Why Desktop Linux Will Not Take off

[Doobie]

This post is inspired by an article by Martin Girard's article, Why Desktop Linux Will Not Take off, and Why You Don't Want It to (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=15811). His central argument is that Linux is like a hoodless dragster. Most people don't want to drive on of those for a variety of reasons.

There's no reason Linux has to be like a hoodless dragster. Some distributions, like Freespire, have come a long way in being more like the family sedan. Still, Linux tends to be a little raw. This is not intrinsic to Linux. I think it has more to do with Linux programmers not being motivated to polish polish software after they get the function of software working. They don't see the profit in polish. I think some Linux programmers want to repulse the masses. They don't want average consumers enjoying their work while not contributing anything back.

The big reason why Linux hasn't taken off on the desktop is software, software, software. How many of you run Windows XP to run certain software and especially games that don't have native Linux versions? If the Linux underwent some reforms and game companies were shown that there is demand, we might see game companies releasing tweaked wine with their games, if not Linux binaries.

Linux software is mostly raw and crude. Think about that solitaire game you play on Linux verses the one bundled with Windows. Linux users prefer polished software, they just tolerate Linux software.

Installing Linux software on Linux is a pain. There have been some half-solutions, like Freespire's CNR Warehouse. But, looking at such things as VideoLinux and Christian Ubuntu, apparently it's easier to make a new distribution than a make a download package. What do I do if I want to produce videos of sermons on my distribution? Wait for someone to come out with a Christian VideoSuse distribution? Yes, I know I can download the various files and tweak the software myself, by why should I have to?

After software, the next big problem for Linux is the market. Practically every PC sold comes preloaded with Windows. Why use Linux when you already have Windows XP? XP doesn't suffer from the software issues that Linux suffers from? Why should the PC OEMs preload Linux? Anyone who wants Linux knows how to put a PC together. Selling Linux to the masses means lower customer satisfaction because its something new for the consumer to learn and Linux comes with those software issues. The price break on Linux is mostly eaten up by higher support costs, if not some sort of retribution from MS.

[Spotteri]

Hmm. I wonder what is the purpose of the this post. It remainds something somebody once sed about the religious: Those who are most uncertain, keep making the loudest noise.

[Carpo]

troll is a word that springs to mind

[Doobie]

Hmm. I wonder what is the purpose of the this post. It remainds something somebody once sed about the religious: Those who are most uncertain, keep making the loudest noise.

What is it that you think I'm uncertain about?

[emmel]

I agree with you for most of the arguments you presented. Yet, I don't get the point. And if it exists, you definitely chose the wrong forum to make it :)

[Teegedeck]

lol

Seems you are a Gamer who would have liked to use Linux and had to realize that Linux isn't the best platform for you. Indeed Linux has moved slowly from server to general/office use and it will certainly be a long time before it gets interesting for gamers. If ever. Good thing that not everyone regards his/her computer as a gaming machine.

:thanks: I especially loved to read these golden oldies once again:

Linux software is mostly raw and crude.

Installing Linux software on Linux is a pain.

Why use Linux when you already have Windows XP?

XP doesn't suffer from the software issues that Linux suffers from?

The price break on Linux is mostly eaten up by higher support costs, if not some sort of retribution from MS.Just when you thought good, old-fashioned trolling had died out. :D

Err, tell me again; what was the purpose of this post on a board dedicated to DVD conversion?

[Doobie]

Seems you are a Gamer who would have liked to use Linux and had to realize that Linux isn't the best platform for you.

Yes, and that's a big reason why Linux isn't making more inroads onto the desktop, as eveyone here knows. And, not as the one Linux guy thinks, that somehow Linux is just too cool for the masses.

Err, tell me again; what was the purpose of this post on a board dedicated to DVD conversion?

Because something needs to be changed when it's easier to crank out new Linux distribution just to provide a suite of DVD conversion tools than to make a download package for use with any distro.

I'd like to add another reason why Desktop Linux won't take off, linux users might be too anti-social and insecure. I didn't say anything with the intentionn ofe startingr anyd flamings.

[Teegedeck]

Dear chap, you're wasting your energy. :) This is not the place where Linux* developers hang out, waiting for wisdom to be told by Doobie.

Why don't you use Windows? Quite a decent platform with the great plus that they already have made quite some inroads into the desktop and I hear also many games are published for Windows every year.

Or you could just bug game companies to publish their stuff for Linux; it's a chicken-and-the-egg problem.

Edit: In case you're wondering why it is hard to take your lamento seriously - it looks suspiciously like it's not based on any actual experience but just a very lame attempt at trolling. Sentences like "Installing Linux software on Linux is a pain. " and "Linux software is mostly raw and crude. " gave you away there. ;)

* Also, Linux is only the raw core. General usability is largely up to the desktop developers (GNOME, KDE, Xfce...) that have the biggest influence on the general user interface. And, more and more importantly, up to the distributions that make choices about how to integrate and style it all. Yes, distributions is where it's at; no sense in asking "Linux programmers" to change the way 'Linux' is. :)

[M7S]

Because something needs to be changed when it's easier to crank out new Linux distribution just to provide a suite of DVD conversion tools than to make a download package for use with any distro.
You got it all wrong. It's Windows which can't have a third-party DVD conversion distro, otherwise there probably would be one. Installing DVD conversion programs in any major Linux distribution is ihmo just as easy as in Windows. (Well I don't know if there is a GUI for Gentoo's emerge or how well gslapt works in slackware, but the rest of the major distros should be quite easy.) The problem is those programs you need to run through Wine. That's of cource more difficult than just installing the programs on their native OS.


I'd like to add another reason why Desktop Linux won't take off, linux users might be too anti-social and insecure.
You mean in real life? That's quite an generalization. There are many different types of Linux users, just like there are many different types of Windows users.

On the net you can find lots of helping linux users in communities like ubuntuforums. Of cource you can find a lot of unfriendly people there as well, just as you can in every big community.

[Teegedeck]

[...] linux users might be too anti-social and insecure. I didn't say anything with the intentionn ofe startingr anyd flamings.Certainly you didn't; I wonder how I could ever get that impression... But never mind, no offense taken. ;)

[Doobie]

You got it all wrong. It's Windows which can't have a third-party DVD conversion distro, otherwise there probably would be one. Installing DVD conversion programs in any major Linux distribution is ihmo just as easy as in Windows.

The only reason windows doesn't have 3rd-party conversion distros is for copyright reasons. But, it does have them.

Anyway, my point wasn't to comparing Linux to Windows. I was only addressing why Linux hasn't taken off on the desktop, and to correct a linux user who thinks that Linux is just too cool for the masses.

Don't give me that garbage about installing software being just as easy on Linux as on Windows. Linux has a lot of ground to cover before the complexity of installing software is not an impediment to Linux adoption. Denial doesn't help.

[mod]

Linux has a lot of ground to cover before the complexity of installing software is not an impediment to Linux adoption.
Hmmm.. now there're GUIs that make installing simple and clean also for beginners (ie Synaptic).

[Teegedeck]

Yeah, with most distributions it's more or less 'point and click'* these days, so I seriously wonder what this "Linux' software installation is more complicated than than Window's" nonsense is about. :)

* On the lines of 'open menu, start package manager, select package to install, done'. (And if the package you want to install is on your harddrive it should be an RPM or DEB which you double-click to install.)

If I were to speculate about the origins of that mysterious sentiment, I would say that I think most people who complain about software installation under Linux simply have no idea that it is just a matter of using the package manager.

They mistakenly think they have to find software on a website and download it! Because that's the way they've come to know it from Windows. And, I'd bet what they download is some tar.gz they subsequently (and without success) try to compile ;)

That's how Windows spoils you to always look for the more complicated solution, no?

[Sirber]

it's harder if the distro don't have the wanted package, for a noob user.

[emmel]

Installing programs with Linux may be even simpler than with any other operating system nowadays (opinion of a Windows user). The above mentioned Synaptic (newest Ubuntu e.g. relies on Synaptic), for example, is something that I'd like to see on Windows, too.

[danpos]

it's harder if the distro don't have the wanted package, for a noob user.

I agree with you at first, but the linux's guys are 'smart' and for Debian based distributions there's a easy way provide for them to compile, build the Debian package (with the installation of this one) from a .tgz source file: auto-apt and checkinstall. The first is ran together with ./configure and provides (i.e., downloads and installs) all dependencies packages for a proper compilation of package; the second builds the .deb package with the user providing a few informations about it. More informations can be get on this blog (http://ubuntuff.blogspot.com/).

JFYI. :)

Regards,

[Doobie]

Hmmm.. now there're GUIs that make installing simple and clean also for beginners (ie Synaptic).

I think we all know about Synaptic. Would you like to explain why someone came out with VideoLinux instead of just a Video download package for any distro? This costs 99% of the wouldbe downloaders.

[jggimi]

Each and every distribution is more than "Linux" -- Linux is only a kernel. A distribution is someone's (or some groups's) idea of which kernel, kernel mods, userland tools, X environment, "builtin" application sets, suites of add-on application, management and maintenance tools, etc... are of interest to *them* and the market they happen to serve. There are hundreds.

This is not the forum to ask why one particular distribution elected to go in any particular direction. In the specific case of videolinux, you will find your initial answer here, (http://videolinux.net/page.php?7) and you can take any followup questions there. (http://www.videolinux.net/forum/)

If you want an OS kernel bound to a specific matching userland (and X, where applicable), your choices are Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, and the BSDs. And OSX. And Windows. Etc.

[mod]

No need to say more than jggimi :)

[Doobie]

This is not the forum to ask why one particular distribution elected to go in any particular direction.

I didn't ask the question to get an answer. I asked the question to make a point.

[M7S]

Please don't use questions you don't know the answer to rethorically. It confuses the readers.

[jggimi]

Doobie:

There are several reasons why your arguments are not being well received here -- regardless of their merits, or their discourse value:

You are off-topic. Doom9's forum is for discussion of video encoding.

You are addressing the wrong audience. This is not a Linux advocacy group, nor is it a group of Linux distribution developers. We are people who use non-Windows desktops for video processing and encoding. We use all sorts of non-Windows desktop environments, not just Linux.

The tone of your claims have been construed as insulting and unsupported by fact. You have had this pointed out to you already. You will be unable to pursuade someone to see your point of view if they perceive either a lack of credibility, or a lack of common understanding, or both.

There are hundreds of web forums, chat rooms, Usenet groups, and web sites that would appreciate your arguments. Doom9's forum isn't one of them.

Please take this elsewhere.

[Sharktooth]

Installing programs with Linux may be even simpler than with any other operating system nowadays (opinion of a Windows user). The above mentioned Synaptic (newest Ubuntu e.g. relies on Synaptic), for example, is something that I'd like to see on Windows, too.
Newest ubuntu relies on Adept. It also have an "update check" at startup that is even able to update the kernel version...
However, i still didnt try it, but 2 days ago the first english version of linux-xp was released (http://www.linux-xp.com/) and it looks quite promising for newbies.

[KpeX]

Thread closed, reread jggimi's post if you want to know why.