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...."
Linux desktop may very well become the only desktop in the future. Not because it won. It's because the other desktops died.
The only real use for a desktop now is for business use. Personal use of desktops is crashing. Mobile devices have effectively taken over personal use.
The browser has taken over as the OS on desktops. The applications are provided mostly by website interfaces. I have desktop machines that no longer have office suites installed, or graphical manipulation programs.
We will still see beefed up machines. But only for the purpose of running online application via the browser.
Personally I run Linux on basically every device attached to a monitor or TV as well as all my server gear. I have token windows and apple devices / vm's. But even a Linux fan boy like myself knows Linux desktop will never have it's big year. Simply because the desktop is dead.
The problem, is that Linux appeals to people who are computer enthusiasts-- people who LOVE computers, because they are simply amazing things, and they want to get the most out of that purchase.
Most people are not like that. They want a computer to do a very short list of things, and want one that will never slow down, break, or get infected with something. For most people, that thing is "I need the internet, facebook, and stuff for work/school." The less they have to actually know about computers, or how computers work (EG, the more "Magic box" like they are) the happier these people are.
Linux dares to expose its internals, and worse yet, DEMANDS that you learn about how it works underneath in order to use it effectively. That is why it has never, and likely will never, take off as a mainstream desktop.
Apple and Microsoft have created the "Shiny plastic experience", and people love it. Linux might as well say "Batteries not included, setup time 6 hours, major assembly required" on the box.
Asking why Linux is not a mainstream desktop environment is like asking why McCalls clothing patterns are not the dominant source of apparel in the market. Sure, you can customize the clothing however you want, and you can modify the patterns to your hearts content--- But dammit, you gotta get the cloth, cut it, sew it together, and all that shit. Why bother when you just want a fashionable new sport top, eh? People would rather spend the money on something somebody else already put together-- VIOLA-- OSX and pals. Shiny plastic. No work.
Linux needs to stop chasing this fantasy where everyone stops being lazy gits and becomes excited computer enthusiasts. They need to understand that they are a niche market, and do that niche very well. Last I checked, that was the Unix philosophy anyway.
For this reason I am opposed to the efforts of Poettering and Pals. Dont dumb down Linux for the masses. There are plenty of shiny plastic offerings out there. There aren't a lot of highly mature offerings for enthusiasts.
Hey! C'mon! Trump won the presidency. The Cubs won the World Series. Now's our time, man!
Computers are a passing fad. They will be gone within a few years.
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.
You're forgetting a few other categories: gaming and creators. Smartphone or tablets really aren't a good substitute for these, as you really can't do equivalent things. The desktop PC is "dead" in the same way pickup trucks or full sized vans are "dead". Just because a typical consumer doesn't need one doesn't mean there isn't still a significant market, and a valid reason for that market to exist.
PC sales will bottom out as they find their niche (work, gaming, creators), and then stabilize. At the moment, we're seeing a massive slowdown in the PC market for three reasons. First, obviously, smartphones, tablets, and notebooks are the large-scale market consumer devices of choice these days. Second, the PC market is largely saturated. And third, even for those of us to need PCs, those PCs are actually lasting FAR longer than they used to now that we've hit a "fast enough" hardware threshold.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Nobody cares about everyday apps in Linux vs X. Linux solved that years ago with major DEs like KDE or Gnome without utilizing the web.
It's still about peripherals and special apps. Every peripheral you pick up at $electronics_store runs with windows, as long as you avoid those marked with the apple. Doesn't work like that with Linux. You still have spend time for research to find out what versions run with Linux. You have to compromise in either the quality, feature or money department (or a combination of those), because your selection is severely limited. No homo oeconomicus wants these compromises. Hell, even I don't want them. And special apps is what really broke the LiMux initiative. Now that Windows 10 comes with a Linux subsystem for devs, there's even less incentive to not pick it over Linux.
Linux owns the mobile and server markets. But desktop? No, absolutely not.
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.
I think you're confusing signs of Linux adoption with signs of the apocalypse.
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