The same holds true for every distribution and every user. If you ask a Ubuntu user, of course, they'll say the official Linux distribution should be Ubuntu. Here's the issue: Which distribution should it be? Ubuntu? Linux Mint? elementary OS? Zorin OS? Fedora? That could equate to even more software and hardware being made available to Linux.Īnother added benefit would be that more businesses would be willing to use Linux as a desktop operating system. They'd only have to work with a single flavor of Linux. Second, companies that want to port their software or make their hardware available to Linux wouldn't be faced with making it work for hundreds of distributions (or even just a handful). That version of Linux would be user-friendly, stable, receive TLS-level updates, and would be geared toward (you guessed it) new users. If someone wants to try Linux, they turn to Official Linux (or whatever the name would be). If there's one distribution that becomes the official flavor, a few things could possibly happen.įirst, there'd be less confusion for new users. Roughly seven years ago, that very issue led me to an idea, one I believe would vastly benefit Linux.Ĭonsider this: An "official" Linux distribution. Sadly, that variety of opinions doesn't help the cause. When they ask, I don't want to have to say, something akin to, "You could try Ubuntu, Linux Mint, elementary OS, Zorin OS, or Ubuntu Budgie." Although that's true, it can be overwhelming for someone who's never even seen the operating system in action.īut the reality is, every single Linux user has an opinion on what distribution is best-suited for new users. When someone comes to me asking how to get into Linux, they do not need to hear a laundry list of distributions to choose from. The problem is the lack of a representative version of Linux. Open-source community, cover your ears (or your eyes). That alone kind of kicks to the curb the idea that a lack of applications is the issue stopping so many from using Linux. On top of that, the majority of desktop use cases these days are centered on the web browser. It's free, it's remarkably stable, secure, and easy to use, and it's fun. Over the last few years, I developed a theory as to why Linux has yet to really take over the desktop. Couple that with Linux hitting the 3% threshold in desktop market share and, well, the numbers might be something to celebrate but there's really not that much to huzzah over. To give you an idea of the numbers, it was recently reported (just about everywhere) that Linux surpassed MacOS as the second most-used operating system for gaming. Given that, why aren't more people using Linux on the desktop? ![]() There's no more need to write bash scripts, work with regular expressions, and install your own firmware. ![]() There's no more need to compile your own kernel. There's no more need to use the command line. ![]() Now, the platform is incredibly easy to use. That's probably why I became so familiar with the OS very early on… I had to work at it. That's a win, no matter how you look at it.īut, during those early years, it wasn't exactly easy. Imagine you've managed to work with an operating system for nearly 30 years and have had minor problems a handful of times and only one serious issue. Considering the length of time, that's an impressive run. I've been using Linux since 1997 and it's only failed me on one rare occasion. There might be a very simple explanation for why the masses have yet to adopt Linux as their desktop operating system and it's one the open-source community won't like.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |