Dumb questions and simple answers.

The world of so called "journalism" especially in the realm of technology and Linux is full of questions and comments that aren't really worth the cost of the ink it takes to bold and highlight them.

There are a few that have been around for awhile now that have already been answered yet the press and "pundits" have chosen to ignore the answers because then they wouldn't have anything "exciting" to write about anymore.

Let's take for example, the question of "When will Linux be ready for the desktop?"

Linux is on the desktop. It has been announced for several companies and government agencies around the world. This is a fact. Linux IS on the user desktop. Now, is it on a billion desktops as some other OS's are claimed to be? Of course not. Is there a suggestion by some, even many people that perhaps Linux should be on so many desktops? Yes, lots of people wish or suggest that if Linux were to be taken "seriously" it needs to have the numbers of a Microsoft product, which has had the benefit of being largely unchallenged and monopolized in contract agreements concerning past deployment and sales agreements that no other software has enjoyed before or since. That is simply fact, no need to bemoan the past, accept it, move on.

Here's another fact, Linux will never enjoy world domination as Windows has had. The market and business agreements have changed since Microsoft was taken to court for monopoly practices. It is not likely that any one Linux distribution will make such gains and highly questionable if they somehow managed to.

However, Linux and other OS's will make gains in the future. Open Source software is gaining acceptance worldwide as institutions, governments and people realize that locking information away is not acceptable.

Here's another dumb question. "When will Linux finally begin to act and look more like Windows or Apple?" Now, Most of us have heard that Linux is not Windows. It is not Apple either. What it is, is an implementation of Unix, only, not exactly, but close enough.

The assumption is that for Linux to be successful, it must ride the coattails of those who have been successful on the desktop before. There is another argument that says due to the proliferation of Windows, more people are familiar with it's use and if a new OS is to gain a foothold, it must emulate that to a certain degree so people will feel comfortable using it. It will look like what they have used before.

The truth of the matter is, ALL Operating Systems must do the same job, allow people to interact with and use the physical machine that is the computer. Because they must all do the same job and most all people have two hands, one head, two eyes, ten fingers, etc... we all will interact or expect to interact in a fairly common way.

Looks, style, layout design, all of these can be changed to suit any group of people and people can learn to use a variety of different approaches.

People learn to speak multiple languages, use multiple sets of tools, artists learn to work with a wide variety of mediums like canvas or paper or clay tablets or papyrus. All can be painted upon, but all have different methods and approaches to using them.

There is no need to paint Linux into the same corner and image as another OS. Appreciate and explore what it can be as it is. As the French say, "Vive la diference."

One of my favorite dumb questions is "Why does Linux still include a command line interface?" The suggestion here is that the CLI is an antiquated notion that somehow shows that Linux is not modern or capable as a "modern" OS.

As has been mentioned before, Linux is related to Unix, evolved from it you could say. As such, it inherits the nature of being a multi-user operating system. This means networks.

It is true that as a means to interact with a computer on a regular basis, the graphical user interface (GUI) has become the accepted and "modern" method of using a computer, leaving behind the days when the CLI was the only way to work with a computer.

Having said that, two kinds of users need access to Linux based computers, actually, ALL, OS's have this duality.

There are end users who do their task like wordprocessing and CAD and play music and any number of things, then get up and walk away from the computer.

There are technical users who are most often in support and maintenance positions that need a common interface to make things happen behind the scenes across not only one computer, but an entire group of them. If not for the CLI, that would be a much more daunting task. The common ground of the CLI means that what a tech does on one machine should most likely be the same for the other Linux computers, regardless of distribution. It isn't always exactly identical, but often the differences are minimal.

It is interesting to note that Windows computers and Apple based ones as well, do indeed offer a command line interface on their systems as well. The CLI isn't just a reference to a time before Graphics, it is a tool to allow common access to the computer. Does this mean end users must or need to use the CLI in Linux, of course not, in fact, most Linux distributions now offer entire suites of GUI based tools to make system modifications without ever seeing a CLI.

Controversy sells. This is why the dumb questions continue to fly even though the answers have been available for quite a while.