Are Open-Source Desktops Losing Competitiveness?

An anonymous reader writes "Peter Penz has been a user of KDE since version 1.2, and he led the development of the Dolphin file manager for the past six years. Now, he's quitting KDE development and handing off Dolphin. His reasons for quitting KDE development are described in a blog post. Penz speaks of KDE losing competitiveness to Apple and Microsoft due to increased complexity and other reasons. 'Working on the non-user-interface parts of applications can be challenging, and this is not something that most freetime-contributors are striving for. But if there are not enough contributors for the complex stuff behind the scenes and if no company is willing to invest fulltime-developers to work on this... well then we are losing ground.' Are open-source desktops losing?"

Comments

Partially a lack of interest by users

[Anonymous Coward]

*nix users have been moving to OS X on the desktop for a long time. If you defend the X desktop in a lot of circles where it would have been popular in another time, prepare to be mocked, ridiculed and told to just "buy a Mac".

Under these conditions it doesn't surprise me that KDE is stagnant. Fewer people are interested in it these days.

- Still an X11 user when I have the choice.

Re:Partially a lack of interest by users

[Githaron]

I hate the global menu bar in Mac. I want my menus as close to my mouse as possible.

Re:Partially a lack of interest by users

[jedidiah]

I really don't see the great appeal of the Mac desktop. While some complexity is hidden, other things are crippled to the point of being not useful. If you have demanding requirements, you may find yourself right back at the console.

Perhaps there are more things you can BUY for MacOS, but Windows is much better in that respect.

Buy a Mac? Why bother?

Re:Partially a lack of interest by users

[h4rr4r]

Hmm, not working. I guess that would be because I have two monitors and I am not always on the primary one.

Re:Partially a lack of interest by users

[0racle]

That OS X has a UNIX console is one of its strengths when talking about UNIX professionals moving to OS X so I don't know why you're holding it up as a negative.

I have used OS X as a Linux Administrator before I missed 2 things that made me get a Linux box at work - middle-click paste and kde io-slaves (fish:// in Kate, so really I missed Kate). However, I never considered OS X 'crippled to the point of being not useful.' Assuming you're not just trolling, what exactly was wrong with OS X for you.

Re:Partially a lack of interest by users

[shutdown -p now]

It made sense on 15" monitor fifteen years ago. Today, not so much, because after you slam your mouse all the way up and make a selection, you then need to bring it back to the document window you were working with, and it's suddenly that much further away.

Re:Partially a lack of interest by users

[countach]

I can tell you why I gave up on Linux. I used it for a really long time, starting from kernel 1.0.

1. Breakage. I got sick of every software update from Redhat or Debian or whatever arbitrarily breaking a bunch of stuff. You might have spent a whole day figuring out how to get printing to work with your printer etc, then they'd swap to a new version of lpd or something and you'd have to start again. Even for a tinkerer, this eventually gets old. The big vendors do better in smoothing things over with upgrade paths.

2. Hardware support. Shopping for hardware is exhausting when you've got to spend days of research trying to figure out what hardware works, and even then you make mistakes, and/or are disappointed when it doesn't really work right. This problem is even more acute with the general trend towards laptops.

3. Speed of change. Often free software just evolves too quickly in directions that are questionable. I haven't followed KDE for a long time, but I'm hearing voices that this happened with KDE. Just when you learn some software and come to deal with it, the whole thing changes completely from under you. Yes of course, the big vendors do this too, but nowhere near as often, and not as arbitrarily.

4. KDE vs Gnome. I've never bought the "choice is good" mantra. Linux is too small to support 2 different environments. Any enthusiasm I had for developing for Linux was squashed by the continual doubt in my mind about which environment I should develop for, or which one would survive. I'm surprised one or the other hasn't died by now. Having an overlord to make tough decisions in this area would be good IMHO.

I think free software ws always at its strongest when it is copying an already existing design, like the kernel itself. When it goes its own way, with hundreds of developers, it can lose its cohesiveness. I think without a corporate benefactor to pay for a lot of development, it would be better off copying OSX. Not because OSX is the last word in OS but because at least it is well thought out, and lots of people know how to use it.

Re:Partially a lack of interest by users

[exomondo]

Don't worry. We'll get our chance to ridicule Mac users when Apple does something stupid with OS X. The lack of software freedom will bite them eventually.

LOL! Yeah you just keep thinking that, it's been well over 2 decades and even the significantly more locked down Microsoft Windows still hasn't done anything that has caused its users to abandon it in favor of free OSes. If through all that unloved Microsoft has done isn't biting anyone in the ass hard enough to change then I don't see it happening to Apple either.
You can keep trumpeting software freedom and that the YOTLD is coming, but i'm certainly not seeing evidence of change, in fact the popularity of iOS suggests the opposite is true.

Re:Partially a lack of interest by users

[dudpixel]

You could've just shortened it to this:

I've never bought the "choice is good" mantra.

and that is why a mac is what you need.

Great for people who don't want choices, but it sucks for those who do.

Re:Partially a lack of interest by users

[walshy007]

When the choice is between open and better, the latter will always win.

#define "better", to me, kde is far more functional than os x, I recognize others don't think the same but they likely aren't using it in a similar fashion as to what I am. Without criteria defined there is no such thing as "better".

To some users, windows has better usability for them than os x because different is seen as unwanted. Familiarity is weighted into it. I imagine this mostly comes from people adjusting their workflow to that which their present environment allows, once you have it fine-tuned people rarely wish to change.

My usage of UI is quite simple, I want to be able to hit alt-f2 and type a program name to run it, and have a bar at the bottom for quick selection of the various windows I have open. My entire workflow never uses a double click ever even in file managing situations with konqueror. Once you run single click for all double click seems awkward and superfluous. Do others have different needs than I? of course, but I would hardly call my UI preferences "worse" than others.

Long story short, to some people, OS X has a crappy interface, to some, windows has a crappy interface. All depends on your criteria and means of working.

"No"

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_Law_of_Headlines

This is a really bizarre troll-baiting headline, and based on sample size of 1? By an "anonymous reader" nonetheless. Y U NO require a pseudonym, at least?

Yes

[geek]

Of course, by "yes" I mean, "never had a prayer."

I love Linux. I have a great life thanks to Linux. But Linux on the desktop is complete shit and always has been. Especially now with Gnome 3, Unity and KDE 4 giving the finger to users and designing craptastic interfaces.

I'm using Cinnamon at the moment just for a semi usable desktop experience. XFCE is also good. But by and large, desktop environments on Linux are a disaster and it's only getting worse with Gnome pushing systemd on us and Fedora fucking everyone by forcing restarts all the damn time.

I'll stick to server OS's with crappy window managers that I can tweak myself from now on and keep a Mac around for anything desktop related I really want to do. I'm tired of fighting with the fucking desktop environment. I have real work to do.

Gnome devs and KDE devs pissed away promising interfaces and aren't even taking community feedback into consideration anymore. The best thing anyone says about these environments these days is "It's not as bad as it used to be." or "It doesn't crash every 15 minutes like it used to"

People like me moved to Linux because we were sick of Windows 95 crashing all the damn time. We laughed at Bill Gates when Windows 98 crashed during a live demo presentation to the world. Now suddenly we have desktop environments that are worse than 95/98 ever were and we're expected to stick around for this shit? Fuck no.

Re:Yes

[igb]

If you've spent any time around amateur theatre or amateur orchestras, you'll know that the real objective is to provide entertainment for the participants, and the interests of the audience come a long way down the list. If you go along to a concert by an amateur orchestra (and you don't, unless it's your wife or your child playing), then you simply don't have the same expectations as if it's professional, because the orchestra wants and audience so long as it doesn't have to compromise its own interests.

And so, Linux desktops...

Re:I was a skeptic on Ubuntu's Unity...

[MrEricSir]

So it's exactly like Windows 7?

Seriously though, I actually like Unity's interface quite a bit. What I don't like is the bugginess of Unity (and Compiz) which makes it nearly impossible to use with more than a few windows open. You wind up with windows flying every which way, like one of those cheap video games with a broken physics engine.

Re:Maybe its time to consolidate on one of the the

[geek]

Getting FOSS developers to merge projects is like herding cats. The vast majority of it is ego driven, merging and potentially taking a backseat to someone else is rarely an options.

Re:Are open-source desktops losing?

[cpu6502]

+1 A teachable moment.

The real reason if you RTFA is "I'm doing this project in my spare-time and usually have spend around one evening per week on Dolphin. Especially during the last 2 years this time has increased." -- So basically this guy has a life. He was willing to volunteer one day per week, but nothing beyond that, so he's decided to stop participating.

Also: "As user I always had the impression that I can do my regular tasks..... in a more efficient and comfortable way than on the other desktop-environments. But at least for my regular tasks as user this has changed during the last couple of years." -- I suspect it's because both Apple and Microsoft have improved their user friendliness over the last half-decade (well except for "where's the damn command?" Ribbon interface). Maybe he should try LXDE (lubuntu) which is not only lightweight on memory, but also nice and friendly.

Re:NO !! NEVER WERE !!

[homey of my owney]

I used a linux desktop for 7 years. I dutifully updated when any improvement was made.

Linux desktops were in my experience never competitive because they require too much technical knowledge. That is an obstacle easily overcome by technical types, but *not* the majority of the user population. It just isn't sustainable to say "Here, tinker, it's cool" to everybody - or more accurately ANYbody outside of technical folks who enjoy the work necessary to update one application or another. It's why many have grown tired of Windows. It's why OSX, with its draw backs, is becoming more popular - the user population at large want an experience that doesn't require at lot of work to keep working. imho.

Love KDE

[TheNinjaroach]

Am I the only one who loves KDE? I like the desktop. I like Dolphin. I think kio_slaves (if they are still called that) provide enormous out-of-the-box connectivity to nearly every remote system I need to connect to.

And KWrite rocks.

Re:Maybe its time to consolidate on one of the the

[vlm]

create one new master desktop

That's the mistake. There is no one master desktop. Its like convincing a bunch of book authors instead of writing a bunch of pulp, they should all cooperate to write the one great american novel.

10000 religions all claiming the other 9999 are wrong? Eh, they should give it up and all cooperate on the one master religion. (with our luck, unrestrained crony capitalism?)

Re:NO !! NEVER WERE !!

[causality]

Linux desktops were in my experience never competitive because they require too much technical knowledge. That is an obstacle easily overcome by technical types, but *not* the majority of the user population.

Am I the only one who doesn't see that as a problem?

Average users who don't want to learn new things about their systems are already well represented. They have several good options. What's so wrong with an OS for those who like learning and want to understand how the system works?

As a long-time Linux user, why would I feel a need for the masses to join me? I'm fine with people choosing what suits them best. I don't need them to choose what I choose. I like the choices I made in a way that doesn't depend on what someone else does.

Linux already has what it needs: enough of a userbase that there is active development and the attention of various companies which can contribute. I don't want it to become so thoroughly obscure as to lose that, because that is a good thing. I for one feel no need to "beat Microsoft", as though popularity indicated quality. Anyone who has seriously considered that question has already observed that it frequently indicates the opposite.

Why does Linux need tons of non-technical users who are unlikely to appreciate and understand the Open Source ethic? So that companies will include Linux drivers by default with hardware you buy? I've personally never had problems getting hardware to work, but then the correct way to do this is to match the hardware to the OS. Doing that, I found I had a very wide selection of hardware covering a large range of prices and capabilities. If that's what drives the desire to "go mainstream" more than Linux already has, it seems designed to solve what is not actually a problem. If that's not what drives this urge, then what does?

Re:Are open-source desktops losing?

[BlackCreek]

IMHO Most people could care less about a desktop's work flow. If it works in *some way* you learn that and get over it. The reason people have computers is to run programs in it.

For one, loads of people need MS Word. Not OpenOffice (or whatever is the new name for it). My sister (pro-photograph) needs Photoshop, not the fscking Gimp. You can argue they /truly need/ it. But one way or another, why should they run an OS that lacks they prefered applications, when they run one that has?

If Linux doesn't have the programs you need or programs which are `good enough for your needs`, and Windows7 or OSX have them. Linux has great browsers, but great applications are really far and few in between.

Re:NO !! NEVER WERE !!

[jedidiah]

The GUI's not having all of the options is not a problem limited to Linux. A cursory search of enabling TRIM in Windows and MacOS quickly led me to references for command line tools.

The last time I looked into enabling GPU video decoding in Windows, the instructions weren't for the faint of heart either.

Everyone assumes that there's never any problems with Windows or even MacOS and it's all some idealistic fantasy. It isn't necessarily.

Lazy != Stupid or Ignorant

[sirwired]

My computer is a tool. I have no desire to spend any intellectual energy whatsoever in making my computer work. I have work to do, both at work and at home, and I would prefer my computer simply never stand in the way of getting that work done. (At work, my job is protocol-level network equipment diagnostics, at home it's your typical surf, e-mail, light office work, games, etc.)

Just like I am mostly ignorant of the metallurgy and exact mechanical parts of the torque wrench I used to change out my brakes today, I have no need nor desire to understand the inner workings of my operating system. I understand the knowledge I require to do my job, just as I understand how brake calipers, pads, fluid, and rotors interact to stop my car. Knowing the secrets of torque wrench construction or OS operation is not something I have or want. While knowledge is a good thing, I have limited hours in my day, and do not have time to learn everything.

To be blunt, I have better things to do with my time than to use it making my computer work properly. I spend all day, every work day, making enterprise computer equipment work, and I do not want to dedicate any resources there, or at home, making my personal computers work properly also. For all its many faults, Windows works well enough to get my jobs done. Linux, with the tweaking, endless GUI "wars" (HOW long has the Gnome vs. KDE thing been going on?), driver morass, and stacks 'o Googling required for general operations, does not. The cheap Windows laptop I'm typing this on has never required more than occasional reboots for updates or crankiness. It has not required one iota of tweaking or a single download of some obscure driver or utility, nor the editing of a single configuration file, to make it work.

There is nothing wrong whatsoever to wanting something to "just work." Knowing HOW it works can be a valuable and enlightening process (there is a reason I have a degree in Computer Engineering, and I DO largely know how it works on a low level), but it should never be required, unless it is your job.