DSL Talk

I believe I understand your concern. Making linux act like and look like Windows, and take on all the monolithic traits of Windows, is exactly not what I'm hoping for.

However, Linux retains something which I think will prevent it from going off the edge. The user has a choice of what to do with it. As long as the choice is there, The Windows-centric users will not define what Linux is. I don't think we can prevent unwanted changes if these changes are welcomed by a large number of users, but we can choose for ourselves whether or not these changes will benefit us. Some changes may be good, and some not good...it is our choice to assimilate with those changes we want, and reject what we don't need or want.

The thing to look at is this....XP looks like XP to everyone using XP...MacOS looks like MacOS to everyone using MacOS...but linux could look like a lot of things to a lot of people.

You can stay command line, you can use a lite gui, you can lay it on thick with every gnome widget ever made, you can make linux look like XP, AmigaOS, wahtever you want.

Some folks want that option, some folks who will never use the option but like that its there.

And that is the real make or break thing for me, the option to choose your look, feel and what is under the hood to make them both do what is important for you to do.

Choice..linux is all about that.

-tomhiggins

I think it is a mistake to require compatibility and functionality with "legacy" hardware. I fool around with DSL and Fedora 3 on older systems, e.g. AMD 350MHz, 256K, and while the functionality is there, the performance is not conducive to a good "newbie" experience.

For most 3rd, or even 1st or 2nd-world end-users, there is no need to replicate the look and feel of Windows on a high-end system. Instead, what is needed is access to a functional, efficient computational environment for the end-user. DSL is the best I have seen lately (anyone remember GeoWorks?). But in the same way that the third world has access to radio broadcasts via "wind-up" radios, I think that very inexpensive PC's will replace legacy equipment more efficiently.

Instead of exporting antiquated (potentially polluting) equipment from 1st-world to 3rd-world countries, perfect the light OS running on a PC the size of a deck of cards, with a small LCD video device, and with low power requirements.

DSL is perfectly placed for this new paradigm.

reidi
(DSL contributor and admirer)

I acknowledge your point, I think it's fascinating that moden Linux distros (with modern computing capabilities) can run on old hardware, and in environments like 3rd world countries this is a necessity. Because of individuals like you it's even *possible* to give such people access to modern computing.

I wouldn't be surprised of the people you mentioned who compared the Linux desktop experience to Windows were concentrating exclusively on the average home and business class user with modern hardware (1 GHz, 256 MB RAM, etc.). From that perspective I think their arguments hold some value.

Linux and surrounding technologies are already approachable for developers, network pros and real power-users, but in my opinion the points cited in their conversation would really accelerate Linux penetrating the desktop. I don't think it's so unreasonable to expect that these kinds of improvements would promote Linux adoption to everyone's benefit.

If this can happen without making the OS and surrounding technologies impractical for the low-end hardware, I personally applaud the effort.

Rob Gamble

Even comparing the two systems on modern hardware shows a drastic difference. One thing Microsoft seems to enjoy doing is using faster processors and more ram as an excuse to throw in more bloat. If you follow the progression of Windows over the last several years you might notice that as computers get faster and better, the Windows system bulks up to fill that extra elbow room. This makes having the latest and greatest hardware parctically pointless if the operating system is just going to use up all your extra resources. These resources would be better used to increase the performance of applications rather than getting sucked up by the OS.