Slashdot Mirror
Could 2018 Be The Year of the Linux Desktop? (gnome.org)
Suren Enfiajyan writes: Red Hat worker and GNOME blogger Christian F.K. Schaller wrote why GNU/Linux failed to become a mainstream desktop OS... "My thesis is that there really isn't one reason, but rather a range of issues that all have contributed to holding the Linux Desktop back from reaching a bigger market. Also to put this into context, success here in my mind would be having something like 10% market share of desktop systems. That to me means we reached critical mass."
He named the following reasons:
- A fragmented market
- Lack of special applications
- Lack of big name applications
- Lack of API and ABI stability
- Apple's resurgence
- Microsoft's aggressive response
- Windows piracy
- Red Hat mostly stayed away
- Canonical's business model not working out
- Lack of original device manufacturer support
Then he ended with some optimism:
"So anyone who has read my blog posts probably knows I am an optimist by nature. This isn't just some kind of genetic disposition towards optimism, but also a philosophical belief that optimism breeds opportunity while pessimism breeds failure. So just because we haven't gotten the Linux Desktop to 10% marketshare so far doesn't mean it will not happen going forward. It just means we haven't achieved it so far.
"One of the key identifiers of open source is that it is incredibly hard to kill, because unlike proprietary software, just because a company goes out of business or decides to shut down a part of its business, the software doesn't go away or stop getting developed. As long as there is a strong community interested in pushing it forward it remains and evolves, and thus when opportunity comes knocking again it is ready to try again."
The essay concludes desktop Linux has evolved and is ready to try again, since from a technical perspective it's better than ever. "The level of polish is higher than ever before, the level of hardware support is better than ever before and the range of software available is better than ever before...
"There is also the chance that it will come in a shape we don't appreciate today. For instance maybe ChromeOS evolves into a more full fledged operating system as it grows in popularity and thus ends up being the Linux on the Desktop end game? Or maybe Valve decides to relaunch their SteamOS effort and it provides the foundation for a major general desktop growth? Or maybe market opportunities arise that will cause us at Red Hat to decide to go after the desktop market in a wider sense than we do today? Or maybe Endless succeeds with their vision for a Linux desktop operating system...."
He named the following reasons:
- A fragmented market
- Lack of special applications
- Lack of big name applications
- Lack of API and ABI stability
- Apple's resurgence
- Microsoft's aggressive response
- Windows piracy
- Red Hat mostly stayed away
- Canonical's business model not working out
- Lack of original device manufacturer support
Then he ended with some optimism:
"So anyone who has read my blog posts probably knows I am an optimist by nature. This isn't just some kind of genetic disposition towards optimism, but also a philosophical belief that optimism breeds opportunity while pessimism breeds failure. So just because we haven't gotten the Linux Desktop to 10% marketshare so far doesn't mean it will not happen going forward. It just means we haven't achieved it so far.
"One of the key identifiers of open source is that it is incredibly hard to kill, because unlike proprietary software, just because a company goes out of business or decides to shut down a part of its business, the software doesn't go away or stop getting developed. As long as there is a strong community interested in pushing it forward it remains and evolves, and thus when opportunity comes knocking again it is ready to try again."
The essay concludes desktop Linux has evolved and is ready to try again, since from a technical perspective it's better than ever. "The level of polish is higher than ever before, the level of hardware support is better than ever before and the range of software available is better than ever before...
"There is also the chance that it will come in a shape we don't appreciate today. For instance maybe ChromeOS evolves into a more full fledged operating system as it grows in popularity and thus ends up being the Linux on the Desktop end game? Or maybe Valve decides to relaunch their SteamOS effort and it provides the foundation for a major general desktop growth? Or maybe market opportunities arise that will cause us at Red Hat to decide to go after the desktop market in a wider sense than we do today? Or maybe Endless succeeds with their vision for a Linux desktop operating system...."
Gnome3 and systemd created most disinterest in Linux world. Look within to see the root cause behind when Linux adoption is not accelerating as it deserves to be before blaming everything and everyone else.
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didnâ(TM)t stop to think if they should"
I like most of where Linux has gone since the mid 90s when I started using it, but I was never looking for a Windows replacement and I abhor the dumbing down and obfuscation of major components (systemd, for example) in the name of 'MORE USERS OMG!!!'.
It's okay if everyone doesn't know how to use a tool. Imagine if a nail gun were dumbed down so far that nobody could possibly hurt themselves with it, and it were accessible to everyone. It would be a nail gun in name only. This is how you get things like the iPhone.
I've never understood the push to be accepted by everybody, isn't it enough to be the most popular OS in the world? (Android, TVs, servers, IoT, etc)
Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not true.
Many years ago I worked for a computer manufacturer. We wanted an industry-leading product ported to our range(s) of machines. We worked hard with the software company and they required that for maintenance purposes, we had to supply 1 model of each computer that their software products would be sold for. They had a large room full of systems from various manufacturers.
This is the state of Linux - but multiplied several times over. Not only does each "flavour" vary from each other (otherwise they wouldn't be different), but the too-frequent releases and updates of vital components: kernels, libraries, sub-systems, make it too expensive for software suppliers to keep the whole spectrum up to date with changes, debugged, and to test their own software products thoroughly on each variant.
That puts a tremendous cost on the suppliers. And in a Linux market which expects software to be zero-cost or cheap ("I'm not spending $$$$-thousands on software for an operating system I downloaded for free"), it simply isn't worth anyone's while.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
you cannot drop a Linux desktop into a corporate environment (this usually means a Microsoft environment) and have it just work. This is the biggest problem. Unlike the readership here most people cannot care less about computers and don't want to work hard to understand them. They have to use a MS Windows machine at work and so will have the same at home - learning something else is just too hard & boring.
Yes you can have *nix on the desktop, I have only run *nix on my desktops for 25+ years, but I am self employed so I run what I want, I do not need to interact with lots of other people within my company. I am also a techie: I have the interest & motivation to do this. But getting millions of individual Linux desktops will not result in 'the year of Linux desktop', for that the corporate environment must be cracked.
A fully open source 100% replacement for the MS server environment would also help a lot. Yes: you can easily replace a lot of it, but the server components are just that, islands that are not joined up. Email to most people includes group-ware (calendering, etc), people do not want to have to separate the 2: they want to just continue the way that they are. The SME (Small and medium-sized enterprises) sector would be most likely to move first if such a FLOSS solution was available and easy to install/maintain.
The SME sector is also able to do its thing without attracting Microsoft's big we-play-dirty marketing guns: think Munich.
However: much software also seen as essential in a corporate environment only runs on MS Windows - eg accounting software. Vendors would only consider porting to Linux if there was a large market - it is much easier from their perspective to just require a MS Windows machine to run their software. Very much chicken and eggs.
Can this be done ? Yes: but it needs the likes of Red Hat to make this happen. Those who work on the individual components (eg Exim/Postfix) have little interest in doing this - they are focussed on making good MTAs (in this example). Work to stitch them together needs to be done by a software integrator - which is exactly what Red Hat is.
Red Hat has the money & technical ability to do this; once done it also has plenty of corporate customers, a few of which might try it as early adopters ... and when it works others will follow.
Summary: what is needed is 100% client & server interoperability in the server environment. This is what Red Hat needs to achieve.
Vast majority of people use computers for utterly menial tasks for which they simply do not actually need a computer. Most people are not âcomputing creatorsâ, creators that can appreciate what a full computer offers are a tiny minority.
Your argument supports the assertion that Linux will take a bigger share of the desktop, because Linux users are more likely to need a desktop. Sure, the overall desktop market is declining, that's Microsoft's problem. Linux's share is growing, including in absolute numbers.
Hey, have you noticed how motherboard makers often mention Linux on their sites now? Not at all uncommon to find explicit Linux items in bios configuration now. Hardware vendors with Linux source code posted on their sites, or funding Linux driver developers. My how times have changed!
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
It has been 10 years since I gave up on Linux (full time) on the desktop (I still use it on a server/build/database etc.) machine but not on my primary desktop machines (laptop or desktop). There was always something that did not work with the latest and greatest laptop hardware. There was always some thing that would fail because you tried adding something new. There was the issues of sometimes when you just wanted on update done and it failing because dependencies etc. There is always something that just does not work, and takes a lot of time to config (at that time it was things like multiple network cards or multiple monitors or video card drivers that were less than they should have been). I have no problem if it is not my primary goto computer (like my server which I can shelve for a while if I have problems - and have time or feel like tinkering). The configuration, the feel of the user interface never seems quite polished. I am sure a number of these applications default - work independently well, but together there is just something not quite right. The desktop always seems sort of spungy or sluggish or halting at times. There is no visionary that seems to be able to bring it together and make it work like a well tuned orchestra. 10 years now and the interface has not really improved in many cases - it might get a little better, then worse, then better but it is 1 step forward, 1 step backwards.
... NO. Because the underlying reasons still have not been addressed for your average user. Now given windows or Linux - I would chose Linux... but the only way Linux does take off is if all other desktop OSs mess up big time.
These irritations (especially on the laptop) made me take a look at macOS which had somewhat matured and underneath was still a UNIX variant (very important to me) -- in 2007. After all these years it is still -- maybe this year the desktop will take off.... well
I've seen them. Old banks had them, and oil companies still do.
Some of the big and old industries spent billions on them. Sure, they pay $1M a year for a mainframe lease to run software that someone could write in a weekend for a PC, but they spent billions on it, doing it when it was hard. They don't want to throw that away. And $1M a year is a small price to pay for the risk reduction. For some.
Learn to love Alaska
It already is. Chromebooks are Linux. People use Windows prinarily because it's preloaded on Intel and AMD PCs and installed apps only run Windows. Now that virtually all apps are moving to the Linux-powered cloud, they will be able to use Linux powered desktops or Linux or BSD (iOS) powered phones. Instant apps will totally replace .exe's for most people.
He named the following reasons:
- Windows piracy
This one is brought up frequently and it makes me laugh.
On a level playing field -- Linux is free, pirated Windows is free -- people overwhelming choose Windows.
Businesses could save around $45 Billion a year by not having to pay for hundreds of millions of copies of Windows. But they don't. Why not?
If Linux had something to offer, that situation would not exist.
I abhor the dumbing down and obfuscation of major components (systemd, for example) in the name of 'MORE USERS OMG!!!'.
systemd is about controlling linux distributions, NOT about dumbing down linux. I have been using it exclusively since the late 90s, and it doesn't make things easier. It makes them harder and less simple. I've used lots of distros, and settled on Mint XFCE. I was quite content with it until systemd came around. Now I can't cleanly shutdown my machine, ever. It hangs for minutes at a time. Try explaining THAT to the average user. If it just worked, then there could be an argument for dumbing it down.. but I do agree with the obfuscation part. Maddening. I think systemd can lead to a better linux desktop, in the same way Trump can lead to a better America - by showing exactly how bad it can get so we do the opposite.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Most Linux DEs are extremely limited and expect you to google a terminal command for a lot of settings. It's not uncommon for the GUI to omit some pretty basic settings such as monitor refresh rate or mouse acceleration.
All too late. Reality is the desktop is dying before Linux could take it over and well, Linux took over in all new mediums. So Linux won on the server, it won on the phone, it won on the TV, it won in the appliance market and the desktop is just slowly fading away and fragmenting. As the desktop OS becomes less and less consumer orientated and more business/science/education/government/geeks/nerds orientated, so it will fragment more to suit those elements. Probably Linux will dominate in that sphere but in the consumer market, in terms of numbers, Linux will dominate in consumer computer appliances.
So where does that leave the personal computer gamer, it seems like at the present, that will fragment and be part of the console market sort off and depending upon what Apple does, they can be part of that market and steal market share from M$, whilst Google, Linux and surprise player Steam also steal market share from M$. M$ are screwed but they wanted to play anal probe with Windows 10 and they deserve it. So the desktop basically died before Linux was able to dominate it.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen