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 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

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...

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).