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

moqd down

[Anonymous Coward]

hand...don't is wipe3 off and Gloves, condoms You should bring

FiRst

[Anonymous Coward]

ones in soFtwa8e

Re:Linux on Desktop? Ha

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux seems all about feature sets and me-too-ism. cleverly titled software packages that are a little embarrassing to run or talk about. But very little thought is given to getting something up and running so a regular person can hit the ground running. If you don't happen to have a family member or friend ready to walk you through the transition, you will end up spending tens/hundreds of hours to get to a point where you can do the same things you could with your Windows machine. I could not agree more. If Linux wants to be taken seriously as an alternate operating system, it should begin to take itself more seriously. The time for clever names (see: Azureus) and long/clever version strings (see: TeX 3.141592 / December 2002) is over.

Disclaimer: I've moved from Linux (high school) to Windows (college) to Mac (real world).

I believe in the principles behind the open source movement and want to see Linux succeed as a viable desktop operating system. Technologically, at least as far as technological capability, it is very close. However, as far as user-friendliness and consistency it is still squarely in the nerd realm. I am a self-avowed geek with two science degrees (CS and math) and work as a researcher in a very geek-friendly organization (NASA) so using different operating systems is second nature to me. However, folks like my parents who still need help performing basic tasks in Windows are completely lost when sat down in front of a Linux machine. It just isn't obvious how to get started by looking at the application names. For example, a few apps from the default Dock in Mac OS include Finder, Mail, Safari, iChat, Address Book, iCal, iTunes. Nautilus? Thunderbird? Firefox? Pidgin? Evolution? Sunbird? Amarok? Do any of those remotely convey their purpose? Even as much as I would like to take another opportunity to bash Vista, they have also picked easy to identify names like Windows Mail, Windows Calendar, Windows Photo Gallery, etc. Generic? Yep. Boring? Probably. Confusing? Not in the slightest. I am not suggesting any of the aforementioned Linux applications are sub-par; quite the contrary as I use a couple myself on Windows at work. But, if Linux is ever to leave their niche marketshare behind, they need to stop thinking like they are still the underground movement, grow up, and join the real world.

It's a fucking computer.

[Ayanami Rei]

It's already dorky. Who gives a shit? People need to get shit done, this isn't like cellphones with bling glued on a ringers and WHERE U AT

Fuck this shit. Fuck wired. The industry is so out of touch with itself that it can give itself a handjob and a pat on the back.

And fuck slashdot too.