Is Linux devisive and too fragmented??

I use Linux as my daily os as it gives me all that I need without the hassles and problems of a windows system.

BUT, I have an issue, not for myself but for the promotion of Linux as a whole getting new fans and users.

I think one of the biggest problems is the plethora of distros that are available hampering linux as a whole plus the fear of terminal commands.

The market share compared other OSs is minimal yet there is so much choice and that seems to be growing daily. I understand the mantra of freedom of choice and open source but that in itself is leading me to think that this is contributing to its limited user base. Where does this freedom of so much choice leave linux today I wonder? According to it is at only 0.41% for desktop/laptop users between 12/2016 - 12/2017. Surely this cannot be seen as any kind of real success story for Linux in terms of obtaining new users.

Windows is windows, mac osx is mac osx and android is android (linux kernel base) take them or leave them, then why do you think that Linux OSs are not as mainstream as many, including myself think they deserve?

Why does it matter ? … does Linux somehow need to ‘win’ some kind of desktop competition ?

Or is it really for those that ‘want’ to use it for what it is rather than what others think it should be … I mean who wins if Linux bows to pressure and becomes Windows :wink:

I personally couldn’t care less what Linux ‘desktop’ market share is, I’m not bothered if it rules the world … that’s not why I use it, and I see no competition here.

No, it is not a competition but simply wondered others thoughts as to why it is not more widely used as a daily OS. It was to discuss IF people had an opinion or are bothered in the future of Linux, as you have.

Can I also add that Linux has become the defcto standard in every area of computing (except for the desktop) BECAUSE it’s open to modification and interpretation, not IN SPITE of it … I personally hope that never changes, I really, really, REALLY don’t want a single person or groups interpretation of what Linux should be to be the only one available … THAT in my opinion would be the end of Linux.

It’s flexibility in filling niche markets that made Linux what it is today … and it’s EVERYWHERE :slight_smile:

BTW, welcome to the forum :slight_smile:

I agree, one persons interpretation would not be acceptable, that would make it JUST another OS like the mainstream.

Thanks for the welcome.

I suspect eventually it’ll probably ‘win’ the desktop market at some point … a major company such as Samsung, Google, or someone we’ve not heard of yet will likely use it (like Goolge kind of have with ChromeOS and Android) to create something ‘marketable’ and I have no problem with that as long as it doesn’t kill of the diversity in the rest of the ecosystem.

Really because of licensing it’d be impossible for that diversity to be ‘killed’, nor would they want it killed as it’s where most of their development is done for free … I find other things much more insidious such as the rise of techs like systemd and modern non-modular all inclusive DE’s more of a problem for Linux.

The UNIX philosophy of “do one thing and do it well” seems to be flying out the window … I find that troubling, because it was always the modularity of Linux that made it so appealing.

And you’re always welcome my new Linux friend :slight_smile:

I agree totally. And I believe Linux is now safe from extinction because it is so diverse and there are so many individuals dedicated to keeping it that way. If someone tries to ‘tie-up’ Linux (as a closed, commercial product), then an immediate reaction springs up and a free alternative is made available. Luckily for us, back in the beginning, the ethos was set as a freely-available-to-all system with no desire for material gain. (With hindsight, possibly a mistake but hey-ho, there you go!). This has been picked up by others and run with - hence the proliferation of distro’s - someone’s ‘interpretation’ of what an OS should be.

The wonderful irony is, those who purchase a commercial OS (Windows/Mac etc) think they own it but they don’t - they only rent it and are subject to changes beyond their control that the real ‘owner’ places upon them - end of support and forced upgrades to new versions etc. Linux is truly ‘ours’ and it hasn’t cost us a penny - how cool is that? My Linux is just that, mine. I may have the same basic distro as you but I’ve added or deleted programs to suit my particular needs and modified them as I like. I can pass on anything to anyone without fear of recrimination. I can bin the lot and start again - the possibilities are endless.

As Linux has evolved, most of the niggles have been ironed out and software developed to match, or surpass, the commercial standard. Sure, there are a few things that haven’t caught up yet but so what? For the average user, it really doesn’t matter. All I need is a system that does the basics, doesn’t constantly nag me with security warnings and just works!

The reason Linux hasn’t been more widely adopted is simply lack of money for advertising. A free system generates no income. Microsoft has thrown billions at it, paid for by the consumers of its products. Fair enough - but being the best-known doesn’t make it the best… Linux will continue to slowly grow and spread because of word of mouth and is all the better for that.