Slashdot Log In
Dan Gillmor Reconsiders Linux on the Desktop
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Apr 06, 2004 11:33 AM
from the second-third-and-trillionth-chance dept.
from the second-third-and-trillionth-chance dept.
Cyrus writes "Influential San Jose Mercury News tech columnist Dan Gillmore has reconsidered his stance against Linux. He now says it's rapidly converging to a viable desktop OS
for the masses. "While I wasn't paying sufficient attention, the proverbial tortoise has been playing some serious catch-up.""
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wireless (Score:3, Offtopic)
Happy Trails!
Erick
Re:Wireless (Score:5, Informative)
FWIW, I suggest using external WiFi bridges for desktop systems where internal cards are troublesome, and sticking to known-functional WiFi cards for laptops.
Of course, I try to avoid WiFi for my networks 'cause even its encrypted modes are not very secure...
Parent
Re:Wireless (Score:3, Informative)
SSH..... don't tell anyone, but my secret is...
SSH..... don't tell anyone, but my secret is...
The real joke is that some folks think that their WIRED ethernet is secure. Now, you'll have to excuse me if I wax ethereal for a second....
Re:Wireless (Score:4, Insightful)
Then, I put it in the laptop while booted into Win2K, and it goes through that damn hardware wizard. I try a half dozen drivers, from the card vendor, the chipset OEM, and other similar cards.. and none load. The cards are officially supported on WinCE devices, but there is no reason they shouldn't work on Win2K. I eventually get it working in one laptop, I'm still not sure how. But, I never did get it working in my Sony VAIO. Like most Windows things, I can't get any low level information about why it's failing.. it just doesn't work.
BUT.. Once a card is working in Windows, the software is generally pretty good. I can see available Access Points, configure them - and the software remembers WEP keys, etc.
On Linux, it's a highly manual process, entering WEP keys on the command line.. using seperate tools to scan for access points.. This part totally sucks in Linux today.
The Zaurus has some half decent GUI tools for setting keys & stuff like that, but it is nowhere near as good as WinXP, WinCE, or MacOS X. This is what's needed to have a usable wireless connection.
Parent
I don't know ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't know ... (Score:3, Funny)
Let's talk about that tortoise analogy for a sec. (Score:5, Funny)
How about this...
Just as the tortoise has crossed the finish line, the hare, waking up and realizing he's lost the race as a result of his own indolence and brash overconfidence, files suit against the tortoise for infringing on his intellectual property, foremost of which is the hare's exclusive rights to using one's legs for forward movement.
The tortoise, facing mounting legal bills and declining support from the other animals, nearly all of whom think the hare's claims are overly broad and invalid but are afraid of being similarly targeted by the hare's legal campaign for the use of their own legs, is forced to settle out of court, concede defeat in the race, and to pay a nominal licensing fee to continue using his own legs.
The hare, and his lawyers, win the race after all.
Re:Let's talk about that tortoise analogy for a se (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, are you her?
You BITCH!
I want my records back!
I WANT MY RECORDS BACK!
LINUX hasn't changed... (Score:5, Insightful)
linux on the desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:linux on the desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
No, MS did not do it, because MS installers do not do a lot of things that rpms or debs handle - take dependency, for example. In Debian, that's solved.
In Windows, it is not. There's no way to know within the borders of the "packaging system" if MFC42xy.DLL is installed, what version is, and if it is needed, there is no way to automatically install the newest version from some repository.
In fact, Debian's packaging system is WAY superior to Windows' one. Perhaps the interface is not that friendly to some users, but the underlying system is lightyears ahead.
Parent
Re:linux on the desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
I see that as sad, personally. The ability to install software easily has become the #1 differentiator between distros. As long as everyone picks the same distro, this works great. Otherwise, it makes software developers' lives hell. Joe wants a RPM, Jack wants a DEB, Jill wants an Emerge, and others want an autoconf-based tarball that includes all the dependencies for easy source installs. Cripes.
So while you marvel at Debian's simplicity, I'll pull my hair out learning several different packaging formats and trying to maintain them all. Furthermore, to make binaries, I need to have access to each of those distros! There is supposedly some LSB-compliant binary builder, but I haven't figured that out yet... And yet people expect developers to make more effort to support Linux while Linux vendors (and OSS developers) just keep adding more complexity to the whole thing? It just seems like a case of continually re-inventing the wheel rather than getting together and coming to a solution.
When distribution vendors can get out of the software packaging business (except for the core OS), it will be a great day for developers and users alike. Standards need to be adhered to, and people need to realize that a filesystem designed for optimizing command-line use (i.e. everything on the Path or in "special" folders, easy-to-type folder names vs. easy-to-understand) is no longer a very good choice for today's increasingly complex GUI applications, some of which can have hundreds or thousands of files. Linux has some solutions, but nothing is self-contained, and NOTHING is easy to understand without reading a bunch of docs scattered around the web. I don't need to read 50 pages of documentation to learn where to put my files on Windows/Mac.
If Debian's packaging system is somehow going to resolve all this, let me know. Otherwise, I'll probably stick to Windows and Mac packages at the moment, both of which are simple to put together and just work.
Parent
lets see the linux way (Score:4, Insightful)
apt-get install packagename
apt-get remove packagename
Gentoo
emerge packagename
emerge --unmerge packagename
Fedora
yum install packagename
yum remove packagename
Redhat
up2date packagename
rpm -e packagename
In all of the install cases here, the packaging system installs the software package along with any of the dependencies that are required. In the case of debian and especially gentoo, almost every package you need is available through the packaging system. Apple and Windows aren't even close to providing that level of packaging support. Although fink is probably the first thing i install on a virgin os x machine.
Parent
How should I mod Dan? (Score:5, Insightful)
traffic light journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
A well thought out opinion is boring.
We said this years ago (Score:5, Interesting)
The innovators have spoken, and they like what they saw.
Now the volume will pick up, as more people take notice, and the ease-of-learning continues to grow in leaps and bounds. As businesses start deploying Linux on the workstation for cost competitive advantage and security competitive advantage, there will be more demand of open-source integration - and more open-source programming jobs.
Then come the hordes that are the mainstream users and late adopters. Oh how I hope the Linux community is actually ready for this.
Disguised Ad (Score:3, Insightful)
This article reads as nothing more than a Linux-oriented Macintosh advertisement.
From the opinionated comment "if you want to use wireless with a laptop, buy a Mac" to his conclusion, his writing suggests buying a Macintosh to escape desktop troubles and attain nirvana.
I'm not bashing the Macintosh as my first computer was an Apple II+, Macintosh 128K (the original), Macintosh 512K, Macintosh SE, Macintosh Centris 610. I love the ease-of-use of the Macintosh and believe that Apple creates the best interfaces. (The "Dock" notwishstanding!)
He is short on specific elements that are better implemented in other OSes than Linux. That is the key to why Linux will dominate: It gathers the best of all possibilities unto itself.
And what to expect in future? (Score:3, Interesting)
Star Office 7.0, the latest and most impressive version of Sun Microsystems' low cost alternative to Microsoft Office.
Okay. I'll believe that things have gradually gotten better and better on the Linux desktop.
So, then, now, how much incentive does Sun have now to push OO.o and Star Office further into this key part of Microsoft's bread and butter business?
Yes, yes, ... sigh, yes. (Score:5, Informative)
Xandros is probably the best of breed, and they are starting to make it available at no cost via channels like Linux magazine covers.
But even so it's well worth the money (and my firm has bought dozens of Xandros licenses) and comes highly recommended.
Red Hat anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
SuSE picking up steam (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that I, for one, will be switching in May from RH9 to SuSE 9.1 Pro, and will be recommending it to others in place of the other major contenders (RHEL, Fedora, Mandrake, "Java" desktop, etc.)
--
Wireless comments (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish your Linux wireless experience had been as painless as mine was.
I bought the $20 Belkin PC-card at surpluscomputers.com. It uses the Atmel wireless Ethernet chip, and there's a well-packaged Linux driver on Atmel's site. I got the "wireless-tools" package for my Linux distribution and dropped Atmel's driver into my kernel, and I have Wi-Fi! Very easy, no blind alleys. This stuff used to be hard. Either I'm getting better or Linux is getting easier.
To the non-geek, here is what this paragraph might mean:
Atmel wireless Ethernet chip: I have to install a chip? Oh great, where do I buy that?
well-packaged Linux driver: Who cares if they send it to you in a nice package? My Windows came in a very colorful box, and I still had troubles with it!
kernel: You mean corn kernel? Or are you spelling Colonel wrong? Huh?
Either I'm getting better or Linux is getting easier: You are stupid because you don't know Linux speak. Keep using MS Windows, it is less intimidating.
Just some thoughts on how far some of the stuff for the Linux desktop still has to go. If you want to beat Microsoft, you are going to have to make things easy for the non-geek (duh). I certainly don't mean to belittle the poster. But is sure does highlight the fact that what we geek types think has become easy is still very, very hard for the average user.
Speaking as one of the masses... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Linux has come a long way.
When I bought my home computer (about 3 years ago), I tried to get into Linux on the advice of my friend. I bought the $45 book-and-CD with the Penguin on the cover, but it was just too overwhelming (command-line what?!?) and I never gave it a fair shot.
Fast-forward 3 years: While trying to get an old (12MB-hard-drive old) laptop going, I heard that Linux was good for older hardware and went to the local LUG meeting where somebody gave me a copy of Knoppix (Psst... over here...Yeah, you... Try it, you'll like it!...The first one's free... all the cool kids are doing it...You wanna be cool, don't you?!?!). Less than six-months later, I use Linux almost exclusively at home.
Critical factors for the Linux switch made by my non-technical ass:
That's my experience. Every day Linux becomes not only a truly viable option for more people, but also a truly attractive option for more people.
The Dalai Llama
keep your damn command line - I want pretty colors, lots of nifty boxes, and everthing should be accessed through pretty little buttons that look like shiny pieces of candy...
Linux on the Laptop? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been looking at linux on the laptop objectively lately, and the situation is really pretty bad from a user-friendliness standpoint. Most of the bits I've gathered for getting peripherals and power conservation features on my laptop to function are scattered to the four winds. It's all arkane little tweaks and twiddles handed down through web forums and kernel mailing lists. None of it is cohesive, and all of it is perfectly opaque to the average end-user.
Additionally, a lot of the tools are simply incomplete. The Longrun utility doesn't support all of the features of the Crusoe chips. ACPID doesn't come with a SysV service script. And while the new laptop_mode project is coming along, it seems to be focussing on kernel tweaks to reduce disk utilization, which in my limited experience isn't the lion's share of wasted power on a laptop (for instance, on my laptop, spinning down the drive only reduces power usage by 5%). It also has no facilities for Crusoe processors as of yet.
I'm actually working on contributions to the respective projects to address my primary concerns, so this isn't a normal case of sour grapes. However, I fear that my improvements may only amount to a drop in a very large bucket. It's a big hill to climb, and it's getting taller with every quirky new laptop model that comes out.
Open Letter to these Tech Authors: (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's what I think about linux:
1. Installing a program isn't any harder. Windows install.. insert CD, click OK and Next a bunch of times and it's done. Linux install.. do an emerge, apt-get, swaret, etc, sit back and wait. Yeah, Linux is hard. One command to me is easier than navigating to a webpage, filling in some stupid personal info questions, downloading an executable, navigating to that executable then double clicking.
2. Something doesn't work right? Windows way... call your manufacturer or a geeky friend to help out. Linux way.. search on linuxquestions.org or your distro's forums. 99% of the time your answer is already in those forums. Some program throwing out some weird error? Search online, you'll find a ton of fixes. Yeah, Linux is hard.
3. Recompiling a kernel? It's really not that hard. There are a ton of walkthroughs on the internet.
4. Hardware support. Windows has plug and play which is really great... when it works. How many times have you tried to install a piece of hardware where Windows didn't correctly recognize it, or didn't recognize it at all? Me, probably at least a dozen times. In Linux every stock kernel I've seen a distro supply has just about everything compiled as a module. The only reason I've ever had hardware not be autodetected and set up is when that manufacturer explicitly wouldn't allow for OSS support (D-Link + series wireless cards with the TI chip).
So in summation, stop with the whiny articles about Linux isn't ready for the desktop. It is. Many people use it for both home and production machines. If it's not ready for people to use then why are there 78,919 projects hosted on sourceforge.net? That's an awful lot of software for such an unusable OS. If you want to complain that Linux isn't ready for the mass desktop to be used by Joe Doesn't_know_jack_about_PCs_user then I say neither is Windows.
Re:Open Letter to these Tech Authors: (Score:5, Insightful)
emerge what? where do I type this? I just type "emerge" and my program on my CD installs? What tells me how to do this? I put the CD in, then I type emerge, or do I type emerge then put the CD in?
. Linux way.. search on linuxquestions.org or your distro's forums.
How do I find linuxquestions if I can't connect to the Internet? What's a distro? What's a forum? Where do I find distro forums?
. Recompiling a kernel? It's really not that hard. There are a ton of walkthroughs on the internet.
A kernel of corn? I thought we were talking about computers? What's "recompiling"? Why do I have to do this? Where do I find instructions? How often do I do this?
You are 100% out of touch. Leave your parents' basement and talk to a real person. They'll have no clue what you're talking about.
Parent
Look, Here's The Deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Do not use Linux as a weapon to beat Microsoft about the head with. If you're not happy with Windows or Microsoft, then email Microsoft about it, don't migrate to Linux as some kind of "rebellion". Use Linux because you want freedom to run the software you want when you want, use it because you want to control your own access to your data, use it because you quite like the way KDE or Gnome looks or use it simply because it might be a lot more fun than Windows. These are all good reasons but if you're not happy to spend some time learning a new OS and it's associated tools, then don't bother.
3. Don't sit back and wait for Linux to "come to you". "Readiness for the desktop" is a personal opinion based on what applications you use in Windows and what their equivalents are in Linux. Do some research, trawl Sourceforge to find out what kind of software there is and try it, read what's included in boxed distros and, again as a dual-boot system, compare Linux software to the Windows stuff you already know. Migrate gradually and spend time learning.
4. Try some of the Open Source apps in Windows first, see how they run there - Mozilla, The GIMP, OpenOffice.org, etc. Find out whether your favourite web sites render correctly in Mozilla, find out whether OpenOffice can import your word documents, find out if The GIMP gives you the functionality you were used to having in Paintshop Pro or Photoshop.
5. Research your hardware. Will your scanner, printer, camera, etc. all work under Linux? If not, are you happy to use Windows for some work still until Linux catches up?
The idea that Linux is "ready" or "not ready" is subjective and rubbish. It's just about giving it a try and either ditching it or working with it and possibly showing some perseverence.
It's all about getting out what you put in, nothing more...
My recent experience with Xandros 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)
Here is my experience, so far:
1) Install was very easy. Answer a few wizards, and off you go. I chose to install as a dual boot with my Windows 98 system, which is very easy with the Xandros installer. It recognized almost all of my hardware, right off the bat. Easier than installing Windows, if you ask me. It found but didn't utilize my Comcast Surfboard modem, which is connected via USB, rather than Ethernet card(long story). I found the fix for this in the Xandros forums, which was a _one line_ addition to a configuration file. Worked perfectly after that.
Using the system has gone pretty smoothly. I can use Open Office to open and edit my Microsoft Office files (have only tried spreadsheet so far), and the preinstalled Mozilla browser works fine.
On the downside, the fonts are pretty darn ugly, and I am constantly having to increase the font size in Mozilla, as it defaults to too small of a font on some web sites. Not sure why. Also, a good portion of web pages print out really tiny. Not sure why.
To increase the size of the fonts in Mozilla, I tried monkeying with the video card settings and the font sizes in Mozilla, but I didn't have much luck. Pretty confusing.
The system has been *very* stable, and no spyware or viruses in sight. The included media player is much more stable than the Windows Media Player or Divx, which were constantly crashing under Windows 98. The file browser is brilliant--I can see my Linux partition and my Windows partition.
Overall, I have to say the system performance is about 30% less slower than Windows 98. It's just a lot less snappy to browse the web or open the Open Office programs (maybe 20-30 seconds in Linux).
I should mention my system is an old Dell 5100e laptop, 600 MHz, so that plays in here. May not matter much on a modern machine.
Another downside is the availability of software. It may be sacrilege around Slashdot, but I don't mind paying for a decent user interface, a proper manual, and software support for things like accounting software, etc. Packaged software seems like it's a non-starter for Linux--I just don't see any.
On the other hand, for most users, Xandros includes Open Office, and email reader, and a web browser, so this may fulfill some user's needs.
I intend to keep my dual boot setup, in those rare cases I need to run software that isn't available for Linux. Quickbooks and Kazaa, for example.
Xandros makes setting up a dual boot system quite easy for non-technical users, and it's very stable. I can imagine that for a lot of home users, this will be all they need.
If you're fed up with spyware and viruses, and don't want your data locked in the Microsoft Office file format dungeon, nor want to be locked into the constant upgrades that are a part of the Windows world, then Xandros has what you need.
I can be reached at my junk mail account, gregory underscore close at hotmail.
Cheers,
Gregory
Re:Well duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you seen KDE3.2? It is more elegant and much easier to use than any versiion of windows IMHO
Parent
Re:Well duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, that's why people use Windows. It's UI is tight. All the apps work the same and look the same. After learning one application, you can use any of them. Unfortunately that's not the same on linux. Lots of various different ways to make graphical apps means not every app looks and behaves the same. That lack of consistency turns people away.
Parent
Re:Well duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
But all the KDE tools work the same and look the same as well!
It's just non-KDE programs that look differently, but so do non-MS programs.
Parent
Re:Well duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, KDE does a better job there.
Parent
Elegant and ease is the key (Score:5, Insightful)
Elegance and ease is the key to an effective OS for the masses. It needs to become as elegant as M$ and OSX (or better) to go completely mainstream. If it's not then the average user, like my parents, won't give it a second look.
Parent
Re:Elegant and ease is the key (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Elegant and ease is the key (Score:3, Insightful)
1) you must stick to either kde, *box, gnome, etc. which users are not going to want to do
2) distributions must have a SINGLE standard window manager
and beyond that, the choices the users and distributions have to choose from must be up to par with windows & os x.
Re:Well duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, if I could just install linux and have it autodetect my wireless nic and work properly with my scanner then I would be all for it.
I am pretty sure this will come in time.
Parent
Re:Well duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Well duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
RedHat Fedora
Mandrake
Suse
Java Desktop System
I actually tried the most recent Fedora and found it to be useless. They refuse to ship NTFS support, MP3 support, or NVidia support. On top of that, my MS Intellimouse keeps locking up. That problem has been there since RedHat 8! What have these people been up to?
That leaves Mandrake, Suse and JDS. Of those three, only JDS is GNOME based (actually quite nicely GNOME based). Thus KDE seems to have won the day.
Parent
Re:Well duh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
They ship with no MP3 support because MP3 format is also not free software. You have to pay a royalty or something retarded to write programs to decode it. Granted most programs we use that decode them never payed such royalty, the law is still there. Even if everyone refuses to obey the law, it still exists.
Finally, they ship with no nvidia support because the nvidia driver from the company is not open source and therefore does not fit the GPL's definition of free software. You can still use your nvidia card using the nv driver, sans opengl.
Call this open source zealotry if you wish, but that's why they do it.
Parent
Re:Well duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, with my experience, Linux on the desktop is MUCH more elegant than Windoze in every way. Under Linux, I have fewer crashes, better performance, and my choice of window managers. On Windoze, I have Windoze and a series of for-pay "hacks" to make my system look different.
As far as ease of use, that's coming. With my system (Fedora Core 1 + Apt-RPM using Synaptic) I can install new software and upgrades at the click of a button. No downloads, no need to check dependencies, not even a need to uninstall the old versions of the software. Under Linux it just works...
There's a quote in someones signature that goes something like "To really screw up Linux you have to work at it...To really screw up Windoze, you have to work ON it..." I think that sums up Linux on the desktop pretty well...
Parent
Re:Well duh. (Score:3, Insightful)
KDE / GNOME have always, IMO, been as easy to use as Windows. It was the configuring of the system that was a problem. Seeing as many people install a system (well, it comes installed... whatever), and never even change the screen size (probably no one here, but my mom, for example does this), the configurablity is only an issue in the initial install.
Re:Too much attention (Score:5, Interesting)
What's wrong with the old UNIX systems? Solaris still boasts of some functionality that Linux will probably take a few months
Linux is just as capable of becoming corpulent and lazy as the dominant OS provider. And competition also keeps our security stance strong. There's a place for Solaris, and AIX, and yes, even Windows in the computing market.
Parent
UNIX and Linux should be allies (Score:5, Insightful)
To take solaris as an example, but most of the same could be said about AIX and HPUX: almost all open source software running on Linux also runs on UNIX, just the same. It offers the same user environment. And in most cases it offers more mature threading and scaleability. Linux is still trying to catch up with UNIX. It has come close in many areas, but don't try to run it on an E10000.
The only advantage for Linux over UNIX is price (both of the software and of the hardware).
Of course I like switches from UNIX to Linux better than switches from UNIX to WinNT. But I would like switches from WinNT to UNIX or Linux much better. The only thing that counts is UNIX/Linux against WinNT.
Remember, the UNIX world (of which Linux nowadays is a part) suffered because of divisions and internal disagreements. It is important to cooperate and stand united against the enemy now. If this sectarism continues it will damage us all (including Linux). Today it is Linux against UNIX, tomorrow it may be XY-Linux against AB-Linux or whatever.
I don't say all UNIX & Linux variants must assimilate and become the same, but they should strive for the same common goal and together create an attractive platform to fight the real enemy.
Parent
Re:Too much attention (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummmm... I'd say it is doing exactly that - witness what's happened to Sun and SCO, both of whom are getting hurt badly by Linux. Microsoft is in a nip-and-tuck battle for server share too - their sales have grown, but not nearly as quickly as Linux has.
Winning the desktop has nothing to do with who has the best technology of user interface. It has all to do with leveraging corporate power. Once many corporations are united with Linux on the server side, their corporate power will allow linux to take over the deskop, regardless of how good the software is. Apple has shown that it doesn't require a Herculian effort to make a usable desktop on a UNIX variant. Why are we wasting our resources?
Understandable, but I think keeping the LotD issue in the forefront is taking a page out of BillG's business strategy book. That is:
- Linux's core market is servers.
- Microsoft trys to muscle in on that market, so Linux says "OK, buddy" and attacks Microsofts core market, the desktop.
- Now, Microsoft must split resources to defend thier core market as well as advance on the new one
- If Microsoft pushes to hard on the server front, they could lose thier huge dominance of the desktop market. Very bad for them.
- if they defend the desktop market too strenuously, they won't make the headway they want on the server market. Still bad for them, as thier share price is predicated on huge growth.
Microsoft has used this strategy before - they almost buried Novell this way. Novell had WordPerfect Office, so Microsoft ramped up Windows NT server development and took on NetWare.
Turn about is fair play. Let's see how Microsoft handles a credible threat to thier core business that they can't just buy, bury or wish away.
Soko
Parent
Re:Too much attention (Score:4, Insightful)
First, pushing others out of the market. Why? I think the main reason for working on open-source software should be to improve that software. Since most developers work without (sometimes even against) commercial incentives, I don't think killing alternatives comes into play anywhere. On the contrary, having competitors means we can learn from them.
As for Linux on the desktop, there are a number of issues to consider here. I am bored by the discussions whether Linux is or isn't ready for the desktop. It's on _my_ desktop, and I welcome any improvements to my desktop experience. That said, I don't think the desktop should be a priority. The beauty of the anarchistic model that open-source enables is that everyone can do his own thing. Some people improve server performance, others write drivers. Everybody wins.
Parent
Re:Easy is what people want (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy is what people want (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Easy is what people want (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah. Recompiling the kernel should be easy, just like it is in Windows.
Parent
Re:Open Source as a Limitation (Score:4, Insightful)
A totally paradoxical statement.
Closed source implies that you are limited to use only the "interfaces" programmed by the owner of the source.
Open source means that anyone can take the code and program in whatever "interfaces" they see fit to add.
I'm not sure what you mean by "interfaces" but if you mean the "look and feel" of software, then that is governed purely by the programming libraries that exist in desktop environments - be they Windows, Gnome, KDE etc.
Otherwise, you would have a far fewer number of applications around because programmers would have to spend much more time programming their own GUIs also, all of which would probably look completely different anyway.
Your statement, assuming I have read it right, is entirely self-defeating...
Parent