The Linux desktop experience is killing Linux on the desktop

Being one of the main VLC developers and the de-facto leader of the VideoLAN project, I hate to say it, but I am a bit in the same state of mind, lately (no, I haven't moved to Windows, though)... And yet, I am also a very strong open source advocate, and have been working on FLOSS on most Desktop Operating Systems (in my name and anonymously); and believing strongly in Computer freedom. I've been Linux users and sysadmin since 8 years now.<p>However, lately I am shocked about the "advances" of the Linux Desktop: most of them are crap... And that is not just me, but also the feedbacks of the users that I see complaining... I know I will be downvoted with this post, but I must share my experience.<p>- PulseAudio was half-baked, pushed-down our throats by Ubuntu/Fedora, and hated by many users; with a very strong NIH syndrom, bringing little new features that could have been done better using the old architecture, with a maintainer team refusing to do release for a long periods of time or favoring some applications over other (which is totally unacceptable), not to mention not-thread safe, CPU hungry in many reproducible situations...<p>- PolicyKit is complex, using a very important number of processes, is almost never correctly initialized (only gdm3 seems to be able to do it) and breaks many setups, notably Network Manager... I now have to use command-line on KDE to connect to a wifi... And you cannot install Gnome3 or NM without it anymore...<p>- KDE4.x was not usable before 4.3 (I am actually ok with this), but still on 4.6, I have to deactivate the semantic desktop and all strigi to stop sucking a lot of my CPU power. Network Manager still does not work and I have weird kwin crashes with the nVidia proprietary driver.<p>- less important and less annoying, PackageKit is also a very complex thing, requiring maintainers for most distro to patch a lot of code, that has very little needs but quite some work has been pushed...<p>- Unity and Gnome3 have huge usability regressions, so far, but I will not emphasis on that until the next versions are out (KDE 4.0 and 4.1 were no better). But they also are very broken. For both of them, the WM doesn't support correctly application fullscreen, mixture of x11 and OpenGL, and of course not correctly Xv. Accessibility has been forgotten from Unity. On top of that, Unity crashes a lot or can trigger infinite loops; my family were quite not happy when they were upgraded.<p>So yes, when people ask my opinion with systemd or Wayland, I am not optimistic.<p>However, I have absolutely no problem with printing :)

I recently did the opposite.<p>As of December, I'm all Linux. I run Ubuntu at home. I use Linux at work, except when I need to debug OS-specific browsers. I never want to go back; Gnome hits my sweet spot. I want an OS that starts up and becomes invisible until shutdown, and I never want to touch the mouse. Ubuntu's out-of-the-box installation is probably still unusable for people without a tech background, but I love it.<p>I spend most of my time in Docs, GMail, Google Calendar, lots of Chrome tabs for testing + looking up reference material, Emacs, IntelliJ, and lots of terminals. I almost never need other software, and when I do, it's an apt-get away.<p>I've had challenges - I've never seen Ubuntu completely work on a fresh install. My wireless failed on my newest desktop install. The sound on the two before that. They never bundle my wireless driver, so I drag my desktop over to my modem. My printer gives baffling error messages. My old webcam arbitrarily rezoomed as it pleased. Gnome 3 overrode the "invert colors" keyboard shortcut, which I use heavily. I needed to steal time on my girlfriend's iMac to run Portal 2. My supercharged Toshiba laptop freezes when running on battery power (may not be Linux's fault).<p>But these are most of the problems I've faced in the past two years. I lose a few hours of productivity every few months in exchange for massive productivity gains while working.

I've been there. I lasted two years with Linux and went through the same progression - hacker bliss to "dammit, I just want to get something done besides shaving yaks!" I would still take it over Windows, but not over OSX.<p>But in defense of Linux, it has come a <i>long</i> way over the last decade, due to a few earth-moving forces:<p>- The rise of the web and end of the Windows native app lock-in<p>- The mainstream acceptance of open source and platform independent software engineering<p>- Canonical's aggressive, financially backed push to make Linux a viable mainstream desktop OS<p>It's easy to forget how many classic pain points <i>have</i> been more or less cured: building everything from source, recompiling the kernel, font rendering, working with office documents, configuring <i>everything</i> manually by editing text files, complete absense of tasteful design, no cross-platform apps or games whatsoever, and nobody having ever heard of your OS.<p>Linux is not there yet. It's still perfectly reasonable to throw your arms up and switch. But at this point, the historical trend suggests that it <i>will</i> get there eventually. It has never really stopped inching forward and we haven't yet seen anything that could stop it.<p>The Linux ecosystem doesn't burn through capital, so it can't collapse overnight like a commercial platform can. All it needs to sustain it is <i>interest</i>. The interest could dry up, for example if everybody starts caring only about data and not code. But if nobody's interested in it anymore, then it probably doesn't matter if it goes away.

Strange. For me, Linux has Just Worked for the last 3 or 4 years. No hardware compatibility issues, no performance issues. I use it because it's easier.

What's always amusing about these discussions is the number of people that say either<p>"Try _distro_ - everything just works for me!"<p>and/or<p>"<i>research</i> before you buy!"<p>The 'it all works for me crowd'. I don't believe most of you most of the time. "Works" is in the eye of the beholder, and most of the time I've found that people who make that claim don't have anywhere near the same work style that I do.<p>Example: running audio from 4 different apps simultaneously all mixed together is a no-brainer under OSX/Windows, but is something most Linux users don't even dream of, because they've never even been able to try it (whoops, amarok is running, so I can't get AIM sound alerts, etc.) If they've never done it, the "works for me crowd" can't possibly know what 'works' means for them is light years away from what 'works' means to me.<p>"Research before you buy". Where and how? Show me an up to date list which shows even most of the compatibility aspects of stuff I can go buy in a store against recent distros. Googling around and finding that I can get Ubuntu 5.04 running on hardware from 2004 does me absolutely <i>0</i> good. Manufacturers don't always show you the exact chipsets used (and may often change chipset revisions and just ship new windows drivers in the box), and yet even if you <i>do</i> happen to know every single internal spec of hardware before you buy it, no one else will have bought it to determine if it works. Someone's gotta be first, unless the manufacturers would actually start certifying that "distro X" runs on particular configurations (which ain't gonna happen).<p>The majority of us live in a world where when we want a computer we're going to go to a local store and buy something. If Linux users want their stuff to be more widely adopted, they need to adapt to that reality. I suspect most Linux users don't really care, and are happy being 'cutting edge' and compiling new drivers to test stuff out. Really, it's an exciting and interesting way of life for some people, but one which I and many others eventually outgrow.

I started using Linux around 1998 at my university, and started using it on my own desktop later that year (with Red Hat 5.0).<p>I used it almost exclusively until 2006, when I finally had enough. At the time I moved to Windows and abandoned Linux on the desktop completely, but I've since switched to OS X.<p>I can relate to the author. I spent years messing around with my systems, which was fun for a while. Every 6 months I'd reinstall my desktop box with the lastest version of Red Hat (and then Fedora) and spend the next week or two filing bug reports in bugzilla, and patching some stuff.<p>But after a few years, what was a learning experience, becomes a permanent wound in your sound engineering sense. It just isn't possible that something that has an insane amount of bugs with every new release will ever be something reliable and usable. Not with so many regressions, never fixed problems, and unbelievably in-your-face issues.<p>I've tried to return, to see if any progress was made. About once a year I install the latest Ubuntu or Fedora, but every time it seems the same, or worse in some aspects.<p>My last test was Ubuntu 11.04 on an old Toshiba laptop from late 2005 that I still have. It used to work apparently fine with just the LCD brightness control not working, and later with the usual application quirks, bugs and crashes.<p>However, the latest version has "new" drivers for the ATI Radeon X300 graphics card, which non-working 3D acceleration that makes the default WM hang on login, and not even "glxgears" works anymore. Any attempts to disable hardware acceleration have failed (not only X doesn't have a configuration file by default anymore, but it also segfaults when trying to generate one with "X -configure" and ignores any option I set manually).<p>Aside from the X problems, stand-by no longer works. The machine just dies never to wake up again.<p>The problems just go on and on.<p>It isn't a usable machine for anything other than simple web browsing, and even there it has issues with flash, which stutters playing the simplest of videos, even though it doesn't peg the CPU.<p>I've used the knowledge I accumulated from these years for my work (where I have a bunch of Linux servers working just fine), but I say that Linux on the desktop won't ever amount to nothing, no matter how much that turd is polished.<p>It's even more sad if you think that while all this was going on in the Linux desktop, Apple has successfully launched an unix desktop that has been stable and usable for years. So it is possible and in a short timeframe, which means that Linux on the desktop is a failed experience.

I suspect this is a symptom of the author getting older, not desktop Linux getting worse.<p>I used to enjoy tweaking config to get dual monitors to work etc, but now I'm sick of it.<p>Lately Ubuntu has started screwing up the panel config everytime an update comes. Grrrr!<p>But I think this is more about me getting old, slow and lazy rather than Linux getting any worse. I mean now, with Ubuntu it really does pretty much work out of the box, even on my laptop (and yes, suspend/resume works).

I started using linux as my main OS around '98, and stopped doing that in '05. My reasons at the time were the same: consistently problematic driver/codec support, glitches that kept cropping up requiring low-level maintenance to resolve, and low-quality productivity software (office and image editing).<p>The irony is that I know it's no use to complain to people still "inside" the linux community about this, because I used to be one of them and I know what I answered to those people that complained: pick better hardware (so much choice), pick better software (even more choice), learn how to use the software (you luser), learn to build your own (with this easy 23 step guide), and finally the conversation-ender "works fine for me" (so your experience is irrelevant).<p>It was of course all a delusion on my part. As much as I claimed that it worked fine for me, it didn't. Not really, not 100%. So it became a trade-off, which deficiencies were worse? Those of windows, those of the mac, or those of linux? I ended up on the mac, but it's also not 100%. It still sucks just a little bit. All I've ever wanted is for there to be one OS that doesn't suck, and I'll pay top dollar (or euro) to use it, but I've never found it. I always have to pick the least sucky one, and that really sucks.

Shrug. Whatever. My home machine has been Gentoo since 2006/2007 or so, while there have been problems not directly caused by me (like corrupting a filesystem then recovering it, or unmasking packages when I shouldn't) most of them are solved by config options in the kernel, USE flags, or elsewhere. I don't remember needing to ever write a device driver. The only desktop experience I lack is certain big-name games I can only get from Steam, in which case I just boot into Windows 7, curse and mutter at the (in my view) crappy UI that gets in my way, before I launch the game I want. I don't really find a plethora of poor-quality apps either, at least in the sense that apps are noticeably poorer quality than apps-in-general. With Firefox, my gentoo version is significantly faster than Windows 7's. And more and more of my apps are moving online... Ah well. <i>Goes back to programming, which he detests doing in Windows even with cygwin</i>

I think the postscript is quite rude. Disregarding possible criticism because he's a Linux sysadmin and has contributed to the kernel. To be fair, he's doing something wrong even if he doesn't want to admit it: choosing the wrong hardware. His most direct and important complaints come down to that.<p>I bought a new computer past summer and all its hardware worked properly from day zero, ethernet, wifi, 3D acceleration, suspending, hibernating and dual-monitors included. I chose the right hardware. Flash support? The 64-bit flash plugin is not crashing here. I use flashblock to avoid possible security problems, but I use it in Windows too, to avoid annoying ads with sound. The quality of OpenOffice.org or LibreOffice is good enough for desktop users, in my humble opinion.<p>And the rest of the post is debatable at least. Linux and its software ecosystem are not to blame for poor Skype support, for example.

As a firm Linux user, who has got no windows influence in my household, entire family gone Linux in some shape or form, I can't see as a power user how he is prepared to make this switch.<p>I know that Linux so often makes you put up with compromises and so often it is at the graphics card hurdle that it starts to annoy, but I think the 3 things he'll miss is the things which will eventually drive him back.<p>Firstly, the shell is one thing that seems irreplaceable, yes you could use cygwin or equivalent but nothing will fill the void of a shell that is so beautifully incorporated into the OS, more than OSX in my mind, despite them being the same shell, Linux makes no excuses and is proud of its Shell.<p>Transparency, Yes this is important, but something I know I could live without, as he mentions he doesnt do this as often as before and really its main purpose was for fixes with drivers.<p>Package Management and I would stretch further to even open source and free software will drive him back. I had a stint where I could only use Vista for about 7 days, the reminder of the horrors of "shareware" software and 30 day trials had me looking forward to getting back to "apt-get install"

The latest Ubuntu version works so well with multiple monitors I almost can't imagine going back to standard Gnome. The interface has actually helped me become more productive.<p>I run NVIDIA graphics and have no problems .. I realise the latest and greatest takes a while to become fully supported on my platform of choice, and often solutions to problems require research and time - but I'd rather accept this compromise than use Windows.<p>Windows feels like Fisher Price, Linux feels more like Mechano - in the sense that it presents opportunities rather than fully packaged solutions

This is why I'm an OS X user. I'm not particularly bullish on OS X and find some of its guts a bit disappointing, but it's the only UNIX with a good UI that will run a significant share of the best apps out there. Yet you still get all the POSIX joy and if you strip it down, an experience that's much how Linux should be. What confuses me is why anyone would switch from Linux to <i>Windows</i> if they do anything where Linux had the upper hand?

I feel the opposite way. I recently bought a Thinkpad T410 with Windows 7. It came with a lot of useless stuff and was impossible to run our Rails app on it (RMagick does not play well with Windows). I first switched to OSX and the driver situation was abysmal. The thing never went to sleep, even with the laptop lid closed. Wifi never worked. All this can be expected when running on non-Apple hardware. But what's worse and inherent to OSX is the terribly inconsistent key bindings. Each application behaves differently with respect to the Apple, option, and control keys. I could never configure the key bindings to my liking, no matter how many 3rd party apps I tried.<p>Finally I installed Ubuntu and I've never looked back. Nearly everything just worked, with the exception of plugging in an external monitor. The experience was much smoother than on Windows or Mac. I'm very happy with the Unity desktop.<p>One thing that has me fed up with proprietary software was that although I had purchased Photoshop CS5 for Mac, it was nearly impossible to activate. I had to call Adobe because I was upgrading from a Windows CS2 to a Mac CS5. Once I had to reinstall everything and the installer asked me to go through the whole process again. With Ubuntu I can download and install software almost effortlessly. It's not worth the hassle to spend lots of money and not even be able to use a piece of software. I'd rather use Gimp, despite some UI weaknesses. The only thing that made me want Photoshop in the first place was better compatibility with other Photoshop users' files. For myself, Gimp is more than adequate.

I'm kind of curious who has the selection bias here, me and my social group or the people responding to this thread. I've been using Ubuntu since 2008 and before that some hodgepodge of Gentoo and Fedora since '06.<p>Since going to Ubuntu, I seem to never have trouble with applications working, Internet connectivity, or graphics. I have two computers a desktop circa 2006 with an old ATI card (x1900, I think) and a dell mini 9 both running the Ubuntu 11.04.<p>I certainly have troubles with Flash, but they are infrequent and usually only necessitate killing Flash from Chrome's task manager.<p>On the Dell Mini, I occasionally have wifi issues, but since the 10.XX series, the frequency of these problems has dropped significantly.<p>As far as changing to Unity, I honestly don't care. I've been using Gnome-Do since around '09, so ditching the menus hasn't bothered me at all.<p>I have friends using Ubuntu as well and they don't seem to have insurmountable problems either, although they <i>have</i> been migrating to OS X in search of a more beautiful user experience.<p>But going to Windows? I couldn't imagine getting any development done on that OS.

I've not had a single major problem with Linux since adopting the following strategy: a) check whether your hardware is compatible before buying b) don't install a distro hot off the press.<p>It should be obvious to anyone who's been using Linux for a while that a new dual intel/nvidia gpu mobile card is not going to be sorted out until quite a while after release. If he was a newbie I'd feel some sympathy but he's not. The rest of his rant is about the past.

OK, I'm a Linux Desktop user on a daily basis, I use Linux Mint KDE at the moment, before that I was using Fedora KDE Spin, before that Kubuntu, ...<p>I've been using Linux for 6 years, the first year I was dual-booting with Windows because I had a project in asp.net, but when It was finished I formatted that partition and use it as a backup storage now.<p>I have a HP laptop with everything Intel on it, from WiFi card to Graphics card, and everything is supproted out-of-the-box. With plain Ubuntu Live CD I can have 3D desktops and connect to WiFi networks without a problem. For multimedia Linux is strong, Flash works without problem, although if you're on 64bit it may use your CPU more than it should.<p>The only problem which I have and the blog post author has is Skype and Office Suites. Skype works OK but it's not up-to-date as in Windows or OS X, and LibreOffice (or it's older dying daddy, OpenOffice.org) is OK but not perfect.<p>As for "Poor quality of desktop apps" point, I don't use Nautilus but Dolphin, and not Firefox but Opera, and I'm happy with it.<p>The point in the Linux Desktop is that you don't have to stay on the default Linux distributions choice, but you can customize/change/mix everything.<p>And for hardware, before buying a new machine, check if everything will work out of the box on the distribution you desire to install on it later.<p>bye bye past 'hardcore Linux user'<p>P.S. There are numerous posts where the author recalls on past problems, so, they aren't really problems now.

I'm pretty happy with Linux on the desktop these days, but I am ecstatic to see someone complaining about desktop Linux and asking for stuff to WORK instead of just yammering on about redesigning the user experience to appeal to less and less sophisticated users. It's like the good old days of Linux on the desktop, when I still felt like I was a target user instead of the enemy. These days with the Linux desktop I feel like a loving wife who is a perfect match for my husband but is doomed to be abandoned because I mirror everything he wishes he could change about himself: nerdy, niche, not someone the alpha males (the Steves) pay any attention to. And here is this guy asserting that even the opinion of an admitted "professional sys admin" and "former kernel hacker" deserves respect! I love it!

&#62; I’ve spent a lot of time with Fedora, Gentoo and Arch Linux.<p>So this guy has tried two advanced distros (Gentoo and Arch), plus one "beginner" distro which (from my experience) has provided nothing but frustration, and he's giving up on Linux because it's "too hard"?<p>How can you claim Linux to be "too hard" when you haven't even tried Ubuntu?

The issues are not technical they have been business issues that caused Linux never to "Cross the Chasm".<p>Blame falls on Intel and AMD who use Linux really just as leverage against MSFT and never have given 100% commitment to it (e.g. Intel GMA500) except on severs.<p>The world has moved to laptops - Microsoft still gets money for every Linux machine sold and almost none are bundled with a Linux OS that works(I once bought a MSI Wind with Suse that hand an incompatible wifi card!!). Even Dell has back-peddled.<p>The main failure I believe has been Taiwanese hardware companies in their fear of Microsoft or their greed almost never advertise "Works with Linux".<p>I agree with the other poster - you would never buy Apple equipment without looking at compatibility beforehand - why not Linux.<p>I watch kids using Linux desktop and it is all about using browsers. Chrome and opera work very well under Linux. Tablets - are they the future of the linux desktop?<p>The poster neglects to mention that that the Linux desktop has moved to the hand held - android, meego maemo etc. Where the user experience was actually very good. Driver support is better than windows.

Couldn't agree more. The reasons he listed are very similar to my reasons for switching to Mac OS X about 3 years ago, after 10 years of using Linux.<p>I found I simply have better things to do than debug and write drivers (yes, I did write drivers as well). I'd much rather expend my energy elsewhere.<p>Since the switch I never looked back.

I made the same decision just some months ago. I don't blame it on the "desktop experience" as much as on the driver experience. My Dell M4500 laptop has poor touchpad support, non-working hibernate / suspend and with the latest OpenSuse also non-stable graphics, not so good wireless drivers, non working SD-card support, non-working microphone, etc etc. I am a Linux user since Slackware 3.0 and will continue to run Linux, but now virtualized on Windows, for those tools on Linux that I love. But I will probably spend more time in Windows. I can run accelerated graphics on VirtualBox so I think it will work good enough for me. But on cheaper hardware it might not be as easy.<p>My experience over the years brings me to the conclusion that the driver experience will always be lacking. While many experiences on Linux have improved, the driver experience has reached some kind of steady-state. Every time I upgrade my distribution, something improves and something else breaks.

I the follow comment sums up my opinion on the matter:<p>&#62;8 years of experience and you didn't know that you should look for compatibility issues BEFORE buying? Seriously?<p>I for one gave up hope of "The Year of Desktop Linux", a very long time ago and can agree with the majority of your points. But really now? :| That's something you should well be used to dealing with by now

All I can say is that I can watch tear-free video under Linux with Intel and nvidia drivers. I've had many machines with Intel GPUs, and they all Just Work. I have an Atom machine that I use to watch 720p H.264: it works because the video decoding can be offloaded to the Ion GPU. And it all works beautifully under Linux.<p>As for Skype and Flash, what is the Linux community expected to do? They are both proprietary: there is nothing "Linux" can do to make them work better.

Ubuntu 10.10 (I am postponing the update because I want a clean install this time) works for me on my two laptops. Printing works, hibernate and suspend work, 3D works. The secret? Pick notebooks that have some Linux support. It's also cheaper, usually. I had no problem finding an Acer netbook and a Dell Latitude in that category.<p>Then you have Fedora. It has always been the "experimental" branch. Much like Debian Sid, you don't expect it to work 100% of the time. I am surprised someone experienced with Linux falls in this trap.<p>I hope he enjoys the life without really knowing what the machine is doing, the life without a decent shell, without a decent development environment and managing software like it was in the dark ages. I wonder how long it will take until we see a rant about how useless Windows is and why he's moving to BSD or OSX.

"I just want to get some work done, I don’t want to waste my time debugging all kind of crap."<p>That's basically it. It's not the drivers, it's not the bugs - it's the culture. The culture of Linux seems to be that every user <i>should</i> be a programmer and <i>should</i> help debug the OS. If you are one, and want to help - great, go ahead! As for me, I have other things to do and I expect the OS, shell and file manager to Just Work.

I expect Linux to sneak onto the desktop in the form of Android. The Motorola Atrix, an upscale Android phone, already comes with an optional netbook attachment - you can dock the phone into the back of it and it lets you interface with the phone with a netbook's keyboard, mousepad and screen. It's not rumored to be an especially good netbook, but the time will come, probably within a few years, when something like it will be.<p>There will be no reason for most people to maintain a separate computer when their phone is powerful enough to do everything they need, except that its form factor is inappropriate. It will be cheaper and simpler just to dock it in a shell that gives a more appropriate form factor.<p>tldr; Android will disrupt the laptop/desktop market.

I've been a Gnome Linux desktop user since 1999. I'm still happy with it. Works great for me. No complaints.

I agree with some of these points, but they're not big issues for me.<p>I used Linux for 10 years. Bought a MacBook to that, coexisted, and then switched to it full time a few months ago.<p>I'm actually starting to miss Linux a great deal, though. I'll probably miss some conveniences about the Mac when I go back, but I can't seen anything major. I <i>like</i> KDE and Gnome, and the Linux versions of Firefox, Opera and Chromium are just fine. I don't care in the slightest about Flash or Dolby sound (I listen to music on $15 'Altec Lansings' from WalMart). I don't play games. I don't care about office software. Skype works well enough for me, and will be dead soon anyway.<p>The ethernet driver complaint is bizarre. I never had a problem finding them in 2004, and why mention it now?<p>I've had problems with suspend/resume on Windows as well as Linux. You need to get everything set up right video-wise, etc. and I agree it is a pain. Power management, too - it needs to be improved.<p>A Linux user switching to a Mac makes sense. Using Windows is a bizarre idea - it's simply too unfamiliar and limited of an OS for me. It makes me feel like I'm locked in a padded room with a start button - powerless and declawed, and a lot of my favorite software is not available for Windows. No, I'm not installing cygwin or learning PowerShell. Mac's Unixness is comfortable for me, though I am grizzled by how some of the flags for the common command line utils must come before other arguments here in non-GNU land.

Welcome to grown-up computing (c.f. marco Arment <a href="http://articles.marco.org/145" rel="nofollow">http://articles.marco.org/145</a> )

I tried and gave up on Linux half a dozen times over the years, and would have agreed with everything this article says. Then I tried Ubuntu, and never looked back. My house has been Microsoft-free since before Vista was released. Ubuntu does, indeed, Just Work. Despite the author's PS, I have to say: he's doing it wrong, and he should try Ubuntu.

I'm the Ubuntu Desktop manager, also known as the guy generally responsible for making sure Ubuntu works and works well. I wish I could address each and every issue listed here individually, but I can't. Suffice it to say, if you are having any issues, file a bug on Launchpad for Ubuntu, Unity or any other package and we'll make sure the right person is looking at the issue.<p>Some links to remember:<p><a href="https://launchpad.net/ubuntu" rel="nofollow">https://launchpad.net/ubuntu</a> <a href="https://launchpad.net/unity" rel="nofollow">https://launchpad.net/unity</a> and <a href="https://launchpad.net/unity-2d" rel="nofollow">https://launchpad.net/unity-2d</a><p>On each page there is a 'report a bug' link on the upper right.<p>Or, if you experience a crash, you can report the bug at the command line by typing 'ubuntu-bug' and a series of prompts will walk you through the data collection.<p><a href="https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs" rel="nofollow">https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs</a>

I wonder how long will it take before you come back to Linux screaming :)

Who is this guy trying to fool? It's always the case that linux on the desktop takes a little longer to catch up with the latest technology. While the latest windows always works on the new stuff -- but older windows probably doesn't.<p>Three years ago I bought the latest asus laptop (M50sv) and lot's of stuff didn't work (sound, hibernate, bluetooth etc ) but within about 12 months with new installs of ubuntu things started to work to the point where now everything wor .<p>I would <i>much</i> rather use a working version of Ubuntu than Win7 ( I used both at work and Win7 really sucks in comparison ) . But, as I said, the latest hardware always takes awhile and any seasoned Linux user knows that, even this guy.

Hmm -- I dunno, as a longtime programmer but OS agnostic, it's only with Ubuntu 8 and later that I've felt like things are approaching parity. Sure some things suck, but OSX and Windows suck at least as much in myriad ways.<p>It seems like what's really going on here is 'nix fanboys are upset at the level of vertical integration necessary in a distro like Ubuntu, to achieve a basic level of operational success at the cost of flexibility and horizontal modularity.<p>So go spend hundreds of hours per year hand-crafting your favorite versions of everything, and updating drivers manually every week or so, while bitching about how you want your money back from Canonical -- I'll just get on with doing some real work.

I have a four year old Dell Inspiron and the latest Ubuntu. No problems. It just works.

I don't want to pile on here but as Linux desktop / server user since '92 I'll add my two cents:<p>My main Linux workstations are a three year old QUAD core Shuttle XPC and a Dell business workstation. I religiously upgrade to each Ubuntu distro release every six months. Some things have gotten a lot better (like sound), then other stuff breaks. In particular, the Intel graphics drivers (like mentioned in this article) still are not quite right.<p>It's a little depressing how the fundamentals still are still not solid.<p>ZOMG, I forgot about my ASUS 1000 netbook.. The wireless get WORSE and WORSE every release. The wireless driver with 9.10 were awesome and now I can barely connect anywhere.<p>DE-PRESS-ING..

As far as I'm concerned, Linux on the desktop is a great example of how not to do things.<p>I started using Linux in the 0.9x days, back when I downloaded a SLS distribution on a 2400 baud modem and put it onto 20-30 5.25" disks. I then switched to Slackware (14.4kbps modem now!) and then Red Hat (in the v2/v3 days up until v6 or so).<p>Back then I typically just used multiple text consoles (alt-F2, etc to switch). This actually worked really well.<p>At the time you could run X... if you had the right hardware... if you configured all the right settings... if you had enough CPU/RAM... if (ad nauseum). But you could get it to work.<p>Thing is, there wasn't actually a lot of reason to use X. Programming was done in vi or emacs. You <i>might</i> want to use Netscape but the Web was embronic at best (we're talking 1995 here) and Netscape was a resource hog. I preferred to use lynx when I could.<p>Thing is, at that time I remember people saying "sure it's not <i>great</i> but it's getting better... give it a year or two and it'll be awesome".<p>15 years on I still hear the same thing and honestly I don't think it's much better. Sure the problems are different but Gnome still feels slow (not that Gnome existed back then, but you get my point). You still have to dick around with things just to get them to work.<p>From a combination of age and experience I both no longer value my time so low as to bother with this whenever I can avoid it and I no longer believe the lie about it getting better.<p>Take PulseAudio. I just don't get it. All i want to do is change my system volume and have it react relatively quickly (PA, in my experience, can have latency on volume changes of 100+ ms; yes this is a problem).<p>PulaseAudio, for me, exemplifies all that's wrong with desktop Linux. As someone described it, it's a solution in search of a problem, overengineering at its finest. It simply aims to solve problems I don't have or care about and fail at solving the problems I do have (unrelated side note: if you happen to be on the CSS Working Group, go back and read this paragraph 400-500 times until you get it).<p>Lots of apologists on this thread say OSX isn't a valid comparison because it only supports limited hardware. Nonsense. OSX is the way it is because the focus is on user experience and working well, not on, say, remembering per-application volume settings or being able to position particular audio streams (because, hey, it's a cool engineering exercise).<p>I'll use OSX whenever I can. I just wish Apple didn't make it so hard, like your desktop options are the Mac Mini (<i>still</i> Core 2 Duo, no thanks, my laptop had one of those in 2007), the Mac Pro (no thanks, proprietary hardware that is no longer supported 2-3 years later) or the iMac (can you make it any harder to install an SSD?).<p>I'll happily use Windows 7 too. It's stolen most of the best bits of OSX, enough that it's "good enough" anyway. Sure it's a nightmare of complexity too (policy settings anyone?) but at least using it on the desktop, unlike Linux, doesn't leave me wanting to stab out my eyes with a spoon.<p>I just wish there was a Mac Mini equivalent that used a Sandy Bridge i5/i7 (the 13" MBP has this, I don't see why the Mini can't) and a second hard drive instead of an optical drive (SSD + 2.5" HD for storage or even RAID1 SSDs for reliability). Integrated GPUs are fine.<p>Come on Mac Mini refresh, you're long overdue.<p>Anyway, the story of Linux on the desktop is the ultimate answer to the question of why shoot yourself in the foot when you can shoot yourself in the head.

I appreciate Linux in every regard except for actually using it. OS X and the general focus on good design of its third party applications just provide a more pleasant place to spend time.

If you can even imagine living without a real shell, you are not a Linux power user.<p>But there's nothing wrong with that.

For people who like free software, Linux is a win no matter what. Sure it can be improved and it's nice that someone points out flaws now it's time to actually improve it instead of continuing to ignore those flaws and hope for the best. If some of the major companies funded development for those items, I'm sure we'd see some improvement rather than the current situation where they're rewriting X as Unity or whatever? Kinda dumb to do that when video card drivers are still a bit shitty.

I have similar experience as the author: ten years of hardcore Linux experience, during my college days I used slackware for 3 years; recompiling kernel whenever an update appeared at kernel.org was my geeky hobby during those days. But alas, as age and commitment catch up with me, I can no longer spend days to make a driver work, or recompile the kernel just to shave a few kilobytes away. I need a machine and an OS that 'just work'. Yes I know if I do some research and google around I can find the 'right machine' where distro X will work just fine. I also know by doing trick X and trick Y will resolve some issue Z. But I am no longer 20+ with a lot of time on my hands. If I got an hour of spare time, I would prefer to read some books, or just sleep, instead of reading the source code or the dmesg outputs.<p>I am not blaming Linux. It is free anyway and done by a lot of smart and dedicated volunteers. My mindset now is I don't mind to pay some money so that my computing needs can be met without too much effort from my end. I am using OS X, and frankly I find Windows 7 is _very_ useable and quite pleasant to play with. Linux has its place in computing, and my desktop always has a partition for the latest version of Ubuntu. But for daily use, count me out. Thank you very much.

This is why I have two machines, one is windows the other is Ubuntu. Most work and browsing gets done on the linux box, and I have very few complaints. My biggest complaint was a bug in the firefox search box that seems to have been resolved; and I haven't been able to figure out how to disable touch-click on the trackpad (without disabling the trackpad entirely, which I admit is much easier to do in Linux than windows).<p>I'm very comfortable with cygwin, emacs, and putty on windows, and can move more or less effortlessly between windows and linux when working. The biggest annoyance is probably the slightly different copy-paste rules between putty and gnome/gnome-terminal. So I generally use Linux and Windows concurrently enough that whenever I encounter something that windows does better, I can just use that.<p>Because those four positives the original author lists are enormous:<p><pre><code> * shell * transparency, control * package management * lack of viruses, malware </code></pre> Cygwin is good but limited. On Linux, back up your data and script your installation. Configuring a new box should take a few hours at most. On windows it will probably be days of tracking down all the software you need and getting all the right license keys and other crap.

In summary:<p>- Poor modern hardware support. "Linux on the Desktop" is dead in the water without a devoted hardware supplier that writes all drivers and sells computers running Linux. The kernel itself is perfectly modern but we just often don't have proper driver support.<p>- Some desktop subsystems still suck. Is Audio bulletproof yet? PulseAudio seems too complex, OSSv4 is out of kernel and is not suspend/hibernate aware, Alsa is outdated.<p>- Desktop software is terrible. No office suite that feels solid, apps written with a mismash of backends, languages, and toolkits, everything feels designed by committee. No stationary canonical APIs to build proprietary software on. No commercial software suites (CAD, Office, Adobe, Steam, etc) or free software equivalents.<p>- GTK and Qt do not cut it. They are not attractive, they are not modern, interface design doesn't appear to be a priority, most devs don't want to write desktop software in C or C++.<p>The only way for Linux on the desktop to thrive is under the power of a commercial hardware company that designs systems with Linux in mind, gets the support of commercial 3rd party software companies, and completely eschews Gnome and KDE. That is a massive amount of work/money so I don't expect it to ever happen.<p>I have used Linux on the desktop since 2002 (and will continue to use it) but I'm not delusional. Funnily enough, I've tried going back to Windows 7 (I am dual booting now) but I inexplicably have more driver problems on Win7 than I do on Linux (Thinkpad).<p>I'm not a typical computer user, though. I could survive with only Emacs and Chrome.

The real problem with Linux is that it is torn between two ideologies. One says that Linux is a Developers OS while other says that it needs to reach the mainstream market and compete with Windows.<p>Linux can be seen as being a developers OS and if you are serious about development, the first thing you do is move to Linux. The amount of diagnosis and control it offers on the network and the OS through simple commands and DIY scripts is just unmatched. Though, the number of people involved in development is extremely small as compared to the number of regular home PC users.<p>The second kind, are the people who want to use Linux for web surfing, watching videos, playing some songs and do some office stuff. Here is the problem. Linux just does not fit this user portfolio. At least, it does not fit this as good as Windows does. OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are light years behind MS Office. VLC is the only video player that brings some decency into video playback, and people are torn between music players.<p>Why did Ubuntu Linux and Linux Mint take off so well? In a world ruled by Windows, Linux has to understand its users and their Windows world view.<p>Wayland can be the savior for Linux and Unity is already turning some heads.

<i>"... Hardware support is a big part of the Linux desktop problem, but it’s not the only problem. Half-baked DE like KDE 4.0, Ubuntu’s Unity and GNOME 3.0 are just as dangerous. ..."</i><p>All my problems with @nix/@bsd and desktops start with "X".<p>The big wakeup for me is that the bug known, marked severe and has existed since 2005 without resolution. [0],[1],[2] It doesn't matter what distro or OS I choose. The core of the desktop has problems. I don't blame Linux, X or gnome devs for this, nor do I contemplate switching back to Windows or deserting to Apple. The culprit here is crappy software (eg: try reading through the various GDM shell wrappers) and closed binary drivers (nVidia) and the solution is writing better low level software.<p>[0] <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182517" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182517</a><p>[1] <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/xorg-server/+bug/63905" rel="nofollow">https://bugs.launchpad.net/xorg-server/+bug/63905</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.xfree86.org/current/chips7.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.xfree86.org/current/chips7.html</a>

Hmm,<p>I've had many of the same issues over the years, but it has progressively gotten better. Now have Ubuntu Maverick on my Dell Studio XPS and it runs like a dream. Video, camera, networking, sound, hotkeys, suspend/resume ran since first boot, and I didn't have to do anything. Printing surprised me too. When I went in to work one day I was printing after two or three clicks in the control panel. It was never that easy in Windows XP, tho maybe 7 is better. And keeping up to date is 10x easier than windows of course.<p>I did have a problem with Video crashing occasionally on first install but a subsequent kernel update fixed all that.<p>My tip for Ubuntu users (at least) is, don't upgrade to the newest release, stay back one. And if you do upgrade, wait a full month for the most egregious bugs to get fixed. I'll start looking at Natty when finished with my current project.

The author made mention of Mac OSX. I thought I would quickly mention that the sole reason OSX is such a smooth *nix desktop experience is that they've only developed it for an EXTREMELY limited selection of hardware. That's the key to getting a good Linux desktop experience: very heavy pre-purchase research. There are machines and configurations with near-seamless out of the box experiences for your favorite Linux distro.<p>That said, OSX still has better application experience. I've used it for the first time as my primary machine at work for the past few months, and coming from a traditional Linux background, I'm sold. Strongly considering a MBP as my next hardware purchase. Idealistically I'd prefer to go the OSS route, throwing Arch or Ubuntu on a Lenovo, but it's really just not there yet.

Seriously what got me at the end was these comments about "well it's YOUR fault! You should have XYZ123 and you have 8 years of experience? PLEASE"<p>Unless that kind of attitude and culture of blaming the user changes I am afraid Linux won't be winning many desktop users from the mainstream.

Linux unquestionably has problems - many of them revolving around hardware vendors not being too worried about linux driver support quality and the distros just not being able to QA enough platforms before release.<p>However, it sounds to me like this guy had just had enough with the platform for whatever reason - and then proceeded to make a bunch of decisions that put him on a collision course with failure. Not saying he didn't run into valid issues, but someone with that much linux experience should have well known about some of the issues he was about to run into.<p>Running Fedora 15: This got released a bit more than two weeks ago. Fedora always seems to have a bunch of issues for me in the first month or two until they get a bunch of user submitted problems ironed out. I know this well with F15 right now - I'm running it and have run into power management problems, nfs blocking hibernation, occasional extreme gui lag, an incompatibility with gnome shell and fglrx etc. There are tickets open on these and I'm confident many of them will get resolved. F14 has none of these issues now - if you want a super stable and reliable desktop experience you generally shouldn't run a brand new Fedora release.<p>Running gnome 3 / gnome shell: This is also brand new and it should be somewhat of a nobrainer that there are going to be some issues. Early KDE 4 had similar issues. But then again so did Aero when Windows Vista was brand new. Want a stable, polished experience? Run something that's been worked on for a while - this is more or less true in any OS.<p>Driver issues with new hardware. Maybe it shouldn't be this way, but it's a reality. If you don't want to fuss with drivers consider buying stuff that's been out for a little longer. My ironlake gpu is supported 100% perfectly in fedora 14. Then again I've seen F15 running on a sandy bridge gpu working just great so I'm not sure what issue he's running into. It seems quite possible that the dual gpus are confusing the issue. My laptop with dual gpus (ironlake and radeon) has some issues until I ban the radeon driver from loading at boot (it can still be loaded before switching to the amd gpu before X loads).<p>A lot of his rants about GPU drivers honestly don't sound very accurate to me. Intel drivers are garbage? Not in my experience - it seems to me that the Intel maintained open source drivers are some of the best of the open source solutions and generally work out of the box on everything I use them on. Maybe he's running into a problem because Sandybridge has really only been practically in use for 4-5 months. AMD drivers are garbage? There is an element of truth here but it's quite overstated.<p>If linux doesn't agree with him any longer that's perfectly understandable. Hopefully he'll be happier under Windows. But to me it sounds like this guy has some rage issues and has either warped his own perspective of the situation due to them or is intentionally looking to make the situation look worse to the reader.<p>/shrug

As a developer and full time ubuntu user, (at work and at home), I feel I have no room to complain about anything.<p>I don't give anything back to the community which works hard to provide, all of us, with <i>free</i> and pretty stable software.<p>I don't submit bugs.<p>I don't support a project and volunteer my own time to help support it.<p>I don't pay a dime for the many applications that ship with ubuntu.<p>Yes, it's frustrating at times when something doesn't work. But the reality is, I can't really complain for something I don't work on, support, or pay for.<p>If we all really want this amazing experiment, of running a free - and - open desktop OS to succeed and flourish. We should probably find more ways to support it. I know I should.<p>Major thanks to all of you who do though!

I've used Linux since '93. It was easier in the early days because the hardware was simpler. I lived in Emacs, so the desktop was irrelevant. The turning point was laptops. It was a nightmare to get any distribution going without hours of research and random driver tweaking. I ended up using Windows 98 on my laptop and rsh into desktop Linux. VMware was a godsend. I could finally use Linux for development and Windows for everything else. Nowadays Win7 (or OSX) + VMware's Unity makes the Linux desktop superfluous.

I've avoided dealing with hardware issues by buying hardware from [Los Alamos Computers][1], and avoided most sysadmin issues by using Ubuntu (an LTS release).<p>[1]: <a href="http://laclinux.com/gnu/Start" rel="nofollow">http://laclinux.com/gnu/Start</a><p>As for desktop environments (Gnome, KDE), I wish they'd progress towards simplicity, speed, and smaller size, rather than becoming larger, more complex, and monolithic. They both should come to their senses and stop trying to copy the most recent OS X and Windows desktops.

I can understand switching to Mac if you are fed up with Linux, but I can't imagine switching to Windows. I use Ubuntu happily everyday without any of the problems that the author cited and when I'm forced to use Windows it is highly annoying. The Macs look great but I am happy in my Ubuntu world. Windows is so irritating to use I just don't understand the reasoning.

Agree. I'm on OSX. I've used many different Linux distros but they don't have that 'just working' touch yet. I must admit, Ubuntu is pretty damn good though. It sucks trying to make stuff work that just should on Linux. I'm sure that one day though things will change.<p>It also needs better cohesion between design and code...

I'm surprised so many people have such issues with linux. Running Kubuntu on multiple machines, I've had no more issues than I had in the past with Windows.<p>A lot of these complaints are hardware related. A quick guide based on my experience with my new coworkers installing linux:<p>Lenovo Thinkpads: Work seamlessly<p>Dell Latitudes: Only minor issues<p>Macs: Hell setting up

If it wasn't for Mint Linux standing on top of Ubuntu standing on top of Debian with Debian's apt-get repository, I probably would have switched to Mac.<p>Interestingly, most of my favorite desktop apps are written in C++ (Chrome, Firefox, OpenOffice, Lyx, Kivio, CodeBlocks, Inkscape, etc...).<p>Anyone, else notice a similar pattern?

I've been using Linux as my desktop since 1997. Works for me, could be better, but it does what I need.

I use linux because it's much closer to the the Free Software ideals. The price to pay is the occasional quirk. But that put aside, it's a very pleasant way to stay close to one's ideal (well, I hould remove those NVIDIA driver to live up to them :-), I'm no RMS :-)

it sounds like the final straw was the intel drivers - the list later in the document seems to be from problems going back over the years.<p>and while i would like to say that opensuse these days does "just work", i too have had problems with the current intel driver (open bug report, no response; there is an older version in the X repo that works much better). this same problem was mentioned in the thread here on the new driver contributions from intel.<p>so what's happening with the intel driver? why is something so unstable being released as part of standard distros?

Is there a website that certifies laptops for linux compatibility?

Switched over 2 years ago. Got tired to get everything working so I could just work.<p>printing, sound, skype, ...<p>updates that break stuff, etc. Still like it on servers but not on my laptop ;)

&#62; I just want to get some work done, I don’t want to waste my time debugging all kind of crap.<p>This basically sums up how I feel about using Linux on my home machine. I've used it for a couple of years now; I've reached the point in my life in which I want to use my time to work or entertain myself. And I don't have that much free time. It's a bad use of my time to constantly have to debug my OS; I could be using Windows 7 with VM(s) running Linux. I would have all of its benefits and I would be a lot more productive.

Sure sounds like all the complaints are with Gnome or KDE. Who are all you people not running tiling window managers?!

This guy is a joke, I don't care if he was next to linus codding the kernel, Linux is not only about usability, and I'm not quoting rms here, you have problems of course, but you have a price to live free of DRM, spyware and lock-in, KDE trinity is a example that no matter what the main devs of a project does, it can be undone by motivated community.

In most Linux forums, user stories like this appear time and again. In most cases it turns out that the problems are unique for that particular person.<p>Have been a happy Ubuntu user (desktop + netbook) for the last 5 years without a single glitch.

This guy hasn't heard about Ubuntu?

Um, check if your hardware is supported by Linux before you buy it?

hmm. My plan was to get the t420s and run fedora 15 on it, but if suspend/resume still doesn't work properly there I will be quite upset.

For me Linux offers the ultimate desktop experience: Tiling WMs.<p>Floating desktop environments like Gnome and KDE on the other hand feel like bad OS X copies and definitely are not on of Linux' strengths.<p>On hardware: You have to watch out what you buy. If you just want to run the most bleeding edge hardware then there will probably be some sort of driver fuckup with linux. Though you might not be able to avoid the mentioned Optimus technology in a months :(<p>On suspend/resume: I'm running Linux on an 2009 Macbook Pro and the suspend/resume works like a charm. It needs a few seconds more than OS X to wake up completely but it works. So I guess this is hardware dependent too and not a general problem with lx.<p>Desktop software: If you want to run typical desktop software like Office, Video Editing, etc. Then yeah - Linux is probably the wrong OS for you. I'm in the lucky position to be able to do most of my work in terminals and VIM and for that there's nothing better than a Linux box with a tiling WM.<p>I'd say Linux is not a general purpose desktop OS in its current state. But there are use cases where linux rocks. (Even on the desktop.)

I tend not to use the desktop that much other than as a terminal multiplexer and convenient container for firefox. I think for the highly technical and remote users which seems to make up a fair proportion of the userbase, it's good. The remainder of users just have no motivation to use anything other than what they already do (i.e. MacOS/Windows).<p>TBH the only reason I NEED Linux is valgrind.

What is more annoying is that instead of fixing things that are really useful (e.g. printing, graphics drivers, hibernation, power management) they keep adding lame eyecandy to all desktop enviroments, have you seen KDE lately, or ubuntu unity? And they keep hiding the terminal! Who needs this crap that make it look like a chinese mac-knockoff? I am sticking to xfce4 and ubuntu which works adequately on thinkpads (but not without annoying problems) because i need to use linux and i cannot go with mac's limitations. It's a shame that an otherwise quite solid system gets so bad in the frontend.

Linux is a server operating system. The attempts to shoehorn it onto the desktop have always felt hacky and cumbersome compared to commercial products. After a few years, I just accepted this reality.

Great post, I'll just add that besides the "technical" hassle, the linux desktop experience has been poor at providing a nice, beautiful and clean workspace. I just switched to OS X from years of using Linux as my primary desktop environment. So please if you have any time you can spend on open source software, don't create a new Linux distro, try to build a new clean Desktop, come on, you geeks, don't tell me you can't do it. And I'll be more than happy to switch back, and of course contribute, eventually. We don't need new Linux distros as much as we need a new Desktop environment. I guess Ubuntu got that, but they're still stuck with GTK..argh

So, the straw that broke the camels back was woeful Nvidia Optimus.<p>To look at things another way, hardware vendors (Lenovo included) build and test their systems for Windows because 95%+ of their customers will only ever run Windows.<p>If you plan to run a Linux desktop you simply must research the hardware before you buy, because your vendor certainly has not. Nvidia Optimus is just one big, sad, ugly example of this.

I upped this before even reading the article.