Posted on 07/12/2018 6:56:39 AM PDT by ShadowAce
First, I want to be absolutely clear about something. I have been a full time Linux on the desktop user for well over a decade. It has been and will always be my preferred platform for desktop and server usage. It does just what I need and I appreciate that.
All of that said however, the "masses" haven't gravitated towards Linux for their desktop usage like I had hoped. In this article, I'm going to explore the reasons why I think this has happened.
1) Linux isn't pre-installed - No matter how much we may debate it, having Windows pre-installed on PCs means that's what people are likely to end up using. In order for someone to move over to Linux on the desktop, there must be a clear reason to do so. There is the problem. The only time I've personally seen users make the switch over to Linux from Windows comes down to frustration with Windows or a desire to advance their skills into an IT field.
My own Linux story, for example, was a mixture of the two examples above. First off, I was just done with Windows. I had already been dabbling with Linux at the time I completely switched, but I become disenfranchised with the Microsoft way of doing things. So for me, the switch to Linux was based out of frustration.
Had I not experienced any frustrations with Windows, I might not have ever thought to jump ship over to an alternative. Even when I built my own PCs myself, the OS offered at computer stores was Windows only. This is a huge hurdle for Linux adoption on the desktop.
2) Linux freedom vs convenience - It's been my experience that people expect a user experience that's consistent and convenience. How one defines this depends on the individual user. For some, it's a matter of familiarity or perceived dependability. For more advanced PC users, a consistent convenience may mean a preferred workflow or specific applications.
The greater takeaway is that when people are aware of other operating systems, they will usually stick with that they've used the longest. This presents a problem when getting people to try Linux. When using a desktop platform for a long time, you develop habits and expectations that don't lend themselves well to change.
3) Linux lacks legacy software - Expanding on the idea of convenience, another challenge is enticing those who have legacy applications only found on Windows. Even if we consider suggesting Linux-specific software alternatives, we're expecting users to change existing workflows. I've found most people to be resistant to this. Not because one type of application is better or worse than another. After all, this is a matter of personal perspective. No, the real issue is that users have existing workflows, file types and overall application expectations. Switching away from this doesn't always go all that well.
4) Linux networking isn't for the faint of heart - Networking in Linux is reliable, however, it's reliant on understanding the differences between Windows and Linux networking. In Linux, both Samba and NFS file sharing is conf file based. And while it's not difficult to learn, it's not going to be as straightforward as you might find with Windows.
On the flip side, connecting to the network itself is incredibly simple. Wired or wireless, modern Linux distros handle connecting to a network in a seamless manner. But it's unfortunate that even with the most newbie friendly distros, you need to drop to a command prompt to create a Samba password or edit a conf file for an NFS share.
5) Linux video card support is tricky - From a basic perspective, graphics card support works just fine in Linux. However, things become a bit muddled when you bundle in Wayland vs X. Two different display server options mean different benefits and downsides when choosing one vs another. Some distros use Wayland as the default, which means some X reliant applications won't work.
Then there are the laptops with shared graphics. Laptops with NVIDIA/Intel graphics tend to be the biggest challenges with some Linux distros. I've found this to be one of the most common issues facing newer Linux users. Granted, graphics switching has gotten a lot better over the years. But it's still distro dependent and sometimes upgrades can throw new issues into the mix.
Last, there is the issue of choosing the right driver type. In some distros, a FoSS friendly driver is set by default. But in other distros, a proprietary option is the default. On the surface this doesn't seem like an issue, but it does add to some confusion.
6) Linux PulseAudio sound server is confusing - Linux audio is actually pretty good. However, the PulseAudio sound server sitting on top of the audio architecture is out of touch and out of sync. The fact that I can adjust the volume with PulseAudio yet if the sound device is muted in alsamixer it must be dealt with at the alsamixer level blows my mind. If you're going to layer a sound server on top of ALSA, make darn sure it syncs up its adjustments between sound server and architecture.
Making matters worse is the fact that most popular desktop environments don't fully take advantage of what PulseAudio has to offer. Most desktops lack Recording and Playback tabs in the volume control settings. When you launch a Hangouts session or play music, you might wish to route said audio to different playback devices. With most distros, this requires you to use padevchooser.
7) Linux lacks triple A gaming titles - Linux gaming has come a long way. Thanks to Valve, GoG.com and others, Linux gaming has evolved tremendously in recent years. The title availability and desire from developers to include Linux in their operating support has been fantastic. That said, there is still a lot of improvement to be had with Linux gaming.
I'm not sure what the solution is to get more game developers on board with porting games to Linux, but for now I think we'll have to continue voting with our wallets. Sadly, I continue to see Linux users justifying their "need" for Windows games and thus, dual-booting their operating systems. This is a cop out and frustrates me more than anything. No one needs Windows gaming, it's a choice, not a requirement for sustaining life.
8) Linux desktop environments - As much as I love the choice presented with Linux on the desktop, I can understand how some people might feel overwhelmed. It can be challenging to select a specific distro based on a desktop environment. So being able to choose and discover new desktop environments is exciting. It can absolutely be confusing for some newcomers.
The reason for this is most people are coming from the limited world of Windows or OS X. You have a release and that's what you get. There is no choice, unless you wish to use an older release of those proprietary OS'.
9) Linux distros vary in quality - Most popular Linux distros are fantastic. Unfortunately there are distros that are less than fantastic. Some of them are downright bad. Without labeling some and leaving out others, suffice it to say that it's not enough to merely choose a distro based on popularity.
My advice is to look at distros with a strong backing. Whether or not this is a strong community backing or corporate backing depends on what you're looking for.
10) Linux is overshadowed by ChromeOS - ChromeOS is an incredibly limited OS yet has gained in popularity thanks to cheap, easy to use laptops and its deep integration into Google services. Sadly, printing and scanning remains a joke with this OS. Yes, it's doable...but not without jumping through hoops. Despite this, ChromeOS is based on Gentoo Linux and perhaps this is as close Linux will get to being a mainstream desktop OS.
Under the covers AD is BIND.
If there was a flavor of Linux that worked as well as macOS or even OS X, had professional audio apps, plugins & virtual instruments written for it by 3rd party vendors who specialize in pro-audio applications—I’d use it 24/7.
Till Linux has the quality & at least a 3rd of the quantity of pro audio applications that Windows or macOS does, it’s completely useless to me.
As far as pro audio goes, Linux is barely past the Windows 95 era, in my opinion.
Ha! I think I know exactly where that swap meet used to take place and squandered way too many hard-earned dollars buying junk there!
For the vast majority of people, Windows just works. I have custom compiled Gentoo distros, so I got all techy about it. But the truth was, for the vast majority of what I do, Windows was good enough, more than good enough. There was just no compelling reason to go with Linux for me.
I figured there were a few Seattle area folks there. On James street near the jail. :)
I always found it interesting that the biggest crowd was milling around the Pr0n CD’s and, in later years, DVD’s.
I actually still have an IBM AT as a “future antique”.
You usually have to install the OS when you buy a computer. It is just done automatically.
We use VM’s running Ubuntu as Java developing boxes. There is too much automatic updating in Windows.
If all you need is Eclipse and JDK, there is no point in using Windows.
I use the computer for useful work. I don’t like to fiddle with operating systems. The OS should just work, and not get in my way.
When I got my first computer I called a unix distributor and he quoted 999.00 per computer. I said that DOS was only 65.00 and he said that Unix was better. I went with DOS. END OF STORY.
As always, I agree 100% with you ;)
The ‘freedom’ part is also why I prefer KDE, since it gives the most freedom to do what you want with the desktop environment (and more control over the computer).
(And unlike the old days, KDE is NOT the resource hog it used to be. It actually has lower resource use than either Cinnamon OR Mate recently ;^D)
Linux is not.
Interesting. That's why I use Linux.
May I remind you that the title of the great article that you chose to start a thread on is “Top 10 Reasons Why Desktop Linux Failed”. Sloanrb could have said, “Because of servers, Android smartphones, tablets and other “smart” devices. Desktop not so much.” Then you would have had no misleading comeback. Linux is not very popular for desktop or laptop computers.
I have installed versions of Linux on many computers over the years. I do not install it on computers for my parents or other people who are not tech savvy. I still use virtual machines with Linux. I do not like the direction Microsoft took with Windows 10 and have made frequent harsh criticisms.
The primary problem with desktop versions of Linux for me has been the availability of software that I use frequently for specific purposes. Just two examples: I have been a photoshop user since version 2.5 came out for Windows in 1992. More recently I have gotten into 3-D Modelling to design devices for my 3-D printer. These days there are photo-editing packages for Linux but none which have all the features that I need. There currently are no good options that I am aware of for 3-D Modelling.
But there is another reason these days that is touched on in the article, but is actually just the tip of the iceberg. “5) Linux video card support is tricky”. It is not just the video drivers... I have a low powered Nextbook Windows 10 miniature laptop / tablet hybrid that I went all out trying to install a version of Linux on. This type of device is generally better suited for Linux than Windows 10.
But the install was basically not even possible and no one else on the forums was successfully able to do it either. There is a lot of other hardware designed for Windows 10 on the market that Linux basically just can not be installed on because of lack of drivers or other reasons that make it extremely difficult to do. On some you can hobble something together without sound, wireless, or proper video drivers, but what is the point of that? Just to prove that you can do it?
As far as I know.. the Commodor64 is still great for hacking (with raw data).
Don’t forget to mention that many of the Distros give an option to encrypt your home folder (or even the whole system) while installing.
Is Mozilla involved at all with Linux? Or, asked differently - in what ways is Mozilla involved with Linux? Merely as a user/users? Or more?
You are correct, of course. I apologize for going off on a tangent.
I have a low powered Nextbook Windows 10 miniature laptop / tablet hybrid that I went all out trying to install a version of Linux on.
An anecdote regarding a device designed around Windows, rather than a generic tablet. Good example.
As I said above, freedom does come with responsibility. Part of that responsibility is choosing the hardware and software that will run together to accomplish the task you need to accomplish. You chose a combination that does not work, much like choosing a Matrox card to run modern high-end video editing and gaming.
Choose what works for you.
As far as I know, that is the extent of their involvement.
“You usually have to install the OS when you buy a computer. It is just done automatically.”
That’s simply not true. With factory-installed Windows, starting the PC for the first time does little more than selecting keyboard type, language type, timezone, PC name, starting the connections to the local area network, and building an initial login account. All of these are simply configuration items easily changed later on, with the exception of the language, which CAN be changed, though it basically takes a hack to do that.
Doing all of that is NOT “installing the OS” ...
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.