 |
Search |
|
|
|
|
Classic 2 Guys |
|
10 Random Stories:
|
|
|
|
Desktop Linux, Why It Will Never Happen |
|
 I have read a lot of articles lately about how now is the time for Linux to make a big push in hopes of gaining marketshare from MS in the all important "Desktop Segment". Not the server segment, which Linux owns, but the desktop segement, which Linux, er, uh, sees, but that's about all. You see, Linux needs to take a long look at Apple and say "you know, we need to try and be like that." Until that happens, don't look for a big Linux-at-home trend. But you say, what prevents Linux from storming the desktop? Two key issues. What are they? Glad you asked:
Big Freaking Issue #1
Ignorance
Here is the problem. Can your average Linux Geek explain (in 3 sentences or less to each query) to your average consumer the following questions:
1. What is Linux?
2. Whats a "distro"?
3. What's a RedHat and why is it better than a Gentoo?
4. Whats the difference between Gnome and KDE? Are they both types of Linux? If so which is better?
5. I keep hearing some people tell me that Linux is free, but others tell me its not free - which is it?
6. Will it work with all of my MS files, music, pics, apps, etc.?
7. Where do I go if I need help?
Now, if you know nothing about Linux these are all valid questions. And even if you know quite a bit about Linux you might still be hard pressed to answer each of these questions in a clear and concise way.
So, the first obstacle to widespread Linux adoption is ignorance. People just don't know. Surprisingly, this is the easiest of the problems to solve. In fact, all you have to do is advertise. Wow, wasn't that simple? Having solved that problem lets go onto the BIG one.
Big Freaking Issue #2
The Linux Paradigm
The interface for every Linux distro without exception sucks. Yes, quite simply it sucks. Hard. Way hard.
This is where Linux's greatest asset becomes its biggest liability. Linux has too many features. There are just way too many things that you can do/modify/tweak/jerk with/break/delete/screw-up etc. The average person can't handle that much complexity.
Ok, so things are complex. No prob, we just have to make it simpler, right? Easier said than done. Here is what needs to be done to give Linux a chance on the desktop:
Pay For It - I know this is heresy to all of you Linux guys out there but sooner or later every Linux company out there is going to realize that they either need to make money or pack up and go home. Right now other companies that make money (i.e. IBM) are propping up Linux as a whole. If IBM and the rest ever decide to make their own Linux variant and cut funding for the rest, a whole lot of people are going to be scrambling.
You see, money is the key here. With money you can hire developers (yes developers, not people who work whenever they feel like it). With money, people can be hired to do research, or work on the interface or do marketing or any one of a hundred other tasks that successful companies do. Without money you have a loose association of geeks who code whenever they feel like it.
And don't get me wrong, that has worked up until now. But things are changing. People are suddenly talking about moving to the desktop. Becoming mainstream. That's great, but you need money to make it happen. So, all of you Linux distros out there need to pay attention. First you need to charge for your product. Then you need to deliver a product that was worth the money people paid for it.
Interface - It is here that Linux falls the hardest. Every Linux interface creator needs to go out and buy a copy of OS X and play with it for a month. Then, when they are done, they need to go home and try and make Linux feel and act like OS X. Apple has the best interface out there and that's who Linux needs to be copying, or at least trying to copy.
Those programmers who create the interface need to remember KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. Your average consumer isn't going to want to do 90% of the things Linux will let them do. I know you love it, but they don't care - get over it. Also, stop the engineers from designing the interface. As a rule engineers suck at stuff like that. Hire a graphics designer or an artist, someone, anyone but an engineer. Because do you know what you get when you have an engineer design an operating system? Unix. Now, I love Unix, but lets not pretend that Unix is for everyone.
So, windows all have to look the same, installers all have to act the same, the preferences should be in the same spot for each application, fonts need to be standardized, and the list goes on. See how daunting this could be?
Weeding of the Pack
Now, this may actually be the hardest of them all to achieve. Ideally the following would occur. First, we need to pick one, either one it doesn't matter but someone needs to pick Gnome or KDE and say "thats it, thats the one we are going to use, period." Which ever one it is I don't care but one and ONLY one needs to emerge as the winner. Then everyone can concentrate on improving just that one desktop manager. Thats the first step and boy wasn't that a scary one?
Next, it gets even worse. All of the 3,000+ distros out there need to be consolidated into 2, maybe 3 distros. Lets just say RedHat, Knoppix and Gentoo are the three finalists ok? So, all of the other distros have either gone out of business, merged with one of the three or hold less than 5% of the Linux market. With me so far?
Now, lets look at what we have shall we? We have 3 main players using one desktop manager who all charge for their product. A steady revenue stream is coming in, full time developers are working to make Linux better, easier to use and more powerful and life is good. Now, ideally, these three players are going to work really hard to make sure that everybody's apps works with everyone else's distro. Ok? See where I am going with this? They all work to make sure that everything is as easy to use as possible. In this way they have a chance at getting a serious amount of people to switch to Linux.
So, lets review shall we? We need money, uniform design and less players in the field. Maybe, just maybe, if this happened then Adobe and Macromedia and the rest would start porting their programs over to Linux. Then you can give people a reason to switch. Otherwise you are just wasting their time. |
|
June 1 2005, 11:31 AM EDT, by |
Comments:
|
| nhmacusr |
6/1/05, 12:48 PM EDT |
Pretty good opinion piece there jstoup. I think your last paragraph pretty much sums up the whole game. It is like a dog chasing its tail. There are no main stream desktop apps for Linux because it lacks market share. They will only increase market share if they get more mainstream desktop apps. This circle is going to go on forever.
Most of the major distrobutions already have full time developers working on it. Suse/Novell, Redhat, Mandrake (or whatever they are calling themselves today), etc. They also, for hte most part, charge for their distrobutions. I don't think that throwing more money will help. Look where that has gotten Sun. I am pretty sure they had full time developers on their commercial Linux distro and it is sitting dead in the water, for the most part. If IBM packed up and went home, there would be a ripple in the pond, but no boats would sink. Linux development was going along just fine before IBM caught wind and it would continue without them as well (I am not trying to say here that IBM is not helping. They are. They have made very significant contributions, but those contributions would have come from somewhere else too).
I am not sure where you are going with the statement about every distro's apps working with every other distro's. They all do. They don't have common package managers at times, but that is a different argument.
They definately need a consensus on where things go. It does irritate me that I have to go hunting for things because no two distros put things in the same place. Well, some things are, but it seems like everything I ever have to go looking for is in a different place.
|
| Ains |
6/1/05, 4:52 PM EDT |
Nice piece, I actually learned something from it. Why did I bother go to school today? I could have just stayed home and read old 2guys articles I ignored when they were originally published, and learned a lot more. And at the same time, I'd be distancing myself from the retarded peecees lining the halls of my school. hmmm...
|
| schizzylogic |
6/2/05, 4:26 AM EDT |
More so than Linux having a small market share, I believe the "major" software companies don't release Linux versions because of the fact that the user experience still pretty much sucks.
If the developers of Linux want to keep it "their" operating system, then don't try and pretend it's for everyone. Accept it for what it is or get off your asses, get together and unify the damned thing already. For christ's sake, Apple put a beautiful interface over Unix, why can't a million geeks? And how about some originality? Why oh why does everything (other than OS X) have to look like Windows? I mean honestly, if it looks like Windows and is a pain to use, why not just use Windows?
The bigger question, "Why is Linux even considered anymore?" Just get OS X already and shut up. Yeah, Apple really needs a cocoa-only version of OS X for x86.
|
| chriscja |
6/2/05, 4:59 AM EDT |
Linux is not user friendly you have to make icons from scratch no wonder its not popular with windows users.
|
| nada |
6/2/05, 7:25 AM EDT |
Along the years, I have moved to Linux (over M$FT or Unixes) wherever i could but only on the server side because i never could adapt to the Linuxes desktops; i don't have enough time and they are not "friendly" enough.
I prefer OS/X over all and still prefer Microsoft over any Linux desktop (Sorry !).
A 3rd player with a competent desktop as suggested would be perfect but i would prefer we not lose the enthusiasm of "...million geeks working when they want...".
|
| HTML Samurai |
6/2/05, 11:00 AM EDT |
First off, "Linux" is not a desktop OS that one would install on a 10-year-old PC. Fedora (the new "free" version of Red Hat), however, is a development distro built on the Linux kernel. It has a desktop and a lot of apps that could easily help most end users replace Windows. My parents (completely computer illiterates) are running Fedora on their home PC. They browse the web, send and receive e-mail, IM, and even use Open Office. They did not install it themselves, nor could they -- same with Windows. They did not have money in their limited budget to buy a Mac, although I am going to push them into getting a mini when they have $500 laying around.
It is not easy to install most programs, unless it is one that can be installed via an app like Synaptic that displays a list of all apps available, and even installs all dependencies if needed. Trust me, this "Linux" you speak of does have it's place. And believe it or not, the "millions of geeks" are working on some really good looking stuff right now. But they are not doing it for you, they are doing it because it is what they want to do.
And money will not help, they are not in it for the money. Red Hat, however, is. They pay programmers to package up existing open source apps and sell them -- actually they are mostly just selling documentation and support services. The KDE vs Gnome vs (flavor of the month desktop) argument cannot be settled by money. These are options that the geeks wanted, so they created. Some are even working on (window and menu) transparencies and shadowing.
So remember, if you are considering switching to a Linux distro:
A) It's not always going to be easy
B) It's not always going to be hard
C) You have to invest your time and effort into doing it correctly
D) It's not about you! The geeks will remind you this the first time you ask "Why does this have to be so hard?" Then they will help talk you into reinstalling Windows.
|
| Michael Holve |
6/2/05, 11:11 AM EDT |
I used Linux primarily for nearly ten years... Until I bought a Mac. Haven't touched it since, and have no desire to.
WAY too many distros, package systems, etc. The GUI options are many and varied; too much so. And they mostly all look like ass. Sorry, but there's no way Linux will become popular on the desktop at this rate.
|
| SteveK |
6/2/05, 12:44 PM EDT |
The "Desktop Linux" push is aimed at businesses and government, where they have IT support. There are many more of these than there are home computers.
It's coming, regardless of what you think.
I'm a Mac user, but have been following Linux developments for years.
SteveK
|
| Jason Mazzotta |
6/2/05, 1:04 PM EDT |
Wow, I've never read a more fascist perspective anywhere on the web. Choice is what its all about when using a computer, isn't it? All the more surprising from a Mac website. I guess I'm too much of a geek/engineer, but KDE beats the Mac OS X interface. It reveals everything to everyone instead of trying to cater to different tastes but not enabling the utmost utility for everyone. Case in point, can I open a text document in emacs via the GUI in Mac OS X?
|
| jstoup |
6/2/05, 1:24 PM EDT |
->Jason Mazzotta
->SteveK
->HTML Samurai
I think you guys might have missed my point. Let me back up and try this again.
I am NOT saying the following:
1. Linux is bad/sucks/is crap/whatever
2. Linux isn't used in business desktop
3. Choice is bad
I am however trying to convey this to you:
1. Linux is hard to use (compared to Mac and Windows) when it comes to desktop use by your "average" consumer.
2. Linux is unnessasarily complicated. Jason, I am glad that you can open a text document in emacs via the GUI in KDE. But guess what, I don't care. And more importantly the hordes of "average" consumers aren't going to care either.
3. Linux is to fragmented. There are way too many distros, interfaces, features, etc. for your "average" person to make sense of them all.
4. Linux will never be a large part of the average desktop untill something drastic changes.
5. Linux will always be behind Apple (and sometimes MS) when it comes to features that your "average" consumer wants.
Now, lets take a deep breath and read all that again. Calmer now? Good.
|
| nhmacusr |
6/2/05, 1:28 PM EDT |
Jason M.
Why yes, I can
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_source/carbonemac spackage.html
|
| Jason Mazzotta |
6/2/05, 1:47 PM EDT |
Re : nhmacusr
Cool, didn't know that.
|
| Jason Mazzotta |
6/2/05, 1:53 PM EDT |
Re : jstoup
Can you give an example of something difficult to do on a Linux desktop? Some distros don't provide some multimedia capabilities for whatever licensing reasons, but the last time I used SuSE, everything was pretty point and click. What's more, while I'm not familiar with GNOME, KDE's layout is pretty similar to Windows, and when it comes to reading e-mail and surfing the web, FireFox and Thunderbird are getting pretty popular. I think they started in Linux.
|
| Dan Pitney |
6/2/05, 1:55 PM EDT |
Linspire seems to be on the right track. No it's not as easy as they say and yes you have to spend a little money to make the most of it. However it does seem to be a serious attempt to answer a few more of the complaints about desktop Linux with each version.
|
| Bernard Mason |
6/2/05, 2:24 PM EDT |
I use ubuntu linx distro. If Linux had a standard way to install application to the home folder it would be very popular. I'm a OSX fan , but I "ve been using Linux on and off for years. If I could unstuff a application and drag to application folder....just a wish. This terminal crap has to go. Installation of program is my biggest complain with Linux. GUI's and the programs rival anything in the MS world. Ubuntu detects hardware better then any Linux distro I've ever used. That was one problem they seemed to have resolved.
|
| HTML Samurai |
6/2/05, 3:27 PM EDT |
Bernard:
Most Linux ditros have fixed this. 90% of the stuff I need to install on my Linux box is available via an RPM package (Red Hat based distros use RPMs - RedHat Package Manager//Most other distros have their own packages). Download it, double-click, type in your password and (in most cases) it is added to your menu. However, for the other 10% of the programs I installed, download, untar/ungzip, config, compile, install, look for the file you installed, make a sym link to it and poof... sometimes it actually worked, but usually I would have to go get dependencies and do the exact same process over again.
jstoup:
You don't have to get every distro and try it. Personally I used what I knew my friends were using (free tech support) and that is what most people do. You don't have to try every desktop out there either, try one, if you like it, customize it (which is hella easy usually), and learn about it -- same as most people do with Mac OS X. In some ways you could argue that the various linux distros and desktops are ahead of OS X due to the ability to customize everything the way you want it, if you want to take the time and put the effort into it.
Personally, I am using a Mac now, and it is mostly because I got tired of trying... I am happy with the interface and the way everything seems to just work (well, usually). I used Fedora on my primary machine for over a year, and loved it... I customized my desktop and used bits and pieces of different desktops to do it. I had a sense of pride in doing it and I enjoyed using it and telling everyone that my laptop was running Linux - I was a semi-geek, and it was cool while it lasted.
|
| ocracokewaves |
6/2/05, 9:55 PM EDT |
I have been a Mac user from the beginning. I started experimenting with SUSE Linux this fall on a Dell. I paid $89.95 for it. I had a few hardware bumps getting things going because my Dell was brand new. Around January, I read about another Linux, Xandros. I bought it also for $89.95. It was a download. The installation turned out to be the easiest that I have ever done. This post details my experiences.
Xandros Experiences
The comments you're making on the user interface certainly don't agree with the experiences that I've had. I'm very satisfied with Gnome on SUSE. It is a very productive environment and things in Linux sometimes do a better job of being in the same place than in Mac OS X. Have you noticed how the "export" command has moved around recently.
OS X is still more polished. Things still can be too complicated in Linux but the progress on the Linux platform in the last two years is absolutely huge. I would not count Linux out on the desktop. Apple's OS X is still my favorite even if Tiger has a few rough spots, but Linux is a not too distant second. You can buy a PC with Xandros installed for $200 to $388 which even includes the keyboard and mouse. You should do a comparison with the Mac Mini :) You might be surprised.
|
| Brenda |
6/3/05, 9:15 PM EDT |
Jstoup,
Oh, you're just being silly now.
The Linux Desktop has some thin spots in it, but there are enough aps to do most office chores. With Apt and Synaptic installed by default on Unbuntu, software installation is a breaze.
Music editing applications are sorely lagging in Linux, and there is a lack of legal codecs, but you didn't even address that. Though, by using MP3s over Oggs and using other propritary codecs--you are making matters worse for everyone.
I think that you should to take a look at a more modern distro. Redhat's distro is old-hat, and Fedora is being paved over by Unbuntu. The Linux desktop has come a long way in the last year, and it will go long way in another.
Btw, I am a Mac user--too, and my next computer will be a Mac, mostly for the music software. I am pretty sure I am seeing things in a unbiased way.
|
| wonder |
6/5/05, 12:15 PM EDT |
I am actually using a Linux Desktop for my daily life. I am also a huge fan of Mac. (my ibook and garageband realize the dream to become a song writer.) I have to say that your points about Linux are not correct.
Maybe a few more years ago, I'd still agree with you. but since two years ago, Linux has improved dramatically in many ways. First, the packaging system like rpm and deb are so great, that you can install almost anything with one click, For example, "urpmi" under Mandriva (formerly Mandrake Linux), and you don't even have to pay for it like those Linspire CNR users. (but please don't worry that nobody is going to pay them cash. This company not only survived from the crisis of bankruptcy but merge another Linux company. That's why they need to change name.)
And I can answer all your questions in simple way:
1. What is Linux?
It's a core of a system, like darwin-kernel for OS X
2. Whats a "distro"?
It's a combination of the core plus applications.
This combination is usually refered as a "GNU/Linux OS"
3. What's a RedHat and why is it better than a Gentoo?
They are distributors of "GNU/Linux OS"
I think RedHat is not better than Gentoo, but it's case dependent.
4.
Whats the difference between Gnome and KDE?
Package library that they choose to build the apps.
(Gnome uses gtk, KDE uses Qt)
Are they both types of Linux?
No, I've defined what Linux is before...
Which is better?
Both of them are good and worth to try.
5. I keep hearing some people tell me that Linux is free, but others tell me its not free - which is it?
Simple, GNU/Linux is always as "free" as free speech, but not always as "free" as free bears.
6. Will it work with all of my MS files, music, pics, apps, etc.?
most of them, yes.
7. Where do I go if I need help?
:D it has better support than OS X or windows!
Try this first:
http://www.linuxquestions.org
----
As for the interface, I agree with you that OS X is better, but let's not forget about a truth: GUI of windows sucks, but they still win the heart of most p users.
Most linux live cd can now be setup purely by mouse, and they can also be installed and act like a general OS.
As for the reason why most software companies don't want to release Linux version of their software. Well, because a Linux user can find a free version developed under GPL and gets all the things done.
I love and use Macs, but it's not true for you to say that Linux is not ready for desktops-- it is ready, but most people don't even want to give it a shot. All they can do is more or less like you: deny and refuse to try. Just like those who refuse to switch from PC to Mac.
When you say that "The interface for every Linux distro without exception sucks." I can't help but want to ask: "did you actually try every one of them?"; "Do you know that there are some linux distros that functions as a home media center?"
Here is some examples:
http://www.linpus.com.tw/
http://www.freepia.org/
I know you're not an "Anti-Linux" guy, but you should really reconsider about what you said.
Big PC manufacturers like HP and ASUS and Acer are providing Linux pre-installed Laptops recently. I think it makes clear that Linux has become more matured to be one of the major player in this game.
Best Regards
JL
|
| wonder |
6/5/05, 2:30 PM EDT |
sorry, wrong typing, "free beer" not free "bear" lol
|
| Gildogg |
6/8/05, 8:40 AM EDT |
Wow, it's amazing to me how many people here no next to nothing about today's linux!
1) Linux has a larger desktop share than Mac does right now.
2) I was able to answer the questions proposed in the article in 2-3 sentences each easily, fully and accuratly.
3) Both KDE and Gnome are more intuitive GUI's than what is currently available in OS X. My 29 year old sister and 14 year old cousin have both used my Linux desktop at home and didn't even realize it wasn't Winblows (by the appearance). They just thought I had a theme installed. Making the distros, or the community as a whole, choose between the KDE and Gnome is ridiculous. I love Mac, it runs great, the GUI is pretty but not functional. Part of the lure of Linux is the ability to choose. I'll never own a Mac because there are next to no choices and never again will I own Windows because it's even worse.
4) Financial backing from big corps such as IBM have helped but are completely unnecessary. Linux was growning strong before IBM ever took notice. Yeah, they gave Linux a boost, but a very limited focused boost.
|
This article is archived, so you may not comment on it.
(The good news is there's always the shoutbox, the forums or the contact form if you're socially-inclined at the moment!)
|
