Did Linux miss the opportunity?

[viking60]

The dream is dead 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. The failure of Linux to catch on with mainstream PC users will come as no great surprise to most observers, but the reasons for its failure are often misunderstood or, at the very least, grossly misstated. 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.

I think this guy makes a lot of good points. His description is to the point. The one thing that makes me disagree with him in his conclusion is that he is overestimating Windows. This only goes for the desktop of course. On the server side Linux is king, and also fairly successful in the mobile phone market

[gnuuser]

while i agree that it is to hard for most people to understand.
I disagree about the lack of content! after all there is more than one version of Linux out there.
also windows and mac have had the benefit of mass marketing.
and many tech support groups make their living from solving windows problems.

Linux will start turning heads as more people are exposed to it. but it does need to be easier to use for an average user
so far most distros required a fairly good knowledge of computers to take advantage of the distro's capabilities

its this reason that when I install a distro for someone to try I create a readme file and put it on the desktop
in these readme files I give a short tutorial on how to use the messenger program, browser, etc.
and instruct them to join the forums for the distro. I also put a hand written note with the computer telling them to use the readme file and the help files as well.

[dedanna1029]

/rant!!!

I happen to agree to lack of content. I think that with the "fury of the desktop" so to speak, Linux has reached for that, but not caught it up anywhere near to where the Windows desktop is (disagree with this all you want, I think it's true). The fury of the "Point and click" interface, is one that Linux has been pushing for - to be just like Windows in this regard. I myself disagree that this is where Linux should head. I think it should be itself, with the devels falling in line with innovation and imagination with something else desktop-wise, and what Linux has been for a very long time now, and continue to do that well like it always has. This is a real strength for Linux, one that has been underestimated in and of itself, running servers, and pushing for what Linus Torvalds wanted (that yes ultimately being a desktop for Linux, but I don't think he envisioned the desktop to be for Linux what it is by far).

We need to quit trying to be another Windows, and get Linux back to "just working", rather than centering around the desktop so much. If I myself wanted "just a desktop" with Linux, I would've stayed with Windows; IMHO they are king at it. Look at all the KDE bugs since KDE4 was in its infancy, that they still have yet to deal with; the things they /took away/ from KDE3 that did not make it to KDE4 is astronomical, IMHO, and they shot themselves in the foot with it (I mean come on, if you still had the choice between the two, would you honestly choose Amarok2 over Amarok1? If you do then you're totally silly - A2 misses out on so many good features that A1 had it's pathetic).

We WANT Linux to be the good CLI and server operating system that it is - otherwise, how would we have any security with it at all? How would we truly be able to see under the hood as we've been able to do thus far?

Linux has given too many people the excuse to use the "it don't workie so I don't like it" wank line, BECAUSE of how the desktop is implemented I think as well - seems like every damn time a GUI's involved in something with Linux, that's when it "don't just workie". <-- I dare you to state that I'm wrong on this. Look at Mandriva even - when there's a GUI issue with it as well, it still has to be fixed for the most part by CLI (but then, what one isn't this true with?). CLI can fix literally anything. Why can't we capitalize on this fact, among other wonderful things Linux has, rather than say "make it look pretty"?

[dedanna1029]

Also, while we're on this, there's something else as well. Think about how the push for the desktop has screwed up the works:

We have to have a GUI, which means we have to have X, and then, oh yeah, we also have to add video drivers! Sound drivers! Sounds! And then, oh yeah, we gotta integrate all that crap in with the kernel, and make it do what we now want it to do now to load all this stuff. How many crappily-written drivers have you seen come out of the Linux devels since? Not to mention the hell we're in sometimes trying to make the drivers they write WORK. Not to mention the kernel bugs because one of these things DOESN'T work, and it's all for the damn GUI!!!!! A freaking DESKTOP!! No, Linux needs to center the development of its desktop, around the strong suits it already has, not what the devels *think* everyone wants (which is Windows). If it did that rather than trying to force something that shouldn't be, it would certainly dominate everything, I think.

pshaw. Down with fanboism, and get real people. /ends rant

[viking60]

Many interesting points there! I agree; lets skip the music in Linux and concentrate on the important stuff In fact you are advocating for Linux to be a pure server here. There is no need to really. Linux is King on servers and supercomputers. And also on "gadgets" (Android). We do not need the X and the gdm's and KDE's and I have never even seen Amarok. The Archlinux server I have set up in another thread is pure CLI. No X no GUI drivers no KDE GDM no nothing. That thing is going to run forever.
But it is not a desktop - its a server. We know Linux is no- 1 there.
I also think the desktops are fantastic in Arch my KDE is so stable and Gnome even more so. My Mandriva is fine and my Win7 is not. I really miss having multiple desktops when I am in Windows. It might be just me - but I don't think Windows has a superior GUI
Even if you are right regarding the drivers.

[dedanna1029]

Okay, example: Run aero in Windows, vs. getting compiz going in Linux. Pull up Windows Explorer, and either Dolphin or Konqueror side-by-side with Windows Explorer. Out of the box, which one is "prettier"? hhmmm?

Then, check out all those wallpapers that you can set (simply) to a certain time to run and they automagically switch every time in Win7 Pro, and compare that to trying to get them to do it in Linux. I know - I had the prettiest Win7 Pro desktop at the office when it was still open. And, it looked really pretty, and ran really well. Linux needs its own desktop - one that works with what it is and has - not Windows'.

[viking60]

Yes I follow you in principle. Linux must be Linux, not Windows light. Got it. But in KDE it is very easy to animate the wallpapers via the control panel. Gnome is another matter. I'll give you that. But then you go to http://bjoernvold.com/forum and download the scripts provided by rvause and b1o.

[dedanna1029]

Yeah, I get that.

[viking60]

I think your "rant" was rather interesting. You obviously have thought about this.

[dedanna1029]

Oh yes, I've thought about it for about the last 4-5 years at least. There's a site that's also very pro getting Linux devels to start using the imagination and innovation to come up with something different for it, but I'll have to find it again. You've actually raised my favorite topic to do with Linux, btw. All it takes is something that we all as Linux users and critical thinkers have - the ability to think outside "the box".

[dedanna1029]

Think about this, too. As with all things, there is a "natural order" which occurs to evolve. Humanity did it, animals did it, some plants have, among other things in life, all just by following "natural order". Linux has been force-fed this "thing" that everyone thinks a desktop should be, never thinking that things could just naturally evolve it into something it's supposed to be. Hell, with the security it's always had, it could turn into the biggest security system for homes, for businesses, for all kinds of things security-related. Linux' potential is far, far higher than anything we can dream it to be, if we'd just let it be (so to speak). The potential is astronomical of what could be done with it.

The sad part is though - it will always only be "potential", as long as we keep listening to the "I want it shiny" crowd.

And, don't sneeze at Linux running servers. The servers it runs powers one of the (if not the) richest and most powerful men in the world, and makes him his money - Bill Gates himself, as it was just a very few years ago brought out in the open to be doing.

Edited to add: The above with security systems is not literal; it is only used as an analogy for my overall point, so don't say "it r bin dun already". Even if it has, the point is the uses for Linux as-is are far more than just "servers", moreso even than governments. There are much higher purposes for it even than that. Governments are a drop in the bucket.

[dedanna1029]

hhmmm...

I think I've just written my next article for Brighthub - "The Linux Desktop vs. The Potential of Linux" - if they'll let me write that particular subject up for them...