12-07-2017, 11:21 PM
Some pretty profound questions are surfacing as this thread continues.
There's an interesting assumption - probably well founded - that most people prefer the familiar devil they know (Windows) to the unfamiliar one which they don't (Linux). Hence Jerry's mission to make Linux (Lite) reassuringly easy for Windows converts. I recall when I first dipped my toe in the Linux water, I was attracted by Zorin which had a similar aim, and explicitly claimed to look, feel and function like Windows XP.
The paradox is that having made the transition to Linux, there is a constant tension between wanting to stick with what's reliable, effective and easy to use, and being tempted into something shinier, faster, glitzier and more complex. Thus the enduring attachment of so many Windows users to XP. I'd guess that a lot of Linux users are the same: once they have found a distro that works well and looks good, they are less keen to push boundaries and try more exotic variations.
The recent challenges for Linux developers emerge from the nature and pace of technical change which is being forced upon them. Not just the shift from 32-bit to 64. Even more of a headache (in my view) is the move from what's now called 'legacy' partitioning and boot procedure, to the new-fangled UEFI (which I still find complex, strange and intimidating).
Personally I'd be happy to stick with Linux Lite (or my equal favourite, Mint) and not think about upgrading or changing for another five years or more. But then I'm also happy to drive a ten-year old car and wear shoes that are worn-in enough to be comfortable, rather than going for the latest style in the showroom or shopfront!
So maybe the challenge in terms of this thread's title, is whether Linux Lite's future is to push boundaries, become more sophisticated and (probably) more complex; or to give priority to refining, polishing and maybe even simplifying (!) what already exists. I'm sure we'll all watch and follow with interest!
There's an interesting assumption - probably well founded - that most people prefer the familiar devil they know (Windows) to the unfamiliar one which they don't (Linux). Hence Jerry's mission to make Linux (Lite) reassuringly easy for Windows converts. I recall when I first dipped my toe in the Linux water, I was attracted by Zorin which had a similar aim, and explicitly claimed to look, feel and function like Windows XP.
The paradox is that having made the transition to Linux, there is a constant tension between wanting to stick with what's reliable, effective and easy to use, and being tempted into something shinier, faster, glitzier and more complex. Thus the enduring attachment of so many Windows users to XP. I'd guess that a lot of Linux users are the same: once they have found a distro that works well and looks good, they are less keen to push boundaries and try more exotic variations.
The recent challenges for Linux developers emerge from the nature and pace of technical change which is being forced upon them. Not just the shift from 32-bit to 64. Even more of a headache (in my view) is the move from what's now called 'legacy' partitioning and boot procedure, to the new-fangled UEFI (which I still find complex, strange and intimidating).
Personally I'd be happy to stick with Linux Lite (or my equal favourite, Mint) and not think about upgrading or changing for another five years or more. But then I'm also happy to drive a ten-year old car and wear shoes that are worn-in enough to be comfortable, rather than going for the latest style in the showroom or shopfront!
So maybe the challenge in terms of this thread's title, is whether Linux Lite's future is to push boundaries, become more sophisticated and (probably) more complex; or to give priority to refining, polishing and maybe even simplifying (!) what already exists. I'm sure we'll all watch and follow with interest!