What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy finds gold in Iowa. view!
youtube.com - Best Buy employee, Danielle Kelly, sings her way into holiday campaign.
152 Comments
- LingNoi, on 02/03/2009, -0/+67He's right, you wouldn't use dd-wrt (which is what my router runs) as a desktop os. There's lots of computers which do different things.
- svensko, on 02/03/2009, -11/+43I agree, having multiple distros is a good thing, but it is going to scare off new users...
- Benno, on 02/03/2009, -0/+28The difference is that multiple versions of the latest windows are all the same except lesser versions have code to gimp them with artificial limitations. It's just a marketing gimmick to make the pro/ultimate/mega version appear more valuable because several other versions exist. linux distro A competing with distro B yields better distros and more choice, multiple versions of windows vista may give more choice (how much are you willing to spend?), but not necessarily a better product.
- rolf, on 02/03/2009, -5/+32I don't think it has to. Just give newbies Ubuntu in most cases if they asked about Linux. If they want to venture more into Linux, then they can find about distros.
Microsoft, with its various flavors of Vista (6) doubled with 32/64 bit considerations, and then XP Home/Pro 32/64 bit, and Windows Server, etc, isn't really different. They already announced the same stupid flavors scheme for 7.... and I can't believe they didn't make Windows 7 64 bit only (it will give people upgrading over 4GB on 32 bit systems problems - considering that 4GB on a normal system is what's being sold now, they really should have gone to 64bit by default). - inactive, on 02/03/2009, -2/+28The description/title of the digg is misleading. There's more to the interview than just his opinion on the numerous distros . Definitely worth reading.
- T8erT0T, on 02/03/2009, -6/+29Linux: Hey would you like an ice cream flavor?"
Kid: Yeah, but I'm just not sure which one I think I'd like.
Linux: Who gives a *****, taste em' all.
Windows: Hey would you like an ice cream flavor?
Kid: Yeah, but I'm just not sure which one I'd like.
Windows: Well this one is a basic flavor, this one is a premium, and this is a business flavor.
Kid: ...what?
WIndows: Just gimmie your damn money and get the hell outta here before I beat your ass! - Kingoftherings, on 02/03/2009, -0/+22"It's a combination of lots of small things, and it's this constant slow steady drive towards a more complete solution, and getting people to slowly try out something different. It just takes a lot of time."
Quote the whole thing. :) - 2of8, on 02/03/2009, -0/+21I posted this in another digg page and I'll say it again. Different versions of Windows = different levels of crippledness. Basically, there is no sane person who would choose Basic over Ultimate, assuming it cost the same.
For Linux, each distribution has its pros and cons. - spyd3rweb, on 02/03/2009, -1/+21Distros are for pussies, real men compile from source.
- Onetrack, on 02/03/2009, -13/+30Multiple versions is ok.. but 260+ versions is retarded.
So many people out there trying to reinvent the wheel instead of working together to make something great. - element247, on 02/03/2009, -1/+15No idea why you were dugg down, this is a perfectly accurate statement.
Linux is not an operating system. Linux is a KERNEL. - defenswens26, on 02/03/2009, -2/+16I completely agree with the need for specialized distros for all of the different uses. There needs to be one distro that is user friendly and makes the transition from Windows a lot easier, and I think that's where where Ubuntu has been making great strides.
- cutchyacokov, on 02/03/2009, -0/+13Who is this mysterious "they" that need to be embracing user friendly distros? The Linux community is not a single group that can all be convinced to always do something one way or another, that is one of its strengths.
If you mean users like me should give up running Gentoo (or Slackware or Arch, depending on my mood) you're dreaming. What difference could that possibly make anyway? Like someone else already mentioned, if a noob shows interest in Linux they are going to get a copy of Ubuntu, I can still help them with any questions that they might have.
If a noob asks me what distro I'm using, I always tell them but I don't recommend it and I explain why I'm not recommending it; with the caveat that if they decide that they want to dive in deeper once they know a little more and read up on what they are getting themselves into first, I'd be willing to help. - KAMiKAZOW, on 02/03/2009, -0/+12You seem to believe that all distributors are made of software developers. That's not the case. Most are really just distributors who distribute software others have written. So how exactly should those non-developers work together?
And let's be honest: In reality there are only a handful distributors who really matter: Debian, Novell/SUSE, and Red Hat/Fedora.
Even Ubuntu is a Debian derivate. - alxc, on 02/03/2009, -0/+12Linus is focused on perfecting the operating system from the most technical view. He is building a platform for someone (who he may even say) has a better grasp of OS user experience to design that additional layer to the kernel which he maintains. There won't be the year of Linux, although a combined failure by Microsoft and much success in the Linux world could certainly lead to a year time coins 'the year of linux'. Linux is growing with each generation, this next generation will bring Linux to the end-user at-home-user world more than ever before.
- srg13, on 02/03/2009, -2/+13I really think that you're just being melodramatic and alarmist. So there's 300 distributions - does that matter in the least? Nowhere near that number are being maintained anymore, and of the ones that are, some are designed for very specific purposes.
When it all comes down to it, 90% of the users (and 90% of the work) is focused on just a few distros - like Ubuntu, Fedora, and OpenSUSE. And if there are users that have a need to use a more niche distro, than what's the problem with having them? - SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/03/2009, -1/+12I disagree. In fact, this is exactly the point Linus is making. Different distros serve different purposes. Ubuntu is intended for new users and others who wish to avoid much of the tinkering that most distros require to one degree or another.
The "new user" demographic is just another market, and it's being filled by a distro tailored to that market just the way Linus suggests it should be. - Sammi84, on 02/03/2009, -0/+9FFS @ doubad & BlackJackat.
Your humor and sarcasm detectors are broken. - svensko, on 02/03/2009, -2/+11As much as I hate Ubuntu, it really is amazing in that aspect. I've switched to it recently just due to the ease of use.
- Benno, on 02/03/2009, -0/+9Distro watch messed up. They accidentally used a picture of Arnold Swarchenegger instead of Linus.
- elipabst, on 02/03/2009, -0/+8Define "better". In fact define which BSD you are talking about, because there is a dramatic difference between openBSD and freeBSD.
- BlackJacket, on 02/03/2009, -0/+8People say that Linux can't compete with Microsoft because its a hobbyist operating system or because there are so many distros that the "average user" can't figure it all out. But Linux doesn't have to compete. Its free. Thats why Microsoft fears it, probably more than they fear over-priced Apple computers running Mac OS X. Yes, I know quite a bit about computer systems and technology, and I understand how my operating system works. So, I use Linux. Whether or not Joe Sixpack uses Linux is irrelevant. I'll never purchase a Windows operating system, and I'm 1 of the millions that never will again.
- freefm, on 02/03/2009, -1/+9(Relatively) Small amount of Diggs in small amount of time = massive win.
- Legolover64, on 02/03/2009, -0/+8Kind of, but not really. At all.
Different Linux distributions offer totally different experiences and applications upon install. On one system, I could be running a CentOS server because I need the things Red Hat does well, and on another, I could be running Xubuntu to take advantage of my netbook's limited resources. And, with few exceptions, there is no "difference" in distro price. They're all free, and they all offer different things.
Of course, that's not to say that you can't apt-get or yum or rpm your favorite packages from another distribution. That's the beauty of Linux! :) - srg13, on 02/03/2009, -1/+8You know, more than 60% of all web sites run on Linux servers? I doubt it, because you don't sound like you have any idea what you're talking about, but it's true. Linux is also used heavily in other areas like supercomputing (over 70% of the top 500 supercomputers run Linux), scientific computing, visual effects and post production for movies, and many others.
The mainstream desktop is just a small piece of the puzzle, and although that market share might be fairly small, it is growing, and it it working really great already for millions of users. - NixiePixel, on 02/03/2009, -0/+7Choices are good - and I agree with the poster above; distributions that help ease existing Windows users into Linux are great, because since over 90% of all computer users use Windows, new Linux users will invariably be making the switch from Windows.
- inactive, on 02/03/2009, -1/+8Most of them will go with ubuntu or one of the other "distros that be" anyways.
- Giga, on 02/03/2009, -0/+7"Lol, you're comparing the pyramid scheme of Windows versions with (mostly) free distributions. "
Would you like to try that one again? Tikiman49 was comparing Windows to Linux distributions, and Legolover64 was explaining why you can't really treat them equally. - moppsy, on 02/03/2009, -0/+7Dugg for the gnome bashing.
- flashingcurser, on 02/03/2009, -0/+6Ya man ***** you, two of my friends died using dd-wrt.
- azbmr, on 02/03/2009, -0/+6Uh... pretty sure Linus is pronounced Lee-nus where he is from.
- pcghost, on 02/03/2009, -0/+5Mail it back to the manufacturer. You are obviously not smart enough to hack routers if you blame the OS for a bricked router (didn't follow instructions did you).
- jgtg32a, on 02/03/2009, -0/+5No, BSD's kernel is better but is suffering support for corporations.
- ThantiK, on 02/03/2009, -0/+5@Toshibi - Dugg for correctness. The beauty of Linux is that you can distribute YOUR version. I don't care if all you do is change the background color from brown to green and re-master it onto a CD and pass it around to your friends, that's a distro. That's freedom. That's Linux.
- smotpoker, on 02/03/2009, -0/+5I think because many feel that the different versions of Windows vary greatly in price for very few extra features. There are also a lot of people that complain about multiple versions because simply dislike having multiple options to choose from and think everyone else will feel the same, who you also see bitching about Linux having multiple distros.
I think maybe it all boils down to the basic psychological factors... some people value freedom and knowledge so they don't mind learning new stuff to make proper decisions/modifications so much. Others just want what they want now and resent having to invest any time/effort in learning new stuff (maybe too overworked or just lazy) even if it is generally easier than learning what they already know and only takes a few minutes. - Kingoftherings, on 02/03/2009, -1/+6Having too many people working on one project would be bad, nothing would get done because no one could agree to anything. So Red Hat has their own goals, Conanical has their own, and your niche distros like Gentoo, or Slackware have their own.
Just look at Debian, they can't even agree, Gentoo has that problem too.
And you forget that all distros use the same set of software. Amarok has it's own team, but they don't contribute to a single distro. - obliviousfool, on 02/03/2009, -0/+5That's a retarded comment. It isn't as if there are a dozen current versions of Ubuntu. It isn't as if they cost you $189 a piece to try out. It isn't as if Microsoft couldn't make the extra features of one version into small-priced downloadable apps. It isn't as if anyone in the linux world is trying to force you into updating your OS. You, sir, get the apples to oranges award for the day!
- Peterix, on 02/03/2009, -0/+4No. You ***** your router.
dd-wrt is awesome, keeping you away from my internets when it gets the chance ;) - tk0680, on 02/03/2009, -0/+4Because nobody uses Ubuntu or Fedora, do they? Everyone is pushed towards Gentoo and Slackware, damn the Linux gods!
- directedition, on 02/03/2009, -0/+4So..... Gentoo?
- denka, on 02/03/2009, -1/+5Yes, and Linux is pronouced Lee-nux.
- abuendia, on 02/03/2009, -0/+4Agree with you.
May Ubuntu be the simplyest one so new users may point there.
Advanced users: Just choose your flavor. - flashingcurser, on 02/03/2009, -0/+4I have a database server that runs slackware because slackware makes a great single purpose distro. Runs and runs and never gives you any problems, perfect for our database server. I run Centos to host openVZ containers. Centos has great repositories for OpenVZ. The containers are debian because to me, debian is the most user-friendly server distro. Between openVZ and apt-get I can get a new lamp server up in about 5 minutes. I use OpenFiler fileservers with active directory integration. I have several dedian mailservers/exchange smtp proxies that I haven't moved to VZ containers. I use pfsense (ya ya I know BSD) loaded on compact flash for firewalls. All of these are perfectly matched for their jobs and make my life much easier. "User-friendly" is very much dependent on context.
I run ubuntu at home. - smacksaw, on 02/03/2009, -0/+4"Year of the Linux desktop" is such a pointless metric. It's like having the "Year of the hybrid 1970's Buick" or something like that.
By the time we ever get to the "Year of the Desktop", the desktop is going to be such a niche that it will be relevant for only a small fraction of users. What matters is mobile computing and netbooks, and Linux's year was 2008, 2009, and it's going to keep going. - KAMiKAZOW, on 02/03/2009, -1/+5Where's your information about the combined market share of servers and desktop PCs from? Last time I checked, Linux' server market share was pretty strong.
Linux' desktop market share seems to be indeed below 1% if "Net Applications" is to be believed. However its market share also doubled in the last 2 years: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.as ...
At the same time Windows lost five percentage points. - Kingoftherings, on 02/03/2009, -1/+5What is 'experience' supposed to mean?
I've had a great 'experience' with Gentoo. - Giga, on 02/03/2009, -1/+5"I just don't get why people are so accepting that Linux has tons of distros, yet they bitch nonstop when Microsoft produced multiple versions of windows."
That's because you fail to realise that "Linux" is just a kernel that the rest of the operating system is built on top of. Hell, one of the bigger Linux distros out there allow you to replace the kernel itself with something that isn't Linux, but still providing the same general experience (Gentoo, I'm looking at you). Also, the various versions of Windows are essentially the same thing with different levels of features intentionally removed to justify pricing tiers, whereas different distributions offer completely different environments tailored to different use cases. - csrster, on 02/03/2009, -0/+4I've never quite understood the "ubuntu is for newbies" argument. I work in a software development group with a bunch of very high-powered users, most of whom have computer science or software engineering degrees and years of experience as developers. We have a free choice of what OS we run on our office PCs and most of us have ubuntu (a very few have Fedora Core). I find it easy to install, easy to maintain, and easy to upgrade, and the repositories have pretty much all the software I need to do my work. I realise that there are specialised situations where other distributions are more suitable, and I also understand that some people simply have different tastes. But what I don't understand is what it is that makes some people feel that ubuntu is somehow unsuitable for "power users" just because it also happens to be fairly easy to install for newbies.
- JenBSmith, on 02/03/2009, -0/+3(Sorry, TL;DR wall of text coming at you.)
A couple comments mentioned compatibility, and just to touch on that it's going to be an issue regardless. You're running a different operating system, that goes without saying. If you need 100% Windows compatibility, you run Windows. You can't just switch to a different OS and expect all your current Windows software to work. Apps have a decent chance of running in Wine/Cedega/Crossover, games are hit or miss at best. Plan accordingly; research compatibility systems or native work-alikes. OpenOffice vs MS Office for example. (Ok I will admit it; I'm a Linux user, but I prefer MS Office :D Between that and Visual Studio 2008, I love my virtual machine.)
But all that aside.. I can see and understand both sides of this argument about "too much choice". Its a double-edged sword.
On the plus side, its amazing what you can do with the Linux OS. Everything is completely modular, and can be replaced with something else as you see fit. You're not locked into one technology. Don't like the PulseAudio sound system? You can replace it with ALSA, OSS, eSound, aRTS, JACK, you name it. Don't like the Gnome desktop? Yoink. Drop in KDE, XFCE, Enlightenment, Flux, Ice, etc etc. With Windows, as far as the "guts" are concerned anyways, you don't have a choice. What you get is what you're stuck with, good or bad. Sure, you could slap on a new app to kinda-sorta replace your desktop, say Aston, LiteStep or whatnot. But it's still Windows doing the work, just replacing Explorer handling the start menu with another app. A coat of paint at best; under the hood nothing has changed.
But, on the other hand, the amount of choices you have can be absurd. For somebody who knows absolutely nothing about Linux, where do you start? How do you decide which distro to work with first? (For those that don't know, DistroWatch is a great place to start your search.) Most people will already know Ubuntu, OpenSUSE or Fedora and start with one of those. (Not saying any are the best, but definitely good distros to start with.) But what about the poor first-timer who says "Oooo this Gentoo distro looks nice", can't even get past the installer, and immediately gives up on Linux because he picked a distro that's really not for a first timer? (Or worse, picking up a BSD, Solaris or whatnot OS and wondering why the Linux how-to's he found on line doesnt work.)
I'm all for choice, but I sometimes wonder if it might be hurting "Linux's evolution" as well. As Joniox mentioned there's a lot of "dualism" as a result of all this choice. What if there one one common GUI and underlying subsystems? It would leave people to focus on the quality of applications and not constantly re-inventing things, which is one thing that Windows has going for it. Linux software is great, but more often than not the quality of Windows software far exceeds whats available in Linux natively. I personally love Windows software, including many MS applications. I just hate the operating system.
What if some company with a ton of money made a commercial desktop for Linux and dropped a lot of cash into it? (Just because the OS itself is open source and free doesn't mean you can't release commercial apps and make a buck, as long as you don't violate the GPL.) Apple did just that, and it worked out great for them. (No, not based on Linux but a BSD UNIX derivative if I recall) What if Microsoft finally gets a clue, stops fighting what they have no chance of stopping, and makes a "Windows for Linux?" A Win32 compatible window manager on the Linux kernel? They could do that; Wine already proves it can be done. Instead of a "compatibility layer" on top of another window manager, just write one with that in mind from the get-go? If they'd write something like that, retaining full compatibility with their own stuff, but with the Linux kernel for the insane performance and superior security and flexibility... I'd pay real money for that in a heartbeat. - GalacticXenu, on 02/03/2009, -1/+4You guys don't understand. If Linux standardizes, everything becomes one... well, not only is that impossible with open source because of forking due to different design philosophies and people always wanting different things, but it's against the appeal of Linux. Linux is great because there's so much choice. If I don't like one app I can use another easily.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 154 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is