The Linux desktop experience is killing Linux on the desktop, Part II

Dislacimer: I've been involved in the KDE community in the past few years. However, im not a core developer or a decision maker and I just make very side contributions. What follows are my thoughts and obviously not KDE's.<p>Main issues behind Linux on desktop:<p>1) Motivation. Volunteers are doing an incredible job. Truly amazing. Outstanding. No word describes it. However, how much can you expect from them? Most linux-based companies care very little about linux on desktop.<p>On server linux, almost whole industry is based on FOSS stacks (linux, bsd, etc). Why on earth you expect UI developers do a job as good as server-side people? Most of them are pure volunteers. Until more companies are interested on Desktop linux, the situation is more or less the same.<p>2)Complexity. The whole stack is very complicated and is not handled by a single entity. Kernel, X, Qt/GTK, KDE/Gnome. Now, add to that distributions with different release policies. Different mix of the whole stack, each one producing a unique end-product. Thats much different from windows where they even 'build' the whole stack.<p>3)Excitement on desktop has been decreased. Desktop in not sexy anymore. Tablets are. Linux on desktop is in middle of some confusion at the moment. Their job is to produce high quality user interfaces. Not just for desktop. And they have lots of potential there. They are moving towards other form factors as well. Which is a big change.<p>4)Community's attitude. You see, the FOSS community is very big now. However, most people's attitude is teasing linux on desktop or criticizing it. As far as I can remember, open source attitude was 'scratch your own itch', 'get involved', etc. KDE and Gnome communities are both very very welcoming toward new developers. For example, KDE has ~1 new contributor each day. Which is a proof that it is actually pretty welcoming.<p>In my personal opinion, Linux on desktop is actually doing incredibly well. Despite the above points, we have very high quality applications. We have very high quality API's. Awesome technologies. Most of the work has been done. We have great looking, stable, efficient workspace and applications. What remains is a bit of polish. (Although I have to say, I personally cant stand windows for more than 5 minutes)<p>So, dear FOSS community. If you think linux on desktop sucks, help making it better. Thats how linux and open source works.<p>I would also like to ask KDE users to actually help KDE. You can of course contribute to it or Join The Game[1] and give us a little bit of financial help.<p>[1] <a href="http://jointhegame.kde.org" rel="nofollow">http://jointhegame.kde.org</a><p>Edit: fixed formatting.

I feel like I've read over 20 of these articles lately.<p>I have used linux on the desktop in some form or another since 1998. It works, trust me.<p>I find it strange that the author says they should have gone back to FreeBSD. In terms of "desktop" experience, both of these operating systems are somewhat similar.<p>I understand his complaints about the driver situation, but, really, this just means that you need to do some additional due diligence on your hardware. If you think that is troublesome, try installing OS X on non-Apple hardware. Now <i>that</i> can be a real adventure.

To me, the article comes across as a request to the linux community for solving the linux desktop problem. In other words, when given a viable chioce, the author wants linux on his desktop.<p>The author's complaints seems confirmed when looking at the trends [1] in market share for contemporary os's.<p>&#62;Desktop Linux has to be made somehow profitable for companies to start investing more heavily in it...<p>I also believe that this is the major issue when trying to make linux successful on the desktop. So, what to do about it?<p>[1] <a href="http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9" rel="nofollow">http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9</a>

This my sound as an oxymoron, but Linux really shines as a desktop operation system for developers.<p>If you're a regular desktop user, your basics are covered. But if you have a nicer camera an want to manage your photos, you're shit out of luck. Video editing software is abysmal. On the other hand you have 25 audio players of which maybe 3 work nicely.

I think this is why so many developers have switched to Macs. Development on Windows sucks (in my opinion, of course, unless you're making Windows applications), and with OS X you get the best of both worlds: the power and flexibility of BSD, along with great desktop applications and a nice day-to-day user experience that "just works".<p>Do I really want to worry about what sound driver I'm using, when I have clients waiting? Not so much.

People keep saying "it works for me, go away", as if other people who care about a DECENT desktop experience are just morons.<p>"Ah! Another stupid windows/osx user!"<p>I don't care about your fvwm desktop with 99 xterms and emacs everywhere, or your fully customized arch linux that "works for you"; I, like many other people, have different needs. And yet the general response from the community is "fuck off".<p>First rule of desktop linux: you do not complain about desktop linux.<p>Greetings from the year 2011.

<i>Unless something radically changes in the near future I don’t see how Linux can rise up to be a mainstream desktop OS.<p>...<p>Desktop Linux has to be made somehow profitable for companies to start investing more heavily in it. This is the hard, but honest truth. As long as the primarily development is carried out with little (or no funding), mostly by volunteers the hour of the desktop Linux will never come.</i><p>The radical change is tablets. Google is investing heavily in Android and will likely see big profits (indirectly).<p>I'm writing this from a Windows laptop because my main Ubuntu laptop got screwed while upgrading. Everything that worked perfectly well for 3 years is now botched because of an "upgrade".<p>The hour of the Linux <i>desktop</i> may eventually come but it will be irrelevant by then.

As far as I can tell, the "problem" with Linux on the desktop is that there is no consensus that there is a problem.<p>The category of people who use Linux, but complain about the desktop experience, seems to be a vocal minority (of the already tiny minority of computer users that use Linux).<p>The overwhelming majority of us have moved on. My Linux desktop use is now limited to the once a year that I install a distro to force myself to use a different OS for a couple months, mostly to see what I'm missing. Turns out, I'm not missing anything, so after a couple months I go back to using a system I enjoy.<p>But here's the thing, the people who use Linux as their main desktop environment aren't crazy, or fooling themselves. They prefer it to the alternatives. They evangelize about it (actually something I wish everyone would stop doing, regardless of their OS allegiance). For them, it's the best way to use their computer for the things that they want to use their computer for.<p>So I'm not sure that there is a problem. With the exception of the small number of people who fantasize about a world-wide exodus from Windows to Linux on the desktop (who are certifiable, if they think there's a remote chance that will happen), I get the impression that most Linux users are quite happy with it (as well they should be).<p>I think maybe twelve years ago, if you were a full-time Linux desktop user, you were probably compromising on technical quality for an ideological preference; but I don't think that's been true for a long time.

I tried to install ubuntu on my new laptop recently. Honestly, it feels as bad as it did 10 years ago.<p>Weird installation trap. Can't find drivers for my wireless adaptor. Sleep sometimes work, sometimes not. Tons of big or small problems like this.<p>Yeah, after long hours of research, I got resolved most of the issues. But I doubt anyone who has less patience or less understanding of computer than I do would simply say "damn it!"<p>Yeah, it could work, but it's crappy.

Very good article - both Part I and II. I completely understand the feelings of the author and I appreciate his constructive advices after so much pain.<p>I am using/used Linux since '95. On my family's laptop Ubuntu 10.10 is still running, but I have the feeling it is the last Ubuntu version that we will use until the laptop dies - but I will not update to newer releases unless Ubuntu brings a desktop that improves usability without requiring 3D to work or Linux will get support for my graphics card, so at least I could try Unity. When we have to buy a new laptop it will be with Windows or maybe ChromeOS. I just do not want to go again through all the pains when choosing new hardware.<p>For my personal/professional laptops I switched to Windows 5 years ago. Sometimes I need Linux to test some development then I install a VM. No hassle any more. As I missed bash as well, I installed Cygwin.<p>I feel that additionally there are other world changes that drain the Linux desktop users:<p>1.) Desktops (no matter if it is Unix/Win/MacOS) do NOT matter as much as they used too. Since the time when I bought a modern phone, I realized that I actually use the laptops only when I need to write longer texts or print out something. Browsing/mailing/chatting/playing/skyping is a better experience on the phone than on the desktop (on the phone however typing is really bad).<p>2.) Windows became much better (if you skip Vista) since XP.

Can we please stop this? When you don't like Linux on your desktop, don't use it. It's that easy.

This article is better than most on the subject. I thought the analogy to communism weak but some of other points good.<p>This was very true:<p><pre><code> What have you done? Sure, very few users are software engineers, but that doesn’t mean they can’t help. Bug reports are just as important as patches. Ideas and suggestions for improvements are highly valued as well. Don’t sit in the shadows doing nothing - step into the light and do something to help your favorite project get a little bit better. Step by step. Fix by fix. Improvement by improvement. This is how good software gets created. </code></pre> For me I have been on the sidelines my whole career - and he is right. Should try to rectify this.

There was this post by a professional driver developer who wrote Linux drivers for the hardware company he works for. The problem he said, (I'm now paraphrasing) is that the kernel APIs kept changing and he had to keep reworking his drivers. Even though the driver code may be in the source tree, in the end it is still his job to keep it working.<p>Linux may have POSIX outside, but its cause would be further advanced if they committed to stabler interfaces for driver developers.

Couldn't agree more. I am using Ubuntu for many years and would never ever switch back to Windows or OSX. Despite the many flaws, Ubuntu (on Gnome and now Unity) is still better.<p>But I would really really love if Canonical would just do one bug-patch-only release. Half a year of just fixing and cleaning up things would really help.<p>Unfortunately, I doubt that it will ever happen.

The root causes of Linux's problems are very hard to fix.<p>It needs to aim to attract commercial developers by adding cohesive APIs and stable ABIs.<p>That's going to be a real struggle. Linux is too fragmented, there's too much opposition to proprietary software, and the kernel developers don't believe in stable ABIs.<p>Perhaps some sort of VM, à la Android's Dalvik or .NET, is the best solution for working around most of these problems in one fell swoop. Being OS independent also opens up approaches to solving driver problems in the long-term.<p>I thought Haiku had a decent shot of avoiding these problems, but my optimism has waned. Its ageing rapidly, development is slow, and rather than trying to attract commercial developers they seem happy to repeat Linux's packaging mistakes.

These posts are becoming tiresome (not to say a little bit inconsistent). If Linux doesn't work for you, use something else. It's fine for a lot of people. In fact, most people I know who tried it, like it.

May I respectfully suggest that those who do not fulfill the minimum wetware requirements to run Linux successfully should stick to an operating system that is consistent with their cranial capacity.