Why Linux Is Not Yet Ready For the Desktop

An anonymous reader writes "Every now and then a new- or old-media journalist tries to explain to everyone why Linux is not yet ready for the desktop. However all those men who graduated from their engineering universities years ago have only superficial knowledge about operating systems and their inner works. An unknown author from Russia has decided to draw up a list of technical reasons and limitations hampering Linux domination on the desktop." Some of the gripes listed here really resonate with me, having just moved to an early version of Ubuntu 9.10 on my main testing-stuff laptop; it's frustrating especially that while many seemingly more esoteric things work perfectly, sound now works only in part, and even that partial success took some fiddling.

Comments

Games

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Without the big labels like Valve developing their titles on Linux, you aren't going to see Linux widely used in desktop soon.

Re:Games

[the_B0fh]

So, a flat head screw driver is a shortcoming of a philips screwn driver?

Use the right tool for the job. If windows is the one, then use it.

Re:Games

[badpazzword]

Oh, but the problem is that the real reasons why working in Ubuntu is better than working on Windows can't be seen in screenies. It's the sum of many small great touches :)

Some examples, in an ordered in no particular order list:

1. Multiple desktops. Stop the clutter at the bottom of the screen. Organising your work is as easy as pressing Ctrl-Alt-E (IIRC) or just Ctrl-(Alt)-<Arrow>.

2. Mouse wheel works on item however, not item focused. Want to scroll that document in a background window? Just move the mouse there and scroll away! You can also use the scrollwheel to cycle between desktops, tabs, windows, comboboxes and more.

3. An 'always on top' item in the window menu. If you need to copy data from app A to app B put app B at the top with two clicks (or a right mouse drag). No external bloatware required.

4. Middle click pasting. Now that app B is on top, select stuff normally from app A and middle click on the destination in app B. Voila': copy paste with the mouse only. And your Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V buffer (aka clipboard) stays untouched!

5. Notifications that get out of the way. Ubuntu 9.04 doesn't need no frikkin' baloons (and currently the method to bring them back doesn't work for me :D). Message boxes are done the right way -- (almost) no generic yes/no choices.

6. If virtualization is good enough for videogames on a Mac (it is), then it is good enough for videogames on a Linux. (Non free; dunno about the free) versions of virtual box are able to use the processors' virtualization extensions and offer inbuilt OpenGL support. DirectX support is in the works. Hell, the (free) Ubuntu supported enterprise virtualization support doesn't even work without it.

7. Dual booting. You don't need to wipe Windows for that app you NEED to run in native Windows. Since you won't use it that much you can even not care on Windows to install all the damn bloatware like firewalls and antiviruses.

8. Installing, uninstalling and updating applications. So long as you keep true to installing EVERYTHING through whatever your distro uses to manage packages, 95% of that stuff is as hard as respectively checking boxes on, checking boxes off and clicking on "Install updates". No, you don't even need to mindlessly pound through wizards on the Next button waiting for it to become Finish.

9. Codecs. It is surprising how well codecs work on Linux, when you consider the not so solid situation on sound reproduction. Just downloaded an flv from youtube? No need for external players or convertors -- totem plays it out of the box. Totem will automatically prompt you to install missing codecs (see 8) when needed. Oh, and generally speaking, if you can play it, you can convert it to free formats like ogg or ogv.

10. Compiz. It's just too cool not to be mentioned, and AFAIK it predates the Windows and Mac equivalents. :D

Oh, an important thing to end this tl;dr comment:

Ubuntu is not a Windows skin.

It doesn't work like Windows.

It's *designed* not to.

If you try Ubuntu like a Windows skin you are going to fail. Full stop.

If you aren't interested in giving up on the way you work on Windows to approach different, not necessarily better ways of working then don't bother trying Ubuntu and while you're at it stop talking about it and just keep on going with Windows. Nobody is forcing you. Linux is all about choice. ;)

9.10?

[nvivo]

having just moved to an early version of Ubuntu 9.10 on my main testing-stuff laptop; it's frustrating

The first alpha of 9.10 was released a couple days ago with new kernel, new gcc, lots of new libraries... you should not be surprised things don't work well yet. Jaunty seems pretty stable to me. Minor issues with my intel video card, but works fine for all my daily work.

Troll -1

[k-zed]

The TFA is a worthless troll, even more so than usual in these "Linux is not ready for the desktop" Slashdot articles.

It has the usual list of ignorant complaints (oh no, there is a choice of distributions, boo hoo! oh no, there is a choice of GUI toolkits, boo hoo!), but some points stand out in their sheer stupidity.

"Bad security model: there's zero protection against keyboard keyloggers and against running malicious software (Linux is viruses free only due to its extremely low popularity). sudo is very easy to circumvent (social engineering). sudo still requires CLI (see clause 4.)"

Really?

Who admits these articles to the front page anyway?

Again...

[JustinOpinion]

Seems like we've had this exact argument a thousand times. This list at least makes mostly good points. But it still misses the mark many times. Particularly annoying is the absolutism in so many statements, like:

No games. Full stop.

This is obviously false. There are games on Linux. Many are open sourced, and some commercials games are available on Linux (e.g. World of Goo). Now I wouldn't have argued if he had said "Very few games." But instead he tried to make his point punchier by being absolute... and this weakens his whole argument by introducing lies.

And as usual the author prefaces by mentioning that this is some sort of relative comparison with Windows, yet points out problems that exist with all operating systems, like "A galore of software bugs across all applications", or "huge shutdown time" (I've timed it on dual-boot systems and for me Kubuntu was faster than Windows XP. YMMV.) and "poor documentation" (does Windows come with an awesome manual I wasn't made aware of? No. For both Win and Linux you end up searching online. Both have tons of 3rd-party documentation.)...

And then there are kind nonsensical complaints like "don't allow you to easily set up a server with e.g. such a configuration: Samba, SMTP/POP3, Apache HTTP Auth and FTP where all users are virtual" Does Windows let you do this easily? The heading said that this was an analysis of whether Linux is ready for the Desktop and instead the author injects one of his pet-peeves about configuring Linux as a server?

And then there are spurious assumptions used to justify complaints, like "Linux is viruses free only due to its extremely low popularity". We've had this argument many times... undoubtedly the low market-share of Linux helps keep viruses off the platform. But there is also plenty of evidence that it is robust security-wise (e.g. infection rates for servers). At a minimum it's not the settled question the author implies.

I could go on and on. No doubt this thread will tear-apart other statements from TFA. It's too bad, because many of the points made are very much correct, and deserve attention. But it seems that whenever someone tries to compile lists such as this, they end up not only making good points about what needs work, but throwing in their own anecdotal annoyances and personal viewpoints, which muddies the whole argument...

Re:Sound and HDs...

[purduephotog]

Standard Asound driver.

You miss the point: I did get it to work. That means it could always work, from the beginning, but Ubuntu did not include the correct hardware recognition to set up the system. It also provides no easy method for me to report back those settings for others. If it was truly a manufacturer problem then I would still not be having sound.

That means the moment I got it to work I stopped fiddling- and every time I get the little red upgrade spot I hesitate and think: Is this the reboot that kills it?

Re:Sound and HDs...

[AbbeyRoad]

You are effectively saying I *should* use Linux
*because* hardware manufacturers have a problem.

Er. That doesn't make sense.

I don't care WHERE the problem is. I am a USER and
I want my computer to WORK. As a user I ought not
to even KNOW the difference between software and
hardware, let alone the feud between the
manufacturing organization and the Free
programmer. Let alone justify my use of the
software with some kind of support-of-the-little-guy argument.

I am thankful to developers, but those same
developers also tried to convince me
that Linux was more useful
than it really was and provided a half-baked
solution. They were not really honest
and you don't sound like you are going to be
honest with the user either.

I'd rather pay poolah and give no thanks
and get something that works.

And don't come with that "Free" is not "free"
kwap. In PRACTICE free and Free have turned
out to be the same thing.

Re:1999 called, they want their article back

[Anonymous Coward]

1999 called, they want to know what percentage of desktop users are using Linux.

Re:Sound and HDs...

[ciderVisor]

Please stop talking about bad support of devices in linux, but talk about stupid hardware manufacturers.

Regardless of who's to blame, the fact remains that it's "a problem with Linux on the desktop".

I'm pretty much OS-agnostic. I ran a dual-boot Windows XP/Ubuntu 8.04 system for over a year and found both had their strengths and weaknesses. If I had to choose one OS, it would HAVE to be Windows (and in fact, I just scrubbed Ubuntu from my hard disk at the weekend, leaving Windows XP SP3 as the sole OS). All my musical hardware and software will only work under Windows or OS X and I ain't buying a Mac when I've got a perfectly stable and usable Windows PC already.

Bad device support is the single biggest factor working against Linux adoption on home machines. Not everyone with a PC can perform all their computer tasks using an office suite, browser and e-mail client. Lexmark printer ? Cellphone with only a Windows sync client on the supplied disk ? Ditto for a digital camera. TV tuner card ? Webcam ?

Seriously, why?

[gzipped_tar]

But why are Linux enthusiasts hoping for a future of Linux on the Desktop (TM)?

I mean, I am the one of the mystic, claimed-by-some-to-be-nonexistent "Linux-exclusive" users you've heard of, and I like it with a passion. However I don't understand why people like me are busy trying to push Linux to the Joe Q. Users. Is it because that a Linux future must be better than something else? But how do we know for sure? Even if we were, then why should we be pushing it for some global acceptance?

And yes, I know the technical advantages of Linux that could be beneficial to average users. I know the ideals for which Linux claims to stand and I think they are fine, but on the other hand something being fine doesn't necessarily imply that we should be pushing it everywhere. You may want to share your joyful experience with your new shiny $DISTRO desktop but everyone has his/her own definition of joyfulness.

In other words, I value a future of Everyone Happy with His/Her Own Fucking Favorate Operating System far greater than one of "Linux on the Desktop". It's all about choice, huh? We are supposed to be the more technical-savvy group so we should have understood our own needs (which means I need what I need but I don't necessarily need what $BIG_GREED_CORPORATION tells me to need), AND that ours are not necessarily shared by others, right?

Thanks for listening to my rant. I apology for the time I made you wasted in reading this post.

Re:Let the anti-M$ bashing begin!!!!

[b4upoo]

Gee Whiz! I didn't realize my desktop isn't working. Month after month and year after year it felt like it worked just fine.

Re:The developers are not end users

[tjonnyc999]

the average user just doesn't give a shit and is unwilling if not incapable of tweaking the OS to accomplish otherwise simple tasks.

Absolutely. You've hit the nail right on the head. 95% of users out there are not going to RTFM, will not open the command prompt, and will not edit a config file. Not because they're stupid, or lazy - but because it's not their job. And the sooner developers realize this, the better.

It's not a question of "how can we make the stupid users figure out that 1% of the application experience so we don't have to code a step-by-step GUI configuration util for it?", it's a question of "how do we understand that the secretary/doctor/lawyer/manager *expects* the machine to work just like every other machine in his/her universe?".

The problem is not that the average office user / home user is stupid. The problem is that they're used to their coffee-maker, microwave, fax machine, and calculator being 100% operational out-of-the-box, and the computer should not be any different.

There is a significant difference in the mentality of Joe Q. User and Jim Q. Developer when it comes to the question of what's acceptable in a computer application, and until we IT professionals suspend our hubris for a minute and try to work out a solution that "just plain works", we'll keep running into the same brick wall and wondering why it's still there.

Of course, this is IMHO, YMMV, and so on.

P.S. Someone mentioned a dearth of audio software for Linux. Here's a small list: http://habrahabr.ru/blogs/sound_and_music/59815/#habracut
Google Transation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhabrahabr.ru%2Fblogs%2Fsound_and_music%2F59815%2F%23habracut&sl=ru&tl=en&history_state0=