I've been talking about my opinion of Linux to a few people, since it's just the best operating system ever. For too many reasons; that would take too much time to list. I could do this for hours. Yes, I also encouter strange bugs on Linux that I don't have the competences to solve (I just reinstalled the system. Extremely quick to reinstall all with a script), and not having Photoshop, Illustrator and others commercial programs is a real pain for me (Virtualisation is perfect - but I want a native version of these!), since I use them everyday.
Linux is not perfect, but it's just awesome.
The main problem the people told me (Most of them aren't experienced with Linux at all), is that Linux is not really "standard"; I fully understand their point of view. What they mean is that there are too many different distributions, so the new user simply cannot choose.
I personally find this true - there are many distros, and this can be seen as an advantage or disadvantage. When I first discovered Linux in October 2011, it was because of a teacher who recommended to download Ubuntu, so I could try it without affecting my PC - I was impressed.
But what if my teacher would have not told me about Ubuntu? My first reflex would have been to google "Download Linux", and today, I probably would be using Mint (Very good first impression of this distro. I've tested it) instead of Ubuntu. Mint is the first result that show up, Ubuntu is the fifth.
Back then, when I knew nothing about Linux, when I wanted to test it, but was affraid to damage my computer by installing it the wrong way, I thought that there was only one Linux version - just like Windows 7 or Mac OS X.
So, would it be true to say that "Linux is not standard", since there are too many distributions? Many people say that Linux is having a hard time to succeed in the market, because there are too many Linux versions/distributions. Would it be better for Linux to focus on only one version and make that version better and better?
Of course, that brings another problem: a positive point about Linux is that it won't lock the user to an interface or desktop environnement. If you don't like Unity (Many people do. It took a while for me to like it, but now, I find it faster and better than GNOME2), you're not obligated to use it. You can still install another distribution or another desktop. There's a Distro for everyone, and if you don't like something, you can always change it.
What if there was only one version of Linux, and the UI.. sucked (Take Unity. For me, it doesn't suck, but some believe it does) ? Wouldn't that be a bad move, for Linux?
I spoke about that question to an advanced Linux user - I don't know many. He told me that Linux does have a very strict standard. I get the basic idea behind this: Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, they all share some similarities, so the user wouldn't get lost, I believe.
Well, I'm not so sure about the "standard" or "not standard" question.
What do you guys think?