Regardin LINUX- the never ending debatable subject...2 cents from newbie

Hi Everybody...
Perhap it's too late for me to join in this forum, putting in my 2 cents here...

I was reading this thread with great interest...
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=263869

...trying to find out what are the topics/subject that is touched on in regard to the OpenSource operating system.

After 9 page of comments and replies... what i can really say is that the debate on Linux never ends, unless if different gorup of Linux users or developers can really join hands together in making one for all operating system for new Linux users...

Just some points to touch on in regard to that discussion thread...

1. At the end of the whole debate of whatever subject raised, it always comes back to the origin of who the users are from... the .deb camp(such as Debian or Ubuntu and others) or .rpm(Mandriva, Fedora, PcLinuxOS as well as others) or others camp(such as Gentoo, Slackware, Arch and others).
This is where why Linux may have a hardtime to draw more Win seasoned users to take a look at what Linux may offer.

2. On hardware compatibility, there's always a catch to install a Linux distro to a machine with particular hardware.
For new user like me, the toughest part will be looking for the correct driver for the particular hardware that is present in the "fresh-linux-os-installed-gear" to get the most performance out from it.
Again, back to the same origin again... different group of people or developers from different camps gets different support from different hardware manufacturers... not all are united!

3. "I can do this magic... i can do that... can you?" "Wow... your desktop looks nice... what is that?" "What's the recommended software to get this?" "Is it safe?"... common questions we faced when we try to convince the others that Windows is not the only operating system that is available in this world...the the end...SOFTWARE?
Once again, the difference of Linux users origin, produces different types of user experience. Installation and Input Cammand and Integration of different softwares to different distros may also produce different result in stability and usability... (Till now i have not figure out how to install AVAST or AVIRA AV, making it work...)

There are more things to point out from me... but the above are just the major 3 that we have to overcome.

There is no real king, or supreme in Linux. Except when all are willling to work together to make it easy for all... be it new users or old.

Peace.

 

In comparison to other fellow Linux brudders here, i'm just a little greenhorn. So i can't really criticise who's right or wrong, who's good or bad or more...

But after all this while trying out different distros from different camp origins... it comes to me that generally...2 to point out first...
1. In Linux, the biggest chunk of pie are taken between .deb and .rpm distros, leaving others for other lesser popular distros.
2. In Linux, there are different desktop environment designed for different hardware specs. Such as, from the lowest LXDE, Fluxbox, OpenBox, XFCE and others... to the middle class GNOME, Enlightment and others... to other higher hardware dependent KDE... more to add later...

 

Just some references for all... wikipages...
Comparison of operating system-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_operating_systems
Comparison of Linux distributions-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions
List of Linux distributions-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions

 

A couple of quick replies:

1. The advantage of Linux nowadays is that you have a choice. Sure it takes some research and even some trial and error but you can find (or sometimes customize/design) a distro that's right for your hardware and needs. Nevertheless, there are major distros like ubuntu, fedora, suse, mandriva, pclos, mint that are far more universal, and therefore newbie friendly, than others. The main thing is that someone has to be willing to teach themselves something new. If that desire is not there in the first place, no stand-out, all-purpose linux will appeal to them.

2. If more people used Linux, then support for particular hardware would be more available. That said, hardware support is pretty good nowadays, especially in a distribution like Ubuntu. I have the dreaded broadcom wifi chip in an older laptop and it works almost perfectly in the last 4 releases of Ubuntu with just a few clicks.

3. I think sometimes there are legit reasons to not use linux based on the need for a particular software that only runs in windows. I dual boot so that I can game and use MS Office along with a few other things. Others use virtualization. Nevertheless, most of what I do with my laptop can be accomplished quite easily with alternative software available in Ubuntu. Now my girlfriend works in video editing and she needs Mac and Windows...Linux doesn't cut it except for her laptop at home which is just for browsing and sending emails. In your example, Avast and Avira are not necessary. They are nice programs in windows, but in Linux you simply use clamAV along with a front end of your choice. Again, this just has to do with getting to know what is available for your distribution.

In the end I don't think there is anything we have to overcome necessarily. I think what we need to overcome is the perception that Linux(es) should be merged into a monolithic project where the goal is to clone windows. Many developers do not accept that goal and instead define excellence or success differently. Even so, distributions like ubuntu and various projects will continue to become more and more "user-friendly" which sometimes will mean more windows-like and other times will mean less windows-like.

 

I don't have time to respond to your other two comments, but this one drew my interest in particular.

I've been using Linux for 4 years now, and I've been deterred from different distros only to be drawn in again. In other words, I'm an "on-and-off" person who sticks to two or three familiar distributions.

What I've found is that the diversity of Linux distributions is simultaneously a blessing and a curse; a blessing because it allows for innovation and a wide-range of solutions for one problem. However, it is also a curse because distribution developers don't really exchange ideas, unless a distro is based off another; as an example, I refer you to all the Ubuntu-based spin-offs available.

But my point is that distro developers don't exchange ideas with other developers from other distros; in fact, distributions are competing against one another. Even spin-offs are competing for the same people that the original distros are competing for. As a result, Linux as a whole often lacks a specific strategy to reach its goals. It is fragmented into numerous, competing "factions" that consist of a large number of smaller distros, with a minority of leading, cutting-edge distributions.

As long as this state of constant competition exists, Linux will not emerge as a major competitor to Windows. IMO, the only (impossible) way for Linux to advance quickly at this point is to consolidate developer resources, distro features, and marketing behind one distribution. Of course, such a strategy is contrary to the OS nature of the operating system.