Linux Five Years Away From Mainstream 497
wellington wrote to mention a ZDNet blurb about a Gartner group study. Gartner indicates that 'mainstream' use of open source in IT environments may be 5 years away. From the article: "Gartner's latest Linux 'hype cycle' report shows that open source is halfway to maturity but warns the biggest test will be whether it can demonstrate the necessary performance and security to function as a data centre server for mission-critical applications. Leading-edge businesses are generally still in the early stages of Linux deployments but Gartner expects increased commercialisation and improved storage and systems management for the operating system by the end of 2005, with Linux being used primarily for WebSphere and infrastructure applications on mainframes and web services on blades and racks."
Nuclear Fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
When I wrote my article [blogspot.com] and its follow-up [blogspot.com] on directions I think a Linux Distribution could take, I expected that there would be some controversy. However, I hardly expected the shear number of responses to the effect of, "Linux is great as it is! Never change it!"
Which is surprising, because the very point of the Linux design is that different distributions were supposed to be able to explore completely different tracks. There shouldn't be any "one distro to rule them all", yet many of the respondants demanded exactly that! (Amusingly, they couldn't agree on *which* distro to rule them all.)
When I pointed this out to many responders, and mentioned the fact that I'm merely attempting to suggest a Desktop environment that would help Linux adoption, I got another surprising response: "Who said we wanted regular users? Linux is for the elite. If you're too stupid to recompile your kernel or read all the scattered HOWTOs, you're too stupid to use Linux!"
I understand that the Linux community is wide and varied, but this sort of attitude is not helping anyone. In fact, this sort of attitude causes Linux to take two steps back for every one step forward it takes in the market.
It's normal that Linux users will disagree. That's why Linux is just a kernel, KDE/GNOME are just desktop environments, and the GNU System is just a collection of Unix utilities. It's so the end distributions can build the OS necessary to meet their users. But such a design DOES NOT require that users berate each other! Rather, Linux users should understand that "idiot" users using an "idiot" distribution is okay. Gentoo users can still recompile Gentoo to their hearts content even though Ubuntu exists. Ubuntu users can still use Ubuntu workstations even though Fedora exists. Fedora users can still a have 100% "Free as in socks and gun ownership" OS even though SuSE exists.
There's no reason for this OS bigotry. It's causing confusion in the marketplace, and generally turning the public off to Linux. Just pick the distro you like, and be happy for other people who use something that works for them. K?
they're a little late (Score:5, Insightful)
just in time (Score:0, Insightful)
Everything takes 5 years (Score:4, Insightful)
ZDNet (Score:2, Insightful)
Finally! *My* chance to be an angry Lunix zealot! (Score:4, Insightful)
What does 'mainstream' mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
If people can make some money off of Linux then good luck to them, but Linux should not change to meet some commercial wish list.
Why not? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet commercial desires? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet home user desires? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet scientific researchers' desires?
What is wrong with different Linux distros to meet the desires of different markets? Isn't that the entire point of Linux? "It's just a kernel," we say. But then the community berates anyone who attempts to reuse that kernel in Community Unapproved Ways(TM). How does that help anyone?
I know a lot of people don't want t hear this (Score:2, Insightful)
This means that most of the software the current /.'r is running, won't show up in enterprise level distributions for several years. So yeah, five years off doesn't sound that far off the mark.
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Not in the software thats available, but in sheer choice of software.
MS Has Windows XP home and Windows XP Professional, designed for the general required use, its easy to tell epopel to get the correct version.
99.9999% of home users don't ever need or want a c compiler, or 4 different word processors, or 13 ways to do the same thing, they want the most efficient simple way. The list goes on, but people suffer from too much choice, its like going into a foreign sweetshop and not knowing the names of the products.
If I could just tell somebody to go and get the "Home" version of Linux - from whichever vendor was currently hot then it would be easier to get people to switch.
After they have gotten used to their version and know their way around, then they can start customising it and adding all the perfect bits, but until that point, its just overpowering.
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also fed up with some things, like ignorant idiotic "Linux [distro] reviews" and "Linux will be ready for [substitute as required] in 5 years" rants.
For the record, I have nothing against making one or more distribuions which would target the joe6pack masses, the "idiot" user base who doesn't know a kernel from an OS, a computer from a monitor, etc.
What I don't like is when dozens of reviews say Linux is a piece of junk because the usual computer-illiterate is not able to click his/her way through the installation process, because they can't be expected to know their hardware, and so on, coming to the conclusiont hat Linux is not ready for anything.
What I'd like my point to be here is that Linux is ready for a huge variety of things. Literally. It just takes a few energetic people and some funding to prepare a 6pack-friendly disto. Besides that, it is already ready to be used for datacenters, web server farms, clusters, developer workstations, and I could just go on with this, and many of you could even name exemples for them with known big players to back up the claims.
Stating anything that sounds like "Linux is/isnot/will/willnot be ready for this/that in 1/2/3/... years/ever" is just plain fraggin' stupid and idiotic. There is no "linux". Linux is what you make of it. One could correctly state that there does not exist a specific Linux distro that would specifically target the 6pack clicking crowd, but one should not state that such a distro could not be developed.
Re:they're a little late (Score:3, Insightful)
I take issue with the argument that Linux isn't mainstream until it's mainstream on the desktop. Just because people don't realize it powers a lot of the servers whose websites they visit doesn't mean it's not mainstream.
per Webster:
mainstream: a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence
Almost 4 years uptime (Score:2, Insightful)
Gartner indicates that 'mainstream' use of open source in IT environments may be 5 years away.
I wonder where he has been. I started using Linux IN the datacenter some 4-5 years ago now. One system was up for almost 4 years running DNS and Squid. For DNS, we occassionally patched it, for squid we had a job that restarted it once per week at 11pm on Sundays. It didn't make it to 4 years because the UPS had to be upgraded. We had bets if she would reboot, the na-sayer lost.
And it was a no-name left over PC to begin with. The moral of the story is that it isn't the hardware as would the other OS have you believe.
Not adopting Linux where it is suitable has more to do with an inability to change fo the better and what shares does the CEO/CFO/CIO own.
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed, but Linux is not a business and the people in the community you are referring to are not business-like. Unfortunately there's very little one can do if these people cannot be reasoned with. We just have to try our best to be more vocal in our helpfulness then they are in their scorn.
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you should read the ACTUAL content of his blog, and the responses to it, before criticizing blindly. His point wasn't to advertise his blog, but to show two particular pages in it.
Besides, his point was valid, wasn't it? And it's not the first time someone posts in his blog/journal about Linux not being user-friendly enough. I'd post a link to my
Windows Developer: Linux is mainstream now (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux installation is not a reason to avoid switching at a corporate or oem level.
I downloaded and installed Suse 9.3 64 bit on my new dual Opteron the night before last. The installation went really smooth but of course there was a hiccup. I had to install sensors. That involved a trip to a web site, yasting around a bit, etc.
It would be easy to blast Linux for not automatically doing everything and retreat to M$ land, except that Windows 64 bit doesn't even have drivers out of the box for my SATA hard drive and thus wouldn't work at all. If I really wanted fans to work badly enough, and could not get a device, I could write a kernel module myself and all Linux hardware stuff has excellent documentation to at least get me started.
The bulk of all OS distributions are either OEMs or corporate rollouts. OEMS have a team that prepare images for a fixed hardware, and so do corporate rollout centers. Whether you wade through driver compatibility issues on Windows or Linux doesn't matter. Both systems have similar problems and Windows wizards at that level don't really help someone who should already be an expert on the topic.
I would think that OEMs might consider locking down Linux PCs so that end users do not have the root password. So they can't break it...
Re:Finally! *My* chance to be an angry Lunix zealo (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux as a server has arrived, and has been here for awhile.
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Marketing. As I was attempting to communicate in my original post above (though perhaps not with complete success), the perceived attitude of the Linux community is one of elitism. So even if Linux distros currently meet all the critera of a Windows replacement, many users will avoid Linux simply because they don't want to deal with the community.
As a result, all this "it's our toys, go away" nonsense is counterproductive to the stated goal of spreading freedom (as in chili peppers and nonsensical ranting*) through software.
* Sorry, I always have fun coming up with new pairings for the "freedom" definitions. Someone should make a game out of it.
Linux always 5 years from Mainstream (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on what your definition of "mainstream" is, of course. Right now, more people are using Linux than ever used Microsoft's DOS. Or Windows 3.1 for that matter.
Define your own reality - don't let others define it for you, with metrics based on the sales price of the OS, or the net revenue from OS sales. Linux strength is it's low cost, so it will never win at that game.
But right now, many people worldwide use Linux, or even BSD, even if it's what runs on their cell phone or inside their networked self-repairing robot-dog-feeding fridge.
And, to paraphrase Martha Stewart, that's a good thing.
Yawn... (Score:3, Insightful)
In 5 years, there will be an in every garage [go.com]. Yawn...
Its not the hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
Until you can get the easy things doable by the masses, then you have a chance at taking the desktop.
Storm
Gartner Group (Score:3, Insightful)
You should be neutral (tough for this crowd)
You should be logical (shouldn't be tough for us, but will probably be)
You should perform qualified research with backup sources.
Publish
Profit
Saying "Gartner you suck, you don't know what your talking about. You are five years behind the times" is really lame and inflammetory (if not trollish). Proving them wrong goes a LONG way.
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who has been a Linux newbie repeatedly over the years, by virtue of periodically installing some distro, trying to get it to work, getting it 90% there and then getting hung up on some random bit of hardware and eventually getting frustrated and going back to my Mac, the lack of coherent established opinions is difficult to work with.
In my longest (and still running) experiment with Linux, on a home server, I went with Debian because I thought it would avoid RPM dependency hell that drove me nuts in previous tries. In retrospect, I think this was a good move -- I'll never use anything that doesn't have apt-get again. However I'll often ask a question on how to set something up or edit a config file, and get the response "Well, that's just because Debian sucks and is broken. Use [insert distribution here] instead."
It's fine to have multiple distributions. It's fine for people to have opinions on which distribution is best. But advocating that others switch distributions constantly in response to what ought to be minor problems doesn't do a lot to inspire confidence by new users in an OS.
Also, I think a lot of users go too far the other way -- so on one hand you have distribution zealots who loudly proclaim that theirs is better and yours clearly sucks, for any reason or none at all, while on the other the people who actually have a soapbox to stand on (in trade magazines, established web sites, etc.) generally refuse to take an opinion on distros one way or another. Once in a while I'll see someone take a wishy-washy stance as to 'this distribution might be a good one' but there's very little clear guidance for new users. If you have an opinion based on real experience, for god's sake say it. But if you just like your distribution because it's yours, shut up.
Okay, I'm done.
No... Linux is Complicated AND Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
To answer GP:
Not in the software thats available, but in sheer choice of software.
MS Has Windows XP home and Windows XP Professional, designed for the general required use, its easy to tell epopel to get the correct version.
Sure, and it is really easy to tell the same people to buy Xandros or Lindows or even Mandriva. Just tell them to use Mandriva! Do not tell them to use just "Linux" because then you will give them problems.
Its like if someone bought a computer and you tell them "you can install Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4, Windows XP, Windows 2004 or MS-DOS if you like the command line"
Of course you will know that person and if he is not computer saavy, you will tell him just to install Windows XP Home or pro.
Make the same with Linux, as GP said, Open Source software is all about Choice, Linux IS OSS, so it is all about choice.
The problem here is that we (Linux advocates) continue to try to push this motto "Linux is Easy" or "Linux is for geeks only" or whichever but the key element is that Linux (nowadays) is all that.
"Linux is Easy" for your Grandma if she uses Lindows.
"Linux is easy" for John Sysadmin if he uses Slackware (just an example okey? do not bash me)
"Linux is for geeks only" if we are talking about Gentoo
"Linux is difficult and not functional" if talking about Lindows for John Sysadmin.
Do you understand? I think it is time to stop thinking about "linux" as the operating system -per se- and start to think about distributions there ARE distributions for every kind of person and whichever the person, if you recommend the wrong distribution it will be -difficult-
TFA is BS (Score:3, Insightful)
The article keeps flicking confusingly from Linux to Open Source.
Open Source is already mainstream. I don't have colleagues at any major enterprises that don't use it, and the smaller enterprises tend to use it for a larger percentage of their operations.
Linux adoption is however far slower, and I don't know anybody at all using it (commercially) on the desktop. I'd be surprised if Gartner's 5 years is correct, especially given the way Sun's Java Desktop hasn't exactly been the most successful business venture ever seen.
So does anybody have access to the Gartner report that can clarify whether it's Linux that's 5 years away, or Open Source software?
(Not that I rate Gartner especially highly anyway)
Re:FreeBSD? (Score:2, Insightful)
It sounds to me like you didn't put a whole lot of effort into trying to use Linux and expected it to behave the same as FreeBSD.
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
If you even read the summary here on
They are 2 VERY different things, makes me wish I could mod the whole thread off-topic... (and redundant)
[Personally, I agree with the artice, linux is already moving fast in the IT sector. Depending on how you define 'mainstream' it could already be there. IMO that's where it belongs anyway. I know I definately prefer to work in a *nix environment]
hear me out on this (-1 troll) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Grain of salt (Score:3, Insightful)
The study is more about the market state than the technical readiness of either Windows or Linux, don't confuse the two. Technically Linux may well be ready and in many ways is better than Windows as a server, but this doesn't automatically translate to higher adoption in the market, as Windows has massive unfair advantages e.g. huge marketing budget & sales team, 'network effects', critical mass, desktop monopoly etc. When they say Linux is "ready" to start becoming "mainstream" they don't mean it is now technically 'good enough', they mean, the market is at a point where it is willing to adopt Linux enough that Linux is poised to reach the required critical mass. In other words, in five years or so a significant percentage of companies will be 'ready' to adopt Linux as a server platform. It's not so much a case of "is Linux ready for the market", it's more about "is the market ready for Linux".
Re:Windows Developer: Linux is mainstream now (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be easy to blast Linux for not automatically doing everything and retreat to M$ land, except that Windows 64 bit doesn't even have drivers out of the box for my SATA hard drive
You hit the nail on the head. People hold Linux up to different standards than Windows. If you try bring Linux into an organisation, even the smallest hiccup will be met with criticism and "told you so"s that you 'shoulda stuck with Windows'. But the Windows server can crash several times a month and nobody even blinks, because, well, "that's just normal" ... the "server down again guys" routine. The fact that so many other people on the planet also have problems with Windows somehow "validates" its crappiness in the minds of its users - managers often don't really understand computers, so they probably subconsciously reason "as long as everyone else has these problems it must be normal" right? Meanwhile you're bringing in Linux because it's presumably better, so people automatically look for flaws, especially if you're basically trying to "prove the managers wrong" for their decision to use Windows ... managers who like to think they know a lot do not like people who know more than them about something questioning their decisions. (This pretty much describes the situation at my last job.)
Re:FreeBSD? (Score:3, Insightful)
I tried SuSe, Mandrake and one other I think. Problem was, every time I read a HowTo or other document, right after discussing how to do something, it always added "your distribution may do this differently." And surprise, surprise, they did. So I tried FreeBSD. I got the book "Absolute BSD" and went through that. And every example worked as published. Yes, I understand that this is due largely to the "FreeBSD is an operating system, Linux is a kernel" thing, but the problem I ran into was a lack of distribution-specific information for any given linux distribution.
FreeBSD was simply easier to understand for me. I do recognize that is a highly personal choice, though.
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
While this may be true, it is not accurate.
What do I mean? When people discuss "Linux" they are talking about the OS that is built on top of the kernel. Yes it's only the kernel that is Linux, but that semantic battle was fought and lost a long time ago.
Linux is an OS now. Carrying on with "it's not an OS it's a kernel" talk is a waste of time.
Re:5 years is not much to a large enterprise (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you don't see the point in moving to XP, but you do see the point in going to Longhorn... What does Longhorn offer that's significantly different from XP anyway? Transparent windows?
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole misconception is due to vendors that sell distributions and refer to them as OSes because the two are never seperated (Windows, MacOS, etc).
For instance, loading Bash and GNU utils does not transform solaris into a different OS. The OS interacts with the hardware, not the user.
Re:Nuclear Fusion I AGREE COMPLETELY (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the case now- not some nebulous prediction.
Re:Its not the hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been using Linux for the last three years, I've gone through Mandrake, SUSE, Debian, Gentoo, Slackware and Arch Linux and I have never ever had to manually go around and resolve package dependencies (except possibly on Slackware, but even then you can download swaret or slapt-get to solve that, and Slackware is meant to be a pretty hardcore nerd distro anyway). When exactly did you encounter this problem, and with which distro? I'm genuinely interested to know, so I can stay the hell away from it.
You might have a point if you're talking about downloading Mandrake RPMs and trying to install them on SuSE or something like that, but that's not meant to work anyway, and I don't know why you'd think it would. It's not as if you'd buy Toyota engine parts for your Ford now, is it?
You are correct (Score:3, Insightful)
This is before you even get to Linux distributions. And still before you get to the distribution, you've the C library to contend with. There are several for Linux, and this will determine what you can run and how it will perform. So, choosing a different C library essentially changes the whole picture.
Oh, and on top of that, you need to decide how generic/specific the kernel and C library are to be, with regards to hardware. Do you want something that'll run on any white box with the processor of your choice? Or do you want something that runs specifically on your machine, as it stands right there and then?
Then, there's your choice of init system. There are quite a number listed on Freshmeat and there are probably as many more again that aren't listed. You also don't need a classic init system, if you've something specific in mind and it won't change - you can write a program that starts up whatever you like.
Assuming a fairly standard init, to have a working Linux system, you need to be able to connect to it somehow. There's about a dozen getty-type packages out there, with different strengths and weaknesses. There are several login programs. For graphical logins, the number od xdm-like packages is unbelievable. I've lost track of the number of username/password systems, which may or may not use PAM or something similar.
So far, the number of combinations is astronomical. We've not got as far as a working system, all we've got is a skeleton that'll allow connections and trigger things.
My personal preference would be to have a meta-distribution that is compiled on a central system, where you pick the options from a pick-list and it builds the distribution from your choices.
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh really?
How is it that millions of people use it every day without even knowing that they are using it?
The Tivo was so revolutionary and user friendly that it has become a brandname/product synonym like jello or kleenex.
The Linksys WRT5x series of wireless routers are some of the most commonly used end user products of its type, and it runs linux.
People use google millions of times daily.
People use millions of websites that run Linux daily.
Linus was even surprised to buy a digital picture frame for his wife and found out that it runs Linux.
Seems like Linux is pretty mainstream to me.
Oh, the infamous Linux on the desktop is that what mainstream means?
The issues there are simple. There is not a compellingly different or better GUI subsystem and there is a lacking supply of easy to install and use software.
As soon as those two issues are taken care of, linux will be mainstream on the desktop, otherwise its on embedded systems and servers where it is currently better suited.
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FreeBSD? (Score:1, Insightful)
yum update
Downloads and updates everything. No user intervention required. I love it!
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:3, Insightful)
btw, I was not asking a serious question, only posting my remarks. Linux is not linux quite often, which makes googling for problems quite a problem itself in my experience. FreeBSD is just plain FreeBSD. That I love: one system as a whole, not tens of dozes of systems that share more or less the same code-base.
[..a post or two..]
Wrong.
The point is that while all the *BSD share the same heritage, the code-base is different and unique for each flavor. Apart from the efforts by Debian, Gentoo et all, FreeBSD is just FreeBSD and NetBSD is just NetBSD etc. You choose the OS of your choice and off you go. All in one package.
You seem have observed that when looking for answers to problems using a Linux-based system, the answers may or may not work depending on which system you use. The observations themselves are not wrong, but your conclusion about their source is not very solid. What you are seeing is a social problem rather than a technical one. People obtain 'Linux' and then think they are running 'Linux', and then when things break they get help for 'Linux.' But, as you know, Linux is not an operating system and the problems they have are probably absolutely irrelevant to the kernel. Yet the tag 'Linux' is more often than not the software they attribute their problem too, thus asking support for it. Usually, a "oh, and I just happen to use xyz distribution" is added as a side note.
Fragmentation within the two communities is not the issue per se, it is how people see that fragmentation. You should never ask for support for your "Linux Operating System" because there is no such thing. Linux distributions and BSD flavors are both distributed in "unified packages" and differ wildly between one another. Also, most Linux distros don't use vanilla kernels, and it can be argued that, like BSD, they are just "derived" from the original (albeit they do snag upstream regularly rather than forking, a key but not really relevant difference). But the whole discussion about kernels is moot, because it simply does not pertain strongly to the problem you describe. If people would realize that Slackware != Gentoo != Debian != Fedora != SuSE, just like they realize that FreeBSD != OpenBSD != NetBSD, then Linux support would be in the same state as you seem to imply BSD's is.
Regarding distribution-specific docs, this can be problem, but does FreeBSD really rewrite all the docs so that there is no confusion? (for non freebsd-specific stuff, of course) That is a monumental task, and if they do then wow, great for FreeBSD users. I personally consider it a silly waste of time. With Debian we just have the upstream docs and README.Debian where the maintainer is *supposed* to document Debian-specific differences which would otherwise cause confusion.
Re:Nuclear Fusion (Score:2, Insightful)
When I wrote my article and its follow-up on directions I think a Linux Distribution could take...
I'd like to start out by asking what Linux Distribution you were talking about. Was it Gentoo? Mandrive? Ubuntu? Or did you mean all distros?
Which is surprising, because the very point of the Linux design is that different distributions were supposed to be able to explore completely different tracks. There shouldn't be any "one distro to rule them all", yet many of the respondants demanded exactly that! (Amusingly, they couldn't agree on *which* distro to rule them all.)
What I find surprising is that you seem to be making grand generalizations of "the Linux Destop", not "the Linux Desktops". For all your talk about exploring different tracks, you're suggesting a single track for everyone. It comes as no surprise to me that the many people in the many already existing tracks are yellling "Never change it!" aka "we don't want to unify under your design". It really shouldn't amaze you that they can't agree on one Linux to "rule them all".
I understand that the Linux community is wide and varied, but this sort of attitude is not helping anyone.
It probably helps established distros to not wonder off on a goose chase whom already have a target audience.
In fact, this sort of attitude causes Linux to take two steps back for every one step forward it takes in the market.
"The" market, of course, is the goal all distros should be aiming for, since clearly all distros are interested in competing in one market, not many markets.
When I pointed this out to many responders, and mentioned the fact that I'm merely attempting to suggest a Desktop environment that would help Linux adoption, I got another surprising response: "Who said we wanted regular users? Linux is for the elite. If you're too stupid to recompile your kernel or read all the scattered HOWTOs, you're too stupid to use Linux!"
I'd love to know if this was the actual quote from a user. There's nothing about using Linux that makes one elite. At the same time, there's already many distros where it's not necessary to recompile the kernel nor read scattered HOWTOs. However, I can understand why many users of Linux aren't interested in others adopting Linux.
Now, in response there was this from an AC:
"If people can make some money off of Linux then good luck to them, but Linux should not change to meet some commercial wish list."
And you replied:
Why not? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet commercial desires? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet home user desires? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet scientific researchers' desires?
What is wrong with different Linux distros to meet the desires of different markets?
I'd assume when he talks about Linux, he's talking about the Linux community. Distros are, to some extent, a completely outside influence. From time to time, one distro makes a major contribution to the Linux community. But that sort of adoption is almost always based on technical merit, not on "to meet home user desires". And while I certainly encourage Ubuntu and Mandrive to continue their work to make a distro to their own ends, I'd never suggest that the main line of developers change their objectives. Why? Because it's their project for which they're allowed to do whatever they want. And pissing them off means that I, whom is already capable of doing such work, would basically be forced to do such work. This sort of goes on to your next idea:
Isn't that the entire point of Linux? "It's just a kernel," we say. But then the community berates anyone who attempts to reuse that kernel in Community Unapproved Ways(TM). How