Desktop Linux is Dead, but Linux is Still the Future
Robert Strohmeyer has recently proclaimed the death of the dream of Desktop Linux, after himself being an author of one of those infamous "This is The Year of Linux Desktop" articles in 2008. Frankly, I would not quite say that the dream is dead, since many people probably keep on dreaming about it. As far as the reality goes however, it probably is dead, and I would not argue otherwise.
The trouble is, this does not really mean much as far as the overall success of Linux as an operating system platform is concerned. As Mr. Strohmeyer himself noted in the end, the desktop itself is essentially dead or dying. Succeeding in a market just when it is becoming more and more irrelevant is not much of a triumph anyway.
As for the reasons that it could not quite catch the last train, I think Strohmeyer nailed it:
"Linux didn't fail on the desktop because it's "too geeky," "too hard to use," or "too obscure," as casual detractors so often claim in online forums. On the contrary, the best-known distribution–Ubuntu–has received high marks for usability from every major player in the technology press, and it features a menu layout nearly identical to that of Mac OS X.
Ultimately, Linux is doomed on the desktop because of a critical lack of content. And that lack of content owes its existence to two key factors: the fragmentation of the Linux platform, and the fierce ideology of the open-source community at large."
I myself have been a huge proponent of Linux on the desktop. While I still believed there was hope, I argued that the only way it could happen is if those pursuing this goal stopped thinking about Linux as a single operating system (when it is actually a fragmented ecosystem of operating system "parts"). Instead, they should focus on specific distributions as operating systems in their own right, and try to improve and round up the user experience for those specifically. Thus, we would no longer think of a Linux OS, but of Ubuntu OS, Fedora OS, etc.
Of course, I was mostly betting on Ubuntu which was pretty much the only distribution that came close to making Linux mainstream on the desktop, even in terms of market share.
Even if the train has left now, I think this approach is clearly working in other areas in which Linux indeed is a success. Google does not sell Linux OS, they sell Android. When people talk about Android they barely even think of Linux, let alone the whole debate over whether the name refers only to the kernel or to an entire OS. By treating it as an independent brand of its own, not tied to the confused legacy of the Linux ecosystem with all its antics, Google made Android seem like a platform that stands on its own although it is actually "Linux in disguise."
In any case, those who for one reason or the other wish for the highest proliferation of Linux as possible (mainly the non-purist marketing oriented supporters of the open source movement) can probably cheer on Android.
Android is made for the platform of the future, and to a large degree for the present. It is a good platform to dominate. It involves everything from ever more powerful mobile computing devices such as smartphones and tablets, to a new breed of home entertainment and other smart appliances like TVs and even fridges. If Linux based solutions such as Android become the dominant code running these kinds of devices, then Linux becomes the code of the future digital lifestyle. This future digital lifestyle is characterized by a persistently interconnected world that is gradually becoming our present.
Considering its existing dominance on the servers, it would have succeeded in cornering both the client and server side of the computing future.
Linux is therefore succeeding on the platforms of the future while failing on the traditional platforms of the past. This is a net success.
What this actually means, however, is debatable. One might celebrate its success because of personal enthusiasm and investment made into its success. However, what really matters is how this will affect the user experience and various concerns over user privacy and freedom. Having Linux at the core is a great step towards more openness, transparency, and accountability in those terms, but it is not a guarantee. As the example of HTC smartphones shows, Linux based offerings can be enclosed into a final product that feels and acts in just as closed a manner as Apple's iOS.
How much of a real problem this is and how it should be addressed is, however, a discussion for another time.
|
|
Comments (17)
Leave a Reply
- Dolphin HD Brings Versatility of Desktop Browsers to Android
A great thing about modern smartphones is that you don’t have to settle for pre-installed apps like we once had to on our old cellphones. This makes them much like PCs, where we could always hunt down for new programs to try out. Your stock Android browser might be adequate, but there are better Android [...]...
- Zorin OS: Promising, but Still Typically Linux
Zorin OS caught my attention through an attractive web site and an interesting video presentation. It is based on Ubuntu Linux and its aim appears to be to offer a friendly user experience to everyone, including those coming from Windows and Mac OS. The way it is presented implies the kind of professionalism that I [...]...
- Linux Licensing in Conflict with Secure Boot Support
One of the novelties coming with Windows 8 is support for Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) secure boot protocol which, when enabled, requires the boot loader of an operating system to provide a certified signing key in order to be allowed to boot. In fact, Microsoft made enabling secure boot by default a requirement for [...]...
- The Future of Computers? Computers ARE the Future!
In an incredibly thought provoking article in the National Post, the future – that could be – of computers was revealed, as envisioned in a conference at Toronto, on the third wave of computing. And that future is where everything will be a computer. Computers, in the future, will be “pervasive”, used for all sorts [...]...
- The Future of Search: Likes Instead of Links, Humans Instead of Bots
Facebook's alleged declaration of war on Google and the talk about the the "link" being replaced by the "like" as the new search paradigm got me thinking about search engine optimization and the future of search engines. I have to say that I never quite liked search engine optimization because it always seemed to be [...]...
“Ultimately, Linux is doomed on the desktop because of a critical lack of content. And that lack of content owes its existence to two key factors: the fragmentation of the Linux platform, and the fierce ideology of the open-source community at large.”
Critical lack of content? WTF does this even mean? Are you referring to commercial software not being available on Linux? Something else? With HTML5, an increasing number of commercial applications will be run in a browser (any browser) – this bodes ill for Apple and Microsoft, as the underlying OS will be largely irrelevant.
As an aside, I’m using a Linux laptop to post this, so I suppose I can’t see where your stance on ‘desktop linux’ is coming from.
Originally posted by AC: “”Ultimately, Linux is doomed on the desktop because of a critical lack of content. And that lack of content owes its existence to two key factors: the fragmentation of the Linux platform, and the fierce ideology of the open-source community at large.”
Critical lack of content? WTF does this even mean? Are you referring to commercial software not being available on Linux? Something else? “
The way I understand it mostly refers to lack of complex productivity applications, which doesn’t necessarily have to mean commercial applications. Things would be a little easier, for example, if it had a really solid alternative (or even better) to something like Adobe Premiere even if it didn’t have Adobe Premiere itself available. Of course there are some pre-conditions to this really working. The multimedia subsystems on Linux are pretty messy.
But who is going to make such applications when everyone is treating Linux, an entire slew of differing OS’s called “distros”, as if it was a single OS to support. An app maker isn’t pitched Ubuntu or Fedora, but Linux, and expected to support all these differing packaging formats that it includes simultaneously or pick one and face a backslash from other distro fanboys because they favor one distro. This is the fragmentation, and the bad marketing, and given how small market share it has to begin with, why would anyone bother?
Originally posted by AC: “
With HTML5, an increasing number of commercial applications will be run in a browser (any browser) – this bodes ill for Apple and Microsoft, as the underlying OS will be largely irrelevant.”
Not really, it just puts them on equal grounds with Linux, but isn’t really in itself a reason for anyone to actually leave Windows or OSX in favor of Linux. Linux needs more than web apps to be that compelling for a really significant exodus towards it to occur.
Originally posted by AC: “
As an aside, I’m using a Linux laptop to post this, so I suppose I can’t see where your stance on ‘desktop linux’ is coming from.”
I was making exactly the same argument some time ago. I was using Linux on the desktop exclusively and it worked great for most tasks I was using it for, and I saw strengths in terms of security, customizability, choice, cleanliness etc. What I’m talking about and what I assume Mr. Strohmeyer was talking about wasn’t that Linux cannot be successfully used as a desktop operating system by many people, just that it doesn’t have enough going for it to reach a critical mass that would push it towards where OSX is or beyond. It is kinda stuck.
I did have problems though. Whenever I try to accomplish something more complex than just browsing the web (even with all the flash troubles), listening to music, web development etc. into such things as gaming, music production or video production.. things started falling apart. Occasionally, things still glitch even in the most polished distros out there, and those are rather embarrassing glitches in this day and age.
I just don’t understand the “Linux is dead on the desktop” mantra that keeps popping up these days. It is not dead on any of my desktops, and Linux has a larger market share now than it ever has in it’s relatively short past.
I agree it may not be on every 2 nd pc in the world, but it is still active of millions of desktops and servers everywhere.
Linux is fortunate enough not to have to be measured in the same way Microsoft products or apple products are, commercial viability. This is unique for an operating system that actually is quite popular, and has more talent joining the community every day then either of the above mentioned companies.
As long as the marvelous people continue to code and enjoy improving Linux, and the rest of us love using and helping however we can, there is no reason to declare Linux on the desktop anything but just that, Linux on the desktop. The best switch anyone can make.
Nobody will nor can argue it’s dead on any of your desktops or those of anyone else running it, but it isn’t just about commercial viability either. It’s a question of whether it is growing fast enough to get anywhere any time soon or not. There is a whole bunch of operating systems which have their fans who run it even on some of their desktops. Just look at desktop variants of FreeBSD or some incarnations of Amiga. None of those are “dead” if by “death” you mean complete non-existence and nobody running it on any desktop, but by such a definition almost no OS ever really dies.
The point is that Linux actually isn’t growing fast enough to get anywhere any time soon. It’s possible that the desktop as a major platform is dying faster than the Linux on the desktop is growing, which puts Linux as a major desktop operating system a statistical impossibility.
As for it being the best switch anyone can make, not quite anyone. I de-facto switched from Linux to Mac, and at this point consider Mac OS X the best desktop OS there is, at least for me.
The biggest problem with desktop Linux is that it seems more like a collection of stand alone programs than an integrated operating system. And, of course, there is always at least one major issue to address which is beyond most users. After a long run with Ubuntu, I gave up on it. I am using Open SUSE which is one of the nicest OSes I’ve ever dealt with. I even have my less-than-computer-saavy boyfriend using it. If more linux distros would try to make their systems less clunky to use, more people would adapt it.
Smaller organizations, such as the high school-level career center I work for, stand to gain so much from desktop Linux, no matter the distro. What keeps us on Windows is application support and this extends much further beyond productivity suites like MS Office or Adobe. For example, our advanced manufacturing program utilizes training software that will only run on Windows.
I’m not entirely sure how it happened, but many commercial software developers will only code for that platform. When the devs for your critical software suffer from vendor lock-in, then the consumer will suffer as well. Unless, Linux devs can court more commercial software devs, I find it unlikely that it will ever make a glorious breakout from the datacenter.
I disagree Linux desktop is dead long live Linux. But I am happy with Suse Linux, Ubuntu. No nuance windows xp CD /activation. Constant reminding of Piracy even though the distro of windows is no t pirated. Long live desk top Linux
:-*
It’s not on Desktops but are extensively used in Super computers…
Xandros Linux ,best desktop ever
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/27/xandros_shows_progress/
(PS, cannot register for your site,keep getting “Session expired. Please try again later.”)
It seems that part of your argument about linux dying on the desktop is dependent on the idea that the desktop itself is dead. I see no evidence of this at all. Yes there are new growing segments such as mobile, tablets etc. But as a creative professional I will not be switching to a tablet for video editing. I may switch to linux for that – time will tell.
Originally posted by interestedindividual: “It seems that part of your argument about linux dying on the desktop is dependent on the idea that the desktop itself is dead.”
Not quite. The desktop dying is just a convenient circumstance that makes Linux’ relative lack of success on it less of a big deal. So whether the desktop is here to stay or not doesn’t really change the current state of Linux Desktop.
If the desktop market is here to stay then that just gives Linux longer time to succeed. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t bet on it though, because Windows and Mac OS X aren’t standing still either, and however “rapid” progress of Linux desktop distros like Ubuntu may be, the fundamentals are very slow moving, and are yet to nail even the basics that other OSs have nailed long ago (like the multimedia stack).
Originally posted by interestedindividual: “
I see no evidence of this at all. Yes there are new growing segments such as mobile, tablets etc. But as a creative professional I will not be switching to a tablet for video editing. I may switch to linux for that – time will tell.”
I hear you on that. Creative professionals are the niche that are likely to stick with desktops and laptops, but that is a niche. People who are just using computers to communicate, surf the web or do things like writing have less and less reason to stick with bulky PCs or even laptops, and those are the majority.
But time will tell indeed. I don’t think desktop will ever truly die in the sense that no desktop PC will be left running. That’s not really at stake. The figurative “death” refers to marginalization, it ceasing to be a major market. There are even old mainframes still in operation, but nobody considers it a major market.
Mac OS X is not BSD, for people it is Mac OS X.
Android is not Linux. is Android.
Only a TOTAL IDIOT (or a millionaire) will develop and invest in a platform where ‘software must be free’.
Linux is for server only.
@robert
Who’s claiming that software has to be free on linux ??
There are quite a few commercial and even closed software available for linux !
But drivers have to be free, for very, very good reasons that we should all appriciate !
We all should be using linux and actively support it, in order to show companies as apple and microsoft, that we don’t want to be dependant of their concepts. (because otherwise we have no other choice, and are their dumb victims, disallowed to customize, modify, extend, share, improve software – and you’re even paying for that haha, I’d rather investigate in open source)
If I choose to use something, knowing the restrictions (or lack thereof ), then I’m hardly a victim dependent on their concepts. Once I don’t like it or find something better I can stop using it and switch. Some people couldn’t care less for things like source code access or even the ability to share.
That said, I’m glad open source exists to provide even more choice, and especially choice of less restrictions, but it’s not true that everyone “should” use it. That purely depends on the individual needs and desires.
@ memenode
Thank you for the comment !
What I tried to point out: The question remains whether you have (and keep) “the choice of stoping and switching”.
For example: What about closed file formats, hardware without driver specification, special encryption, hardware IDs, serial numbers, and all the stuff they are inventing to restrict you and make you dependent ….
Once the supporting company is broke, you’re lost.
People who claim “I don’t need the source” don’t really get the point of open-source, I think. It’s not just about that.
By buying restricting software instead of sponsoring an open one, one is supporting a wrong direction.
You can say “I don’t care!” That’s acceptable, but I believe in the end it will bite all of us. It already does !
That said, I’m not convinced of all concepts of open-source. For example an assuring concept how to reliably make a living (money) with it is missing. There’s always room for discussion.
I was first introduced to unix (SCO) since about 1995, but that was on the server side. I am personally amazed as to how user friendly unix have become, especially as I always saw it as a geeky but necessary server OS. I am currently playing with Fedora (ubunta 11.04) as I intend to use it in a vmware enviroment as a file server for a subgroup in my department (5-10 pcs).
Now that being said, the reason why its not catching on as a desktop is 1) percived history as for nerds 2) lack of the wide range of commercial software we have come to know and expect from a windows environment and 3) All the different versions and conversions. In reality based on my regular use of a pc (browsing, typing, basic spreadsheet use, emailing, messenging, etc) unix is ready…..android honey comb anyone. But hey…let’s really promote it as a solution for casual users.
how is it dead ? Pardus KDE is still by far the best straight out the box distro for Windoze users only problem is lack of software repos,..
Ubuntu 11.10 is so ugly & the hideous Unity desktop Ughh
Gentoo, Fedora way to ugly
Dragonfly another example of over-hyped Linux,..all way too complicated
Dragonfly is always touted the most secure distro ,..yet countless users are encouraged to make their systems safe,..regarding all the virus/malware etc on the web
try making it easy for NORMAL people to install.
why make something simple,..when you can be a jerk Linux nerd and always make it difficult as well