Actually, I'm generally not very optimistic. In the case of the GPL, however, I really can't see how they can throw it out without throwing out the proprietary licenses as well. The GPL is legally backed by the same laws as the proprietary licenses.

I hope I'm right, too.

I decided not to pick either side. I might want Linux to go mainstream because of support for drivers, hardware, maybe more than two or three computers from sellers (HP, Dell, etc.) have Linux preinstalled, and more apps writen for multi platform. I also don't want to hear this ever again, "Is Unix like some new and upcoming OS?"(Like Windows was in 1983.) Yes my guidence counserler actually said that.
But the reason I wouldn't want mainstream is security. When Windows took over the computer world for the average joe, all hell broke loose. Now you see viruses left and right, spyware installed on your computer, trojans are knocking on your door, etc. while in Linux, these are rare. If it becomes more mainstream, the security of Linux goes byebye. I also like having some eliteness.
I also don't want to see Linux lose its roots as a command based OS. Though, if someone were to continue on Ubuntu's path of an easy to use Linux, and take it even farther, I wouldn't stop them, they have the right to.

I also really like the fact that my computer depends on me to work. I have to mod things and costumize files to my needs. That couple of hours I put into my system pays off with the month that it works, and then I fix and or change it to my needs and worth from there and repeat, it gives me a feeling of accomplishment.

BTW: Before we get Linux Mainstream, I think we should focus on getting the word hacker to a pre '85 era meaning instead of meaning a person who cracks/taps into computers or programs for personal gain in an antisocial manner.

But that is just my .

Kyle
#Texasone

I tend to think that the whole security argument is bogus. Quite a few hackers must be interested in serves and other business critical machines. Considering that quite a large share of these run Linux, we should already be seeing massive security issues if Linux were as vulnerable as Windows. One thing that may suffer, however, is its reputation. Becoming mainstream means attracting users who have not got any idea at all what they are doing. Like so many Vista users I know who run withou anti-virus or UAC because "they are sucha chore" or "they slow down the system". These things will not affect your or me but they will affect the people who make these bad decisions.

I both agree and disagree with this post. I do think that Linux is simply more secure than Window$. As an example, Window$' before Vista defaulted to Administrator (a well-known no-no). Even Vista allows anyone who has physical access to the computer to do anything without a password (not as bad a no-no, but still not good). In the case of Linux, you don't need the password for non-administrator stuff (even when you do, you really can't easily "turn it off" without running as root the whole time: <blink>no-no</blink>).

However, I do think that if Linux became a mainstream desktop OS, we would see more malware: desktop users don't usually try very hard to keep there system secure, whereas server administrators do. I'd bet that a Linux system, with no security software and a user running as root all the time could easily be broken into. Maybe not as easily as a comparable Window$ system (these are all too common), but easily.

Amen!

The contradictory use of the word hacker so frustrates me that I posted my own hacker page to discuss it. I never use that word, because I'm never sure if the person I'm talking to will think I'm talking about a evil-doer or a saint.

Even though we know the correct term is cracker. People are accustomed to the word hacker as someone who breaks into a computer or network.

Even movies use the word hacker inappropriately. For example the movie called Hackers. Why not called it Crackers. People would probably think it was a movie about crazy people. lol

Agreed. Especially about Crackers. I'd think it was about crazy people, or maybe about food.

<ps>are crackers crackers .</ps>

or a racist movie about white people, since cracker also has that meaning.

funny that this should come up here, because it just came up in another thread I posted to:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...9/#post3234394

well, I guess hackers and crackers are the same according to the media...but, I actually don't want it to become more mainstream. If it means for Linux to thrive in future companies...then so be it. That's were I'll be making the money...but I believe that even if Linux security goes down if it becomes mainstream...that's were you come in...this time, unlike windows...you have full control over your system, and can fend for yourself better...I mean...you're an admin...right?

JacqueShellaque:free love for penguins, too!

I would want linux to go mainstream because there would be major gaming companies creating games for it and that is the only reason i have windows xp on my computer to play games. So yes I would love it to go mainstream.

Love that line!!

I choose yes