What Does Open Source Need for Mainstream Desktop?

HesAnIndieRocker asks: "So what will it take to make open source technology a mainstream alternative on the PC desktop? It feels like we've been on the cusp for many years now and the applications available for most common tasks are certainly competitive, but we still hover around a 5% market share by most accounts. I've recently written an article in my weblog about some possibilities, but I'd love to hear what others think."

Comments

Games

[AuMatar]

Thats it. Thats all it needs. I know over a dozen people who would switch if it just had mainstream games.

Re:Games

[Nutria]

I know over a dozen people who would switch if it just had mainstream games.

• An Exchange-killer.
  
• "kids apps". Kid Pix 3, and the dozen other games that my kids like to play when they go to my father's house.
  
• A definitely legal method of playing encrypted DVDs.
  
• For 3rd-party companies (Intuit, Adobe, Autodesk, etc etc ad nauseum) to release either Linux or Wine-friendly versions of their apps.
  
• For companies like Cisco to make it easy to run the VPN Client.
  
• A perfect VT220 emulator. There are many in the Windows world.
  
• Better wireless support, both thru more drivers from "industry", and better "management" front-ends.
  
• Better looking fonts. Sure, fonts are 100x better looking than they were in 1999, but they are still better looking in Windows.

For the love of god

[Wonko42]

A multimillion dollar ad campaign. That's what it'll take.

Now please, for fuck's sake, let's talk about something else. Every couple of weeks there's another damn article whining about how open source is soooooooo close to succeeding as a mainstream desktop alternative and asking what's keeping it from taking that final step, and everyone always answers "consistency" or "usability" or "accessibility" or "pictures of naked ladies", but the real issue here is that Grandma doesn't know what the fuck Linux is because she doesn't see ads for it on TV.

Goodness I'm bitter today.

Lets quit bullshitting ourselves

[stinerman]

1) Drivers
2) Drivers
3) Drivers

Re:More OS X like integration...

[avalys]

I think you are missing what's wonderful about Mac OS X.

You get to use an intuitive, easy (and yes, aesthetically pleasing) interface for simple tasks. It saves you time and aggravation. It makes working on simple things simple, like they should be. I'm talking about stuff like printing, mounting an SMB share, synchronizing over Bluetooth with a cellphone, and so forth.

This leaves you more time to spend on complicated, challenging things. And when you need to, you can just start a terminal window and (if needed) an X11 server, both of which come with the OS, and run essentially every application you can under Linux. I use LaTeX regularly on my PowerBook, and emacs is installed by default as well (though I personally avoid it).

For years I thought I wanted Linux on the desktop. That wasn't it. I wanted Unix on the desktop. And that's what Mac OS X brings me. It is the only operating system that doesn't trade power for user-friendliness (or vice-versa). Almost everything you can do in Linux, you can do in Mac OS X. The exceptions are few and far between, only due to proprietary applications or Linux-specific kernel features.

Your complaints are valid for Mac OS 9 and below. But OS X is a completely different animal. I abhorred Macs until it was released, but I switched two years ago and have never looked back. And I'm not some luddite technophobe - I'm an EECS major at MIT.