when do you think linux will really take off?

Ubuntu is really shaping up to be a MS replacement.
i believe that when Linux takes off "Ubuntu" will do it and it will be synonymous with the word "Linux"

A few things need to happen first:

1) The Linux kernel will officially fork; there will be a desktop kernel and a server kernel.

2)
a) apple will open up OSX a bit more and there will be 100% compatibility between the two thereby bringing more apps/games to linux.

OR

2)
b) apple will discontinue its mac line to focus on electronics/gadgets and release its OS under the BSD license just to spite MS (probably after jobs is dead)

3) WINE will get a lot more funding from interest groups and get a lot better fast.

4) netbooks will play a important role in narrowing the learning curve.

5)
a) the hardware companies will shrink even more until there is only 2-3 players for each component and dell/acer will demand linux support

OR

b) "Open hardware" will emerge, the product will be significantly cheaper as the drivers are written by the community.

6) a lot more linux apps will work under windows, reducing "the plunge".

7)
a)MS will continue doing what it always does, but an increase in OSS and widespread piracy will reduce its profit margins but not kill it.

OR

7)
b) MS will sue the pants off everyone for infringing on its IP, scaring every IT department in the world out of OSS, dumbshit judges will not understand a word and just agree with MS, forcing everybody but Novell to file bankruptcy, MS either buys Novell and purposely fucks it up or controls Novell with the threat of litigation


realistically we are looking at maybe 20-30 years and (7)b doesn't actually help linux to "take off".

if you have any additions or a better list share with us.

[Kamisama]

I'd say it has been since the release of Windows Vista. Windows Vista has really pissed everyone off. It was also the whole idea of Macs being popularizard that setup the idea that there exist "alternatives" to Windows.

Windows will still exist, but it should be eliminated by 2020 if Linux projects continue to excel as well as they have the past few years. I mean, in the 1990s, Linux was a bitch to setup. It's still a bitch to setup. However, since the Internet has become more developed, along with finding HOWTOs in a speedy manner, setting up Linux is easier than before.

I don't think live-cds were setup as well as they are now. People can simply download one of those and use it instead of Windows. It's a free OS for their computer.

Also, Linux provides more security than Windows.

There is also the fact that there are more technical users than before with each passing year.

There are still varied annoyances like networking, creating/manipulating users, and finding/being-patient-for driver support. NVidia killed over and allowed people to start having drivers for Linux, which is a big improvement. Companies have shown they are willing to work with the Linux userbase.

The real thing that is preventing the leap would be industrial type stuff. But Linux does a better job at that stuff. Unfortunately, people refuse to make programs/applications for anything but Windows. That's where the huge problem exists.

It's also economical. Take down Microsoft, then you have Apple leftover. And from that outlook, the idea of supply and demand in the computer world will change real fast.

Most techs/scientists don't want anything to do with Windows anymore, which is why I suspect it will die in the next ten years.

Also, Red Hat Linux was once synonymous with "Linux." That's the first thing people would think. Now most people think "Ubuntu." A while back it was "Knoppix." Well, depending on which package manager wins, I'd say it's going to be Debian in the end. Otherwise, it will be something like gentoo or some other system that's preconfigured and auto-update to let you build just about anything from source. That's the whole issue: Getting shit to install and compile.

I'm thinking Debian will win.

[rabbitweed]

Quality, bug free GUI tools for everything.

While I am a fan of the CLI, most people are not, it scares them, particularly newbies still firmly stuck in "windows mode".

Many of Ubuntus, for example, are quite buggy and not particularly powerful, and cover only a fraction of what an MS user can do with GUIs.

[Kamisama]

I think what I like most about Linux is the ability to customize it so well. What I really appreciate, however, is the way hardware works inside of the OSs.

For instance, I like the way the Xserver works. If a touchpad is being a little bitch and keeps jiliting on me, I can just reset the xserver and reload some files. I don't even have to reboot the computer. Directly afterwards, the touchpad is corrected once more. That's awesome. That saves a lot of time and effort.

For a regular user, the above is an incredibly awesome thing. The GUI doesn't look like shit. Fonts look incredible in Linux. And simple hardware resets make restoring to previous states easier than in Windows. With Windows, who knows how to exactly repair that hardware when something in the OS screws up. I've had hit and miss situations. I once had to delete a sound driver in Vista just for Vista to automagically reinstall it. Which was weird... I had no control, but what bothered me was there was no guarantee the driver would do that. Hell, I don't know jack about Vista. I was lucky.

I also like the fact there is a CLI way to control the hardware. That's even more awesome. I think Windows Vista was to employ some CLI control, but I haven't touched the OS that much. But I know in Linux that I can control mouse, keyboard, burner, video card, etc. very easily. Otherwise, I could pick up a programming language and hack the things much further than I could before. Linux allows people to get into the nitty gritty of things, and Windows doesn't allow that so much.

[Axiom]

Since the Asus Eeepc both my mom and sister are no longer afraid to use linux...

My sister actually runs it on her main laptop now since XP failed to activate for her...

If my mom's using it, very very soon I'd imagine...

[Prometheum]

Almost none of that really needs to happen. Especially not the whole kernel fork thing -- most Linux devs aren't using servers to develop their code, they're using desktops.

Apple contributions likely won't help, and "more games" won't help either. Those things might encourage more programs for the Gnu/Linux system, but they probably won't be free software, and without free software, Gnu/Linux won't be that different from Windows.

The main problem is that people don't realize the real point of Gnu/Linux. It isn't about being more secure or stable or easy to use or attractive, even though those things are all true -- The point of a Gnu/Linux system is to be Free-as-in-Freedom Software, and if people don't get that, Gnu/Linux is dead.

I think things will go in a different direction entirely.

The Linux kernel isn't free software. It won't get that much more free, either, for the reasons above. I think that Linux will fall to non-freedom, but HURD will finally dredge itself out of development hell due to the widespread propagation of virtualization technology being available to debug kernel servers. Then, Gnu/HURD will start along the same path that Gnu/Linux once was on, and the inherent pragmatic benefits of freedom will encourage more and more use. This time, with the FSF doing the main distribution, there won't be any loss of the freedom mindset, and the community will stay intact.

If this doesn't happen before RMS dies, we're screwed, because nobody can lead us out of non-freedom except RMS or someone damn like him.

i don't believe that Linux will go "non-free" if the OSS that it offers works just as well or better than commercial alternatives.

i believe that there will be a "transition period" were commercial software makers will try to port their wares to linux, fail due to equivalent OSS and release things under the GPL and make money out of support.

looking around the Linux apps i have everything works as good as commercial software

i don't understand what you mean when you say the linux kernel is non-free, its GPL isn't it?

in the long-run i believe that apple will adopt GPL for its software and make its money from the fact that the software is designed to run especially on a mac and "just works" on a mac. (conceivably it could be the next dell)

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by fined_mind

i don't believe that Linux will go "non-free" if the OSS that it offers works just as well or better than commercial alternatives.

i believe that there will be a "transition period" were commercial software makers will try to port their wares to linux, fail due to equivalent OSS and release things under the GPL and make money out of support.

looking around the Linux apps i have everything works as good as commercial software

i don't understand what you mean when you say the linux kernel is non-free, its GPL isn't it?

in the long-run i believe that apple will adopt GPL for its software and make its money from the fact that the software is designed to run especially on a mac and "just works" on a mac. (conceivably it could be the next dell)

This is a perfect example.

You're using the term "open source software", which minimizes freedom. You're using the term "Linux" to refer to the whole system, when really Linux is just a kernel. You also demonstrate lack of knowledge about the GPL: nothing precludes free software from being commercial.

The fact that Linux is non-free is minimized by the Linux devs. They don't like to admit it, but a sizable chunk of firmware distributed with the kernel is obfuscated binary with no source code and no freedom. The fact that they release it under the GPL is just an eventual lawsuit in the waiting.

People using free software need to recognize that it's the "free" part that's important, that's the most important.

[rabbitweed]

Originally Posted by Prometheum

The fact that Linux is non-free is minimized by the Linux devs. They don't like to admit it, but a sizable chunk of firmware distributed with the kernel is obfuscated binary with no source code and no freedom.

Source? (lol pun)

[Prometheum]

The original maintainer of linux-libre explains what's non-free
Mailing list discussing non-free firmware in Linux
Debian bug to the same effect
Debian mailing lists
Linux mailing list discussion
Those are the first few that come up with a google search of "linux kernel non-free". The first is the first in a search for "linux-libre", but if you thought the kernel was free, you obviously don't' know about linux-libre.