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."

Comments

Re:People don't like change

[ProppaT]

People also don't like crappy UI's, programs with really absurd/dorky names that make no sense to anyone but nerds who get the inside joke (if there even is one), and O/S's that don't support their favorite software. Honestly, I'd say it's about 100x's more likely that OSX gains significant ground to the point where it makes sense for apple to source out OSX to third party system builders than it would that Linux gains any significant headground. You know, unless the Linux community understands and finally makes strides to make Linux a) look like a program you would actually go out and spend your hard earned money on and b) make the UI and naming convention on the included software logical.

Re:Simple reason enough

[gsslay]

But for non-techies, learning a new UI (particularly one that makes as much use of the terminal/command line as most Linux distros do) can be a major hassle. For non-techies, the UI is the computer. So if techies want to understand what an upheaval it can be; imagine learning a new operating system that works to three state bits, stores its configuration in jpegs, uses venn diagrams and tonal whistles instead of WIMP and communicates with hardware not by interrupts, but by a "alphabetical sort queue" principle.

Scared? Now you're getting the idea.

Re:Simple reason enough

[at_slashdot]

Sorry, but UI is a red herring, it's hardware compatibility and software availability (AKA "lock in") nothing else. KDE and Gnome are pretty much Windows like point an click interfaces.

Re:Linux on Desktop? Ha

[at_slashdot]

Linux is ready for desktop, hardware and software vendors are not ready for Linux. The are few reason beside hardware and software lock in for which people would not switch to Linux. "Oh My God, do you mean that I have to click only once!!!!11!!1!!"

Re:Simple reason enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if you're configuring hardware, or setting up firewall rules, but for the average user, I just don't buy it. You click on the start menu, select the program you want, and it works the same (besides the transparent window decoration). Just because it's a pain in the ass for the /. crowd to learn the new control panels doesn't mean there's a massive leap for most end-users...

Re:People don't like change

[cp.tar]

People also don't like crappy UI's,

Luckily, KDE's Kickoff menu is lightyears ahead of Vista's Start menu, and Linux UIs in general are of pretty high quality.

programs with really absurd/dorky names that make no sense to anyone but nerds who get the inside joke (if there even is one),

Actually, they don't care much about names either way. As long as they can make the program do what they want it to with as little hassle as possible, they couldn't care less about its name.
Besides, KDE, for one, shows a short description of the program right in the menu, so you don't even have to memorize it.

and O/S's that don't support their favorite software.

Actually, it's the other way round: application vendors do not support certain operating systems.
There is little Linux people could do to support Photoshop, except create an emulation layer or something like that...

I'm truly fascinated with the way things are reversed in the computer world, and how natural it seems to most people... operating system developers should support applications, web designers should support browser rendering bugs... Get a grip on reality, will you, people?

Honestly, I'd say it's about 100x's more likely that OSX gains significant ground to the point where it makes sense for apple to source out OSX to third party system builders than it would that Linux gains any significant headground. You know, unless the Linux community understands and finally makes strides to make Linux a) look like a program you would actually go out and spend your hard earned money on and b) make the UI and naming convention on the included software logical.

I, for one, find a bit more logic in the Dapper Drake --> Edgy Eft --> Feisty Fawn progression then in the Panther --> Tiger --> Leopard one.
I'd even go so far to say that Windows seems to have the most inane naming policy, yet it still dominates the market.
Not that I find that naming really matters. At all.

As far as the way Linux looks — have you seen Compiz Fusion?
Do you know how many people not only considered, but actually started using Linux based on the Compiz bling factor alone?

And get this: you don't even have to spend your hard-earned money on it.
I can get you a pirate version really cheap. ;)