PDA

View Full Version : Why Linux Has Failed on the Desktop (and Microsoft has succeeded)


radekhulan
07-24-07, 02:55 PM
Why Linux Has Failed on the Desktop (and how Microsoft has succeeded in crushing innovation in personal computers)

written by Linux kernel developer

http://apcmag.com/6759/interview_with_con_kolivas_part_1_computing_is_bor ing

grey_1
07-24-07, 04:12 PM
I'm timing out on the link with ie7, nothing loads with FF.

I'd love to read that.


EDIT: nvm, opened now.

Edit again! Excellent read. I didn't know ck was bugging out. He hit the nail on the head about the problems with bug reporting, and the devs focus on enterprise solutions. Thanks for posting.

Wolfhound
07-24-07, 06:40 PM
Nice article, itīs a shame Con Kolivas stopped his patchset for linux kernel, I had used it for years in all my linux installs

Ancient
07-25-07, 08:01 AM
Interesting article. He seems to be a bit romantic reminiscing about the old hardware though. He forgets that in the old days much of the hardware being put out was in proprietary form. Syquest disks were great, but you couldn't put them in a Zip drive and vice versa. 3dfx had GLide. Creative had their own propreitary thing going. MS helped to unify all that. If he wants to view that unification and universal interoperability as a bad thing, fine. I'm not sure everyone would agree with him. I certainly don't.

As far as crushing innovation, the Linux developers are free to innovate in Linux. Nobody is stopping them. Unfortunately they don't seem to provide any real innovation. Instead they seem bent on trying to deliver a better clone of Windows. Apparently developer egos amongst their core development groups are preventing that from happening too.

ViN86
07-25-07, 08:56 AM
Why Linux Has Failed on the Desktop (and how Microsoft has succeeded in crushing innovation in personal computers)

written by Linux kernel developer

http://apcmag.com/6759/interview_with_con_kolivas_part_1_computing_is_bor ing
umm, why is your thread title so misleading...

/me waits for ghost to enter

six_storm
07-25-07, 09:00 AM
Dang Euro, you're on a roll! :D

I believe that Linux has come a long way since the first few times I tried it. And yeah, I'll agree that Linux still isn't the best desktop OS available (not the most user friendly OS by a hair) but I think it's awesome how much stuff you get FOR FREE.

Windows *was* the only OS back in the day worth dealing with and just like Ancient said, it pulled everything together well. But now there are alternatives on the horizon and yeah, people are going to try them out. Some may stick with it, some may not. The Linux community is awesome IMO and are coming up with some really cool stuff.

TheTaz
07-27-07, 08:25 PM
Here's an interview with Linus About GPL v3, but has a bit about why Open Source is better than proprietary (Obviously not talking gaming here).

http://www.oneopensource.it/interview-linus-torvalds/

Well, historically, the most important lesson from Microsoft - and one they themselves seem to have forgotten - is simply “Give your customers what they want”.

I think the reason Microsoft was so successful was that they filled a niche with some very basic technology (and in this case, early on, that basic technology was literally the BASIC language - that’s how they largely got started), and they sold it cheap and made it “good enough”. They didn’t play games with the customer.

Of course, that seems to have changed. A lot about the last few years of Microsoft seems to very much be playing games with customers: their licensing and what, seven different “versions” of Vista, and all the DRM crap they are trying to push on their customers are not actually what anybody wants.

So Microsoft has always been good about marketing and selling, and their strong hold on the market has also caused them to become a standardized platform. That’s generally all good for customers. They’ve left some of that behind (now they are trying to splinter their market on purpose with Vista and pushing DirectX 10 only on the new platform, for example), but I think their historical successes are worth looking at.

I think the real issue about adoption of open source is that nobody can really ever “design” a complex system. That’s simply not how things work: people aren’t that smart - nobody is. And what open source allows is to not actually “design” things, but let them evolve, through lots of different pressures in the market, and having the end result just continually improve.

And doing so in the open, and allowing all these different entities to cross-pollinate their ideas with each other, and not having arbitrary boundaries with NDA’s and “you cannot look at how we did this”, is just a better way.

I compare it with science and witchcraft (or alchemy). Science may take a few hundred years to figure out how the world works, but it does actually get there, exactly because people can build on each others knowledge, and it evolves over time. In contrast, witchcraft/alchemy may be about smart people, but the knowledge body never “accumulates” anywhere. It might be passed down to an apprentice, but the hiding of information basically means that it can never really become any better than what a single person/company can understand.

And that’s exactly the same issue with open source vs proprietary products. The proprietary people can design something that is smart, but it eventually becomes too complicated for a single entity (even a large company) to really understand and drive, and the company politics and the goals of that company will always limit it.

In contrast, open source works well in a complex environment. Maybe nobody at all understands the big picture, but evolution doesn’t require global understanding, it just requires small local improvements and a open market (”survival of the fittest”).

So I think a lot of companies are slowly starting to adopt more open source, simply because they see these things that work, and they realize that they would have a hard time duplicating it on their own. Do they really buy into my world view? Probably not. But they can see it working for individual projects.

Anyway... MS has recognized Open Source as a way to do certain things... and this:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2162940,00.asp

Proves MS wants "in on it".

/shrug

nekrosoft13
07-27-07, 09:32 PM
\and then evilghost walks in and all Hell breaks loose

evilghost
07-27-07, 10:16 PM
RAWR!!!!!

radekhulan
07-28-07, 04:26 PM
Very interesting followup from Linus:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/14008

hell_of_doom227
07-28-07, 08:28 PM
Because Linux sucks. Nobody wants to install or setup video card from command prompt line nowdays. Same for any other app. Also Linux doesn't support DX which makes video card useless, so do gaming.

six_storm
07-28-07, 10:56 PM
Because Linux sucks. Nobody wants to install or setup video card from command prompt line nowdays. Same for any other app. Also Linux doesn't support DX which makes video card useless, so do gaming.

n00b . . .

Nice new avatar evilghost, I likes!

damicatz
07-29-07, 12:05 AM
Because Linux sucks. Nobody wants to install or setup video card from command prompt line nowdays. Same for any other app. Also Linux doesn't support DX which makes video card useless, so do gaming.

Actually, Linux does support DX. Through both Wine and Cedega. And the Wine project is actually working on a DX10->OpenGL wrapper that will allow DX10 games to run on Windows XP, despite Microsoft's insistence that such an act is impossible.

And installing the graphics driver in Linux is much easier than installing it in Windows. And you can do it without rebooting your computer. apt-get install nvidia-glx.

evilghost
07-29-07, 01:18 AM
Because Linux sucks. Nobody wants to install or setup video card from command prompt line nowdays. Same for any other app. Also Linux doesn't support DX which makes video card useless, so do gaming.

I'm curious to see if we'll be able to mine additional gems of wisdom from you in the future. I'm amazing at your assertion that DX support is indicative of video card value and usability. Of course, I'm not suffering from rectal-cranium inversion.

Capt. Picard
07-29-07, 01:37 AM
Here's an interview with Linus About GPL v3, but has a bit about why Open Source is better than proprietary (Obviously not talking gaming here).

http://www.oneopensource.it/interview-linus-torvalds/





Anyway... MS has recognized Open Source as a way to do certain things... and this:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2162940,00.asp

Proves MS wants "in on it".

/shrug

I've got an idea that MS are kicking themselves that they haven't gotten onto the Linux bandwagon a long time ago already. If they had brought out their own distro of Linux, (but you pay for the support and maybe some extra features) I'm sure they could make some serious money from that ... or am I wrong.

It would eliminate the opposition and it would satisfy the open source cravings in people.

grey_1
07-29-07, 04:57 AM
I've got an idea that MS are kicking themselves that they haven't gotten onto the Linux bandwagon a long time ago already. If they had brought out their own distro of Linux, (but you pay for the support and maybe some extra features) I'm sure they could make some serious money from that ... or am I wrong.

It would eliminate the opposition and it would satisfy the open source cravings in people.
Several distros have tried making a buck this way and failed. lol, I just can't see MS on the open source bandwagon.

TheTaz
07-30-07, 08:43 PM
Here is Linus's response to Con Kolivas...

http://kerneltrap.org/node/14008

"People who think SD was 'perfect' were simply ignoring reality," Linus Torvalds began in a succinct explanation as to why he chose the CFS scheduler written by Ingo Molnar instead of the SD scheduler written by Con Kolivas. He continued, "sadly, that seemed to include Con too, which was one of the main reasons that I never entertained the notion of merging SD for very long at all: Con ended up arguing against people who reported problems, rather than trying to work with them." He went on to stress the importance of working toward a solution that is good for everyone, "that was where the SD patches fell down. They didn't have a maintainer that I could trust to actually care about any other issues than his own." He then offered some praise to Ingo, "as a long-term maintainer, trust me, I know what matters. And a person who can actually be bothered to follow up on problem reports is a *hell* of a lot more important than one who just argues with reporters." Linus went on to note a comparison between the two schedulers...

So... The decision (according to Linus) to not choose Con's "Desktop scheduler" had nothing to do with the "desktop" nor "Corporations forcing decisions". It had more to do with the guy not maintaining his code properly, and basically being a jerk to people that reported bugs with his scheduler.

-Taz

Rakeesh
07-31-07, 03:00 AM
The reason "linux" (and I use quotes, because linux is just the kernel and nothing else) won't become a mainstream desktop OS is because there is virtually no standard platform whatsoever.

Software vendors have to go through hell just to provide support for their software on linux. Most of the time the "community" response to support questions is something along the lines of oh...say...RTFM.

Without support, you'll have a hell of a time trying to sell software to begin with. This is why most software you'll ever see is written only for windows. So long as most software is written only for windows, that is going to be your only choice.

evilghost
07-31-07, 08:19 AM
Polar opposite of my experiences, take the Nvidia binary drives for example, feel free to review the NVIDIA Linux Forum and tell me exactly how many "RTFM" posts you see versus legitimate community support and help, or vendor support.

There is standardization so I'm confused, the same argument could be made for vendor support between XP and Vista; where are the standards? Usually Linux software is open source and support is what is sold, not the actual software product.