Linux is death... (oh ok, this might be a rant)

This what i found today on my favorite rss feed.
Slashdot Linux Story | Desktop Linux Is Dead

and, no. I am still a happy penguin. lol!

I always wondered, if Linux was even competing at all.
But even if not, it is still interesting what the platform has become. And that in a good sense.
Perhaps not a lot of people are even aware of the fact, that there is a thing called Linux.

M$ sponsored ****…
Nothing new, fud as always been.

The funny thing is, there was another article where it was mentioned that MS looses actually numbers on the enterprise level. More companies planing to use Linux as their base than Windows. I think that is encouraging.

Nothing new indeed, just as the articles that “this year will be →the year of the Linux desktop” (I’ve been reading that every year since I am using Linux).

If ($read_info > 100) {
skip $article;
}

Sometimes I think this kind of articles is in some cron job at a linux machine at M$. The job translates an english article to a second language, translates that to a third language, adds “1” to the year number, translates all that back to english, et voila, we have a news.
Next week the subject will be “linux virusses on the move” if my suspicions are right.

I saw that article also, and it set me thinking.

While interesting points are raised, in the end I came to the conclusion that this is a ‘personality’ issue. The author initially made what I thought was a completely unrealistic and incredibly over-optimistic assessment that this year (or was it last year or the year before) would the “year of Linux” in which it would make enormous inroads into the desktop market. I say unrealistic only because my view is it is completely unrealistic. I’ve long had the view that any inroads Linux make will be very very VERY slow (sloooooooowwwwwwww ) over time.

Now the author of that (unrealistic) claim realizes they were wrong, and they are trying to back track.

So instead of a conservative post back tracking, they are now putting attention grabbing headlines of the death of Linux (but if one reads their text, they admit it won’t be the death of Linux).

I just see this as more of the same. Its just journalism with an odd spattering of fact.

In essence what I think is important is we all (ie all Linux distributions) try to work together to improve the future of this great open source operating system (Linux) and if what we see in the past holds true in the future, then we have an OS which while most definitely far from perfect, is not that far from the commercial Windows and MacIntosh products. Especially for average to advanced users, I find the capability I get with Linux, cannot be matched by my friends (the vast majorithy of whom use MS-Windows) unless they use pirated software. I say unless they use pirated software (which many of them do) because they can not afford the commercial software to achieve the same capability as I can get with Linux.

I had mod points and I avoided spending any in that huge thread. These guys have to write or starve. I put this right up there with E-weeks 10 reasons why articles.

Most people are even more clueless that I am about operating systems and think a computer automatically means Windows. They treat it like an appliance. As long as they can open up their virus laden email and get their driveby downloaded malware they are happy as clams. They never update their virus definitions or scan their systems. Linux doesn’t need users like that. Maybe Windows 7 UAC will stop some of that but most of them log in to the administrator account and turn UAC off and run programs as administrator as far as I can tell.

LOls @ OldCPU

Not sure I care whether it conquerers the desktop or not. It’s a major force everywhere else from supercomputers to servers to mobile operating systems to embedded systems.

Well, there is a point to make.
I think we all can be happy about Ubuntu in that regard. Since it makes Linux more aware to, let say, average user, it contributes to the overall linux growth. (i hope i make myself not many enemies with that statement)
What would be really nice, is a more classification of Linux distros for the aimed purpose aka office etc…

Even with this post (on slashdot) this feed is one of my favorite. Some useless, some amusing and some really good. I mostly follow the comments. :slight_smile:

My only problem with Ubuntu is how it does security. It’s a fine disto for complete newbies otherwise.

Linux has already won on the Server front.

I started out with a French distro and now I am on a German one :smiley:

Let me guess - you started off with Mandriva? - Thats the only french distro I know of.

As with most useless half baked ‘this is better than that’ and ‘this great that is dead’, it speaks without substance. What are they calling the desktop?, Which Desktop?, Under what Distrobutions?, under what class of application?, under what levels of integration?, etc …

My desktop works well for (and even better than Windows for):

  1. Spreadsheets, Database creation and management, word processing, desktop publishing, presentations
  2. CD/DVD authoring, even with CDPrint/DVDPrint
  3. Programming
  4. Image editing, Image capture, etc…
  5. Sound recording and playback
  6. Website creation and management
  7. Email & Internet
  8. Very Basic Video production (limited by my experience with such not Linux Desktop capabilities)

The only points that are lacking on my system are:

  1. Ability to use my USB710 Video capture device (windows only driver problem)
  2. Canon F4400 scanner (no Linux support for device)
  3. Mustek EppIII Scanner (Linux removed support for this scanner back in 1999)

So I can’t see any trueth to the desktop being dead. Lagging driver support & poor driver integration quite rightly stated. I really don’t understand why the drivers must be integrated into the kernel. What was wrong with the old UNIX, AIX method of using driver management integrated into the kernel and at boot, the driver management file would be read and appropriate drivers would be added via dld’s? Thusly, to change the drivers available to the kernel one would simply change the dld resource file install the drivers as root and do a warm kernel refresh. To me this makes more sense then to recompile the kernel to update drivers. But then that just MHO.

The server people won on the driver intigration to the kernel I think techwiz03. If you looked well you would see they are the people that want this for speed. The desktop doesn’t need that so much. Look at the numbers and I think you will see the server stuff out numbers stuff that supports desktops.

That does not make sense! at all. When you boot the server’s kernel it is true you can make a special stripped down kernel with the minimal drivers or you can use the standard kernel with all drivers and have both server and desktop on the same machine. In UNIX and AIX the actual kernel code that handles dld is so small as to be negligable. If when booting or hot-refreshing, the dld settings say include dldxxx then that module is used otherwise it isn’t even seen. So for a stripped down system to act only as a server the dld settings file would be almost empty and the dld settings for a desktop with specific hardware like webcams, scanners, printers, camera’s, usb-flash etc would have appropriate drivers listed.

No need for two different kernels (one without bunch of drivers and one with drivers) As someone that has done system level programming, it has nothing to do with speed, nothing to with resource use, and the like. The average server uses less than 1/100th of available CPU cycles, almost no memory to speak of. The only argument that does make sense is that while UNIX and AIX are proprietary paid systems and have the drivers supplied from paid venders to facilitate this method of standardized integration, Linux would need it’s own dld loader that is opensource and make rules for how the drivers must be designed for dld loading. IMHO both are quite do-able

The people selling Linux for servers seem to be the ones paying for development.

Some number from last year are here:
The big guns of Linux kernel development

Interesting that IBM, which sells RedHat and SLES servers, is near the top but other companies that sell truckloads of Linux servers, like HP and Dell, contribute less than one might think. Dell doesn’t even appear on the list. Other groups that appear on the list include super computer companies–which I think mostly run SLES (IBM, SGI, Fujitsu, etc.), the embedded device companies (MontaVista, MIPS, Analog Devices), then a bunch of other well-known names such as Oracle, Intel, Google, …

More than 70 percent of total kernel contributions come from developers working at large companies including obvious participants like Red Hat, IBM, Novell, and Intel as well as other less obvious small companies such as Parallels.

  1. Red Hat: 12.3%
  2. IBM: 7.6%
  3. Novell: 7.6%
  4. Intel: 5.3%
  5. Independent consultant: 2.5%
  6. Oracle: 2.4%
  7. Linux Foundation: 1.6%
  8. SGI 1.6%

A sidebar to the initial data is the fact that much of the development is done by users who don’t necessarily identify themselves as employees of specific organizations, even if they are.

  • Red Hat 36.4%
  • Google 10.5%
  • Novell 8.2%
  • None 6%
  • Intel 6.4%
  • IBM 5.3%

Ignore. I double posted by accident.

I never wondered if Linux would become a main Desktop OS it doesn’t matter to me. If people want to learn to use Linux then they’ll learn if they don’t want to learn then they can just chill with Microsoft doesn’t matter to me.

This article is insulting. As always MS is using such silly people to adverstise her but not with this way. This mode is for laughs. Something like paid journalists. Let us see their weaknesses and then talk. Such phrases belong to fowl and cowards. If you think that MS uses Linux for its programs, they would not say these stupid words.