Why it will never be the “year of desktop Linux”
For years now, a great debate has raged on over whether or not Linux is “ready for the desktop,” with proponents vehemently asserting that it is, and detractors throwing chairs at them (okay, okay, so that was in response too Google, but it’s still pretty funny).
I’ve had some experience with Linux. I’ve dabbled in a couple distros, and due to my BSD UNIX experience through OS X, I know the internals well enough. Here’s my take:
Linux is not ready because it’s still uniquely Linux. That is to say, there are still 485 varieties of it, a lot of software still has to be compiled by the user, the command line is still ubiquitous, and there’s virtually no standardization.
But none of this is bad. In fact, it’s generally wonderful! You get the freedom to use the software you like, configure it how you prefer, and generally set up your system in the way most pleasing to you. It’s great!
…for geeks like me. Sad to say, these features that most appeal to people like me are the ones that most turn off average users, unfortunately. That’s because the average user:
- Focuses on the end goals rather than the process and the technical details
Bill Average isn’t interested in JPEG vs TIFF vs PNG debate. He doesn’t tidy his filesystem. He think “OGG Vorbis” sounds like a sith lord. He finds technical details boring and distracting.Why this is a problem for Linux:
Linux operates under the impression that its users care about these details, and presents them with dialogs that explain exactly what the package manager is doing, and files like “xorg.conf” that still have to be edited by hand to set preferences. - Wants portability of skills
Auntie Average isn’t interested in relearning her word processor or email client, let alone a text editor.Why this is a problem for Linux:
Linux’s approach is to copy what Microsoft has done. While this appeals to ms. Average because of its instant familiarity, it stagnates the Linux community; if it has to emulate Microsoft to attract new users, are those the kind of users it wants? WIll that result in software that it authentically “Linux?” - Wants standardization on existing commercial platforms and file formats
Jill Average wants to copy the songs in her iTunes library to her iPod, her documents to be read seamlessly, and her DVD movies to play. She is unaware of the minutiae of technical details that differentiate competing file formats from each other, and she doesn’t care about using “open” or “free” formats if it involves any effort at all or offers no immediate, obvious benefits.Why this is a problem for Linux:
Linux hates standardization on commercial anything, because it can threaten the free nature of Linux. Instead, the Linux community invents its own competing standards with identical features. This can be a problem in the long run because these copycat formats often trample on software patents owned by those whose formats were copied, making large companies hesitant to use Linux’s open versions. Essentially, the Linux community “eats its own dog food” at the expense of making it look unappetizing to the same schnauzers and bloodhounds down the street whose dog food it couldn’t afford to begin with. Alternatively, these closed formats can be illegally cracked, resulting in more legal murky waters.
Again, none of this is necessarily bad. But the features that make Linux Linux are things that at best don’t interest the general computing populace, and wt worst turn them off. But what’s wrong with being a niche operating system? I can think of at least one other OS maker that it works great for. Let’s let Linux be itself., and when people are ready for it, they’ll use it.
Categorised as: Linux