Letters: Linux, Love It Or Hate It

Here's a sample of the reader feedback (and be sure to read Ohlhorst's response at the end):

I agree with your point of view on Linux. I write about this stuff on my blog. The Linux guys need to really take their technology to the next level and take a user-centric approach rather then trying to be the jack-of-all trades to niche developers and hobbyists.

Alex Zaltsman

--------------------

I just read your column and have to say I agree. The potential of linux is really overlooked. You stated "How do you think Linux can gain more traction? Let me know." Here are my few thoughts on the subject. Being an avid Windows and Mac user, I have touched on Linux and tried it more than a few times but, like many, have sort of been intimidated.

1. It's great that you can do everything from a BASH Shell, but it needs the clear, simple ability to be able to do it from a GUI, too.

2. The "control panel"-type system on the Linux distros (and I've tried quite a few, always using the KDE look) is too confusing for the end user. Things aren't categorized into the areas the average end user would think to look. Easier navigation has to be considered if Linux is ever to become a real rival to Mac and Microsoft.

3. The last qualm I have, and the one I have always mentioned to friends: Linux is a geekish system. As a result, they're the ones compiling and designing the GUIs and everything else around it; Mac is a classic example of a "pretty" OS. The current look and feel (and, like you said, you can customize it, but the average end user is too scared) needs to be developed in such a way that its aesthetically pleasing. Windows XP's popularity was partially credited to its new GUI. And Vista is set to rival the Mac OS with its own alphablending and "aero" interface.

Linux utilizes the system resources fantastically. If these key issues are addressed, in my mind Linux stands a chance, and a true potential.

Hope this has helped, or given you some more angles to look from.

Kris

--------------------

Things Linux needs to be more successful include:

1. Better package installation (as you pointed out). Ability to install stand-alone packages rather than the current package repositories. Having packages in repositories is nice in theory but in practice no repository includes all available software. Only one package you need has to be missing for the whole setup to fail.

True, you often can download stand-alone RPMs and such but then you lose dependency resolution and the RPM hardly ever contains all required libraries, etc. What you need is a composite system whereby the application itself is in a stand-alone package that you can download from a Web site, and have the package contain the necessary metadata to do dependency resolution, then obtain automatically all the libraries and other dependencies from a repository.

2. One distro. Anything more than one distro is too many. There is only one Windows, one Mac OS-X. What we want at the end of the day is Windows, Mac OS-X and Linux, not Windows, Mac OS-X, Fedora, Ubuntu, Frugalware, Suse, Gentoo, Slackware, KateOS, DSL, Zenwalk, Debian, Knoppix, Gnoppix, Boppix, Sploppix, etc, etc, etc.

Why do we need 200 me-too Linux distros? Ultimately, they all have the same kernel, the same drivers, the same basic packages (Open Office, Evolution, Gnome, KDE, Gimp, etc). The only thing that differentiates them from one another is a different set of missing functionality, a different set of bugs and a different set of missing packages in the repository. Merge the best bits of Suse, Mandrive, Fedora, Slackware, Debian and Ubuntu and create a complete and bug-free Linux and get rid of all the rest. If people want to contribute to free software, let them all add to this one mega-distro. We don't need six or seven different package managers all of which do the exact same thing, but slightly differently.

ptay1685@bigpond.net.au

NEXT: More Letters