There are three reasons why Linux isn't succeeding on the desktop, and none of them are to do with missing functionality, using the command line or the politics of free software.
The first is that there's too much momentum behind Microsoft Windows and too many preconceptions about the alternatives. Linux is perceived as having too much of a learning curve for relatively few advantages and an unknown heritage.
Migrating big business to a Linux desktop is akin to turning a T1-class supertanker around mid-Atlantic. The opposite direction may look brighter, but it's easier to chug onwards into the storm. You only have to look at the number of people clinging to Microsoft's venerable Office suite to see this point clearly.
For the vast majority, most of its functional fecundity is wasted. Many people could arguably be just as (un)productive with Notepad, Calculator and Paint, let alone using an open-source alternative such as OpenOffice.org. Its use seems to have more to do with keeping face when attaching files to an email than a genuine operational advantage.
Most people will only consider an alternative when there are bigger issues, larger icebergs or uncertain territories on the horizon, Away from the desktop, Linux is faring better.
Smaller, more agile businesses quickly quantify the cost advantages to produce cheaper and more competitive products. This is why embedded Linux has been such a success on everything from Chinese mobile phones to almost every NAS box around. This may mean that success on the desktop is only a matter of time, or it may mean that the Linux desktop is too far removed from the Linux kernel.
The second reason for failure is that Linux lacks centralised marketing. This is because there's no real Linux Central. It's just a trademark owned by its creator, Linus, and a term normally reserved for just the kernel of the operating system – hardly the easiest product to sell.
There are plenty of people advertising their own Linux endeavours, all keen to push their own angle on its advantages. This divided effort compounds the problem. With the likes of Red Hat, Novel and Canonical all fighting for their own slice of the pie, there's no one left to push Linux as a distinctive brand. That's something Apple and Microsoft do extremely well, and something Linux leaves to Tux the penguin.
Many would argue that standards are the answer to this conundrum, and that would mean a single base distribution. This could then be the only distribution called 'Linux' - everything else would become 'Linux based'.
Mozilla manages this well with the use of the Firefox brand. It's freely distributable and modifiable, but it can only be called 'Firefox' in its untouched incarnation. Change anything and you need to change the name.
For example, Debian calls its Firefox build 'IceMonkey' because it needs to reserve the right to make modifications, thus breaking Mozilla's standards. This may cause confusion if you look for Firefox on your Debian desktop, but it also sets a precedent for the kind of experience that Mozilla expects its users to have, and Debian hackers still have the code to mess around with if they need to. It's a compromise, but it might work in a world with hundreds of Linux distros.
The third reason is easy to see but harder to solve. It's the reason why you're not using Linux now. The solution would make all other problems redundant. The reason why you're not using Linux now is because there isn't a good enough reason to.
Sober advantages such as better security, improved performance, rock solid stability and low cost aren't going to win converts. These advantages aren't exciting enough; they're the equivalent of a spreadsheet of mortgage repayments. What we really want is a significant upgrade, something you'd normally pay for.
Perhaps we should focus on value. Recent analysis of the kernel by Jon Corbet showed that 75 per cent of the 2.8 million lines of code in recent contributions were written by paid-for developers. That puts Linux freedom in context.
But the biggest challenge is sexiness. There's very little of it in Linux unless you're an antisocial geek, and products like the Apple's iPad illustrate this massive divide painfully. As Jim Zemlin, Executive Director of the Linux Foundation, puts it, "Linux can compete with the iPad on price, but where's the magic?"
Linux has the programmers, the managers, the community, the innovation, the time and the skill. But to succeed in 2010 and the coming decade, what it really needs is a magician or two.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First published in PC Plus Issue 293
Liked this? Then check out Ubuntu, you blew your chance to go mainstream
Sign up for TechRadar's free Weird Week in Tech newsletter
Get the oddest tech stories of the week, plus the most popular news and reviews delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up at http://www.techradar.com/register
Your comments (23) Click to add a new comment
kenholmz
February 13th 2011
23. @Clearer, it has been eight months since you wrote that Linux doesn't matter. While I agree about the importance of GNU, have you noticed that GNU still lacks a kernel. Many people know of GNU because Linux made it so. I am still looking forward to HURD. Without Linux, GNU would still be a beautiful automobile waiting for an engine.
Alert a moderator
sandwormusmc
July 28th 2010
22. I'll say the same here as I said on techi.com, which pretty much reblogged this story.
Re: Motivation
First, I take issue with your assertion that Linux is attempting to "unseat" Microsoft or Apple in the OS market. Certain for-profit companies may have this goal (Google, etc.), but open source in general is not by definition about unseating anything. It is about open standards, community driven software development, and in general providing quality code to the world at large. This, while allowing profit to be a by-product of that effort.
I mentioned Google. If you're looking for a "sexy" Linux, have a look at any recent phone with Android at it's core. Google's recent acquisition of Bumptop is a good indication that they plan to make a "sexy" iPad-like device in the near future.
Re: Sexiness
I do agree that most people just want their OS to "work" and don't care about tinkering with it. Maybe your argument is that Linux isn't "sexy" out of the box. While Windows 7 does look good immediately after first install, good luck adding anything to it without paying more and more as you go along.
Gnome, in my opinion, has never been all that pleasing to the eye (although Ubuntu 10.04 looks good). Pick up any recent distribution of KDE (4.0+) and you will see a world of difference and customizability.
<a href="http://kuartetdesktop.sourceforge.net/images/screenshots/current/default1.jpg">http://kuartetdesktop.sourceforge.net/images/screenshots/current/default1.jpg</a>
<a href="http://boogiestu.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/kubuntu_kde4_01.png">http://boogiestu.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/kubuntu_kde4_01.png</a>
<a href="http://blog.trollgod.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/kde42_-_desktop4.png">http://blog.trollgod.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/kde42_-_desktop4.png</a>
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_R4XrRuDZwiE/SlldC1d5XdI/AAAAAAAAANs/DaHaQ15cwxs/s400/kde4.3_desktop1">http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_R4XrRuDZwiE/SlldC1d5XdI/AAAAAAAAANs/DaHaQ15cwxs/s400/kde4.3_desktop1</a>
<a href="http://thomascomputerrepair.com/images/desktop_kde4_2.jpg">http://thomascomputerrepair.com/images/desktop_kde4_2.jpg</a>
But you know what the even more beautiful part of any Linux distribution is? If you don't like KDE, or it takes up too much resources, simply install a different desktop environment, and boom, you've got a totally different desktop experience.
Re: Accountability
In organizations that need accountability (such as the defense contractor my employer contracts to), they can have easily by choosing one of the major players in Linux distributions. We install Red Hat Linux on both servers and 150+ workstations, and have no problem passing all Federal inspections and receiving support from Red Hat. So, while your argument that no _one_ organization is responsible for Linux is factually correct, it's soft because once an organization does choose a major Linux distribution for their environment the can have all the support they want (see Oracle, IBM, Novell, Red Hat, etc).
In my opinion (and that of many expert software engineers), is that the bazaar* model in which many people throughout the world contribute and develop an open source system, is much more beneficial to the community and the world at large than having one monolithic organization fix issues as it is profitable to them. In case the link doesn't come through, see RSAnimate on Youtube, specifically the video called "Drive". Skip to 7:11 for the information relevant to my point.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc</a>
* - Also see The Cathedral and the Bazaar, 1-56592-724-9.
Alert a moderator
clearer
May 30th 2010
21. In fear of sounding like a Troll. ********. From end to end. "Linux" doesn't matter, GNU does. Besides, the free software world doesn't need a lot of people to be successfull. It just needs the people who want to use it. The Free Software Foundation may need people to start wanting to use it but that's another disucssion.
Linux, the kernel, which is -not- an operating system, doesn't benefit from a centralized marketing. In fact I doubt it would benefit from any kind of marketing at all. We have the distributions because they do something that a kernel project can never do -- provide a full custom tailored operating sytem designed with some particular purpose. Windows and Mac OS X is no different, except they use different software stacks as their base. If you start saying every "Linux distribution" has to include this and that package and have this and that theme or this or that desktop, you are effectively shutting down the very idea of free software -- choice. (note that "open source" software is of no consequence to anything and should just be ignored completely).
This whole article reeks with the smell of ignorance and complete misunderstanding of the purpose of and environment that "Linux distributions" are part of. It is not to be commercial successes or to have a large part of the world population to use it -- it is simply to provide an alternative to those who wish be independent of non-free software and to operate with the same environment (that is the free environment). Educating people to care about their rights is another worthy goal, but I think achieving any success in that regards is a pipe-dream.
Alert a moderator
roy2098
April 16th 2010
20. OK here's my experience:
I'm an INDEPENDENT tech consultant/sysadmin.
What is working for me now is: LinuxMint8 as my office desktop; BSD or CentOS for server operating systems; pfSense (running FreeBSD) as enterprise-grade firewall, and windows servers in those vertical markets where nothing else is appropriate. What about a Microsoft desktop? Relegated where it belongs, running in a VirtualBox Virtual Machine, out of sight and harm, called into play only when necessary.
The hardest part about this was the desktop. I've tried 'em all BUT today LinuxMint8 (on amd64 hardware) sets a new standard for ease, simplicity, and good looks.
Go into offices with only Microsoft desktops. The battle against malware/viruses is the biggest waste of time and money anyone has ever seen.
OpenOffice? For most word processing and spreadsheet tasks quite quite good. Access replacement? Not really - that's why I need the Virtual Machines.
So there you have it in a nutshell, at lease my current experience...
Alert a moderator
windymiller
April 15th 2010
19. Come on,that penguin reaching for its groin is porn to these people;-)
Alert a moderator
macoafi
April 13th 2010
18. @#7:
If your admin doesn't know how to use chmod, fire them! Of COURSE you can set a directory to have the files inside inherit the directory's settings. Oh, and UAC was taken from UNIX and Linux. We call it sudo on the command line, and from a GUI we have gksudo and kdesu, and your distro should have pre-configured all administration tasks inside the settings menus run with gksudo or kdesu. All that's left is having your admin add you to the /etc/sudoers file. It sounds to me like all your issues with Linux could be solved by hiring a sysadmin with more than 6mo experience with Linux.
Alert a moderator
macoafi
April 13th 2010
17. Ah well reason #3's wrong. I currently *am* using Linux.
Also: UGH at using "sexy" to describe software.
If you mean intuitive, easy to use, good colour schemes, etc. *say what you mean* And then try using a distro more recent than Red Hat 9.
Alert a moderator
sequdaz
April 13th 2010
16. Part of why Windows is popular and widespread used is because it comes pre-installed in many PCs & Laptops.
It is infact why people still use IE.
"There are plenty of people advertising their own Linux endeavours, all keen to push their own angle on its advantages. This divided effort compounds the problem. With the likes of Red Hat, Novel and Canonical all fighting for their own slice of the pie, there's no one left to push Linux as a distinctive brand."
There is absolutely no reason to fight for their slice of the pie, Redhat and Ubuntu are made for two different kinds of people and they achieve different purposes.
Do you actually know what Redhat and Canonical are?
Alert a moderator
brenbart
April 13th 2010
15. My personal opinion on why Microsoft is the juggernaut in the business world has to do with fear, expectations and straight-up bigoted ignorance.
I've worked in Microsoft based IT departments for about 12 years now and the biggest resistance I've found to Linux and open-source software has been 70%IT executives and 30% IT staff. Fear on the part of IT staff who've only ever had exposure to MS-based products and those few non-MS apps that made it in were heavily vendor supported.
Linux and Open-Source fail to meet new users expectations because the main focus is usually on the functionality rather than the user experience. MS-based software has a certain sameness to it that allows users to unconsciously expect functionality to be in similarly named menus. Linux and FOSS software tends (reasonably, mind you) to have all the options available in one location. This is handy if you know what you're doing but if you don't it looks very complicated. MS-based software looks friendlier because it hides things from the users. Ok, here's another thing... I've been using various Linux distros for about five years now. It's a hobby, I enjoy figuring out how they work and seeing which ones work better than the others. What I'm sick to death of though is Open Office. It just sucks. I've tried to like it for about four years now and frankly I just hate it. I've spent hours trying to figure out how to do the simplest things that take my five minutes in MS-Office. Is MSOffice great? No, I've lately been upgraded at work to Office 2007 and am developing a dislike for it as well. Even so, it's still better than Open Office.
Finally, there's ignorance and bigotry on the part of those who hold the purse-strings. I realize that's a pretty harsh word but I don't know what else to call it. "Business" people don't understand a model that doesn't require them to pay vast sums of money for mediocre products. I swear my head will simply explode if I am forced to hear the words "You get what you pay for." in the context of a discussion about what is the best software product to purchase in order to accomplish a particular set of goals. We buy Microsoft software Licenses with software assurance so that we have support and "free upgrades". I don't know anyone who has ever called Microsoft for support on MS software other than Exchange.
It boggles the mind and yet is clearly understandable.
Alert a moderator
empiresofsteel.com
April 13th 2010
14. As a software developer, one of the things that turns me off about Linux is the open-source dogma that often comes with it. I've seen people berate software developers because they didn't open-source their application, claiming that they are screwing their users unless they make their software open-source. That attitude just seems out of touch with the real-world. I wish they'd try it with other professions: doctors are screwing their patients unless they work for free, or teachers are screwing their students unless they work for tips because "information should be free". If you want users, you need software developers, and if you want software developers you're going to have to allow business models that allow them to live above the poverty line.
Alert a moderator
boybunny
April 13th 2010
13. Sexyness? You have to be kidding me! This may be a consideration for the last 20% of the population that resisted switching onto computers, but I have seen more and more of the user base become mature computer users.
What is a mature computer user? Well it is anyone wise enough to know that it is the tools that you spend time using, not the OS. They no longer care what the OS is, and are OS agnostic. What they have learned is that you run the OS that allows you to use the best quality software with the best toolsets.
Linux has neither quality software or software with even an adequate toolset.
My own household has one MacOS9 machine to run Flash4 (Flash 4 always had the best toolset for animators), one WinME machine for running professional (and freeware) graphics software that was orphaned before XP came out, and a number of XP and OSX machines. The OSX machines are mainly only used for online use as they are more secure online than Windows, but we can also run Logic Studio Pro on them. We use more graphics software than anything so we chose Windows for that task as OSX really is a lightweight for 2D, 3D and video software. We do have a Linux machine as a backup. It is off and stored in a corner in case the world comes to an end and we somehow need to get online in an emergency.
We have many GenY friends who are wise enough to chose their software platforms before looking for an OS and hardware to run on. Only Mac fanatics that we know are childish enough to believe that the OS makes any difference to your way of life.
So I repeat to Linux fans once again... it's the tools stupid! Program quality software that has a decent toolset and doesn't come with a UI that only the programmer understands, and THEN you will see more uptake on the desktop.
Alert a moderator
ojb
April 13th 2010
12. I don't think its anything to do with sexy. Microsoft succeeds without being sexy. I think Linux just isn't good enough. It doesn't offer enough of an advantage to compensate for the disadvantage of moving away from another OS. Its a great OS for embedded devices and servers and I think that's where it will stay.
I tried Linux on my Mac once and I ended up with a pale imitation of an OS I already had (Mac OS X) which was slower, uglier, harder to use, and didn't run any worthwhile programs. Have never run it again since!
Alert a moderator
hulaking
April 13th 2010
11. Linux not sexy? You haven't seen my desktop. Mint is sexy. Parsix is very sexy. Especially when I can run Windows 7 - or any other OS - full screen in Vbox on one of several desktops. And Android? Not sexy? I'm not that much of a geek but in my experience, the Compiz running, multiple OS, multiple desktop Linux is the beautiful and sexy choice.
Alert a moderator
dederoot
April 13th 2010
10. But that little penguin dude is so cute!
lou
www.whos-watching.es.tc
Alert a moderator
rythie
April 12th 2010
9. Is the Unix kernel sexy? no, but it powers all current Macs, iPhone, iPod Touches and the iPad.
Linux is just a kernel, it's just one component to make an operating system out of. The doesn't need to be a single Linux, really you need to make the point that a particular distro isn't succeeding like Ubuntu or RedHat or something.
Linux is successful in virtually every other segment for computers.
- Linux on the server from anything from Google, Facebook, Amazon to many Banks.
- Android is currently the fastest growing mobile phone OS and is the only decent competitor for the iPhone OS.
- 89% of the top 500 most powerful clusters in the world run Linux, enabling important scientific discoveries (http://www.top500.org/stats/list/34/osfam)
- Many storage boxes and home networking equipment run Linux
The problem with the Linux eco-system is still the lack of third party application support and by the time Linux was mature enough to use (about 5 years ago, say) Windows and Mac were already established and it's mature market. Apple almost went bust trying to maintain it's alternative OS, SGI nearly died several times, Sun had to be bought to save it, IBM tried for years with OS/2 Warp.
Basically it's hard to do the desktop.
Alert a moderator
paul
April 12th 2010
8. No, perles, it's not a paid article.
Alert a moderator
anteaus
April 12th 2010
7. The main issue with any alternative to Microsoft software is that coders of business apps assume you are using an all-Microsoft setup, and don't bother to check their code for standards-compliance faults. This is why businesses tend to stick to not just the one platform but the same set of apps too.
Although, if there are two things that make me swear at Linux, they are case-sensitivity and permissions.
Case-sensitivity because it means you cannot capitlise filenames for easier reading (or if you do, you create a stick for your own back)
Permissions, because it seems to be near-impossible to setup a LAN share so that users can collaborate on work. This is because new files and folders don't inherit the parent's permissions as they do in Windows. Thus every time new data is created, it's time to call-on someone with the root password to the server, to fix the damn permissions. Again.
That, and if you hit a situation in the GUI where you have insufficient permissions then there is no equivalent of UAC; at that point you are stonewalled and have to redo the whole procedure from the start, as root -and of course in changing to root you lose all your settings. Grrr...
Alert a moderator
perles
April 12th 2010
6. It seems that the author never used Linux by himself. Neither installed the new releases of OpenSuse, Mandriva or Fedora. By his text you can fish very easy:
"Linux has been such a success on everything from Chinese mobile phones to almost every NAS box around." Chinese mobile is not a success at all! He ignored Nexus One, Google's mobile (or assigned as Chinese!).
Another example: "Perhaps we should focus on value. Recent analysis of the kernel by Jon Corbet showed that 75 per cent of the 2.8 million lines of code in recent contributions were written by paid-for developers. That puts Linux freedom in context." This has been published some time ago, but Linux users don't care and don't know about it. And freedom has never been threated.
"Migrating big business to a Linux desktop is akin to turning a T1-class supertanker around mid-Atlantic." - Many serious business rely on Solaris or Free/Open BSD, not on Windows. Being all Unix the migration is easy and painless.
"The second reason for failure is that Linux lacks centralised marketing. This is because there's no real Linux Central. " - Never heard about "The Cathedral and The Bazaar" huhh??
"As Jim Zemlin, Executive Director of the Linux Foundation, puts it, "Linux can compete with the iPad on price, but where's the magic?" " - Come on! You said it is fast, rock solid, and can compete with a iPad (that has only design behind it, nothing else). If Linux can defeat the design, why do you
state as title that Linux is not sexy? You mixed kernel with user interface. And you wrote an article about KDE 4.4 (http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/linux-desktop-innovations-to-look-forward-to-674755?artc_pg=1).
Is this a paid article?
Alert a moderator
bradavon
April 11th 2010
5. I'd say Windows 7 is sexy. I still love using it. It's not as nippy as XP but is so much better in every other way, really increasing productivity through it's new features.
I always end up sticking with Windows because it has 10 fold choice of software over MAC and probably a similar number to Linux. App choice has always been the killer feature for Windows (likewise iPhone in the mobile arena).
I also feel it makes the most sense to learn the OS the business world uses and we all know what that is. Outside of graphic design, who actually uses MACs? Apple have even been forced to include Microsoft's Exchange support in Snow Leapoard, as they too this isn't going to change.
Linux is also still to complicated for the average user to master and Windows isn't exactly uncomplicated at times. So you have to run Anti-malware with Windows, big deal. The best Anti-malware software, you install and forget about (for the most part). Windows 2000-Windows 7 are also reliable, that one was fixed a long time ago. Windows Vista and Windows 7 are particularly reliable.
How many games are written for MAC and Linux too? Not many.
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments