> ...it never ceases to amaze me that Linux has yet to take hold on the desktop market.
If you don’t get this you should probably just admit you don’t understand the desktop market and refrain from commenting.
If you don’t get this you should probably just admit you don’t understand the desktop market and refrain from commenting.
A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document. There are several Linux distributions that can do these things quite easily out of the box. Meanwhile, Microsoft has been steadily sabotaging Windows. And Apple is simply too expensive for the average user.
That doesn't seem too controversial. You'll have to explain why I should 'refrain from commenting'.
This kind of condescension towards users and what they use a computer for is precisely why Linux doesn't have a foothold on the Desktop. Linux Desktop people design for some imagined person who, to the extent that they even exist, doesn't care at all about their operating system. They try so hard to make it easy by automating what they think the user wants to do that they make the system incredibly complicated and inflexible so everything falls to pieces the moment the user tries to color outside the lines.
This is sorta what parent meant, I think. If you don't understand why Linux is a failure on the desktop, you don't understand why people use desktops.
That is not condescension as I am not condescending towards users. Rather, it's reality. I volunteer with an association of retired people and 100% of our executive and every single member I have ever spoken to fits in in that group. They don't do more than that because frankly, they don't particularly like their computers. I also briefly sold computers when I was in University. Over that 18 months, I'd say that 85% of people who needed my help were looking for machines that could do exactly that.
Finally, I really question what kind of Linux distrust you use. With a half decent, consumer focused distribution, I can't imagine how anything could fall to pieces the moment someone colours outside the lines.
Woudln't a Chromebook fit their use case a bit better? The chances of needing to drop to a CLI to do something basic or fix some thing that an update broke drops from low double digits to effectively zero.
I certainly couldn't use a Chromebook as my only machine. I need other systems for working with media, games, etc. But I travel as often as not with just a Chromebook these days.
Added: Or just a tablet. My dad always considered PCs a necessary evil. He doesn't really type much and he's far happier with my old iPad than he ever was with a PC--or than he would be with a Chromebook.
So now a bunch have started using things like amazon photos which has encouraged them to become more interested in their android devices, branching out into other fun photo apps and home IoT crap. Another bunch (quite the dividing line here) has gotten more involved in iCloud shared albums and thus again more interested in the Apple ecosystem. They went from cheap "PC" buyers to MBP because they thought the UX was that much better, because facetime and iMessage and other cool things.
Linux Desktop can't compete even in that easiest of user segments.
One can think that the desktop OS for a regular user is a commodity, so why replace it? The benefits for the regular user of using Linux are not tangible, so there's no point for them in not using what has worked for them throughout the years.
What I don't agree with, is that you make it sound like Linux "breaks" and would cause problems, and more extreme that it can not even compete.
There are lots of segments where Linux can adapt perfectly to user's need. The fact is that user's are not willing to change and don't really NEED to change. It is not because of supposed Linux short comings.
And it does break. I mean even if the drivers and necessary software is all great, at some point something weird happens and doesn't unhappen. My Fedora install has software I downloaded in the software GUI that won't update. It sends me (garbage) messages about SELinux constantly. The toast doesn't autohide and toast pops up for too many things. It's still usable, nothing is "broken", but it's death by a thousand cuts. No one wants all this confusing crap that isn't "just working". I don't get that feeling in macOS or Windows 10.
Of course Linux breaks, I've seen it break in all the imaginable ways in all layers in all the distros I've used (from Gentoo stage 1 back in the day to Ubuntu). But I hardly see problems when running Ubuntu on regular hardware.
I could perfectly argue the same thing about Windows, it is a well know fact that Windows over time without expert supervision, will end up badly: full of unwanted adware, bloatware, and shitty software ruining the experience. I'm sure most of us were asked a lot of times to fix an aunts/friends PC.
I could also say the same thing about MacOS. The UI experience is completely different from Windows, personally, I hate the interface and I don't enjoy it. On the other hand, regular users are willing to put up with the difference, why? because it's a Mac! It's a beautiful industrial design product and people who are able to afford it are proud of it.
I regularly use Linux, Windows and macOS. I think nowadays they are all solid choices. And the differences stem from personal preferences. What I don't think has place nowadays is to speak in absolutes: "macOS is the superior usability experience", "Linux can not compete in even the most basic use case", "Windows is the only solution for enterprise users" we hear so often.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Someone mentions a problem with the Linux Desktop and immediately the excuse is "normal user doesn't do that".
We end up discussing on what this hypothetical "regular user" does with biased examples from our own experience. The ones who really have a basic idea of what regular users do are the big players like Apple, Google and Microsoft; from all the telemetry they collect.
I'm certainly not condescending "regular users", on the contrary; I understand why a lot of people don't want to deal with technology and I defend the fact that systems should be easy to use. From your comments I think you're trying to portray us as if we think that regular users are stupid. Which is certainly not the case.
My point is that most people don't base their purchase decisions on technical grounds. Mostly because of money and sometimes status factors.
Again, all these coming from my personal experience; I haven't taken the time to search for an actual statistical study on user preferences. I know I've installed Linux on a lot of people's home/personal computer without them knowing what happened and are happy to this day.
And that's fine! That's exactly my point, this stuff should have a low barrier to entry so that all users can enjoy these great features. I think it's wrong to look at users who only know email/search and relegate them to that for eternity when they might be very happy sharing family photos through some service that Linux doesn't integrate with.
This is amusing, because I had to use a MBP for work a year ago, and I still have flashbacks of how painful it was to use in general usage. I mean, for heaven's sake, copy and paste was always, constantly broken. I'm not actually sure how you manage to break something that's been a mainstay of the computer UI for 37 years, but they managed it. And that's not to talk about the window focusing problems, and all of the other crap I experienced. Have you ever seen a (very skilled) senior developer lose all of their windows? I have. It was a regular occurrence because the MBP was unable to cope properly with a second monitor of varying sizes.
Alas, I will leave it there. /rant
Though at this point Windows 10 constantly loses windows on monitors that no longer exist...sometimes even the password prompt on my work laptop lock screen ceases to exist but I found plugging it into an external monitor brings it back on the laptop monitor...
I too have experience working with some non-profits and also some schools, were I've maintained their Linux desktops and the users never really complained about their experience.
Of course, you would sometimes get the usual "where's Word?", "This .exe I downloaded does not work", etc. we all know about. But regular users who complained about the desktop experience per se were not common.
I think that the main reason why Linux on the desktop has not seen major growth is because of inertia, Windows is still the standard and why change? If you buy a cheap laptop/pc at Walmart you're still getting Windows. Why would a regular user bother to change OS? Also, one has to admit that without getting in to the details, Windows 10 is a pretty decent OS.
Linux Desktop has had decades and the backing of large companies to fight inertia, yet hasn't succeeded. Why?
Compare this to Linux: It started out very obscure, lagged behind in usability for years and finally managed to catch up. But now, at this point, everyone is so used to Windows (including the crap) that the general response is "meh, it's good enough". Plus, no Linux driven company will ever start a marketing campaign that comes anywhere near what Apple did back in the day.
Edit: Also, since you mentioned BB: From my perspective, they also never did usability right. Before the iPhone, Nokia was the usability king (at least in my circle of usage), but Ericsson and BB weren't that bad compared to them. That changed rapidly after capacitive touchscreens were widespread in consumer grade electronics.
Try and install an application to a different disk. Or even a different directory. It can't be done in any major distribution because package managers make the assumption that you will never want to place an application anywhere but the same place the rest of the OS is, because they also make the assumption that all applications should be part of the system, because Linux has no concept of separating "system" from "application" in the first place.
I know what your response will be: "normal users don't care about that"[0], which I think illustrates my point rather well.
[0]It's also rather likely you'll go with something like "Windows applications normally don't let you do that either", which is at best a half truth but, more importantly, is a whataboutism.
The complaint resonates with me, and I originally used Linux circa/prior to kernel 2.2.16.
It's hard to pin down any specific issue, but I perceive consumer Linux even today as very brittle and the user-friendliness as mainly nailing "no user serviceable parts inside" covers over everything.
For example, I have an installation where basically all I ever do is start up KDE, select the start menu to open Konsole, and run something from the command line. At least once in the few weeks I've been doing this, something got completely screwed up to the point where the interface was unusable and I went to the text-mode console, logged in as root and shutdown -r now'ed. Previously, I got an installation in a completely unusable state because I had no alternative but to power-cycle it when it bogged down.
The attraction for me is the built in programming tools, the bash shell, free software, and today, the lack of advertising and tracking - when it comes to the actual OS I'm very much the stereotypical Mac user who wants it to just work. I just don't want today's Mac hardware.
I avoided Windows 10 for quite a while, but I finally upgraded a few months ago, and so far it hasn't crashed or failed me.
The Android OS pointed out the OS didn't matter much for most tasks. Many users don't need Windows they just need an OS.
I'd even say most people are perfectly happy with a phone and an Internet connection. Complexity of any OS is a turn off for users, the OS of a phone is meant to be intuitive.
I think the main thing is there's no real point to switch so no one does.
The reason no linux distro has taken off is because even at free it's not cost effective for a hardware manufacturer to install it. Windows, when purchased in bulk as an OEM install is like a whopping $10 - but comes with all the 1st class driver support from manufacturers and software support from software vendors. So, if you are HP and need to support some umpteen million devices sold this year, you push Windows out the door, not Linux. This is also why Apple doesn't allow it's OS sold seperately anymore and try to tie it down to the hardware as much as possible - if they don't sell the hardware they really don't care if you paid them money for the OS. The OS was cheap to build (relatively speaking).
Until someone comes up with a better piece of hardware for running linux, then Mac and HP, Dell, etc, etc will maintain their dominance.
Yeah... so why do they need to switch to Linux to do that? Windows can already do those things fine.
Is Linux cheaper? Computers without Windows seem to cost the same as computers with Windows. And the actual cost to the OEM is probably something petty like $50 so it's not really an issue.
This is highly dependent on how much experience one has with Windows and Linux, as well as the specific workload the computer is running.
I've had both Linux and Windows installations that always worked without any issues. I've also had both Linux and Windows installations that break on a weekly basis.
They do use Linux for that - they just don't use a desktop. Android.
- ergonomics: linux GUIs are often of no value to the average user. Too diverse, too much change. Unless you do the effort to educate them they will never care. The leap is staggering.. remember people still don't understand web browsers and clicks fully. [2]
- economics: microsoft spends money on OEM deals, which means their software ends up on laptops on shelves that the average joe sees. Also, linux doesn't benefit from scale prices, the few machines that were open source from start were quite expensive with lower perf hardware. a hard sell in terms of numbers
Linux can't get more market share with never ending lib / framework shifts, inconsistent GUIs [1] and technical appeal only.
[1] that said win10 inheritance of win8 second layer is bridging this gap, it's super annoying to have to deal with fakely easier configuration panel but resort to the older one for denser information
[2] and for the joke, windows still follows CUA 99% so you get a very decent keyboard driven GUI. Linux is inconsistent, you may or may not .. sad considering we all love our keyboards #vim
I cant imagine a retail desktop user tolerating these things.
Aside: There was some only-half-joking discussion in the office that someone should attempt to re-write the display driver as a 20% time project.
But there are definitely things were Linux is hit or miss (ime):
- video drivers (integrated graphics work well for me) - integrated SD card readers
But if you don't have too fancy hardware requirements I think Linux can be OK.
But we don't really want to count that, because that's not what we meant. What we wanted is something that has all the options and configurability and openness of Linux, but on the desktop. And Chromebooks lack all of that.
I'm inclined to take that as a pretty clear confirmation that Linux on the desktop, as the Linux community tends to envision it, hasn't happened because Linux on the desktop represents something most consumers don't actually want.
Chomebooks.
These may very well become the standard desktop / laptop Linux.
* they are very secure
* they run Chrome extensions / apps
* the latest Chrome OS runs Android apps (and desktop integration will improve in a couple releases)
* very soon Chrome OS will run Linux desktop apps (eg, will install .deb files, apps like Gimp, Inkscape, etc) integrated into the Chrome desktop, without being in developer mode (eg "rooted")
* Chromebooks are very successful in education
* A fleet of chromebooks (eg, a school district) can centrally control their chromebooks, including policies. Fleet owners can negotiate volume pricing from multiple vendor suppliers. Chromebooks that are lost, stolen or eaten can be replaced for $67 / unit.
* You can buy expensive high end chromebooks that are very nice, thin, powerful, all day battery, etc
IMO, this could become "the year of the Linux desktop"
There are a lot of good Android apps that would be useful on a laptop. There are a lot of Linux apps that are useful on a laptop.
Good security. With secure verified boot. Yet Linux apps that run in a strong sandbox allowing untrusted code. Android apps run in a different sandbox. All this is transparent to the user who sees a desktop.
The Chrome OS and Android are self updating. I don't know about Linux apps yet.
Even Windows can run Linux apps these days. It still doesn't seem to me that that qualifies as "year of the Linux Desktop" as it is intended.
Android is indeed quite different.
Chrome OS is somewhat different. Today I use Crouton to run one or more Linux desktops (currently Ubuntu Unity and Xfce) on my Pixelbook. I've blown away an older Ubuntu 16.04 I had. Thinking about blowing away the Ubuntu Unity and keeping only the Xfce. Each Linux desktop takes about 5 GB with a few additional apps installed including LibreOffice, GIMP, Inksacpe, wxMaxima and Eclipse / Java. Using Crouton means my Pixelbook is in "developer mode" (which means rooted).
I look forward to the integrated Linux apps and expect one day I will switch out of developer (rooted) mode back to normal. This is called a "power wash" on the Settings and resets everything for security and verified boot so no unauthorized code can ever execute.
Because there's about 600 million distributions wasting energy competing. They waste energy on solving the same problems in slightly different ways, rather than working together to solve new problems.
As a user I don't _really_ care about window managers, package managers, KDE vs Gnome, or systemd vs whatever. I want my desktop to enable me to perform the tasks I want to do.
I do for example care that there's no decent remote desktop support on Linux. That's one of the primary reasons I still run a Windows desktop on my main machine.
The author clearly believes they know why it hasn't taken over the market. That's the entire point of the article, and they start explaining immediately after the sentence you quoted.
I can understand why something happens and still be amazed by it. That's what the author is saying. They understand why, but it still amazes them.
Oh boy
Thinking out loud, I haven't thoroughly researched my position but it sounds plausible.
edit: the implication being they're just going to use whatever is installed on the laptop that they pick up for $400 at the store, which of course will always be Windows, since Microsoft can afford to make the effort to sell it. Why would any regular person go to the effort of installing another OS for the same functionality?
Also their support staff are trained to handle Windows. Adding Linux to the mix will increase costs.
The UX of the distro chosen for EEE PCs (unfortunately I don't remember the name anymore) was really strange and something that was alien for users of any mainstream Windows, Linux or Mac desktop. I wonder if it could have succeeded better with something like Xubuntu instead.