Re: So
>it begs the question how long is Linux going to take?
Might help if you mentioned something that you are waiting on.. I guess you're talking about the age of "Linux on the desktop" that some simple minded folk were always going on about back in the Mandrake CDs in the post days. Try out KDE on any modern Linux distro. It works.. it might not be perfect but there again Windows or OSX aren't either. You might even like having your computer treat you like you might actually know what you're doing.
YES, HOW LONG IS LINUX GOING TO TAKE.
Please. Your answers are pedantic, the typical reply of a blind Linux supporter.
5 years? HAH!! Try FIFTEEN YEARS - I, also, bought into the "Linux on the Desktop is the Future!" mantra and still have my (boxed) RedHat 5.2 release to prove it.
I'm still waiting.
This is going to be downvoted because the fans of Linux simply never want to deal with the truth. Since before RedHat 5.2, Linux was promised to be the future of the desktop. 15 years later Linux STILL has 1.6% desktop market penetration - and, therefore, a lack of support from the necessary desktop-style applications that are the mainstay of the average user.
Don't you get it? Look at the replies here: 'Linux is great on my engineering box!', 'Linux is perfect for my developer system!' and "[Linux] is a godsend when working with our build servers (also Ubuntu devices) and other backroom heavy duty hardware" (direct quote, that). For the narrow hard-core computational market, it does indeed pretty much own the market.
But Linux is "not finished" in many areas, one major point of which is covered in this very news story. Linux's frequent kernel updates are doing it NO favors in terms of market penetration - Linux is a constantly moving target to those who wish to transfer to it as well as those who wish to support it. You want Linux, what flavor do you want? What kernel level is your chosen release at? What GUI will you use if your release offers multiple choice? How about your drivers, are your devices supported? How does your flavor handle patches and updates, what package manager does it use or are you using the terminal? Did your kernel require recompiling, as you require some functionality for your hardware compatibility that is not the default build selections?
Some of these questions are most irrelevant for most people as, for example, updates are now automatic. Except when they aren't (isn't working properly or manual patching required). What happens when a kernel release breaks something that was previously working, for example when Ubuntu updates break nVidia drivers?
Having frequent kernel updates is NOT doing Linux any favors in terms of market penetration, contrary to the belief of Linux supporters. They believe that the constant development is honing the kernel to a fine edge - the market sees it as an unmitigated hassle and a moving target of non-compliance. Writing drivers that only work for a year, due to the fact that the following kernel update broke your code, is a vast drain on human resources. The development companies are, therefore, in a quandary: Why should we develop for Linux if the market is small; the market is small because businesses and individuals are afraid to move to Linux because confusion of choice; the lack of application and driver support is fueled by the distribution fragmentation and constant development that does not allow a broad base of users who are unified to a single, and therefore, marketable base.
And that is why Windows [was] winning on the desktop: a company can buy 1,000 desktops and know that their hardware investment is matched to their software AND HR investment, that in-house software developments and support can be rolled out to a platform that will stay stable for years. Linux? Not so much: 'Where will [my/our] Linux distro be in 2 years?' is not a welcome question for many businesses and users alike - they just need it to work, not to wonder how many times their kernel will be updated during the lifespan of their computer and what challenges will that bring to their productivity.
>I remember hearing about this in highschool and how it was meant to eventually be better than Windows.
Who ever said that point of Linux was to be "better than Windows". Lets forget that it already is better than Windows in many many areas.. comparing Linux to Windows is basically impossible. Windows is actually a family of kernels that have varying levels of compatibility and a similar looking UI. Windows doesn't even attempt to target all of the areas that the single Linux kernel does.
>Of course back then I was young and naive so I bought into all the hype.
What hype from where?
I am sorry, you must be living under a fallen tree trunk. Linux 'on the Desktop!' hype is EVERYWHERE. All you have to do is log on to any computer/IT-centric website and you'll see it - hey, this very conversation is proof of it!
Linux users want Linux to be adopted more throughout the world. That's fine :) But Linux supporter's enthusiasm is turning to be their own greatest enemy, but please, note what that MEANS. Linux supporters are so enthusiastic that they go and create new and exciting ideas for the OS, from GUI's to distros to constant kernel updates to community-based drivers. All that is GREAT...but all that leads to a confusing "marketplace" of an OS, where no one knows where to go just to get something working, or something fixed. "I need my [device] working, but I can't get this driver working!" "What distro level are you, package [x.yy.qd] has a known problem but you can try [hhh.oxoo3d.etc]"
On Linux, sometimes not everything just WORKS. If yours does, count yourself lucky - you have compatible hardware! Go, you! But if you don't, then buy new hardware, switch distro, patch packages, etc.
As much as people hate Windows, for the large majority it just WORKS. "No, it doesn't!", you say, "It got a virus and now it DOESN'T work". Not the fault of the OS if it was working and the user decided to do something with it that broke it (I know you are saying, "Yes, it is!", but then the same clause also applies to Linux when it breaks, as well).
>Fast forward five years and its STILL not finished.
What still isn't finished?
User experience. User support. Universal hardware driver support. Desktop application selection. De-fragmentation of the distro universe so that focus can be trained on fixing the aforementioned to the largest majority of users, granting them a broad, stable and supported OS platform where the OS takes a back stage to getting things done. The OS is NOT the focus of using a computer. I know that is a shock to OS fans, the ones on internet forums who constantly argue about the advantages of their OS choice over others and why can't the rest of the world see the superiority of that choice? The OS is the platform to launch the tools that get the true existence of the computer - the completion of your chosen task - done. A non-OS fan does NOT turn on their computer to play with the OS for 2 hours, to see if they can tweak said OS to get 4% better performance out of it. Most people turn on their computer...to get a task completed. Check email. Surf the web. Create a wireform and 3D render a skin. Pull up that spreadsheet and crunch the 300 columns to derive this month's sales. Send out billing statements. Edit those photographs from the vacation.
Linux can do almost all those things...but, most often, NOT with the chosen software of the user. "Just use [package xxx] is NOT the same as "Why won't Photoshop run native in Linux?" I'm sorry, it's not. Users want the software they are familiar with and have called their own for years, not a second choice that may be equivalent (or, maybe not).
Linux needs fixing in downplaying the OS and actually giving the users what they want: a background to get their tasks accomplished. The OS is NOT the task, it is the 'tabletop' to put your work down on (how fitting, "desktop" is a good metaphor). Stop concentrating on the OS as the solution and start working on making Linux the TOOL to GET the solution, and that "solution" is "WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO TODAY?", to pardon borrowing a catch phrase from a company you don't like.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
