Yesterday, a co-worker of mine and I had a lengthy discussion about this article posted on OSNews awhile back. My past writing about Linux has centered on general usability and sensible defaults, but his contention was that Linux is the Linux kernel and that anything beyond that is the responsibility of the distribution. The conversation took an interesting turn. Read on for more.
Certainly, the word “Linux” refers to a kernel. I believe, much like the old confederate flag, insistance on what it really is means little when most people perceive it as something else. “Linux,” that is, what it means to most of the word, is a complete, rapidly developing, open source operating system. Each distribution provides a mostly unique spin on it, and generally, most people’s perception of Linux is actually the spice added by their selected distribution. Some people think Gnome is Linux, some KDE, still others XFCE or Windowmaker. As a result, unsurprisingly, the choices a distribution maintainer makes affect not only their users, but the perception of Linux as a whole.
If you ask me, I’ll tell you straight out: I’m all for removal of choice from Linux distributions. Choice is generally good, but too much choice, and worse, uninformed choice, is bad. It’s no different than politics, choosing a text editor in Linux without any knowledge of how they work is like voting without any research into how the candidates stand on the issues. Fine. So let’s talk about choice.
As I said in the past, I believe a distribution should choose sensible default options and applications and leave the rest out. A user who wants specific applications should either a) choose the ditribution which best suits him by including them or b) download and compile those applications himself. Yet, everywhere I go and everyone I speak with tells me otherwise – Linux is about choice and removing the choice is akin to personal insult. It’s a strong voice that argues with me: “Choice is good.” But it’s not consistent.
Why? Because there’s another debate going on, unrelated, but behind the same four walls. That debate is about standards. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer has some amazing capabilities. Sure, I’ll give you that ActiveX and proprietary javascript elements can be terrible and/or security holes, but this is my point: the same community that argues for choice seems to stand behind consolidation and standards. I mean, in the last few years, we’ve seen the rise of open file formats, XML (and XHTML/XSL/RSS/Atom), and most recently, the new release of the Linux Standards Base (LSB2.) Sure, standards make everything easier for application developers to provide a consistent and clean experience, but at the heart of it, aren’t they also a kind of “removal of choice?” If guidelines tell you where you must store user data, or how your code must be written, doesn’t that limit the philosophical choice to do whatever you want? The same way people tell me “If you don’t like emacs, don’t use it,” why don’t people say, “if you don’t like IE’s behavior, don’t code for it.”?
I don’t pretend to be a supporter of non-standardized applications, protocols, and organizations, but I do wonder why there is such heated debate and inflexibility. There are keywords — FUD, troll, zealot — words that people call each other that incite the deepest sense of insult and argument. There is allegiance and faith in hardware, software, programming languages, and interfaces seemingly comparable only to religion in starting all out “flame wars.” Where, I ask, does this come from?!
We accept choice when it suits our needs and reject it when it doesn’t.
Serveral years ago, Linus Torvalds shared his new kernel with an audience employing technologies that would ultimately serve as the building blocks of the internet as we know it today. His kernel, a fully open sourced collection of code, invited developers from around the world to write their own applications and share their code too, to attempt to create best of breed applications. That much is undisputable.
Somewhere along the way, there became a nearly religious belief, some sort of wacky zen centering around “choice” being the key to the success of Linux. The monks who preach this gospel are all over the net. But I’ve never seen it that way. I’ve always felt as though I don’t want to spend my time trying to decide which word processor to use. I don’t want to flip flop between Kontact and Evolution, Gaim and Kopete, Abiword, KWord, Open Office.org Writer, etc. Applications are merely an aside to productivity, the key is a comfortable, cohesive system. And that is acheived with the input and contributions of the masses.
Along the way, I think we’ve gotten confused. Some stand for choice when it’s convenient, like in Linux distributions, but not when it’s painful, like in adherence, or lack thereof, to standards. Some vice versa – they believe in a free for all, with a Darwinistic belief that the best will win out. We rarely permit our OS installations to limit our choice, yet insist on an immediate cease of non-standard behavior. Funny that Linux survives by having a single maintainer deciding what goes into the kernel and what doesn’t, the near antithesis of too many of its followers, who feel as though the removal of some quirky option is unacceptable, and the inclusion of a specific rarely used app is a necessity. How is it that we contradict ourselves so much as a group pushing towards the same goals?
Communally, I feel we should be aware the strengths of Linux. Linux is a superior system, but isn’t always treated like one. Some would say “People won’t use Linux because it’s too confusing,” and the retorts are heard from miles “It works for me.” The trick to Linux isn’t just to get hardware compatibility and drivers, but that’s part of it. It isn’t to have a pretty GUI, but that’s part of it, it isn’t to have a polished, consistent system, but that’s part of it.
No, it’s all of those things, plus one more, ultra important thing: it’s a flexible, adaptable system which can be whatever you need it to be. Linux needs to flex. But more than that, Linux needs to unflex. The people that CAN use Linux often are. It’s the people that can’t that we need to start paying attention to. Linux – in a general sense – needs a good starting point that doesn’t call upon you to make a zillion decisions. And that, I’m beginning to learn, comes from removal of choice.
Users cannot be overwhelmed by Linux or they won’t use it. Applications attempt to become compatible by relying on standards. When Linux doesn’t behave in an expected way, there are dependancy problems, failed compiles, kernel panics, and packages that don’t work across distributions. When a web page fails to adhere to standards, some browsers sometimes misrender the pages, making them only a part of the browsing experience. When an application doesn’t write to open formats, we end up with the disaster we have today – a zillion Microsoft Word documents that still don’t open and format properly in anything but Microsoft Office.
There is a line from the movie The American President that says “The symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.” Choice is golden. But part of choice is the ability to select the unpopular path. Part of that choice is the ability to remove choice or not follow standards. And part of it, I believe, is the choice to quietly not use the software that doesn’t meet your individual needs. Unfortunately, it appears that choice complicates things for those who are learning, and adds to the experience of experts. The paradox of technology, it would seem, is to accept choice as both a good thing and a bad thing at once.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
Wow.
I find this to be one of the best articles written lately on OSNews. I think I agree completely. Choice is strength, but too much choice, is a weakness. Contradictions are everywhere in the Linux community. The most remarkable of course being the kernel itself. The center of the community that promotes choice, the linux kernel, lacks choice. There’s a small group that decides what goes in, and what goes out. Just as Microsoft does it. Just as Apple does it.
That ain’t choice. We can watch the choice being made, but that doesn’t change a thing, It still ain’t choice.
I really have nothing to add.
When it does not really matter if you run gnome or kde because with the apps you use drag and drop works, notification works and sound works, and so on, then how can choice be bad?
I’ll agree on the fact that defaults matter, and in fact I use Fedora but think that their custom default kinda sucks: the gnome project default layout is a lot better, and takes away less screen real estate.
You are both right, in a sense: linux is only a kernel, and defaults matter.
So a “linux distro” defaults will be important.
Where is the problem if there are two (N) distros that look and behave very differently? It’s a free market, you know?
OK if you belive it that strongly, make your own distro.
Let the market decide. It seems like everyone sets thier desktop up differently. Uses different editors etc. it’s what works best for the way thier minds work.
If you think forcing every one to think and work the way a committee or a maintainer works is the way to go then build it.
There *are* people trying to replace the “monopoly” of Kernel. Debian/Hurd is one. Someone ported glibc to BSD. Much of Linux userland is built upon C and POSIX, not specific Kernel. So glibc matters.
There are lots of kernel patches. I’d say vanilla kernel and kernel-ck (http://members.optusnet.com.au/ckolivas/kernel/) are choices you can choose. -ck patchset is clearly targetted for system responsiveness and desktop use, which may conflict with vanilla Kernel’s goals.
I agree completely.
The point is simply made that a distro should be simple but allow itself to be extended (if people want the kitchen sink they can have it but they’ve got to get it).
I just wish SuSE had had that focus when I first used it (now I’ve moved on).
if he dont want choise then go for linspire or similar distros…
There are also a few glibc alternatives.
Nicely said BUT there is one huge aspect the author missed.
“What is choice?”
Choice is what users perceive as choice and I strongly believe that most of the users don’t see beneath the skin of the apps. They see the interface that the apps throws at them and nothing more… if it scratches their itch they will use that app if not… there is always THE CHOICE of using something else. Using sound programming design the interface can be something very easy to implement. The real hard part of an app is that what the users will never see AND WILL NEVER CARE ABOUT: the inner-works of the apps, the actual implementation of what that app is supposed to do. Why does KHTML exists? I’m talking about the widget not the Konqueror browser. Was Gecko bad? Does most of the users care if Konqueror uses KHTML or Gecko? How much code does Kopete and Gaim share? How much code does Abiword and KWord share? Designing or tweaking an GUI isn’t a waste of time BUT perpetual reinvention of the wheel at implementation level IS. In my ideal world developers will be busy developing building blocks, ultra-smart widgets, for a true cross-platform toolkit and the interfaces we’ll use will be “simple” high-level scripts aided eventually by some XML. The difference we perceive now between applications will be, in those days, perceived as we perceive now the difference between skins (in the apps that support skinning)
Certainly one of the worst articles ever published on this site and it’s running against strong competition.
The problem the author describes is a non-problem. Take any of the userfriendly linux distributions and the choice on which editor to use will allready be made for you. If the fact that it is possible for you to choose an other editor if you are so inclined is unbareable, please stay away from any computer, any TV and try not to leave your room at all.
And his musings about standards are simply an inconsistent mess. What did the author want to tell us? We’ll probably never know, as there were so many words from which to choose that he got all confused in writing this article.
But contrary to what the author seems to believe, standards are not about limiting choice, but about making choice possible. His example with MS Word is a case in point here, as the lack of a real open standard makes choice (in this case, choosing anything but MS Office) a lot harder then it should be or could be if there was an open standard.
If you want to remove choice, make your own distro with the choices removed. Make it so good that almost noone will think of using Gentoo, Debian, Slack, Red Hat SuSE or Mandrake for the desktop. That’s the only way you’ll succeed, otherwise it’s a pipe dream. So yes, the way to remove choice is to wake Yet Another Distro.
Additionally, the writer seems to have little clue of how the Linux kernel works. Yes, it has a benevolent dictator that chooses for us, and decides some things don’t belong there. Many patches will break other parts of the kernel, and they are not allowed in the main kernel. But we still have a lot of choice when compiling the kernel, between file systems, schedulers, firewalls etc. And if you don’t like the default selection, you can patch in other things as well. Linus only chooses what is going into his tree. There are forks, and most distros use semi-forked kernels.
And standards. Standards remove choice, sort of, but only to help interoperability between different implementations. So we have standards of pop3 and smtp to send and receive mail with thousands of different mail-clients, and we have the standard of the English language to write different opinions on OSNews. But as long as my opinion is different from Adam Scheinberg’s, his dream of removing choice will be just that: a dream.
Well articulated! However, to discuss choice, we also need to discuss value. Basically, two things are relavent.
1. If I want to create an alternative (and thus create a situation where others must choose), I have to make sure that I add value. Otherwise, I am just doing the same again and that’s bad as it confuses choices. Mind you, you can add value by combining features from separate pieces of code into one piece of software. This links in to the idea of innovation.
2. Following on to this, what does the person make a choice perceive as valuable. When choosing, it’s obvious that you choose the piece of software that best fits your needs. That is a direct function of the “value” of the software. However, it’s expected that there won’t be a single piece of software (say a text editor) that does everything. But there should be 2 or 3 max that between them, allow you to do everything you need.
I keep 2 text editors on my Windows machine because they serve different needs. On the other hand, I’ve seen some Linux distros with ridiculous numbers of text editors (I counted over 6 once, and I am not sure if I got them all). Why?
Choice is golden, but value is where it’s at!
My 2 cents.
I couldn’t agree more. As a M$ Windoze user of some time I have tried repeatedly to “get into Linux” with various distros in my very limited spare time. I can understand how new users are confused by the hundreds of options for apps in every class under the sun, many of which are still pre v1.0 stage yet. I just want an easy, cohesive gui with easy access to the command line, a good central way of controlling system settings, easy driver updating, etc. It would be nice if it was a whole lot more intuitive than it is now, especially for non techies. I was a huge fan of BeOS, God rest it’s soul, and while it was never finished the way it should have been, why can’t linux adopt an underlying ease of use philosophy that is similar? I think that would really help. That’s my 2 cents anyhow.
If you don’t like any product (in basically any industry) you can either
a) Not use it.
b) Make it better (if that’s an option….& w/ GNU/Linux [yes LINUX] it is)
c) Bitch about it
Too bad so most people choose c)
Everyone knows that, for some reason no one does it.
Probably because it’s too much work, to do a consistent GNU/Linux OS as many people want some nasty things have to happen, being the main one taking the control of GNU/Linux from the community, meaning that kernel, toolkits, desktops environments, key applications they must be under control of a single company or entity that will choose how things will be.
Nasty stuff, but until there no consistent GNU/Linux OS will exist.
There are distributions who bundle everything and let the choice to the user, there are other who only provide a limitated choice of applications, at least by default.
So the users have already the choice to get or not choice..
I agree, the problem the author describes is a non-problem.
Open source is all about freedom. Freedom means choice. Linux without choice is fundamently just wrong. That doesn’t mean distro’s can’t choose their defaults. Which is the solution. So what was the problem again?
I think it would be useful to ask where Linux users want choice, and where they don’t. Personally, I want to choose applications, but I don’t want to choose system components.
To make that clearer, places where there is choice in Linux, but I *don’t* want to choose..
Sound server. (ArtsD,Jack,Gstreamer etc…)
Graphics subsystem and driver. (Directfb,Xfree,X.org,Vesa,Svgalib,DRI,Xvid,etc…)
Package Manager.
(apt-get,slapt-get,portage,rpm,yum,etc….)
Kernel version and modules.
(4k/8k stacks,which modules compiled,2.4 vs 2.6)
Everywhere else in Linux, I like choice, but in these areas, choice seems to lead to incompatability and duplication of effort. I think it would be more useful to address areas where choice leads to problems, rather than where it might overwhelm a newbie by a ‘surfeit of riches’.
I just don’t understand how the author can equate having choices to being a bad distro. People mainly use Linux because they want to customize (ie have choices). In the past few years, I have installed SuSe, Red Hat and Fedora releases. Each is quite usable for the normal person, and what I mean by normal is Joe Sixpack. Each distro connects the dots with applications working together and defaults screens quite readable. If you have a problem with reading the fonts with Linux, try using an Nvidia card with stock settings under Windows!!!
If the author doesn’t want choices, he should really move back to Windows or Mac.
That sums up the article. Incredible ambiguity when it comes down to it. “Remove choice.” Why? What choices are good? What are bad? “Sensible defaults.” That goes without saying! And the successful distributions are/will-be the ones that have such sensible practices.
Choice is very good. Choice based on standards even better. Hence this is what you should be encouraging, not the removal of choice where you think it poses a problem.
Throughout the community there are efforts to create desktop standards to improve the end user experience. Look at the fd.o – http://www.freedesktop.org – website as an excellent example. They are creating, defining, refining, and implementing standards continually in a collaborative fashion where any and all are welcome to input. Things like HAL and D-BUS are emerging. Gnome has already adopted these, KDE will follow. Many applications work well in both Gnome and KDE by adhering to many of the standards laid down at fd.o and more will move toward such compatability.
No, choice is good. Very good. And the more the choice, the more the market and need for standards. And those standards will come because, at the end of the day, people rely upon the success of Linux as a desktop and the Linux desktop cannot be successful without standards that are widespread and adhered to.
No, choice is good. Very good. And the more the choice, the more the market and need for standards. And those standards will come because, at the end of the day, people rely upon the success of Linux as a desktop and the Linux desktop cannot be successful without standards that are widespread and adhered to.
If choice is so darn good, than why hasn’t open-source software penetrated the desktop market? I’ve been hearing the “it will happen” arguments for over 5 years now– still, not much has changed. On a desktop, choice isn’t good. It’s a limiting factor. That, put together with the total lack of integration between various parts of a desktop-oriented Linux distribution is basically what’s keeping Desktoplinux from succeeding at it’s goal.
The best *nix-based desktop-OS (OS X)(**for the average user!!**) lacks the limiting factors of desktoplinux: lack of integration and overflow of choice. And lo and behold, there are no depenency problems, there is no need for complicated dependcy-resolving package managers, drag-and-drop is perfect, etc. etc. all those features a desktop OS can’t do without.
For a desktop-OS, too much choice is bad.
I too think it would be a good idea if there were a formal Linux Standards Base of some kind. I think one of the bigger strengths of OpenBSD/FreeBSD is that it has a base system that is well tested and is consistent with every install.
As far as all the comments go about such a system removing your choice, I really don’t see how that is so. And I also think such comments are completely ludicrous and that if the day comes when the major distros do conform to a Linux Standards Base of some kind that 90% of the people that are complaining now will see the inherit value and will become advocates of the “new” way. (The other 10% are hopeless, zealot rebels. But the beauty of Open Source is that there will always be a “rebel” distro for the toothless, unbathed, uneducated rednecks to get behind.) Everyone wins.
The whole article seems to be based on the faulty assumption that standards are indirectly proportional to choice. In fact in most instances I think it is the reverse. Except that OSS gives you the option of even opting out of the standard and limiting your choice.
He’s not saying remove choice, he’s saying that choice can be a good thing and a bad thing at the same time.
To give an analogy look at the language Perl.
It’s been said that it’s good points are also it’s bad points.
Total flexibility is a good thing but it also gives the ability to write utterly incomprehensible code which is *not* a good thing.
If Linux is ever to get any market share on the consumer’s desktop it’ll have to be a very different distro than what’s available now.
Nice article, shame that it’s rather pointless. There already is a choice between distributions with sensible defaults and lots of stuff. And some of the distributions with too much choice still install “1 of each”, or at least have a system-wide default (Mozilla for browsings seems common, OpenOffice for word processing, etc).
For example, I use a Mandrake with lots of bells and whistles, my girlfriend a bare Xandros with little “choice” but not as confusing as what I would install with Mandrake by default. That’s choice, you know 🙂
did it ever occur to you that standardization is something we choose?
I mean, you don’t have to follow standards. You can do whatever you want but the most of use out here wants many things in common. Among these we want simplicity and comfortness.
How to achieve this may differ, but I think the most of us agree on that standardization is a good way to get that Just Works ™ that we want.
Linux – in a general sense – needs a good starting point that doesn’t call upon you to make a zillion decisions.
For a start, the question someone new to linux won’t be what e-mail client to use. Go to any usenet newsgroup concerning linux installation, and you’ll find the most frequently asked question is not about Evo or Balsa, it’s about where to start: the choice for a distribution.
Though i will agree that this makes Linux difficult for new users, the existance of many distros is fundamental for the development of Linux.
The most important choice a distributor has to make seems to be the one between KDE or Gnome. But that is only because the other choices have already been made, not by the distributors, but by reality.
For example, most Linux distros i know use bash as a default shell. Not because someone told the distro’s they have to, but because it apparantly is the most sensible one to choose. But should it be compulsory now? Should someone forbid distros to use or even ship other shells? Hmm.
Consider X. Had anyone asked a year or two ago, which distribution of X was the standard for Linux, almost everyone would have answered ‘XFree86’. So, if there would have been a ‘law’ about which X to ship, it would most certainly have said: XFree86. I think most distros are glad such a law didn’t exist.
And look what happened. Most distros switched, and they all switched the same way: Xorg. It still was a choice, but apparantly, some choices are trivial. And for the most important underlying technologies, the choice becomes trivial some day.
And consider this: who would even start programming a new mail client, if there’s no chance at alle somebody will ever use it, because that would mean choice?
But what makes choice really good for Linux is the fact that if any distro thinks it can do better by doing something different, it can do so. That distro will act as a testbed for all others And if it is an improvement, then, as long as it’s open source, any other distro can choose to copy it. And thus, Linux gets better and better. This mechanism is the strength of open source in general. And whithout choice that just won’t work.
Call me a religious zealot if you like.
did it ever occur to you that standardization is something we choose?
Yeah, ok. How many implementations of securing e-mail are there now? I can think of SenderID, Domain Keys, and SPF without doing any research. Each supporter is trying to push their “standard.” Standards are a long fought battle. What will the next version of the internet run? IPv6? IPv9? There are choices all around, and they all have MAJOR ramifications. Your precious standards too. Even the open source ones.
Some people here don’t seem to have properly comprehended what I wrote – the article is about how choice is a double-edged sword. Not how we must sacrifice all choice. But I suppose if nothing else, my point is proven – take any group of Linux supports and suggest the removal of something, and in that zen-like way, they became samuari intent on proving you wrong.
How can choice ever be bad? Hmmm just kidding… It’s true that a lot of people simply gets overwhelmed if they have to choose between multiple applications that perform the same task. The reason for that is simply information overload and if they actually wanted to spend the time to learn the advantages and disadvantages of a similar applications they would eventually settle on the one application they feel most comfortable with.
The elimination of choice before a user has had a chance to make up his mind is a bad thing imho. I also recognise that there are a large group of users e.g like corporate users that only would use a few specific applications and where the choice of similar applications in the distribution are not that important.
The main point is that choice is a cornerstone of freedom and I don’t want to see a situation where people start to tell application developer X to stop wasting their time on application X because application Y has more features but only works in desktop Z, but who cares?
The author sure does not seem to grasp the concept of open standards or I don’t. Standards don’t just appear out of nowhere and writing an application that uses a good standard certainly is not detrimental to innovation.
Wow, good example!
You chose something that as of today has NO standard like “securing emails” (what’s that supposed to mean, btw)…
Try to look at tcp/ip, http, HTML, XHTML, CSS, fd.o standards for interoperability for window managers, drag and drop, message passing, etc…
I can switch from metacity to sawfish ’cause there are standards.
patience grasshopper, as its a slow crawl. if someone dont want linux on the desktop then you cant force him. if you force him then he will just fight you even harder. people will understand in time
Standards are important. What would the world be like if we didn’t standardize lights on a car? What would the world be like if we didn’t decide that green means go and red means stop? What would our civilization be if we didn’t decide what’s a G and what’s a T? Standards are what organizes the world around you.
I, for one, am very happy that I don’t choose the standards around me. Yes, I can choose what car I drive, but essentially, all cars are the same. On all leverls of the universe, standardization organizes everything. No standards equals chaos.
And that’s what the desktoplinux community is like at the moment. Pure chaos. One group saying A, another one B, and another one X, etc. etc. Chaos cannot exist. Chaos tends to organize itself. Just as the force of diffusion among molecules; molecules want to spread evenly accross the “space” they “live”. so, even uncounscies things organize themselves.
The Linux cummunity refuses to do so. Or, at least, a group of people within the Linux community prevents it. No way Linux will ever succeed on the desktop without organizing itself.
But, I could find a quote that represents what I think about the subject:
“Everybody’s a mad scientist, and life is their lab. We’re all trying to experiment to find a way to live, to solve problems, to fend off madness and CHAOS.” – David Cronenberg
It came from here:
http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Chaos.asp
*Sigh*
I haven’t seen one comment suggesting that standards are not a good thing, so what is your point?
And about linux and standards, you don’t seem to have any experience with linux or you’d know that your claim that linux and especially desktop linux doesn’t follow standards is simply absurd.
You don’t even have to know anything about linux to know that, you just had to read the comments here.
And where do I state that I’m replying to any of the above posts?
What linux is, and no matter how many articles the media prints calling for the community to steal its own freedom the community will still hold onto its freedom.
And within that freedom people will individually do as they please, packaging over 250 distributions at any given time, half of which are barely not Debian.
If you don’t like it, well too bad. It’s like your neighbours barking dog, you’ll have to learn to live with it.
this is tantamount to the same philosophies espoused by communist and socialist goverment. in their attempts to limit choice and prevent confusing the ill informed masses … they inevitable get it wrong, and worse, stifle innovation.
the melting pots HAS to be a mess .. it has to be dynamic .. it has to be constant flux of old and new, good and bad, sane and insane, mainstream and fringe. and out of this pot will emerge the best ideas for that time … and if the pot is maintained, these idea will be replenished with new ideas. very few innovations are timeless.
and if these is some confusion … so be it.
the onus is on the masses to get educated. education is the key. not suppresion. democracy too is worthless if the individuals are too ignorant and lazy to elect an appropriate government (as we have seen recenlty in a notable case, talking of the president)
Any successful product class has choice. Even when you buy bricks, you can choose colors, size, and so on. They have to satisfy standards to be called bricks but you still get choice.
You get choice for fridges, car, hifi, airliners, riffles, cars, TV equipment. And this visionneer wants linux to be the exception ? Some of this stuff is complex, some is simple but choice is everywhere. There is even choice for DRINKING WATER !
Even if Linux had a fork, it wouldn’t matter as long as they implement the same standards and interfaces. You have different web servers, different routers, different switches and strangely enough, the internet still works.
Every linux uers will tell you that once you’ve played with a couple of linux distros, you can cope with most others. So what the problem ? Most people using computers today got ever trained (if they even got trained that is) on win 3.11 or win 95.
Choice is GOOD. You don’t have to run ALL existing distros out there anyways. And they all use the same components but put the emphasis on various areas. The industry has even come up with terms like LAMP. There are many implementations of it didn’t you know ?
There are a few countries where choice is, by principle, the exception rather than the rule. And they are crippled : North Korea is the biggest example. So leave us alone. I am happy with my distro but delighthed that with what I’ve learned, I can try so many other distros now ! And I’ll still be using kmail, mozilla, open office, webmin and so on.
He doesn’t really make any revelations here and I think he’s wrong.
The real problem isn’t really choice, it’s that the defaults for the two major WM/DEs aren’t balanced and easy for most users. Gnome makes some easy things irritating to do, while it provides things like network monitors and other fluff that KDE doesn’t have. KDE on the other hand let’s me tweak everything much easier and doesn’t make me want to rip it’s heart out and steak it. So basically, if linux had everything integrated and fulfilled most users needs on a consistent basis, you’d have much fewer people talking about choice.
Choice is needed when you don’t have really good apps. Good apps should appeal to the vast majority of people. While niche apps satisfy those with some small subset of functionality that is very important to them.
In short this author missed the point.
Take Ubuntu for example:
It would have never been possible without the choice which free software provides… for developers.
It takes away almost all choice from the user… and that’s its biggest strength.
Because it’s completely standards compliant and free, it will always be your choice if you use it or not… everyone should sing and dance.
You may call that a paradox, but I call that common sense.
Everyone is going fine in the free software world as far as I can tell.
[The problem the author describes is a non-problem. Take any of the userfriendly linux distributions and the choice on which editor to use will allready be made for you. If the fact that it is possible for you to choose an other editor if you are so inclined is unbareable, please stay away from any computer, any TV and try not to leave your room at all.]
i could not agree more. it is indeed a non problem, this author tries to adress…
When will brain-damaged idiots like Adam get it through their heads that what is refered to as “Linux” is […] created and driven by and for people who pretty much want nothing to do with the Adam Scheinberg’s of the world.
I can’t imagine how you could come to that conclusion honestly, unless you’re simply trying to bait me, which I mostly believe you are, but I’ll bite this, even though you are a blatant troll.
That would be a very bad idea for Linux companies to not try to engage people like me. Know why? I’m the IT Manager for a pretty large company, I administer hundreds of machines, and we’ve recently begun transitioning to Linux. We’re even investigating a mass thin-client rollout using RHEL4 and the work from LTSP. I’m EXACTLY the target people Linux companies should aim for. I represent money, and you represent an exclusive, arrogant attitude that frankly, has help Linux back more than anything else.
You probably have a single unpatched install of Fedora running. Or maybe you’re more the bleeding-edge, “emerge –update world” every week Gentoo type. Either way, it’s clear from your response you have no clue how commercial Linux will succeed, and with whom it will succeed. Answer me this, people who happily flame me in an all too familiar chorus, how have you contributed to Linux? Have you written code? Have you ever purchased Linux? If so, was it more than a single box? Have you ever taught someone who uses Windows how to use Linux? I doubt it. If you’d ever worked with a real user, you wouldn’t be so clueless.
All it means, this freedom to choose, is that we as individuals, groups, or even businesses have the ability to copy, modify, and distribute open-sourced software by selling it or giving it away. As long, as in the tradition of academia, we all have the freedom to access the source code.
It has absolutely nothing to do with religion, with politics, or any other “ics” or “isms”. It is just code, much to the dismay of “redmondites”, that is shared and developed by free-thinking individuals around the world.
The author is completely confused about what is a standard and how it is different from having Gnome, KDE and all the rest of the so-called “desktop managers”. I don’t think the author is a developer.
Standards are for developers, not end users. They actually allow developers to give a choice to the user, by creating different applications that stay compatible because they follow the standard of their purpose.
There are numerous e-mail clients around the world, even in the Windows world (yes, even there you have a lot of choices), what makes this possible is that they all implement standards, such as SMTP and POP3. What does SMTP and what does POP3 is of no concern for the end user, it is only for the application developper.
As for the problem of choice, I think the author’s main difficulty is to believe there can be more than one way to use a computer. Besides, if he installs a RedHat distribution some day, he will observe that he hardly have to make choices during the process.
The magic of the FOSS community is that people can find the best way, for themselves, to use their computers. Some people will stick to the defaults of the distribution CD that’s on their desks, while some other, even when they use Windows, will change everything from the mail client, network browser to the window-manager equivalent.
The thing is, Microsoft has no interest in people who like to use other softwares, so they will push people into the defaults (IE, OE, WMP). On the other hand, RedHat and other Linux distribution vendors have no interest in pushing you into one direction or another. Sure, they will make one easy way, but that’s mainly for support purposes.
Quentin Garnier.
I just submitted a contribution to this thread only to find that it had been moderated down. When I checked the moderated down comments (there were six comments then) it seemed to me that most of them contained valid points about the article. I don’t think that calling an article stupid in the context of raising real issues concerning the article is sufficient grounds to moderate down.
My own comment may have been a little off-topic but fell well within the boad area of discussion raised by this article. Read the first six moderated down comments and see if you agree with me.
“Choice” is not bad. It’s a mantra for Linux and UNIX systems because they are intended to be adaptable to the needs of those using them. In essence, “choice” is merely customizability.
Where “choice” is bad is when it’s made a distraction. While a data center might have specific wants that drive their selection and configuration, the same may not be said of desktop users. Indeed, desktop users come in many varieties. An engineer may want to customize his desktop environment quite specifically and use a number of different editors for different jobs. However, a person with little knowledge of computers who wants to surf the web and read e-mail but do little else has quite different needs.
The fact of the matter is that everyone wants “choice”, but the less sophisticated consumer wants the choice to be made for them rather than make it themselves. From the standpoint of Linux, there are a wide array of distributions that run the gamut from “for idiots” to “for PhD computer scientists”. Not that the “for idiots” distribution (like Linspire) cannot run all the same software as the system used by the computer scientist, it’s just that it simply has made some semi-informed choices about what the average “idiot” wants and leaves it up to the user to figure out what to do when they want “more”.
So, certainly Slakware is a bad choice for my mother. However, I know for a fact that Linspire suits her just fine (this is a woman that not only cannot program her VCR but actually shopped for VCRs without the ability to be programmed because she was afraid that she might press the wrong button and get the machine “stuck”). Same OS, different configuration, the “choice” being which configuration to go with.
For what it is worth, at home we use Mandrake Linux. I configured my wife’s KDE desktop to look and behave much like the Windows systems she uses at work (though she’s finding some very pleasant differences in the UI) and she’s quite happy. My environment, on the same machine, is fantastically different. On her side, she has one menu item or icon for each activity, I have a list… Again, it’s nice to have the choice…
It hits the nail on the head. And apparently a lot of people too! Ouch!
Like Nicholas Blachford, I’m not sure those who rant here have really read the article.
Strategy of the article: Create a false dichotomy between choice and standards in very general terms and then argue that the solution is to remove choice by leaving the poor user to fend for himself by compiling what he needs.
No, that is not the solution. The reason why people pick a distribution is because the distribution is supposed to make certain choices on your behalf. So if you set up Mandrake’s discovery edition which is what you would give a Linux novice, you only have a best-of-breed application. As he learns more, he then realizes that there are other apps he might want to try, but instead of going through the horrible pain of compiling software, the new user users the software in Mandrakeclub’s mirrors or in contrib/plf to install software easily. More importantly, this is software that has been packaged that is known to work for his system.
This flexible approach allows the new user an easy path into Linux and allows me to select the packages that I need for my daily work, packages which would not be installed by default by the distribution. That way everyone wins.
I swear that this site is the epitome of controversy for controversy’s sake. I have never seen a web site so focused on meaningless polemics and on dividing the free software community by raising meaningless issues of contention that are not there upon closer examination.
Do you realize you’re agreeing with the author? Yet you think he misses the point.
Thanks Ralph – I think I shall repost a Bowdlerised version of my original post and see what happens:
In Praise of Linus
After reading the flawed arguments in this article, so ably refuted by hanky, it made me realize who importance Linus’ contribution to the methodology of software development which is just as if not more important as his development of the original Linux kernel.
Linus was the first person to actively and consciously apply Evolutionary Theory to software. Modern Evolutionary Theory deals with the change in a replicator (DNA in biological systems) that is variable and is under selective pressure. Dawkins was able to extend this idea into the field of human culture with the concept of memes as a replicator. Linus recognized that computer code was an evolutionary replicator (a form of extra-corporeal meme, possibly the third replicator) and that he was shepherding “a herd of cats” in the evolutionary development of the Linux kernel. Evolutionary development like this is based on freedom and choice not on the dictatorial decision of some “chief architect” who knows best as with MS and proprietary software.
The anti-evolutionary control freak approach in part extends into the free and open source movement. For example the some software is developed under a much more controlled environment environment where “software design” is considered to be paramount and whose protagonists denounce the anarchy of Linux development and also deny that software development parallels biological evolution.
Nice article. I agree that most distros should have a default but I disagree on not needing choice.
Why shouldn’t I be able to customize my user experience as I see fit. Why should I be locked into using a product when there is something out there that I believe is better. For the novice leave them with the defaults. As they get experienced then they too will love what I have come to love.
Besides choice means competition and competition leads to a better product.
Peace out:)
Please don’t moderate this down, it’s insight into this issue. Adam, your project called flip (flipsource.org) is another CMS. There are many CMSs out there like you say in http://www.flipsource.org/faq.php?section=project#3 – but there are also flat file versions too.
Tell us why you have this strong vocal opinion against choice but choose to express your freedom in providing another choice in content management systems? Does the problem only happen when the software is packaged together in the form of a distribution? What is your real issue here?
I think the abundance choice is wonderful in most arenas….except in the case of marketing of a product that already has too much saturation. Don’t get me wrong, giving customers a choice of colors in a Gamecube or offering 130 different consumer options on an Audi A8 is absolute bliss.
But I think the point of the article was not geared towards IT professionals like we are (or may not be, don’t know your background) but more towards the general populous.
Zealots want the whole world to run some version of the Linux kernel for some strange reason. Linux is not going to take over the world, a good Linux marketing and distribution company will take over the world. They’ll give people direction in the Linux world, they’ll make it easier for people to use Linux just as MS made it easier to use the pc.
I use Linux but sheesh, the world needs direction. Many distributions now moderate how much software gets included in a default configuration which I think is great but there much more to do. Then again, I don’t want to be limited to just using Linux….
I don’t usually come to this site, but what entertainment! The author writes an article about, as he wirtes in a comment, the double edged sword of choice (Adam: I found it clear that you were making this point). Then all but about three comment miss the “double”. Half the readers think he’s criticizing side A of the sword and the other half think he’s criticizing side B of the sword. I guess it was the “choice” of how/if you want to read the article.
I think a lot of people replying missed the point. Choice – yes, and lots of it – between distros, but not WITHIN a distro. Your distro should have direction, purpose, distinction. Providing 5 text editors does not provide any of these.
I made the same argument earlier this year in an OSNews article about Slackware, and I stand by my statements. Pare down the choices installed by default and provide an easy way to install them later. You could get most distros down to 1 CD that way. That saves bandwidth, enhances usability, and a host of other good reasons.
I don’t advocate taking away choices, just streamline them.
Joseph,
I cannot understand why there are a few people here just DYING to take me down over something I am NOT arguing. You said, “you have this strong vocal opinion against choice.” Eh…what?! I did not say that I am AGAINST choice. I said that in any implementation of something, you have to limit choice. Because too many choices, or uninformed choice, is bad. Read up on Flip. If you like it, feel free to use it. If not, move on. Hell, write me and tell me it sucks for all I care. But you won’t get confused, because you won’t find it if you’re not looking for it. Doesn’t change the fact: too much choice can be bad.
Flip is my own thing for my own entertainment, and I don’t pretend that it’s more. But if you visit this page (http://www.flipsource.org/viewcomments.php?cID=1095194672), you’ll see that exactly as I stated above – too much choice obscured the goal, and the entire project was scrapped in favor of something more directed.
Here are some examples: Photoshop is absolutely intimidating to non-technical users. You might say “Don’t use Photoshop.” But in real life, that translates into customers, into SALES. There’s a possibly benefit to a less cluterred interface, possibly with fewer options. Less intimidation might mean more users. That’s the less “choice” I’m referring to.
If something works for you, fine. But please don’t pretend that I have some wacky agenda to limit everyone’s choice. That’s just silly, and it isn’t what I wrote.
The author of this article makes it clear that he knows there are both good and bad aspects in having choice. Yet he also makes clear his own position: “If you ask me, I’ll tell you straight out: I’m all for removal of choice from Linux.”
Some people here don’t seem to have properly comprehended what I wrote – the article is about how choice is a double-edged sword.
Your inability to make yourself clear is your problem. Don’t try to make it ours; such attitude is arrogant, insulting and condescending.
Not how we must sacrifice all choice.
Oh, so is that why you have sentences like “If you ask me, I’ll tell you straight out: I’m all for removal of choice from Linux.” scattered all over your article? I’m sorry, Adam, but your sudden backpedalling is not only unconvincing, but once again, arrogant, insulting and condescending.
But I suppose if nothing else, my point is proven – take any group of Linux supports and suggest the removal of something, and in that zen-like way, they became samuari intent on proving you wrong.
Wrong, Adam. All it proves is that if you phrase your article like a flame-bait, the flames will inevitably erupt. Had you written a truly well-thought out piece of journalistic work devoid of flame-baits like the one I quoted above, you wouldn’t have gotten so much negative feedback.
Really, stop blaming your readers for your own journalistic incompetence. And, while you’re at it, quit hiding behing the “I’m modding down every comment that someone reports that contains a personal reference to me” tosh. Your article contains a number of ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with your position, so it is rather hypocritical of you to demand of others something you yourself cannot do.
Now, go ahead, prove my point and mod me down.
In the linux community, it’s argued that choice is a good thing.
And that standards are a good thing.
How can you have it both ways?
These two beliefs reflect and underlying belief in the architecture of software. It’s the kind of architecture you see in network stacks that makes the internet work as well as it does. It’s the kind of architecture that lets you take the same code for linux apps and build them on BSD.
With the way the internet is designed, you can be connected whether you’re on a FDDI connection, an ethernet connection, a wireless connection or any other kind of connection you care to think up. All these different technologies converge at the IP layer – that’s how things get around the internet. Above the IP layer, you can talk TCP, you can talk UDP, or you can talk any other way you decided to make your app communicate (as long as what’s on the other end can understand it, of course). The standards for networks and internetworking have led to a lot of choice and availability.
POSIX standards, C language standards, HTML and CSS capability and rendering standards – they help PROVIDE choice, not take it away.
Look at C language standards – because they guarantee certain things about how the code is compiled, you can write language bindings so that you can write parts of applications in one language, parts in another, and have them work together. Take away that standard and see how much choice you’re left with.
Now, go ahead, prove my point and mod me down
I would in a heartbeat. You’re adding nothing constructive to this thread. If this thread even closely resembled a discussion and not a flamewar, no one would be reporting the posts as offensive. You’ve just spent a few minutes typing a lengthy or formatted comment that violates the osnews terms you agreed to by clicking “Submit Comment.” Need help finding that?
http://www.osnews.com/rules.php
2. No personal attacks on story authors, other commenters or news editors of this web site.
Want to talk about choice? Do it. Want to give me a hard time? Write to my e-mail account, available above to ALL, and do it. I’m not afraid to defend my points or myself, but I’m not going to get personal in a forum. Unlike you.
I think the problem was how you wrote what you wrote. I guess if one considers the title “Paradox of Choice” they could understand you’re arguing both sides. The above example in your reply is a good one. Taking it into consideration you mean less exposed choices instead of less software choices. I agree with less exposed choices. But I heavily disagree there should be less software choice. As was pointed out, this is somewhat of a non-issue.. you can choose a distribution, window manager, desktop environment, terminal, or even editor with less exposed choices. This is much like the differences between similar software.. GNOME vs KDE, Windows vs MacOS, Wordperfect vs Microsoft Word and so on.
There are all kinds of choices to be made, no matter if it is OSS or non-OSS. Just remember there are different levels of choice and thus there really is no/very little of a paradox. You’re comparing apples with oranges when referring to software choice and exposed choices in software.
The thing the trolls seem to be missing here is that what this author is about is not to remove Gnome from the surface of the Earth in favor of KDE. Nor is he about giving you a gaa-gaa-goo-goo baby interface to your favorite distro. He’s talking about the BASIC package, you know the smallest set of things one needs to do one’s job? Userland Linux is after that idea, and yes, many other people are doing it right now, so we’re still going to see some splintering of default choices for a while.
But being able to install KDE on a Gnome-based distro is totally different from having to choose between the two. Look at it this way: on Mac OS X, the GUI application to use to manipulate the filesystem is the Finder. And that’s it: _The_ Finder, period. Yet, when was the last time Apple lobbied Cocoatech to cease and desist from doing PathFinder, an application that replaces your Finder? When was the last time they screwed their filesystem or their frameworks to break compatibility? And when was the last time you installed Mac OS X and you had to select between 6 flavours of the Finder?
The point is twofold: first the KDE- and Gnome- teams should stop rooting for domination and commit themselves to interoperability, to the point that their applications interoperate in STANDARD ways with each other. Second, non-general-purpose Linux distributions should commit to a specific, cohesive set of applications. General-purpose systems like Deb, Slack, Gentoo, Fedora should be seen also as PLATFORMS. And again this is what UserLinux got right: instead of trying to cripple and reduce the near-total coverage of the Debian system to make it a simpler distro, just use the actual Debian system as the fertile ground on which to grow nice little User tomatoes. When a distro becomes as large and as all-encompassing as Debian, it gets nearer to becoming such an object as a standard, not a user product.
BTW I’m using the UserLinux example out of ignorance for the other equivalent projects.
Standards vs choice are abstract terms which are indeed somewhat contradicting. I don’t think the author meant to say ‘choise is bad’ though. He wanted to show an inconsistency.
However, when you’ve drawn you can use that inconsistency again to draw a different point
also, the author forgets “choice BASED on standards”.
I’ve always felt as though I don’t want to spend my time trying to decide which word processor to use. I don’t want to flip flop between Kontact and Evolution, Gaim and Kopete, Abiword, KWord, Open Office.org Writer, etc.
The point is, that when you chose for a DE, you don’t have to chose because there are related applications for that DE and that toolkit.
Ofcourse, then some people say: But i don’t want to run a “QT application under GNOME because […]” it doesn’t look nice, or costs more memory. Here the “improving interoperability” applies. 2 nice solutions are in the works: making QT look like GTK2 and vice versa (e.g. RedHat did this) or porting the application over to the other DE (e.g. Gecko to Konqueror, GIMP to KDE).
And a design from the grounds and agreements are important like e.g. GNOME HIG does. Where techies decide for users to chose good options most will like, whereas still leaving he oppurtunity to modify the default. The default has to be good for most people. Because sometimes people don’t want to make a choice. Instead they rely on the standard or default, trusting that’s good enough. A form of laziness. However if they don’t like the default they want to have the ability to chose. Distribution’s diversity also is a strength in this aspect: they can try to reach a nieche, or try to create a unique environment.
Note the difference between “freedom of choice” ad “freedom to make a choice”…
lame comments. A distribution should have a limited software set that furthers the well-defined direction of the distribution. Choices in a distribution shouldn’t be ‘everything we could find a freshmeat’ or immediate at time of install, but should all be available afterwords for any changes you want to make. It’s just more sane that way.
Exactly my point! Providing choice based on standards. Great description and examples btw.
“I don’t advocate taking away choices, just streamline them.”
Agreed, but it needs to be done by using a progressive, fruitful way. Do you have suggestions?
I was thinking about 2:
1) UI experts analyzing which application is better (features are more than not obvious already to anyone reading. Though, add that if you prefer.)
2) Constructive feedback from users. Take part of the Free software community!
3) A platform where people (e.g. those from group 1 and 2) come together to develop the discussion.
The author doesn’t know what he’s talking about apparently. Standars are the only way to make choice available, communication between people and programs are the biggest necessity today, and that’s what standars are for, if you follow the authors conclusion to the end, we must all use the same OS, with the same apps, and the ones that chose other choices, shouldn’t be able to communicate in any way with “standard” users.
A distribution should have a limited software set that furthers the well-defined direction of the distribution. Choices in a distribution shouldn’t be ‘everything we could find a freshmeat’ or immediate at time of install, but should all be available afterwords for any changes you want to make. It’s just more sane that way.
Well, i recently had to install a Linux distribution on a computer (an old SPARC which i’m gonna use to run Linux on until Solaris 10 is out. Just for fun. The distribution’s name ain’t specified to evade that unimportant detail) and its quite funny that i had exactly this: almost nothing installed, but i did had the choice to install certain packages and purposes whereas ‘everything on freshmeat’ was installable via the package manager.
Isn’t this what NetBSD’s philosophy on this aspect is, too? Or GNOME’s whereas GNOME already provides what they see as the best software and configuration whereas you’re able to chose different?
“A distribution should have a limited software set that furthers the well-defined direction of the distribution. Choices in a distribution shouldn’t be ‘everything we could find a freshmeat’ or immediate at time of install, but should all be available afterwords for any changes you want to make. It’s just more sane that way.”
And that is exacty the way most distributions are today. If you take one of the distributions that are targeted at Joe User like xandros and linspire it is the case, but even distributions like Suse and Mandrake behave exactly the way you describe. That’s why the author is addressing a non-issue.
You should also read the article again, the author is not saying what you think he says, on the contrary.
A commentator pointed very cleverly that’s there are points where choice is indeed bad. That’s the system. You should have only one sound subsystem and only one package management. That’s OK,and that’s good,because it’s having standards (By the way,it’s wonderful the total misunderstanding of the concept of standards by the author of this post).
For the rest, choice is not only good : choice is what makes Linux strong. Personally I remember I switched to Linux when I stared at the amazing number of packages Debian shipped. I whispered to myself : “oh my god,it’s wonderful”. Under Windows you usually end up with a single word processor, a single GUI, a single media player,and so on. Hmmm,what a wonderful world. What do you do if you think MS Word is terrible (as I think)? Nothing (assuming you’re Joe User and you don’t know about Windows ports of OO.org and AbiWord). What do you do if you don’t like OO.org on Linux? Try KWord. Try AbiWord. Try LyX,if you’re on the techie side. For example, I use *two* browsers at home. I use Firefox for casual browsing (better rendering, plugins, useful add-ons) and Konqueror when working (because I can manage files, viewing PDF’s and DOC’s and browse the web just switching tabs). Having both is *pure gold*, trust me.
Linux choice-by-default is the FIRST and BEST thing I tell people when trying to hook them to Linux. They ask me “How is the interface?” and I answer “As you like it. There are a lot of interfaces. You can choose the one suits you best *at login* and use it”. They usually awe and smile. When they ask me “How do you do word processing” and I start listing Linux word processors, explaining “IMHO this is better for this, and this is better for that. Oh,and they’re all on the distribution CD’s,for free.” people is just impressed. They feel – guess what – FREE. They feel they can choose the app suits them best, not the app someone else decided they had to use. And when they see it -for example at my home desktop- they just end up to BEG for a Knoppix cd-rom to try at home.
Note that I don’t sweeten the pill, I tell them clearly that not all hardware is supported, that they’ll have to do things on the command line and that they’ll have to learn tricky things. No way to let ’em come back, and I talk about NON-TECHIE people, people that phone me asking “hey,what’s peer2peer?”. They are ready to climb the mountain, if this means CHOICE for them.
Most Windows people don’t like Windows. Most Windows people just hate it : they only think no alternatives exist. Today Windows people think word processing = MS Word, browsing = IE and so on. They hate it,but they don’t know there’s something else. I heard my dad grumbling “I hate that thing IE always opens a lot of windows” – so I let him download Firefox and trying tabbed browsing. He was amazed, it just was what suited his needs.
Don’t let people think Linux is a Windows clone. Don’t let people think “you can choose between A and B”. Let people think : “Here you have A, and here you have the whole alphabet”.
I whispered to myself : “oh my god,it’s wonderful”. Under Windows you usually end up with a single word processor, a single GUI, a single media player,and so on.
Word does the trick for most people. I’ve never ever heard anyone complain that they didn’t like Word. I think that one of the most heard questions by computer salesmen is “Is Word on my new computer?”.
A single GUI? No way. Shells such as LiteStep, Talisman, AstonShell etc. are installed with one click, they automatically disable Explorer and give a standard uninstall which returns everything to Windows’ normal state. Now, compare that to installing a new WM using a Linux package manager. Have fun finding all the packages, reading and studying the descriptions and so on.
Single meda player? No way. There are enough others. But you know, people are happy with Meda Pkayer. The average user is satiesfied with it. You are trying to compare yourself to an average user.
What do you do if you think MS Word is terrible (as I think)? Nothing (assuming you’re Joe User and you don’t know about Windows ports of OO.org and AbiWord). What do you do if you don’t like OO.org on Linux? Try KWord. Try AbiWord. Try LyX,if you’re on the techie side.
The only reason I hear mostly for switching from Word to OOo is because of idealogy, which is perfectly fine and understandable. The average user doesn’t care about that. Chances are high that his school. his Uni, his Work will use MS Word, and therefore he must have 100% compatibility. OOo does that well, but far from perfect. Secondly, There is absolutely no sane reason to switch from Word to OOo, except for the export to .pdf fucntion (which, again, most average users won’t need).
Most Windows people don’t like Windows. Most Windows people just hate it : they only think no alternatives exist. Today Windows people think word processing = MS Word, browsing = IE and so on. They hate it,but they don’t know there’s something else. I heard my dad grumbling “I hate that thing IE always opens a lot of windows” – so I let him download Firefox and trying tabbed browsing. He was amazed, it just was what suited his needs.
Uhm, all people I know around me, who are far from tech-users, are happy with Windows and Office. It is so arrogant to think that everyone hates Windows, simply because you do. As a n=2 study I set up my parents with various Linux distro’s. They complained about the lack of speed, GUI responsiveness, inconsistency, slow boot, slow shutdown and so forth.
Under Windows you usually end up with a single word processor, a single GUI, a single media player,and so on.
You are exactly right. Afterall, since its not possible to download other word processors, GUIs, and media players, you’re simply stuck with what comes with the OS.
What do you do if you think MS Word is terrible (as I think)? Nothing (assuming you’re Joe User and you don’t know about Windows ports of OO.org and AbiWord).
Oh wait … you mean there is actually CHOICE in Windows?
What do you do if you don’t like OO.org on Linux? Try KWord. Try AbiWord.
Right. So if you’re using Windows, if you don’t like MS Office, you’re screwed if you don’t know about OO.org, ABIWord, and the other 3 dozen or so word processors available on Windows. However, if you’re using Linux and don’t like OO.o, even though you would be cluess of the options available for windows, you will instictively know about all the options that are available to you in Linux.
For example, I use *two* browsers at home. I use Firefox for casual browsing (better rendering, plugins, useful add-ons) and Konqueror when working
And here I am all depressed as a Windows user because Internet Explorer is my only option
Linux choice-by-default is the FIRST and BEST thing I tell people when trying to hook them to Linux. They ask me “How is the interface?” and I answer “As you like it. There are a lot of interfaces. You can choose the one suits you best *at login* and use it”.
And of course, we all know that every distro includes every desktop enviroment and window manager as part of the distro. And as you install applications, I like the way all of the application launch menus are updated in each WM and DE so that I don’t have to do the shit manually.
Oh,and they’re all on the distribution CD’s,for free.” people is just impressed. They feel – guess what – FREE.
Yeah, all of them for FREE .. just like Star Office and Word Perfect.
They feel they can choose the app suits them best, not the app someone else decided they had to use.
Yeah, I hate in Windows when I am forced at gunpoint to use a certain applications .. pisses me off every time. Why aren’t I using Linux yet anyway?
Note that I don’t sweeten the pill, I tell them clearly that not all hardware is supported, that they’ll have to do things on the command line and that they’ll have to learn tricky things
NOOOOOO!!! Really? I thought Linux ‘just worked’ ???
Darius, also a way of proving the guy’s wrong
.
“You should also read the article again, the author is not saying what you think he says, on the contrary.”
I just read it again, carefully. And it still reads how I first read it, and not how those against it read it.
I could be wrong. Just show me where it supports your side. Quote something I must have missed. I’ll be happy to change my opinion on it in that case.
As a closed-to-newbie Linux user, I understand the article very well. I will summarize it like this: There are distros d1, d2, d3. I want to use “Linux” applications A, B, C, D. Problem: I do not find a dn distro for the applications A to D or installing the missing application is really to complicate (make, install, compile is too much). For me, it is always the same story, I switch back to my all win98 platform where I can find the applications of type A, B, C, D.
Not that Linux is bad. Win98 is working better.
Interestingly, when the choice is wellcome, it is missing! As an example, the Ubuntu installation. The installing process is asking for the language but not for the keyboard…
The Linux community needs to decide if it wants a significant part of the desktop market (let’s pluck a number out of the air and say 20%) and, if so, how it is going to set about achieving that.
I suspect the point of the article was to suggest a way in which Linux could do so. This assumes that it wants to.
The author correctly anticipates the response he will get to his idea that the way forward is to limit choice. The Linux audience boo and hiss every time a villain walks onto the stage and says there are too many distributions and that some of them have too many web browsers or text editors. All anyone has to do is say they don’t like Gnome or KDE or Nedit or Gedit or, even worse, the command line, and the Linux lynch mob starts to howl throws a rope over the nearest tree.
If Linux did not exist, it would be necessary to invent something like it in order to challenge the Microsoft monopoly on the desktop. Their products are less than secure, they are expensive and their support is not what you would expect from a world leader. If you seriously wanted to give Microsoft a bloody nose (i.e. take lots of business away from them) I doubt you would invent an OS that was not expensive and that was secure, then offer that OS in more than one hundred flavors. Neither would those flavors have multiple GUIs and multiple versions of many of the bundled applications. You would probably conclude that what marketing people might call “fragmentation” would be unhelpful. A plethora, or a confusion, of choice is never a strong selling point.
Meanwhile the lynch mob is seriously upset now. “Choice, choice, choice” some bellow, while others shout their favorite slogans “it works for me”, “read the man page”, “long live the command line” and, of course, their favorite, “you’re a moron”.
The article was weak in not voicing its own assumptions. I am not sure that Linux does want to challenge Microsoft. Some companies want to use Linux to do so, but Linux itself places far higher value on choice and technicality and being different (and secure and free) than it does on selling itself. This is neither right nor wrong, it just is. However, the essential point that Linux, being the only credible contender, needs to streamline to succeed commercially, is correct.
The lynchers have worn themselves out and gone home, for now. All they really want is to be left alone.
Portable, cross-platform software is also provides choice beyond Linux. Take for example the GNU folks. The FSF doesn’t like it when you use proprietary software. However, the software is (in most of the cases) portable. You can run GCC on tons of hardware and OSes including proprietary Unices. Patches which allow/improve that are NOT excluded. In contrast to e.g. Fefe’s software which is Linux-only: http://fefe.de. Here, with GNU, you see how their philosophy and ideology doesn’t restrict choice on non-FOSS related aspects such as proprietary UNIX. (Because they can.)
If you want to run Bash on a UNIX then you’re able to. Especially if its easy to install that’s great. If its not, or the binary package is e.g. out of date, or there are bugs, its less great. Indeed, a good package manager on any OS is a pre.
Or, say you have a limited medium such as 56k6 or a live CD. With 56k6 you don’t want to download packages you want them on CD instead. With a live CD you really want the applications on CD because installing them otherwise means they’re gone again after reboot. So you do want a solid platform before chosing because chosing afterwards has other limitations!
Even some of the hobby OSes use this freedom to improve the software repository on their OS. On that aspect, FOSS most certainly improves freedom too. (Yet some of them whine about the software itself or about too much choice; they quite don’t get it.)
PS: Author, if someone makes a personal attack to you while still making constructive comments otherwise i suggest you ignore the ad hominem and leave the comment in place. Ad hominem just happens sometimes, and its obvious its not likened, but you do have the choice to ignore it yourself. Especially if the rest of the comment is constructive i recommend this; “high trees catch a lot of wind”.
They ask me “How is the interface?” and I answer “As you like it. There are a lot of interfaces. You can choose the one suits you best *at login* and use it”. They usually awe and smile.
I find this hard to believe unless those you talked to had a very high interest in technology. Normal or average people on the other hand will mostly be afraid that this is hard to understand and complex.
I could be wrong. Just show me where it supports your side. Quote something I must have missed. I’ll be happy to change my opinion on it in that case.
I think the fuss is all about this:
Somewhere along the way, there became a nearly religious belief, some sort of wacky zen centering around “choice” being the key to the success of Linux.
The point is, it’s true, choice *is* key to the success of Linux. And i think most people want to make that clear. And they are right about that.
If you read the first page though, it’s less about choice and Linux, and more about choice and Linux distributions. Basically the author calls for moderation within the distributions, and in that, he is right also. But that is the UserLinux discussion all over again.
Normal or average people on the other hand will mostly be afraid that this is hard to understand and complex.
Most people just want something that works. As long as you provide that for them, they will pretty use what they’re told to use, if it means they don’t have to futz with it endlessly to do what they want it to do. So, in the end, for Joe Sixpack, having the experience of using a computer be braindead easy is much more appealing than having 3,000 text editors to choose from.
Thanks for the help. That goes a long way to showing why both sides looked like they were arguing about completely different things.
… They were.
Desktop users using Windows have one choice when they install their system: Media Player, Calc, Notepad (simple text), Wordpad (formatted text), Paint, Windows Movie Maker, Sound Recorder.
Taking away choice is a good thing for getting Linux on the desktop. I believe distro companies need to hire some small thinkers, innovitave minds…ones that can think on a “user level” and not a “geek user level”.
Also, on the subject of choice: In the open source world, we are all a people. Developers and users alike are just as important to eachother. So why should a user (in assumption by the distro) need so many choices? Why can’t the Distro CHOOSE to contain less? In general, if less is not good, dont use it. There will always be Mandrake for all your ungodly amounts of choice. Home users dont need something to work WITH, the need something to work ON.
Overal a consistent post but there are some aspects i’d like to address:
The term “Linux community”. Who exactly does that term include? There’s no consensus on that. There is no 1 definition on it. That doesn’t benefit the discussion because it leaves too much space to argue otherwise based on that. Seriously, if you want to develop a discussion for constructive work, you have to use correct English as much as possible and leave elements like this out. This also counts for the term ‘Linux’ itself. Adam addressed that in his artxle (kudo’s to Adam for that).
Moreover, up to who is it exactly? Some people don’t want ‘Linux’ to be succesful on the desktop. Some of them are ‘Linux’ users, some non-‘Linux’ users. Note with Linux i don’t mean Linux per see, but a (near to) 100% FOSS OS which makes use of FOSS software like Linux, GNOME, KDE, etc. The question up to who is it is hard IMO. One, commercial vendors is an obvious answer to it. However, some commercial vendors simply don’t care (much) for the home-end-user desktop because that’s not their market. Some do. Well, i’d argue that those who do could use constructive feedback from people who are or seriously would like to use their product (customer or potential customer). Then, you have the non-commercial Linux distributions and these don’t have an interest to get you as customer for commercial purposes. Other reeasons exist though and we’d need to analyze these to bring the actual point futher. This is response to the first time you address “Linux community” here: “The Linux community needs to decide if it wants a significant part of the desktop market (let’s pluck a number out of the air and say 20%)”
The second time you coin it, albeit in a different way, you say: “The Linux audience boo and hiss every time a villain walks onto the stage”. What audience? Who’s taking part of it; how do you define ‘audience’? Everyone of them? Its a generalisation about an unspecified group of people! Got my point? Its hard to debunk that directly.
“I am not sure that Linux does want to challenge Microsoft.”
Exactly, and again: Who?
“All they really want is to be left alone.”
Exactly, some people really do. I really don’t want some people who are replying in this thread to even use or take part of the developing process because i don’t find them constructive at all. I’d rather see them using something else with great pleassure so we’re freed from their ad nauseam common BS which unfortunately is frequently based on lose grounds, blatant assumptions, ‘experiences’ and technical ignorance.
“However, the essential point that Linux, being the only credible contender, needs to streamline to succeed commercially, is correct.”
Up to who is this, you think? Do you have ideas on how to do this?
The article was weak in not voicing its own assumptions. I am not sure that Linux does want to challenge Microsoft. Some companies want to use Linux to do so, but Linux itself places far higher value on choice and technicality and being different (and secure and free) than it does on selling itself. This is neither right nor wrong, it just is.
Well, your comment was also weak in not voicing your own assumptions: Does “Linux” really places far higher value on choice?
In fact, the Linux user community is two-fold: Some like the “old”, not challenging UNIX way and others want it the Windows/Mac way with hardware just working, a good looking and easy to understand GUI, and some cool apps that read their old Office documents and can easily be installed without a terminal but a simple wizard.
I can’t say which of these two classes is bigger right now, but I believe that the “Windows way” class is growing faster. And it would be good if that’s the case because also Open Source code can die. Have a closer look at the sourceforge cementry if you don’t think so.
“Why can’t the Distro CHOOSE to contain less? In general, if less is not good, dont use it.”
Thre are reasons for this, as i addressed earlier:
1) 56k6, modem low-bandwith and non-Internet users prefer to buy or otherwise obtain a full packet which allows them to actually use the system instead of downloading lots of software.
2) A live CD or demo CD. You really do want that to be complete too, especially if the user doesn’t want to install it on HDD. It has to be complete to reflect what a Linux distribution (or certain aspects of it, like KDE) are like. It also has to be complete so that the user doesn’t have to install more or other software which is magically gone after a reboot in the case it ain’t installed on the HDD.
3) The lack of chosing what the user wants has a (or multiple) reason(s), too. I’m not sure what that could be so its hard to think about a solution. (I did address some solutions earlier in this thread.)
PS: Its time to leave the actual debate and start a more constructive debate. Its obvious some people agree with the points made in the article and some don’t. That’s not interesting anymore; it’s now interesting to start brainstorming about actual solutions.
PPS: In the end, i believe several commercial Linux distributions will fade away when ‘Linux’ becomes more polished hence popular. The war is currently going on, question is still who.
Sorry for O.T…
People, you have clear, simple choices of responses when faced with an article you agree or disagree with.
1. Constructive Reply.
By replying, you are either adding to what the author said or debating something you disagreed with.
2. Start a flamewar
Making outrageous claims, calling the author names or putting down other on the forum doesn’t make you seem like a decent person.
3. Ignore it.
So, let’s say the author called your mom fat. OK, fling poo at him all day. Otherwise, just shake it off. Is it really that important?
Very nice article and I agree completely.
All these choices are fine when it’s your own machine in your own little world. But what about when you need to start sharing all those documents and spreadsheets with others? If everyone is using a different word editor or spreadsheet program, it makes things much easier.
Language is similar. Everyone has their own unique slang for the peer group they are in. But we speak a common language to communicate ideas between these various groups.
/me puts on the fake moustache
Precisely! Choice is what is keeping users, USERS, away from Linux! Tons of them! Lots of USERS! LOTS! AWAY! Gone forever! Because choice was forced upon them! Unbeknownst! As is it wasn’t bad enough to chose between Pepsi and Coke, McDonalds and Burger King, poor users have to chose between distibutions! Between applications! OMG!
Of course, we all know how to fix it: Microsoft’s marketing division once aptly advertised Internet Explorer with “one operating system, one web, one browser”. That is the path we must follow.
We must learn from se leaders! Choice is se enemy! A parasite! It must be errradicated! Our fight must be continued, to convince se ‘vacky’ ‘zealot’ ‘monks’ of their errrors! Sey make it harrrd! Sey LOVE to make it harrd! On US! Sey … seir DEGENERATED obsession with choice hurrrts US! It forces us to SINK! To make DECISIONS! Noone should be able to do sat to us! Choice is …. chrr … straffen …. chrrr … strunzbunz! Jawoll!
/me removes the fake moustache
Ahem. Feel free to remove as much choice as you want. The free software licenses allow you to do that, if that makes you happy. I don’t get why limiting choices is a good thing from the article, but hey, if it works for you, that’s fine, too.
I doubt that calling people ‘wacky’ was that useful, but I guess the author didn’t have that much choice, right?
have fun implemenating it,
dalibor topic
Okay, when you’re installing any distro of Linux, like Mandrake, RH, anything…you have the choice of which packages to install. Whether you’re wanting to install only open office and some media programs, or development tools, etc. The main problem for the everyday home user, like the article stated, is that people are uninformed. With each distro download, or if you buy one, should be accompanied by a little info guide, that explains things simply, like “Okay, you’ll need OpenOffice if you’re wanting to do this. You’ll need to install samba if you want to access a windows network” And then, the guides should even come with recommendations for user type, whether you just do office work, you deal with multimedia, you just want a regular home experience, etc.
Honestly, half of the time you install a distro, you have everything you need at your fingertips right along with the distro, so alot of times there’s no need to compile a program or anything…people just need a guide on what to use.
who keep replying with “…if you don’t like it, don’t use it,” or the like. This really concerns me. How are those using that rationale really thinking that linux will truly contend with microsoft on the desktop?
I am in agreement with the article. I think too much choice for the beginner or convert may be a bit overwhelming. Install with a limited set of apps so as to minimize confusion. But, do make it available and easy for the user to add more later. Flex, and also unflex. Distros like Xandros already do this, and do it rather well, but I think what the author meant was to actually standardize this sort of behavior. I honestly believe it’ll do wonders for linux’ popularity and adoption.
cheers
We need Linuxsoft! And the advantages of Linuxsoft, being free, more secure, etc, outweight anything that Microsoft can come up with. You don’t understand, but if you do as I say, we can do it. Every enterprise as well as every user will think very serious of Linux if we standardize everything, creating what will be from now on known as Linuxsoft. I could be the head of it, for my idea is original and I deserve to be known for it, but I’m willing to let anyone use my idea as they please, because the humanity wellbeing is above my one. 🙂
is the most piss poor article I’ve seen posted here. This is propoganda from outside the community. The reason Linux has so much choice is because that is the priciple it’s community founded it upon. Also…learn to spell and use proper grammar. Totally nonprofessional articles like this one cease to interest me.
If we we’re comparing apples to apples, the author would have a good point about standards and choice being contradictory. However, when he gives examples of choice, then making mention of the LSB, he is comparing apples with oranges.
The LSB is aiming at the API’s and ABI’s, file system organization, and package management, to help avoid Linux forking and making sure that softare developers/vendors and service providers are not shooting at a moving target.
But the application and DE choices the author mentions encompass the software that runs on top of the API’s and ABI’s, the file system, and the package management system.
So, having “standards” and having “choice” are not mutually exclusive. You can have “standards” for the base system, but then provide plenty of “choice” for the user to run on top of that base system. Ultimately, this is the best way to go – you get the best of both worlds.
I read all the comments so far (+75), and there seems to be something clear; Linux lovers, users and advocates are trying to prove that the choice is good. But these guys do not understand. Choice is great; look at OS X. It has little choices when you install it. Then you can choose virtually from thousands of applications. I’d say that 80% of the OS X users, never discovered the icon called Terminal.
That means, they don’t care about anything; they have their set of [insert your app here] and that’s what they do. Who cares about choice. They Don’t. Do we? More or less, yes.
But this is a complex subject. You can twist the subject as much as you can and you will discover, depending upon your relative point of view at the time of writting, that Linux may be ready for the desktop, that linux is not ready, linux will never be ready, and things like those. The PC userbase around the world is huge, you just can’t pretend that this will please ’em all “just one day”.
Think of this, if you use linux, (at least for more than two months) then you’re capable of choosing, you’re probably used to your system, the system you’ve chosen. If, on the other hand you don’t use linux, then you could find it easy to start with or NOT AT ALL. You may end up overwhelmed.
Because the vast amount of ‘good’ choices are exactly that, TOO VAST. Being a techie geek who compiles a kernel three times a day is not an excuse for having that freedom -if you get my point-. Is not about “i do it because I can”, “I have choice if I want”, “I have this and that”…
A linux distribution Must take over windows, not please a geeky market (small if you excuse me). Those will always get what they want, i.e.: hack the kernel. But the secretary sitting a few feet from you, doesn’t give a damn sh**.
As UserFriendly.Org said:
“I will love you, when all users on earth agree on which distribution of Linux is the best”.
Choice.. choice? Choose whatever you want, but to fight windows, use standards, define rules, eliminate duplicates. In the end, linux is “as open” as you want it to be. Think of OS X here.
And think of this, don’t be a flamer.. THINK, linux is NOT an OS? Ok… but neither it’s YOUR kernel… and if it is.. then it will NEVER conquer the market outside server world.
ymmv.
(Mac OS X, Windows, OpenBSD and some Linux Servers user/admin)
So you want a distro that limits choice, going with “best of bread” programs to bundle with it, thus avoiding newbie confusion? Well, there are plenty of them:
Linspire
Xandros
Lycoris
To name but a few, and they all seem to standardize on Debian base system/packages, KDE, OpenOffice, and Mozilla.
You want more than what these distros bundle? No problem. You can either download more programs from these distros’ repositories, or you can get a distro that bundles lots of extra goodies, like Mandrake, SuSE, Fedora, or Debian. Also, these distros come in a “base/newbie/cheap” version, if that is what is desired.
So, the article is really bitching about a non-issue.
So secure in his knowledge and superiority over all those Joe Sixpacks.
Just repeating what I have been told by people in the US .. I didn’t make the stuff up. In fact, I was told by a grandma just last night .. “I want it to work just like a calculator. If not, I’m going to bed.”
Maybe it’s different in other countries.
So condescending about what they need or want or their abilities and so full of self-righteous indignation at the 3000, yes, not 2000 or 2500 but 3000 text editors that every distribution offers.
Actually, I mis-spoke .. it’s 2999.
Choice is great; look at OS X. It has little choices when you install it. Then you can choose virtually from thousands of applications. I’d say that 80% of the OS X users, never discovered the icon called Terminal.
That means, they don’t care about anything
Huh? What do you mean with “don’t care about anything”? Don’t you think that when they’d want a different app, they’re able to chose for that? According to this, you do:
they have their set of [insert your app here] and that’s what they do.
Therefore
Who cares about choice. They Don’t.
Obviously, they do care about the freedom to make a choice in this aspect. Just because they can’t chose everything, don’t chose what you want, or aren’t able or do make a choice on every (tiny little non-issue) proposition doesn’t disprive that.
Is not about “i do it because I can”, “I have choice if I want”
And.. why not?
As UserFriendly.Org said:
“I will love you, when all users on earth agree on which distribution of Linux is the best”.
That’s a joke, duh! You can’t reasonably say that was meant serious.
“I will love you, when all humans on earth agree on which political system and party is the best”
Well duh, won’t happen. Besides the elements being in motion (Linux 2 years ago != Linux right now, Repubs 100 years ago != Repubs as of now, etc etc) it is also simply not PRACTICAL there will be a consensus. Hence you get either fragmentation or opressed, forced choice.
Instead, what matters is on what layers that fragmentation versus already chosed are made. Language? Please give me the choice to run the Linux kernel programmed in BASIC. Please give me VMS, with the Linux kernel. See some choices aren’t practical because you can’t make ’em, because they’re based on other choices made which cannot be turned back (easily or not at all).
You were going so well up till you hit this part.
“…If you ask me, I’ll tell you straight out: I’m all for
removal of choice from Linux distributions…”
and sir, quite frankly if you ask me, I’ll tell you straight out: that is one of the most moronic things ever said. It is exactly this choice that has made the open source community what it is, too much choice isn’t a bad thing, more options give you more to learn, more choices gives you more things to explore. Removal of that plethora of choices means you have less to learn, less to explore, less to play with, and that someone knows better than you do what you should be using. Sir, fsck that.
z1xq: “is the most piss poor article I’ve seen posted here. This is propoganda from outside the community. The reason Linux has so much choice is because that is the priciple it’s community founded it upon. Also…learn to spell and use proper grammar. Totally nonprofessional articles like this one cease to interest me.”
That would be “its community”, not “it’s.” Also, “cease to interest me” would imply that you had interest in it at one point but no longer. What you want is “fail to interest”; something along those lines.
Bah. I find it quite sad most of the readership who are replying here just aren’t able to develop some kind of nuance, instead relying on classic, flawed dogma. Always the same in topics like this: far too generalizing, not constructive, dogmatic/zealotic, and never looking futher than their nose long is. Only whine, whine, whine. Where are the constructive replies? I’m able to count them on 2 hands with both 5 fingers…
Had the author included the aspect JeffS addressed in detail though with a few words only (comment #93, here: http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=8304&offset=90&rows=98#28…) the discussion would be more constructive perhaps. At least i hope so. Because right now its more of a flamewar than anything else, omitting anythingh constructive. Bah.
Removal of that plethora of choices means you have less to learn, less to explore, less to play with, and that someone knows better than you do what you should be using. Sir, fsck that.
Not by definition: Or good standards to work upon, to create choices. If the standards ain’t good, its time to address Houston though.
Think about it: do you want 100 versions of C just for the sake of choice? I don’t. I don’t want 10 multimedia players in my DE either so i chose a few i like most and don’t install the others.
In Windows this is in some cases just less of a problem because there’s one ‘standard’ choice and because of piracy. Think about Photoshop (although on Linux, GIMP2 is more or less the standard on home-end user desktops, i guess.).
(Although even if standards are good, marketing dept. can fuck it up. See the DEC / Alpha / OpenVMS debacle.)