
which have a vision, and which are converging towards the point where they're usable as a home user OS for plebs.
But what's lacking is a lot of the toys you get with a modern OS which turn out to be frighteningly handy in the modern web world.
Where are the garage band equivalents? The Windows Movie Maker or iMovie equivalents?
Photo editing is getting there slowly (Gimp has *finally* moved away from being 8bit only with their latest major release, darktable is becoming usable)
Linux on the desktop frustrates the hell out of me, and I wrangle linux for a living.
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 22:26, Reply)

"we want the stuff those 'greedy corporations' innovated, but we don't want to pay for it".
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 22:38, Reply)

they wait until a start-up innovated it, developed it, marketed it and started to turn a profit, and then bought the companies. It saves them a lot of bother.
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 22:41, Reply)

because lets be honest, most start-ups are there to make a shit load of cash, aren't they?
Ps I say most as I'm sure there are exceptions
( , Sat 7 Jul 2012, 10:16, Reply)

I'm just saying that as a desktop OS it doesn't have the tools consumers expect - largely because they're not what the type of people who write software for linux want.
It's not about "wanting it for free" - if Adobe creative suite was available (and stable, and supported) natively on linux (wine doesn't count) I'd totally buy a copy.
However, that's *all* about desktops. In the server world linux (and open source in general) has a *huge* takeup and has consistently out inovated microsoft in a lot of ways.
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 22:45, Reply)

e-mail client, browser, music/video player. Gimp could be better but it suffices.
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 22:53, Reply)

If it means it could be revolutionary and stable?
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 22:55, Reply)

it's stable, that's why it's so popular in servers.
You can't pay for "Linux" because Linux isn't a single thing. You mean why not a commercial distribution? The Kernal is GPL so I don't know what the legality of that would be.
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 22:57, Reply)

doesn't stop Redhat selling RHEL.
There is nothing to stop you selling a distro or selling commercial software to run on top of linux. A number of companies do.
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 23:01, Reply)

that's how that works as far as I know
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 23:04, Reply)

they sell RHEL - you can't download it for free.
Edit: not unless you count CentOS, which is RHEL with all the redhat stuff stripped out and doesn't have the infrastructure around it that RHEL does
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 23:14, Reply)

is the free Linux kernel with a few Red Hat proprietary tools on top and a fucking expensive support package.
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 23:30, Reply)

It's just lousy for everything else. It's like you said before about too many cooks.
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 23:05, Reply)

canonical make money out of ubuntu, redhat make money out of RHEL, Oracle make money out of Suse.
Hell, I make money out of linux!
There are many many companies out there who pay people to develop open source software and the open source software you use every day wouldn't be as good as it is without that.
Just because you as an end user can get something for free, it doesn't mean that *no one* is paying for it.
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 22:59, Reply)

seems to be to try to layer Windows-style controls on top of things.
Also X windows is well past its use by date.
( , Fri 6 Jul 2012, 22:39, Reply)

I basically wanted it as a simple media hub for my house. I just could not get on with it, toyed with it for days and eventually just installed XP instead. As a server application it's great but it failed for me as a desktop. I have plenty of shells left and will try again one day. Maybe I'll persevere a bit more next time around...
( , Sat 7 Jul 2012, 10:57, Reply)