I've noticed that there have been quite a few articles recently on /. that criticize Linux for starting to become like UNIX was years ago. Lots of flavors, lots of eye-candy, and immature programmers running it. Lack of security too, and all that jazz.

Here is a recent article:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39184795,00.htm

That one is not nearly as good as one that was posted a week or two ago. But I'm curious as to what you guys think? Is Linux getting too caught up in bells and whistles? Is it going to go the way of UNIX?

Going... the way... of Unix? WTF?

"according to the Agility Alliance, which includes IT heavyweights EDS, Fuji Xerox, Cisco, Microsoft, Sun, Dell and EMC."

OH GEE, Microsoft says Linux is unstable!

I'm sorry, but Unix is VERY stable, along with BSD, a strong variant on it.

And Linux is meant for a more home-user approach anyway, so it would not be a surprise if it became all filled with bells and whistles, in its competition against XP.

Finally, the number of distros for Linux, while large, is all born out of necessity. Many distros are made to fit a specific purpose. But what makes Linux wonderful is that almost all linux software is completely interchangable. It doesn't matter what distro you use, just recompile.

Sun and MS are market rivals of Linux, I wouldn't take this article too seriously.

This is the article that got me thinking:

http://ranum.com/editorials/divide-conquer/index.html

But maybe it's just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Hmmm... that was a good read. One could argue though, that the different flavours of Linux are there, representing the ideals behind the GPL and BSD license, the ideal of freedom of choice.

Besides, what works in one distro works in another (at least in my experience). So what's the beef?

Ive got three words for you.... FUD.

Those damn MS anti-Linux ads are pure proof of this.

I thought Dell being in that list is funnier

I find it rather amusing that all of you are claiming the article is invalid because the people who made it are competing against Linux.

...Why would Linux aficionados admit horrible, crippling flaws like this? Besides, we all already knew it was being run by people with absolutely no vision or plan for the future. Linus Torvalds has openly stated that the kernel's development is chaotic. X is a worthless piece of junk, always has been, and the main reason why years ago computer administrators used to laugh at the idea of running UNIX on a home computer.

Lets play "Lets see how many people suddenly side with JonC."

And oddly enough, the number of home PCs running Linux is growing very rapidly.

And X is worthless? Hardly. I can think of MUCH WORSE window servers.

And I see no "horrible, crippling flaws". If there were such thing, Linux wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is.

Also, that comparison is not fair, b/c they only mentioned the Red Hat distro, and there are MUCH better distros out now than Redhat. Each distro has its own uses, and while RH makes a decent enough server, it makes a horrible workstation (as compared to debian or ubuntu, for example) , from my experience.

Like what? Y?

Every bell and whistle is optional. You can compile your kernel (or obtain precompiled ones) with nothing except what is required to run your hardware. You can install linux distros with no bells or whistles and it will run lightning fast. This is why I like linux: with windows, I don't get that choice!