This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new!

Commentary: the Linux Foundation and the future of Linux

Posted by: Anonymous [ip:] on April 12, 2008 07:20 AM
There's no need for 2 kernels. Linux is a general OS and therefore should do good job for both usage, the difference between dekstop and servers should just be some tunable.
But the fact is that Linux is not developped for the desktop or for users, and that desktop users are not really important.
It is developped for people who pay for it first. And people who pay are corporate, and corporate want to make money, and the desktop is owned by MS, so only for the server place (for historic and economic reasons). Nobody really wants to attack MS directly or can afford it. Redhat was very clear on that point. In essence, they said: "Linux is not a desktop operating system - for now at least. If you want to make a desktop OS, DIY (through community distributions)."
Is it a problem? Not really. People wishes are irrelevant: there is simply no market affordable for now. The problem is for people who wish Linux is a destkop operating system: they are simply dreaming. And nobody really cares, they are just whining a little, but they are neither willing to pay (a lot, say 100k$ by copy to fund development of a desktop oriented project) for it, or numerous enough to justify an economically viable general purpose distro.
That's the fact.


Return to Commentary: the Linux Foundation and the future of Linux