Hi ...

I think if Linux has a future. It has long been said that no future but still remains. I am new to using Linux and I think it works very well.

Greetings.

Why is this even a discussion? It's a complete no-brainer. Linux isn't going anywhere.

Linux can have a future if the distros quit trying to emulate competing OS such as Windows and Mac.

All of these OS have one thing in common, in the haste to market product new software is not sufficiently tested and consequently no matter what you choose you will be buying broken software, or in the case of Linux downloading freeware.

If a new automobile behaved the way new hardware and software does the authorities would ban them from the roads.

But in the final analysis it is a more subtle and overlooked aspect of at least two of these systems that gives Linux the advantage AT THE MOMENT, I expect that will change, and that is the constant stream of data that flows from Windows and Mac machines back to the respective corporations. In fact either of these corporations could disable your machine in the wink of an eye.

Now that is scary! Of course most users will completely ignore the fact that they give Microsoft and Apple, HP and Adobe and even Intel the complete right to come on to their machines any time they wish. Your objections notwithstanding. If you feel this is a too paranoid point of view you would be correct. However, consider how your privacy is compromised by software YOU purchase that is in essence a Trojan Horse. Think about that.

On the usability of the competition one must admit that they market perfectly usable corporate software which is sold at very high prices, but it does work well.

I worked as an IT Manager/Administrator for twelve years. I would never have connected a Windows machine directly to the Internet. Cisco for a while and then other firewall manufacturers all using a version of Linux to run their firewalls. Think about that.

There are corporations who legitimately plant spyware on other corporations systems for yet other corporations and various governments do the same or want to do the same. It is just too easy no matter what system you are using. However at the present time Windows and Mac are the most vulnerable.

My last point is that a Linux machine with a good programmer could make a corporate version that would be virtually impenetrable and run software (custom) that would not break any faster than the competition. And that is a fact.

kabraham wrote:Will it become a server OS?

It won't become a server OS because it already is , and in fact is (one of) the most used server OS out there. Linux dominates the list of top 100 fastest computers, and the majority of web servers use Linux.

CraigPaleo wrote:I do believe Linux has a bright future. There have been naysayers for almost 20 years but Linux is still here and just keeps getting better.

It's certainly a lot better than when I first tried it in 2001!

Linux may never be the first choice for desktops in home or corporate environments but does that really matter? We seem to live in a world where if you're not number one then you've failed. There is plenty of room in this world for multiple operating systems, you just choose the one that best suits you, your environment and has the software for the work that you need to do.

But there does need to be more awareness that computing does not equal Windows.

awaydesu wrote:http://linux-faq.org/eng/index.html

The website appears to no longer have any content, so the article “50 facts and myths about Linux or why Linux has no future” is no longer available. Unfortunately, Permalink was not available at the time of the original post. Any links to the original article are in Russian and tend to be on sites rated poorly at MyWot.

this is a very good source of info i highly appreciate it thanks dude.

Hello,

I read almost all the discussions here and I find them very interesting. However, may I ask next time someone takes on Linux in general to stop quoting Kubuntu and any other versions? I did try Ubuntu once or twice an after using ot for 2-3 days I finally got rid of it just as Mandiva I used previously for some 2-3 years. The problem is in the concept, not Linux as a whole.

Seriously, for the past 7 years I've been with Sabayon Linux that is based on Gentoo. Please read if you like, lot's of info on the web. It's concept has a lot to offer. First you don't have bugs and bugs, all is tested. Any software that it not tested does not enter the "Production" phase, packages will remain "masked" until proven worthy of a distribution. Software goes through a rigorous vetting process before it's allowed to be entered into the package repository. Sabayon combines Gentoo's stabilty with simplicity for people who do not wish to be geeks, people no longer want to fix stuff and compile their kernels. If there are major issues or minor bugs you have a software package manager that updates your whole system with a couple of clicks. In 30 minutes you will have your whole KDE version upgraded from one version to another without any hasle. For the past 7 years I bearly had to fix anything myself, all I did was waited for the (now weekly stable) updates, that's it. I even had a couple of kernel updates as well this way, without any issues.

Stop quoting Ubuntu as if it was the only Linux distro around. If you want to raise a serious discussion, please try at least 4-5 distro's before you start any discussion about the death of Linux.

TheBlackCat wrote:That is more an assessment of Ubuntu's particular strategy rather than Linux as a whole. Ubuntu has gotten a reputation for trying to emulate Microsoft and Apple's strategy rather then behaving like other Linux distributions. You cannot blame Linux for Ubuntu's particular decisions. The sorts of changes you are complaining about are common in Ubuntu, but less so in many other distributions.

Good point TheBlackCat.

As for the business usability, I would agree you may not have all the software your business requires, sorry, put the blame on the vendors!!! Since everybody seems to claim Windows is on 90% on world computers, vendors wouldn't see any profits coming from porting their programs to an open source strategy. Simple.
Although I would agree to the overall strategy many companies use, since open source is free, the problem with liabilities is a real issue and even in my place it is impossible to convince managers to start using OpenOffice (even on a Windows platform) as a liable software solution. Even for those who only read documents. Old habits die hard.

On the other hand Oracle offers it's Database solutions on Linux and that has a lot to say about the trust they put into that OS. But that is not UBUNTU! At the moment all my most critical applications are running on AIX machines and as we know IBM has contributed a lot to the Linux world recently.

Don't tell me Windows is the most stable system in the world. At my place all Windows updates go through a phase of testing. We all know cases when Windows updates cause serious issues in many companies that do not test those updates. A dogdy Windows update can bring down a whole business.

I hope I didn't offend any hard core Ubuntu guru's
Richlion