Linux paradoxes

[azangru]

I know it's stupid, but I couldn't help it...

Apart from the obvious paradox that Linux, being a great and free operating system, has a ridiculously small market share, there are others:

- It was Linux that introduced jaw-dropping graphic effects with Compiz, yet certain tasks are still done in the boring terminal

- Stephen Fry in the year-old video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dcxtEKShXA) wishes happy birthday to GNU, praising open-source software and open-source operating systems, yet there is unmistakeably a MacBook Air at his side.

Anything else? :p

_____________________
And yes, I know that Linux is a kernel, not an OS, but it's so awkward to mention this in ordinary speech.

[Sub101]

- Stephen Fry in the year-old video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dcxtEKShXA) wishes happy birthday to GNU, praising open-source software and open-source operating systems, yet there is unmistakeably a MacBook Air at his side.
_____________________


He could still be running Linux on the Mac?

Personally, I like the fact that not many people use Linux, I find it more enjoyable to be part of the community of like minded individuals rather than the general public.

[Skripka]

He could still be running Linux on the Mac?

Personally, I like the fact that not many people use Linux, I find it more enjoyable to be part of the community of like minded individuals rather than the general public.

If the marketshare of linux and Windows were reversed...imagine how many posts UF would get, asking how to turn their computer off.

[nmaster]

was this prompted by reading this: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10274039-16.html ?

it was on slashdot.org a few days a ago.

[monsterstack]

If the marketshare of linux and Windows were reversed...imagine how many posts UF would get, asking how to turn their computer off.

I don't know if there would be so many. If Linux had 90% of users, there would be plenty of powerusers and knowledgeable types who know how to get stuff done, much as there are for Windows now. I think most of the time when people have a problem with a Windows they can usually rely on a friend who knows a bit more to help them out. The same thing would happen for Linux.

I have a pet theory that at least some of the people who endlessly go on about Linux not being ready for the desktop are actually Windows powerusers who baulk at the idea of having to become a n00b all over again.

[hellocatfood]

I think that some things are still done in the 'boring' terminal because of lot of Linux's userbase use it. As its userbase grows and diversifies so too will how it operates.

[t0p]

I have a pet theory that at least some of the people who endlessly go on about Linux not being ready for the desktop are actually Windows power-users who baulk at the idea of having to become a n00b all over again.

This is undoubtedly true. Check out a usenet newsgroup like comp.os.linux.advocacy (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/topics?lnk=srg&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off), which attracts a whole herd of anti-linux trolls and shills. Investigation of the trolls (like searching for posts from them in other groups) will show that many of them are knowledgable about Windows software. As will engaging them in conversation about how crap vista is.

Then again, you'll also find that a good number of them are well-versed in linuxian matters. Power-users all round. Curse them! :p

[t0p]

I think that some things are still done in the 'boring' terminal because of lot of Linux's userbase use it. As its userbase grows and diversifies so too will how it operates.

Things will always be done in the terminal. Most (all?) things can be done via the gui right now. But people of a certain bent prefer the command-line. Like me. And a good proportion of those who learn from my advice will also come to prefer the terminal.

It's like how so many folk re-jig their terminal profile so it's light text on dark background. A great many of them have never used an old-fashioned console. But they have it that way because it's "right".

[Polaris96]

yes. but ... so what?

I don't know how to use any of the graphical system management tasks. The command line works so well, why would I bother?

I always keep a machine with at least one "closed source" OS, because, "hey, you never know..." Linux stuff works great after you tweak it.

Proprietary works mediocre out of the box, but it works. If I need something unusual right away and I have no time for tweaking config files, I grab my XP box. I like having it there although I seldom use it.

Point being, why are these paradoxes?

Nobody ever said you must convert exclusively to Linux, or that we should chuck our terminal like MS did. I don't see any paradox, at all. We do what we want. isn't that what it's all about?

[juancarlospaco]

Being a great and free operating system, has a growing big market share, on SuperComputers and Servers.

[monsterstack]

Things will always be done in the terminal. Most (all?) things can be done via the gui right now. But people of a certain bent prefer the command-line. Like me. And a good proportion of those who learn from my advice will also come to prefer the terminal.

It's like how so many folk re-jig their terminal profile so it's light text on dark background. A great many of them have never used an old-fashioned console. But they have it that way because it's "right".

I use the terminal a lot, but only because I like it. A new user might get the impression from browsing these forums that knowledge of the terminal is a pre-requisite for learning how to use Linux, but that isn't the case. I mean, say a user wants to rename a whole bunch of files in a directory to include the current date. Sure, you could give him a bunch of screenshots of Nautilus, showing him how to do it from there, and then tell him to rename every file individually using the method you just showed him. But then what if he says in reply, "But I use Kubuntu!" So instead, we tell the user to run this:


for x in *.txt; do mv $x $(date +'%F')-$x; done

This is why we use Bash commands on help forums. :)

[MellonCollie]

Check out a usenet newsgroup like comp.os.linux.advocacy (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/topics?lnk=srg&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off)

COLA is more of an anti-Microsoft circle jerk club than anything else. You won't find much 'advocacy' there.

[Polaris96]

maybe this would be better as a thread, but why is Linux's market share so important to everybody? We're self supporting. We don't need a an expanding market share to placate share holders.

[hellocatfood]

maybe this would be better as a thread, but why is Linux's market share so important to everybody? We're self supporting. We don't need a an expanding market share to placate share holders.

Encourage an open environment where programmers are not bound to a particular method of doing things or patents and just to generally spread the message of freedom

[Skripka]

maybe this would be better as a thread, but why is Linux's market share so important to everybody? We're self supporting. We don't need a an expanding market share to placate share holders.

Keep your rational thought somewhere else. ;)

[azangru]

maybe this would be better as a thread, but why is Linux's market share so important to everybody? We're self supporting. We don't need a an expanding market share to placate share holders.

The higher the market shere, the higher the chance Linux users will be reckoned with. Hence more computers (including laptops, netbooks and so on) with preinstalled Linux on the shelves and more (and better) Linux-friendly software around. We want that, don't we? I certainly do!

[kc3]

Well, a bigger market share the more software there'd be for it. Other than that there's really no advantage, it's nice to have our own Linux community. I mean, how many pro Windows groups are there? lol

[JDShu]

My 14 yr old sister asked me to install linux on her hp 2133 because Vista was making it unusable (it was a present, I have no idea why vista was installed on it). Anyway, besides a few bugs that needed fixing, she has no problems using Add/Remove Applications, and all the various GUIs that are available.

Just my 2c.

[.Maleficus.]

- It was Linux that introduced jaw-dropping graphic effects with Compiz, yet certain tasks are still done in the boring terminal
What happens when an update to Xorg crashes your jaw-dropping GUI and you're stuck at a Dash prompt and have no idea how to use it? IMO, having a working shell (with your preferred shell of course) is the most useful tool you can possibly have.

maybe this would be better as a thread, but why is Linux's market share so important to everybody? We're self supporting. We don't need a an expanding market share to placate share holders.
Ah, the unanswerable question :D. Underdog mentality perhaps? The whole "more software" argument is silly to me. You shouldn't choose an operating system based on it's politics, you should choose it based on the software and tools available for it. If you absolutely need a program that doesn't run on Linux, you aren't using the right platform.

[Tibuda]

Ah, the unanswerable question :D. Underdog mentality perhaps? The whole "more software" argument is silly to me. You shouldn't choose an operating system based on it's politics, you should choose it based on the software and tools available for it. If you absolutely need a program that doesn't run on Linux, you aren't using the right platform.

But that is the "more software" point. People that can't choose the operational system due to unavailable software, woulde be able to choose once the software become available to both platforms.

[SuperSonic4]

maybe this would be better as a thread, but why is Linux's market share so important to everybody? We're self supporting. We don't need a an expanding market share to placate share holders.

+1 - it would be better as its own thread :p

[Skripka]

+1 - it would be better as its own thread :p

"Oh Dear, Not Again"
-Large Bowl of Petunias

[azangru]

The whole "more software" argument is silly to me. You shouldn't choose an operating system based on it's politics, you should choose it based on the software and tools available for it. If you absolutely need a program that doesn't run on Linux, you aren't using the right platform.

Can't we have both the right software and the right platform? The power of professional apps and the stability, security and freedom of Linux?

[Skripka]

Can't we have both the right software and the right platform? The power of professional apps and the stability, security and freedom of Linux?

It would seem the answer is no, by and large.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

The GUI tools have improved a lot in recent years. I have started using the GUI tools more often; however, there are times when I prefer the CLI. For example, when I do a fresh install of an upgrade. I have a file of commands used to install codecs, configure my graphics card, configure my wireless, and so on. It is so easy to cut an paste those commands into the terminal.

[swoll1980]

The one that stands out the most is the whole, Linux needs better hardware, and software support to get more users, and Linux needs more users to get better software, and hardware support.

[Polaris96]

I'm confused. How would a larger market share encourage developers to write us in more? Very few of us will pay for software to begin with. So where's the incentive?

[swoll1980]

I'm confused. How would a larger market share encourage developers to write us in more? Very few of us will pay for software to begin with. So where's the incentive?

What are you talking about? I have, including the os it's self, about $2,000 invested in software on my other partition. I use Ubuntu because I like it, not because it's free of cost.

[Sub101]

What are you talking about? I have, including the os it's self, about $2,000 invested in software on my other partition. I use Ubuntu because I like it, not because it's free of cost.


Yes that may be true for you, but many other Linux users use it because of the open-source nature of the programs available. For many it is a philosophy.


I'm confused. How would a larger market share encourage developers to write us in more? Very few of us will pay for software to begin with. So where's the incentive?

The incentive though would not be, in my opinion, for programs but rather with an increased market share hardware providers would be forced to supply drivers to ensure their newest graphics card, for example, works with Linux. They couldnt afford to not if Linux market share grew too much.

[monsterstack]

I'm confused. How would a larger market share encourage developers to write us in more? Very few of us will pay for software to begin with. So where's the incentive?

Where is the incentive to make any of the 26,000 applications found in the repositories? If you'd prefer some stats, how about this:


Lines of code added to the Wine project per year [source: slashdot.org (http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/17/0057241)]:

2003: +247,471
2002: +159,393
2001: +104,641
2000: +119,796
1999: +164,910
1998: +132,235
1997: +48,566
1996: +56,748
1995: +19,345
1994: +42,746
1993: +36,487

1998 and 1999 were when the Wine project got some corporate backing and assistance. Towards the end of 2002 was when they switched to the LGPL. Is that black and white enough for you?

[Barrucadu]

Speaking of confusion, I'm confused. I don't see how the points in the OP are paradoxes in any way. A paradox is something like going back in time and killing your parents before you were conceived, not having both compiz and a terminal.

[Polaris96]

sub101: very good point. Better hardware support is the first justification for a larger user base that I've heard to date that makes logical sense.

'stack, you're misunderstanding me, sir. The "incentive" to make the packages in the repositories of open source communities is our collective satisfaction and enjoyment. We aren't profit motivated, as a group. That's the whole point of my comment.

Commercial companies need an expanding market because their employees are working and expect to be paid. Shareholders want to see results before committing the money it takes to fund further development.

That is not the way we work. We're doing for a variety of reasons but, for the overwhelming majority of us, making a buck isn't one of them. Because of this, we don't need to care a lot about how much "market share" our users control. I love seeing the term market share applied to a free OS btw.

I do agree the having a greatly increased userbase would increase availability of hardware drivers. I don't think that kind of increase will happen in the forseeable future, though.

So, anybody out there who can should try to work on device drivers. I'm trying to learn, but,as I mentioned before, this is a pastime, and I have a regular job that takes lots of time, also.

[Arup]

As far as I am concerned, every cutting edge hardware I have thrown at Linux have worked and those that didn't worked after a bit of tweaking, far more than I can say for Windowsx64 mode where to find a driver for a basic ZC0301 chip cam is next to impossible.

[azangru]

I don't see how the points in the OP are paradoxes in any way. A paradox is something like going back in time and killing your parents before you were conceived, not having both compiz and a terminal.

I know what you mean, but it just seemed funny that the OS with the most advanced desktop visual effects is the very same OS that relies on the command line most heavily. I had an impression that old-school terminal users don't care that much for visual effects, while those who love cool graphics aren't very much into command line.

[starcannon]

I want to see the UI he was talking about in the article:

I got a sneak peek at a future Ubuntu release while at dinner with Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth Wednesday night, and it was gorgeous. Mac (http://www.cnet.com/apple-mac.html) freak I may be, but the day Canonical releases that version of Ubuntu is the day my devotion to Apple will be severely tested.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10274039-16.html

[Chronon]

maybe this would be better as a thread, but why is Linux's market share so important to everybody? We're self supporting. We don't need a an expanding market share to placate share holders.

This is a very good point. I find it confusing that so many people seem to take it for a given that this should automatically be a goal. I think the goal should be improvement of the system, not expanding the userbase. If the userbase expands due to improvements of the system that's great. However, mistaking a potential side effect of such improvement for a primary goal seems like a case of putting the cart before the horse.

[swoll1980]

I want to see the UI he was talking about in the article:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10274039-16.html

He probably made it up, so he could feel important. I don't even think Mark knows what it's going to look like.

[monsterstack]

This is a very good point. I find it confusing that so many people seem to take it for a given that this should automatically be a goal. I think the goal should be improvement of the system, not expanding the userbase. If the userbase expands due to improvements of the system that's great. However, mistaking a potential side effect of such improvement for a primary goal seems like a case of putting the cart before the horse.

I want more users because with more users, you get more developers, more bug reports, more hardware support, and more software.

[moster]

I want more users because with more users, you get more developers, more bug reports, more hardware support, and more software.

Exactly! I just cannot understand why people cannot see benefit of large user base. Not just somebody who will give something back to community, but really everybody. Why? Because hardware makers, software developers care about that people because some of them will spend money on their hardware or software.

Till recently situation was this. For example ATI look at linux, hm.. stats say 1%. Who give flying fu** about that 1%. Let them make their own driver if they need one.
Imagine user base of 10%. There is no such stupid company that would let that their hardware do not work on that platform.

[XubuRoxMySox]

...imagine how many posts UF would get, asking how to turn their computer off.

I always thought it was really weird in Windows - use the Start button to Stop your session and turn off the computer. There's a Windows paradox... sorry

/hijack

[koenn]

I know what you mean, but it just seemed funny that the OS with the most advanced desktop visual effects is the very same OS that relies on the command line most heavily. I had an impression that old-school terminal users don't care that much for visual effects, while those who love cool graphics aren't very much into command line.
Even if that's true, it's just a show of diversity in the userbase : old school terminal types and wow it moves and has colors point and click types.

The contradiction between compiz and a command shell on the same system only holds if you imply that "the terminal" is an obsolete remnant of a long forgotten past, while in fact it's one of the most versatile and powerful tools on your system. It's not a coincidence that Microsoft, after shunning the command shells for 2 decades, developed a new shell and uses it as a selling point

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/default.mspx :
....
Microsoft Windows PowerShell ... helps IT professionals achieve greater control and productivity. ... allows IT professionals to more easily control system administration and accelerate automation.

in plain english : they're trying to catch up with Linux ...