The Linux desktop is dead. Long live the Linux desktop

[tjeremiah]

Summary: The traditional Linux desktop is going no-where fast, but it’s mobile and Web-based brothers, Android and Chrome OS, are kicking rump and taking names.

It’s never going to catch up with Windows or Mac OS X in user popularity. It’s never going to show up as a common option from mainstream vendors. And, you’ll never be able to buy it at your local Best Buy or other big box store.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/the-linux-desktop-is-dead-long-live-the-linux-desktop/9562

[Lucradia]

Well, to do wine with MMORPGs, you still need desktop-powered stuff :V Unless you have an uber-laptop.

[debd]

the whole article is pointless as its just not clear what the author wants to do with the Linux Desktop (Environments?) or wants to see it going where...

[nothingspecial]

Moved to recurring.

[cap10Ibraim]

sure the whole desktop is fading out
but for power users who want to use a workstation rather than a tablet they'll consider linux

[Lucradia]

sure the whole desktop is fading out

As I've said before: Gaming / MMORPGs. Yes, laptops are becoming powerful enough for these too. 2nd Gen i5s as such.

[Merk42]

The big difference is I can walk into a Best Buy (or equivalent) and walk out with an Android phone, I can't with a Linux desktop.

[rjbl]

The big difference is I can walk into a Best Buy (or equivalent) and walk out with an Android phone, I can't with a Linux desktop.

Not sure where you do your shopping, but here in the UK it is actually pretty easy to buy a box with no OS pre-installed. It's also easy, and cheaper, to buy barebones kit and run your own OS onto it.

Actually on a number of occasions over the last c20 years I have bought boxes with Windows pre-installed only to run my currently favoured GNU/Linux installer on them the moment I got 'em home. Even stranger, I don't ever recall technical issues or incompatabilities ever arising in any such install. Funny that.

rjbl

[aysiu]

Not sure where you do your shopping, but here in the UK it is actually pretty easy to buy a box with no OS pre-installed. It's also easy, and cheaper, to buy barebones kit and run your own OS onto it. Laptops, too? Easy to buy without OS and cheaper?

[rjbl]

Laptops, too? Easy to buy without OS and cheaper?

Dunno .... never bothered to build my own laptop, so I've never looked. Have bought cheap laptops and ripped Windows off them to install GNU/Linux - starting with Redhat6. Keine problem.

rjbl

[elliotn]

I have never bought a PC that is pre loaded with any OS, everywhere here in South Africa you will get a PC with no OS on a cheaper price therefore save couple of Rand's in the process. I therefore install Windows then Linux, Windows for music production then Ubuntu for the rest

[BbUiDgZ]

the Acer Aspire Revo R3700 and the eMachine ER1402 both come with linux pre installed, same with the eeepc from asus

[Merk42]

the Acer Aspire Revo R3700 and the eMachine ER1402 both come with linux pre installed, same with the eeepc from asus
Where does one get them though? I didn't find any of those on Best Buy's website.

[kurt18947]

Not sure where you do your shopping, but here in the UK it is actually pretty easy to buy a box with no OS pre-installed. It's also easy, and cheaper, to buy barebones kit and run your own OS onto it.

Actually on a number of occasions over the last c20 years I have bought boxes with Windows pre-installed only to run my currently favoured GNU/Linux installer on them the moment I got 'em home. Even stranger, I don't ever recall technical issues or incompatabilities ever arising in any such install. Funny that.

rjbl

No mass market retailer offers for sale in the U.S. a computer, PC or Mac without an operating system installed AFAIK. In fact I don't know that specialist suppliers like Newegg offer machines without an O.S. installed. It is of course easy to buy parts and build your own desktop. Laptops/notebooks/netbooks are a bit more challenging I'd think.

[thatguruguy]

Actually on a number of occasions over the last c20 years I have bought boxes with Windows pre-installed only to run my currently favoured GNU/Linux installer on them the moment I got 'em home. Even stranger, I don't ever recall technical issues or incompatabilities ever arising in any such install. Funny that.
rjbl

Does not in any way contradict the statement:

The big difference is I can walk into a Best Buy (or equivalent) and walk out with an Android phone, I can't with a Linux desktop.

The point is, for "average" consumers, they can't go in to a big box store and buy a Linux desktop. Which decreases the widespread acceptance of the Linux desktop, since most "average" consumers won't "run [their] currently favoured GNU/Linux installer on them the moment [they get] 'em home."

[galacticaboy]

I do understand where he is coming from. I mean, Windows is trying to Kill off Linux with their OS. I mean, Windows 8 is winning me over. I will never leave Linux, but Windows has way to many tricks up their sleeves.

[beew]

I do understand where he is coming from. I mean, Windows is trying to Kill off Linux with their OS. I mean, Windows 8 is winning me over. I will never leave Linux, but Windows has way to many tricks up their sleeves.

If MS has its way you won't be even able to boot Linux on a machine preinstalled with Windows8. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1847476

Windows will never "win me over" with all its latest shiny stuffs , the company just disgusts me too much. As a lesser evil I am recommending Mac to people who are too timid to try Linux though I am not an Apple fan myself, at least it is small way to boycott MS.

[Spice Weasel]

If MS has its way you won't be even able to boot Linux on a machine preinstalled with Windows8. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1847476

Windows will never "win me over" with all its latest shiny stuffs , the company just disgusts me too much. As a lesser evil I am recommending Mac to people who are too timid to try Linux though I am not an Apple fan myself, at least it is small way to boycott MS.

So if MS tries to improve security on their own platform then they are trying to kill Linux... yeah right.

That is entirely the fault of the GPLv3 for not allowing signed code. If they go ahead and add that requirement then you will still be able to boot Linux with the MS bootloader or the BSD-licensed LILO.

[beew]

So if MS tries to improve security on their own platform then they are trying to kill Linux... yeah right.

That is entirely the fault of the GPLv3 for not allowing signed code. If they go ahead and add that requirement then you will still be able to boot Linux with the MS bootloader or the BSD-licensed LILO.


No, you are completely wrong.

Why should the security policy be decided by MS and the OEM in the first place??? Is it my machine or theirs? If the power to determine what is safe and what is not resides in the hand of the end user as it should be then secure boot would not be a problem and may even be a nice feature (and Linux can easily support it as long as the players have sorted out the protocol,--right now there are confusions as Intel and MS have different policies). GPLV3 doesn't limit the end user in anyway, it is not an EULA.

[KiwiNZ]

I have read it here and on other Linux sites on innurmerable times how insecure Windows is blah blah blah... but when ever they attempt to make it more secure the 'They are taking my freedom garbage' comes out. That line of thinking is old, tiresome and wrong.

[Spice Weasel]

No, you are completely wrong.

Why should the security policy be decided by MS and the OEM in the first place??? Is it my machine or theirs? If the power to determine what is safe and what is not resides in the hand of the end user as it should be then secure boot would not be a problem and may even be a nice feature (and Linux can easily support it as long as the players have sorted out the protocol,--right now there are confusions as Intel and MS have different policies). GPLV3 doesn't limit the end user in anyway, it is not an EULA.

No, you are completely wrong.

I don't think you quite understand what is being done here. The ebil M$ are not trying to kill the poor GNU/Free operating system with <1% market share. They are adding a security layer in an attempt to stop boot sector viruses. There’s also no evidence that OEMs won’t provide a switch that turns off secure-boot, so that if you must install Linux, you can still fiddle some setting in the UEFI to install it.

So because the GPL doesn't call itself an EULA, it can't be restrictive. Nice logic there. Only GPL boot loaders will be effected by this. Not the BSD boot loaders, not LILO, not the Windows boot loader. So there, you have proof that the GPL is limiting GRUB.

[Quadunit404]

I have read it here and on other Linux sites on innurmerable times how insecure Windows is blah blah blah... but when ever they attempt to make it more secure the 'They are taking my freedom garbage' comes out. That line of thinking is old, tiresome and wrong.

Agreed x∞. I'm getting bored of reading all these threads that say "OMG WINDOWS 8 IMPLEMENTED A NEW SECURITY FEATURE AT BOOT LEVEL THIS OBVIOUSLY MEANS LINUX IS GONNA DIE!!!!!!11111" The original post may be different but it gives the same old message.

[BbUiDgZ]

Where does one get them though? I didn't find any of those on Best Buy's website.
ebuyer.com

[KiwiNZ]

agreed x∞. I'm getting bored of reading all these threads that say "omg windows 8 implemented a new security feature at boot level this obviously means linux is gonna die!!!!!!11111" the original post may be different but it gives the same old message.


+1

[Legendary_Bibo]

No, you are completely wrong.

I don't think you quite understand what is being done here. The ebil M$ are not trying to kill the poor GNU/Free operating system with <1% market share. They are adding a security layer in an attempt to stop boot sector viruses. There’s also no evidence that OEMs won’t provide a switch that turns off secure-boot, so that if you must install Linux, you can still fiddle some setting in the UEFI to install it.

So because the GPL doesn't call itself an EULA, it can't be restrictive. Nice logic there. Only GPL boot loaders will be effected by this. Not the BSD boot loaders, not LILO, not the Windows boot loader. So there, you have proof that the GPL is limiting GRUB.

Also, I've seen some stories where MS clarifies on the whole UEFI debacle...it's not going to prevent you from using another OS, it's just to secure Windows more. That's right, you guys had nothing to worry about in the first place.

[beew]

No, you are completely wrong.

I don't think you quite understand what is being done here. The ebil M$ are not trying to kill the poor GNU/Free operating system with <1% market share.


First of all, there have been many threads and reports that debunk the <1% figure, I have no idea why you keep bandying about it except maybe as another lame attempt to put down Linux, that is getting old frankly. Steve Ballmer himself didn't put the figure at 1% and was on the record as saying Linux was an important competitor, so am I supposed to believe you or Steve Ballmer re MS's attitude towards Linux?

Secondly, I never said that killing Linux is the main reason for this stunt, but if this proposal goes through as it is it will certainly put a huge limitation on Linux adaptation (and other alternative OSes) Now that MS has been alerted to it and it can do something to address the issue, but it instead shrugs and passes the buck to the OEMS, that's got to show it is eager to exploit this situation to limit if not to lock out competitors completely.


There’s also no evidence that OEMs won’t provide a switch that turns off secure-boot, so that if you must install Linux, you can still fiddle some setting in the UEFI to install it.

There is no evidence that OEMS won't provide the off switch, but there is no guarantee that they would universally either. I think they probably would but only for more expensive machines if we don't keep making noises. So you would only be able to install Linux with limited choice of hardware that costs more.

That may not be a huge problem for those who are determined to use Linux, but it will be detrimental for new Linux adaptation. Most new users do not start off with specialized Linux machines. The beauty of Linux is that you can try it out by putting in on almost any hardware and it just works.

I notice that you have completely bypassed my point that end users, not MS and OEM should control secure boot policy on their own machines.

And GPL is not EULA, most end users are not distributors.

[KiwiNZ]

Linux needs to innovate to compete and drop the "everybody hates me , no body likes me..... mentality.

[Spice Weasel]

There is no evidence that OEMS won't provide the off switch, but there is no guarantee that they would universally either. I think they probably would but only for more expensive machines if we don't keep making noises. So you would only be able to install Linux with limited choice of hardware that costs more.

That may not be a huge problem for those who are determined to use Linux, but it will be detrimental for new Linux adaptation. Most new users do not start off with specialized Linux machines. The beauty of Linux is that you can try it out by putting in on almost any hardware and it just works.

Or you could, you know, use LILO or the Microsoft boot loader.

[Legendary_Bibo]

Linux needs to innovate to compete and drop the "everybody hates me , no body likes me..... mentality.

And can we please stop the constant mudslinging.

[datay]

Dunno about you, but Google "Linux Desktops" and there many many out there. Version specific if you wish. Ubuntu lap tops and desk tops. Even Wall-Mart has them for sale...

[y6FgBn)~v]

For whatever reason(s), <Insert distribution here> Linux seems unwilling and/or unable to market itself to the degree that Windows or MacOS has. In my opinion this has been its greatest weakness and ultimate Achilles heel. As always time will tell.

[Merk42]

The point is, for "average" consumers, they can't go in to a big box store and buy a Linux desktop. Which decreases the widespread acceptance of the Linux desktop, since most "average" consumers won't "run [their] currently favoured GNU/Linux installer on them the moment [they get] 'em home."Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

ebuyer.com
Find me a brick and mortar store that has Linux desktops/laptops for sale.

[aysiu]

The original article linked to mentions the success of Android (which uses the Linux kernel). There are several reasons Android has been successful where desktop (shorthand for desktop, laptop, and netbook) Linux has been unsuccesful: It's marketed as a single product, not one more Linux distribution. It comes preinstalled and preconfigured on easily obtainable, competitively priced smartphones from well-known manufacturers. The operating system (Android) has a big name attached to it (Google) that can also work handset manufacturer deals. Not sure Mark Shuttleworth has quite the same corporate muscle to work out deals with OEMs. Android came out before the touchscreen phone market was fully saturated. iPhone definitely had a headstart, but it hadn't fully taken over when Android came out to the general public. Android would have gotten nowhere (meaning only geeks and power users) if you got it mainly by buying a Blackberry or iPhone and then installing it yourself.

[plurworldinc]

The Linux desktop is not dead, just unknown.The only way I can buy Linux in any store in the states ( at least near me) is the local super bookstore. Even at the bookstore the Linux mags are behind the Windows and Mac mags. If you know what you are looking for you are fine.

[screaminj3sus]

Linux destkop will never become "mainstream" without some real OEM power behind it. There are a few niche OEM's, and some half assed, little advertised attempts by larger oems (*cough dell *cough).

Any big OEM that has offered linux has never had the balls to actually try and advertise, and wonder why its not poplular.

[galacticaboy]

I don't hate MS. I just don't really care for Windows. I prefer Linux because of no Virus' and its free. That is all there is to it for me. It's free... honestly that is all I care about. I don't care about the advancement of free and open source software. As long as it works and I don't have to dish out my hard earned money on some 400 dollar piece of software that I will have to update in a few years, that is all I care about. To me, let someone else worry about the advancement of FOSS.