Am 13.03.2013 21:51, schrieb Louigi Verona:
I agree on this and on most of the other things you write. But methinks,
I have not pointed out clear enough, what I was to say ;-)
If Linux arrives on the markets, is recognized as important enough to be
supported by hardware-makers, is accepted by the general public as a
thing that stands besides Mac and Windows as a real alternative, does
not depend on Linux as such. It depends on marketing efforts.
If somebody takes a well-designed Distro with properly maintained repos
such as Mageia, Ubuntu, Fedora or Arch and adds PR plus advertisement
worth 4-500 Million dollares and announces, that everybody can buy
devices with this distro on every corner everywhere on the planet, then
there is a product, that competes with Mac and Windows.
Google kind of did so with Android. Maybe Canonical plans to do so some
day sooner or later. But even the most perfectly designed Linux-Distro
cannot compete with anything, based only on its technical features.
Microsoft tells the people: "Buy Windows and you are on the secure side,
as mainstream as you can possibly get." Apple tells the people: "Buy a
Mac and be mainstream but some kinda special too." Google tells the
people: "Buy us and try something kinda new, look we are a bit cooler
than the others, so be with us and soon you do not need that PC-thing
What will someone say, that tries to push Linux to the markets? Someone,
who commits half a billion dollars capital in the campaign, that is.
Markets are controlled by money, not by quality of products or let alone
sane decisions of costumers. Costumers choose from that, what they see
on shelfs and owner of market-shares decide, what is on the shelfs.
> It is clear, of course, why Linux does have a name, as it is set aside from
I know and you know and everybody on this list knows, that Linux is but
a Kernel. But to the general public "Linux" is a complete OS plus
applications. This is more or less good enough for me. nteresting
though, that some 7 years ago a friend told me, he purchased a boxed
"Linux 9.2" it was Suse 9.2 -- he named it Linux, because he did not
know, that there are other Distros out there also: there was just one
boxed Linux on the shelf he picked it from....
Today I meet people, that installed Ubuntu and do not know, that it is a
> Saying "Ubuntu, based on Linux kernel" says nothing to the non-tech user
Hopefully Ubuntu-users will have enough education about their OS, to
know that a scanner or printer, that works with Ubuntu will work with
Fedora or Mageia as well.... And that they know, that if they should
dislike Unity, KDE or XFCE is just a few clicks in the packagemanager away.
Not mention a Kernel, mention the technical basis of the ecosystem.
"GNU/Linux" would be appropriate but "Linux" is good enough with the
advantage, that one cryptic syllable less needs to be explained ;-)
Linux-audio-user mailing list