What happened to the Ubuntu community?

[ajgreeny]

I also agree with DuckHook about my wish to keep Linux a bit of a geek OS.
I honestly believe that should Ubuntu (what about all the other 'buntu versions?) become mainstream and turn into "just another commercial OS of the masses" it would soon become nothing more than a cash-cow for its makers and the community idea behind open-source would also be lost.

Perhaps I'm wrong and the GLP and other public licences would prevent hat happening but it would be a risk I think and it's one I hope that never happens.
I just love it as it is; something very special that gives me a huge amount of pride in what the developers, and therefore what I have managed to do with it!

Long may it continue!

[sudodus]

+1

[tea for one]

In my opinion, a Linux conquest of the desktop ecosystem is not only unrealistic, but unwelcome. I don't want Linux to be the OS of the masses.

Well, I'm 50% with you.
An OS of the masses will attract unscrupulous netizens to bombard us with their latest virus, phishing bait or scam invitations.
On the other hand, a 10-15% Linux Desktop market share would encourage device manufacturers to pay more attention to Linux users ( i.e. works with Linux)

[1fallen]

On the other hand, a 10-15% Linux Desktop market share would encourage device manufacturers to pay more attention to Linux users ( i.e. works with Linux)

Reader Disclaimer, My opinion only!

Agreed but with a wee bit more of a Linux Desktop market share percentage, I feel we would also pickup more qualified/skilled Developers as well..

Lord knows we need that. Not to sound thankless to our current Devs, but the more the merrier. I think most Dev's would welcome this.

[grahammechanical]

I would not be using Ubuntu or Linux if I had not read in computer magazines these words: "Ubuntu for Humans."

If the developers of Linux distributions had not worked on various desktop environments; user interfaces and graphical front ends to command line applications, then Linux would not have progressed far away from only being a server operating system.

I remember one of my first try-outs of Linux. Applications were launched from a command in a TTY (terminal). To use more than one application the user had to load each application into a different TTY. I wanted to copy and paste between two applications and MS-Dos could not do that. But Linux could. If you were a geek. But I was not. Although I was familiar with MS-Dos.

I offer no apologies for having a contrary point of view to others who have posted in this thread.

Oh, by the way, I still have somewhere a 720K floppy disc with a early version of Linux (command line only) that I would use as a rescue disc. In those days the OS was loaded into memory from one floppy disc which was then replaced by another floppy disc that held the applications.

Regards

[DuckHook]

…Agreed but with a wee bit more of a Linux Desktop market share percentage, I feel we would also pickup more qualified/skilled Developers as well..

Lord knows we need that. Not to sound thankless to our current Devs, but the more the merrier. I think most Dev's would welcome this.

I would like to see all publicly elected bodies adopt Linux. In fact, I think it a travesty that they require their constituents to download proprietary apps to access information that, by rights, belong to us all. I've lost count of the number of docs from my own government that won't work with Ubuntu's default PDF reader. When I complain, they always tell me to install Adobe Acrobat. When I tell them that Acrobat is not supported in Linux, they tell me to use Windows.

As I previously wrote, governments are an ideal place for Linux adoption. In fact, they should be required places. It is outrageous that they force their citizens into proprietary straitjackets.

I am also convinced that a larger proportion of the population would be open to using Linux than its current desktop market share indicates. That 15‑20%(?) that you want is possible.

But then I ask: what would it take to get us there? I suggest that it would take something like the following:

1. Some Linux distro would need to become dominant. For the sake of this thought experiment, say it's Ubuntu. So Ubuntu would have to somehow either buy out or clobber the others out there. Why? Because one of the biggest impediments to higher adoption is the current fractured landscape. We geeks think this is indicative of choice, but average users don't; they are confused and overwhelmed by it. Average users want simplicity, not complexity. To get them onside, we would need to start by turning Linux into the sort of mono‑culture that they are used to seeing and that they find comforting. So, bye bye to choice.
2. Ubuntu would then need to eliminate more choices within its own ecosystem. A big reason that Windows and Apple are so successful is because they present one and only one interface to their users. Yes, it's a highly tweaked and carefully cultivated interface, but it is strictly constrained. This is because variation brings more confusion and invites breakage. It also makes troubleshooting much more difficult, which turns off general users. So, bye bye Lubuntu, Kubuntu, Budgie, Xubuntu… Bye bye yet more choice.
3. Ubuntu would need to open its whole ecosystem to proprietary app vendors. Higher adoption rates are severely hampered by roadblocks like my Adobe Acrobat example. But how do you entice Adobe to play ball? Only by inviting them to sell their binaries under a proprietary licence. So, bye bye FOSS.
4. Ubuntu would need to push predictability and backward compatibility over power and flexibility. For example, its current offerings of LVM and ZFS would have to end. We would get only the one file system of ext4 and that would be it (like Windows does with NTFS). Choice and complexity always begets the possibility of exponentially escalating problems, which are anathema to a mass market OS. Over time, this translates into obsolete third‑rate technologies that linger around long after they, by rights, ought to have died. Say bye bye to innovation and "Hi" to the undead of shuffling zombies.
5. Ubuntu would have to hide the command line and bloat the OS with tightly constrained GUI tools to stop general users from borking their systems. This is how Windows and Apple work, and it's done for good reason: giving powerful system‑level tools to general users is like handing out grenades to children: it's an invitation to disaster. So, bye bye power and flexibility, hello bloat and handcuffs.

I can think of more, but this is enough to illustrate the point I'm trying to make: there is a surprisingly high price to be paid for the blandishments of market share. We are so used to the benefits of Linux that we take them for granted. But when one sits down and lists them out, they turn out to be foundational and cannot be compromised without destroying Linux itself.

This is not a bad thing and I hope my fellow geeks will stop thinking of it as such. The qualities that make Linux powerful, flexible, customizable and open also make it hard for non geeks to access. That's just the deal. The quid pro quo. We can't have it both ways.

Is Linux completely restricted to geeks? Of course not. I support a number of close friends and relatives who know as much about Linux as I know about Egyptian hieroglyphics. But their usage is so elementary — just surfing, e‑mail and the odd PDF attachment — that it constitutes its own self‑contained little silo. Such users don't run into trouble because they don't come close to pushing the boundaries of usage. However, if they played games, or relied on proprietary software or had to actually challenge their OS, I couldn't, in good conscience, recommend Linux to them.

[DuckHook]

Reader Disclaimer, My opinion only!

I offer no apologies for having a contrary point of view to others who have posted in this thread.

I hope that no one here ever feels the need to qualify or apologize for expressing an opinion. This is a fascinating discussion and expressing ones views is the reason that this subforum exists.

All views are welcome. Always.

DH

[1fallen]

But then I ask: what would it take to get us there? I suggest that it would take something like the following:

.

That is very thought provoking, I'm happy as is outside of better current/newer hardware support, and that's not on Linux but vendors/manufacturers.

Hence the comment More Skilled/Qualified Coders . We already know the current state is a lot of reverse engineering goes in to making Linux
acceptable for the Desktop Users.....Servers are already Cream of the Crop.

I'm not after Linux to conquer the world, just better coding policy's. (Try not to read a lot into that statement )

[1fallen]

I hope that no one here ever feels the need to qualify or apologize for expressing an opinion.

My Disclaimer Is my attempt to keep one user at bay, They seem to want to educate me at every step.

And I promise I would ask if needed.

[nicolasdentremont]

Linux is definitely a geek's OS but you don't really need to be a software programmer or super-hacker to get it to work like some people may think.

I know there seems to be a myth that installing software on Linux is somehow really hard but with a couple commands one can install any of thousands of readily available programs.

I recently moved to Ubuntu from having used Windows for years and really like the experience so far. Most of the software I used was open source anyway so they just work on Linux without issue. I've managed to install and play my games one by one, that may not be as easy as download>install>play but so far once I get them running they work better than they did before.

I know the available coices of distributions, flavors, desktop environments, programs and ways to install them can be a little overwhelming but sometimes you just have to pick one and go from there.

Anyone with the will and ability to learn something new should be able to use a Linux OS.