What is Digg?26 Comments
- Sammi84, on 05/29/2008, -1/+7There will be no "year of Linux". There will be no revolution.
Only slow evolution. Linux is evolving. It's getting leaner and meaner, and is slowly eating away at the fat dinosaurs. - mckooiker, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6I agree. I have colleague that asked once if the recycled old computer (on which I installed Ubuntu) had linux or windows on it?
Another colleague was complaining when I said that another colleague agreed installing GNU/Linux on another old computer. When I asked why she didn't like it she answered: I don't know how to use it! When I explained that she incidentally was using Ubuntu at that very moment she was really surprised.
So I can agree that most people don't even notice...... - cataractmoon, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5This article may ramble, but it makes a good point that the mobile phone industry may completely run one day on Linux, particularly with the rise of Google's Android platform.
- trunkboy, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5It was a screenshot of my "Buntu Family Theater", so if that was your impression, I guess it was a success. ;)
http://www.linuxjournal.com/video/buntu-family-the ... - SDL486, on 05/28/2008, -4/+9Ok, this article does not make a coherent point.
- yodaj007, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4When I look at that picture I think of the host of Masterpiece Theatre. Anybody else?
- trunkboy, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2You might be able to use ndiswrapper and use your wireless card under Linux with your Windows drivers... Here's a tutorial http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/how-install-an ...
-Shawn - ninja0, on 05/29/2008, -2/+4"The really good news is that now Linux can finally take over the world, and most people won't even notice!"
Very good point, most people dont even know if their phone runs linux or not. My aunt actually prefers linux over windows. She says its pretty much the same but doesn't crash as much haha... funny thing coming from my freaking AUNT. - inactive, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3In most places you can get free rocks. Yet people continue to buy rocks. Why??? In general the free rocks are not the exact rocks you need, or the rocks need more processing to be useful, so people don't mind buying the rocks, and are more close to what they need. Also, generally when you are handling rocks, the hard part is moving them and having them installed. Because of all those factors, for pay rocks generally cost less than free rocks, if you have a specific rock application in mind.
On the other hand, if your application needs random shaped and types of rocks, and you have the time and energy to handle and install the free rocks yourself, free rocks are a great source of rocks. - Kingoftherings, on 05/29/2008, -2/+3What he means is nobody cares what OS they use anymore if you RTFA, hence the Who Cares! Part of the title.
- theaceoffire, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1If you ask someone which they want: Free OS or $500 OS, most would choose free.
It will seem even more attractive if/when all/most windows programs can run on Linux/Unix/etc systems.
Realistically, most people just want document editing, web browsing, and email. If they knew they could have this for $0, many would probably choose it. - yodaj007, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Why is it funny your aunt made that comment? Anyone can tell that a system is crashing less.
- trunkboy, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2As an editor at Linux Journal (and the article's author), I won't pretend I'm not a Linux nut. I suppose the point I was trying to make in the piece is that since people really don't care as much anymore about their OS, it seems a great opportunity for the free and stable operating system to get some love from OEM vendors. (Which we're seeing)
Yes, of course I'm Linux biased -- but I'm practical as well. If Linux really is so much better than the competition, we might finally see it slowly rise to the top. If it's not better, well, at least it will fail based on more than "but it's not Windoze!!!11!!!" - Krissam, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1I tried out ubuntu a few weeks ago on my desktop and i must admit, even tho it's dual boot, i've only used it for windows to sync my zune.
So i installed a dualboot on my laptop aswell (got some notes for my exams which are in .one, so i have to run windows to read them :/) only to find out that there's no driver for my wireless.
That really bummed me out. I mean, i love ubuntu, i want to make other people use it, but how will i ever succeed in that, if i need to carry around an external wireless card?
I mean, i can show people how awesome compiz is, how useful the multiple desktop swapping is, how there's really nothing windows does that i cant do, but if there's no drivers for people to use, then people will never switch :/ - estvir, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1But why should people care about it being free* and open? I could install a Linux distribution on the PC of every family I know and how would they benefit from that?
* The cost of Windows for most people is more or less nothing.
Oh, and your petty 'if that bothers you' simply doesn't apply considering my posts. - Helios89, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1right prevision: the machine is becoming less and less important. Most of the users don't care for Windows, they want only to play, listen to music, chat and surf the web
- mckooiker, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1But if people do not care, they should be aware that they will have to continue to pay for software that initially was good software (it was what people wnnted and that's why it became popular) but is now degrading. The money given to Microsoft is being used very badly.
However now we are at a point that this software becomes bloated and for a much lower price (free) one can get equal software.
I know your point is that people don't want to install linux if they already have Windows. Why bother. But if you'd think like that, competition would be chanceless and Microsoft would be free to abuse their monopoly. It is difficult to get out of this Windows-monopoly and one method is getting as much computer with Linux, even if before there was Windows. People need to get to know Linux, otherwise they don't know there's an alternative, since there is no way to buy a Linux-computer in the large stores (though that seems to be changing now).
That the cost of windows is more or less nothing is ***** and you know that as welll. The fact that there is only one price-card on the computer and not two (one for the software and one for the hardware) does not make it free.
Let people know what they pay for Windows, it's their right. Then they will start thinking, maybe looking for alternatives....... - Krissam, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1dude where do you live? i want to come sleep with you :)
watching that made me realize that apparently i have an Atheros chip on my card. so i could just get the driver from Madwifi... which after a bit of banging my head against the terminal for a few hrs typing stuff i had little idea about what did... worked :) - mckooiker, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1"If they don't notice, what's the point of switching?"
Because it's free and open? If no one switches, no one will calculate Linux and Linux will stay forever where it is.
Besides, there are more groups involved than only the users. For example administrators. They certainly have an easier job. Less spyware/virus problems etc.
I completely agree with you however that once you got a system running it's not always worth the effort to change, but then again: as long as you do not have a choice for which OS you would like, "linux fanbois" like me will continue spamming pro-linux articles in the Linux-angle of Digg. I'm sorry if that bothers you.... - badassninja, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1estvir: Oh yes it is stable and fast out of the box, untell the spyware/***** hits it from just surfing the web with IE. I'm saying that the average usrs computer has so much ***** running that a large amount of them just give up on surfing all together. People shouldn't need Anti Virus programs and anti spyware/***** programs running on their computer in order to get away from this kind of crap. And with linux we don't ever get this *****, not because of the number of users, but because it is better built from the ground up.
- estvir, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1My goodness, are you illiterate? I was obviously talking about my comment sounding negative. Some of the parts like ".. but ** I'm ** not being .." kind of give it away.
- estvir, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1> Because windows is not stable, every person I know that isn't a computer nut is running windows and it runs like ***** *****.
Windows isn't stable and is slow? What, are you trolling from the 90s? - badassninja, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1Because windows is not stable, every person I know that isn't a computer nut is running windows and it runs like ***** *****. Their system is bogged down to hell and back with *****. Also because it's closed source you'll never know if XP of Vista has a back door for the USA government as windows 2000 did. Also while the guts have changed over the year to try to make it more stable, the GUI and basic idea of windows hasn't changed scene win95. Put these things together and I would say that MS doesn't work for their money any more and therefore we should stop giving them any money at all. The whole world could be rid of windows and the world would be a better place because of it. I care about people, there for I don't want anyone useing windows.
- estvir, on 05/29/2008, -3/+2If they don't notice, what's the point of switching? One could save the time having to re-learn however few things and installing a distribution (Unless they buy a new PC with it pre-installed) and stick with whatever they're using that works for them.
That's the thing, FSF and all the other pro-Linux groups honestly don't quite 'get' the consumers they're trying to convince [or trick] to switch.
I know, this sounds negative about Linux so a bunch of you will get your panties in a knot and will have knee-jerk reaction Digg me down but I'm not being negative about Linux -- the amazing thing is, that's kind of what this article is talking about so maybe finally someone in the Linux community has come to this incredibly important (One of the most important) realisation.. and he's being met with people like SDL486 who say there is no coherent point when there is, but SDL486 just read it as 'OH MAN HES SAYING SOMRTHING BAD ABOUT LINUX RAWR! BURYBURYBURY' -- which is quite a shame. - yodaj007, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1Dugg down for presuming you know what sdl486 was thinking. I agree with him that this article was incoherent.
"I know, this sounds negative about Linux so a bunch of you will get your panties in a knot and will have knee-jerk reaction Digg me down but I'm not being negative about Linux -- the amazing thing is, that's kind of what this article is talking about so maybe finally someone in the Linux community has come to this incredibly important (One of the most important) realisation"
What? The article is talking about circle jerking and panties in knots? This sentence is hardly coherent. No wonder you thought the article consistent and understandable. - theaceoffire, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1I have an issue with your analogy.
Free rocks are hard to transport, heavy, and hard to store... so buying all you want when you need it and having it delevered, etc, is a boon.
Free software is EASIER to install/download/etc than their costly alternatives, without id codes or limited installs, or bits that call home and check that you are allowed to continue using it. You can redownload it as many times as you need, give them to friends if they want it, and get free upgrades.
So I feel a better example would be tap water (Not free, but is the analogy) verses premium bottled water.
Premium bottled water is expensive, limited in amount, and can only be shared by a few people... and sometimes is exactly the same as tap water anyway.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is