently was the maintainer of the USB 3.0 host controller driver, wrote that she could no longer work within a developer culture that required overworked maintainers to be rude and brusque in order to get the job done. She continues to work on other open-source software projects, but says that she has begun to dread even minor interaction with the kernel community." Here is the inventor of Linux demonstrating a similar attitude. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/b...ux-development And another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Linux "Responses to criticism The Linux community has had mixed responses to these and other criticisms. As mentioned above, while some criticism has led to new features and better user-friendliness, the Linux community as a whole has a reputation for being resistant to criticism.[47] Writing for PC World, Keir Thomas, noted that, "Most of the time the world of Linux tends to be anti-critical. If anybody in the community dares be critical, they get stomped upon."[47] In a 2015 interview, Linus Torvalds also mentioned the tendency of Linux desktop environment projects to blame their users instead of themselves in case of criticism.[48]" And there are many others. How you can deny this is laughable. Even if there was, the vast majority of people would be unaware of it. They become aware the first time they enter the typical Linux group and get told to RTFM. Micro$oft has a bad reputation, and it hasn't harmed them. I'm talking about the community not a company. So, people like you for example as you prove my points rather succinctly. As an example, ask some random person about Linux and you will certainly encounter some people who still believe Linux is a text based system needing a command line to run. Sad but true. Neither sad nor true. It is true. Try it yourself. The vast majority would have no idea. Those who had an idea would not be assuming what you claim. If anyone, at all, thinks that Linux is a "GUI-less operating system", they are a tiny, insignificant number of people. While it is true most people may not even know about Linux, from the ones that do, many still believe it's a CLI system for geeks. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On 9/11/19 1:19 PM, Wingnut McSprocket wrote:
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth https://www.tfir.io/2019/05/15/why-l...p-failed-mark- shuttleworth/ https://linux.slashdot.org/story/19/.../why-linux-on- desktop-failed-a-discussion-with-mark-shuttleworth "Mark Shuttleworth, founder and CEO of Canonical, summed it in a few words: "I think the bigger challenge has been that we haven't invented anything in the Linux that was like deeply, powerfully ahead of its time." He also said that "if in the free software community we only allow ourselves to talk about things that look like something that already exists, then we're sort of defining ourselves as a series of forks and fragmentations." He added that it seems the desktop Linux people want to be angry at something. We wanted to do amazing things with Unity but the community won't let us do it, so here we are. He also commended Google folks for what they have built for Chrome OS." What a crock. The user does not give a s*** what OS he is using. He only cares if his programs work. And Windows owns the program base. From the user's point of view, if his QuickBooks and his Turbotax does not work, then the OS does not work. He does not care why. Here is a quarter. Go tell it to some who cares. Linux's desktop have come into their own. There are several that are very well done and much better than Windows 10. Linux need to concentrate on taking over the install base of software. Linux is technically superior to Windows but it does not matter. Windows runs all the software. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
Mr. Hand wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Linux And there are many others. How you can deny this is laughable. You focus only on those who are critical. There are also those who praise the community. There are billions of people who have benefitted from the community's efforts. What is "laughable" is that you think that you can present only "one side of the story" and arrive at the truth. Even if there was, the vast majority of people would be unaware of it. They become aware the first time they enter the typical Linux group and get told to RTFM. Although trolls with bad attitudes will claim otherwise, that normally does not happen. Almost always, people who are respectful get treated with respect. Micro$oft has a bad reputation, and it hasn't harmed them. I'm talking about the community not a company. On what basis would you claim that reputations are less important to companies than they are to communities? So, people like you for example as you prove my points rather succinctly. Now you have resorted to lying. Do you, by chance, also go by the name of "Mayayana"? He also likes to launch insulting attacks, and then, when people object, claim that his "point was proven". As an example, ask some random person about Linux and you will certainly encounter some people who still believe Linux is a text based system needing a command line to run. Sad but true. Neither sad nor true. It is true. Nope. It's pulled from your rear end. Try it yourself. How about you prove your ridiculous claim. The vast majority would have no idea. Those who had an idea would not be assuming what you claim. If anyone, at all, thinks that Linux is a "GUI-less operating system", they are a tiny, insignificant number of people. While it is true most people may not even know about Linux, from the ones that do, many still believe it's a CLI system for geeks. Nonsense. -- "The HUGE majority use MSO and are happy." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
T wrote:
(snip) What, you just copy and paste the same stuff that your wrote earlier? Here's my response. -- 'The only thing to say is that clueless "advocates" think that this flood of **** copies somehow challenges apple. It doesn't.' - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark, regarding Android-based phones |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On 2019-09-12 10:41 a.m., Mr. Hand wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 23:44:59 -0600, AnonLinuxUser wrote: On 9/11/2019 6:51 PM, Rabid Robot wrote: On 2019-09-11 4:19 p.m., Wingnut McSprocket wrote: Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth https://www.tfir.io/2019/05/15/why-l...p-failed-mark- shuttleworth/ https://linux.slashdot.org/story/19/.../why-linux-on- desktop-failed-a-discussion-with-mark-shuttleworth "Mark Shuttleworth, founder and CEO of Canonical, summed it in a few words: "I think the bigger challenge has been that we haven't invented anything in the Linux that was like deeply, powerfully ahead of its time." He also said that "if in the free software community we only allow ourselves to talk about things that look like something that already exists, then we're sort of defining ourselves as a series of forks and fragmentations." He added that it seems the desktop Linux people want to be angry at something. We wanted to do amazing things with Unity but the community won't let us do it, so here we are. He also commended Google folks for what they have built for Chrome OS." I, for one, thought that Unity was pretty good and that some of the ideas were pretty clever but yeah, the Linux zealots are pretty resistant to any kind of decent innovation. If it doesn't look like it's from the 90s or the early 70s, it's not worth using apparently. McSprocket nym looks more like a snit sock puppet than anything else. He's used McNuggets from what I recall. I agree it appears to be a snit sock puppet but in the slim chance that it's not I will offer my 2 cents. I think Shuttleworth is right, over the years, desktop Linux hasn't been able to offer anything substantial to the user experience that has been better than Windows already offers. At least not for the typical, non programmer user. Linux's advantages of cost and source code mean nothing to the average person ordering a PC via Amazon. Exactly. Since none of the people buying hardware ever factor in the price of the operating system (since it's included on each computer), the benefit of Linux being free is worthless. It might be worthwhile if the person is using something like Vista and is shockingly resistant to the idea of buying more recent hardware, but people who aren't stubborn mules won't see the advantage. That being said, the biggest obstacle to Linux's acceptance as a desktop system has been Windows being pre-installed on systems. This is a huge disadvantage for Linux and coupled with the fact that Windows offers more, again useful to the average user, software, the user has no motivation to move to Linux. Hardware support, while not as much of a problem now, has definitely been a problem in the past and stunted Linux growth. Things like WinModems and WinPrinters, seriously moronic ideas IMHO, torpedoed Linux during the time frames where they were popular. Nvidia wasn't always friendly with Linux as well,although that has obviously changed. It's better but unlike Intel and AMD, NVIDIA is not bothering to open-source the video driver. -- Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On 9/12/19 10:06 AM, chrisv wrote:
T wrote: (snip) What, you just copy and paste the same stuff that your wrote earlier? Here's my response. Nothing showed. I presumed infernal November screwed up. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On 9/12/19 10:06 AM, chrisv wrote:
T wrote: (snip) What, you just copy and paste the same stuff that your wrote earlier? Here's my response. Your response is an eMail address? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On 2019-09-12 1:14 p.m., T wrote:
On 9/12/19 10:06 AM, chrisv wrote: T wrote: (snip) What, you just copy and paste the same stuff that your wrote earlier? Here's my response. Your response is an eMail address? I think that's a Message-ID. How does one look up a Message-ID, anyway? -- Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
T wrote:
chrisv wrote: Here's my response. Your response is an eMail address? That's not an email address, it's a usenet message-id http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cphiknedtsvjrs4kiblk1s1egiicad 7q2bq%404ax.com%3E |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 12:03:32 -0500, chrisv
wrote: Mr. Hand wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Linux And there are many others. How you can deny this is laughable. You focus only on those who are critical. No. I made a statement that you claim was untrue. I offered proof. You offered insults. There are also those who praise the community. Of course there are. Who said otherwise. You are now moving the goal posts after you snipped what I've said. There are billions of people who have benefitted from the community's efforts. Of course. Goal post move again. What is "laughable" is that you think that you can present only "one side of the story" and arrive at the truth. No. What is laughable is how you lashed out and attacked me while I provided data for my claims and you snip and then try to move the goal posts. Even if there was, the vast majority of people would be unaware of it. They become aware the first time they enter the typical Linux group and get told to RTFM. Although trolls with bad attitudes will claim otherwise, that normally does not happen. Almost always, people who are respectful get treated with respect. There is a reason for the bad reputation of the Linux community. And it's easy to Google examples, I provided some, you snipped the data. Micro$oft has a bad reputation, and it hasn't harmed them. I'm talking about the community not a company. On what basis would you claim that reputations are less important to companies than they are to communities? The fact that Linux doesn't have a company, maybe? I thought that would be obvious. So, people like you for example as you prove my points rather succinctly. Now you have resorted to lying. Your snipping, goal post moving and straw man building along with your personal attacks on me proves my points rather well. Do you, by chance, also go by the name of "Mayayana"? He also likes to launch insulting attacks, and then, when people object, claim that his "point was proven". I'm not Mayayana, and you are resorting to lying. I didn't attack anyone, you did. You attacked me. As an example, ask some random person about Linux and you will certainly encounter some people who still believe Linux is a text based system needing a command line to run. Sad but true. Neither sad nor true. It is true. Nope. It's pulled from your rear end. See. You attack. I will provide evidence of my claim right here. You will snip it, move the goal posts and continue to attack me though but I will post it anyway. And again, this is but a single example. Google is filled with others. https://itsfoss.com/myths-about-linux/ "You are he Home / List / 5 Myths About Linux That Scares Away New Users 5 Myths About Linux That Scares Away New Users Last updated March 4, 2019 By Abhishek Prakash 94 Comments Myths about Linux debunked Are there really myths about Linux? I mean there are plenty of facts about Linux and how powerful and secure it is that the entire tech world is relying on it. Yes, the world relies on Linux to power its technologies but we are not talking about the ‘industrial Linux’. We are talking the desktop Linux. The Linux that a normal user should be using as its daily driver for surfing web, for document editing, listening to music and casual gaming. When it comes to the desktop version, there are actually some famous myths about Linux and if one believes them, he/she will be very reluctant to use Linux. 5 myths about Linux that you shouldn’t believe In this article, I will bust these myths about Linux. I am not going to trick you in switching to Linux by lying, I’ll counter these rumors with facts, the best way to do it. Myth 1: Linux is very difficult to use Myth about Linux: It's difficult to use If you think Linux is difficult to use, let me ask you this. When you used a computer for the very first time, how did you feel? The answer would be that you just didn’t know how to navigate or use the operating system (Windows, I presume). Creating new files, installing software, troubleshooting issues, everything seems complicated at beginning. But did you quit it at that point? No, you kept using it and gradually, you get comfortable with it. Linux is no different. Things might seem a little complicated in the beginning but give it enough time before being judgemental. Still not convinced? Okay! You do know that Apple’s macOS is a popular desktop operating system. But have you ever tried to use macOS? macOS is as much confusing in the beginning as Linux. You will have a hard time figuring out how to navigate to files, folders. Installing new software in macOS is another challenge when you just don’t know how to do it. Linux is no different. Perhaps it gives so many options that it overwhelms a newcomer but this doesn’t mean it is difficult to use Linux. Myth 2: You need to know commands to use Linux Myth about Linux: You need to know commands This is another myth that scares a new user. Using command line for an operating system? That could be a nightmare for many. Linux has a powerful command line interface, there is no doubt about it. In fact, you can use Linux entirely in the command line. But this is not what you have to do while using desktop Linux. If you know a few commands, it will help you troubleshoot issues you may encounter (like in any other operating system). But you don’t have to know commands or become a command line ninja for that. Most beginner friendly Linux distributions provide a complete graphical interface. You might never need to use the command line. At worst, if you find some issue or if you are trying to install software in Linux, you might come across commands suggested by people on the internet. Using those commands is very simple. Open a terminal and copy-paste the commands. However, basic knowledge of Linux commands will help you at this point to avoid using dangerous Linux commands that might harm your system. Linux command line is like a very sharp knife. You can do wonder with it but you can also cut yourself. It depends on how you handle the knife. To sum it up, use a Windows like Linux distribution that will have almost no requirement to use the command line." Try it yourself. How about you prove your ridiculous claim. So you can snip it like you did my other claims? I just did. The vast majority would have no idea. Those who had an idea would not be assuming what you claim. If anyone, at all, thinks that Linux is a "GUI-less operating system", they are a tiny, insignificant number of people. While it is true most people may not even know about Linux, from the ones that do, many still believe it's a CLI system for geeks. Nonsense. See above. I strongly suspect you will soon be resorting to your usual "snipped unread" routine as you have once again been out debated. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|