Simply incredible
|
|
|
Linux poll leaves The INQUIRER's readers divided
THE LATEST POLL we've run at The INQUIRER on Linux left readers divided on what they thought a world without the UNIX-like operating system would be like.
At Linuxcon last month, executive director of the Linux Foundation Jim Zemlin suggested that the world would collapse without Linux. We asked, would the world be so terrible without Linux?
It wouldn't be a terrible place at all, many of you answered. Most readers think Linux is too fragmented, however, with 25 per cent and the biggest percentage of the vote saying, "No, Linux has got too unwieldy with too many distros".
Meanwhile, and not shockingly, the most unpopular answer to the poll, with just 15 per cent of the vote was, "No, I use Windows". We think that number sounds about right.
More of you are fans of Linux, our poll revealed, with 22 per cent of you saying, "Yes, Linux has helped to keep Microsoft from totally dominating the OS space". Right on.
Another 21 per cent, so pretty close, let their Apple hatred rule their vote, and were glad the fruit themed firm has been handed a spanner in the works with Linux. Those readers answered, "Yes, without Linux there would be no Android and Apple would complete world domination".
Of course, when compiling our Linux poll, The INQUIRER had to include a beard option, after all we have seen some amazing beards as a result of Linux. And we were right in thinking beards have a role, as 17 per cent voted, "Yes, I wouldn't have a beard if it wasn't for Linux".
Food for thought certainly, as the world would be a rather sad place without beards, too. µ
Tags: Software
Share this:
Share
I work in the electronics industry building equipment that runs the backbone of the internet. If the world suddenly lost Linux with all the equipment running on a Linux OS being raptured; then; I have no idea what might happen. I do know that the internet would cease to function. Telecommunications would go down. Essentially most of the data over cable communications would fail. I expect that many other embedded systems in other electronics fields would also go down because the electronics companies who make those have no desire to cut the Microsoft licensing fees directly out of their profit margin. But that is pure conjecture on my part.
It is fine if your Inquirer reader does not feel dependent on Linux. I'm not sure who is more ignorant, on average. The utilitarian Windows user who bought the cheapest box they could find a Walmart, or, the elitist artist who has a house full of Apple products which never cease functionin, but when they do they don't even know where the power source can be located.
I don't feel dependent on teachers until they go on strike and half our workforce doesn't show up because they had to stay home to take care of their kids.
People who complain about too many distros don't understand linux.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but so what! Isn't it simple to make any (ANY) application run under any (ANY) distro? For simplicity there are the "competing" program managers (APT, RPM, YUM, etc.) But let's face it, they're all just pre-compiled source code - so, factually, any distro can run any application. A disto's advantage is for some reason besides the applications.
But I'm a simple-minded KDE user, so my distribution of choice is ....
“as if the most important thing to most ordinary users is the freedom to have different wallpaper or to move the menu bar from the bottom to the top (or the reverse).”
Well, funnily enough, Windows users seem to make a big deal of it when some utility adds this capability to their platforms, so clearly it isn’t just Linux fans who consider that sort of thing important.
Face it: Linux offers just as many options as the market will sustain, no more, no less. The fact that there is only one dominant proprietary PC platform is because the costs of proprietary development are too high to support competition.
But where Linux has got a foothold, we see quite a different story. For example, Android is kicking the competition’s butt in smartphones. There, Microsoft is completely unable to compete, because Linux-based Android offers such a wider range of choice.
Some people try to denigrate this choice by referring to it as “fragmentation”. As though, say, the breakfast-cereal market is “fragmented” because there are too many brands of cereal to choose from. Or the car market is “fragmented” because there are too many models to choose from.
It’s all about choice. Open systems support choice, proprietary systems do not. End of story.
I am staggered by the number of Linux advocates who don't realize the damage the proliferation of "distributions" does to Linux. So many Linux advocates witter on about "choice", as if the most important thing to most ordinary users is the freedom to have different wallpaper or to move the menu bar from the bottom to the top (or the reverse). Would Android be so popular if their were 500 different Android distros? The only advantage of the many distros is the ability to choose which bits you would like to work. Sadly no one makes a distro where it all works properly. I keep thinking of "united we stand, divided we fall". Hmmm.
You should run a poll on which version of OS have people worked on Unix/Linux e.g.
Red-Hat
AIX
Solaris
HP-UX
SUSE
etc
With a second poll of which OS is more stable, select 1st and 2nd place.