PDA

View Full Version : Why should OS 'whatever' rule the world?



eentonig
May 15th, 2006, 03:37 PM
I read a lot of posts "What's keeping ... from taking over the Desktop", "Bug #1", "World domination", "Why is ... better/worse than ...", "What's keeping you from switching to ..." , etc....

Although they're always fun for starting a never ending discussion. I fail to see the added benefit from (in this case) Ubuntu taking world domination on the desktop.

Windows has it's benefits. so does Mac. so does Unix. And so does Linux. One of the most appealing factors for me to chose Linux (ubuntu) was the factor of choice and freedom what to install and customize. But who am I to decide other people should benefit from my choice and do the same?

If someone is happy with windows (with the ups and downs), let him be happy.
If I'm happy with Ubuntu (with other ups and downs), let me be happy.

I have no need to convince people Linux/Ubuntu is better then Windows. But if I see someone being unhappy with it, I'm the first to point him/her to another free alternative to try out.

jason.b.c
May 15th, 2006, 04:05 PM
I fail to see the added benefit from (in this case) Ubuntu taking world domination on the desktop.

I didn't think ubuntu was being developed to " take over the world "


If someone is happy with windows (with the ups and downs), let him be happy.

Yea, thats fine. But there's nothing wrong with alternatives


I have no need to convince people Linux/Ubuntu is better then Windows.

I kind of agree a little bit, You kinda got to "Let 'em find out for themselves" sometimes.


But if I see someone being unhappy with it, I'm the first to point him/her to another free alternative to try out.

Thats really good.!!

aysiu
May 15th, 2006, 04:09 PM
Bug #1 is "Microsoft has the majority market share."

The majority.

Not wanting Microsoft to have the majority doesn't mean wanting Ubuntu to have the majority. It means making things more balanced. I can't speak for anyone else, but I would perfectly happy if Windows, Mac, and some Linux distribution each had about 30% of the desktop market share.

I don't think that's "ruling the world" or whatever. That, to me, is a more fun place than Windows being everywhere.

brentoboy
May 15th, 2006, 04:15 PM
eentonig,

one good reason to "take over" the world with one *good* OS is that something that is used by the masses will get better becuase it will get attention.

more (and better) games will appear.

higher quality apps will appear.

the larger the user base for a single operating system, the better it will become.

If everyone had a common FREE core operating system, and distro's were just flavors, then sysadmins would really be able to know their stuff--in every scenario.

your favorite software package would always be available on your favorite OS (becuase one OS would be all that was needed)

you might say "utopia" -- its a dream, etc, but the whole FOSS system is a dreamworld that wants to be a utopia, so it isnt out of place to say it would be wonderful if everyone picked a single archetecture that worked.
--
and, other than hardware support, FreeBSD is probably that dream archetecture. the BSD code is just cleaner, and less convoluted than the linux code. (not the kernel, the entire package, kernel, apps, and all) it just doent have the large amount of focus linux gets from extra developlers.

but bsd, OpenWindows, Linux, whatever the case may be--the world benefits from a single archetecture that works, so that it can mature and attract better device drivers, apps, and configuration utilities.

Kvark
May 15th, 2006, 04:28 PM
No OS should rule anything. The person who owns the computer should rule over it. Any OS or program that does not respect that and that is full of CD-keys, copy protection, online validation, data miners, anti cheat, rootkits, time bombs, crippleware, adware, trojans and DRM should be replaced by more fair alternatives.

Kernel Sanders
May 15th, 2006, 04:30 PM
Bug #1 is "Microsoft has the majority market share."

The majority.

Not wanting Microsoft to have the majority doesn't mean wanting Ubuntu to have the majority. It means making things more balanced. I can't speak for anyone else, but I would perfectly happy if Windows, Mac, and some Linux distribution each had about 30% of the desktop market share.

I don't think that's "ruling the world" or whatever. That, to me, is a more fun place than Windows being everywhere.

I agree wholeheartidly \\:D/

Also, if things were more "balanced", consumers would have realistic alternatives (I.E = 90% of all software would not be tied to a single OS anymore), and companies would be forced to spend more money on innovation (And no Microsoft, that doesnt mean you should buy up all the innovating companies - innovate yourself FFS!!! :p )

23meg
May 15th, 2006, 04:32 PM
No OS should rule anything. The person who owns the computer should rule over it. Any OS or program that does not respect that and that is full of CD-keys, copy protection, online validation, data miners, anti cheat, rootkits, time bombs, crippleware, adware, trojans and DRM should be replaced by more fair alternatives.

Well said.

fuscia
May 15th, 2006, 06:13 PM
(CAUTION: post may contain one or more unreasonable positions)

i think most linux, bsd users would like a variety of choice to be the norm. unfortunately, microsoft has a desire to be the one and only (it's nearly impossible to buy a pc without getting stuck with windows and wasting $130 if you're never going to use it). so, when one of the players is aggressively seeking world domination, the 'variety of choice' ideal is really no longer an option. if one has to dominate, let it be whichever one i want to use.

while i think apple would like to dominate, i think they would be horrified to lose their 'niche' factor.

lapsey
May 15th, 2006, 06:40 PM
to answer the question from different POV: If there wasn't a single cutting edge distro there would be far less direction and impetus

centered effect
May 15th, 2006, 07:07 PM
Actually, no one OS should rule the world. Why? Because OS are made by people who are governered by others. and if thier Os rules the world, then they rule the world, so to speak. It is just wrong.

commodore
May 15th, 2006, 07:39 PM
I think people should have a freedom of choice but Windows shouldn't exist (because of Microsoft, not because it's crap).

isotonic
June 4th, 2006, 06:11 PM
.

prizrak
June 4th, 2006, 07:32 PM
No OS should rule the world. Monoculture is bad there should be 2-3 major OS's that are interoperable.

SHodges
June 4th, 2006, 08:35 PM
As soon as Ubuntu became as popular as windows is it would suddenly not be half as secure and virus/adware free as it is now, so I'd definitly prefer it only pick up a smaller 10-15% market share at best. I'd prefer several OS's to just one or two big ones anyways. Computers as a whole would be safer from viruses and adware, and it'd be nice to have some real choices instead of "OS that everything works with but is like an electronic typhoid mary, or and OS that virtually nothing works with but hey, it's virus free!".

BoyOfDestiny
June 4th, 2006, 08:41 PM
As soon as Ubuntu became as popular as windows is it would suddenly not be half as secure and virus/adware free as it is now, so I'd definitly prefer it only pick up a smaller 10-15% market share at best. I'd prefer several OS's to just one or two big ones anyways. Computers as a whole would be safer from viruses and adware, and it'd be nice to have some real choices instead of "OS that everything works with but is like an electronic typhoid mary, or and OS that virtually nothing works with but hey, it's virus free!".

Well I dunno if it would ever be that popular...
However, there are different versions available.
Different kernels and architectures.
Plus, people may be using different software and different Desktop Environments. Not to mention out of the box, there are no ports listening... .
In terms of adware, I'd agree. The weak link is the user. Grab some random deb, put in your pass to install and run it, then well they are compromised.

Anyway, with all the other Linux distros, custom kernels, apps, etc etc. It wouldn't really be a monoculture IMHO.