Why Linux on the Desktop Is Dead

[Skripka]

I actually use it for a web server at the house, and an SVN server at work. It's absolutely perfect for both tasks, and the SVN plugin for Apache is far better supported on Linux than Windows.



So you don't have a response. Got it.

Give a bullet-pointed list of concise reasons. Not generic "you don't understand" ones. I've programmed in operating system kernels you've never even heard of. Yes, I understand. I understand that you're full of shit, that is.

Easy one. If all you're doing is wordprocessing, internet and browsing FacePlant and building a machine...then the $200-300USD cost of retail Windows license is a reason all by itself.

 

[InorganicMatter]

Better question: was it ever alive on the desktop?

Not really.

Regardless, Linux's strength is in servers, and as the underpinnings of Android, which is probably success enough for an OS that's free.

It's also recently begun enjoying fairly good success as an embedded platform. Dell uses for all of their iDRAC devices now.

 

[InorganicMatter]

Easy one. If all you're doing is wordprocessing, internet and browsing FacePlant and building a machine...then the $200-300USD cost of retail Windows license is a reason all by itself.

I make $35/hour. If I have to waste more than half a day getting Linux to run on my PC (and it will since I have the latest and greatest chipset, networking, and video devices), Windows already wins the cost consideration.

Try again.

 

[Skripka]

I make $35/hour. If I have to waste more than half a day getting Linux to run on my PC (and it will since I have the latest and greatest chipset, networking, and video devices), Windows already wins the cost consideration.

Try again.

No thanks, I won't try again, because you probably don't have reason to migrate. If you did, you probably would have already. Most don't and hence they don't. Just because you don't, doesn't mean others do not.

 

[Red Falcon]

I make $35/hour. If I have to waste more than half a day getting Linux to run on my PC (and it will since I have the latest and greatest chipset, networking, and video devices), Windows already wins the cost consideration.

Try again.

If it takes you that long to get Linux to run on your PC, you probably shouldn't be using it.

 

[Ehren8879]

I'm hope Linux stays away form the mainstream desktop. The more popular it gets, the greater the threat against my servers.

Security through obscurity.

 

[Skripka]

I'm hope Linux stays away form the mainstream desktop. The more popular it gets, the greater the threat against my servers.

Security through obscurity.

This doesn't even make sense.

Apache is one of the most used servers...and how many active exploits are there against it?

"Security through obscurity" is nonsense.

 

[pankkake]

I don't really understand how one can bear using operating without package managers. I update all my software on all my computers in one go.
Most of my configuration is shared (since it's only files) between machines too.

Or an OS that erases the target directory when it already exists instead of merging it (lol "user friendly" mac myth).

It's easy to say Linux isn't ready for the desktop, but are the two others ready? Hardly.

Of course if you only use one laptop and 3 applications, I can understand.

 

[faugusztin]

Why use Linux when you can use Windows?

I can give $189.99 reasons . Before you flame me to death, i got all the platforms - Windows 7 on my desktop, Windows Home Server 2011 and CentOS on ESXi, OS X on my Macbook, Ubuntu on my XBMC media PC...

I use whatever fits, but for some the price is a important factor. Especially if you move away from your rich USA perspective with $7.25 minimal salary, which in case of month with 21 work days means $1218. That means in USA a single retail Windows 7 Home Premium will take away 15,5% of your minimal monthly salary.

Now let's move to my country, Slovakia. 330€ ($437), while a retail Windows 7 HP is priced at 175€. 53% of the minimal monthly salary.

Let's move to Romania. 700 RON ($212) per month, Windows 7 HP is 450 RON. 64% of the minimal monthly salary. And we still didn't even leave Europe!

So as you can see, for many people living in countries with lower income Windows is damn expensive and for these people, Linux is a real alternative. In these days, you can easily build a powerfull non-gaming PC (H61 board, G530, 4GB RAM,...) without a display for 250€ - and then comes the OS, where the cheapest retail option is €174.

 

[InorganicMatter]

If it takes you that long to get Linux to run on your PC, you probably shouldn't be using it.

First of all, like I said, current Linux distros do not play nice with the latest hardware, which means I'm going to spend the entire day searching for workarounds, patching and recompiling driver/kernels, and installing kernel/Xorg modules.

Second, you still haven't given a list of reasons.

No thanks, I won't try again, because you probably don't have reason to migrate. If you did, you probably would have already.

Exactly, thank you.

There is no reason for 99.9% of us to migrate to Linux.

 

[Red Falcon]

Just because you don't, doesn't mean others do not.

+1
There are many individuals and companies that require Linux for it's features and customization over Windows, especially on the desktop.

 

[MrCaffeineX]

In the case of Ubuntu, I agree with you.
Everything beyond 10.xx has been complete fail due to the incorporation of Unity.

However, there are literally hundreds of other Linux distros in existence that can be used.
The author was just one of the mindless masses that went "oh look, this one is popular so I'll use it too." without any other research as to which distro would most suite his needs.

Considering all he does is e-mail, web browsing, and facebook though, he should just stick with Windows or OS X.
Linux is a bit out of his comprehension.

The sheer volume of Linux distributions can work to push "the mindless masses" away as well. When they pick one of the distros that advertise as being the alternative to Microsoft Windows for everyone, the users that do switch can be understandably confused when things do not work as seamlessly as they are used to with Windows. Windows really isn't the same as it was in the 95/98/Me era...Windows 7 has proven to be just as 24/7 stable for me as XP was before I upgraded.

I don't think Linux for the desktop is dead. That is too strong a stance to take based upon one user's experience with one distro, and the author of the article should have known better than to make that statement, but it might not have gotten as much attention. After all, there is a lot of marketing involved in picking the title of an article for something like PC World. As long as there are users out there willing to use Linux, developers willing to develop various distros, and a community working on open-source projects like they have been, then it will survive. It will just not gain the market-share that alternatives have in places like the US if it is not sufficiently "dumbed-down".

 

[Master [H]]

Oh, good, this type of article again.

Hey, is it just me or do others think that one OS doesn't fit well for everyone?
I mean, it is a viable alternative for people who don't want Windows. On the other hand, just because something isn't Windows doesn't make it good or the right choice for someone.

The same can be said for a vehicle. Not everybody needs or wants a large sedan, but that doesn't make all large sedans evil. Someone may want/need a pickup truck. Doesn't do me any good with a family, but it is the right choice for someone who hauls large items a lot.

I've tried Linux multiple times and it just doesn't fit. Yes, it has advanced. Yes, it's a capable OS. It just doesn't have the feel I need. However, I just adore FreeNAS for my file server. It's free and works well for my needs in this regard.

 

[dexvx]

Linux is for users that demand a level of customizability that cannot be had with Windows. The main targets of that is HPC, Embedded, some servers, some workstations, and power users.

That said, I fully agree that Linux is dead on the desktop (in marketshare terms). The need for that level of flexibility from the desktop is non-existent. On the other note, I think Linux will also lose the general purpose application server market. Where that market used to demand a lot of flexibility, I think with Windows Server 7 and 8, they have reached the level where most companies do not gain much by moving to Linux (or vice versa) from a Windows environment.

 

[Red Falcon]

There is no reason for 99.9% of us to migrate to Linux.

Yep, that's why most of you use Windows and OS X, mindless computing at it's finest.

like I said, current Linux distros do not play nice with the latest hardware

Well, if you knew what you were doing, you would be able to make it play nice yourself.
That's right, just keep letting others do the fixing for you, I would hate to take away your precious time at that luxurious job of yours.

Second, you still haven't given a list of reasons.

Oh no, I wouldn't take that away from you. You're the expert, we're just dumb ol' Linux users.

 

[Dr. Righteous]

Another one of these articles....

Exactly.

This is the 2nd or 3rd article in the past few years in this same vain.

The reviewer complaining about having to constantly tweak and search out fixes to get the what he wants.

What really irks me is that it seems they expect NO learning curve when they try something brand new to them. And they seems very dismayed when things work differently when window xxx.

I put it like this. LINUX is not for people that are not willing to learn how to use the (whichever flavor) linux GUI desktop.

This statement pretty much says it all for this mindset.

"Linux is awesome. It’s a powerful, capable, flexible operating system with tremendous potential. But, it’s never going to be a factor on the desktop, so don’t even waste your time considering it."

In other words "I cannot deny the core OS is rock solid but it has a different look and feel than the GUI I have used for 10 years and don't have time and am not interested enough to change, and everyone else is just like me."

I have been using Ubuntu for about 4 years now and there is only 1 ligit complain I can level. And I point the finger at Google not Linux. The constant push updates to Chrome "break" certain things on the cloud, web based software we use. Google will eventually find the problem and fix it in the next update. The only major problem ever had I caused myself by installing a driver incorrectly and crashing the system (really causing no video).
But the idea of going back to Windows for my day to day work is laughable. The overall stability and speed I gained from switching is a win-win.
I have a window XP partition on my HD, but that is for games only. The only use I have for windows now.

For people that have years invested in certain apps and having to learn different one is unthinkable, stay where you are.
But the fact is there are FREE applications that offer much of the same functionality and MORE in many case with Linux. Intriguing? Try Linux.

 

[Red Falcon]

Linux is for users that demand a level of customizability that cannot be had with Windows. The main targets of that is HPC, Embedded, some servers, some workstations, and power users.

Thank you, you said it very well.
This is mostly what I and many others do.

If these aren't in a user's category of work or functionality, then they definitely need to stick with Windows or OS X.

 

[mope54]

Red Falcon,

What distro are you using?

From your comments I doubt you're using gentoo or building linux from scratch so I think you should tone down your commentary. You really have no idea what some of us use or have used and it's clear from your posts that you don't take a lot of time setting up the system(s) you use.

If all you've done is blind install from a live iso and telling something to apt-get it's not like you're elbows deep in your OS anyway so I'm at a loss as to why you think you're any more informed or in control of your system than someone like InorganicMatter.

 

[jimmyb]

I mean, I can't play most games on Linux, for one thing...so...there's that.

Just as Linux on the desktop is dead, so is PC gaming.

 

[InorganicMatter]

Yep, that's why most of you use Windows and OS X, mindless computing at it's finest.

Your ignorance astounds me. I reject the notion that Windows and Mac OS are mindless computing, and further reject the notion that "mindful" computing on Linux is any better.

Being more flexible on a theoretical level does not a better product make.

Well, if you knew what you were doing, you would be able to make it play nice yourself.

I shouldn't have to make it do anything. I should be able to install the software, download and one-click install working drivers from my hardware makers, and be off and working in less than an hour.

This is not possible on Linux.

That's right, just keep letting others do the fixing for you, I would hate to take away your precious time at that luxurious job of yours.

My workstation cost $4500, they'd damn well better do the fixing for me.

Oh no, I wouldn't take that away from you. You're the expert, we're just dumb ol' Linux users.

You made the outlandish statements that Desktop Linux can do "so many" things better than Windows. The burden of proof in this discussion lies on you.

Nut up, or shut up.

If these aren't in a user's category of work or functionality, then they definitely need to stick with Windows or OS X.

So you admit it's dead on the Desktop.

Thanks.

 

[Skripka]

Exactly.

This is the 2nd or 3rd article in the past few years in this same vain.

Huh? Only 2nd or 3rd? Articles like this pop up somewhere on the internet every other month. It is seriously that often.

 

[pelo]

I think the issue mainly stems from people switching over from another OS and things not being the same. When I first started using Linux -- around 10 years ago during the "early" years of Linux OS on the desktop -- it was pretty unfriendly. The GUI was lacking and the software database was weak. Now, though, that's not the case and you only need look at Windows and OS X to see that:

Recent versions of OS X and iOS are heavily based around FreeBSD (yes it's unix )
Windows and crApple OS have "borrowed" things from Linux that have become mainstays not just in those 2 operating systems but heavily used by nearly everyone. What do I mean? Repositories, aka "app store." Prior to its emergence on Linux there were no good ways to find apps, never mind doing it safely. It was essentially a hit and miss by web browsing or passing along floppies/CDs. Linux changed all that.
Finally, there's security. MS still has an issue, but crApple being *nix based, the extra inherent levels of password auth in *nix OSes makes for a pretty secure OS.

The biggest with switching from windows > linux is that people are used to windows. Things aren't in the same place you'd expect them to be if you're a win7 user and that makes it difficult. Windows users aren't used to entering their root passwords or (until win7) authorizing changes. I think if people were to start on Linux from the get-go they'd say the same things about windows, though. Nowadays the fiddling with the terminal and compilers are almost entirely gone from linux. If it weren't for the crutch that is the DX API I think many more people would be using linux as their primary desktop OS. Hell, i know I would =P

 

[Ehren8879]

This doesn't even make sense.

Apache is one of the most used servers...and how many active exploits are there against it?

"Security through obscurity" is nonsense.

As is BIND, but I'm not worried about these application being exploited specifically rather other common elements of the platform.

 

[InorganicMatter]

If all you've done is blind install from a live iso and telling something to apt-get it's not like you're elbows deep in your OS anyway so I'm at a loss as to why you think you're any more informed or in control of your system than someone like InorganicMatter.

Precisely.

His tone reeks of a "power user" who downloaded the latest Ubuntu/Mint release, installed it on 10-year-old hardware (that has full Linux support by nature of its age), and only knows how to install software that's available in an apt-get repository.

 

[pelo]

Just to add that people will be having the same problems from switching to windows 8 as they will going to a friendly linux desktop OS. Learning curves suck especially when you've used something for years and metro is going to be a kick in the balls to a lot of windows folks

 

[Red Falcon]

Just as Linux on the desktop is dead, so is PC gaming.

Tell that to the millions of MMORPG gamers out there.

 

[Red Falcon]

You really have no idea what some of us use or have used and it's clear from your posts that you don't take a lot of time setting up the system(s) you use..

Right back at you.

 

[ripken204]

Anyone with real productivity needs ether needs to have a strong app already supported on linux, or yes it is an up hill battle.

Linux is going to be a "specialty" desktop at most.. There are only two established desktops Windows and Mac. Everything else is specialty... Android and iOS may have a much better chance of taking over desktop then linux ever will. If you refer to desktop as what the majority of home users expect from a computer.

Even with linux server it is a nightmare to get dependencies together for some server tools, often the repo packages are too out of date to use, and other apps will be packaged for another distro but not yours so you need to get the compile dependencies then spend hours debugging why the build failed.

What about programmers? For programmers it can be a pain to code in windows (unless it's a microsoft language). Linux is far easier to code in for me.

and servers... really, you call managing a linux server a nightmare? the pluses are speed, security, stability, customization. repos are out of date sometimes because the person/company (canonical for example) in charge of the repo wants to make sure that the update is actually stable. take a look at debian for example, repos are out of date on purpose, for stability.

just because you have issues compiling some software, that doesn't make Linux the issue.

 

[Red Falcon]

Precisely.

His tone reeks of a "power user" who downloaded the latest Ubuntu/Mint release, installed it on 10-year-old hardware (that has full Linux support by nature of its age), and only knows how to install software that's available in an apt-get repository.

lulz @ your ignorance.

 

[InorganicMatter]

Recent versions of OS X and iOS are heavily based around FreeBSD (yes it's unix )

This is false.

Mac OS X and iOS use the Darwin kernel. Some portions (process model, networking, and file system) were borrowed from FreeBSD, and the rest was based on the Mach microkernel or written entirely from scratch.

 

[hazmatic]

Linux is great for server usage....

but as far as I know gaming on a Linux OS.... good luck.

 

[InorganicMatter]

lulz @ your ignorance.

You are the only one showing ignorance here.

I present facts, you present your opinion stated as facts. Fallacies of the simplest kind.

 

[Starcrossed]

Linux has probably attracted more poseurs than Apple. ;p

 

[Red Falcon]

You are the only one showing ignorance here.

I present facts, you present your opinion stated as facts. Fallacies of the simplest kind.

What "facts" have you given?
Insults are not facts, and that's all you present.

 

[mope54]

Ah, yes, the other reason why Linux on the desktop will never catch on - their unbearable users.

I should have taken your cue to bow out of this pointless "discussion" with him.

 

[pelo]

This is false.

Mac OS X and iOS use the Darwin kernel. Some portions (process model, networking, and file system) were borrowed from FreeBSD, and the rest was based on the Mach microkernel or written entirely from scratch.

You see, where you'd say "borrowed" the BSD users would say "stolen outright." And yes, it's based on the Darwin kernel but the notion that it's not heavily BSD based (the file system ffs) as well is, to use your own term, false. Does it get exaggerated? Yes, but deservedly so. crApple programmers and devs aren't ones to give back to the community and the only "open" thing about their OS and practices is that they're pushing openCL. Kudos for that but everywhere else they can go suck a fat one. They take furniture sitting on other people's lawns and place it in their own walled garden then try to impress passersby.

The biggest issue with linux entering the desktop arena is the lack of market share. Programmers won't develop for openGL unless there's people to buy their product and the same can be said for other than gaming. The biggest advantage MS has is that they have far more windows-based machines. Nobody is really going to cater to the little guy. I don't think windows is going to dominate the desktop as they've done before and the biggest factor in that is android/iOS growing into big boy pants and big boy hardware

 

[mope54]

you have your facts backwards, pelo

 

[kzaske]

To its credit, Linux has a phenomenal support system, and loyal, knowledgeable users willing to help guide you through the murky waters. Of course, it’s often difficult to find them through the sea of self-righteous flamers who berate you for not knowing what you’re doing.

This statement sums up my experence with Linux. I found that while I could spend hours searching the tweaks I needed to make it function the results were usually not worth the effort. The above quote sums up my feelings about the linux community as a whole, in short: not worth the effort to weed them out.

 

[Cheetoz]

I think the issue mainly stems from people switching over from another OS and things not being the same.

This is def. the case. Using linux 6+ years, I've become really comfortable with it. I can use Windows XP fine, but anything vista+ I am completely lost with (apart from launching an application).

What I don't understand are statements like

I make $35/hour. If I have to waste more than half a day getting Linux to run on my PC (and it will since I have the latest and greatest chipset, networking, and video devices), Windows already wins the cost consideration.

Try again.

Because after you configured linux exactly how you want it, how much time are you going to spend on it again if you want to? zero

Linux isn't for everyone. Computer enthusiasts love it, but for kids in elementary to grandmas, Windows will be their best choice. Is it because windows is easier? No, its because there are more coworkers and friends that can help them with computer issues on windows than with linux.

But the worse is when they turn around, and the exact reasons linux users use is what Android users say for why its better than iOS.

 

[RanceJustice]

Not to worry, I'm not gunning for any of the [H]ard staff.... but the individual who wrote the article has either a serious case of head-in-ass syndrome or simply can't understand that ..

1) Linux is different from Windows as is different from OSX and there are things you'll always need to learn in an amount directly proportional to how much freedom you're given. There is not as much stuff to learn on iOS because you're not permitted to do so many things on iOS, and fewer ways to do the stuff you are. Lets not forget that this guy probably spent years becoming an intermediate or power user on Windows, learning all kinds of totally counter-intuitive tricks that have now become second nature. CTRL+ALT+DEL is not an intuitive trick, but necessary to fix a lot of Windows common usage errors so you learned from someone or some tutorial etc. Hell, back in the old days of even XP IRQ port specification was an important part of tweaking to ensure your sound card and anything else you had on PCI (or even AGP graphics!) didn't conflict and that wasn't all that long ago...compared to the amount of stuff necessary back during the Win9x heritage and early NTs..

2) 3rd party support is not Linux's "fault". This is an issue of installed base and we can see that especially in recent years, as Linux adoption grows so does support. Its a catch22 where "We can't use it, because it isn't supported by "software or driver X", means that software/driver X's developer sees no reason to support because there's nobody using it! Linux does better with other-OS drivers/software than either major player; stuff like NDISwrapper and WINE/CrossOver are downright heroic attempts to make stuff that was not supposed to work on Linux, run /pretty well/ .

What it will take for better adoption is exactly what happened with the Mac crowd - more people using the OS and demanding their hardware and software be compatible under the platform. This is picking up more steam than ever thanks to distros like Ubuntu (their recent Unity issue aside, for us power users. etc..). Look at the DRM-free digital distribution indie/mod platform Desura . Desura, because of user requests, rolled out a Linux version of the software itself. Now, not every bit of software sold on Desura (much of the same sold on Steam, but a concentration on indie and alphafunding besides free mods and games) has a Linux version, but in the comments for nearly every popular game that doesn't, there's almost always a "When is Linux support coming? I would buy if Linux was supported etc..." set of queries on the page, which has led to more and more developers releasing their titles for Linux! (ie. Check out a really neat game called 3079, currently in development with Linux support https://sites.google.com/site/3079game/ ). This is exactly what is necessary to boost Linux support. Look at how AMD cleaned up ATI's binary driver mess - now I, with AMD 4000 and then 6000 series hardware, enjoy Catalyst drivers released just about as frequently and with the same naming scheme and feature parity as the Windows versions, in many cases. No, its not perfect and neither is Nvidia, but the only way we push forward is by demanding the same level of quality and showing this is a dedicated market that realizes contributions and buys hardware because of it.

I could very easily write a smear article about how OSX is dead and isn't ready for primetime because I can't use certain hardware/drivers/software that I can on Windows and that things are different over there which, combined by my lack of intention to learn anything, means its "unintuitive" and therefore sucks. However, that would be the same kind of shoddy journalism that has been written about here. If you basically have a list of "MUST HAVE EXACTS" that you can't deviate from, its not fair to blame other platforms - wailing about how Windows and Linux both suck because you need Final Cut Pro and how and where it runs is your sole metric for appraising hardware and software, is not correct or mature, but effectively that is exactly what the writer of this article is doing.

What nonsense.