Next Year, Will There Be a Place for Linux on the Desktop?
In the interest of full disclosure, I use Linux every day; I use Ubuntu 9.04 on my home desktop (dual-booted with Windows 7 for gaming) and Linux Mint on my laptop, and I enjoy using both. For a couple of years now I've been one of the flag-wavers anticipating "the year of the Linux desktop", where open-source software and community-driven solutions take the place of locked-down proprietary systems and outmoded DRM schemes.
But even as each iteration of popular Linux distributions like Ubuntu and Fedora get more polished and user-friendly, it seems the practical case for desktop Linux is getting harder and harder to make. Why? While Linux will always dominate as an operating system for servers and certain embedded applications, there are two key issues at hand that may make Linux on the desktop nothing more than a novelty next year (if not already).
1) Windows and Mac have both stepped up their game. There was a window of time about this time last year, where if you wanted a powerful 64-bit OS that was stable, customizable, and had a wide range of useful 64-bit applications available, Linux was actually your only real option. Mac's presentation has always been tight, but Leopard couldn't take full advantage of the 64-bit Intel chips every Mac was shipping with. And Vista was...well...Vista; the 64-bit version was plagued with application compatibility problems, and while the situation has been improved since, it was a while before a smoothly-running 64-bit Windows Vista machine was attainable.
But now we have Snow Leopard and Windows 7. Both operating systems out of the gate are fairly polished, reliable experiences. The 64-bit Snow Leopard had a few hiccups during takeoff but most issues are being addressed as fast as they're being recognized. And Windows 7's 64-bit version was more stable even as a beta than any previous Microsoft product in memory. What this means is that if you want a fast, stable, 64-bit desktop experience, you have three solid choices: Windows, OS X, and Linux. They all require very little configuration upon install, all are capable of updating themselves automatically, and all have a good number of 64-bit applications available. So choosing between them now largely comes down to the individual needs of the consumer, and marketing.
2) Embedded devices risk getting more proprietary, not less. The most appealing thing about Linux is its openness--the desire to absorb all good ideas, support all hardware, and allow anyone to contribute physical changes to the operating system. But one device stands in direct opposition to those principles, and it's a device that is single-handedly changing the way manufacturers think about making hardware and software: the iPhone. With the number of shipping units bordering on out of control, and App Store revenue in the hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars range, it's safe to say that the iPhone business model of locked-in hardware and a Byzantine software release process is going to become (or at least heavily influence) the yardstick for future gadget releases. Indeed, even the Palm Pre, which was supposed to be the partially-open answer to the iPhone, seems to have suddenly found a few cloaks and daggers of their own.
This doesn't leave Linux completely out in the cold--many phones and portable media players work just fine in Linux. But the iPhone, the big dog at the table, doesn't work with Linux (and running Windows in VirtualBox doesn't count), and if the gadget landscape takes its cues from Apple's business model then the chances of Linux-incompatible devices being released in the short term go up, not down.
What do you think? Does Linux have a rocky road ahead in the coming year in the face of strong offerings from Microsoft and Apple, or will the increased improvements in compatibility and user-friendliness along with its supreme stability and ability to be customized keep it an appealing free alternative to the major players?
--Aric A.
elam on October 11, 2009 at 05:50 AM
I've used server side Linux for about 10 years, mainly for work, and have done the occasional desktop install, most recently Ubuntu 9.10.
The Linux desktop has definitely come a long way and is very usable and a much more pleasant experience than Windows in my opinion. Particularly so with things like Compiz/Beryl, which gives a lot of interesting and useful tools and effects. After using Windows 7 and Ubuntu 9 side by side for a while, I can't help but think "Is this the best Microsoft can do after 7 years and billions of dollars?" Microsoft doesn't seem very innovative by comparison.
That being said, the one thing I don't like about Linux is the lack of software support. And the 64 bit desktop runs pretty sluggish compared to Windows, imo.
I recently bought a Mac for the first time, a 13.3 MacBook pro and I'm loving it. It's a got the best features of Windows and Linux and has a lot of great software. Plus, it's silky smooth and very nimble.
Bob Howland on October 11, 2009 at 05:53 AM
I have a Linux hobby computer but my real work gets done under Vista. And Linux will remain a hobby until the nerds who control the Linux features actually listen to the users.
Let me give you an example. I also have two DS109 NAS's which appear as disk drives on my Windows desktop. Setting them up was easy. Getting them to do the same on my Ubuntu desktop is absolutely infuriating. Getting Gnome to recognize them is easy, but that doesn't mean that they are mounted to the filesystem, meaning that half my programs, including the program for changing Gnome wallpaper, can't see them. Mounting to the filesystem requires, unsurprisingly, dropping the command line and using "smbmount" and "smbumout" commands. And neither connection scheme is durable across reboots, although it can be done by tinkering in files that, in a sane world, no end user should ever have to edit.
For people in small business, this capability is essential and people have been complaining about this deficiency for 5 years, but it never gets fixed. Linux likes to advertise that it is "free", but it's only free if the user's time is valued at zero.
Speaking of "free" software, consider the perverse Ubuntu business model. The software is free but heavy duty support costs money. So Ubuntu (and other Linux vendors) maximize their revenues by putting out software that is bad enough to require paid support but not so bad that people won't use it. On the other hand, with one percent penetration on the desktop, I guess Linux quality is at the people-won't-use-it level
OK, I've calmed down. Thanks for letting me rant.
Claude Hopper on October 11, 2009 at 05:55 AM
I hope Linux keeps on trucking. In my former life (Corporate) I used Unix and liked the stability and number crunching capabilities. Now that am an independent consultant; I still do major number crunching and I prefer Linux. I analyze structural vibrations with software I built with FORTRAN (command line execution). Windows 7 may be OK, but it tries to keep too much running. I never liked Apple's (yes, it is UNIX based) approach to sales. They thought by capturing the school age crowd, they could grow into the business field. That didn't happen.
Edward Royce on October 11, 2009 at 06:20 AM
Simply put: Can I do my work with Linux?
Answer: No.
Result: No serious penetration of the desktop market.
*shrug* that is the way it is. I develop applications professionally. I also work on websites. While it is possible to use open source applications for a lot of things quite often they require tradeoffs in being less capable or with less in-depth offerings than professional for-cost products.
The question, as a previous poster noted, is that time is money. My time is worth more than zero to me and is worth much more than zero to employers and clients. Plus the time it takes for me to accomplish tasks is also money to employers and clients. If it takes me 10 hours to complete a task under Windows or 15 hours under Linux, the fact that Linux is free is immaterial.
Shannon Love on October 11, 2009 at 07:13 AM
I agree with previous posters that Linux being "free" doesn't mean much to anyone doing serious work. People use computers because they save time but Linux is the most time consuming major operating system.
Let's say that a small business person's time is worth $20 an hour to their business(that's pretty low actually.) Mac OS X cost $120 a year. That means that if using MacOS X saves that person more than 6 hours of time out of a (very conservative) 2,000 hour work year, then it pays for itself. Heck, assuming 250 work days a year (everyone whose self employed is laughing) that means that MacOS cost 48 cents a day! Even the cost premium of proprietary hardware comes down to two or three dollars a day at most. If using MacOS X and Apple hardware saves a person just a few minutes of time every day, it pays for itself many times over.
The economics of using Windows is similar.
Even if Linux does 95% of what a user needs quickly and easily, the few hours out an entire year lost fiddling with that one rough part of the system wipes out Linux's cost advantage entirely.
In addition, paying for an operating system gives consumer control over the people who create the operating system. Even Microsoft has to listen to the people who buy Windows or they lose money. No such feedback system exist in Linux. Linux has only the features that the programers who contribute think it should have. This is why Linux lacks standardization, polish, documentation and support. Those are the most boring and tedious task in creating software. Few people will do them for free and no one has a passion for them so Linux lacks them.
Linux is going to remain a geeks system until someone creates a business model that supports polishing it so that it saves people time instead of trivial amounts of money.
Lawrence Barnes on October 11, 2009 at 08:13 AM
"Even Microsoft has to listen to the people who buy Windows or they lose money. No such feedback system exist in Linux." That's simply not true. I recently wrote directly to the developer of a Linux app, and got a personal reply with his sincere thanks for my comments, as well as his suggestion that he put my ideas into the developers' circle and see what his colleagues thought. He's only the second Linux developer I have ever written to with a question; the first guy responded with lengthy comments and explanations. Try that with any other OS. (Full disclosure: the developers mentioned above all work on Debian.)
The computer user should base his choice of OS on what his tasks are, and how well each system will meet his needs. If you don't know which OS to choose, go on line and ask users how they perform your tasks -- but don't begin with the silly question, "Which OS is best?" Keep in mind that very few computer users, having decided on an OS long ago, will explore alternatives. It's the "sweet lemon" fallacy: "Yep, it's a lemon, all right, but it's MY lemon, I picked it, and it sure tastes sweet to me."
The one exception to my guidelines above: I think it's downright foolhardy of any non-technical computer user to venture onto the internet with Microsoft products. They are not suited to the hostile environment there, and anti-virus products are always behind the pirates.
Edward Royce on October 11, 2009 at 09:14 AM
"I think it's downright foolhardy of any non-technical computer user to venture onto the internet with Microsoft products. "
Frankly the idea of a "non-technical computer user" going on the internet with a Linux desktop is the very definition of "foolhardy". Invariably that user will end up getting deeply involved, willingly or not, with the guts of Linux. And often to their eternal regret.
Fact is that no matter how you dress it up Linux was designed by, created by and for ... nerds. People who use Linux either have a support team in place or they are the kind of people who enjoy reading through the hundred pages of documentation for a three letter command that is rarely used but which has 45+ switches, arguments and flags.
And who probably enjoys working in Perl.
Don't mind me. Perl is a useful tool. But I've seen, and written, Perl scripts that pretty much consist of nothing but punctuation.
And utterly incomprehensible to anyone but someone deeply dedicated to that software.
Harold Morris on October 11, 2009 at 09:16 AM
I agree with the previous comments regarding adoption of Linux in a small business (absent in-house IT). However, in the home desktop, it is a different story.
My home has 4 desktops, 2 netbooks and 1 laptop. 1 desktop is linux only (Xubuntu), 2 desktops are dual boot with XP and Kubuntu and the 4th desktop is Vista. 1 netbook is EP(ubuntu), 1 netbook is XP and the laptop is XP.
These computers are used in different ways and by different people. We have found that browsing the web in Linux is just as easy and clearly safer than XP. We have very specific functions which Linux is not (yet) capable of handling. For example, Itunes and anything else Apple. Ipods and Iphones are a necessity to some in our house. We also have software, such as Family Tree Maker for which there is no adequate equivalent in Linux. Having said that, 95 percent of our computer time could be in Linux easily.
I guess that the above means that I agree with the basic premise of the article. That comes a little hard as I have great affection for Linux.
neuromancer on October 11, 2009 at 09:28 AM
Full disclosure: I am a die-hard linux user for many years, and 16-year corporate IT consulting veteran. I think that many versions of linux are prime-time ready, but I believe that where Microsoft has the monopoly sewn up is in support. There are a gazillion techs out there supporting corporate America who can keep a Windows desktop and the user in front of it ticking along, but there are not that many people, even in tech support, who could do the same with Linux in a large (say 1000 plus seats) environment. Likewise, 99.9% of the users use Microsoft or Mac's at home, or have experience with them, and need little or no training in basic computer use.
My brother-in-laws used to be big gamers, and had hot-rod boxes with all the go-fast toys at home, while I was in IT management in the corporate world. They used to marvel at how "behind the times" corporate computing was compared to what they had running at home. My response to them was that Corporate computing is not about the latest and greatest, it is about continuity and supportability. That is why there is so much resistance to changing OS's even within the Windows family. A migration to a newer desktop OS has a massive impact to a corporation, and the larger the company, the greater the disruption. Only Microsoft and tier-one (IBM, HP, COMPAQ, etc.) computer companies can currently project that level of sustainability and support into large environments. As long as there is no money to be made with Linux by one of these large corporations, no one will invest the sort of capital necessary to make a linux version cost-effective enough for the corporate market to make the change.
Peter LaCasse on October 11, 2009 at 10:26 AM
I made the jump to using Linux on my desktop full-time about five years ago. I transitioned by using programs that ran on both Windows and Linux such as Mozilla and Thunderbird, but since then I've switched to the KDE project's integrated applications. My preferred Linux distribution comes with almost all of the programs I use on a daily basis installed by default, and I enjoy not having to deal with Windows licensing any more. The almost complete absence of malware is icing on the cake.
I'm a power user; I know how to find documentation, install programs and use the command line. It doesn't matter to me if Linux will ever be good enough for the masses, because it's good enough for me, right now.
Shannon Love on October 11, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Lawrence Barnes,
"Even Microsoft has to listen to the people who buy Windows or they lose money. No such feedback system exist in Linux." That's simply not true.
They key phrase you missed in my observation were "has to". A Linux developer can (and many do) listen to end user feedback but nothing in the open source/freeware model compels them to do so against their own wishes or judgment. By contrast, for-profit developers need the money that end users give them so they are compelled to satisfy end user's need or go out of business. This creates an enormously powerful feedback loop that not only steers development towards end user's needs but provides the financial resources to do so.
Even Microsoft is forced to listen to it's main end users. Most people don't see that because Microsoft's primary customers are institutions like OEMs, corporations and the government. Microsoft pays a lot of attention to institutional needs which is why Windows is the best large scale data management platform. The billions of dollars of income that generates allows Microsoft to hire programs to do the incredibly boring, uninspiring and anonymous work that database connectivity requires.
WuzzaDem on October 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM
When I was in the tech world in the 90s, Linux was only championed by the guys in IT who smelled bad, didn't brush their teeth, wore the same T-shirt for a week, and couldn't get a date w/o a subpoena. The loved technology for technology's sake.
Everyone else didn't give a crap what was under the hood, as long as they could get their work done, you know, the stuff that paid the bills.
Has any of that changed?
Ricky on October 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I'm getting less and less tied to my desktop everyday. My browser is the application I use 90% of the time. Why would I care about the OS once I move to 100%?
Mark M on October 11, 2009 at 01:48 PM
Edward Royce:
"Frankly the idea of a "non-technical computer user" going on the internet with a Linux desktop is the very definition of foolhardy"
Clearly Edward doesn't know squat about security. I use linux exclusively, and run Virtual Windows for customers who require windows software (like non-mono C#.Net or MSSQL server)
My Octogenarian parents also use linux exclusively. They never have problems because they have ZERO security worries. That's what you get when the system comes secured out of the box, as opposed to crippleware like Windows (which eventually wears you down into turning of all the braindamaged safety features), or apple products, which comes with a default root password because most apple users are too clueless to know what "root" is or what it is for.
WuzzaDem:
"Everyone else didn't give a crap what was under the hood, as long as they could get their work done, you know, the stuff that paid the bills."
-Sounds like a typical office worker: Spends 90% of their time reading useless emails from coworkers and browsing the internet for fantasy football stats or shoes (dependent on gender), and all the while pecking away with two fingers. (i.e., "work")
Burke on October 11, 2009 at 03:31 PM
My frustration with Windows reached a point where it exceeded any desire for its features. I switched to Ubuntu and haven't looked back. I can't say that I have missed anything. I keep a Mac mini for a couple of software programs not available on Linux. While I like the Mac, it has always seemed too cute for serious work and I have found it less reliable than Ubuntu. As a software developer, I have not found a better platform.
Bildo on October 11, 2009 at 04:34 PM
What about Android operating system?
I love my G1 and don't spend a dime at the app store.
Beth Lynn Eicher on October 11, 2009 at 04:39 PM
I can't get Windows 7 Release candidate to install. You get one shot to download an DVD ISO. There is no checksum. No media verification within the installer. If one of the +4GB of bits fails to download, too bad for you. My image fails before you get a chance to format the disk. The whole thing just locks up.
Now, before you all assume that I don't know how to install an operating system, I have installed Linux well over 1000 times.
Apparently, I'm not the only one who sees Linux as easier to install
http://blogs.computerworld.com/14629/the_easiest_operating_system_to_update_is
Denny, Alaska on October 11, 2009 at 05:30 PM
Put the drum down, Mr. Annear. Linux will never supplant any operating system. Never. You know that, I know that, the entire world knows that. Free? Some bottomless Linux money machine could *pay* each user for downloading Unbutttu or Smooso or FooledYou or whatever flavor-of-the-day op is in vogue and no one would do so. Why would anyone want to spend time and energy making a system "work?" Why? The overwhelming majority of us buy a new system (Windows or Apple) turn the puppy on and use the system that's pre-installed.
That's the reality, no matter how much Linux acolytes might wish it otherwise.
Aric A. on October 11, 2009 at 07:08 PM
@Beth: Linux's most popular distributions are easy to install, provided you don't need to partition the drive. Ubuntu makes it easy, but partitioning in Fedora and SUSE can be pretty opaque to the average computer user if you need anything other than the default layout.
I've installed the W7 release candidate around ten times or so, and never had an issue. I've clocked it several times and it's never taken more than 15-20 minutes from inserting the disc to getting to a working desktop. If you keep getting a bad image, try using Linux's wget instead of the http download link.
Beth Lynn Eicher on October 11, 2009 at 07:32 PM
Thanks Aric A.
Yes I have installed all of the distros you mentioned as well as a few dozen others. I do know how to partition a hard drive with fdisk at the command line if needed.
The Win7RC DVD has been tried three different systems: 1. absolutely empty partition table 2. OpenSUSE 3. WindowsXP. No matter what, this is a bad image. I've burned it 3 times now so I know it isn't a bad burn. If it matters any, I downloaded it on a system with Ubuntu onto a USB disk with a fat32 filesystem.
I will attempt to download again, but I'm trying to be ethical about doing this so I will have to re-read the TOS before trying wget.
My point is, how is the average user supposed to do this if I can't do it? I'm a professional system administrator with 12 years experience and have no butterflies in my stomach about downloading and burning an .iso.
The best guess I have is it's a crap-shoot as to which build image you will get, like Ubuntu during alpha stage.
I am doing this for research for my blog http://www.whatwillweuse.com
Beth Lynn Eicher on October 11, 2009 at 07:39 PM
update: Microsoft has stopped allowing downloads but I can login and get an "activation key."
I suppose I am going to have to wait until I can purchase a copy in 11 days to see exactly how great Windows 7 is.
Michael on October 11, 2009 at 07:39 PM
Nice astroturfing: "I use Linux every day", but Windows is soooo much better; sure you do.
Ken on October 11, 2009 at 10:28 PM
@Michael
Wow, way to selectively read the article. He also praises the latest version of Snow Leopard - Does that make him some kind of hybrid Windows/Mac fanboy? And really, what kind of person do you know who doesn't actually USE Linux that can rattle off the names of three different Distros? Hell, how many regular users of LINUX can name a distro other than the one they use?
jecker on October 12, 2009 at 06:16 AM
I use Linux servers and play with a Linux desktop. I don't believe Linux will never gain large popularity unless there is something that sets above all the rest. Right now, in my opinion Linux meets or beats WIndows and the Mac, but it does not set itself appart from the rest. To make it the most popular OS, Linux needs to be the best gaming machine or something else that sets itself far above the rest.
Pancrazio de Mauro (Ezio) on October 12, 2009 at 06:34 AM
To echo Ricky's point, the browser is becoming the desktop. As long as a PC has a rock solid standards compliant browser, every day users won't really care about the real desktop OS. Technical users will care, and they will pretty much stick to what they like anyway.