Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Chat about Linux in general

Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Yes. Hundreds of Distros, each with multiple DE's, and some flooded app categories is too overwhelming for the general public.
54
40%
No. The insane amount of choice Linux offers is not limiting its popularity.
82
60%
 
Total votes: 136

exploder
Level 15
Level 15
Posts: 5532
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:50 am
Location: HartfordCity, Indiana USA
Contact:

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by exploder » Sun May 15, 2011 4:56 pm

So you think if people cooperate more, work together instead disperse, this should making to die the ideas? :shock: Hmm...
One of the things that makes Linux great is all of the choice and different ideas. Look at SliTaz for example, it is a very small iso and it makes old computers useful and keeps them out of our landfills. It is a brilliant piece of work and there are not too many distros that would devote the time to develop something like this. These guys came up with an idea and took the initiative to develop it.

The Mint menu is a good example of independent development. Clem recognized the potential the slab menu had and developed it. The number of distros that use the Mint menu just keeps growing.

The source code for both these projects is readily available, so anyone is free to use these ideas. This is true of lots of distributions doing their own thing. Where cooperation comes into play is in sharing working source for various packages, the various distributions simply need to take more advantage of what is available. Having more distributions generates more ideas and more potential bug fixes. Look at it this way, what if every distribution was Ubuntu based, Ubuntu will not run on everyone hardware. Ubuntu considers some hardware to be obsolete but people are still using this hardware. Mepis and PCLinuxOS both have the reputation of running on a very wide variety of hardware, this is why we need all of the choice.

There are distros like antiX that took the idea of using IceVM and making it into a complete system. These guys took something very few distributions use and developed it into something really nice. If there were less distributions to build from this great operating system might not exist. The idea of having a lot of different distributions gives developers the freedom to use their own ideas, applications, desktop environments, package management and the list goes on.

The problem with Linux is not the number of distributions and choice, it's the level of quality that goes into what is being released.

User avatar
linuxviolin
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2082
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: France

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by linuxviolin » Sat May 21, 2011 11:57 am

exploder wrote:it's the level of quality that goes into what is being released.
With this we agree :-)
K.I.S.S. ===> "Keep It Simple, Stupid"
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." (Leonardo da Vinci)
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." (Albert Einstein)

User avatar
sambo
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:55 pm
Location: kcmo

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by sambo » Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:37 pm

I'm not bothered a bit by the fact that Linux is not winning the popularity contest
or generating mountains of money. That is the fundamental antithesis of why GNU and Linux
were created. The idea of GNU was to promote freedom and Linux put that freedom right in front of us.
Creative thought branched in many different directions, which is a big reason why there are so many Linux flavors.
If we try to put a cap on this freedom (for money or otherwise), someone benefits, but 99.999% of us lose.
Anyway, Linux has its own popularity contest going on and it's pretty enjoyable.

User avatar
MALsPa
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2045
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: albuquerque

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by MALsPa » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:26 pm

sambo wrote:I'm not bothered a bit by the fact that Linux is not winning the popularity contest
or generating mountains of money. That is the fundamental antithesis of why GNU and Linux
were created. The idea of GNU was to promote freedom and Linux put that freedom right in front of us.
Creative thought branched in many different directions, which is a big reason why there are so many Linux flavors.
If we try to put a cap on this freedom (for money or otherwise), someone benefits, but 99.999% of us lose.
Well said!
sambo wrote:Anyway, Linux has its own popularity contest going on and it's pretty enjoyable.
:lol:

User avatar
mintnoob
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:46 pm
Location: USA

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by mintnoob » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:07 pm

40% vs 60% with almost 100 votes total. I think that's a significant % of Linuxers who agree with my thoughts about there being too much choice in Linux.
Chakra Linux

User avatar
MALsPa
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2045
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: albuquerque

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by MALsPa » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:29 pm

mintnoob wrote:40% vs 60% with almost 100 votes total. I think that's a significant % of Linuxers who agree with my thoughts about there being too much choice in Linux.
Yep. Well, it's a significant % of the people who bothered to vote in this poll, anyway. In over a year, 39 "yes" votes so far.

recyclebinjo
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:17 am

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by recyclebinjo » Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:28 am

I voted No because it's easy to narrow the choices down to a few mainstream distros and just go from there, while ignoring the hundreds of other more specialized ones you're sure you won't need. Sort of like how you decide on a new language to learn or new car to buy.

Also, I think Linux isn't as popular as you might expect it to be because Linux is more of a hobby than anything. Not everyone is as interested in computers as we are, so they won't bother messing around with them as much. Same thing with our cars or yards, if you're not interested in those things then you're probably not going to experiment with them either. That's why I think the vast number of distros to choose from isn't hurting Linux.

User avatar
mintnoob
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:46 pm
Location: USA

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by mintnoob » Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:56 pm

Uh on, not looking good:

Image
posted Oct 15th

Rounding out the top five, are OS X (though it's not clear whether that captures all of Cupertino's beasts) and Linux, which come in at 7 and 0.82 percent respectively. But don't take our word for it, hop on over to the source links and get your interactive chart on.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/15/wind ... -a-corner/
Chakra Linux

User avatar
monkeyboy
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 791
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by monkeyboy » Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:15 am

Who needs more users? In some folks opinions the user base supports too many distributions now. I ask, is in not logical to suspect that more users would just result in even more distributions. On the other hand more chaos is good thing in eyes of some. IMHO
If you don't like it, make something better
If you can't make something better, adapt
If you can't do either ball your panties up and cry.

Complaining is like masticating most anyone can do it.
However doing it in public is really hardcore.

randomizer
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 865
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:15 am

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by randomizer » Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:46 pm

Linux is grouped under "Other" for Australia. That's pretty sad :lol: Nevertheless, we have to remember where these numbers come from: a web tracking service. I happen to block these bugs, as I'm sure plenty of tech-savvy users do. I don't contribute to the Win 7 statistic either. :P

User avatar
rdanner3
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: Central Alabama, USA
Contact:

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by rdanner3 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:57 pm

Biker wrote:Using Linux isn't about sticking it to Microsoft. It's about using a tool that suits your purposes better than something else. I use Windows 7 as well as Linux. Both are excellent operating systems that do the tasks they're designed to do very well.
Windows 7 does some things well. One thing it has epic fail on is battery time.
Here's a real-world example from my experience:
  • In Win7 Home Premium x64, I barely have 2.5 hours of runtime with typical load while writing.
  • In Mint 10 or 12 x64/Gnome, with the exact same setup, my battery runtime can exceed 7 hours.
Obviously, Microsoft needs to learn how to better manage OS behavior while on battery! Linux Mint has it down pat. I mean, 3x the battery runtime vs. Windows 7 x64? Literally no contest. (Heck, I stay in Linux unless I need Windows for some reason, one of which being my ISP-based email addresses... which I do not check as much as I need to, based directly on the fact I prefer long battery life to the high drain of Windows constantly hitting the HDD for no apparently-good reason.
Toshiba Satellite A505-S6005 on LM18.3 x64 (MATE/LXDE).
Linux dabbler since 1996. Registered Linux User #547455
Serious Linux user since Linux Mint 9 (also x64).

User avatar
rdanner3
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: Central Alabama, USA
Contact:

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by rdanner3 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:40 pm

nunol wrote:For the average computer user the operating system used is the one that comes with that computer. The typical user does not install a new OS and it's very difficult to buy a computer with linux instead of Windows or Mac on a normal computer store.
Agreed, but part of the problem is that Microsoft is very aggressive in making OEMs sign non-competitive agreements that often prevent them from loading (or even offering) Linux as an alternative. Add that to the fact that some OEMs (HP, for example!) tie the machine's warranty to the existence and use of Windows as the primary OS for the machine, and you have yet another reason people are getting fed up with the constant BS coming out of Redmond and their affiliated shills in the computer world.

However, the points made that most of the time, Windows simply works is very true.

Until Linux gets to that point, where if (for example) you plug in cellphone Y and it simply connects without issues, when that cellphone already works great in Windows, popularity will not and cannot increase significantly. Most users are not technologically savvy, nor are they willing to put out the effort (and expense!) of learning Linux Admin (as I am as part of my work!)...when the end-user versions of Windows do not require use of the CLI at all unless the user chooses to use it. The power of the well-designed GUI (and I am not implying that the majority of the major desktops for Linux are not well-designed; in fact, I believe that KDE and Gnome, to name two, are fairly well-designed, although Gnome 3 certainly has its irksome moments) is in the fact that it hides the nuts and bolts and cranks 'em in the background. Most users do not care to pull out their wrench and twist the odd bolt to drive their car, and the same thing applies to the OS.
Toshiba Satellite A505-S6005 on LM18.3 x64 (MATE/LXDE).
Linux dabbler since 1996. Registered Linux User #547455
Serious Linux user since Linux Mint 9 (also x64).

lmintnewb
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:13 pm

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by lmintnewb » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:34 pm

Am sure I've posted to this thread already. Not willing to dig through it and find what I thought of it ( at the time ). Just some more of my patent pending babblings and gnu/nix obs.
mintnoob wrote:40% vs 60% with almost 100 votes total. I think that's a significant % of Linuxers who agree with my thoughts about there being too much choice in Linux.
Yep. Well, it's a significant % of the people who bothered to vote in this poll, anyway. In over a year, 39 "yes" votes so far.
MalsPa also think people need to take Mint's target audience into account. From what I understand LM does a lot to specifically target nix newbs and migrating windows users. When anyone gets into something like switching to a new OS, think they might tend to think things are too complicated, w too many choices. People who devote a bit of time to understand the subject no doubt aren't overwhelmed and appreciate the massive selection of choices and scalability opensource offers people. So folks just starting out outlooks will likely change in time. Gnu/LInux is not rocket science and having choices, options and alternatives aplenty imo CANNOT be a bad thing EVER.

Also gives different gnu/Linux distributors more incentive to keep making their software better, add something new, keep pushing the envelope and contributing advances to compete and make their distro more popular. Something that in the end benefits everyone involved ( esp end users). One of the reasons the end result software is soooo dang good and cannot be replicated in a corp closed source lab. So many different perspectives and people contributing. Someone would be hard pressed ( if it's even poss) to buy that kinda development and support ... At any amount.

No matter what, the typing I've done here and threads like this are pointless. The way opensource and gnu/Linux developers work overall is not going to change one iota based on anyone's opinion on it. The genie is long since out of the bottle and won't be going back. Nor will all the massive diversity involved in opensource like Linux dry up and disappear. By design it CAN'T ... just that simple.

My opinion ... too much, too many isn't hurting anything. If anything hopefully will eventually help gnu/Nix gain momentum. As it gains more users and fans and hopefully we promote our favorite gnu/Linuxy goodness to others. Windows users eventually might discover that hey ! Out of the 423 actively supported distro's on distrowatch ( and gazillion opensource options I have.) 419 of em are as good and many better than the stuff M$ is selling me !! D:

lol.

rjs
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:27 pm

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by rjs » Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:41 pm

I for one don't believe Linux has an "insane amount of choice". As such, more choices would be welcomed of course.

Example: Show me a serious replacement for Gimp
Example: Show me a serious replacement for Blender
Example: Show me a snap in working replacement for the Linux Kernel, that isn't a Linux Kernel

If one is talking about the more than numerous linux distributions, well, all boiled down there isn't really all that much out there
for diversity. One might use apt vs yum, rpm vs deb etc.., one might have a different default package set, desktop, etc.. but all in all Linux is Linux.

OpenOffice? LibreOffice? = 2. Again, Not a large number of alternatives. Certainly no "insane amount of choice", both
pretty much accomplish the same thing. Oh, that's right, they both started from the same place as well.

All the forks and repackaging might "seem" like an "insane_amount_of_choice", but in reality it's not IMO.

The one place you might see some real difference would be the DE. Or KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Enlightenment, LXDE, Blackbox, etc..
Add them all up and I don't see any "insane_amount_of_choice". So why anyone would want "Less" choice doesn't make sense to me.

"Yes. Hundreds of Distros, each with multiple DE's, and some flooded app categories is too overwhelming for the general public."

Flooded app categories too overwhelming for the general public? You'll most likely have a larger decision to make when you select your bathroom tissue from the multitude of brands that claim they are softer.
---
"LMDE - Linux Mint Debian Edition - Debian, with a touch of elegance." -rjs

lmintnewb
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:13 pm

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by lmintnewb » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:18 pm

Dang it, last post for awhile, per usual am spacing off more important stuff to babble on pointlessly on a gnu/nix forum. Not meaning to argue, we're actually saying the same thing overall .... choice is good, diversity is good, alternatives and a wide selection are good. I don't even know why all the people assoc w all these great opensource projs do what they do. Where do they find the time, energy and generousity to keep things going ? Boggles my mind, though am not the worlds foremost expert on opensource. Will never claim to be, nor truth be told even wanna be. Don't want to invest that kinda time trying to be.

Couple obs though ( yes ... pointless, cause it's still a post on a nix forum that won't amount to much and only my take on things.)

There is a massive amount of diversity with gnu/nix imo. DE's/WM's combinations thereof, ( try the default, don't like it, takes a couple mins to install others and a couple secs switching between em. Not sure how ? Google or ask on a forum like this.) Usually 75 diff apps that can all do the same thing, massive differences and diversity. You have some gnu/nix projs that specialize in cutting edge, others that specialize in outdated low spec hardware, others that have something for everyone ( like LM for instance). It can boggle the mind and is mostly a fantastic situation for all the end users who have access to it. If you just want to watch youtube without M$ running your PC, no problem, if you want 36 multiboots doing this, that the other ... no problem, if you want to invest the time to find what works best for your situation.

Though agree that much of gnu/Linux seems to have common ground. Again if you're willing to invest the time to bother with it, or ya never wanna leave the GUI ( graphical user interface.) That's good too, your choice.

Thing about GIMP, think sometimes it's just not practical to have forks of something imo. Why would someone want to fork it or reinvent the wheel and spend who knows how long trying to come up with a replacement for something, when someone else already dumped years into making great software for it ?

Linux kernel ... believe bsd can work, might not be snap in. But for someone that wants a snap in alternative ... sure it isn't rocket science. I wouldn't bother with even trying to learn how to do it, the Linux kernel works just fine in Linux. Again reason why most distro's would never think about coming out with such a thing, is the dang kernels been a work in progress for 20yrs with a couple decades of talent and energy poured into it. Some distro's use distro spec patches or whatnot from what I understand. Then again, there are options for someone who wants a hyper space kernel, roll and compile your own, tweaked kernels and the beat goes on. Not something the avg person ( including myself ) will likely ever need or want to bother with when it comes done for ya on an iso.

Libreoffice is openoffice, when support for openoffice dropped some people picked up on the opensource and kept it going via LO. There are a ton of text editing choices out there too. A mainstream gnu/nix distro is likely to come with a wideeeeee selection of default software already installed, if someone doesn't like one app, a quick search in the repos and in 3mins ( or less ) they can be using something else.

Then you have gnu/nix elitest distro's like Arch or whatever, where very lil comes default cause its meant for people who know what they are doing/want etc. And it's left up to them what apps they want to install. Ya pop up in an Arch forum asking horribly nix newbish questions that you should've been able to sort out for yourself in 20mins on google, folks there are likely to tell someone RTFM dood. And imo ... they'd be right. We made this for x users, we make it clear that it's for x users only, newbs need not apply. Please visit the ubuntu forums until and/or unless you ever become ready. So forth, lol. Only Arch Ive ever tried was Archbang ( prerolled derivative of Arch/CB hybrid. Though do believe it has access to the AUR didn't spend enough time trying it out to really get the hang of it), didn't like it and think they aren't doing crunchbang any favors with what I tried. Pure Arch ... betting could be fantastic. if I want to spend 3wks configing this, googling that ... blahblahblah, when some great gnu/nix proj already has something that would work great in a handy dandy iso I just have to bother to install.

To end this pointless rant, choice is good, options and alternatives are great. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to use or choose from all this great software. Bit of googling, find something that looks interesting ... try it. Don't like it ... no problem, try something else out. Flip a coin ... summin. It's up to you how little or far into it you want to go. You want to watch youtube and go no further ? Have at it. Ya wanna invest the time and trouble learning more ? ... Great, proceed as ya see fit and interest or time allows.

Can only say, pick summin already. I think it's amazing what's been done with all this great opensource software. All us end users willing to experiment or invest however much time totally win. Bless the people who've done all this, all their hard work, sacrafice and generosity ... It's amazing, imo anyway. But doesn't have to be rocket science ... Flip a friggin coin if ya don't know what to do. :D

exploder
Level 15
Level 15
Posts: 5532
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:50 am
Location: HartfordCity, Indiana USA
Contact:

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by exploder » Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:58 pm

Choice is good because different people want different things. Windows and Mac are kind of a one size fits all system, not everyone wants that. My idea of a perfect operating might not be the same as yours, we may have different hardware, needs or different views on how the graphical user interface should be. Some people like the idea of a rolling release and some feel that stability comes from leaving things alone that are working, both points of view have valid reasoning. Some people want a pure open source system and some want a mix of both. There are countless differences between Linux distributions.

There are a lot of reasons to validate choice and it's great that we have all these choices! Enjoy the choices you have been given!

User avatar
eightup1
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:35 pm

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by eightup1 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:40 pm

too many distros ? the vast majority of distros aren't even meant to be used as an every day working desktop. most are experimental projects , lots are meant to be used for servers only others are for firewalls . a great deal of these distros will only ever be found and tried by experienced linux users . for the most part for someone coming to linux for the first time all there is to choose from is ubuntu, debian, mint and maybe fedora ... i don't think that 4 choices is to overwhelming for a first time user

User avatar
rdanner3
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: Central Alabama, USA
Contact:

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by rdanner3 » Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:47 pm

eightup1 wrote:too many distros ? the vast majority of distros aren't even meant to be used as an every day working desktop. most are experimental projects , lots are meant to be used for servers only others are for firewalls . a great deal of these distros will only ever be found and tried by experienced linux users . for the most part for someone coming to linux for the first time all there is to choose from is ubuntu, debian, mint and maybe fedora ... i don't think that 4 choices is to overwhelming for a first time user
I do recall (too clearly!) when I downloaded a LiveCD of Gentoo... and looked in dismay at the seriously colorful, text-based boot screen. And never did find XWindows at all on that distro. Was advised to do "emerge universe", which I knew was nutso, too. Eventually, I found a post that read "Do not do "emerge universe" unless you want everything that is compatible with Gentoo on your machine. It will also take quite some time, as much of Gentoo is compiled directly from source." (or something to that effect).

You forgot to mention *BSD, of which FreeBSD and NetBSD are the most likely to be usable for newbies, or FreeSpire...which LinSpire is based heavily on. BOUGHT Linspire, discovered LinSpire would not run on my computer of the period, so (in desperation) tried FreeSpire. It worked. Heck, I still HAVE my LinSpire 5 CD. May try it in LiveCD mode and see if it supports this machine, just for the fun of it.

Seriously, reverted to Mint 10 because I despised how Mint 12 continually hit the HDD, even in idle with no user programs loaded. It was a hard thing to decide, but it seems to be the right choice for me right now.
Toshiba Satellite A505-S6005 on LM18.3 x64 (MATE/LXDE).
Linux dabbler since 1996. Registered Linux User #547455
Serious Linux user since Linux Mint 9 (also x64).

User avatar
rcentros
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by rcentros » Fri May 08, 2015 5:48 am

mintnoob wrote: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.
Let me guess, you go by the name of "Snit" on comp.os.linux.advocacy, right?

What you believe about choice and the number of distributions in Linux is moot -- it's not going to change. Folks who like freedom also like choice, but that's also moot. The very nature of Open Source and the ability to "spin your own" distribution means that new distributions will come out just every month. Some are highly specialized, most are closely related to specific Linux "families," but that's also irrelevant. There's also danger in lack of choice -- one person, or one group could take control of Linux if it "united" to a specific distribution (kind of like situation with Windows & OS X). Also, it would be much easier for malware writers to attack Linux, if it was based on a common distribution with common applications. I like it the way it is. If a distribution goes the way I don't want to go -- I can choose another distribution.

Non-problem solved.

English Invader
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:53 am

Re: Would Linux be more popular with LESS choice?

Post by English Invader » Fri May 08, 2015 6:30 am

As has already been said, choice is what makes Linux great only I would go a step further and say the more choice the merrier (whether a distro is poor or not is up to the individual).

Personally, I don't care if Joe Public likes Linux or not. People either get Linux or they don't. If they want another version of Windows, they should use Windows.

Post Reply

Return to “Chat about Linux”