Top 10 Reasons Why Desktop Linux Failed

Datamation ^ | 11 July 2018 | Matt Hartley

[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.

Inside the Failure of Desktop Linux

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.

[fireman15]

You chose a combination that does not work, much like choosing a Matrox card to run modern high-end video editing and gaming.

I agree with just about everything that you have said in this thread and others. I chose the little Nextbook because it was $79 which was incredibly cheap considering the features that it came with. I assumed that I would be able to get some version of Linux to run on it to get better performance... but definitely no joy on that.

My latest Laptop was also seems to have been designed around Windows 10. It has the latest Intel Core I5 with along with a discreet Radeon graphics card. It has major driver issues with the graphics card, the touch screen, sound and wireless that have yet to be resolved by those who would like to run a version of Linux as the primary OS. But I do have virtual Mint and Ubuntu machines installed that run fabulously on it using VMware.

[buffaloguy]

1984 dollars. Probably 2 to 3 grand in 2018 dollars. Way off target.

[taxcontrol]

The OS was installed at the factory prior to shipping. IOW, it was installed FOR you. It is that convenience that the Linux market place lacks, though it is possible with some vendors to have Linux installed instead of Windows. But that is a special request.

[taxcontrol]

I LOVED my OS2 Warp based BBS. It would run rings around any MS distribution available.

[cuban leaf]

I liked mine except for the hardware compatibility issues. I had to dump it because using it was always a hassle. Loved the idea and how it worked when it DID work.

I felt like IBM literally didn’t want it to work.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

There is only one Windows OS. There is only one Mac OS.

There are evidently now dozens of Linux OSes.

I think this is one of the problems.

[Kartographer]

Very good post excellent breakdown.

[Durus]

7 should be number 1, and 6 could actually be removed. Otherwise ya.

[Kartographer]

I would like to add one more thing that is there are a core group that personally HATE Microsoft more than they will ever hate any short fall or problem with/in Linux. Many would if they could go back to using a abacus rather then use Microsoft.

Face it there are more than a few Linux supporters who suffer a bit of MDS!

[AustinBill]

The article misses the most important factor of all: There's no such thing as Linux. That is, Linux is not an OS, it's a kernel. The kernel is the central part of an OS, but is not by itself in any sense complete or usable.

To create a usable Linux system you need a Linux distribution, which assembles the kernel along with other various "part kits" into something that can actually run and do useful work. The problem is there are literally hundreds of such distributions around, and several dozen that are considered "major" distributions (see Distrowatch for details).

How to choose one vs another? How are they supported? The answer is all over the map and this fragmentation is the primary reason why Linux never gained any real traction as a mainstream desktop OS. That's not a critique as it was originally a hobbyist system that "got away from itself" and went mainstream.

Even once you settle on a distribution you still have to customize it and find and install applications on it, which again tend to be quirky and with a few notable exceptions (e.g., web browsers) are at best irregularly supported.

Linux is the standard server OS because it is free and nearly infinitely customizable, which suits the needs of data centers who have a dedicated IT staff. For the home user, unless you yourself are a hobbyist it's simply not worth the bother as most people just want to use their computer and not tinker with it.

I'm not aware of any IT pro who would recommend their non-technical relatives try running Linux at home. I don't expect that to change.

[AppyPappy]

Actually it is. If you don’t believe it, don’t do it and just use the OS

[ConservativeMind]

Retail packages don’t work on it.

However, I do use Linux Mint in hopes it will be a good enough substitute for family, in the future.

[JamesP81]

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.>br>
Big software makers won't write software for an architecture that changes on a frequent basis with no standards.

[JamesP81]

Under the covers AD is BIND.

And how much do I go through to make AD and all its workstation management tools work with a OS it was not designed to work with from the outset?

That's the problem. Not everyone works in large IT shops with staff to spare for a project like that. AD + Windows is basically a turn key solution that a smaller outfit or in house IT department can actually muster the time and resources to implement. You pay something for that privilege, no doubt, but it seems a whole lot of businesses, not all of them small, are calculating that it's worth the cost.

Linux based solutions tend to require significant specialization on the part of your staff. That is frequently not an option in a smaller outfit or in house IT department.

[catnipman]

“Actually it is. If you don’t believe it, don’t do it and just use the OS”

ROTFLOL!

Dude. I’ve purchased and installed 100’s of Dell PCs with factory-installed Windows, not to mention installed Windows on bare metal machines countless times. I know the difference. It’s what i do for a living ...

[JamesP81]

My latest Laptop was also seems to have been designed around Windows 10. It has the latest Intel Core I5 with along with a discreet Radeon graphics card. It has major driver issues with the graphics card, the touch screen, sound and wireless that have yet to be resolved by those who would like to run a version of Linux as the primary OS.

Your problem is highlighted in bold. The problem with this laptop is not Windows. It's Radeon's well established reputation for piss poor driver support and second rate hardware.

My last computer I built I went with an R9 380X. That will be the last time a Radeon video card graces anything I own. Complete garbage. Go nVidia or go home.

[AppyPappy]

I just installed a Windows 10 machine. It made me configure the settings for the install. To a non-technical person, that is an install because they have to answer “technical” questions.

Congratulations on all your installs. You’ve made us proud!

[JamesP81]

“There is only one Windows OS. There is only one Mac OS.

There are evidently now dozens of Linux OSes.

I think this is one of the problems. “

It’s a huge problem. If you’re a big developer, are you going to sink a few million dollars and a development cycle on a top shelf commercial software product only to have it incompatible with your target platform in 3 months because the open source mafia decided to change something?

Here’s a hint: Apple’s desktop OS and Android phones are both based on POSIX OSes and are both popular products (Apple is based on BSD, Android on Linux). The reason it works is because Apple and Google created standards and then ***enforced them***. A dev can write software for Android and be reasonably assured his product will run on most Android platform devices. Same for Apple OS. This cannot be said for Linux. This will never be true of Linux in general until a similar set of standards are made and enforced, and the open source guys aren’t going to allow that.

[JamesP81]

Face it there are more than a few Linux supporters who suffer a bit of MDS!

The MDS is not totally unjustified. They are better than they have been in the past few years, but don't kid yourself either. A lot of what the open source guys say about MS is true.

There are two devils to pick from, and which one is better for you often rests on your circumstances.

[tenger]

Fear and Ignorance are the primary issues here.

Ah, the old "blame the customer" trick.