Ever since I have started using linux, I have been convinced that if more people used linux they would fall in love with it as I did... and inevitably that leads to the desires that many have to make linux so "ready for the desktop" that everyone will want it. Well, lets just say that in the past month I am starting to rethink that theory.
Basically, I love linux for what it is. Sure, there are lots of area where it could be improved. Drivers for things like graphics and wifi really need to be open-sourced. Support for certain peripherals (scanners especially, but printers and others too) could use some work. And the constant development and tweaking of the UI is always in need... thats the beauty of FOSS, it is always improving itself for the sake of improvement, not convincing consumers to buy it.
That right there is really the secret... FOSS (and linux by extension) isn't here to draw in new users. It is here to be the best it can be. If those new users want to appreciate what it is, then we welcome them with open arms into the community. But the idea of "user friendly" meaning "being comfortable for windows users" doesn't fly with me.
Linux is a great operating system in its own right. It doesn't need to be compared to windows as the yardstick... windows has certain things it does well, I don't mean to imply that it is crap, but if you strip away the fact that every vendor has to support windows, there isn't all that much going for it.
Which brings me to my main point... why does linux want to bend over backwards to get new users? In reality, I don't think it does. Don't get me wrong, if a user has a genuine interest in learning linux then by all means we should make the system easy to pick up. But for those who are just looking for a free OS and don't want to leave their windows habits/lifestyle, the I do not think linux should try to attract those users. The amount of development spent on these features is staggering, and it is cutting down on the development that could go to making linux a better linux rather than a free windows. This would include everything from non-free programs OOTB to programs like wine, which just encourage reliance on MS software and inhibit change.
Along that line, and this is a bit off of my original rant topic, but how many people claim they cannot use linux because of no photoshop? I see it everywhere, probably a more common stopping point than the oft mentioned games (which I certainly understand, gaming on linux has only a very few titles). Which begs the question, do all these people own photoshop? It's like a $600 program,a nd you are whining about the difference with the gimp? I would put money that most of these people pirated photoshop to begin with, so I have no sympathy that they cannot use it. Between the gimp and krita there has been nothing I can't do. It's amazing how many rich, professional photographers want to use linux, hmm.
Ok, thats enough for now...
No comments:
Post a Comment