The Year 2006 For Linux.

[anandk]

Nine reasons why 2006 wasn't a lost year for Linux

"While the operating system market is still dominated by Microsoft and shows little sign of changing that doesn't mean that all other options have failed hopelessly because there were some significant gains made over the past 12 months...some good examples..."

a contrasting article here :

Another lost year for linux

"Ever since Linux came out of the shadow and made the front cover in most computing magazines as the next big thing all of it’s fans wait for the day that it’s market share will grow and “eat” Microsoft windows. Yet it’s almost 8 years so far and Microsoft is still dominating the market. On the other hand Linux (created as a desktop system initially) is still bottoming at about 3% of desktops worldwide. Things are better on the server side but I think that if apache wasn’t the dominant web server, Linux would be bottoming here too..."

both make good reading.

 

[gary4gar]

i can't say how was 2006 for linux, but one is for sure Open source comminty is evolving day by day, the one thing we have to do is that reduce the no of distro's & unite all developers. So much effort is being wasted as same work is done again & again.

As far as i am concerd i was moved from a n00b to a newbie in past 6 months, now also its a long way to go......

 

[mehulved]

the one thing we have to do is that reduce the no of distro's

I'd like to see more distros evolving, mostly from different companies coming in, it will bring in more money into the OSS arena and also give us more choice. The beauty of linux is in it's diversity, why else is it open source? So, different people can customise it to the different needs. So, we need more distros, IMO.

 

[~Phenom~]

^^agree.

 

[gxsaurav]

nah, it's not desktop friendly even still

like said above, make it simple for joe user, & stick to some damn standerd, one driver doesn't work for other distro, there are different app packages for each distro, can't they all have one

 

[Pathik]

i agree wit this one

 

[planetcall]

Actually IMO we dont really need more distros. We already have wide options which create more confusion than help. What computer users require is the usability of linux OS in contrast to Windows. It still requires playing all odds to get things working. Linux still has a long way to go. Though, there are many other opensource projects making inroad for greater acceptance of FOSS. Overall I see a bright future of linux as the development in last couple of years has been tremendous.

 

[mehulved]

There should be interoperatibility but not homogenity. It will just negate the need for differentiation. gx you should learn a lot about FOSS before saying these things.
__________

Actually IMO we dont really need more distros. We already have wide options which create more confusion than help. What computer users require is the usability of linux OS in contrast to Windows. It still requires playing all odds to get things working. Linux still has a long way to go. Though, there are many other opensource projects making inroad for greater acceptance of FOSS. Overall I see a bright future of linux as the development in last couple of years has been tremendous.

There is a need for more IMO. Just see what the inception of Ubuntu did to Linux, then have a look at DesktopBSD and PC-BSD, they have made BSD easier and with iXsystems taking over the project, PC-BSD has grown tremendously. WIth these player, comes money and money gets incentives and finance for developers to work more and get in better products and services. So, we definitely need more players in the market.

 

[Aberforth]

Why I'm Still a Windows User - I have tried linux on and off and now I'm getting a little more involved. When I first tried out Red Hat in 2003 I wasn't very impressed as there was a lot of running through hoops to get minor tasks done. Now linux has improved a lot, like Ubuntu and OpenSuse both of which I liked and I use OpenSuse, but still Windows is my primary OS as its still the easiest to use. I never had stability or security issues with Windows XP, viruses only twice (by infected media). I have all the software I need either open source or free (legally free). Linux isn't the only OS with good OSS' or free softwares like many Linux zealots make it sound like. Most of Linux softwares are available for Windows too. Software installation is still the easiest in Windows and a small mistake does not break the whole system. Windows XP and Macs are still far more intuitive for a normal, average users, I spent a lot of time to get my sound card up and running in both Ubuntu and Suse. Securing and optimizing Windows is more pleasant and involves less effort than getting a Linux system up and running for the same output. Some softwares like iTunes and WMP do not have a suitable replacement in Linux, at least from my point of view.

Why do I use Linux - Linux has that human side being open source and free (most good distros) and also has a lot of very good softwares which run natively on Linux. It also is native to one of the best and most stable server Apache and database system mySQL. PHP is also more stable in Linux. I also have a lot of options while configuring many aspects of my system which I lack in Windows. I also like the 'smoothness' when running applications, the special effects of XGL+Compiz and the east of connecting to a wireless network, the security options, options of desktop environments and wide customisation of looks. Linux isn't the perfect replacement for Windows yet, but if the development is organised instead of the 'something here and something there' of now, it'll grow. OpenSuse and Ubuntu are both heading in this way....a lot of the others are still tied to geeks.

So you get the picture...

 

[eddie]

I am in agreement with planetcall on this one. Currently Linux needs more standards rather than more forks or more "options" as we love to call them.

Currently it is too tough for software and hardware developers to support Linux which makes Linux become "difficult" for users. Distrowatch currently shows 351 distros in its common statistics and that is not even close to the number of distros that are out there. How many "MORE" do we need? What we really need is a standards based system and not more distros that take their own paths.

 

[Aberforth]

We need organised effort in a certain number of distros so that developers could concentrate on them. Hardware manufaturers don't bother in Linux drivers as there would be too many to make or just leave it at source tar.gz or tgz. files which put the burden on end users. If I'm an average user I'd e wondering, "Why the hell would I want to shift to Linux when I have what I need in Windows and it would take a lot of time and effort to do the same in Linux".

 

[mehulved]

Yeah, compatbility and interoperatbility are necessary. We can have more distros coming up, but they can have some kind of similar base, so that it's easy to make softwares that can be installed very easily on all the distros.

 

[planetcall]

If distros are so similar then there wont be so many of them anyway. There is only one windows that rules the world. Users dont really need 100 of them to choose for. Linux needs to concentrate on the usability. Also, interoperability would allow the lacking softwares to be used on Linux and Windows both. Indeed there are serious steps already taken in this regard for example wine etc. Kubuntu and suse are doing equally well in making things more graphical and wizard oriented. Piracy also is a factor for more window users around the globe.

 

[gary4gar]

I am in agreement with planetcall on this one. Currently Linux needs more standards rather than more forks or more "options" as we love to call them.

Currently it is too tough for software and hardware developers to support Linux which makes Linux become "difficult" for users. Distrowatch currently shows 351 distros in its common statistics and that is not even close to the number of distros that are out there. How many "MORE" do we need? What we really need is a standards based system and not more distros that take their own paths.

i was also trying to say the same
thanx eddie for calrification

 

[kumarmohit]

Nice Balanced articles. No over Linux fanaticism, no over Microsoftism.

 

[Manshahia]

There is not enough help present for LINUX.

In Case of Windows, a child of 5th class can install windows, install softwares, connect to the internet etc etc...

Linux GUys hav to put hard work to make it a lot easier so that people can bcome familier with the OS very easily.

 

[aditya.shevade]

^^Have you ever thought in a way like, if maybe 90% people were using linux and 10% people windows, then the same 5th grade child would have installed linux. It's just that people are not aware. You can get help on almost everything related to big distros like SUSE, FC, Ubuntu, etc.

Aditya

 

[eddie]

Show me a child of 5th Class installing any Windows version to an operable condition and I will show you a uruk-hai bred and trained in the dungeons of microsoft

 

[Manshahia]

^^^
Yaar i mean to say that its very easy and looking someone one time, one can install it on its own. Nd y Linux is aware is that rumores r spread by idiot people that its very difficult to learn. And witout big citites one cannot find any Help in smaller parts coz people dont want to change frm Windows.
When at the starting Linux came into light, it was not promoted correctly thats y people r not aware of it.
Also in india people dont want to change, they think it might give us problems and we may lose wat we hav done in the past.
People in india dont want to take RISK.