Linux ready for desktop?

[poofyhairguy]

Quote from a recent interview with Mandriva Linux Founder Gael Duval in regards to the question " I've seen you say recently that Linux was ready for the business desktop, but not for the home desktop. What's still lacking and when do you think we'll be ready?"


OK, I can try to explain my point of view: "is Linux ready for the home desktop?" The question is ambiguous actually!

Literally, the question itself means: "is the Linux system (technically) capable of handling home applications and work?". Obviously, the answer is yes! Linux is a very advanced OS, it's easy to install, it supports most of existing hardwares, it provides very neat desktop environments etc. Everybody can easily switch from Windows to Linux, it's not like switching from Windows to a mainframe system for instance, or to DOS...

Now, I also have my own interpretation of the question "is Linux ready for the home desktop?" ... For me it means: "Can Windows users massively adopt Linux instead of Windows (and stop using Windows)?". Obviously, the answer is no!

People who claim that Linux is 100% ready to replace Windows just don't know what they are talking about, or are just liars :) I've been converting people to Linux for years, and even now, I wouldn't recommend it to everybody for a simple reason: not enough common commercial applications or FOSS equivalents are available yet.

Let's take a simple example: do you think a graphics designer could use Linux exclusively for common design work? I don't think so. Take the example of most popular icons in Linux, most of them have been designed under... Adobe Illustrator! It's possible to find similar examples in several areas, and there is also the games issue.

As a result, I think that Linux is ready to replace Windows if you have a "basic" desktop use of it, for instance for Office/Internet and Multimedia.

Anyway, I think that we are getting closer and closer to the "ignition point". It's certainly only a matter of a few software publishers who will start to release their applications to Linux, and for instance the recent release of Acrobat Reader 7.0 by Adobe is an excellent sign of hope.

The best we can do to make this adoption go faster is to grow the Linux userbase so it becomes a market that traditional software can't ignore anymore.


http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/t319422.html

I personally believe that he has a good point- hardware and software incompatibilities are the biggest hindrance to widespread Linux desktop adoption. But I don't believe that one day non OSS friendly hardware and software makers will "wake up;" I think that this will stop being a problem because of reverse engineering -such as WINE to make Adobe stuff run and NDISwrapper to get wireless cards to work.

What do you think?

(please don't troll about Mandriva VS Ubuntu)

[23meg]

i think the biggest obstacle in front of widespread linux adoption is public relations / advertising. even if the day comes when linux is as easy to install as windows, can handle every common file format by default without effort on the user's part, etc, linux still won't "take over the desktop" if it isn't properly advocated. because the proprietary software world has multi million dollar advertising budgets, which they employ to brainwash millions into thinking that windows is the only operating system available for the x86 platform, and that their software is the only one that exists. so much that most total newbies to computing today don't know what an operating system is; they just know that when they hit the power button of their computer, something called "windows" loads up and lets them do their work.

i agree with you in that the "big boys" of the proprietary software world will not "wake up" one day and launch linux application lines. they've all signed the TCPA (http://www.againsttcpa.com) with microsoft, and have much more evil agendas regarding open source. i also agree that their absence isn't a problem, since linux desktop apps are maturing exponentially in both quality and quantity, and the spreading of user friendly distros such as ubuntu are going to fuel this.

[az]

"ready for the deaktop" can mean many things. It is subjective. Ubuntu is ready for many people. It is accelerating. I have seen the progress get faster and faster over the past few years.

I do not think it will stop. I do not think that there is a yardstick that measures when something is ready for the desktop...

[poofyhairguy]

I do not think that there is a yardstick that measures when something is ready for the desktop...

I agree to a point. I mean, I get everything I want out of Linux for my desktop right now. Out of the categories, I would say I fall into the category of an "office desktop" (needs office suite, web browser, decent GUI so its easy to do each of those things) which is an area where Linux currently does well.

But there are a lot of desktops Linux won't be on. Print and web publishers don't use Linux because they need photoshop (or something very close like OpenOffice is for Office), so Linux isn't ready for the "designer's desktop." (almost is) Also hardcore gamers won't have Linux on the desktop as the ports are few and cedega isn't the easiest to use. There are many kinds of desktops (species of desktops if you will) that Linux currently "isn't ready for."

I believe that the answer to the question ("when is Linux ready for the desktop") can be gained when 90% or more of these individual species of desktops are well served in Linux.

[KiwiNZ]

I dont like these " Is Linux ready for the desktop" debates. To me the question should be .. Is Linux ready for my desktop? and only the individual can answer that .

[poofyhairguy]

I dont like these " Is Linux ready for the desktop" debates.

Me neither, I would prefer a sensible dialog without tons of ancedotal evidence.

For instance, what does is mean to ask "Is Linux ready for the desktop?"

Your answer is below.


To me the question should be .. Is Linux ready for my desktop? and only the individual can answer that .

Even though only individuals can choose what OS they want on their personal machines, many individuals and companies have such similar needs when it comes to a desktop OS that it is possible to group together cases of desktops on which Linux can succeed (such as a casual home user) to where it can only fail (a company that relies on one XP app that WINE won't run). Therefore the question becomes "Is Linux ready for the most common cases of desktop use?"

EDIT: I mean not to offend or troll with this thread. I just wanted a good discussion of Linux's current strengths and weaknesses on the many kinds of desktops, and a little bit of brainstorming of how Linux can overcome the weaknesses. If any mod thinks that my lofty goals for this thread are foolhardy, then let that mod lock this thread expecting no anger on my part...

[MetalMusicAddict]

Honestly poofyhairguy I think one of its strengths is its biggiest weakness. Being open source. On one hand its good because anyone can come in and make it better. But... better for one person might be better for another.

Seems like thats when "Forking" comes in. It seems to be going on with The GIMP and GIMPshop. Or XMMS and BMP.

Also when "Forking" happens it seems often not to be well liked by the original core project members.

Good can come from forking (competition) but seems to make projects lose focus sometimes.

All of this is just IMHO. I will never claim to be a authority. No matter how much I know. ;)

[KiwiNZ]

Me neither, I would prefer a sensible dialog without tons of ancedotal evidence.

For instance, what does is mean to ask "Is Linux ready for the desktop?"

Your answer is below.



Even though only individuals can choose what OS they want on their personal machines, many individuals and companies have such similar needs when it comes to a desktop OS that it is possible to group together cases of desktops on which Linux can succeed (such as a casual home user) to where it can only fail (a company that relies on one XP app that WINE won't run). Therefore the question becomes "Is Linux ready for the most common cases of desktop use?"

EDIT: I mean not to offend or troll with this thread. I just wanted a good discussion of Linux's current strengths and weaknesses on the many kinds of desktops, and a little bit of brainstorming of how Linux can overcome the weaknesses. If any mod thinks that my lofty goals for this thread are foolhardy, then let that mod lock this thread expecting no anger on my part...

heck no dont get me wrong I wasnt saying your thread I hate I saying that the arguement its self I hate . And when I say hate I mean the dabate should be Is Linux ready for my desktop. And when I say my desktop that can be an individual my or a collective my , being a corprorate etc.

My answer still applies then , that it is the individual be it singular or collective that can decide if Linux is ready for them .

[Jspired]

I agree in that the question proposed should be: "Is Linux ready for my desktop. I run Linux both at home and work and for me, it's fantastic. It's been harder to try and help family members switch over..

[RastaMahata]

"ready for the deaktop" can mean many things. It is subjective. Ubuntu is ready for many people. It is accelerating. I have seen the progress get faster and faster over the past few years.

I do not think it will stop. I do not think that there is a yardstick that measures when something is ready for the desktop...I remember the days when I had to use DOS and win 3.11 was the new hotness, and getting a mouse was "expensive".

Back then, no one complained about the appareance of the system. Everything was fast, and if you needed to do something, hey, there was quattro pro :P

Win 3.11 came in, the mouse came in, multimedia packages that came with audio, speakers, and even a cd rom unit (if you were lucky and had the money). Animations and sound were the new hype...

If you dont see where this is going... :P

Now let's say "what would have users thought if people started complaining about Windows 3.11 not being ready for the desktop". Hey, for a start, you had no games (except for Doom 2 and others like lemmings and commander keen. Dont complain, we have Doom 3), the desktop was plain ugly, hard to handle enviroment, etc. But what did it have? It was innovative (yes, MS copied mac, but mac copied xerox first ;)).

I think the question should not be asked to the end users in the first place. This kind of questions sound like coming from the president of a company making beta versions of a product to be released to the market: "Hey, is the product ready for the desktop?" "Well, not yet... We are waiting for developers to port their games and applications".

The OSs back in the days were original, innovative. MacOSX is so innovative, that many people switch for the looks of it (when they have a huge wallet).

I think Linux will gain users desktop market when it creates:
Easy to install OS (I dont care how pro it is, a graphical installation system these days is a _requirement_)
Killer app(s) (No, apache just wont do it for the desktop ;)). Something that runs "only on linux".
Nice looking OS. Eyecandy is a +.
and some other things that I forgot while writing this.

We shouldnt compare to other Operating Systems. We should try to catch them. I think we should leap forward and attract users first. Only then companies will start porting things. (It's only my opinion).

(Please, forgive my typos).

[poofyhairguy]

I think Linux will gain users desktop market when it creates:
Easy to install OS (I dont care how pro it is, a graphical installation system these days is a _requirement_)
Killer app(s) (No, apache just wont do it for the desktop ;)). Something that runs "only on linux".
Nice looking OS. Eyecandy is a +.
and some other things that I forgot while writing this.


Honestly I don't think either one of these is a problem. You want all this buy SUSE 9.3- its clean looking, has a great Linux specific app (beagle), and installs with a graphical installer. But since it exists that must mean that the desktop market is appeased right?

Not quite.

I've been thinking about it alot, and the biggest hinderances to any of the desktop species not currently satisfied by Linux comes down to two things:

1. Hardware that does not work with Linux.

2. Software that does not work with Linux.

Personally I believe the fact that you can't go buy any new wireless card (I don't think there is a single open 802.11g card but I might be wrong) at the store and expect it to work without commandline NDISwrapper hacks is a bigger problem then a lack of a killer application or eye candy (no offense to your ideas though, each to his own).

I think both of these problems can be overcome by reverse engineering (like WINE) and (just as important) creation of GUI tools that control these accomplishments. But is that because I don't see another big hinderance to desktop adoption?

[Camo R]

Linux has no compelling feature, compare it with OSX which shows that proven security (BSD base) and eye-candy (quartz) go hand in hand.
And i don't agree with linux trying to "keep up" with the big boys, linux has to stop being the hunter and become the hunted.
Apple sells security and eye-candy with above average hardware support,
MS sells office, gaming, immeasurable CHEAP hardware support,
Linux is still trying to catch up.

If linux had come up with the dock, cleartype, widgets, office or a free more powerful alternative to photoshop. then this wouldn't be an issue.

[nocturn]

One point we are overlooking.

I found out over the years that most people (non IT) do not know the difference between hardware and software. Only a few knew you could replace Windows with something else!

The key to Linux adoption for end users is the availability of pre-installed systems.
Preferably offered like this:

Laptop, AMD Sempron, 512M, DVD writer
Software: Ubuntu Linux, OpenOffice, Gimp and thousands of others - 600 €
Software: WinXP home, Office XP - 1100 €

That would really help a lot.
I think it is a myth that people install windows themselves, judging from my surroundings about 2-5% of end users do that.

[Stormy Eyes]

Oh goddess, not this argument again. Each individual has to decide for himself whether Linux is "ready" for his desktop. I decided it was good enough for me back in 1999. If it's not good enough for J. Random User, that's his decision. I think it's enough to focus on making good, secure software and spreading the word that users have a choice. Any marketing beyond "you don't have to use Windows" is likely to backfire, I think.

[Stormy Eyes]

I think it is a myth that people install windows themselves, judging from my surroundings about 2-5% of end users do that.

I know it's a myth. Who would install Windows, with all the media hype concerning its defects, if they had to do it themselves? Here in the US, you can get low-end PCs pre-loaded with Linspire (feel free to jeer) from both Wal-Mart and TigerDirect.

[poofyhairguy]

The key to Linux adoption for end users is the availability of pre-installed systems.



Good point. Maybe to some people, Linux "being ready for the desktop" means that it ships as the default OS in the big PC makers' boxes (Dell, HP, Sony, eMachine, etc.)

I often compare the work I have to do to get an Ubuntu install the way most people want it (the abilty to use java programs, open media with non OSS codecs, the ability to burn mp3 cds, etc.) to be the same as what Dell does for the customers it ships a PC too.

Currently you CAN get Linux as the default on a new computer, but unfortunately it only comes on the cheapest computers at Wal-Mart. I think that this is bad because it associates Linux with cheap crap. I bet most these computers have a bootleg copy on windows on them in a week anyway.

So on this front, it about getting Linux as the default on popular, name brand computers.

[poofyhairguy]

Oh goddess, not this argument again. Each individual has to decide for himself whether Linux is "ready" for his desktop. I decided it was good enough for me back in 1999. If it's not good enough for J. Random User, that's his decision.

I don't think every case is different. There are many species of desktops that can be grouped together because their needs are very similiar. Office's Desktops, a Scientists' Desktops, a Family PC Desktop, a Designer's Desktop, a Gamer's Desktop, a Retail Store's Desktop, a Public School's desktop.

Each one of these is very similiar, and each have distinct needs (even though sometimes these needs can overlap).

I thinks its useful to identify the different kinds of desktops, determine which ones have their needs currently met by Linux and which ones don't. This can help two things:

1. Linux lovers that want to spread their software can recognize what sort of desktop their friends/family/coworker/employer has and can quickly figure out if Linux should be mentioned as an alternative.

For example, lets say I go over to my friend's house, a married couple- Jill and Jack- with a 6 year old kid. I notice that each family member has their own computer, and each one fits into a certain desktop species. Based on this I can know where to advise them to try Linux. Lets say Jack is a Web Designer, and uses Photoshop all day on his computer. I won't advise him to try Linux, because I realize that his desktop species is not served well by Linux. But his wife uses her computer just for web browsing and creating office documents (in MS Works no less, because Office is too expensive). I mentally plug her into the "Office Desktop" -one that I know is served well by Linux- and proceed to give her advice about trying Ubuntu. Then I notice their child just uses his computer for education games. I recognize this is the same as a School's desktop ( I personally don't know if such a desktop is well served by Linux. Please someone enlighten met) and I give advice accordingly.

This keeps Linux fans from pushing their favorite OS were it is not wanted.

2. Someone hears about Linux and wants to try it. But they don't know if it can fit their needs. Rather than wasting tons of time trying and failing (or succeeding), the person can find what desktop species fits them best and then get an honest evaluation of how well their needs are served.


If everyone who used a computer had a unique need for it, then Dell couldn't get away with selling thousands of units of a certain model of PC every year.

The " each desktop is different" answer is only useful if you wish to defuse the subject to avoid potential trolling. I think its not a good answer personally.

[Spoofhound]

It strikes me that Linux is in its own way creating some of its own problems. There are no doubt similar threads to this in Suse, mandriva, debian, etc, forums. Part of the issue is the sheer fragmentation of the Linux distros

Its not just a question of choosing between Windows and Linux, the choice is far more complicated that that - too complicated for most users. Part of any future success of Linux will be the emergence of one or two clearly recognised "leaders" among the distros (what "leadership" means is a whole other discussion). If a choose a particular distro now will it be around next year, or will I need a new desktop environment? Most users do not want to think about this. (Increasing) fragmentation won't make it easier and this appears to be happening.

[KiwiNZ]

It strikes me that Linux is in its own way creating some of its own problems. There are no doubt similar threads to this in Suse, mandriva, debian, etc, forums. Part of the issue is the sheer fragmentation of the Linux distros

Its not just a question of choosing between Windows and Linux, the choice is far more complicated that that - too complicated for most users. Part of any future success of Linux will be the emergence of one or two clearly recognised "leaders" among the distros (what "leadership" means is a whole other discussion). If a choose a particular distro now will it be around next year, or will I need a new desktop environment? Most users do not want to think about this. (Increasing) fragmentation won't make it easier and this appears to be happening.

I dont believe its emergence of a leader is the answer , for many years Linux had a clear leader , that is Redhat and a stallwart since 1993 ,that is Slackware. The main hinderence is a Catch 22 situation . Games and many third party app producers like Adobe dont write for Linux because the market share is not big enough to justify the cost . And the reason Linux is not big enough is it doesnt have these apps or games , and there is the catch 22.

To get the market share Linux needs to look towards the Corporates and the Government . The more of those that convert the faster the market share grows. Redhat I believe is one of the distros that has the model to do this along with Novell , Suse and now Mandriva.
Ubuntu may well have to look for a stable Enterprise edition with a much longer life cycle .

That doesnt mean that those will be the market leader as such , but they can provide the firm foundation to allow the other Distros to "lead" the innovation.

[Spoofhound]

To get the market share Linux needs to look towards the Corporates and the Government . The more of those that convert the faster the market share grows. Redhat I believe is one of the distros that has the model to do this along with Novell , Suse and now Mandriva.
Ubuntu may well have to look for a stable Enterprise edition with a much longer life cycle .

True, corporate acceptance will be vital to establish a foundation and this is growing, even at desktop level. But I don't think it will be enough to build widespread success in the consumer desktop market - it might even have a detrimental effect of putting Linux in the "only for enterprise" category.

Building the image at consumer level will be difficult - having it pre-installed on machines has already been mentioned in this thread. However, this is unlikely to happen to a large extent due to the issues you've mentioned. But even if pc-makers are not willing to pre-install linux, there is no reason that live cds cannot be shipped with windows machines (other than some arm twisting by the industry establishment).

I personally believe that the live-cds are underrated and could be much more widely positioned as a no-risk introduction to the world of Linux. It would certainly make a change from the mostly useless "free" software that comes with many new machines. taking steps like this to eliminate consumer doubts and pre-conceptions will complement the success at enterprise level. Enterprise success on its own will not be enough

[poofyhairguy]

It strikes me that Linux is in its own way creating some of its own problems. There are no doubt similar threads to this in Suse, mandriva, debian, etc, forums. Part of the issue is the sheer fragmentation of the Linux distros

Thats kinda a strawman. I mean, any drivers that will work with Linux that are done right (aka not in a Fedora RPM file) with work with any of the many distros (ask Nvidia about that.) Plus any app. that is done right can work with any distro (as Crossover Office about that).

Fragmentation is just an excuse that is made by those that don't want to put forth the effort to do it right (like ATI and their damn rpm files). In reality fragmentation is a strength because it gives Linux users something they don't have on the other side- choice.

[MetalMusicAddict]

In reality fragmentation is a strength because it gives Linux users something they don't have on the other side- choice.
I see where Spoofhound is comming from though. Too many choices can be very off-putting for new users. I know I was for awhile. I tried different distros for years but could never settle for one because of all the different ways of doing things. Too many choices. I often wonder if the Linux community as a whole could ever collaborate on a "Official" or "Whatever-you-wanna-call-it" version of linux. So far though I think Ubuntu has struck a good balance.

[nocturn]

Currently you CAN get Linux as the default on a new computer, but unfortunately it only comes on the cheapest computers at Wal-Mart. I think that this is bad because it associates Linux with cheap crap. I bet most these computers have a bootleg copy on windows on them in a week anyway.


Yes, but that is only on the US market. Here in the EU and specificly Belgium it is rare to non existant.

The problem is even worse with Laptops (which I'm looking to buy between now and 6 months), I can't find one without WinXP on it, let alone Linux preinstalled.

[poofyhairguy]

The problem is even worse with Laptops (which I'm looking to buy between now and 6 months), I can't find one without WinXP on it, let alone Linux preinstalled.

Breezy is focusing on Laptop support and HP plans to sell a laptop made for Ubuntu.

[nocturn]

I often wonder if the Linux community as a whole could ever collaborate on a "Official" or "Whatever-you-wanna-call-it" version of linux. So far though I think Ubuntu has struck a good balance.

This is a goal for a business model, not a technical one. Actually, diversity is good.
Not only does it offer specialized support for specific problems (like GeexBox for multimedia), it adds some security. If for example a bug is found in SendMail, only the distros with sendmail are vulnerable. Monoculture is bad form a security POV.

As long as there is a good focus on interoperability, then Linux diversity is a strength, not a weakness.

[TravisNewman]

Well, it's been said, but not quite like this, so here goes:

NOTHING is ready for the desktop, assuming that "the desktop" is an all-encompassing abstract concept for anyone's desktop. I've said it before, elsewhere-- WINDOWS isn't ready for the desktop, they just happen to be all over it already so that no others can come. Windows is most DEFINITELY not ready for my desktop. Ubuntu isn't ready for my mom's desktop. OSX isn't ready for my brother-in-law's desktop (because he simply hates the way mac does things). Nobody can claim to be ready for "the desktop, " though many will. It implies way too much to be true.

[poofyhairguy]

Good point. I like that answer the best for a generalizing answer. Windows isn't ready for the desktop (running adware on any random Window user's computer will tell you that).


. Ubuntu isn't ready for my mom's desktop.



Not to say you are wrong....but why? Is she a Mac addict (and won't take less eyecandy)? Does she play shockwave games all day? Does she use photoshop or CAD?