Desktop Linux Is Dead

digitaldc writes with this quote from PCWorld: "It kills me to say this: The dream of Linux as a major desktop OS is now pretty much dead. Despite phenomenal security and stability — and amazing strides in usability, performance, and compatibility — Linux simply isn't catching on with desktop users. And if there ever was a chance for desktop Linux to succeed, that ship has long since sunk. ... Ultimately, Linux is doomed on the desktop because of a critical lack of content. And that lack of content owes its existence to two key factors: the fragmentation of the Linux platform, and the fierce ideology of the open-source community at large."

Comments

wrong OS?

[tverbeek]

I thought it was BSD that was dead?

Re:wrong OS?

[Shoeler]

BSD's not dead of course - look only to the Mach kernel in OS X for verification.

If you want to see how a desktop UNIX-based os should do it right, look at OS X. Say what you will about Apple - I don't care, only own a mac and an iPod (I have a Droid X for my phone) - but they did the desktop RIGHT. It's easy to use, fairly intuitive (passes the grandma test, for the most part), and is oh so easy to support.

I remember when I got my first macbook a few years back and I had a sprint wireless broadband card for it. I was thinking "you know, I should be able to make my mac a wifi base station and share my wireless". Preferences, sharing, .... oh, that was easy. And it worked.

Re:wrong OS?

[skids]

In the trollish counting system, there are only three numbers.

Troll means "one." Trolltroll means "two." Trolltrolltroll means "definitely two."

Re:wrong OS?

[DrgnDancer]

Your sig aside, isn't that what Canonical was supposed to do? Has done really? That's the problem, when you get down to it. Canonical has done everything right. Ubuntu is easy to install, easy to configure, easy to patch, has about as good of driver support as is reasonably possible given manufacturer reluctance, its package management system is extensive and has a nice front end... There's nothing at all that Canonical did *wrong* to make a great Desktop OS, people just aren't interested. People buy a computer, they use what's on it. Manufacturers make computers and use what's easiest (which given the ecosystem of drivers and trained people is Microsoft no matter how easy an individual Ubuntu install is).

Apple has, through multimillion dollar ad campaigns, product differentiation, aiming at the premium space, and tie ins to its iPhone/iPod/iPad ecosystem, managed to get a couple percent more market share than they had 5 years ago. A few percentage points of the market for an ad campaign that no Linux vendor could hope to match, a premium hardware budget that few manufacturers would be willing to risk, and a device ecosystem that is unmatched by anyone. Honestly if Linux ever breaks 1% market penetration on the desktop it will be shocking.

I agree with the author. Linux on the desktop shouldn't be ignored of course. People do use it (including me), and will continue to use it. Continued focus on it as some sort of magical goal is silly though. Linux servers are everywhere, Linux portables are everywhere. Focus on what is working for you. It may well be that in ten years the "desktop" is irrelevant anyway. Whether because of the "cloud", portable devices, both, and/or them + some currently unknown factor the whole discussion is likely to have shifted anyway.

Re:wrong OS?

[Belial6]

I can tell you why the Mac interface drives you nuts. Because compared to Windows and Linux, it sucks. For the most part they are all the same, but Macs have idiosyncrasies that you have to overcome. It is things like using a green + to shrink a window. That is just wrong. Things like the red X sometimes closing the application, and other times only closing the UI to the application leaving the to continue running.

Things like the menu bar being pegged to the top of the primary screen. That made sense when we only had one screen, and resolutions were so low that windows always needed to stack if you had more than one open at a time. Today we have multiple screens, so the 'flick the mouse to the corner' argument no longer applies, and having to figure out what application the menu bar applies to is just annoying and breaks the flow of work.

The list goes on and on, but Apple doesn't seem to want to admit that many parts of their UI are badly designed in the first place, or have become out of date for use on modern hardware, so they just keep repeating the mantra that Apple has an intuitive UI. I can definitely say that the emperor has no clothes.

Re:wrong OS?

[johnw]

Linux users have less respect the concept of intellectual property than as most computer users

That sentence is so mangled it's hard to be sure what you were trying to say, but it sounds like an assertion that Linux users have less respect for intellectual property than others. If that is indeed what you're saying, then the following part is a total non-sequitur.

IME, Linux users tend to have rather *more* respect for intellectual property than your average computer user, which is why they stick to using open source software rather than stealing commercial software. I've lost track of the number of times when I've had an average Windows-user-in-the-street asking me for a bootleg copy of Office, Photoshop or indeed Windows itself. Most of them are gobsmacked by the idea that there's something wrong with just copying them.

I use Open Source software because I respect the rights of creators of software - including their right to make it freely available.

Re:wrong OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple designs to be productive, which makes it annoying for people who already have burned in productivity habits from platforms where this is less of a design ethic.

In other words, Apple designs its products to be productive for people who have never been productive before, but people who are currently productive shouldn't expect to be productive using Apple products?

Re:wrong OS?

[Belial6]

You are just used to the idiosyncrasies of different desktop environments to the point that you don't think about them any more.

This is what Apple fans like to tell themselves. Sorry, but it isn't true, and sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it so. My computer usage far predates both Windows and Mac.

It's a bit silly, for instance, to criticize Apple's UI for inconsistency in close/exit behavior when you click the red X window control, when this button is modal in all other major UIs, with no indication of which mode you are in (hint: it's usually close mode if there is one window open, and exit otherwise).

What are you talking about? One of us is confused about the definition of "Modal". What I can tell you is that the X button on both Linux and Windows is very consistent. It closes the window, and any of the windows children. The only applications I have run across on Windows that do not follow the consistent behavior are bittorrent clients and IM clients. (Inconsistent, but I understand why.) With MacOS, it is all over the board.

The green zoom button always causes grief to new users because they think it's ought to be a minimize/maximize button, which it isn't. This expectation is entirely a consequence of coming from UIs that treat minimize/maximize as a primary UI operation.

You sound ridiculous saying this. The reason that the green + button causes grief is because for as long as any of us have been alive, we have agreed that a + symbol means 'add'. I means you are making something more or bigger. Green means go. So, a green + means go bigger. In fact, if the green + button was minimize/maximize, it would still be wrong. A green plus should never shrink a window.

So, no, it isn't because I am used to other OSes. It is because I am used to being a human who is part of society beyond Mac computers.

The menu bar pegged to the primary screen is indeed an old and debatable quirk of Mac OSes, but it should be noted that your criticism doesn't really apply to the portable market, which might explain why Apple has so much success there.

The placement of the menu was debatable back when single monitors where the only setup. Today, it isn't debatable any more. It is now simply a poor design. So, Apple uses a system that is bad for use at a desk and is neutral for a portable instead of using a UI that would work well for both. Notice I did not say "desktop" because when used at a desk, a laptop will often have two monitors hooked to it. It is funny that you use this argument, yet you claim that the OS is designed to be productive. An OS who chooses to make multiple monitors a second class citizen in it's UI design cannot be claimed as one that is designed to be productive.

I agree that it is inaccurate to describe Apple's UI as intuitive---parts of it are astonishingly sophisticated. Intuitive suggests that it should be easy for new users, but that is the way of Clippy and Start buttons. Apple doesn't design to be intuitive--that's a leftover meme from 1985. Apple designs to be productive, which makes it annoying for people who already have burned in productivity habits from platforms where this is less of a design ethic.

You are the only one claiming this. The mantra of Apple has been that "It just works" (and when it doesn't, it is the users fault) and is "Intuitive". There is nothing inherently more productive about Apples UI. In fact, it is things like the lack of a maximize button, the fact that to increase window size, you can only do it from the lower right corner, and putting the menu for a program on a different screen that the application, that makes the MacOS UI LESS productive.

While Clippy was a failed attempt at a better help system, the Start button is useful, productive AND intuitive. MacOS also has a start button of it's own. It is just split between the 'Appli

three million

[xzvf]

A 1-2% usage rate equals ~three million desktop users in the United States.

Re:three million

[cindyann]

If 2% == 3M, which doesn't seem unreasonable, then 98% == 147M.

I know a VC or two. They aren't investing in companies producing software that has a target market of 3M customers when they could be investing in companies who are writing for those other 147M.

Just look at how long it took Apple to gain traction, and they still have what, 10% of the market? At least what Apple had going for it was a superior user experience over the next best thing at the time. Gnome and KDE have come a long way and they're pretty decent now, but they're not "killer app" better experiences than what you get on Mac and Windows these days.

Re:three million

[Yvan256]

If you want a "killer app", Left 4 Dead 2 launched on the Mac a few weeks ago.

Fuck

[binarylarry]

I upgraded to Ubuntu Maverick Meetkat last week.

It's the best desktop I ever used. And now its dead. :(

Re:Fuck

[abigsmurf]

I upgraded to Maverick Meerkat last week. I was most disappointed when it failed to give me cheap deals on my car insurance.

Too obscure?

huh... why now?

[someonestolecc]

... i dont get it.. why now? why at all? i've been using it for years so for me it's great ..

Re:huh... why now?

[maztuhblastah]

... i dont get it.. why now? why at all?

Because Mr. Strohmeyer needed an article, and PCWorld needs their advertising revenue.

trolling trolling trolling

[roman_mir]

This entire "story" must be summed up by the following:

Rawhide
I owe you $200 and you boys drank $300 worth of beer

Trolling, trolling, trolling
Trolling, trolling, trolling
Trolling, trolling, trolling
Trolling, trolling, trolling

Rawhide

Trolling, trolling, trolling
Though the streams are swollen
Keep them doggies trolling
Rawhide

Rain and wind and weather
Hell bent for leather
Wishing my gal was by my side

All the things I'm missin'
Good vittels, lovin', kissin'
Are waiting at the end of my ride

Move 'em on, head' em up
Head 'em up, move' em on
Move 'em on, head' em up
Rawhide

Cut 'em out, ride 'em in
Ride 'em in, cut 'em out
Call 'em out, ride 'em in
Rawhide

Keep moving, moving, moving
Though they're disapproving
Keep them doggies moving
Rawhide

Don't try to understand 'em
Just rope, throw and brand 'em
Soon we'll be living high and wide

My heart calculatin'
My true love will be waitin'
Be waiting at the end of my ride
Move 'em on, head' em up
Head 'em up, move' em on
Move 'em on, head' em up
Rawhide

Cut 'em out, ride 'em in
Ride 'em in, cut 'em out
Call 'em out, ride 'em in
Rawhide

Move 'em on, head' em up
Head 'em up, move' em on
Move 'em on, head' em up
Rawhide

Cut 'em out, ride 'em in
Ride 'em in, cut 'em out
Call 'em out, ride 'em in
Rawhide

Trolling, trolling, trolling
Trolling, trolling, trolling
Trolling, trolling, trolling
Trolling, trolling, trolling
Rawhide

Rawhide

Long live Linux on the Desktop

[just_another_sean]

As long as I can download and install a free OS for my computer from any number of sources I consider Linux (on the Desktop) alive and kicking. News of its demise has luckily not reached my Desktop and it is chugging along just fine.

I hate to say this but...

[leachim6]

I think a lot of linux fans don't mind it being an "indie os" y'know?

One other thing

[btcoal]

Linux is also the only major OS that cannot advertise. Ubuntu 10.10 has great copy on its website extolling the benefits and showing that you can do pretty much anything on Ubuntu that you can on a Mac or Windows based PC. But...you only see that if you're already on the Ubuntu landing page. Linux also doesnt come pre-installed on the vast majority of new PC's either.

TFA written by a Windows magazine editor?

[bl8n8r]

I figured microsoft had more to worry about right now than FUD'ing up the linux arena with Paid-for blogging*, but meh.

Desktop Linux works for me, and has been since 1997. If you don't like it, don't use it. Be thankful you have alternatives. If it weren't for *nix, you probably wouldn't.

[*] - http://www.blogger.com/profile/5530582
            http://www.flickr.com/photos/strohmy/315871552/

no need for Tux to look sad

[yyxx]

Linux is very much alive on the desktop; it is very widely used inside corporations and universities. These "1% market share" figures are meaningless; they are usually based on device sales or web site statistics of popular web sites, neither of which tell you much about "desktop" Linux.

Linux hasn't grabbed much of the general purpose consumer desktop market, but that market is pretty much stagnant in itself. The new consumer market is tablets, netbooks, and smartphones, and Linux is grabbing a large chunk of that with Android and (in the near future) MeeGo and Chrome.

No need for Tux to look sad.

Right... okay...

[Sylak]

So, by citing many unrelated facts, and some things which the average user doesn't know enough about to care, he has proved that Desktop Linux is dead. Okay, i buy that.

Evil Twin day?

[zwei2stein]

What is going on today on /.?

Linux Destop is Dead, Top 10 Reasons to Work for Micsoroft, Pirated Software Making Anti Teorist Drones Fail, MS Donating Software to Charity, Why We Should Use Dell and Forget Custom Desktops, Earth Shortage...

Did ... did it finally grow up? Sell out? Get brainwashed? Recieved ms-paid escort service? All of it in one hectic night?

What's still keeping me away

[elrous0]

I'm a pretty geeky guy who has played around with Linux many times over the years (starting back in the late 90's), hoping to get away from Windows. Frankly, I would love nothing better than an OS I could put on my parents' computers and not have to worry about them calling me a month later complaining about all the pop-ups and viruses they have. And, while great strides have been made with Ubuntu, I'm still not convinced that Linux will ever be that OS I'm looking for. I know these will all be poo-pooed by the Linux fans, but here are/were some of the problems that I (as a very technically literate Windows user) have run up against when I've installed Linux in the past*:

1. Confusing distros Just thinking about all the different distros and configurations still gives me a headache. Ubuntu has blunted this somewhat, but even with that you have to get into the Gnome vs. KDE thing, which is damned confusing to a layperson. The worst part of this is trying to download software for Linux off of some website and running into multiple versions with odd notations regarding different distros.
2. Poor documentation Again, Ubuntu helps. But even that is spotty compared to Windows. And the "documentation" website of many distros (and Linux software apps) is little more than a bugfix list.
3. Software, Software, Software this is the biggest problem, and not so easily dismissed as some fans would pretend. My mom, for example, uses special software to interface with her high-end sewing machine. Is it available for Linux? Probably not. Can I just direct her to a clone of equal quality? Probably not.
4. Little support (if not openly hostile) There aren't a lot of places to call for Linux support. And a lot of the places you can go for support on the net are filled with Linuix fanatics who are openly hostile to Windows switchers and newbies. The level of "you don't belong here" attitude towards newbies in Linux circles makes Apple fans look civil.
5. Ways of doing things that are confusing to a Windows user with windows, I can go to a website, download an installer and install my software. with Linux I can install it via the built-in installer. but that only works if said software is in the repository. If not, getting it installed is often a lot more complex than just downloading a file and double clicking on it to install. Which brings me to:
6. Still too much reliance on the command line interface Telling someone to break out a command line and type "sudo apt-get whateverthefuck" is like telling a Windows user to reinstall DOS and learn its syntax.

Those are just some of the reasons Linux still isn't there for me. Ubuntu has come a long way toward this, but it's still just not there.

*maybe some of these issues have been more recently resolved, but I can only go on my fairly recent dealings with Ununtu and Debian.

Oh come on.

[Dancindan84]

10 years ago before the iPod was released if someone had told me that Apple would have a wildly popular music device, a huge share of the smart phone market, a respectable piece of the desktop market and unbelievable sway over industry direction I'd have been hard pressed to say I thought it would happen. At the time they were fairly niche to graphic work for the most part, similar to how Linux is currently doing it's best in the server niche.

"2010 is the year of the Linux desktop!!" isn't realistic, but neither is "Linux on the desktop is dead!!"

Again?

[suso]

Its dead again? Good thing it has a bunch of friends that can cast level 9 resurrection.

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what's dead? Paper magazines about computers, like PC World.

Re:Good timing

[JustOK]

don't worry, they'll reinvent the wheel

Re:On the contrary

[beschra]

Troll Trifecta. I like the sound of that. I don't care about the meaning just the sound. Troll Trifecta. Troll Trifecta. Troll Trifecta.

Accept reality

[Crayon Kid]

Maybe we should start asking what those 1-2% represent.

What kind of people use a Linux desktop full time? Geeks. Developers. Bright minds.

Consider Linux a piece of specialized software. How many computer users run specialized software? A small percentage of the total. Yet those are important for their respective niches.

Apple has 5% but it's the cream of the crop in regard to certain traits: people who favor aestethics and "just works" over everything else and are willing to pay extra for it.

Maybe it's time for Linux to stop aiming for more than 5%, ever, and instead embrace what it is: a professional-grade OS, for professionals.

Why obsess with taking over the desktop of average Joe, against Joe's wishes?

Non-free software

[tepples]

Seriously, compile the piece of software you want to use against the library versions you actually have!

End users don't compile non-free software.

If you don't understand these things, don't use software from outside your package system!

Package systems tend not to contain non-free software. The article mentions this ideological point.

And if you claim all software should be free, how do you expect to fund the development of a major video game if you plan to release it as free software from day one as opposed to five years later like Id?

At least put some though in your trolling!

[Seth Kriticos]

I really don't mind some well written trolling, but this is just pathetic.

Linux on the desktop is fine and better than ever. No, it's not mainstream (and I actually hope it stays so, I don't think more than 20% market share is healthy for any OS). It's fine in a way that there is an increasing user base. Also technically it's quite mature, and exceeds most of the competition in many ways (I'd list them, but it gets repetitive).

Now granted, apps on Linux, especially commercial ones need some more work. And it's being done, slowly. Just from the distribution I see (Ubuntu), there are big strides to include this into the Software Center (yes, we have that already). It's still in test mode for the next half a year, but I think with a high probability that it will attract a lot of commercial interest.

I also run a site with international audience (mostly the U.S. and China, + 67 other countries with 2k+ visitors a day, mostly private users) and the Linux share is at 2.88% there. This is much better than one or two years ago.

So anyone telling me that the OS I currently write from is not existent or does not evolve is full of BS IMO. And the troll article was not even written in a way that would be fun to read (and we Linux folks have humor if you hit some valid points). Bad editor, grow some spine!

It's not the OS alone...

[headLITE]

Most users don't *want* to stray from the party line or even realize that there is such a thing. They just want something that works. For normal people, Mac OS X gets that right most of the time, but not necessarily only because the UI is easy to use.

For example, my mother needs a web browser and something that gets her photos off her camera. She does use e-mail, but as far as I know, she only uses some web mail system. She has a Mac because she can go to a store, pick one up, and it just works and does everything she wants to do without her having to call her son about it. It's not so much that she thinks this wouldn't be possible with Linux, it's more that she doesn't even care and/or have a good idea of what Linux even is. She's not buying an operating system, she's buying a magical box that lets her access the web and that stores her photos. Even Windows would beat Linux if new Windows systems didn't come pre-loaded with so much crapware...

Re:It's not the OS alone...

[C10H14N2]

Baloney...

I run at least five flavors of Windows and hafter as many Linux distros, am pretty solidly in the Ubuntu camp. I have a Mac and an iPhone and am going to be buying more for a laundry list of reasons.

HOWEVER, the first thing that struck me about the Mac and the iPhone was how much they did NOT "just work." I was ready to be converted. Oh, please, let me for once just buy a !@#$ing box and be able to plug it in and start working. It was NO different to me than setting up a Windows or Ubuntu box. The OS wasn't fully configured or even current. I had to install everything myself only to find it wanted to automatically run 2.9GBs of patches, rebooting about six times in the process. I didn't have a working computer until the next day.

The difference is that Apple has an army of well trained baby sitters who will, for a fee, put up with this crap for you and coddle your ego telling you what a special, pretty smart and interesting person you are and then hand your shiny box back.

I refuse to pay for that sort of saccharine bullshit, so I'm left with a computer that is just as much a pain in my ass as any other.

Re:wrong OS? NO! Wrong QUESTION!

[bytesex]

Because ever more CPU-demanding app-development, and ever more screen-real estate (photo/film/games/tv) demanding apps are suddenly gone ? People don't need to type anymore ? I don't get it. I've heard 'photoshop through the web is going to be here in five to ten years' for the last fifteen years now. It hasn't happened.

Re:wrong OS? NO! Wrong QUESTION!

[jc42]

I seem to remember software company executives in the 90's drooling over the thought that you'd pay them a monthly fee to access their word processor and photo editor apps from your thin client at home.

Heh. I know quite a lot of people who've tried this, and quickly learned the downside of any sort of centralized or "cloud" computing model: If you miss a payment, all your stuff disappears. Sometimes permanently.

And most of the ISPs who provided the early online storage to customers turned out to have contracts saying that putting a file on their server automatically transfers the copyright to the ISP. I know several friends in bands who tried this and learned the hard way that they had assigned the copyrights to all their work to their ISP, who found things that they liked and used in ads. Other people stored pictures of their kids, pets, etc. on "their" web site, and found the ISP using their photos in ads. Remember the fuss when msn.com was caught doing this, and MSN's reps quoted that passage in their contract?

I also have a couple of friends who lost a parent who had been keeping personal info (pics, diaries, etc.) on a hosted site. They were a bit upset to find that after the parent's death, they had no legal access to anything on the site, because the parent hadn't thought to will it to them. And after a few months, the parent's "site" was purged and lost forever.

Going back a bit, one of the original reasons for the rapid adoption of "personal computers" in work environments back in the 1980s was the growing problem of corporate data centers that more and more controlled what employees were permitted to do on the mainframe. Departments learned that if they wanted the computing capability that they needed, the easiest way was with a little computer that the department owned, and which the data center had no control over. This is a continuing battle in corporations everywhere, with no end in sight.

It's an old story. If you don't own the machine(s) that hold your data, you don't own the data, and you have no say in how it may be used. If this means anything to you, you'd be an idiot to trust your data to an organization that views you as a source of income. You need, and will always need, a computer system that you completely control. (And you need it backed up - on your own hardware, not on someone else's. ;-)