Couple of weeks ago Miguel de Icaza, original author of GNOME project,
stated that Linux on desktop the is dead. Well...
Let's say, I do agree with this statement, but I do not agree with
the meaning of it. Mr. Gnome, now a proud user of Mac OS X, thinks
that only strong end-user market share can show qualities of
an operating system. Au contraire. The more people use an OS,
the more must that OS be targeted to the common computer-ignorant
mass. And as I consider myself not to be computer-ignorant, I see
this as a nightmare.
Fifty years ago computers were domain of noble men in white lab
coats, doing their stuff in Algol, Fortran and Cobol, using
punchcards and teletypes. Fourty years ago these very same people
created Unix to suit themselves. And finally - twenty years ago
an IT student created Linux kernel. No matter how hard I try, I see
no generic user in any part of this history.
Unix-like OSes were created for people with knowledge of technology.
This kind of people tends to like freedom, which inevitably results
in variety. Not everyone likes everything and if you have enough skill
and source code, you can do anything you want. What one sees as chaos,
another sees as freedom and scalability.
Today, anyone can use a computer and everyone does so. Apple did
remarkable job in bringing stability of Unix world to generic user.
But this is just one way how to make an OS. The other way is the free
world of Linux and other free and open Unix clones, where anyone who
knows how, can configure his own operating system to suit his taste.
And this brings me back to the original statement. Yes, desktop Linux
is dead. But just on the desktop of previously mentioned
computer-ignorant user. And thanks God for that. For me, Linux
carries tradition of operating systems for noble men in white lab
coats with punchcards in their pockets. And that is the group I'd like
to identify with. Not the mass outside the lab.
