Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds On Desktop Linux's Slow Uptake
javipas notes a Wired piece summarizing a two-part interview with Linus Torvalds that's up at linux-foundation.org (part 1, part 2). In the second part the creator of the Linux kernel gives his view on the limited success of Linux on the desktop. "I have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop... The desktop is also the thing where people get really upset if something changes, so it's really hard to enter the desktop market because people are used to whatever they used before, mostly Windows... better is worse if it's different."
I suppose it's time for a drive-by argument.
While many here on Slashdot seem rather cynical when it comes to adoption of Linux on the desktop, I am not nearly so jaded. Not only am I an example of a non-programmer-type who switched from Windows to Linux, but in the past 12 months, I have seen countless other examples, culminating in a large number of people switching during the early days of the Vista fiasco. They were convinced that if they had to re-learn how to use an operating system, they might as well just switch to Linux.
On a number of non-computer oriented websites I visit, including ones where the majority of the members are over 30 years old, the adoption of Linux has been phenomenal... skyrocketing to >10% within one year.
I think the times for "year of linux on the desktop" jokes is past. There is no reason for the sarcasm. With almost every OEM selling Linux PCs, and AMD/ATI adopting a more pro-Linux approach, I think that there is no reason for sarcasm. This IS the year of Linux on the desktop. We're living it.
I put an XO in front of 5-15 year old kids and the younger they are the more receptive they are to the experience. Sugar is a unique desktop experience and it throws people off. Kids with PSP and DS systems are the worst. It might be why reviews by adults are so negative. My experience (and probably many of yours) is starting with a computer from the Apple II, Atari, Commodore era. Wrote high school term papers on a typewriter. In college I did amber screen work and wrote papers with a dot matrix printer. My first technical job was help desk for a huge Win95 environment. A godsend gave me the opportunity, with no experience, to move to a Solaris support gig. It was heaven to see the command line again. The rise of the Linux desktop feels comfortable to me. Put Linux systems in every school and its desktop will be popular in twenty years.
I'd suggest reading the interview (yeah right!), there's a lot of interesting insight from him. He's much more palatable then RMS. I particularly found his thoughts on getting involved interesting. I get the question of "Where should I start?" fairly often and my advice is just don't even ask that question. It's more like if you're not interested enough in one particular area that you already know what you want to try to do, don't do it. Just let it go and then when you hit something where you say, "I could do this better" and you actually feel motivated enough that you go from saying that to doing that, you will have answered that question yourself.
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
I would wager that many people think it's just an inferior OS that can't run what they want. In my experience working tech support at my university, a lot of people don't think that macs can run what they need. They have this concept that all of the good programs run on windows and people just don't use other OSs to do the stuff that they do on windows. Yes, I know I'm talking about macs instead of linux but if people have such doubt in macs, it doesn't take much to see how these same people would view linux (which most haven't even heard of). Mind you this is at a university so I was dealing with a young crowd which is commonly thought of to be more tech savy. To me it seems like these kinds of misconceptions are the biggest problem for linux
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
I know there are going to be tons of posts saying the tried Linux on the desktop, etc etc. But I would just like to add my voice as one who has been using Fedora on my desktop for the past few years, quite happily, and not for lack of legal copies of WindowsXP, but because it I prefer the experience. It may not be ready for "the desktop" (which seems subjective) but it is, and has been ready for my desktop.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
You're not wrong. For me (and for a good number of other
For those who want a computer that isn't Windows, but "works", you're right in talking about a Mac, 'cause for now that's your alternate (and a damned good one, too). Linux as a desktop OS still not for the faint of heart, even Ubuntu (which I use daily). As a Windows "power user", you are in the worst position to switch: you have a lot invested in customization, apps, and comfort level, and you need to see a truly superlative offering to make switching worth it to you. As you've correctly found out, Linux isn't it, for you. Heck, most Windows power users would probably load XP if someone dropped a brand new iMac on their desk, and never boot back to OS X again!
You decry that Microsoft is ripe for the picking, if only geeks would make things that "just work". Well, I'm not a developer, and even I know this: making things that "just work" is very, very HARD WORK! The developers of Linux desktop environments, applications, and the like do an amazing job, given that many are pure volunteers, and those that are paid don't have the same resources behind them. Making GUI interfaces slick and bug free, and testing them against myriad combinations of hardware platforms and software combinations, is just not fun! Microsoft (and Apple) pay good money to many, many people to perform the unsexy, boring, yet necessary work of trying to do this, stuff that geeks have no interest in doing if they could do "their own thing" instead.
I'm afraid that I don't see what you desire happening. Linux will always be the "geek" OS. People who use it will have to be ready for an experience which is somewhat more "down and dirty" than Windows. If that's not good enough for you, sorry man! You have to weigh which is more painful to you: Microsoft's forced upgrades, security risks, and ever-increasing hostility to its customers; or learning to deal with a less "friendly" OS and applications. Because until you feel greater pain from the former, it really makes no sense to switch to the latter.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
You want software? Open up Synaptic, scroll through the list, click on what you want, hit Install. Done. No discs, no installers, nothing. Just one place for all your software. Changing repos is even very simple, and done entirely through checkboxes and a GUI. And of course, none of it costs anything and the dependencies are all managed automagically.
Mac OS X's installation / package management is nice (and I would argue nicer than Windows, although it's kind of six of one, half a dozen of the other) but Synaptic/apt-get are head and shoulders above either.
It wouldn't be impossible to create something like the Debian repository for commercial software (really, it's not dissimilar with what most video game systems use for their pay-to-download games), but I don't think that even Microsoft has the clout that would be required to force developers to give up their current distribution networks and switch to one that was managed front-to-back by Microsoft. It's really only something that can work if it's evolved with the OS.
When I've shown people Debian over the years, the software installation procedure is almost always one of its most impressive points. You only need one piece of installation media, ever, and you have access to an entire ecosystem of software, covering almost every conceivable task. That's not an insignificant advantage.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I've had just the opposite experience. With Windows, I always have to use driver CDs (Windows XP was nicer in this regard, but drivers still needed to be installed). This is weird. Things are just supposed to work. On the other hand, my Linux distro (just happens to be Ubuntu) doesn't need all that crap, I don't even need to set up anything. I can just pop in a CD, boot from there, and I have a fully usable computer. Things like this make me go Wow! On the other hand, I do recognise that other people may have it different, my friend's computer gets locked up if you use stuff like Fire in Compiz (onboard graphics). Ah well.