The GNU/Linux Desktop: Nine Myths

Nobody questions whether Mac OS X is ready for the desktop. Never mind that switching to it involves learning different assumptions and tools and a new desktop. It has a reputation for being user-friendly, and is backed by a proprietary company, just like Windows.

With GNU/Linux, however, the story is different. For over a decade, columnists and bloggers have been explaining how GNU/Linux isn't ready for the desktop -- and, despite all the progress in the operating system over the last ten years, the arguments haven't changed much. Moreover, increasingly, they're outdated when they're not based on complete ignorance. In fact, I often get the impression that those who pontificate on GNU/Linux's inadequacies have never tried it.

Often, of course, the criterion for desktop-readiness is subjective. What is a bug to one user is a feature to another: for example, having to log in as root to install software is an inconvenience to inexperienced users, but a security feature to those with more knowledge.

Often, too, complaints about GNU/Linux are actually complaints that it is not exactly like Windows. Never mind the fact that, unless it did things differently, there would be no reason to switch in the first place. Or that anyone who expects to use a new application or operating system without a learning period is arrogantly provincial. The fact that GNU/Linux is not completely familiar is more than enough to damn it in the eyes of some critics.

Then there are arguments that involve a rubber ruler. That's where someone claims that GNU/Linux will never be ready until it has a certain feature, then, when the feature is pointed out or developed, changes directions and insists that another feature is essential. You can never win against such arguments, because the criteria for judging them keeps changing.

However, in addition to all these arguments are the ones that invalidate themselves primarily because of error, incompleteness, or misrepresentation. These are nine of the most common factually incorrect ones:

This claim is popular among software vendors explaining why they don't make versions of their products for the operating system. It is based on the fact that all distributions do not follow efforts at consistency like the Linux Standards Base, and often put files in different locations. In addition, distributions use a variety of package systems, so that widespread support can mean building packages in several different formats.

These problems are real, but the claim exaggerates the difficulties they create. Universal installers like InstallBuilder and Install Anywhere offer vendors installers that are similar to those on Windows. As for building several different packages, if community projects have no trouble doing so, why should a software company?

But, really, the largest problem with this claim is that it attempts to impose the Windows way of doing things on an existing system. In GNU/Linux, the creators of an application don't support different distributions or packaging formats -- the distribution does.

This system works because, with free software, the distribution can make whatever changes it needs to make the software run. It is only a problem for proprietary vendors. If they aren't willing to work with the system and release their code as free software, that is their choice -- but then they shouldn't complain that the system isn't set up for them.

True, GNU/Linux might benefit from a wizard that would import e-mail, browser bookmarks, IRC channels and other personal information from Windows. But the same could be said of Windows. At least GNU/Linux co-exists with other operating systems and can read their formatted partitions so that you can manually migrate some of this information.

In the past, hardware support for GNU/Linux was spotty. More often than not, it existed because of efforts by the community, not the manufacturer, and its early stages were incomplete.

However, in the last three or four years, community drivers have matured, and more manufacturers are releasing GNU/Linux drivers along with Windows and Mac drivers. The manufacturers' drivers are not always free software, but they are free for the download.

Today, cases of incompatibility for basics such as hard drives, keyboards, and ethernet cards still occur, but are rare. The problem areas are likely to be peripheral areas like scanners, printers, modems, and wireless cards. However, you can hedge your bets by a few tactics such as choosing a postscript printer, which always works with the generic postscript driver, or buying from companies like Hewlett-Packard, which has a long history of supporting GNU/Linux printing.

Some people even maintain that, because GNU/Linux generally retains backwards compatibility, it actually supports more hardware than Windows. I wouldn't quite go that far, but, on the whole, driver problems on GNU/Linux seem only slightly more common than the ones I used to find on various versions of Windows.

Today, too, you can sidestep hardware compatibility entirely by buying GNU/Linux pre-installed from companies such as Acer or Dell.

Cool. I’ve always wanted a usable (nongeek-code gui) firewall on my Suse 11 box. I think I’ll give that a try.

I’m a self-trained Linux user. Most of the stuff I read on these computer engineer back-and-forths make my eyes glaze over. But I have enjoyed using Linux distros for more than a decade now.

You have just pointed out exactly why Linux is not a viable desktop for most people. The average user won’t understand:

front-end
dpkg
Debian
deb files
binary packages

Perhaps if they are going to use it, they should learn something about it. A little due diligence goes a long way.

Perhaps if they are going to use it, they should learn something about it. A little due diligence goes a long way.

Any time I start to use a new tool (and yes--a computer is a tool), I try to learn about it so I can 1) use it properly 2) get the most out of it so I don't waste my money, and 3) not get hurt or hurt other people.

I don't know where this idea came from that my little ol' granny who can't fend for herself should be able to use a complex tool like a computer without any help, or knowledge. It's a bad idea and a bad way of doing things. Even a car, which is a simpler tool to operate, requires certification from the state in order to operate it. While the computer probably won't physically harm others, like a car can, it still requires knowledge, training, and skill to use properly.

Computers should be considered no different.

Every Linux box I have built has required me to run the command line interpreter from time to time, starting with Red Hat several years ago and including Fedora Core and now Ubuntu. The shells are getting better, but they aren’t good enough.

And yet they easily could be, because anyone who has ever installed software or drivers on OS/X knows that you never have to look at a command line for any reason. Apple puts a premium on abstracting away from the user any kind of underlying OS complexity. Microsoft tries to do that, but most applications have too many configuration options (mostly as a cheap attempt at allowing the user to limit the size of the installed software) and some vendors fall short with installation design. Some Linux distributions like Ubuntu also try, but Linux drivers and application software are still in the hands of people who like poking around under the hood, and don't see the need to make installations as easy as possible. After all, they understand it, so what's wrong with all those noobs out there who don't? ;)

Looks like I touched a nerve with the Linux folks here. :)

That's not a virus, that's tricking a human to run a trojan. One can trick an old lady into giving up her ATM card and pin, and the location of her purse. That's doesn't make the security of a bank equivalent to her purse.

How do you think most malware gets onto a system in the first place? "Click this link!" "Read this e-mail!" "Watch this video!" The vast majority of malware on people's systems got there as a direct result of some unwitting action on the user's part.

Yes, the occasional virus pops up every now and then that exploits a genuine security hole in the operating system itself, or in a commonly installed package. If you think such holes only exist on Windows systems, you might want to patch your system.

But that's really not the point. It doesn't help to prove that desktop Linux is intrinsically more secure if you try to use semantics to limit the discussion domain. If you look at the malware that's out there in the wild right now, it got there largely by the user downloading a file or clicking a link. And if you clicked any of the above links in my previous paragraph, you've proven my point that clicking potentially dangerous links isn't restricted to naive Windows users.

I don't know what distro of Linux desktops the Brazilian kids or French parliamentarians are running. But if their users use web browsers with plug-in support, media players, rich email clients, office/productivity software, games, filesharing applications, or chat clients, then they're just as vulnerable to security compromises as any Windows system. Linux is not magic.

Looks like I touched a nerve with the Linux folks here. :)

Well you got a response to a posting you made... I guess that could interpreted as such, I mean how often does something like thathappen around here?

Right, your point is that a human being, with all their glorious gullibility is common to both Linux and Windows seats, and therefore neither system is more secure than the other. My point was that the human factor is silent as to whether one or the other is inherently more secure, since as I said, the same arguement could be used to say that purses and ATM machines are equivelent in security because an old lady could be easily tricked into giving access to either. Obviously the gullibility of the old lady doesn't establish that ATM's and purses are equivalent in security.

I'm not limiting the discussion, I'm rejecting the assertion that a human being's involvement establishes that one thing can't be more secure than another.

You have just pointed out exactly why Linux is not a viable desktop for most people.

You may be right, but I have a feeling that such is actually not so. Consider that the poster I responded to is an Ubuntu user but was completely unaware of how his packages got installed, or what tools did it. Now, I will admit that I am a bit surprised that such would happen, but that it does should indicate that not knowing anything about the system does not actually mean you cannot use it. Windows, for instance, uses binary files and has front-end tools, and many other applications with fancy names too, like MSCONFIG, but most people don't have to know them. The same is possible with Linux too, though less common I will grant.

that doesn't mean I was mocking them

I went back to look again. The arrogant superiority of the average Linux user is leaking out of your post.

I run Puppy on my laptop, because it is one of the few distros where you don't have to learn Linux to make it work on a basic level.

I go back to CP/M, so command line is not a foreign concept to me, but I don't have the time to teach myself Linux right now, and I know better than to expect help from experienced users.

The self titled "Saint Ignucious", whose organizations such as GNU own more copyrights to Linux operating system distros than anyone. He's also an outspoken Green Party radical leftist who often visits countries like Cuba and Venezuela to campaign against the United States.

Yep, Richard Stallman is sometimes kooky, but he has undeniably done great things. The free software movement is arguably due to him, and Linux certainly would not have taken off as it did without the GNU suite of applications. And I don't think it is too fair to criticize him for copyrights since he makes all of his software available to anyone, even to modify. As far as I am concerned Emacs alone is enough to make him worthy of admiration.

I went back to look again. The arrogant superiority of the average Linux user is leaking out of your post.

I certainly don't feel any such way about Linux or Linux users. I just prefer that OS as a matter of taste. I am certainly not geeky, and don't program or anything like that. Anything more demanding than a few lines in a shell script is more than beyond my ability. It seems more likely to me that you have a preconceived idea about Linux users, e.g. "arrogant superiority of the average Linux user...", and are seeing in my post what you would expect to see. Something like a self-fulfilling prophecy. But, believe me, I meant no such thing at all.

you have a preconceived idea about Linux users

You pegged that one. I've probably been a /. reader for 10 years, I've tried playing with Linux for at least 5, and as I noted, Puppy is the only one so far that is generally user friendly (although I still can't get wireless to work on my laptop.). (The machine came with Vista, so I can always grit my teeth and use it if I need wireless).

I've probably been a /. reader for 10 years...

Well, there is that. Although, in all honesty, I don't think /. is very revealing of "average" Linux users. I have been using Debian for two or three years, and used Slackware for three or so before that, and have spent much of that time reading and posting in the usenet groups and mailing lists relevant to those distros. Those groups are composed of what I think would be common or average users of those distros, both of which are seen as less user-friendly than the likes of Ubuntu or the aforementioned Puppy, and I have rarely found any arrogance. As a matter of fact I am constantly amazed at the friendliness and helpfulness of the members of those communities.

Looks like we’re in a state of “violent agreement”, then. :) Naturally, the user is almost always the weakest link when it comes to a computer system’s security.

It is precisely because of this fact, that the security argument for widespread desktop Linux holds no water. The vast majority of malware gets onto users’ systems not because of technical flaws in those systems but because of naïve user actions. The whole point of advocating a wider spread of desktop Linux is to give these users Linux systems instead of Windows, but that changes nothing about the primary route of malware entry: the users themselves. Those users will be no less naïve whether they’re using Linux or Windows or Mac or SunOS or AIX. They’re still going to click that link or install that codec or run that executable.

There are many reasons to support and encourage the further development and more widespread adoption of desktop Linux. However, the belief that Linux is more secure, isn’t one of them.

“How do you think most malware gets onto a system in the first place? “Click this link!” “Read this e-mail!” “Watch this video!” The vast majority of malware on people’s systems got there as a direct result of some unwitting action on the user’s part.”

I virus requires no human interaction (like code red and nimda for example). A trojan can contain a virus but unless the software self propagates without user intervention after that point its not a virus.

“it doesn’t help to prove that desktop Linux is intrinsically more secure if you try to use semantics to limit the discussion domain.”

Nor does it help to prove its not any more secure by muddling about with the proper terminology and setting up the straw man of ‘Linux people say its full proof’

Nor does it help to prove its not any more secure by muddling about with the proper terminology and setting up the straw man of ‘Linux people say its full proof’

I set up no such straw man. I don't need to. You don't claim it's foolproof, you claim it's more secure at all.

How exactly is desktop Linux intrinsically more secure than Windows, when the overwhelmingly predominant threat vector (the naivete of the desktop user) is the same across both system classes?

“I set up no such straw man. I don’t need to”

No you have not, but other have and often do. But you did hold up a hypothetical trojan which is more a social engineering attack than a virus as an example that Linux is just as insecure as windows.

“How exactly is desktop Linux intrinsically more secure than Windows, when the overwhelmingly predominant threat vector (the naivete of the desktop user) is the same across both system classes?”

Because if you want to use that measure than nothing is more or less secure than anything else. The example of a Piggy bank and an ATM someone used stands out. Because if you’re stupid people can get your money from an ATM a bank must be no more secure than a piggy bank. That is basically what you are saying.

That’s why the differences between a virus and a Trojan are important in this discussion. Code Red did not need any user interaction it just went everywhere *by its self* once on a network. There has never been such a virus for a *nix system.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.