No "Year of the Linux desktop" article [Archive]

PaulW2U

September 29th, 2015, 07:13 PM

Hi Welly Wu

So, by 2020, in a very limited way, Linux may be the top "desktop" operating system. It's just that there won't be many traditional desktops left in use. Everyone else will be working with one foot in the cloud and the other in a variety of devices, some of which, like Chromebooks and Surfaces, will look like desktops.
An interesting article which I've submitted for inclusion in the next issue of the Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter in the "Other Articles of Interest" section.

I've never seen myself as an average user so I have difficulty equating what the article has to say with my usage of PCs. While others migrate to tablets, phones and the cloud I see myself as sticking with a PC/laptop and local storage. I use a mobile phone as an extension of my PC usage and not as a replacement. I use cloud storage as a backup not as a primary means to store my files and data.

Now, five years ago I was a Windows user who thought Linux was far too difficult to understand, install or use. Now I use it exclusively (alongside Android). So what do I know?

Welly Wu

September 29th, 2015, 07:29 PM

Those are interesting replies and I appreciate the feedback from this article thus far. I too am a traditional desktop PC user so this whole hybrid desktop and cloud design is interesting and I do see its merits, but that is as far as I am willing to go with my purchase of Windows 10 Pro in a guest VM. For me, I've achieved similar results by purchasing InSync Plus for Google Drive and CrashPlan+ so my Ubuntu desktop connects to the cloud for data backup and synchronization. I also have a Microsoft account and 1 TB of OneDrive and Google Drive.

I think that people like us are in the minority and it's going to be hard to see the appeal of the Linux desktop rising above its small user base worldwide. That is okay with me too. I love the power, control, and security of Ubuntu and this is why I have not replaced it with Win10Pro on my desktop PC.

I thought to share this article because it was timely and interesting to me. Thanks for the replies thus far.

mystics

September 29th, 2015, 10:29 PM

You can take advantage of the cloud on Linux. To do so, though, will go against the ethics of a good number of people in the Linux community.

Anyone right now could install Chromium and have instant access to the vast array of web apps available on the Chrome Web Store, and you could always get back into those apps from any computer with Chrome or Chromium on it. All it requires is to sign into your Google account. You can put your music on Google Play Music and buy videos from the Google Play store (or just use Netflix), and your media library will follow you around. Accounts with various cloud storage providers like Google and Microsoft can get you 30+ GB of free cloud storage, and some of these have (unofficial) programs that will help you mount the cloud storage onto your file system to even use native desktop applications with.

Long story short, from a technical standpoint, there's nothing necessarily holding Linux back from integrating with the cloud. I think the major question is whether or not the FOSS community can offer a solution to doing that as an alternative to relying on companies like Google and Microsoft. Furthermore, there's the question of whether or not the community would even want that.

But as for right now, Linux still does offer the solution to be a sort-of hybrid OS to people who want that and don't mind relying on Google for it. At the same time, though, those who want a more traditional desktop can have it. Now, I don't think this will help bring people to Linux, and I agree with the author that the Linux desktop will likely have trouble competing with Chrome OS and Windows. Still, I wanted to point out that in the vast array of choices we have, Linux does have plenty of cloud integration options for people who want that.

mastablasta

September 30th, 2015, 08:11 AM

You can take advantage of the cloud on Linux. To do so, though, will go against the ethics of a good number of people in the Linux community.

ethics? why?

you can setup your owncloud or seafile and you would have a cloud based OS. Clouds are overrated anyway. internet connection can go off and then what? if we loose internet connection at work we can still use internal LAN and process stuff and work on things. same at home it would happen though not often that internet is down. I can still do my work. cloud offices and such... meh - they are good but not as good (feature rich) as desktop solution and definitely not as fast.

google docs while they have their benefits are nowhere near libre office let alone ms office.

oh an just because I do not use certain function in table today doesn't mean I wont' use them tomorrow. I keep getting new ideas and then search on how to do it and usually I can do it with functions.

as for just storing data, syncing and sharing data over various devices - many option in Linux to setup your own servers to do that. and it is often integrated with OS.

RichardET

September 30th, 2015, 11:05 AM

1. http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-there-will-never-be-a-year-of-the-linux-desktop/

I agree with this author. There will never be a year of the linux desktop. Ever. That's ok. Chromebooks and ChromeOS will rule as a secure and simple alternative to Windows 10. And that's just fine by me.

Discuss!

No one ever defines what is meant by the "year of a Linux desktop" ; the author of the ZDNET article never does, and he never will.
That's why there will never be "the year of the Linux desktop" ; it's a meaningless concept and he knows it is, but for some reason, this vacuous remark sells a lot of ad space year after year.

In the workstation wars, Linux won, what more does anyone want? Linux most likely has 99% of market share in that space.

So what is the metric one needs? Is it 51% of total home systems? Is it 25%? What if everyone under 30 only used Linux, and everyone 30+ used Linux 3% of the time? is that a good metric? What is he talking about? "The year of the desktop"???????? Define it.

mystics

September 30th, 2015, 12:43 PM

ethics? why?

you can setup your owncloud or seafile and you would have a cloud based OS.

as for just storing data, syncing and sharing data over various devices - many option in Linux to setup your own servers to do that. and it is often integrated with OS.

Sorry, I tend to forget that others have money to do what I can't afford to do. I tend to rely on the free space offered by Google and Microsoft because I'm a poor college student who quickly spends the little bit of money I make on caffeine.

buzzingrobot

September 30th, 2015, 01:50 PM

FOSS licensing requirements are an effective roadblock to the retail marketing of a Linux product. Why? Because the source will be available and it will be recompiled and the binaries made available, gratis, online.

The existence of so many Linux distributions, all with subtle and not-so-subtle differences, is confusing to prospective new users. It also thwarts adoption of desktop Linux because users want the de facto standardization provided by a market-dominating product. Linux users must be aware that a software package built for a particular version of a particular distribution may not work on the distribution they happen to be using. They need to be aware that software packaged for another version of the same distribution they are using may not work. Most people just don't want to be bothered with all that.

The predominant use of personal computers has always been for communications. That's overwhelmingly the case for our personal, non-work related, use of PC's.

That kind of communication is incredibly more convenient and useful if we can do it with a device small enough to carry around with us.

So, while conventional desktop use is not shrinking in absolute terms (growing slowly, actually), it's losing ground in relative terms against the burgeoning phone and tablet markets. People who have all their computing needs met by a phone are not going to be in the market for a PC.

To me, the fundamental division between desktop PC's and small devices in display size. Obviously, some tasks work better on a large display. Desktops also have a strong advantage in storage capacity, and they will retain that until, and if, someone figures out how to put terabyte-sized storage in a phone. Slow uplink speeds mean online storage is impractical for most operations.

So... Canonical or Red Hat or someone else might come up with an absolutely stunning best-in-class desktop and they still wouldn't be able to sell it. Because they can't sell it, it would never dominate the market. If you can't sell something, you aren't even in the market.

Meanwhile, Canonical seems to be one of the few in Linux who are not ignoring the fact that most of the 7 billion people on the planet don't need, and won't be using, desktops.

The Cog

September 30th, 2015, 02:34 PM

FOSS licensing requirements are an effective roadblock to the retail marketing of a Linux product. Why? Because the source will be available and it will be recompiled and the binaries made available, gratis, online.

I presume that by this you mean a retail derivative operating system. I agree here. I once saw (in these forums) someone asking if there was any way that they could write a whizzy enhancement to Linux, then sell copies of that "improved" linux and keep their "enhancements" secret and prohibiting copying. The answer to that is yes thay can sell it, but no they cannot keep it secret - they must abide by the licence under which they are given the original kernel code: the derivative must be freely copyable. This is much the same as wanting to write an enhancement to windows, and then sell copies of the modified windows without paying royalties to Microsoft: good luck with that!

On the other hand, running applications on Linux is as unencumbered as running applications on Windows. You can write and sell applications and apply whatever licensing restrictions you want to your code. There is no roadblock to Linux applications other than Microsoft FUD. There is lots of commercial software available for Linux, some very expensive.

mastablasta

September 30th, 2015, 02:48 PM

Sorry, I tend to forget that others have money to do what I can't afford to do. I tend to rely on the free space offered by Google and Microsoft because I'm a poor college student who quickly spends the little bit of money I make on caffeine.

ha, ha...

actually depends how much space you need and all that but raspberry pi + USB flash drive should be pretty cheap. should be less than 50 EUR. while cloud server software is free. you would get more cloud space if you plugged an external drive to it
next option slightly more expencive is WD cloud disk (hard disk with built in "cloud server") for example. etc, etc...

buzzingrobot

September 30th, 2015, 02:55 PM

I presume that by this you mean a retail derivative operating system.

Yes. But, Red Hat and others abandoned the retail market, whether brick-and-mortar or online, because few people will buy what they can get for free.

The application market is different. But, few developers targeting the consumer market will decide resources spent on a Linux product will return more revenue than the same product for a Microsoft or Apple platform.

I really think the "Year of the Linux desktop" meme has devolved into clickbait territory. It was never entirely based in reality. Expecting one or another new Linux desktop -- or a new anything desktop -- to be so compelling that millions of people in a single year would take the risk of trashing their investment in Windows or OS X to switch seems naive. The desktop does not alter the fundamental capabilities of the platform it's used on, and Linux, Windows and OS X are essentially equivalent, as consumer products, from that aspect. People who are satisfied with the one they use are going to see little incentive to move to another.

Frogs Hair

September 30th, 2015, 03:23 PM

I really think the "Year of the Linux desktop" meme has devolved into clickbait territory.

I agree , it's has become an undefined catch phrase from the not too distant past. My Nieces and Nephews don't own and rarely use the desktop computers at home which belong to their parents. The younger ones don't seem to favour any particular brand of device at this point , but that will change I'm sure.

RichardET

September 30th, 2015, 03:37 PM

On the other hand, running applications on Linux is as unencumbered as running applications on Windows. You can write and sell applications and apply whatever licensing restrictions you want to your code. There is no roadblock to Linux applications other than Microsoft FUD. There is lots of commercial software available for Linux, some very expensive.

But I would think that to write closed applications in Linux, one would have to use a compiler such as clang, not gcc, otherwise the GPL still stands, right?

buzzingrobot

September 30th, 2015, 03:51 PM

I agree , it's has become an undefined catch phrase from the not too distant past. My Nieces and Nephews don't own and rarely use the desktop computers at home which belong to their parents. The younger ones don't seem to favour any particular brand of device at this point , but that will change I'm sure.

I have a 27-inch monitor on my desktop and a 9-inch tablet on the couch. With very few exceptions, I can do on the tablet what I do on the desktop. And it's a safer place to prop up a snack and coffee than the couch.,

I've always thought that many people associate Windows with an unpleasant work situation. I.e., they don't like their job, their job makes them use Windows, therefore Windows is part of something they don't like.

The Cog

September 30th, 2015, 03:53 PM

But I would think that to write closed applications in Linux, one would have to use a compiler such as clang, not gcc, otherwise the GPL still stands, right?

Wrong.
You don't have to observe MS Office's licence restrictions and pay Microsoft royalties for every letter you write using MS Word.
You don't have to pay DeWalt any fee every time you build a piece of furniture.
You don't have to open source every application you compile using gcc.

Mike_Walsh

September 30th, 2015, 03:54 PM

I'm starting to think there must be something wrong with me..! I'm the first to admit that I've always embraced new technology.....once it's had a chance to prove itself, of course. I've been using 'puters of one sort or another since the late 1970's, when I left school.

But to me, a computer is something you sit down at a desk to use. To me, a phone is a device to call people on.....and text. My phone has internet accessibilty, but it's NEVER used. I don't want to be continuously 'on-line', everywhere I go. I'd far sooner have a dozen or so REAL friends, than several thousand 'virtual' ones. When I go out and about, I want to be involved with what's going on around me.....not have my nose so deeply buried into a phone or tablet that I'm totally unaware of life passing me by.

I guess my generation is the one that grew up with the development of the 'computer age'.....but who can still remember life before it. The current generation have never known anything different. To them, using a connected 'device' comes as naturally as breathing.

Frankly, I couldn't give two hoots whether we ever get a 'year of the Linux desktop' or not. Who cares? Linux works for me on the level at which I use it....and that's good enough for me. It's a conscious decision on my part to use it, and I'm happy with that. But if I can help out others who wish to try Linux, and see if it works for them, I'm also good with that, too.

Footnote: I will agree with some of the other posters - PaulW2U for one. Yes, I use the cloud; but ONLY for backups, and to occasionly be able to access the odd file or folder which I want to use in more than one location. It'll get deleted once I'm finished with it. I much prefer local storage.....I'll never go exclusively 'all-cloud'.

Regards,

Mike. ;)

RichardET

September 30th, 2015, 04:16 PM

Wrong.
You don't have to observe MS Office's licence restrictions and pay Microsoft royalties for every letter you write using MS Word.
You don't have to pay DeWalt any fee every time you build a piece of furniture.
You don't have to open source every application you compile using gcc.

Actually I think the correct answer to my question, is, "it depends."

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/49906/why-is-freebsd-deprecating-gcc-in-favor-of-clang-llvm

CantankRus

September 30th, 2015, 04:47 PM

The "Year of the Linux desktop" was 2008 for me.
Don't give a rat's **** about anyone else. :p

PaulW2U

September 30th, 2015, 05:03 PM

I've been using 'puters of one sort or another since the late 1970's, when I left school.
We're obviously of a similar age :)

But to me, a computer is something you sit down at a desk to use. To me, a phone is a device to call people on.....and text.
In the main, I agree although I do like my mobile phone's ability to extend my PC's functionality by being able to log into it from wherever I may be.

Frankly, I couldn't give two hoots whether we ever get a 'year of the Linux desktop' or not. Who cares? Linux works for me on the level at which I use it....
Agreed. Talking to the younger people that I work with it's very obvious that the use of my phone, my desktop PC and my usage of the internet in general is nothing like theirs. I won't use Facebook or Twitter although I do have Google+ set up for a specific reason.

As for Linux and Ubuntu I don't even admit to using it. I was recently involved in a discussion with several of my work colleagues who insisted that they had downloaded and upgraded to Windows 7. They of course were referring to upgrading to Internet Explorer 7 (and later IE8) on out their of date PCs still running XP within a very large corporate environment. They couldn't understand the difference between "Windows" and "Internet Explorer." :confused:

So I doubt there will ever be a "Year of the Linux desktop" at least not for a while yet but who cares? I don't. I'll always say "Use whatever works for you."

SeijiSensei

September 30th, 2015, 05:08 PM

But to me, a computer is something you sit down at a desk to use. To me, a phone is a device to call people on.....and text. My phone has internet accessibilty, but it's NEVER used.
I'm 65, and I often use my phone for browsing and email when I'm not at home. Nearly all my same-aged friends do so as well, and most of them have no direct involvement with IT.

Linux had one chance to expand its share of the desktop marketplace when Vista was released. Instead people and organizations continued to use XP until Win7 came along.

Mike_Walsh

September 30th, 2015, 05:57 PM

I'm 65, and I often use my phone for browsing and email when I'm not at home. Nearly all my same-aged friends do so as well, and most of them have no direct involvement with IT.

Linux had one chance to expand its share of the desktop marketplace when Vista was released. Instead people and organizations continued to use XP until Win7 came along.

That's interesting, actually. Several of us quite candidly admit to being in the 'upper' age brackets. On the 'Puppy' Forums, they've had a long-running poll about what age brackets forum members fall into. There have been swings upward, as well as downward.....but on the whole, the most common age-range has averaged out as being the 51-60 bracket.

I get the impression that many of the 'older' guys (and gals) are those who probably got interested in Linux (whether Ubuntu, or Puppy, or whatever) right from its inception.....and by & large, have stuck with it. And don't get me wrong, SeijiSensei; many of those are quite happy to use their phones for 'connected' usage when out & about, too. It's just not for me. ! :lol:

I'll agree with you about Vista, mind.....the hash they made of incorporating DRM stuff into virtually every aspect of the OS was, I feel, what put so many people off it.

Each to their own.

Regards,

Mike. ;)

mystics

September 30th, 2015, 06:10 PM

ha, ha...

actually depends how much space you need and all that but raspberry pi + USB flash drive should be pretty cheap. should be less than 50 EUR. while cloud server software is free. you would get more cloud space if you plugged an external drive to it
next option slightly more expencive is WD cloud disk (hard disk with built in "cloud server") for example. etc, etc...

Honestly, I never actually thought about setting things up with Raspberry Pi and a USB. That's sort of odd since I've been trying to save a little money for another USB (since my really old 2GB USB is now being used for running Chromixium live) and have been looking at Raspberry Pi stuff a lot lately. Maybe I should think about making that a project once I have the money saved up. Thanks!

Welly Wu

September 30th, 2015, 11:07 PM

I think that the traditional desktop PC is almost dead or on life support in its current form factor except for content creators and PC gamers.

monkeybrain20122

September 30th, 2015, 11:22 PM

That's interesting, actually. Several of us quite candidly admit to being in the 'upper' age brackets. On the 'Puppy' Forums, they've had a long-running poll about what age brackets forum members fall into. There have been swings upward, as well as downward.....but on the whole, the most common age-range has averaged out as being the 51-60 bracket.

I get the impression that many of the 'older' guys (and gals) are those who probably got interested in Linux (whether Ubuntu, or Puppy, or whatever) right from its inception.....and by & large, have stuck with it. And don't get me wrong, SeijiSensei; many of those are quite happy to use their phones for 'connected' usage when out & about, too. It's just not for me. ! :lol:

I'll agree with you about Vista, mind.....the hash they made of incorporating DRM stuff into virtually every aspect of the OS was, I feel, what put so many people off it.

Each to their own.

Regards,

Mike. ;)

Actually, I am 37. Got into Ubuntu and Linux only 5 years ago. I don't even have a smart phone cos I am broke, instead of paying $200+(at least, can go up to $800) for a phone with limited capability I would rather pay a little more to get a decent laptop (A tablet is an even worse deal) I don't like to get locked into a plan because I plan to travel around once I get the cash. Plus data plans in this country are complete ripoffs so even my friends with smart phones only go online when there is wifi. Interestingly it is my dad (72 years old) who constantly pesters me to get a smart phone because he can't send me stuffs with whatsapp :)

Meanwhile I never own a desktop, always prefer laptops for the portability because I move often and I like to work in coffee shops,--but I saw a guy bringing his tower to a coffee shop the other day, no kidding.Besides, a desktop would take up too much space in my messy room. Laptops are a good balance for portability and power (smart phones and tablets are completely useless for my purposes. I want a general computing machine, not a locked down device just for consuming contents the big corps feed me) In fact few of my peers own a desktop, but everyone has a laptop. Most have mobile devices but not as a replacement for laptops.

Me think $ influences one's habits and attitudes towards gadgets more than age. I am extraordinarily cheap. :)

monkeybrain20122

October 1st, 2015, 12:47 AM

FOSS licensing requirements are an effective roadblock to the retail marketing of a Linux product. Why? Because the source will be available and it will be recompiled and the binaries made available, gratis, online..

Say you have a more permissive license, then someone comes along to make a product out of Linux and closes source it to make a lot of money. Is it still Linux? What good does it do to the Linux community and FOSS? Look at what Apple did with FreeBSD, does the popularity of OSX increase FreeBSD's adoption?

RichardET

October 1st, 2015, 01:36 AM

Welly Wu

October 1st, 2015, 01:47 AM

I've held this to myself privately for quite some time, but I want to share it with the members here.

The biggest problem with Linux is that someone else has to lose in order for it to win. It's a zero sum game where winner takes all and I mean by market share, revenues, profits, user base growth, etc. Linux is distinct in its advocacy and BSD users largely stopped trying to promote the various BSD distros beyond their own communities while Linux tries to get everybody to use it. So far, this has largely failed and Linux usage is slightly shrinking for the home consumer desktop market here in the United States of America. The other problem is that Linux folks are not willing to compromise and bend their principles and philosophies in order to make their software more popular. People like Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds along with Richard Cox among others make it very difficult to do business with Linux folks to further market adoption. It's too strict and tightly wound up with legal parameters that most people don't bother to use it.

If you want to use Linux, then fine. If you don't want to use Linux, then fine. If you want to use your PCs and software they way that they are currently running, then fine. I stopped championing Linux and I merely give it away and support other Linux users that can't afford a new PC. That's how I grow Linux in my local community.

buzzingrobot

October 1st, 2015, 02:19 AM

Say you have a more permissive license, then someone comes along to make a product out of Linux and closes source it to make a lot of money. Is it still Linux? What good does it do to the Linux community and FOSS? Look at what Apple did with FreeBSD, does the popularity of OSX increase FreeBSD's adoption?

I'm not sure I understand your point. Mine was that FOSS licenses require Linux distributions to make their source available. That means if I sell binaries of my Linux distribution, you can rebuild my source into an identical product and give it away. Historically, the abandonment of the retail Linux market by Red Hat, Suse and others was due to this.

Since people can't be exposed to Linux in the retail market, most won't be.

You can't relicense someone else's open code as your own closed code, at least not without the high risk of losing a lawsuit. Apple did not "close" BSD code. But, yes, Apple sales had no influence on BSD adoption, since they're two different products aiming at two very different markets. I've used both and they're nothing like each other. Expectations that one of the BSD's could ever be widely accepted as a consumer product are naive.

mystics

October 1st, 2015, 04:44 AM

If you want to use Linux, then fine. If you don't want to use Linux, then fine. If you want to use your PCs and software they way that they are currently running, then fine. I stopped championing Linux and I merely give it away and support other Linux users that can't afford a new PC. That's how I grow Linux in my local community.

I mostly agree, but I'm sort of in the middle. On the one hand, I know I became interested in Linux largely because people just talked about it and why it was so good. At the same time, though, I doubt I would have pushed towards it unless I was made more confident by professors and friends who all took the time to try to teach people Linux rather than simply talking about how great it was. Really, it was a combination of passion and helpfulness that helped me try out and ultimately come over to Linux. I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive.

What I think harms Linux's image is when people let that passion just drive them to hatred of the other OSs. Most people I know see Windows hatred and, at best, just shrug. I've had plenty of conversations where people showed excessive disdain for Linux largely because they felt that their enjoyment of Windows was under constant assault from all the Linux users they knew. I also know far more people that switched to OS X due to Windows hate than I do Linux. I know I didn't personally change to Linux because I hated what I already had. And ironically, the most passionate Linux users I know all also use Windows, OS X, and/or Chrome OS a lot. It's just that Linux is offering them something those three don't, and I know that's why I'm here.

But in the end, I don't think passion is the problem. I think it's misplaced passion that really just pushes people away. Because in the end, no one cares about the ethics, open source nature, or technological advantages of Linux. Sure, people will say they "love open source", but most of them will never look into it and contribute. They just like "openness" because that's the big buzzword today. But in the end, they care about the user experience, and if Linux can't offer that to them and/or no one is there to help them achieve it, they won't ditch Windows for it, no matter how much we throw hatred it at. On the flip side (and I just had one of these experiences today actually), if we can explain why we use Linux without going into hatred of the major OSs, people are far more likely to listen and take us seriously. That beats having them either wonder what we're on about (if they aren't technologically inclined) or laughing at us (if they are).

Personally, I too like letting people try it and helping them navigate the initial setup. I also enjoy showing off what I'm doing in it. Ultimately, doing this and having conversations about why I use Linux, from my experience, do a whole lot more than going on and on about hatred of Windows. Conversations that focus on love of Linux are also a lot more relaxed and enjoyable.

Basically, all of this is a very long-winded way of saying that I don't think we have to be afraid of "marketing" Linux, but I do agree that we sometimes misplace our passion and do more harm than good. But in the end, so long as people are happy with what they use and can get done what they need to get done, I'd say we're all winning, regardless of our OS of choice.

Welly Wu

October 1st, 2015, 05:08 AM

I think it will be fair to adopt a wait and see approach in the by the end of this year. Valve's Steam Machines are coming and it will be interesting to see how the PC gamer community with people like myself take to these new hardware products. Most people think of Linux as a computer and not necessarily as a gaming platform yet. Windows is for gaming and that's widely accepted.

Linux has been searching for a killer application for a very long period of time and if Valve can't do it with Steam Machines within the first three years after launch, then few others can offer a good reason for Windows and Mac customers to consider Linux unless their employer requires Linux training, IT certifications, and skill sets commensurate to higher paying and secure jobs.

Finally, someone has got to pay the money and collect the information and data about Linux usage and penetration and keep it up to date on a regular basis. Until then, the year of the Linux desktop can not be recorded and measured accurately on a timely basis.

mystics

October 1st, 2015, 05:22 AM

Oh yes, it will be interesting how Linux goes along with Steam OS. I know it has been generating interest in Linux among a lot of my friends who previously had no interest in Linux beyond Android, and it seems to be doing the same among a lot of gaming forums I frequent. And while I wouldn't say it is a guarantee Valve will get people to switch over to Linux, Valve does have a rabidly loyal fanbase that seems to follow them wherever they go. I guess we'll see if loyalty to them among PC gamers is something that will help give Linux a boost on the desktops.

mikodo

October 1st, 2015, 07:39 AM

I made an argument for suggesting a section in Ubuntu Forums, for PC Gaming.

Then looked, and saw there is one.

duh!

mastablasta

October 1st, 2015, 07:46 AM

I think it will be fair to adopt a wait and see approach in the by the end of this year. Valve's Steam Machines are coming and it will be interesting to see how the PC gamer community with people like myself take to these new hardware products. Most people think of Linux as a computer and not necessarily as a gaming platform yet. Windows is for gaming and that's widely accepted.
.
the machines have been coming for a while now (waiting for Godot?). and the issue is not just hardware drivers and support but also software. while games work on Linux and sometimes they work faster - do they have all features of directX that are available on windows?

further problem with steam OS - you can't just download it and install it on any PC. you can only get good performance on Linux compatible PC. the kind where for example drivers are still being made for (looking at you AMD!). + I am still not sure that going with Debian as base of SteamOS was a good idea (hardware wise and OS penetration wise)

Welly Wu

October 1st, 2015, 12:55 PM

Valve's delays are famously called Valve time. This is when the company specifically Gabe plans for the long term future of a product launch and development takes a long period of time with frequent delays and more hype and promises by Steam PC gamers in their community. For example, Steam machines were supposed to launch last year during the holiday shopping season and this year the HTC Vive virtual reality headset has been delayed until the first half of 2016.

However, I think that Steam machines are well poised to enter the market in November and there will be an initial gold rush boom with people rushing in to buy their own. SteamOS should have been based off of Ubuntu 64 bit LTS, but I understand that Valve is concerned about the future direction that Canonical is taking and they want a more conservative Debian distro as their base because it is easier to develop and support in light of Valve time. It makes better sense to go with Debian than Ubuntu because Canonical is going to shake things up in April 2018. This does not mean that Valve is suddenly going to abandon Ubuntu one day.

Finally, SteamOS + GNU/Linux PC games do indeed run up to four percent faster than Microsoft DirectX 11. What's more interesting is that Microsoft DirectX 12 will compete with Vulkan and the two share enough in common that porting over DirectX 12 PC games to Vulkan will not be insurmountable in the long term future. For me, Codeweavers CrossOver will support DirectX 11 by the end of this year which means the majority of PC games will just run especially from Steam and other PC gaming platforms. Microsoft Office 2013 will be supported by Codeweavers as well which is a big thing for me. DirectX 12 and Vulkan are optimized for my ZaReason Zeto desktop PC hardware so I should be able to see a big graphics performance boost across the board since my Titan X supports both when future PC games are released for the foreseeable future.

mastablasta

October 1st, 2015, 01:31 PM

like I said I would like to see it, but i think nothing major will happen with steam boxes.

directx9 has been supported for some time by Wine yet not all the windows games would run. some won't even install. steamboxes (at leats announced ones) are not really top of the line gaming machines, so any virtualisation would leave it's mark. a 500, 600, 800 EUR steambox can't really compare to gaming rig where CPU and GPU are twice that amount. I still wonder how they will make developers to make games working on them. expecially isnce hardware and all that is different. would games really work at ultra settings? or would they work at medium and then when they get patch at low. or something. I am not sure exactly how it all works these days.

Vulkan is not done yet. by the time it will be, we will have Dx14 or something.

Welly Wu

October 1st, 2015, 04:22 PM

It depends on which Steam machine you get. The Falcon Northwest Tiki is a high end Steam machine and it is comparable to my ZaReason Zeto except it's thinner and it is very expensive. There is no need for virtualization with Steam machines. I think it will remain to be seen if they are steady sellers and they become popular or not over the next few years. If so, then Valve can have a hit on its hands and it will push more game developers to target SteamOS in the future. Vulkan looks interesting, but I'm more concerned with DirectX 11 support coming later this year.

Geoffrey_Arndt

October 2nd, 2015, 04:18 AM

So much of the demand and market for "computing devices" (all form factors) depend on the user "use cases" AND a few external factors.

The macro use case for traditional PC's, servers, and 3 classes of mainframes is not going away - - it is actually increasing. Use of tablets, phone, etc. as a "replacement" for existing infrastructure is a total non-starter. 90% + of the work being done requires full use of multiple screens, high end processors, fast-reliable local and network storage & retrieval. Tablets and phones (with a few exceptions) are poorly designed and equipped to take on these responsibilities. I don't know of a single US corporation or government agency that has replaced even 10% of it's traditional hardware with mobile hardware. Tablet sales will actually (for the first time) decline in 2016 (not just trend down, but decline in year/year volume).

For the consumer use cases (home, education, gaming, etc.), the situation is different. Even so, my tablets and phones have in no way replaced my PC's or the need for those devices. My preferred tablet now (is a Kindle black/white reader) - - a perfect use case. My Samsung & Acer Tablets only see occasional use. Am getting ready to contribute my Toshiba Thrive to the local Goodwill . . . what a piece of "crud" that was (with equally poor support from Toshiba).

And to top things off, the number one and two technology growth countries (China & India) are putting laws and policies into effect (e.g., external factors) that will ultimately limit the reach of both Apple and MS . . . (within the next decade).

yoshii

October 5th, 2015, 06:21 AM

mystics

October 5th, 2015, 01:43 PM

Anybody who tells you that local storage isn't needed either works for the Internet Service Providers or has never used a Digital Audio Workstation and is clearly not a media content creator.
People who create and modify video, audio, and images like to have their own files where they can get to them and where they can OWN them.

I know very few people (i.e. no one) that treats cloud storage as an exclusive storage option. I barely even see companies treating it as such. Just look at a lot of Windows 10 computers. They often come with 500 GB to 1 TB hard drives. The lowest are often in the 128 GB range (though there are some cheap 64 GB options) but often come with relatively expensive SSDs. Apple tends to operate in these ranges with its various computers. The closest we really come to exclusive cloud storage is Chrome OS, which often comes on computers with around 16-32 GB and 100 GB of free cloud storage (for two years), but all of those are low-end computers that aren't even designed to handle the tasks that would cause us to waste a lot of storage space. So even if companies are trying to push cloud-only storage, they're doing a really bad job at setting up their hardware to support it. Why would I only use the cloud when I have 1 TB of local storage space?

Now, what I do see others (and myself) wanting cloud storage for is things like collaboration, file sharing, mobility, backing up non-critical files, and, yes, even freeing up space on limited-storage devices like phones that get clogged up with pictures. It's not the single solution, and no one I know treats it as such. It is one solution that offers benefits that local storage doesn't offer, and I'm glad people get the choice to use such storage if it better suits their purposes for any given task.

The "cloud" is just another marketing scheme devised to separate people from their own possessions in order to make money off of the "services" allowing them access to stuff they should've already had access to.

Theoretically, it can be used for that. In practice, I doubt any company would act on such a notion. There's already a few big players in the market, and some of them rely on desirable cloud storage options to sell their other products. Maliciously stripping people of ownership is sure to make any of these companies an easy target for the other big players to take advantage of.

This is also hardly a new accusation, and plenty of companies have been taking steps to address them. This includes placing protections for people who can no longer pay and addressing ownership concerns in their policies. Is any of this as safe as running our own servers? No, but I think the risk here is reasonably minimal.

forrestcupp

October 5th, 2015, 02:43 PM

The problem with SteamOS, Steam for Linux, and Steamboxes is that they only run Steam games that are developed for Linux. And if you stream a game from another Windows PC, you still have to have Windows to do it. Now I know that Valve is going to be pushing Linux versions of a lot of games because they have a big investment in all of this. But the thing that sucks is that there are a lot of big games that aren't Steam based, and we'll never be able to play those. EA has Origin. But what really sucks, in my opinion, is that Ubisoft is shifting everything toward Uplay. Even if you buy a Ubisoft game in Steam, it just launches the Uplay client now. So all of the EAs, Ubisofts, and other game companies that do their own thing don't have the same motive to develop Linux games that Valve does.

As for the OP, I agree that there will never be a Linux "Year of the Desktop." I don't agree that the desktop is going anywhere, though. There will always be plenty of things that Chromebooks and tablets will never be able to do. There will always be a place for the desktop. That's exactly why Microsoft had to backtrack and give us Windows 10 with a sane desktop that doesn't feel like a hacked-in Frankenstein.

But even though I know there will never be a Linux Year of the Desktop, I'm not just fine with that. I'm stuck using Windows when I'd rather be using Linux, because Linux doesn't get mainstream software support. It's nobody's fault; it's just the nature of the beast. But it doesn't mean I like it. Linux is a much better OS all around, but I have to use what my software supports.