Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

[markfiend]

Right, forget it. You're obviously not here to hear anyone else's viewpoints. You just want an echo-chamber. Given your repeated dismissal of any and all opinions that don't match your own, I can only assume that you're trolling. I'm out.

[Theologian]

'Have you ever noticed that if you ask a question properly, it answers itself?' Donald W. Shimoda (misquoted).

It seems that you didn't think your question out very well, grasshopper

[Theologian]

SPEAK UBUNTU OR DIE!!!

[grey1960envoy]

Open source software is exactly what it sounds like: It's software written by a (usually small) group of highly-dedicated people that solved particular problems they themselves had and thought others might find useful as well. Like most things that are free, it comes with no warranty: If it does what you want, that's great - that's exactly why it was offered to you. If not, you have the freedom of choice to either modify it to suit your desires or find another software package that more closely meets your needs.

As I stated in another thread (and alluded to again here), the features you find in any open source software package are there because at least one programmer needed them and implemented them to meet their needs (more forward-thinking programmers often at least attempt to make them flexible enough to work for others with similar needs as well).

I found this tidbit from another thread and just felt it requires attention to those of whom think there are too many distros now. Pay particular attention to the LAST line

[rcentros]

*** If you vote No, please give your thoughts as to why Linux, being free and and arguably better than Windows, isn't more popular.

This question comes up again and again -- and it's really a waste of time. The nature of OSS and Linux is that there is going to be a wide variety of distributions, so the "should we have less distributions?" is a hypothetical question and will always be one. Linux (a specific distribution) might be more popular if there weren't other choices, but who cares? Who's going to say, you can no longer distribute VectorLinux (for example) because it's not in the top ten? The problem with limiting choice is that you force people into a mold, like Windows and OS X, and it doesn't take into account all the reasons there are so many distributions and applications. Because there is a need. I've traditionally used "trailing edge" software, which means that a distribution like Ubuntu (or Linux Mint) is not always the best solution. VectorLinux and Xfce together make my favorite distribution. I'm testing Linux Mint 10 because my father uses (and likes) Mint 8, but it's nearing "end of life." Honestly, since Linux Mint is "cutting edge" it has some issues on my hardware and I wouldn't chose it as my main distribution. But, unlike the Windows world, I don't have to adapt to make myself fit the OS, I can simply find a distribution to fit my hardware. Down deep, Linux is Linux.

Why don't more people adapt Linux? Because Windows comes on their computer and their main goal is to use a few applications. They don't know you don't have to worry about malware or viruses. They don't know there is something better than the Windows Registry. They just make do. They're not usually going to move to Linux anyhow, unless they lose all their data one more time and they ask their Linux using friend about installing Linux. And guess what he's going to install? -- yep, the distribution he uses. There's also the fact that the Desktop is becoming more and more irrelevant. People don't even know it, but they'll be moving to Linux via Android, or WebOS or (when it comes out) Chrome OS. And Linux is everywhere in their house in embedded devices, it's on the servers they use on the Internet, it runs the data warehouses for their online search engines and markets. Linux is getting huge.

And, BTW, the usage numbers I think you chose may or not be accurate. I think desktop Linux usage is closer to 5% as some figures show.

[kvv]

This question comes up again and again -- and it's really a waste of time. The nature of OSS and Linux is that there is going to be a wide variety of distributions, so the "should we have less distributions?" is a hypothetical question and will always be one. Linux (a specific distribution) might be more popular if there weren't other choices, but who cares?
Yes, that's true, that's the result of Linux being Open Source. But, there should be a few standard distributions for closed-source commercial vendors to package their software. They don't because there are a wide variety of distributions with their own Window Managers and libraries. It's just crazy.

Why don't more people adapt Linux? Because Windows comes on their computer and their main goal is to use a few applications.
Completely agree. This should be true of any desktop, though I am always biased towards Open Source alternatives, if possible.

They don't know you don't have to worry about malware or viruses. They don't know there is something better than the Windows Registry. They just make do.
I don't have to worry about viruses on my Windows Vista either. I don't give a damn about my registry, and like Linux, there are step by step instructions for most problems. And you know what, for someone who doesn't routinely edit config files, Windows provides intuitive GUIs for solving problems. For instance, I solved a problem with wireless detection on Windows myself navigating into deep GUIs, when I couldn't find any help online. Why was this possible? Because, there is only one window manager, and it's easy for driver manufacturers to make good UIs.

They're not usually going to move to Linux anyhow, unless they lose all their data one more time and they ask their Linux using friend about installing Linux. And guess what he's going to install? -- yep, the distribution he uses.
Guess what I would recommend? Re-install windows, and get yourself a better antivirus program, there are lots of good, free ones out there. No way I am recommending a non-technical linux noob to get into linux, he will just sit on my head if something goes wrong. If it's out of his own curiosity or what ever, I will be happy to assist him with what little I know.

There's also the fact that the Desktop is becoming more and more irrelevant. People don't even know it, but they'll be moving to Linux via Android, or WebOS or (when it comes out) Chrome OS.
Lol... that's because it's being done by Google and HP. They will set a standard for commercial vendors, and they are going to market their product (note the singular noun here) well.

And Linux is everywhere in their house in embedded devices, it's on the servers they use on the Internet, it runs the data warehouses for their online search engines and markets. Linux is getting huge.
True, but the fact that licensing issues with Microsoft are so expensive for running a server may have something to do with this. I couldn't say for sure though. And as far as embedded goes, I think Linux deserves a kudos for penetrating into the market, and surpassing commercial alternatives. But, this point is not relevant here in this discussion.

And, BTW, the usage numbers I think you chose may or not be accurate. I think desktop Linux usage is closer to 5% as some figures show.
w3counter (http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php) would beg to differ.

Windows has it's own share of problems, but it is more friendly for commercial developers, and not to mention 90% of desktops run it anyway.

To people who say that Linux is not about market share: sure, that's why good, beginner-friendly, desktop-oriented distros like Linux Mint and Ubuntu exist, right? so that only developers can use it, amirite?

[randomizer]

Yes, that's true, that's the result of Linux being Open Source. But, there should be a few standard distributions for closed-source commercial vendors to package their software. They don't because there are a wide variety of distributions with their own Window Managers and libraries. It's just crazy.

The number of WMs/DEs is sort of unimportant. One need only include support for GNOME or KDE and add the required libs as dependencies for a package. You don't need to be running KDE to run KDE apps, and the same for GNOME, Xfce, etc.

Because, there is only one window manager, and it's easy for driver manufacturers to make good UIs.

I find the driver manufacturers still make horrible UIs. The default Windows wireless config UI is intuitive enough. There is no point installing additional utilities that do the same thing but conflict with each other and are poorly laid out. I could install a Realtek wireless utility for my device, but the utility is an extra process that needs to run, is less stable and badly designed.

To people who say that Linux is not about market share: sure, that's why good, beginner-friendly, desktop-oriented distros like Linux Mint and Ubuntu exist, right? so that only developers can use it, amirite?

I don't think Clem made Mint so that he can convert the world to Linux. I think he made it because he loves Linux and because he wants those who are interested in Linux but lack the know-how to install, for example, Slackware, to be able to use it as well. I'd imagine that the other Mint devs hold similar ideals. Now Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth are obviously more interested in market share. But they don't represent Linux. I doubt Linus Tovalds cares about market share (he doesn't even care about Free Software), only that the kernel does what it is supposed to do as best as it can. Richard Stallman cares about market share but for difference reasons - he wants to free the world.

[kvv]

The purpose of Linux Mint is to produce a modern, elegant and comfortable operating system which is both powerful and easy to use.
Started in 2006, Linux Mint is now the 4th most widely used home operating system behind Microsoft Windows, Apple Mac OS and Canonical's Ubuntu.

While Clem probably has better ideals than the folks at Microsoft, I am sure that he wants more people to use Linux Mint, and increase the percentage of Linux users, overall. There is nothing wrong with targeting a good market share for your product among your targeted customer pool, whether it is free or not, in fact, it will help better your product. Anyone who says otherwise, is not really building a product.

... you can't stop them from developing...

That's right. Most of us here are too low on the hierarchy to make a direct impact at such a level. But, if nothing else, it helps in flowing an opinion.

It's happening anyway: http://www.webupd8.org/2011/01/cross-distro-unified-installer-is-on.html. It's a start.

[masqueofaghost]

It won't become more popular unless it is available to ship with more systems. Then the manufactures would have to support it.

-----
Someone Swyped my idea.

[dante19992]

no it wouldnt be more popular with no choice. the beauty of linux IS choice. in all honesty i think linux is less popular cuz its open source and free. many people are probly under the mindset of "free cant mean good"

[mintnoob]

no it wouldnt be more popular with no choice.

Less choice, not "no" choice.

[dante19992]

ok well no disrespect (perhaps the only person on this thread to use that phrase) but i disagree with you. I believe what is stifling linux more than anything is how its negatively portrayed as the "free" operating system which makes it sound like its just a weak replacement for windows. couple that with the fact that even MAC has more corporate softwares (such as video games) for use on it and its gonna scare a lot of users away. the choice may be overwhelming for a start but im sure most people when seeing so much choice would just start by grabbing the #1 distro on a site like distrowatch and giving it a whirl and then when they feel more comfortable they would probably take advantge of the "insane" amount of options that linux has to find the one that is just perfect for their needs. I hope u understand my points here

[k273]

If I had to put it in one word, no.

If I could explain...
Linux (until now) failed in popularity just because of 2 things:
1) Marketing aggressiveness (up to unhealthy corporate tactics) of other OSes for one, and
2) The stigma (if I may say) that Linux is only for hardcore tech geek only, even while knowing Linux can be more powerful or useful than any other OS existing.

As for the hundreds of distros or softwares out there, it's just the ultimate manifestation of Linux basic philosophy in the first place: freedom. If there were some way to categorize the distros clearly into gradings like 'Beginner class A and B, Intermediate A, B, and C, Advanced A, B, C, and D, Expert A to E' (funny, it's like I'm in a foreign language course) or something like that, and every Linux user would spread the message, maybe it will be better to people who want to know more about Linux, and then they can choose according to what distros provide their need (maybe a programmer needs a Wdistro from scratch, a musician needs Xdistro Composer Edition, a mother needs Ydistro for Women, yet a blind man needs Zdistro with tools that can help with his visual impairment; I made this all up). But until now, it seemed that there is no CLEAR and STRICT taxonomy possible.

[Morgan Krieg]

The amount of choice is only indirectly responsible for the low popularity.

To be popular, Linux needs to have lots of high quality *finished* software and official driver support. It isn't going to happen unless there's going to be a single stable (with long term support - like in Windows XP long, not 3 years) main Linux to support. They aren't going to write software for tens or hundreds of distributions that make only one percent of the market.

Then there's the problem of legacy Windows software. This means using Wine. Using Wine usually means loss of performance, bugs and regressions. So, there would need to be an easy, GUI-based way to have several versions of Wine installed on one computer.

Then there's a problem of quality of stuff that is available for choice. For example what's the point of choosing between several unfinished sound systems, each of which is inferior to sound system that Windows 98 had over 10 years ago?

The real problem isn't that Microsoft is pushing its system everywhere. The real problem is that quality, documentation, standardization, etc. which is lacking in Linux systems.

For example Windows 98 wasn't very stable and wasn't network-ready, but besides that it was a good desktop system because stuff tended to just work and had a lot of finished software - which meant much less "oh god why?" moments than when using Linux.

Still, there's the question of piracy. Many people simply shouldn't be able to afford Windows and would probably have to do with any free system which would drastically increase the market share of Linux systems, but piracy allows them to use Windows.

[randomizer]

To be popular, Linux needs to have lots of high quality *finished* software and official driver support. It isn't going to happen unless there's going to be a single stable (with long term support - like in Windows XP long, not 3 years) main Linux to support.

So... like RHEL? Red Hat has varying degrees of support for kernel 2.4-based RHEL 3 from 2003 to 2013. Every version since RHEL 3 is supported for 10 years.

They aren't going to write software for tens or hundreds of distributions that make only one percent of the market.

They don't need to. Application software can be written once and the source given to distro maintainers to package how they want. There is usually not much modification, if any, needed to get software to run on different distros. Drivers are a little more complex, but only because distros modify the kernel. If driver developers write drivers for the "pure" kernel then it is up to the distro maintainers to ensure that they work. Realistically, they should write drivers for the kernels used in all popular distros (which is no different to writing drivers for multiple versions of Windows) because they could then provide support for these, which they couldn't if they only wrote drivers for the kernel.org version. Better still, they can release the source and let the community make working drivers.

[vincent]

They aren't going to write software for tens or hundreds of distributions that make only one percent of the market.

They don't need to. Application software can be written once and the source given to distro maintainers to package how they want. There is usually not much modification, if any, needed to get software to run on different distros. Drivers are a little more complex, but only because distros modify the kernel. If driver developers write drivers for the "pure" kernel then it is up to the distro maintainers to ensure that they work. Realistically, they should write drivers for the kernels used in all popular distros (which is no different to writing drivers for multiple versions of Windows) because they could then provide support for these, which they couldn't if they only wrote drivers for the kernel.org version. Better still, they can release the source and let the community make working drivers.

The problem is that most commercial companies who release applications for Windows do not release source code for their programs and have no desire to do so. Furthermore, it's common practice on Windows for applications to install bundled versions of the various libraries they use (which also causes unnecessary bloat), while pretty much every single Linux distro packages applications that are built and linked against the distro's libraries, to eliminate the need to package software with separately bundled libraries of their own.

[randomizer]

The problem is that most commercial companies who release applications for Windows do not release source code for their programs and have no desire to do so.

Well then they will either never release for Linux or will have to accept additional development costs. That's just how it is. At least in the case of drivers there is no real reason for not releasing source code. It's not like your competitor can use any of the code.

Furthermore, it's common practice on Windows for applications to install bundled versions of the various libraries they use (which also causes unnecessary bloat), while pretty much every single Linux distro packages applications that are built and linked against the distro's libraries, to eliminate the need to package software with separately bundled libraries of their own.

Then the correct dependencies need to be pulled in of course

[vincent]

The problem is that most commercial companies who release applications for Windows do not release source code for their programs and have no desire to do so.

Well then they will either never release for Linux or will have to accept additional development costs. That's just how it is. At least in the case of drivers there is no real reason for not releasing source code. It's not like your competitor can use any of the code.

Indeed, that's the dilemma facing many commercial companies today; are the additional development costs justified to support an OS which supports a very small fraction of the market? And in many cases, the answer is simply "no".

There may or may not be any reasons for not releasing source code, but as we're talking about commercial companies which rely on in-house software development, is there any reason at all to release source code? If there is no tangible benefit for them, why should they bother?

Furthermore, it's common practice on Windows for applications to install bundled versions of the various libraries they use (which also causes unnecessary bloat), while pretty much every single Linux distro packages applications that are built and linked against the distro's libraries, to eliminate the need to package software with separately bundled libraries of their own.

Then the correct dependencies need to be pulled in of course

Easier said than done. Let me give an example: I've recently tried packaging a proprietary application for Debian (i.e. Dropbox), since it was removed from Debian's repos due to various licensing issues (http://bugs.debian.org/610300). My proposed resolution to this problem (after discussing it a bit on debian-mentors) was to simply package the Dropbox binary itself, and strip the source tarball of all libraries and use Debian's versions of said libraries. Dropbox does not release source code for any of the open-source libraries they use either (Python, python dbus bindings, libssl, librsync, libsqlite, libwxbase, etc.), so I could only guess at which libraries I should include in my Dropbox package (with dh_link, of course). The main problem was Python; many of the libraries required by Dropbox are Python modules, but which version should I pick?2.5, 2.6, and/or 3.1? Needless to say, although I had successfully managed to build the package, Dropbox wouldn't run at all.

So, in order for Dropbox to be fully functional and included in Debian's repos, I either had to include the original libraries (which leads to those licensing issues mentionned in that bug report), or ideally try to get into contact with upstream (which I've tried) and identify what version of python they're using, whether their libraries have been modified in some way or another from the versions in Debian, and then include the modified libraries (preferably to be built from source) in my Dropbox package. This would be so much easier if Dropbox was open-source.

[Morgan Krieg]

To be popular, Linux needs to have lots of high quality *finished* software and official driver support. It isn't going to happen unless there's going to be a single stable (with long term support - like in Windows XP long, not 3 years) main Linux to support.

So... like RHEL? Red Hat has varying degrees of support for kernel 2.4-based RHEL 3 from 2003 to 2013. Every version since RHEL 3 is supported for 10 years.

Yes, something like this but targeted at home users and small business.

They don't need to. Application software can be written once and the source given to distro maintainers to package how they want.

It usually doesn't happen.

There is usually not much modification, if any, needed to get software to run on different distros. Drivers are a little more complex, but only because distros modify the kernel. If driver developers write drivers for the "pure" kernel then it is up to the distro maintainers to ensure that they work. Realistically, they should write drivers for the kernels used in all popular distros (which is no different to writing drivers for multiple versions of Windows) because they could then provide support for these, which they couldn't if they only wrote drivers for the kernel.org version. Better still, they can release the source and let the community make working drivers.

It is different because the different versions of Windows are being used by much bigger amount of their customers than different versions of Linux.

[Nexus]

Linux is free and arguably better than Windows, so why is its desktop popularity so pathetic low after all of these years?

Code: Select all

Images and charts removed for simplicity

I firmly believe that the insane amount of choice Linux offers is, on the whole, hurting its popularity and Linux would benefit from having fewer choices.

DistroWatch tracks over 300 distros alone!

Then multiply the insane amount of distros with each distro usually having multiple Desktop Environments to choose from.

The list of Linux desktop environments: AfterStep, Blackbox, Enlightenment, Equinox, Fluxbox, flwm, FVWM, GNOME, IceWM, ion, JWM, KDE, KDE Light, Looking Glass, LXDE, Metacity, Mezzo, Moblin, Openbox, PWM, WMaker, WMI, Xfce.


Some app categories are flooded with apps to choose from. Examples:

Music Players (alternatives to iTunes): aTunes, Amarok, Audacious, Banshee, Bmpx, Clementine, Decibel, Gnome Music Player, Gudyadequ, Exaile, Juk, Listen, Muine, Music Player Daemon, Quod Libet, Rhythmbox, Sonata, SongBird (now Lyrebird)

Video Editors (alternatives to MS MovieMaker): Avidemux, CineFX (Jashaka), Cinelerra, Kdenlive, Kino, LiVES, Open Movie Editor, OpenShot, PiTiVi, Vivia, VLMC

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

*** If you vote No, please give your thoughts as to why Linux, being free and and arguably better than Windows, isn't more popular.

I don't think it's so much the end user as the developers that are hurt the most by variety, at least not directly. I'm not talking studios who primarily develop for or their company is rooted in Linux, I mean all those companies that choose to primarily devote their software to Windows. This is very true in the Gaming industry, I was watching a video chat with the developers of a MMO I play recently and they flat out stated, they would love to port their game client to Linux but the studio's parent company doesn't provide the resources to do so. I feel this is true pretty much across the board. One of the major difficulties with Linux is that not all distros have a common file hierarchy, nor do they support and include the same libraries and runtimes. I can't create any piece of software for a Debian based distribution and promise it will run without a hitch on a Fedora based distribution, without modification of it's packaging structure and providing multiple downloads. I can't even promise something that runs on GNOME will run without issues on KDE and vice versa without the end user needing additional dependencies which may or may not be available on their preferred distribution release.

To sum it up.
Linux's freedom of choice hampers it's own marketability by making it unattractive to commercial developers. Without wide spread adoption by commercial developers, Linux will never even with project like WINE, and Mono develop a credible presence in the home desktop market. OSS, is only going to take Linux so far, the platform needs to become attractive to For Profit development groups as well. For Linux to gain wide spread acceptance it needs either a common file destructor between Distros, or a Universal compatibility system that majority of the major distributions accept (Red Hat, Ubuntu, SUSE, GENTOO, ect.) so that it eventually filters into derivative distributions creating a common platform for 3rd party developers to work off of.