Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
lol so THATS where you're getting the idea that beos would be more successful if it had the chance. but if what you said were true then linux would have failed years ago. also, what i'm saying is 2011 is the year linux will begin to see some major progress and adoption. i'm not saying its THE year OF linux, because it unquestionably isn't.

BEOS may never have been sucessful, but it also might have been had microsoft not actively squashed it. Its nice to try and quarter back last saturadays game, but it doesn't change the outcome.

Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
success is a relative perspective. to me, linux is competing very nicely against windows. like i said before, one of the reasons linux's success is hindered is because of its varieties. from what i gather, you see something as being good if its functionality, performance, appearance, and compatibility are consistent. beos kind of has its own... everything, making it function, perform, look, and operate consistently. other than solaris, its basically the only open-source OS that is actually consistent.
so is this what you're getting at?
Linux is not competitng with windows, in any fashion what so ever on the desktop. Well it does, but only in the server space and areas where you need alot of heavy os customization. Servers, Embeded and supercomputing or High performance computing server farms. Linux does very well there. On the desktop however. Its not a competition.

Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
if so, i wouldn't necessarily consider this a problem, but, i can completely understand why you think linux will never become a major competing desktop or mobile os. linux does need some cleaning up to do but it definitely has plenty of potential to compete with windows. i'm not really sure what you meant by the linux "look and feel" because there isn't one. part of what makes linux so unique (in a good and bad way) is it does whatever you want, however you want it to.
Well, since 99% of the computing market is full of computer and code illiterate people. thats whats killing linux. Most linux proponents don't want to hear it. there are other operating systems which offer the same freedoms as linux without the fractured development landscape and hodge podge of work around tools.

Its not a strength. Its a weakness becuase no one has stood up to people who insist on needing some silly unque little widget for one application. the linux API is a mess on the desktop. Unifiying the API would good a long way to making more 3rd party developers like adobe get on board with tools like photoshop etc.

Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
as i see it, linux just needs lxde/openbox, gnome, and kde 4 for graphical environments and just 1 distro for each package manager, and each distro will have all 3 major desktop environments. like i said before, too much competition and variety prevents things from getting done. just make everyone work together on 1 big project and there can be a lot of success.
Linux needs one really good GUI enviroment, it just needs to integrate the best features of each and be done with it.

Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
instead of having all these varieties of different distros, what could be done instead is have meta packages that users can install and automatically gives you the packages that would be desired. so for example, debian could be the core distro for the apt-get package manager and to install ubuntu, you would just install regular debian and then in the installer you would check on "ubuntu".
Toss the package manager out the window and have a look at what apple is doing with mac, download unzip and run. they grew their market share 20% in the last 5 years. Its working.

Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
thats how linux could really get cleaned up, and easier for everyone.
thats a good start.