What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
53 Comments
- yetAnotherCroc, on 02/05/2009, -2/+18on the contrary. It is because it is free and everyone can roll their own that Linux pretty much owns the appliance space. Embedded devices almost all run linux because of it's flexibility. And system ustilities develop at the pace they do because different distributions develop different tools that then compete and get consolidated into a few high quality tools etc. It's very fast evolution. In the mean time there are relatively few linux distros that the everyday consumer hear of. Suse, Redhat, Ubuntu, Fedora etc. Not enough to make people overly confused.
- blakespot, on 02/05/2009, -2/+16...a many SPLENDORED affair.
- karmajunkie, on 02/05/2009, -2/+11You can always tell whether a reporter/blogger is well-read or just hears turns of phrase on the radio or television. Headline should read "Torvalds: Linux will remain a many-splendored affair." Thanks for reinforcing the idea that geeks are essentially illiterate beyond tech manuals, comic books, and gaming magazines.
- Powder, on 02/05/2009, -5/+14There is a large difference between Linux's distributions and Window's distributions. Windows is considered to be done by one company/group, where as Linux is done by many different companies/groups. I see Linux distributions as mostly the same, I consider them all just different starting points with the same end point with slightly different ways to get things done. Windows on the other hand seems to cripple the lower end home versions and force you to pay to upgrade to better versions. I think most people mainly object to the secondary cost to upgrade when they have already bought a version, even if it was their own fault getting the wrong version or misunderstood what they needed.So the big stink people put up is mainly about the costs and being miss informed.
- Benno, on 02/05/2009, -1/+9For all the comments regarding multiple versions of windows being good too:
The 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. - GalacticXenu, on 02/05/2009, -3/+10This was dugg up how many times already? Anyway, a lot of distros and software choices in Linux are what make it great, because they cater to different needs, different markets, and different preferences. The people moaning about how the distros confuse the average users are full of *****, because most people don't even know what Linux is period and anyway Ubuntu is just the de-facto "general person" Linux distro.
- whitehatlurker, on 02/05/2009, -4/+9Many splendoured affair perhaps?
What is a "many splendid thing"? - SuperRobotNinja, on 02/05/2009, -5/+10Illiterate *****. Splendored. Buried for idiocy in headline writing.
- smotpoker, on 02/05/2009, -1/+5What powder said. I'd be very surprised if many of those who praised Linux and complained about Windows regarding multiple variations did so for any other reason than cost+features. If you only need one 'professional' feature, you have to pay hundreds more for it in Windows.
In Linux you can find/modify a distro to much more closely suit your needs for free. No paying hundreds extra just to get your os and hardware to function together as they should and plenty of versions with GUIs that are as similar or different from what you started with as you want.
In other words, the main Linux distributions are different enough in features/configuration to be considered completely different OSes for the most part. Each of the main distros has a branch that caters to specialized uses/needs which can all be sampled, customized and re-used as much as you want for free. In Windows the versions are all essentially the same with only a few extra features for hundreds of dollars that can only be installed on a small number of machines (unless you're willing to pay thousands every year) and in some cases the 'extra' features only give you the ability to use the hardware as it should have worked to begin with. You don't spend extra money on good hardware just to pay more for the OS to support it - JQP123, on 02/05/2009, -6/+10From the article:
"Torvalds has stated that having multiple distributions each looking at and concentrating on specific issues allows the market to decide which avenue is best."
After almost two decades of deciding, it appears that the market prefers something more consistent, compatible and standardized ... even if it costs money. - JustinTX, on 02/05/2009, -0/+3I agree, but I would add that the reverse is also just as true. The last thing an Ubuntu user needs is to be railroaded into using Slack or Gentoo.
- Tehrab, on 02/05/2009, -3/+6You grossly overestimate everyday consumers.
- int19h, on 02/06/2009, -0/+3If a server is shipped with Windows Server installed, it does not mean that Linux won't be installed instead. It's a flawed argument.
Also, Google, Sun, IBM and Novell are hardly non-critical and low end.
I have yet to see any numbers showing Windows in "a dominate overall position" either. Do you have them? - dig1x, on 02/05/2009, -2/+4I'm not suprised. The "Many license-levels of Vista" people are simply doing as a small but vocal group _always_ do; Complain about any and every-thing MS does.
In the W2K days, there were people complaining that there _werent_ different license levels.
It's pretty clear its just empty complaining, it contains zero merit. - JQP123, on 02/05/2009, -3/+5"Which market?"
Pick one. How about the first one on your list --- the server market?
The concensus opinion among Linux fans seems to be that Linux rules the server market. But I have yet to see any numbers showing Linux in a dominate overall position in the "server market". Quarter after quarter, year after year, the best available reports show that 60-70% of all new *server* hardware ships with Windows Server installed. *Maybe* Linux dominates for non-critical applications running on low end, recycled junk hardware but for any work serious enough to warrant decent, quality hardware, the majority of the market seems to prefer a different solution. - sega01, on 02/05/2009, -0/+2This is good, especially because no one really good distro exists yet. Higher level computing is generally a nasty mess and needs a *lot* of work. I've been working on an Arch Linux fork for over a year and it still has a long way to go. One day I'd like to actually be impressed by what computing has become, underneath the fancy graphics.
- pilobilus, on 02/05/2009, -0/+2Why on God's earth would I complain about "7 versions of Vista" when I don't and won't ever use even one of them? I think you will find that people who complain that they are confused by the many versions of Vista (and Windows 7) are typically computer illiterate Microsoft users who just barely know that Linux exists, but do not know what it actually is.
- adamdigg, on 02/06/2009, -0/+2Buried for gibberish.
- SteveMax, on 02/05/2009, -2/+4Which market? The server market? The cell phone market? The PDA market? The console market? The mainframe market? The supercomputer market? The scientific workstation market?
There is life beyond the desktop, and the existence of multiple distros is what allows Linux to fit in all of those, and more. There is a "best avenue" for each of those, and there are distros targetting each of them. - JQP123, on 02/06/2009, -1/+3"If a server is shipped with Windows Server installed, it does not mean that Linux won't be installed instead. It's a flawed argument."
No, it just means that you're an idiot for paying big bucks for a license you don't want/need. The people buying *server* hardware are mostly IT professionals, not idiots.
"I have yet to see any numbers showing Windows in "a dominate overall position" either. Do you have them?"
Do you prefer to talk revenue or units shipped?
Revenue: MS 40%, Linux 14%
Units: MS 60-70%, Linux 20-25%
The discrepancy between units and revenue reflects the fact that both Windows and Linux tend to be used on lower cost x86 hardware. The average cost for a x86 server is $3-4K. Outside x86, the average cost is $60-70K (think "big iron").
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Worldwide-Se ...
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/18838 - bumcheekcity, on 02/05/2009, -13/+15It always astonished me that a number of people were happy to complain about 7 editions of Vista, but were perfectly happy to use one of hundreds of different distributions of Linux.
- jmags, on 02/05/2009, -2/+4Who in the Linux community is crying out for distro consolidation? The last thing I need is to be railroaded into using Ubuntu.
- midtown, on 02/06/2009, -1/+3Linux is a kernel, not an OS! Ubuntu does not have 7 versions, neither does Fedora or OpenSUSE or Gentoo, et cetera. Get it?
- Krissam, on 02/05/2009, -2/+3They dont need to, i tried mandrake linux back in the day, used kde and i loved it, tried gnome hated it. stopped using linux (basicly because i only had one pc and it was mainly used for gaming so rebooting all the time was a pain.)
Now i use Ubuntu on my laptop and i absolutely love gnome, tried kubuntu and hated it. - cbeach, on 02/05/2009, -3/+4There's obviously a need for different distros in the server/embedded/developer market. For consumers, though, having one distribution would be a major benefit to adoption. Non technical people shouldn't have to choose which package manager and window manager they need to use. They shouldn't have to trawl through all the distros trying to figure out the differences. It's a barrier to entry, not just for the everyday consumer, but also for moderately technical people who just want a working platform that caters for the majority of their needs and can be adapted _in future_ for more specific requirements.
The Firefox project demonstrates that when OSS developers combine their efforts into one marketable consumer product, it will succeed on the mass market. - pentiumii, on 02/05/2009, -0/+1@Powder
so arguments is that Linux is free so it ok to have many different distro
but not ok for ms to make different distro for the same market because they charge
so because ms make money they cant make different os made for only a few markets
because u feel people might get screwed
sorry but your point is well is pointless it doesn't matter if Ms makes a worse version or a crippled version or what ever
the point is Ms have every right to take there os and make suitable for nich mark and specific marks just like Linux does and in fact they should
now maybe i am person who enjoy using windows more and for some reason i want to build my own home router and windows maid version of windows just that purpose and charged less then the full version see my point here they have the right all so to make aan os for that and charge for it
i could also make the point that i can take a full version of a Linux distro that has all feature and will do the same thing as one made just for the task i was trying to do but y would i do that when i get a version made for what i am doing
same thing with ms
so my original statement stands if u believe Linux should have tons of disro aim at specific marks then so should believe ms
if Ms charges money for it or u feel it just a crippled version it point less
i am mainly a linux user have been for more then four years but i am not a Linux Nazi who think that every thing that every one doing is wrong
i agree with Linus in one other area to
I love open source software and believe it to be the only way to distribute software
but at the same time ill use the best tool for the job open or not
and if ms make version of windows os for what i need i am not going to rush out buy a full version when i can just pay for i need - koselara, on 02/09/2009, -0/+1I certainly hope you didn't use that kind of logic in any form of science course! What the current market trends indicate is that most users are drawn by a combination of familiarity & effective advertising, plus that most retail tech stores only sell PCs with Windows pre-installed. The huge disparities in those areas make it near-impossible to know anything else based on purchase data.
- Azathothh, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1Canonical Ltd:
# Ubuntu
# Kubuntu
# Xubuntu
# Edubuntu
# Gobuntu
# Ubuntu JeOS,
;) - adamdigg, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1Huh?
I'm pretty sure you don't understand the goals of the people who work on Linux. "a mass following" is not typically high on the list. Its helpful if a lot of developers are sufficiently interested in the software that they are willing to work on it, but that's about it.
Most of the users do not pay anything for linux, so it's difficult to consider them a market. Nor have you actually shown any evidence that they are "hurt". - Rudegar, on 02/05/2009, -2/+3same with all opensource you can make your own version / distro of anything you like
one could ask if you should but you can
it's not a linux market strat to make soo many but
people like you and me who just deside to make their own too
one can just change the name
it's enough
and it's free and legal - anenokoji, on 02/05/2009, -2/+3Traditional end users don't give a *****. There are two types of users. Technical users and Non-Technical users. Technical users will get by no matter what system they are on. Non-technical users will need help no matter what. Look at how retarded windows is, and having worked in IT, I can tell you that it's not retarded enough. In spite of how 'easy' windows is considered, people still find ways to break it.
Linux needs to keep doing what it's doing. That is its strength. Trying to be like Microsoft will turn linux into just that. Garbage. - theplop, on 02/05/2009, -0/+1This is the second digg article i've seen you spam your links.
Are you retarded?
Btw, I refuse to click your links. - int19h, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1KDE 4 is slowly starting to look nice, though.
- V1ncent, on 02/06/2009, -0/+1The man hours of development recreating the wheel on a lot of the distros is a tremendous waste as well.
- Powder, on 02/05/2009, -1/+2I'm sorry I didn't quite understand what you are disagreeing with me about. My comment was just pointing out that the fact that Microsoft goes about crippling their lower end distributions. Be it to better market the high priced "Ultimate" or "Professional" as a better OS or making the lower home versions more accessible to people with lower income. (An "Upgrade" still puts money in their pocket) Where as Linux can be started at the low end and just "Upgraded" by installing more application to suit the user, all for free. I am just pointing out that the end user is more likely to get screwed because of the fact that Microsoft cripples the lower versions. In the end its really just about the money.
Oh and "if u need to know" I also run Linux and have for years. I also run Windows and have for years. I really wish people would stop saying "I run Linux" and acting all king ***** about it, grow the ***** up. Each OS has its place just as each distribution its place. It just so happens Linux is free and i happen to like that and agree with Linus about the distributions being a good thing. - MarkusX, on 02/05/2009, -1/+1"Suse, Redhat, Ubuntu, Fedora" ...and more...
Those 4 are already too confusing for everyday consumers.
The everyday consumer uses whatever come pre-installed with the computer they get at Best Buy.
Everyday consumers aren't even Linux audience to begin with. - yetAnotherCroc, on 02/06/2009, -1/+1This "recreation of the wheel" is what allows refinement. Look at windows to see what happens when you just keep adding to an existing solution. Competing solutions pushes everyone to create higher quality. Eventually a clear winner emerges and everyone adopts it and then starts polishing it. Again creating competing solutions etc. Monolithic projects with one and only one solution to every problem can't evolve as fast. Even the Linux kernel project competes with itself in that there are a number of different branches with different solutions made by different people in the development team. Before release the best solutions get merged back into the main kernel and bug-fixed. I think it is still possible to get a copy of <insert dev name here>s branch and run as your kernel. Of course most people go with the main stable kernel because they trust it to be the best over all. Now compare this to the man hours that went into producing the release version of Vista.
- cbeach, on 02/05/2009, -2/+2SteveMax: "they only have to pick up the one that attracts them the most between OpenSuse, Fedora, Mandriva and Ubuntu"
If the choice between these is so superficial, then in an ideal world, they needn't exist as separate projects. You forget that to you, these names are familiar. For the consumer they raise distracting questions, and make turn Linux adoption into a "process" rather than a simple "pick up and go" - LockDeltz, on 02/06/2009, -0/+0Windows isn't that retarded, it's pretty difficult to use, what Windows has going for it is the software and hardware compatibility. Take that away or make it depended on the command line (DOS) with less software compatibility (like Linux) it will be difficult to use. Software developers can make their software easy to install like Windows (you know click "next, next") and hardware manufactures can release more drivers for Linux, it's just that some of them can't due to "reasons". Windows is just poorly designed from the get go, so many applications running in the background, dll hell, registry errors and all that crap. Linux isn't really any different either, it's just a different operating system, but there is plenty bugs, bloat, and crap like that just like Windows.
An operating system that's efficient for non-technical and technical users is like the AmigaOS (yes I'm going old school) and the Mac. They actually did their operating system right. - koselara, on 02/09/2009, -0/+0I started using Linux just last July; while I remember it being the way you describe in the past, it was nothing like that last year.
New users these days are often finding out about Linux primarily from seeing Ubuntu mentioned over-and-over on sites like Digg or Lifehacker, usually with comment on how user-friendly it is. We look into it, check out the three main types, and install the one we like. We then educate friends/family on our experience, making Ubuntu the default for them as well. No confusion involved; when other distros are mentioned, they sound like geek-only types and are disregarded.
Or, in other words:
1. Hmm, I keep seeing this Ubuntu thing mentioned, think I'll check it out.
2. This is pretty cool, think I'll go with this "K" version... There seems to be a few other kinds of Linux, but sounds like they're just for geeks, I'll try them later.
3. Hey guys, you have to check this out, my old laptop's doing fancier effects than Vista! It's an OS called Ubuntu, really easy to use and comes with all this software... - Azathothh, on 02/06/2009, -2/+2"A new user doesn't "have to trawl through all the distros trying to figure out the differences""
but "have to pick up the one that attracts them the most between OpenSuse, Fedora, Mandriva and Ubuntu!"
lolz ok - stabbymctwist, on 02/07/2009, -0/+0I mostly agree. Linux *does* need to be in different distributions, but there, at least, need to be a handful of bigger, less technical ones out there. We need a "noob distro" to a: get people into Linux systems in the first place, and b: for the not-so-techish people. Most people are lost on the idea of a package manager, and are used to installing things from disks or download-hunting. A ton of people can't even properly use a search engine, they'll just type in a question or a full sentence.
- nebloof, on 02/05/2009, -3/+2Agreed. This is the whole point of OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. Anyone can take the code and do whatever they want with it. I would have to kill someone if a distro like Slackware that has been around for YEARS died because of something absolutely retarded like Ubuntu.
- pentiumii, on 02/05/2009, -2/+1I am on linux now Slackware if u need to know and i ll have to disagree with u
well actually ill let Linus disagree with u
"I think multiple distributions aren't just a good thing, I think it's something absolutely required." Torvalds says there are hundreds of distros, and a lot of them are really for niche markets, and the industry need that - because different markets simply have different requirements, and no single distro will take care of them all"
it the same with windows MS only really has 2 different consumer OS the rest r for nich markets and specific industry
sorry but if you agree Linux should have tones different distro to meet people needs then y shouldn't windows have different flavor to match people needs
it common scene dude - SteveMax, on 02/05/2009, -3/+2A new user doesn't "have to trawl through all the distros trying to figure out the differences"; they only have to pick up the one that attracts them the most between OpenSuse, Fedora, Mandriva and Ubuntu. Just like most people don't "have to trawl through all the PC brands trying to figure out the differences" when they shop, they pick one up based on the first impression and/or recommendations. The desktop experience with either of those will be very comparable. Other distros fit more specific needs; a new user doesn't even have to know that Gentoo or Arch exist, or how gcc works.
- Azathothh, on 02/06/2009, -2/+1yeah choice is great. Choice of various ***** tastes of the Linux turd.
- FyberOptic, on 02/05/2009, -5/+3Here's the key: stop trying to make every year the "year of the Linux desktop". Because that day isn't coming. Worry about what Linux users want, not what Joe Casual wants out of Linux, because I can guarantee you that Joe Casual will not use it for more than a week regardless of what you do to it. It won't run his Windows programs or use some of the more popular websites and such (certain plugins or whatever the case may be), so he has no reason to stay. Trying to force him to stick with it and/or looking down on him for preferring Windows is just silly. Linux isn't ready for him, and probably never will be.
However, I give credit where credit is due. Ubuntu has gone a long way to making Linux much more usable. Enthusiasts don't like it for being so bloaty and making it hard to remove certain applications without it trying to remove half of the GUI itself and such. But Ubuntu isn't made for those kind of hardcore users. It's made for people who get tired of compiling everything or dealing with dependencies and all of that junk. It's the closest thing anyone has come to a Joe Casual version of Linux. Joe Technical still has Debian if he'd rather.
But that's the thing. At some point, it stops being Linux, and starts being "Ubuntu". Just like OSX stopped being BSD by the time they put their fancy interface on top and unleashed it onto their hapless consumers. Apple users don't know or care what it's running underneath, it just works for them. And I think a lot of Ubuntu users probably feel the same way. Doesn't matter if it's running Linux or Windows or DOS underneath, as long as the user interface is nice. So I think eventually, Ubuntu will become so much better than the other distros that it will be in a category all its own.
I think that a large part of this is due to its huge community. Having everyone splintering and forking off into thousands of alternative projects, which happens way too often in the open-source world, doesn't usually help anything. Hell, even the OLPC suffered the same fate, since everybody in the company was apparently fighting over which direction to take on certain issues, and then they ended up splitting apart with some people trying to start their own small computer. In the end, the OLPC is dead, and nobody else has anything to show for it.
Anyway, yeah, I personally think there should be one or two big distros. And that's because there will always be other distros, because that's just how Linux works. But you can't get anywhere when you're shooting off in every direction. I think Ubuntu should continue to find out what works best, and continue implementing only those pieces of software, to have one good OS. Windows didn't get popular because it had a dozen variations of Notepad built in. If people want a better text editor, they can install it themselves. Linux users always yell about choice, but if you're going to make an OS that the more casual user will enjoy too, then sometimes you have to make the initial choices for them. It's Linux. There will always be choice. The user just has to be able to realize that at their own pace. - MRintheKeys, on 02/05/2009, -2/+0You want them to change binary language?
- jmags, on 02/05/2009, -4/+2This is such a bogus argument. Every single Linux distro comes with every single feature available to Linux. The main differences are where you want to fall on the accept sensibe defaults vs. configure everything for yourself spectrum, and how you want to go about adding and activating the features you want. Endorsing an OS that doesn't make all of its features available to you is deeply wrongheaded.
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is