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.
> 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.
Are you REALLY buying your own BS, or are you just trolling? As one Linux friendly site easily defines "a year of the desktop where Linux desktop market share suddenly rises in relatively dramatic fashion."
That's their definition. It's by no means a universally-accepted one.
If you want to argue about whether or not particular goals have been met, then you're going to have to define what those goals are and who is trying to achieve them. The phrase "year of linux on the desktop" doesn't do so.
You're arguing from a misconception, and looking like an idiot doing it. I haven't "lost" anything, because I'm not in a competition with anyone. This war that you think I'm fighting against Microsoft exists only in your own mind.
It is undeniable reality that millions of people, many of them non-technical, use a Linux desktop every day. You can make up your own definition for "year of the Linux desktop" if you like, but good luck getting everybody else to follow your lead.
You left out Valve. If (and that may be a big IF, but one can hope), if they are able to get enough game developers supporting Linux as a real option then I think a double digit shift in market share is certainly possible. The biggest problem then is the legacy games. My main system has been running Linux for a while now (though I had dual boot there to play some games). Now I have a secondary system that runs windows for those games (with a dual boot to Linux, just because), but they generally stay in
It depends on the direction of application development. The reason Windows stays on top is that it's compatible with Windows-compatible software. People have returned Linux-based computers because they won't run Windows software (no, in this case Wine is not a satisfactory answer).
If everything moves to the web, then the operating system really doesn't matter, and Linux then becomes a better choice. The popularity of tablets and smart phones does make cloud storage more attractive, and the desirabilit
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
Comment removed (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: (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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you REALLY buying your own BS, or are you just trolling? As one Linux friendly site easily defines "a year of the desktop where Linux desktop market share suddenly rises in relatively dramatic fashion."
That's their definition. It's by no means a universally-accepted one.
If you want to argue about whether or not particular goals have been met, then you're going to have to define what those goals are and who is trying to achieve them. The phrase "year of linux on the desktop" doesn't do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're arguing from a misconception, and looking like an idiot doing it. I haven't "lost" anything, because I'm not in a competition with anyone. This war that you think I'm fighting against Microsoft exists only in your own mind.
It is undeniable reality that millions of people, many of them non-technical, use a Linux desktop every day. You can make up your own definition for "year of the Linux desktop" if you like, but good luck getting everybody else to follow your lead.
I won't even throw a temper tant
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the direction of application development. The reason Windows stays on top is that it's compatible with Windows-compatible software. People have returned Linux-based computers because they won't run Windows software (no, in this case Wine is not a satisfactory answer).
If everything moves to the web, then the operating system really doesn't matter, and Linux then becomes a better choice. The popularity of tablets and smart phones does make cloud storage more attractive, and the desirabilit