Stupid joke aside, the year of the Linux desktop is the year that you choose to run Linux on your desktop. The end. People have been running Linux on desktop machines long before it was convenient or even sensible (Red Hat's early releases and broken GCC's come to mind)...now you can download something like Linux Mint and be up and running, fully patched, faster than you can with most Windows systems.
So yeah, the year of the Linux desktop? Whatever year you want it to be. All I can say is that I hope you're
There is no standard for what the "year of Linux on the desktop" means, so it's not possible to move the goalposts. The fallacy that you reference cannot apply.
Linux-based OSs have had reasonably advanced desktop functionality for well over a decade now. Millions of people are using one of them as their primary OS today. The AC is right. Your "year of Linux on the desktop" is the year that you decide to use it.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday February 17, 2015 @08:13AM (#49072711)
Hardly. The "year of Linux on the desktop" is indeed understood to mean some form of market dominance. It has nothing, and never has had anything, to do with personal preferences.
There may be a year of Linux on the desktop. The potential is there, but pretending it means something else is silly. It doesn't.
> Hardly. The "year of Linux on the desktop" is indeed understood to mean some form of market dominance.
So? Apple managed fine without this.
It's a DOS centric mindset that demands that a successful consumer microcomputing product must WIPE OUT all of the other options. Although it does nicely frame the problem that any alternative faces.
Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only
specification is that it should run noiselessly.
That clinches it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Stupid joke aside, the year of the Linux desktop is the year that you choose to run Linux on your desktop. The end. People have been running Linux on desktop machines long before it was convenient or even sensible (Red Hat's early releases and broken GCC's come to mind)...now you can download something like Linux Mint and be up and running, fully patched, faster than you can with most Windows systems.
So yeah, the year of the Linux desktop? Whatever year you want it to be. All I can say is that I hope you're
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no standard for what the "year of Linux on the desktop" means, so it's not possible to move the goalposts. The fallacy that you reference cannot apply.
Linux-based OSs have had reasonably advanced desktop functionality for well over a decade now. Millions of people are using one of them as their primary OS today. The AC is right. Your "year of Linux on the desktop" is the year that you decide to use it.
Re:That clinches it. (Score:0)
Hardly. The "year of Linux on the desktop" is indeed understood to mean some form of market dominance. It has nothing, and never has had anything, to do with personal preferences.
There may be a year of Linux on the desktop. The potential is there, but pretending it means something else is silly. It doesn't.
Re: (Score:3)
> Hardly. The "year of Linux on the desktop" is indeed understood to mean some form of market dominance.
So? Apple managed fine without this.
It's a DOS centric mindset that demands that a successful consumer microcomputing product must WIPE OUT all of the other options. Although it does nicely frame the problem that any alternative faces.