Desktop Linux: Free is too expensive

Linux distributions (and GNU, and BSDs) don't have to "win" the desktop. They already have, with one important qualification: you have to care.<p>Mind you, if you are looking for one-size-fits-all, Windows fits the bill perfectly. All the choices have been made. But if you value customization, Linux and BSDs are your only choices.<p>(I mean, for Pete's sake, you can boot a room full of machines from a KNOPPIX terminal server, running out of a virtual machine, and then migrate that running VM to a system you just booted FROM it... And shut down the original! We're not in Kansas anymore!)<p>Linux is certainly less appealing as a dogfood, despite concerted efforts, in part because people can't take the brands they paid money for, along with them. That's why "free is not cheap enough" for many people and efforts to make Linux "sexy" can only go so far without this.<p>Commercial games are the epitomy of this and Linux doesn't get big commercial games. (Maybe that's because Linux users are mostly zealots who haven't bought a game in over a decade, because they are against DRM, etc... But that's a tangent.)<p>I'm not sure winning the dogfood market is even a worthwhile goal.<p>There is actually a LOT of duplication of effort happening right now with so many distributions trying make the Linux desktop "sexier," simpler, and more like Windows. Maybe it's just me, but that feels like the wrong solution. When I need Windows for "legacy" reasons (to run that proprietary accounting software, because that's what my accountant accepts), I just fire up KVM or Wine.<p>I don't think the Linux (BSD, etc) camp needs to take competing with Windows so seriously. They've already won. There is simply nothing better, if you care about code. You don't have to know everything, but you have to -- ehem -- RTFM. Non-coders simply aren't the primary audience. I know there are some who would disagree.<p>If you run a shop that doesn't allow the user the option of installing Windows software, or can standardize on document formats, Linux distributions (etc) are an easy choice today. That's how dogfood works. People eat what's in front of them.<p>Trying to sell Linux on the desktop without also being a fascist in this way, will only cause people to compare things to Windows. It's a recipe for complaints, in which case you might as well just feed them what they're really asking for.<p>That said, I agree with the author's point about rolling upgrades. If, for example, I'm working within a single package management framework (like APT or RPM, etc) exclusively, I should be able to upgrade, down-grade, side-grade, and any other grade imaginable. Reinstalls could and should be rare.<p>Ubuntu is 70 to 80% Debian packages, so why can't I "upgrade" (or downgrade) from Debian to Ubuntu, or from Mint to Debian (or any other package system to any other)?<p>I very much wish distribution projects 1) held onto a stronger sense of individuality while also 2) cooperating more to allow this level of interoperability. Simultaneous specialization and integration are not mutually exclusive: it's what modular software design is all about.

I found the comment from Jonathan Corbet of LWN (<a href="https://lwn.net/Articles/489689/" rel="nofollow">https://lwn.net/Articles/489689/</a>) particularly telling: 'The article is a little muddled, complaining about the "we know best" attitude while saying that Linux lacks the integration seen in iOS or Android, but it's worth a look.'<p>That does seem like a common double standard that people hold Linux to: on the one hand people complain when it lacks coherent vision and whole-system thinking, and on the other hand people complain when it <i>has</i> coherent vision and whole-system thinking.

The style of this article is all wrong. It takes a tremendously long time for the author to get to the point.<p>There is an irrelevant history lesson of an experience jumping through distros to start with. Then the main argument of the piece is unclear. It begins with (probably justified) moaning about device drivers, but is followed up with a declaration that Linux's problems are caused by recent UI changes. The author then laments that the update cycle is too fast.<p>Why hasn't someone told this person to stick to long term stable distros, such as RHEL or Ubuntu LTS?

&#62; Linux Mint requires users to do a complete re-installation, rather than a rolling incremental update<p>Um, and the author's solution to this is installing Windows?<p>I'm sorry, but at least when Linux Mint needs updates I am free to update when I want. Windows will pop up a nag screen and interrupt your work, even threatening to perform the update if you don't delay it. Anyone who has ever done work on a Windows machine has met this inconvenience. On the other hand, Linux Mint doesn't have it.<p>Also, his complaint is that it's not rolling release? Uh, neither is windows. Lets see, Windows xp, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, yeah, it's rolling release alright. At least with Linux you don't also need to buy new hardware each time you update the OS.

I think it's very much a matter of resources. Windows will always win because it has the greater market share. Regardless, they still manage to produce a dud every second release; think Windows ME, Vista, Windows 8 (pre-emptive).<p>My work uses a linux inspired toolchain, complete with emacs setup, however, we use the Microsoft compiler and target the Windows platform specifically because our users demand it.<p>My home PC is an ArchLinux machine, however, I'm still plagued by the inability to play my videos without tearing on my dual screen monitor setup with hardware acceleration; something that works perfectly well on Windows. I'm sure NVIDIA could provide a suitable solution but there's no money involed so they don't.<p>Linux will always have it's place in the server world, but as far as end user PC's go; I feel it's days are numbered.

The real reason Linux lags windows is application support. Windows 8 seems to have every intention of being a train wreck, but Linux will benefit little because users will not upgrade from Windows 7. Linux is not an alternative as long as users cannot run what they want on Linux.<p>I only see 4 ways for linux to actually gain on the desktop for the average user. 1) Truly painless cross-platform support for most languages. 2) A huge shift to web-based applications. 3) Microsoft seppukus. 4) Wine magically becomes painless and transparent.<p>Two is the only alternative that has a reasonable chance of happening.

These rants seem to follow a similar pattern. First the author qualifies his experience with Linux by claiming he started in the nineties with some ancient distro. Then he'll lay on the praise of how great Linux was or could of been or whatever. And then they all seem to end with the same nonsense about how Linux can't "win" or "suceed" until it is adopted by the corporate market. As if going corporate is what FOSS were somehow all about. Fine, whatever, go back to Windows then. You probably never left.

The window for Desktop Linux has closed. The age of the desktop is ending; smartphones and tablets satisfy the computing needs of many people, and more app markets and low-cost devices will only increase this.

&#62;a proprietary iPad-like interface called Unity Unity is proprietary? Really?

"Popular linux distros are frustrating." Ok, don't use one of the "user-friendly" distros. Get deb/slack. Problem solved. Also, heaven forbid you compile your own desktop system with the settings you want. Do you have to have the latest? Why not pick the version you liked best and install it? Isn't that the point of linux?<p>I personally don't care for Ubuntu or any distro that tries really hard to copy apple (or worse, come up with their own "better" way of doing things), so I can't relate. I've always used Slack w/ XFCE and never ever once (save the first two weeks I spent learning it) had a problem.<p>Linux is a complicated system, and you have to expect to spend some time learning it. If your distro's defaults are not to your liking you can either a) change them or b) install another distro. I understand the desire to bring the Window/OS experience to the casual linux desktop user, but this article seems to pick some distros which the auther has trouble with, and apply them to linux (to be honest though, the article was a bit long-winded and I skimmed some).