The "year of the Linux desktop" is no longer relevant.
It works for me. It works for a lot of other people. That's all it needs to do.
The "year of the Linux desktop" being a viable choice was about 2006. Today people look forward to the "year of the Linux desktop" in the sense of it gaining massive popularity. But that day will not come without lots of marketing or the price difference actually being meaningful. Windows will never have solid DRM because the day the price conscious are ever forced to choose between free Linux and $200 Windows is the day Microsoft loses a massive chunk of market share. So masses of users comes down solely to marketing, and who would get into an advertising buying war with Apple and Microsoft trying to push something free?
Linux has a critical mass of developers, testers, and users willing to help others. As long as it fulfills their needs, it will continue to improve.
It is not a business where market share matters. It is not a business selling licenses on seats. It is a project that scratches some people's itch, and thats all it is. People derive great value from it, and that drives its growth.
I've used it at home for 4 years, and my company (30 people) has used it for 2.5 years. It does everything I need and my company needs, and costs a lot less in licensing and IT support. It might be different for other companies who came from Windows and have to deal with legacy systems/documents, but starting from scratch it is great. I'm happy to give back some bug fixes and support in exchange for what I perceive to be a better experience. That experience is derived solely from the number of developers and dedicated users, it has nothing to do with how many total users there are. A billion more users that do nothing to help Linux progress wouldn't do a damn thing for me.
So I believe that the "year of the Linux desktop" has long since past, and anyone still writing about it just doesn't get it.
I think that was sort of the point of the article...
There is no "year of the linux desktop" because Linux and Windows should be looked to to fulfill different roles.
To me, windows isn't a "real" operating system. I don't use windows for anything other than running putty or chrome. It isn't really doing anything.
Linux, on the other hand, is at the absolute core of the business that employs me. ALL of our servers (except one domain controller) run either Linux of OpenBSD.
If I had my way, all of the workstations would be running it as well. This is an okay solution for me, because all of my workstations have identical (or very similar) hardware. An install would be as simple as imaging a disk, running a few scripts to configure things like networking, and powering it on.
Naturally, I can't speak for everyone, but I do have a considerably larger amount of experience with linux as a desktop than most. I also have a lot of experience with support. Supporting linux on a hodge-podge of hardware is definitely not something I would want to undertake.
Guiding my mom through Ubuntu would also not be something I would want to do.
I think a lot of Linux nerds (members of the church mentioned in the article), have a bit of a cognitive bias when it comes to how easy linux is to use. They WANT it to be easy. They overlook the bits of tinkering they have to do to actually get it working correctly.
Like I said, this is all my own experience. YMMV. However, if you are having as easy a time installing and running linux as a desktop OS as you do with windows...please tell me what hardware you're using!
Old thread so hopefully you read this later. We use Dell's bought with Ubuntu pre-installed at work. If we have a problem we call up Dell and they fix it. If you are doing desktop Linux in an office it is the best way to go.
What a silly article - after all, Gentoo is the system where tying your shoelaces involves growing your own feet from scratch.
I love desktop Linux (or wanted to) but it hasn't really happened because there's a shortage of application development that suits the needs of early adopters with deadlines. You can use Gimp, for example, but most people want Photoshop. If you're editing audio or video then your options are more constrained, and none of the market leaders have Linux editions. I'm simplifying here, of course, but the reasons have been laid out in more detail time and again.
Round 2000 or so I was sure Linux was going to take over - I was running Gnome with enlightenment as my WM and people would come up and say 'wow, what's that'. And i could run Compiz right now and throw windows around, and people would still be impressed...but once you get past the eye candy, you hit this real functionality gap and have to make a choice between becoming a dedicated Linux hacker who runs experimental software all day, or going with the industry standard and running something industry-standard that you can show to your clients.
There isn't a truly compelling reason to move from Windows or Mac unless you're building your own system for most applications. This isn't a fault of Linux: there just aren't many end-user applications of which you can say 'this is the best, and you can only take part by running Linux', nor any 'holy shit where has this been all my life' for non-programmers.
I have my macbook. I like the hardware, for the most part. However, I just installed ubuntu again on my desktop, and it's like coming back to an old friend. I love middle click paste alongside ctrl-V. I still can't get used to all the mac changes in software I already know. For me, Ubuntu just works. shrug
The linux desktop is mature as far as I've been able to see. The linux laptop, on the other hand, still isn't there and from what I can tell, may never be. They still can't get the power management quite right, last I checked. Suspend and hibernate still give it fits on some hardware. I think the only way that will be solved is if the vendors take responsibility to ensure compliance on their own hardware, and that doesn't seem to be happening.
For what it's worth, seven or eight years ago, it was a huge exercise in wizardry for me to get every piece of hardware working on my laptops under Slackware or Gentoo or Debian. If it wasn't the wireless, it was the sound, the graphics card, or the ACPI. Then I enjoyed the careful prospect of fiddling with X and window manager configuration files endlessly if I wanted any kind of pleasant GUI.
I just installed Ubuntu on my new Dell laptop the other week, for the sake of running a particular thing that isn't available on Windows, and the difference is eye-popping. Zero configuration for any hardware. (For some reason, it didn't load the ATI drivers by default, having them in a "restricted" category, but it was easy to add them.) Wireless worked out of the box. No package management problems. Totally capable GUI configuration. 90% as usable as Windows 7.
Additionally, I didn't even have to repartition my drive to install it, which blew my mind. It installed into a disk image with a Windows installer, and modified the Windows bootloader to boot from the image. That's sure a big improvement from (to a newbie, extremely scary) disk partitioning and LILO/GRUB adventures.
I've been espousing this view for months. As much as we hate it, Windows "just works", and if you have a serviceable Linux box on your LAN, all it takes is a few PuTTY shells and you're in business. Keep a cmd.exe window open to pscp things that you're working on locally (like web graphics, for example), and things are pretty seamless.
That has never been my experience. Trying to customize my Windows install to the point where I can actually do anything with it has uniformly been a long, painful, expensive process every time I have had to do it.
Er, not to mention having to go over to friends' houses frequently to try and get their "just works" Windows installs to just work, already, when they run into problems.
Frankly, my last three Ubuntu installs (on an Acer Apire One, a cheap dual-core PC, and the old, decrepit PC that the cheap dual-core PC replaced) were faster, easier, and far less painful than my previous four or five Windows installs.
I had to do a bit of fiddling with the netbook to get wifi working (I had to install and configure madwifi-hal), but I had to do a lot of fiddling to get wifi working on the default XP install, so tit-for-tat.
Suspend just works, the low battery warning just works, remote desktop just works, multiple displays just works, and I'm seamlessly connected to my home PC and the backup server in the basement.
That's not to mention the fact that I can browse easily to remote servers using the default file explorer (Nautilus) without having to muck around with an FTP program, which is kind of handy when doing web application development.
What are you trying to do on a windows install that requires customization?
Also, fiddling with the wifi on *nix and fiddling with it on windows are...not quite the same thing.
I have no problem with it on linux (in fact, I have destroyed several keyboards in fits of rage while trying to get it working on windows.), but my mother would have absolutely no freaking CLUE how to even begin trying to get it to work.
linux just works too. i can't remember the last time i had to deal with any of the garbage mentioned in the original article. it's still missing some apps (in my case i need photoshop and aftereffects), is that what you mean? that certainly is a problem.... one that is getting solved piece by piece. i see nothing but steady progress towards the linux desktop and lots of fundamental reasons that create pressure for it, eg the low price of hardware.
ChromeOS may finally bring about the "year of the desktop".
I will respond to you how I respond to everybody that claims Linux runs smoothly: When I do a default install of Ubuntu to VMware on my Macbook, which is possibly the most standards-set computer out there, the sound doesn't work, and I need to tinker around online to fix that.
Until I can get sound and graphics running without any effort, Linux does not "just work". And don't judge fucking ChromeOS until it's out. That's like the people here that were yelling how Android would knock iPhone off the market within a year. You can enjoy an OS without it winning, and it pisses those of us who've had bad experiences off when people claim there aren't problems with their system.
Currently, I have a tree full of putty sessions open to my most-frequently needed servers, and a cmd.exe window open for pscp/ftp.
Windows, for me, has become a thin client. I looked at my netbook the other day and realized that I have pretty much nothing installed on it. Everything that I do happens either in my machine room at work, or in a datacenter.
I suppose people push the "year of the linux desktop" meme since it generates buzz. I personally use Mac OS X, Linux, and Windows all in the same day, and feel great doing it.
The "year of the Linux desktop" is no longer relevant.
It works for me. It works for a lot of other people. That's all it needs to do.
The "year of the Linux desktop" being a viable choice was about 2006. Today people look forward to the "year of the Linux desktop" in the sense of it gaining massive popularity. But that day will not come without lots of marketing or the price difference actually being meaningful. Windows will never have solid DRM because the day the price conscious are ever forced to choose between free Linux and $200 Windows is the day Microsoft loses a massive chunk of market share. So masses of users comes down solely to marketing, and who would get into an advertising buying war with Apple and Microsoft trying to push something free?
Linux has a critical mass of developers, testers, and users willing to help others. As long as it fulfills their needs, it will continue to improve.
It is not a business where market share matters. It is not a business selling licenses on seats. It is a project that scratches some people's itch, and thats all it is. People derive great value from it, and that drives its growth.
I've used it at home for 4 years, and my company (30 people) has used it for 2.5 years. It does everything I need and my company needs, and costs a lot less in licensing and IT support. It might be different for other companies who came from Windows and have to deal with legacy systems/documents, but starting from scratch it is great. I'm happy to give back some bug fixes and support in exchange for what I perceive to be a better experience. That experience is derived solely from the number of developers and dedicated users, it has nothing to do with how many total users there are. A billion more users that do nothing to help Linux progress wouldn't do a damn thing for me.
So I believe that the "year of the Linux desktop" has long since past, and anyone still writing about it just doesn't get it.
I think that was sort of the point of the article...
There is no "year of the linux desktop" because Linux and Windows should be looked to to fulfill different roles.
To me, windows isn't a "real" operating system. I don't use windows for anything other than running putty or chrome. It isn't really doing anything.
Linux, on the other hand, is at the absolute core of the business that employs me. ALL of our servers (except one domain controller) run either Linux of OpenBSD.
If I had my way, all of the workstations would be running it as well. This is an okay solution for me, because all of my workstations have identical (or very similar) hardware. An install would be as simple as imaging a disk, running a few scripts to configure things like networking, and powering it on.
Naturally, I can't speak for everyone, but I do have a considerably larger amount of experience with linux as a desktop than most. I also have a lot of experience with support. Supporting linux on a hodge-podge of hardware is definitely not something I would want to undertake.
Guiding my mom through Ubuntu would also not be something I would want to do.
I think a lot of Linux nerds (members of the church mentioned in the article), have a bit of a cognitive bias when it comes to how easy linux is to use. They WANT it to be easy. They overlook the bits of tinkering they have to do to actually get it working correctly.
Like I said, this is all my own experience. YMMV. However, if you are having as easy a time installing and running linux as a desktop OS as you do with windows...please tell me what hardware you're using!
Old thread so hopefully you read this later. We use Dell's bought with Ubuntu pre-installed at work. If we have a problem we call up Dell and they fix it. If you are doing desktop Linux in an office it is the best way to go.
What a silly article - after all, Gentoo is the system where tying your shoelaces involves growing your own feet from scratch.
I love desktop Linux (or wanted to) but it hasn't really happened because there's a shortage of application development that suits the needs of early adopters with deadlines. You can use Gimp, for example, but most people want Photoshop. If you're editing audio or video then your options are more constrained, and none of the market leaders have Linux editions. I'm simplifying here, of course, but the reasons have been laid out in more detail time and again.
Round 2000 or so I was sure Linux was going to take over - I was running Gnome with enlightenment as my WM and people would come up and say 'wow, what's that'. And i could run Compiz right now and throw windows around, and people would still be impressed...but once you get past the eye candy, you hit this real functionality gap and have to make a choice between becoming a dedicated Linux hacker who runs experimental software all day, or going with the industry standard and running something industry-standard that you can show to your clients.
There isn't a truly compelling reason to move from Windows or Mac unless you're building your own system for most applications. This isn't a fault of Linux: there just aren't many end-user applications of which you can say 'this is the best, and you can only take part by running Linux', nor any 'holy shit where has this been all my life' for non-programmers.
I have my macbook. I like the hardware, for the most part. However, I just installed ubuntu again on my desktop, and it's like coming back to an old friend. I love middle click paste alongside ctrl-V. I still can't get used to all the mac changes in software I already know. For me, Ubuntu just works. shrug
The linux desktop is mature as far as I've been able to see. The linux laptop, on the other hand, still isn't there and from what I can tell, may never be. They still can't get the power management quite right, last I checked. Suspend and hibernate still give it fits on some hardware. I think the only way that will be solved is if the vendors take responsibility to ensure compliance on their own hardware, and that doesn't seem to be happening.
What in the world does this person's experience however many years ago compiling Gentoo have to do with "linux on the desktop"?
For what it's worth, seven or eight years ago, it was a huge exercise in wizardry for me to get every piece of hardware working on my laptops under Slackware or Gentoo or Debian. If it wasn't the wireless, it was the sound, the graphics card, or the ACPI. Then I enjoyed the careful prospect of fiddling with X and window manager configuration files endlessly if I wanted any kind of pleasant GUI.
I just installed Ubuntu on my new Dell laptop the other week, for the sake of running a particular thing that isn't available on Windows, and the difference is eye-popping. Zero configuration for any hardware. (For some reason, it didn't load the ATI drivers by default, having them in a "restricted" category, but it was easy to add them.) Wireless worked out of the box. No package management problems. Totally capable GUI configuration. 90% as usable as Windows 7.
Additionally, I didn't even have to repartition my drive to install it, which blew my mind. It installed into a disk image with a Windows installer, and modified the Windows bootloader to boot from the image. That's sure a big improvement from (to a newbie, extremely scary) disk partitioning and LILO/GRUB adventures.
I've been espousing this view for months. As much as we hate it, Windows "just works", and if you have a serviceable Linux box on your LAN, all it takes is a few PuTTY shells and you're in business. Keep a cmd.exe window open to pscp things that you're working on locally (like web graphics, for example), and things are pretty seamless.
>Windows "just works"
That has never been my experience. Trying to customize my Windows install to the point where I can actually do anything with it has uniformly been a long, painful, expensive process every time I have had to do it.
Er, not to mention having to go over to friends' houses frequently to try and get their "just works" Windows installs to just work, already, when they run into problems.
Frankly, my last three Ubuntu installs (on an Acer Apire One, a cheap dual-core PC, and the old, decrepit PC that the cheap dual-core PC replaced) were faster, easier, and far less painful than my previous four or five Windows installs.
I had to do a bit of fiddling with the netbook to get wifi working (I had to install and configure madwifi-hal), but I had to do a lot of fiddling to get wifi working on the default XP install, so tit-for-tat.
Suspend just works, the low battery warning just works, remote desktop just works, multiple displays just works, and I'm seamlessly connected to my home PC and the backup server in the basement.
That's not to mention the fact that I can browse easily to remote servers using the default file explorer (Nautilus) without having to muck around with an FTP program, which is kind of handy when doing web application development.
What are you trying to do on a windows install that requires customization?
Also, fiddling with the wifi on *nix and fiddling with it on windows are...not quite the same thing.
I have no problem with it on linux (in fact, I have destroyed several keyboards in fits of rage while trying to get it working on windows.), but my mother would have absolutely no freaking CLUE how to even begin trying to get it to work.
3 replies →
linux just works too. i can't remember the last time i had to deal with any of the garbage mentioned in the original article. it's still missing some apps (in my case i need photoshop and aftereffects), is that what you mean? that certainly is a problem.... one that is getting solved piece by piece. i see nothing but steady progress towards the linux desktop and lots of fundamental reasons that create pressure for it, eg the low price of hardware.
ChromeOS may finally bring about the "year of the desktop".
I will respond to you how I respond to everybody that claims Linux runs smoothly: When I do a default install of Ubuntu to VMware on my Macbook, which is possibly the most standards-set computer out there, the sound doesn't work, and I need to tinker around online to fix that.
Until I can get sound and graphics running without any effort, Linux does not "just work". And don't judge fucking ChromeOS until it's out. That's like the people here that were yelling how Android would knock iPhone off the market within a year. You can enjoy an OS without it winning, and it pisses those of us who've had bad experiences off when people claim there aren't problems with their system.
2 replies →
Exactly.
Currently, I have a tree full of putty sessions open to my most-frequently needed servers, and a cmd.exe window open for pscp/ftp.
Windows, for me, has become a thin client. I looked at my netbook the other day and realized that I have pretty much nothing installed on it. Everything that I do happens either in my machine room at work, or in a datacenter.
I suppose people push the "year of the linux desktop" meme since it generates buzz. I personally use Mac OS X, Linux, and Windows all in the same day, and feel great doing it.