Frogboy Frogboy

Can Linux go mainstream?

▼

Can Linux go mainstream?

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5637
from WinCustomize Forums

Linux will never make it mainstream on the desktop unless Microsoft does something incredibly stupid.

I fought in the trenches of the OS Wars back in the 1990s. During the height of the Microsoft-IBM battle for the desktop with Windows 3.1 vs. OS/2, myself and Dave Barnes from IBM went on the road together demoing OS/2 and OS/2 + Object Desktop to HP, Gateway, Dell, Compaq, and the rest in an effort to get OS/2 pre-loaded.

At the time, OS/2 was remarkably better. There was no debate about that. Windows 3.1 was a 16bit shell on DOS that could barely multitask, crashed constantly and had a primitive shell.  By contrast, OS/2 2.1 was a full 32 bit OS with preemptive multitasking, multithreading, an object oriented shell that could even run DOS, Windows as well as OS/2 programs.  OS/2 was a far better choice.

And OS/2 still lost. Linux advocates are stuck on the edges nit-picking some piddly issue here and there about Windows. It is very unlikely that ever again an OS will have such a clear and easy to see set of advantages like the kinds OS/2 had over Windows. And if OS/2, backed by IBM, couldn't defeat Microsoft, who in 1994/1995 was much less powerful than they are today, I just don't see what chance Linux has even if they do get their act together.

Which brings up the next issue, Linux advocates. Unlike Mac users who have a good reason to brag about MacOS X (particularly 10.3), Linux, as a desktop OS, is inferior. Its best argument for it is that it's "free".  But when you can get a Dell PC with Windows XP on it for $399 (including monitor), such arguments seem kind of weak.  Linux, as a desktop, feels taped together. It has so many rough edges. And it delivers no significant benefit over Windows for those rough edges.

That was ultimately what doomed OS/2 - by 1997 when Windows NT 4.0 was available and mature OS/2 wasn't delivering anything significant over Windows NT in exchange for the host of minor annoynces OS/2 had.  That new piece of hardware that either didn't work under OS/2 or required some weird tweaking. That program you wanted to try out that just didn't quite work under emulation in OS/2 for some reason. That web page that didn't display quite how it was supposed to because it was using ActiveX or some new version of Shockwave or whatever got old too.

OSes can get away with such announces if they provide something blatantly concrete in return. I just don't see what Linux delivers in exchange for the pains it requires of its users. Linux advocates on the net tend to fall into the old "OS/2 hard luck syndrome" (as we used to call it). Where for whatever reason, every possible problem one could have with Windows seemed to happen to Linux (or OS/2) advocates such as system crashing, lost data, fires, you name it. Such arguments are never compelling to normal users who found Windows ME (ack) "good enough" and Windows XP to be a panacea of stability. The same is true of arguments that boil down to "I don't need that feature." which regularly comes up when discussing software that isn't available or features missing in a "equivlanet" piece of software.

For these reasons, I think Linux will always be a hobbiest OS on the desktop and a good server OS for those either on a budget or who need to a very custom solution.

14,888 views 32 replies
Reply #26 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Ummm "Try Making a game with windows unless you use 3rd Party Tools."

You can write and compile programs with .NET framework for free. You pay just for IDE itself when you buy vb.net or vs.net or whatever.

"BUTTTT you still Cannot TAKE anything out of
windows without CRRAASHHHING or totally LOCKING up and Requiring a fistful or two of hair to fix your System."

You can remove lot of things, such as games, notepad, word, outlook express without damaging windows to inoperatiable.

95% of computers users use windows of any version.
3% uses linux.
2% uses macs.
Reply #27 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Well, personally, I have to agree with David Howe, as I dont think Linux will ever go Mainstream, unless the whole community gets behind one version of it and stick with that one version, there are just too many version's of linux out there for poeple to have to try out. WIth that said, I do have a pc here at home that I run linux on (web server), and its very stable, dosent crash, and dosent get the security problesms that Windows gets.

But for day to day use, I use a copy of Windowx XP Pro, however, it didn't come pe-loaded with the system, I bought it with my hard earned funds with I built my box, so as far as Im concerned, Windows isnt forced upon anyone, just build your own pc, (or have one custom built), and tell them you want linux as the main OS.

As for versions of Linus, I perfer Maxdrake, fast, comptable with all the newer hardware (and lots of older hardware), and its cheap ($100 $150 Canadian...)
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from WinCustomize Forums Top
The segregation that Linux users advocate does work against them. Although they might enjoy it, I'm sure that many will agree with me when I say that one should be able to reliably copy and paste from one application to another. It's simply better when things work well together even if it means a little bloat, which Linux has as well except without the benefit.
Reply #29 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Bottom line is this.

On Windows I work WITH my PC ( when I'm not messing with my desktop )

On LInux I work ON my PC ( Gettinmg stuff that works out of the box with Windows to work )

WHat's the point in being able to compile a bloody kernel when you can't get basic application support sorted .
Reply #30 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Back in '99 I tried installing SuSe on a spare PC I had - after fiddling about with the installer I got the OS installed, well after a fashion, but that was it.

I could SEE there was a truckload of apps to play with, but I had no obvious way of getting at them, as a "DOS-like" cursor was blinking on the screen in front of me insisting I input a password which I couldn't remember being asked to set up in the first place, plus there was no way I was going to figure out how to load a GUI (which is the way I prefer to work) from there without a manual or set of instructions of some description - none of which I had to hand as the CD didn't come with one (paper-back/hard copy, forget trying to print off the one on the CD as the PC wasn't up and running properly yet) and my "other" PC was at work and this was the weekend.

So I gave up, wiped the drive and stuck Win95 back on, and to this day I've never gone back to try Linux again...

Thinking about it, I'd love to have another shot, but after the aforementioned experience it's going to have to come pre-installed and set up for immediate or almost immediate use. Problem is here in Plymouth, UK I'm not aware of a single store in town (or even further afield) which sells Linux pre-installed.

Dare I say: "I rest Frogboy's prosecution case"?
Reply #31 from WinCustomize Forums Top
If SuSE keeps it up, I think it can become mainstream or at least get to where AMD is in their battle with Intel.

On another note. I've used OS/2 Warp 3/4, DOS, Windows 95/98/98SE/ME/2000/XP/2003 and Linux (Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE, Debian, Slackware), FreeBSD and BeOS.

I think Linux is awesome.
Reply #32 from WinCustomize Forums Top
At home, I own four computers, one is an Apple, the other three are IBM compatible (methinks that phrase has outworn its welcome), one running Win XP Pro 3.0, one running Win 98, one running DOS 3.0. At school I use Linux daily as well as Unix, Windows 2000, and Windows XP Pro.

I have this to say about Apple, Windows, Linux, and Unix.....

Apple is beautiful, well laid out, and as slow as a Pentium II quite often.
Unix is exceptional for specific tasks, and I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole for others.
Windows 98 was good enough for some things, but terrible at the things Unix is best at, and crashy to boot.
Windows XP is awesome at most things, but is only fairly good at the things Unix excells at.
Linux is a total pain in the arse. The only things I've found it to be better at than the other operating systems are server functions and programming applications. I also hate having to drop into terminal mode all the time. On top of that, the version of Redhat we're using at FSU is even slower than OSX if you can imagine that!