[plug] hmmm Linus being opinionated again :-P
jonathan at pcphix.com
Wed Dec 14 10:42:14 WST 2005
Senectus . wrote:
>I find that now I'm 99.999% happy using Ubuntu I'm also much more
>productive and content using Gnome.
>Every now and again I get the urge for eye-candy and flip over to
>KDE... but eventually I get tired of the less reliable environment
>and flip back to gnome with a happy sigh.
>To me KDE is more of a "toy" environment (even though many of their
>apps are sorely needed in the Gnome arena), and until they stop
>jamming features into it and sacrifice a few deadlines for reliability
>I think it'll stay that way.
>But that's my opinion as a user, whatever that is worth...
<joke> Freely distributable surely? If the OS itself is free, no-one
should be charging for opinions! </joke>
I agree with most of what you've said though (Ubuntu rocks!), but it
seems to me that they are (most of the time) designed for two different
markets / types of user.
And so what??
As quoted by Mark:
>Whose problem do we want to solve? If you try to satisfy everyone you
>end up satisfying no one.
Exactly. That is Windows. One OS must do everything. I'd personally
hate to see Linux go that way. Quite frankly part of the reason Linux
can be innovative and successful without the massive price tag attached
to commercial software is because the different distros and projects
compete and feed off each other in different ways. They are branches
off the same tree, not successors to each other in M$ fashion.
If you try to create one "super-distro" that is "the best" and can do
"anything and everything", I would worry about things stagnating,
bloated installations full of packages you don't need and all the other
problems that come with that. If you try to make it simple for new
users, you do lose functionality. So just build a distro for that
purpose - ease of use. Leave the others alone for the more experience
users and heavy duty applications. Why can't we have both rather than
Secondly, I have always quite enjoyed the fact that the distro chosen to
be a good mail server might be totally different to the distro you'd
choose to run on your own desktop or (play games with), but that they
were each equally streamlined and optimised for the tasks most relevant
to their primary purpose. I hope that never changes. Entering into
holy wars over which one is better when clearly they BOTH have their
advantages is asking for trouble, and ignoring the fact that they have
two different histories is a shame.
Lastly, I don't think things have got that bad (yet). I still think it
is possible to take most computers that are too under-spec for Windows
and make them run 100% better with a version of Linux installed. While
Windows forces unnecessary hardware upgrades just so you can have the
latest version (including software and features you don't use), Linux
will generally work and you find yourself doing hardware upgrades only
because you really shouldn't be using a computer of that age or spec for
the particular application you have chosen. Since you are upgrading
your hardware... you may as well grab a bigger, better distro, but it is
an OPTION. You still have may more choice. Also, I would hope that
when comparing Linux and Windows running on the same PC, you are using
versions of both that were current at the same time. What version(s) of
Linux were around when Windows 98 was current? How do they run? If
your PC won't run Windows XP SP2 these days, what CURRENT versions of
Linux would run on that same PC. No contest really, is it?
Choice, variety and the building-blocks-I'll-install-only-what-I-want
freedom that it's got is still one of the most significant advantages of
Linux over Windows. Trying to please everyone with a single distro and
desktop is another nail in the coffin.
/rant IMHO also, "my opinion as a user, whatever that is worth..."
Director of PC-PHIX
jonathan at pcphix.com
Phone: 0410 455 674
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the plug