He argues that "the problem with Linux on the desktop is rooted in the developer culture that was created around it." Icaza then writes about how this attitude affected their development efforts. He explains that in their bid to eliminate poorly implemented features, the Gnome developers mercilessly deprecated APIs for better ones:
- "We removed functionality because 'that approach is broken,' for degrees of broken from 'it is a security hole' all the way to 'it does not conform to the new style we are using.'"
No, linux desktops are the right environment for linux developers, and so as long as linux rules the server and embedded market it's here to stay. Beyond that, eh. Efforts to woo people away from OsX and Windows have given us a lot of cruft. I'd rather we stopped trying than be both a crap Unix and a crap competitor to OsX. I'd rather we'd dump the illusion that we have to compete with anyone, because we don't. Redhat and Canonical do, but fuck Canonical and Redhat's business is all about enterprisey server installs.
GNOME, KDE, etc, are not my choice of UI... I'd much rather start out with a minimal system, and add the software I need/want instead of being forced to use a system with a preset applications suite containing all manner of software which I'll rarely, or never, use. Of course the developer of a marginalized UI will see doom and gloom in Linux' future, but I consider such views to be an artifact of perspective, especially since the Linux userbase is continuing to grow. The fragmentation of the Linux systems is one of the reasons why I now use FreeBSD, and it's minimalist approach is exactly what I've been looking for over the past few years. I don't really see how competition comes into play when comparing free, open source, software with proprietary systems such as OS X (certified Unix product) and Windows.
These proprietary systems are mostly focused on profits, while Linux and BSD systems are (mostly) focused on stability and security.