Think of Linux as a Foundation, not an OS
A few days ago, this post, which argues that Ubuntu is becoming too synonymous with Linux, created some discussion in the Linux world. At first, I ignored the post, assuming that it was just a complaint about Ubuntu being talked about so much. Later, though, I read this response which argues that Linux should not be thought of as an OS at all. Instead, the post says, Ubuntu and all the various distros of Linux should each be considered separate OSs, and therefore talking about just Ubuntu and not Linux is fine. (Sorry if that was a bad summary, it is hard to describe an entire post in two sentences.)
Although I agree with the original post in that there is so much more to Linux than Ubuntu, it seems to me that the name “Linux” is holding Linux back. Right now, many people think of Linux as a geeky toy. If the name “Linux” is only used to talk about the foundation and specific distribution names are used to talk about the operating system, then people will no longer associate Linux with geeky, because they would just hear about the various distros, not about Linux. This is not to say that the Linux kernel is not important. Apple advertises that OS X is based on Unix to tech-savvy people, but people don’t talk about OS X as being Unix.
In addition, I don’t think that all the other distributions will be forgotten. Ubuntu may be the most talked about distribution, but as people become comfortable with Ubuntu, they will try out other distributions and find the one that is perfect for them. If each distro develops its own identity there will not be a problem with saying Ubuntu and meaning all distros.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
These people who are trying Ubuntu/Linux for the first time are coming from a monoculture environment. For them there was only one operating system for a long time. It was the best and the worst, at the same time. But what ever it was, it didn’t matter because there was nothing else, until now. “Suddenly” there’s this “new” operating system called Ubuntu. People try it and no matter what their experience is with it, good, bad, or really ugly, that’s their experience with Linux. Yes, Linux. I can sum it up in one sentence: “I couldn’t get Ubuntu to work with my wifi, Linux really sux!” And that’s the end of it, they go back to XP because Linux doesn’t work. I don’t mind Ubuntu getting most of the credit for what all the distributions have been working for, but I do mind when people fail to realize that there are other equally fine distributions out there that will work where Ubuntu fails.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:39 am
I disagree with you on the name “Linux” holding Linux back. Its not the name that is holding it back. it is the mindset that says, “If it’s not Windows, it is different and therefor is not as good as Windows.
Of course, once most Windows users actually try something other than Windows, it is as if they are seeing their computer for the first time.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Ten years later and the sky is falling again. I’ve been following linux since 1997 at the very least. Maybe 96, I installed my first box in 97. Back then these same arguments were made.
Redhat (who had a marketing department to back them) was the one that everyone was saying would be come what people associated with linux. The main choices back there were Slackware, Debian and Redhat. Then Madrake came along… And here we are 10 years later, still thinking that one distro is going to become synonymous with linux.
Hasn’t happened yet, probably never will.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Ubuntu is a distibution. GNU/Linux is an operating system. Linux is a kernel. That is all.
Please, document yourself before posting: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html
December 30th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
@ Magic Banana, like the term Hacker, the term Linux has a different mind share now. Right or wrong, people equate all three distinctions to the one word Linux.
December 30th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
glibc, gcc, gas, Gnome, bash, X, ect…, ect…, ect…
How do these programs run on systems like BSD, Macintosh, and Solaris, without a Linux kernel, or the name Ubuntu on the CD label?
The name is GNU/Linux. Anything else is marketing nonsence.
GNU is the senior partner in this union.
December 30th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
The basis of this brief article makes very good sense. Linux and GNU may be the foundation of most distributions. It is rare that these two form an entire OS these days.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Oh, bother. I already made this point along with a few others with Ubuntu is not Linux. Got nowhere. Nevertheless, I’m more than happy to see somebody else step forward and collect the whippings for a while!