Linux is for computers. For those who need computers to, you know, compute, linux is fine. The consumer doesn’t need a computer. They need a media delivery device.
One major problem with trying to get Linux converts is the confusion from the various ‘distros’. There are some 2 dozen to select from.
Most general users are not that interested in delving into all of the various flavors of Linux. Windows is bad enough with 3 or 4 different versions at each release.
Half-a-decade ago I tried out several versions of Linux distros. Some would not recognize the widescreen monitor. Some would not recognize the PC-TV card. Some would not recognize the printer. I lost enough software and hardware switching from Win98 to XP and again from XP to Win7.
I play with Linux. I use Windows.
When I traveled a lot, I did use Puppy on my personal laptop since it booted so quickly. Now the personal laptop stays at home (traveling with two laptops wasn’t fun) and I use a tablet for my personal travel device.
Just a "Yet another conspiracy theory!"
Linux already dominates the server market. It gives us back end developers what we want. It has no serious competition.
Ubuntu Linux works great on a desktop and on certain laptops, like Dell Latitude E6400. I agree: for most non-tech users it may be harder to use, but only because it’s not familiar and doesn’t have a commercial presence. The Linux operating system is superior to Windows.
In a word, No.
Linux is not a unified group working to a common goal. In my industry, manufacturing, software developers are not going to recompile or support different OSs. The computer ans OS is the least expensive part of the system I need and saving a couple hundred bucks for a free distro that no one supports is not practical. For consumers google, apple, and Microshaft have a huge foundation and hardware manufacturing. I don’t see any linux distros with the ability to compete, or the desire.
I am a technical geek and have been using Linux since 0.9x
I am of the opinion that the first company to create a Minux3 based kernel, plus integrated VM controls, with separate user spaces will consolidate the server market for Linux
The killer app for Linux will be a complete desktop suite including a DB based email server and email client with integrated calendering (Exchange/Outlook). This will also likely need a DB based AAA server to replace the function of AD. I see a possible path by converting TACACS+ or something similar.
I don’t know... it seems the one thing this author is forgetting is that profit often drives development. Who’s going to do all this work for free to develop all this so they can basically give it away?
"Android"
What are the Use Cases for Linux?
People generally have an idea of what they want/need to do with a computer. What they need to see is how a solution fits into what they want/need to do.
I'll give you an example. My wife's parents use a computer to do two basic things: (1) Check their email; (2) Browse the Internet to check prices on things. They don't care about an underlying OS. They care about how to use the web browser, and which buttons to click to start their email client, read email and compose/send email. That's it.
So when it came time to upgrade their computer from Windows XP, I didn't much give Windows 7 or Windows 8 a second thought for them. Rather, they got Linux Mint.
Same familiar icon for their web browser (Firefox) and the same method of accessing their email (web based via Firefox.)
Occasionally they want to print one of their emails (Lord only knows why with the crap they get ..) so the same familiar Firefox browser interface lets them print to their printer.
Beyond these functions, they have no use for a computer. If they'd have wanted to watch NetFlix or Hulu for example they could of course do that through a browser interface assuming their sound card in a 6 year old PC was compatible with Linux Mint (it was not.)
IMO, the Linux community really needs to speak in terms of Use Cases where Linux fits in people's every day lives.
Beyond the identification of the Use Cases, the next logical step is to address the complexity of implementing those use cases by a typical home pc user.
Here's what I mean by that: My in-laws are one use case with simple needs. Complexity of use for them is at or near 0. The Mint interface was close enough to XP that they easily adapted to it.
Contrast that to building a home theater PC using pretty much any flavor of Linux by an average home user. Here the level of complexity in installing and configuring a high number of packages is required and that assumes all the different packages required are compatible "out of the box" with each other and with the hardware in the PC being used for this purpose.
While Linux has made huge strides in component compatibility, the average home user isn't going to adopt it until it's at least as good plug-and-play as Microsoft Windows or Apple (the standard bearer for plug and play.)
Yes, I'm aware of all the different builds that are out there which are packaged up specifically for a home theater pc in my example above, the problem is the average home user doesn't want to research all the different (and sometimes confusing) builds that are out there to find the "right one" for them. That just exacerbates the problem. Truth is, the average home user just wants to shove a dvd in their computer, have an OS detect everything they have, and "just work" at the end of the install.
Microsoft and Apple fit that bill nicely only because the average home user can go to Best Buy (for example) and buy a DVD to shove in their computer. I've yet to see Linux mass-marketed the same way as either Microsoft and Apple which markets their products based on ease of use and Use Cases for everyone.
Just my .02. Nice article, thanks for posting.
One last comment on this specific part of the article: The author fails to make the distinction between Google (a Corporation organized around a set of common operating principles, stated goals and a product strategy) vs. the "Linux Community" which is not organized around a set of common operating principles, stated goals and product strategy. In fact, looking at all the different builds, forks, etc.. of Linux it's pretty clear the "Linux Community" will never be organized around the things I've identified above.
It's those differences that have made Google successful while the Linux Community continues to fracture and struggle to gain wide market acceptance.
Author gets a FAIL for not understanding those differences and why they're important.
Most of that was just restating the obvious but it is clear that the “consumer” wants something more flashy and colorful than most Linux.
I thought Chromebooks were doomed to fail, I laughed at their tiny hdd’s and stuff. I would never buy one, of course.
Efforts like Red Hat and others are fine, they do their job of writing code and making a platform but what about all the other things consumers look for? It is totally hit and miss.
I agree, Linux is great and how long does it have to stand “just at the edge” of NEXT BIG THING?
Since most of these legacy consumer desktops are Windows based PCs, the choice is either to move to whatever newer flavor of Windows MSFT is currently flogging, or else take the plunge and buy a Mac. Thanks to MSFT's Windows 8 fiasco, more and more are choosing Macs. Linux isn't even on the radar as it has zero consumer marketing behind it.
Does anyone really think Joe Average is going to RYO as he's trying to figure out what to do with his dying Windows XP box? Not a chance. Even those in the industry who work with Linux every day would never recommend it to their relatives unless they really enjoy receiving daily support calls from them.
That covers the "no" part of the question. The "yes" part is that Linux dominates the cloud infrastructure and that's what consumers are increasingly using via their "smart" devices and other connected services. So while the future of Linux has never been brighter, it's all behind the scenes as far as the consumer is concerned--and that's where it should be since the Cloud is the real growth area.
Author's a moron.
Firefox did have a memory issue. But was solved some number of releases ago. These days, it's Chrome that eats up RAM! (Fortunately, RAM is dirt cheap.)
However, Chrome still has its strong points: a really fast JS engine, and a truly excellent inspector!
In other words, "When will Linux be like (or more like) Windows?
Never. They are two different things. Consumers looking for Windows should pay Bill the money and get Windows. They will never be happy with Linux.
Most folks know nothing of "compiling kernels" and would miss the ability to double-click on "setup.exe" in order to install a program.
That being said, Linux is more stable than many Windows products. Many of us IT folks know that. But there aren't enough comparable software programs to take the place of programs we use on an everyday basis.
I ordered a hard drive tray for my computer and I'm going to experiment with Linux when I get it. I have an extra hard drive and I want to fiddle around with it and see how well it works for me. Who knows, it is conceivable that I could use Linux more than Microsoft in the end. We'll see.
“The average user needs:
Low cost
Seamless integration with devices and services
Intuitive and modern designs
A 100% solid browser experience”
And achieving that requires doing things that lack the glamor, challenge, and/or exclusivity to motivate those capable of doing. Complete, solid, and flawless require enormous effort that nobody appreciates enough to do without getting PAID. Doing it _ahead_ of the curve requires even more financial reward. Those capable of doing such dull & obscure but necessary work can either do it for Linux and get no recognition nor money, or can go elsewhere and get paid (because that’s the only benefit a developer can get out of it).
Linux is for people who are content to fiddle with things; everything is delivered with a tolerance for frequent “oh, just do this...”. Most users have absolutely no interest, and no affinity, for fiddling with things. OS X, Windows, etc all WORK because people have been PAID to do the grunt work needed.
It’s kinda like a janitor: you pay him to empty trash, scrub toilets, vacuum floors, etc because NOBODY is going to do that work for free (at least on the scale, duration, and consistency needed). Linux is like a store where customers are expected to clean tables, unplug toilets, fix furniture, etc.