20 Mar
2013
20 Mar
'13
2:04 a.m.
On Tue, March 19, 2013 4:26 pm, Louigi Verona wrote:
When discussing Linux going mainstream, we have to be
clear on this: the
concept of Linux is at its core alien to mainstream usage.
Mainstream usage is people using computers as a function. Mainstream usage
focuses more on what computer does than on what the computer is.
Linux usage is more about the computer. It is a hobby of diving into
technology. Over the years all this tinkering has produced a working
environment, sure, but its inners workings are still married to the
initial
concept.
So if there is a main "reason", it is this.
I don't know if I personally want a mainstream Linux. I am not suggesting
I enjoy not having things work right, but the people who are working
hardest to make Linux mainstream are not making things I really enjoy.
Lets see, systemd, upstart, pulseaudio, Unity, MIR... the list goes on,
lots of stuff that makes Linux harder to use for uses off the beaten path.
Mainstreaming linux means moving towards kiosk functionality. Limiting
user choices.
Not that long ago all linux distros had two main runlevels, CLI and GUI.
Now, both systemd and upstart support runlevels 2 to 5, but there are
parts of the operating system that don't too. There are some services that
are hard to turn off just by changing runlevels. Yet these runlevels
present a great opportunity for creating a runlevel that is "service
quiet" for low latency audio use. SO if I create an app that configures
runlevels for that, it has to deal with 3 different systems... two of
which are still changing from release to release.
The good thing about going mainstream is that people like Ubuntu give us a
place to play and store packages. EVen if the "flagship" is not usable for
what I want to do... they still offer space for xfce DE stuff.
The world is an imperfect place. I am quite happy Linux is around and has
gained enough support that I can expect it to be around as long as I need
it.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net