The Netherlands is building its own Linux OS to break free from Microsoft

[zulu53]

The great Linux debate. Too many cooks and not enough workers. To run linux you need at least 2 MMI's - CLI and multiple GUI. To run Windows or Apple OS you need only one MMI - a GUI. Teaching and training workers on more than a single MMI - lowers productivity. Like saying that all your workers in Europe must understand and work with English, German and French - not going to happen. Unless and until Linux developers hire and use and expert in MMI's (there is still probably a few (though sub-degrees in the subject and long since gone from university) nothing will change. Can a Government do this? Governments are made up of non-scientist's so they do not even know what an MMI is and how much effort over the last 1000 years has gone into developing ones that works with the average human. So no the Dutch Government is doomed. Perhaps if they hired Royal Dutch Shell (the only current Dutch company that I know of that have any real expertise in the use and improvment of MMI) to do it for them?

 

[Eldrach]

The whole point of open source is that it is independent of the source (Dutch in your example). Thinking that you can make propriety software (dutch built;dutch maintained as you say) merely by wishing it to be true is very questionable logic.

My logic is that they'll have some control of the support structure, decide what they need etc.

But again, not my logic - it's their logic

 

[Win7user]

I am at precisely the same stage. I joined the fray in the late 90s with W98 and struggled with everything that followed up until W7. By then I had learned enough to resist the bullying to upgrade my hardware just to accept all the latest bells, whistles, and BS that MS was pushing. I still use a detoxed W7 today which works perfectly well for all my needs. The only worry is that one day I may have trouble finding a browser that will tolerat W7. When that happens I have a second desktop running Linux Mint as backup. It works fine with my old hardware and does 95% of what I need and I could probably manage that final 5% if I spent enough time seeking advice.

People who have professional needs or manic gamers are the ones that tolerate Windows with its dodgy updates and glitches. Ordinary users with very basic needs just don't need all the fancy stuff that requires more storage and more power, etc. They just want to boot up and get on with it. A simple version of Linux has the potential to do just that. They just need to take that first step.

Yeah, my Acer 17"3 laptop with Windows 7 Pro will be 15yrs old come end of November this year! It works great, albeit a little slower. I don't surf the web (I use Firefox) anymore because there are no VPN'S that support Win 7 anymore. Mostly use it for playing music, printing, and writing letters. Windows 7 came with a Realtek sound card, and it's the best sound card ever in my opinion! Along with Zoom Player, and a good song recording, the sound is amazing. I too started out with Windows 98 then 98SE in 1998.

 

[trparky]

Windows 7 came with a Realtek sound card, and it's the best sound card ever in my opinion!

And to think that Realtek had a bad reputation in the past.

 

[bviktor]

They aren't "developing" their own distro, they're taking off the shelf packages and pairing it with free, already available software

Yes, in other words, developing their own distro. And that's precisely why it makes absolutely no sense. They've done everything there is to be done with distro development. The rest is just configuration and deployment. Which was precisely my point in the first place.

It'll probably be based on Ubuntu or Debian LTS, use KDE and come preconfigured with all the software and tools they expect to need.

I mean... it would help if you actually read the article which explicitly states otherwise.

Most "distros" are managed by 8-12.people in their free time. The main reason that Arch users are so annoying is that they think installing arch and putting all the packages together is a big deal, it's not.

Arch users are super annoying, and for the most part, super clueless, we can agree on that.

 

[yRaz]

Yes, in other words, developing their own distro. And that's precisely why it makes absolutely no sense. They've done everything there is to be done with distro development. The rest is just configuration and deployment. Which was precisely my point in the first place.

I mean... it would help if you actually read the article which explicitly states otherwise.

Arch users are super annoying, and for the most part, super clueless, we can agree on that.

I don't word good. I cannot of into words. And I didn't read the article,either. Matter of principle

 

[yRaz]

I think we're actually pretty close to agreeing here. Your race car/Civic analogy is basically what I'm getting at. There is absolutely room for both, and making Linux accessible to the person who just wants the Civic doesn't require taking the race car away from anyone.

Where I'd disagree slightly is that the fragmentation is now mostly a non-issue. It may be much less of an issue for someone already comfortable with Linux, but from the perspective of a commercial developer, Snap vs. Flatpak vs. deb vs. RPM vs. AppImage is still another decision that doesn't really exist when targeting Windows.

That's what I mean by a “Linux product.” I'm not arguing that Linux itself needs to standardize around one package manager, desktop, or distro. I'm arguing that somebody needs to pick a set of technologies, define them as a stable platform, and make everything underneath somebody else's problem.

That's essentially what Valve did with SteamOS. They didn't end Linux fragmentation, they built a coherent product on top of it. And it's successful. Hell, it's even making Microsoft scared and they better damn well should be.

So I had a lot of time think about this stuff and, you're right. Things with package managers and just generally, the user experience, could be so much better

 

[Loadedaxe]

I think there is another side to the Linux desktop argument that gets overlooked...the users are part of the problem, but so is the economics of Linux.

Linux absolutely has its problems. Fragmentation, hardware support, application compatibility, inconsistent interfaces and the infamous "something doesn't work, now spend four hours reading forum posts" experience are legitimate complaints.

But there is another cycle that has been going on for years...

Someone tries Linux.
Something doesn't work.
They get frustrated.
They spend a couple of hours trying to fix it.
They decide Linux is too complicated and go back to Windows.
And that's the end of it.

Except it doesn't have to be.
At some point we have to acknowledge that learning something new requires a little effort. People will spend hours scrolling TikTok, watching YouTube videos and arguing on forums, but apparently spending a few hours learning how their operating system works is asking too much.

And I'm not saying Linux should require a computer science degree. Quite the opposite. It needs to become easier.

But users also have to be willing to learn enough to use the damn thing.

There's another problem, though...money.

Look at where Linux has become enormously successful commercially...servers, cloud infrastructure, containers, enterprise computing and data centers.

Why?

Because there is money there.

Companies can sell support contracts, management tools, security services, certifications, consulting, hosting and enterprise solutions around Linux. Red Hat, Canonical, SUSE and countless other businesses have built real businesses around that ecosystem.

The consumer desktop is a different animal.

Who is going to spend billions building and supporting a completely free desktop operating system for hundreds of millions of people when there isn't an obvious way to recover that investment?

And that's where Linux has an interesting dilemma.

If somebody tries to monetize the consumer desktop through advertising, forced subscriptions, data collection or an ecosystem designed primarily around extracting money from the user, eventually you have to ask...How is that fundamentally different from Microsoft?

The beauty of Linux is that it doesn't have to become another Microsoft.

But that also means the community has to figure out how to fund development, hardware support, testing, documentation and a genuinely polished desktop experience without destroying the very freedom that made Linux attractive in the first place.

And then there's the other half of the equation...the users.

Learning Linux today isn't what it was 15 or 20 years ago.

We now have AI. If something doesn't work, you can ask...

"Why isn't my Wi-Fi working?"
"Why can't Linux see my second SSD?"
"How do I install this application?"
"What does this terminal command actually do?"
"Here's the error I'm getting. What does it mean?"

Instead of spending six hours searching ancient forum posts hoping somebody had the exact same problem on the exact same hardware, you can have an AI walk you through the problem, explain what you're doing and help you fix it.....but no...Ai Bad!!

That changes the equation considerably. Imagine if millions of people actually started doing this.

More users create more demand. More demand creates more incentive for developers and hardware manufacturers.

More hardware and software support brings more users. That's the feedback loop Linux has always needed.

The irony is that everyone keeps asking..."Why hasn't Linux become mainstream?"

Maybe part of the answer is that too many people tried it once, encountered a problem, said "**** this," and went straight back to Windows.

Linux doesn't need everyone to become a Linux expert. It needs people willing to learn enough to make it work for their needs.

It needs developers and companies to find sustainable ways to build around it without turning it into another Microsoft.

And now, for the first time, we have AI sitting beside the average user saying..."Okay, something broke. Show me what happened and we'll figure it out."

Maybe Linux doesn't need to conquer the desktop overnight.

Maybe it needs users to stop giving up after the first damn roadblock...and an ecosystem that gives them a reason not to.

 

[yRaz]

I think there is another side to the Linux desktop argument that gets overlooked...the users are part of the problem, but so is the economics of Linux.

Linux absolutely has its problems. Fragmentation, hardware support, application compatibility, inconsistent interfaces and the infamous "something doesn't work, now spend four hours reading forum posts" experience are legitimate complaints.

But there is another cycle that has been going on for years...

Someone tries Linux.
Something doesn't work.
They get frustrated.
They spend a couple of hours trying to fix it.
They decide Linux is too complicated and go back to Windows.
And that's the end of it.

Except it doesn't have to be.
At some point we have to acknowledge that learning something new requires a little effort. People will spend hours scrolling TikTok, watching YouTube videos and arguing on forums, but apparently spending a few hours learning how their operating system works is asking too much.

And I'm not saying Linux should require a computer science degree. Quite the opposite. It needs to become easier.

But users also have to be willing to learn enough to use the damn thing.

There's another problem, though...money.

Look at where Linux has become enormously successful commercially...servers, cloud infrastructure, containers, enterprise computing and data centers.

Why?

Because there is money there.

Companies can sell support contracts, management tools, security services, certifications, consulting, hosting and enterprise solutions around Linux. Red Hat, Canonical, SUSE and countless other businesses have built real businesses around that ecosystem.

The consumer desktop is a different animal.

Who is going to spend billions building and supporting a completely free desktop operating system for hundreds of millions of people when there isn't an obvious way to recover that investment?

And that's where Linux has an interesting dilemma.

If somebody tries to monetize the consumer desktop through advertising, forced subscriptions, data collection or an ecosystem designed primarily around extracting money from the user, eventually you have to ask...How is that fundamentally different from Microsoft?

The beauty of Linux is that it doesn't have to become another Microsoft.

But that also means the community has to figure out how to fund development, hardware support, testing, documentation and a genuinely polished desktop experience without destroying the very freedom that made Linux attractive in the first place.

And then there's the other half of the equation...the users.

Learning Linux today isn't what it was 15 or 20 years ago.

We now have AI. If something doesn't work, you can ask...

"Why isn't my Wi-Fi working?"
"Why can't Linux see my second SSD?"
"How do I install this application?"
"What does this terminal command actually do?"
"Here's the error I'm getting. What does it mean?"

Instead of spending six hours searching ancient forum posts hoping somebody had the exact same problem on the exact same hardware, you can have an AI walk you through the problem, explain what you're doing and help you fix it.....but no...Ai Bad!!

That changes the equation considerably. Imagine if millions of people actually started doing this.

More users create more demand. More demand creates more incentive for developers and hardware manufacturers.

More hardware and software support brings more users. That's the feedback loop Linux has always needed.

The irony is that everyone keeps asking..."Why hasn't Linux become mainstream?"

Maybe part of the answer is that too many people tried it once, encountered a problem, said "**** this," and went straight back to Windows.

Linux doesn't need everyone to become a Linux expert. It needs people willing to learn enough to make it work for their needs.

It needs developers and companies to find sustainable ways to build around it without turning it into another Microsoft.

And now, for the first time, we have AI sitting beside the average user saying..."Okay, something broke. Show me what happened and we'll figure it out."

Maybe Linux doesn't need to conquer the desktop overnight.

Maybe it needs users to stop giving up after the first damn roadblock...and an ecosystem that gives them a reason not to.

You worded that much better than I could.

 

[A Tabby Person]

What Distro? An EU RHLS-clone, co-sponsored by GB, India, China, etc. Not good for US; bite the world and sometimes the world bites back.

 

[Loadedaxe]

You worded that much better than I could.

Thanks! If you only knew I spent about seven hours yesterday beating on my Linux install until it finally started behaving, you'd probably laugh at me.

So when I said people try Linux, something breaks, they get pissed off and go back to Windows...that wasn't exactly theoretical research.