Luc October 01, 2013 10:57 am

While Linux has a proven track record in the "behind the scenes" server world, it is still lacking a lot on the end-user side. Linux has been used for years in building larger, stronger and better supercomputing systems. But, unfortunately, all of this is behind the scenes, hocus pocus, to the majority of computer users. Who has not experienced the blue screen of death, or the spontaneous reboot of Windows XP and above? While I do heartily agree that Linux (and open source software) should have a high ranking amongst the server systems out there in the wild, I do believe that it still needs to make inroads in the "Joe 6 pack" average user's experience. Once Linux (user version) is as easy to use and install as any Micro$oft operating system and standards implemented by the available free and open source software become the norm, then Linux will have made it. Until then, Linux will live in the shadows of Micro$oft and its ilk, known and used by the few, in its backroom server incarnation. What is really needed for Linux's general acceptance is not a new graphical shell. There are enough of those already, and many of them put Micro$oft to shame. What is needed is a push to get computer providers to install Linux (any distribution) on consumer computers, as opposed as the de-facto standard the Windows in installed. I do believe that Micro$oft does provide incentives to computer "builders" to install its software... despite the "monopolizing" lawsuits that have occurred. And that still, unfortunately, consumers only know of two ways of operating a computer: Windows or Apple... This is a sad state of affairs. Having straddled the big divide myself, as a software developer, working in UNIX, VxWorks and QNX (all UNIX-based) for most of my career, I am now developing for the Windows platform, as this is where the demand is. I do appreciate some of the things that Microsoft has done with its operating system over the years (and its SDKs), but still long for the simplicity and directness of UNIX/Linux when developing software... To the majority of customers/users of computers, it does not matter what the operating system or programming language is. What they want is software to do what they expect and to get results within short delays. In that frame of mind, either or all operating systems could thrive... provide the customers the applications that do what they want and perform as they expect. Unfortunately, Micro$oft has perverted the notion of an OS as a support system for all applications and has made it a support system for its own applications. Therefore the plethora of books about unpublished interfaces within the Windows/Micro$oft eco-system. Yes, computers have gotten much faster and storage capacity has kept increasing, but is there any reason for a word processor to use more than 1 gigabytes of disk space, when word processors that could do most of the daily tasks could fit, with their data, on a 1.2 Megabytes floppy? What's about the 1000% increase in size? Is that features that Micro$oft has deemed useful for some people? It certainly is not for the use of the large majority of people. I do remember using Word 2.0... Now I am the proud owner of Office 2010... 1000 times the size, and I still basically use the features that were available in 2.0... Except that they have gotten much harder to use :) Enough of a rant, I guess. I do love the simplicity of UNIX/Linux... Develop one program/library that does one thing very well, and use it in other applications or pipe chains so that you can accomplish your end result by "re-using" well documented and behaved components...