Humanity actually needs an easy to use open operating system.
Humanity already has Linux, and it’s taken over pretty much every computing sector.
Does it have to be “easy”? I think that’s a matter for the desktop interfaces and whoever is choosing to support them, not Linux itself.
An OS is serious business and requires a certain level of savvy from its contributors. And conversely people who are not contributors should not shape its development.
Besides, people who aren’t computer-savvy aren’t going to turn savvy just because of an easy installer. If you cater to the lowest common denominator you’d just be dragging the whole thing down.
If you don’t care about desktop adoption and the synergy effect on the overall desktop software, then no, it doesn’t have to be easy lol. All right then, keep your secrets.
I do think certain “elitist” attitudes bleed into the technical decision making. Programmers tend to see the beauty in the system architecture and it becomes it’s own value.
Be that as it may, FOSS tends to be a meritocracy and it takes some skill to contribute to it. Contributors are driven by seeking solutions to their own problems. There’s no incentive to cater to any particular user demographic. There’s a big gap between those programmers in their ivory towers and any practical application.
That gap is filled by commercial interests. And in this particular market, the PC desktop, there’s a company called Microsoft with huge resources and a vested interest in not allowing any competition. For 20 years now nobody has managed to break their stranglehold on the PC desktop. Companies like Apple and Google managed to bypass the problem by creating completely new, alternative platforms.
The elitism of a handful of nerds is the least of the issues preventing Linux on the desktop.
Humanity already has Linux, and it’s taken over pretty much every computing sector.
Does it have to be “easy”? I think that’s a matter for the desktop interfaces and whoever is choosing to support them, not Linux itself.
An OS is serious business and requires a certain level of savvy from its contributors. And conversely people who are not contributors should not shape its development.
Besides, people who aren’t computer-savvy aren’t going to turn savvy just because of an easy installer. If you cater to the lowest common denominator you’d just be dragging the whole thing down.
If you don’t care about desktop adoption and the synergy effect on the overall desktop software, then no, it doesn’t have to be easy lol. All right then, keep your secrets.
I do think certain “elitist” attitudes bleed into the technical decision making. Programmers tend to see the beauty in the system architecture and it becomes it’s own value.
Be that as it may, FOSS tends to be a meritocracy and it takes some skill to contribute to it. Contributors are driven by seeking solutions to their own problems. There’s no incentive to cater to any particular user demographic. There’s a big gap between those programmers in their ivory towers and any practical application.
That gap is filled by commercial interests. And in this particular market, the PC desktop, there’s a company called Microsoft with huge resources and a vested interest in not allowing any competition. For 20 years now nobody has managed to break their stranglehold on the PC desktop. Companies like Apple and Google managed to bypass the problem by creating completely new, alternative platforms.
The elitism of a handful of nerds is the least of the issues preventing Linux on the desktop.
Yes and architects tends to see beauty in buildings, gardeners in gardens, chefs in cooking.