Advanced

Linux, Linux, everywhere!

Posted by tomi30 on · 29 comments
www.idreamoflinux.com		Mail this story
Print this story

Every year there are articles published about this being the "Year of Linux". I read many of them and I realized that there is no specific "Year of Linux". I also wrote my own article arguing that every year is the year of Linux and as the Linux market share grows, one day we will realize that Linux is everywhere.

Every year there are articles published about this being the "Year of Linux". I read many of them and I realized that there is no specific "Year of Linux". I also wrote my own article arguing that every year is the year of Linux and as the Linux market share grows, one day we will realize that Linux is everywhere.

Not long ago, I started to realize that Linux is already creeping up on me from all sides. People who have never heard of Linux were raving about it. They were showing me their latest gadgets and telling me how cool they were. After several months of random people going on about their gadgets I did realize that Linux is everywhere and it came upon us from an unusual source. If you haven't figured it out yet, I am talking about Android which is based on the Linux kernel. A lot of people purchasing their latest phones do not know what Linux is or that Android is based on the Linux kernel. However, they are definitely happy with their latest hardware and the many features Android has. Moreover, Android phones are selling in large quantities and are surpassing Blackberry and iPhone sales. This is amazing and the trend seems to be continuing with excellent and solid phones such as the Samsung Galaxy S2. The Galaxy S2 is a gorgeous phone and it is even better than the iPhone 4. Apple will definitely have to come up with many cool new features for the iPhone 5 to be able to compete with the Android Smartphones.

One great thing about Android is that it is not limited to cellphones only. Android is being used on netbooks and tablets which have become very popular in the last few years. Because many users who use Android on their cellphones are familiar with the operating system, they have no problems buying netbooks and tablets which run Android as well. The cellphone industry was a great way to introduce people to the Android OS and then place the software on other gadgets as well.

Walking through a Big Box computer store today you will notice how many devices are running Android as well as the massive push in advertising. This is really neat to see and I am surprised that Android is so popular among everyday users who are not tech savvy. These people are the majority of consumers and are snapping up cellphones, netbooks and tablets running Android in large numbers.

Linux is definitely everywhere and continues to grow into markets that were dominated by other operating systems before. The server market is already being dominated by Linux. Cell phones, netbooks and tablets are starting to be dominated by Android and the last frontier is the desktop in which it has limited reach so far. However, one day we might just see Linux slowly creep up on us on the desktop as well.

Full Story

  Nav
» Read more about: Groups: Kernel, Linux; Story Type: News Story

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (29)

Why is this tagged with Enlightenment?

Jeff91 ·
Has nothing to do with the E desktop from what I can see.

~Jeff
nikkels ·
No, it is to ' enlighten you ', the reader :-)
gus3 ·
As opposed to endarkenment? Like that would ever happen on LXer.

(ha ha only serious)
dinotrac ·
Maybe it embiggens us.

Big Box Computer Store?

smallboxadmin ·
Quoting:Apple will definitely have to come up with many cool new features for the iPhone 5 to be able to compete with the Android Smartphones.
No, Apple just needs to keep making sure they have quality apps in the app store.
Quoting:Walking through a Big Box computer store today...
There are big box computer stores? Other than the Apple Store, I don't think I've been in a computer store for at least 10 years.
jdixon ·
> There are big box computer stores?

Best Buy and Tiger Direct come to mind.
smallboxadmin ·
There are no Tiger Direct stores in California, and I wouldn't classify Best Buy, Fry's, etc. as a Big Box computer stores.
jdixon ·
> I wouldn't classify Best Buy, Fry's, etc. as a Big Box computer stores.

Fry's, maybe not. But what would you classify Best Buy as? They're hardly a general electronics retailer.
theboomboomcars ·
The best buy we have here would be a general electronics store, they sell computers, tvs, car audio, appliances, cameras, and pretty much anything else that needs electricity to operate,
jdixon ·
> The best buy we have here would be a general electronics store...

I don't believe the ones I've seen carry appliances. They do carry some limited audio/video stuff, but nowhere near what the local Circuit City did, from memory.
tmx ·
Here in US MicroCenter is a pretty good selections, even an Apple section, and they sell Free and PC-BSD dics, but only have few location around the country. Office Depot has some stuff. But I never buy from box store since you can get everything cheaper online. And I have yet to shop any electronic store with better service than Amazon, especially on getting full refunds.

Also I recommend no one to ever stop in Best Buy. There are already some documentation about their practices such as: http://www.overclock.net/windows/569458-microsoft-attack-lin... and http://consumerist.com/2007/07/video-consumerist-catches-gee... But the last time I went in there first time in couple years and come back later trying to return an item. Forced to wait 20 minutes while they rewind the camera tape to see if I actually did brought the item through the door from outside, even though I have the receipt.

Like the server rooms - it keeps slipping in under the radar

BernardSwiss ·
I like to talk about pre-teens who managed to install Linux back in 2002, and accountant types who converted their office and servers back in 2004, without a techie to help them.

And these days, the Public Library staff know a fair bit about Linux, Open Source, and open formats.

But a couple of weekends ago at the local Starbuck's, I met I mill worker, who prefers Slackware on his netbook, and installed it himself, though he does have a techie brother-in-law who admins Linux.

lcafiero ·
I agree, and interesting story about the Slackware-using mill worker. All of which is to say that the myth that there's some "voodoo" to using Linux has been systematically being dispelled.
jdixon ·
> I met I mill worker, who prefers Slackware on his netbook, and installed it himself,

One of the oldest and least founded myths is that Slackware is hard to install.
gus3 ·
@jdixon, there was a time when the myth was well-founded. The modern Slackware install is vastly improved over the way it used to be.
jdixon ·
> ...there was a time when the myth was well-founded.

In comparison to what?

When you had to download Slackware onto floppies and install from them it was hard to install. But at that point the only comparable distro was Debian, which had it's own installation issues. Slackware has never been significantly harder to install than other distros.
BernardSwiss ·
Don't you know?

Anything (especially installing an operating system) that requires one to read -- let alone follow -- directions is just "too hard" for mere mortals.

patrokov ·
The Slackware install has been fairly easy since 2003, when I started using it. I thought the whole system was much simpler than Debian, where Stable was so ancient as not to have any software you actually wanted to use and Unstable broke quite often. I still have nightmares over trying to use dselect to do anything worthwhile.

And if you needed to compile support for, oh say a network card, the Debian netinstall disks didn't have the necessary kernel headers.

The package system in Slackware is so much easier to understand. Optional things (like KDE) go in /opt where they belong instead of threaded all throughout /usr/bin /usr/share and /usr/lib. Easier to back up; easier to erase. Easier to maintain side by side installations. It's also easier in that when you install a package, you're installing the whole thing, not one seven hundredth of the program.

And the BSD style startup scripts are SOOOOOO much easier to figure out. If you want to actually learn how to use Linux, Slackware is a much better choice than Debian, Redhat, or Suse. Slackware (for me) was easier to install and the only one of the four that was actually faster than Windows.
Bob_Robertson ·
I've never seen a "problem" instaling "debian", just a lack of flash and panache.
BernardSwiss ·
Well, Debian was my first distro -- back in 2000.

But despite my experience maintaining and occasionally installing Windows, I had no illusions that I had a great deal of expertise -- so I most definitely did read the directions (more than once), first.

And I never had to compile anything.

And even "Unstable" proved to be reliable. Of course, I was coming from Windows 98 -- so my definition of "reliable" may ;-) have been rather lax...

jdixon ·
> I've never seen a "problem" instaling "debian", just a lack of flash and panache.

How far back are we talking, Bob? Around 95 or so, the Debian install was rather difficult, if I remember correctly (not significantly harder than Slackware though). I haven't seen any problems for a number of years though.
gus3 ·
KDE in /opt on Slackware? News to me.
Bob_Robertson ·
JD, 95 is when I installed Debian the first time. 14 floppy disks. Or was it 16?

On a 386-33, where I could read the boot messages in real time.

The only problem I had was identifying my monitor so I could find a modline for it.

Oh, and that I didn't know about ctl-alt-f1 to get OUT of X once it was working. All I knew was alt-f1 and etc. to swap between consoles outside of X.
jdixon ·
> KDE in /opt on Slackware? News to me.

I believe it used to be gus. Been a while though.

Bob: The main problem I had installing Debian in 95 was trying to update it over dialup. Ouch. That's what made me decide to stick with Slackware. Updating Slackware over dialup was much easier. But the installation's process for choosing what to install and what not to was also a major pain, IIRC.
number6x ·
wasn't kde in /opt back in the late 90's. Qt was not completely free, and the S.u.S.E.(pre-Novell) team were fond of /opt for commercial and non-free software (in the unix tradition) and they were big contributors to KDE.

I also remeber when S.u.S.E. still had the slackware multi-disk layout, so get off my lawn!
cr ·
KDE 1.0 installed into /opt when I downloaded it for Red Hat 5.2.
gus3 ·
I guess I missed the boat on early Slackware KDE. My first Slackware install was from The Linux Bible, which ran a 1.2.13 kernel and had neither KDE nor GNOME. I made boot and root floppies, but the installer managed to get the disksets from the CD-ROM. And it took only 3 attempts for this total newbie to get it to boot properly! :-)
cr ·
@gus3: Your 1.2.13 kernel predated KDE's arrival by quite a bit. Red Hat 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2 used the 2.0 kernel; I bought all three boxes as they came out, so my installs were contemporary, and IIRC KDE was just attracting notice when RHL 5.2 was released ((C) 1998 on the box -- yeesh, you got me blowing dust off boxes here) with fvwm2 as a desktop.

[fix fvwm]

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post