is linux going the way of windows?
One of the faculty members here at the University just handed me a copy of Linux Pro Magazine's Ubuntu 8.10 special edition. As I was flipping through the pages I came across an article on Linux and Security (page 34 for those who have it). The article talks about managing users, about not doing your work as root, and all the basic fundamentals of system security. What I can't help but notice is, barring the mention of Sudo, they don't list a single command. There's a tiny screenshot of a terminal window, but not a single shell command for user management, password and group management, or permissions. Not even a sparing mention of chmod or IP filters.
Instead the magazine directed users to the graphical administrative interface (for the hardcore Windows kids that's the equivalent of ADUC or MMC). This disturbs me. Greatly.
During the budding days of Windows (3.1 era) you had a simple graphical X environment for running applications but the operating system was still almost entirely DOS based. Administrative work with batch files, executable files, installations and directory management still needed to be done manually via the command prompt. As Windows evolved it further removed the user from interfacing with the operating system directly before removing DOS as a dependency entirely, choosing to virtualize it with DOS 6.1/7 in Windows 9x. The end result was an entirely graphically based system and what we now know as the Windows API.
There already exists a Linux version of the Windows API in Mac OS X. The OS X environment is entirely graphically based, and while it contains a native shell environment, the majority of Mac users don't even know that the Terminal application exist, let alone utilize it. Exceptions exist in the form of people like invadersteven, but these individuals are a rarity. The inexorably progressing removal of the shell environment is the primary reason why I dislike Mac systems and their ilk (that and if you're going to be utilizing that much FreeBSD back end, just use FreeBSD ffs). Granted, Mac is the lesser of two evils, but is still evil nonetheless.
And the Ubuntu trend shows that some Linux distributions are headed down the same path. Distributions such as Ubuntu and SUSE have become synonymous with Linux/GNU, replacing Debian and Slackware as the public perception of what Linux is and what it is supposed to be. Ubuntu isn't entirely bad - hell, even I reach for my XUbuntu disk if I need a Linux workstation in a pinch - but I don't like how it is slowly warping public perceptions.
This isn't alarmist rhetoric, it's significant concern based upon analysis of previous trends.
There will always be Linux distributions for the elite among us. Debian still reigns supreme as a development platform, Red Hate Hat has placed its footholds as a viable server environment, and Gentoo will always be treasured (by me personally) as a preferred desktop distribution. What I personally see happening is a rift in the Linux community, one party being "Mainstream Linux" and the other being something along the lines of "Advanced Linux".
It pained me to write that last moniker, by the way. The "idea" of Linux, to me, will always be to give users control over their environment, freeing them from limited constraints imposed by developers with an agenda. Look at what Windows currently is. The operating system controls the user; home users are held hostage by the constraints of a system they have long-since lost the ability to manage (whether or not they have the knowledge to manage the system is irrelevant).
Do I think Ubuntu will eventually go down that specific path? No. And I sincerely applaud Ubuntu for what it has done with regards to bringing awareness to the Linux platform, but the direction the distribution is headed down is a precarious one.
Instead the magazine directed users to the graphical administrative interface (for the hardcore Windows kids that's the equivalent of ADUC or MMC). This disturbs me. Greatly.
During the budding days of Windows (3.1 era) you had a simple graphical X environment for running applications but the operating system was still almost entirely DOS based. Administrative work with batch files, executable files, installations and directory management still needed to be done manually via the command prompt. As Windows evolved it further removed the user from interfacing with the operating system directly before removing DOS as a dependency entirely, choosing to virtualize it with DOS 6.1/7 in Windows 9x. The end result was an entirely graphically based system and what we now know as the Windows API.
There already exists a Linux version of the Windows API in Mac OS X. The OS X environment is entirely graphically based, and while it contains a native shell environment, the majority of Mac users don't even know that the Terminal application exist, let alone utilize it. Exceptions exist in the form of people like invadersteven, but these individuals are a rarity. The inexorably progressing removal of the shell environment is the primary reason why I dislike Mac systems and their ilk (that and if you're going to be utilizing that much FreeBSD back end, just use FreeBSD ffs). Granted, Mac is the lesser of two evils, but is still evil nonetheless.
And the Ubuntu trend shows that some Linux distributions are headed down the same path. Distributions such as Ubuntu and SUSE have become synonymous with Linux/GNU, replacing Debian and Slackware as the public perception of what Linux is and what it is supposed to be. Ubuntu isn't entirely bad - hell, even I reach for my XUbuntu disk if I need a Linux workstation in a pinch - but I don't like how it is slowly warping public perceptions.
This isn't alarmist rhetoric, it's significant concern based upon analysis of previous trends.
There will always be Linux distributions for the elite among us. Debian still reigns supreme as a development platform, Red Hate Hat has placed its footholds as a viable server environment, and Gentoo will always be treasured (by me personally) as a preferred desktop distribution. What I personally see happening is a rift in the Linux community, one party being "Mainstream Linux" and the other being something along the lines of "Advanced Linux".
It pained me to write that last moniker, by the way. The "idea" of Linux, to me, will always be to give users control over their environment, freeing them from limited constraints imposed by developers with an agenda. Look at what Windows currently is. The operating system controls the user; home users are held hostage by the constraints of a system they have long-since lost the ability to manage (whether or not they have the knowledge to manage the system is irrelevant).
Do I think Ubuntu will eventually go down that specific path? No. And I sincerely applaud Ubuntu for what it has done with regards to bringing awareness to the Linux platform, but the direction the distribution is headed down is a precarious one.