I think I’m tired of Desktop Linux

In a week or two it is possible to configure a desktop Linux machine to almost-perfection. Not working on it full time, of course, just fixing broken things as they are discovered. But then there's always one tiny nagging thing that doesn't quite work right.<p>So, an upgrade. Everything is shinier, and that one bug is finally fixed. Too bad a lot of the programs and libraries are obsolete now, and the software that did survive in the repos is rewritten to use the new interfaces. Along with their bugs. And after a couple weeks setting everything up just so, there is one tiny nagging bug...<p>I use a Debian machine exclusively. After I upgraded to testing, my video stopped crashing. That's great. But now bluetooth is broken. It's been replaced with a completely new HAL framework, and I still can't figure out how to pair a device.

I've used a 2nd generation Macbook Pro that costs my employer close to $3000 (4GB RAM, 2.4GHz, 160GB HD) for 2 years, during which time the graphic card (Nvidia 9600M GT) died twice (screen suddenly went blank); battery died once (could not hold charge for an hour and would shut everything down without warning); Apple Mail corrupted its IMAP data countless times; much software annoyance: maximize/unmaximize/resize surprise etc.<p>Before the MBP, I've been using a $1000 amd64 notebook with 1.5GB RAM for 3 years without any issues, running Gentoo (! did need to google to fix multi-monitor support and ndiswrapper/wpa-supplicant for wifi) and it felt snappier than the mac with much faster processor running Leopard (up to 10.5.8).<p>Now I'm using a $600 laptop (with 4GB RAM and 320GB HD with higher display resolution than the MBP: 1680x945 vs 1440x900) and a 2.5lb $200 netbook running Ubuntu Jaunty. Everything worked out of the box including wifi, webcam and desktop effects. Feels much snappier than the Mac as well. All it took is a little googling _before_ buying the machines :)<p>It's much easier for Apple to QA limited configurations. Frankly, I'm quite pleased with the progress of Linux desktop.<p>Just another experience and perspective...

For the sake of context, Jason is a KDE developer and if you read through the comments you'll find out that he's not alone in this sentiment.<p>It's an interesting issue and it's sad to see that desktop Linux has so much trouble providing a stable user experience.

I think it's getting harder to defend the Linux Desktop, since Pulseaudio (which is finally working perfectly on my laptop).<p>But still I'll stay with my Ubuntu, I just don't like using Windows or OS X, every time I use my mac I miss Gnome Terminal, Banshee, X-Chat, F-Spot, even VIM (since the mac terminal doesn't support 256 colors :(), I miss my wobbly windows, the desktop cube (not that crap you get with OS X)... I would just use the mac if there is no other option.<p>And don't get me started with Windows and the un-resizable terminal ugh!

Linux is great for software development (i.e., stick with terminal windows) and simple web browsing. And I love it because that's what I do. But it sucks for many other tasks. The Unix haters handbook has a great rant about X11 where they say that for many years the only programs that X ran were xterm and clock.<p>Just yesterday I kicked off an MP3 playback using Rhythmbox on Ubuntu 9.04 and forgot to pause. When I came back a couple of hours later, <i>two</i> cores were pegged at 100% and the song was fast forwarding like crazy with no obvious UI control to slow it down.<p>And this is <i>after</i> wrestling with Adobe's 64-bit Flash plugin that doesn't play nice with USB audio (not sure if the 32-b version does; I'm not going to reinstall Ubuntu just for that).

I think the problem is, that some people (including me) have much too high expectations.<p>Linux does cost nothing, so nobody is really responsible.<p>I think Windows 7 is lightyears ahead, if you compare the organized manpower and level of professionalism involved (I say this as a 90% Linux User).<p>If anybody talks about being on par with Windows soon, I think that's nothing but hubris.<p>I decided to see Desktop-Linux as some kind of stagecoach in the 21st century, and seen as a stagecoach it does a good job.<p>Lowering my expectations made it possible to get over my initial frustration and get back to work, concentrating on what works.

This could have been written 10 years ago - I recall similar 'almost there' experiences with audio and USB on a dell laptop at the time, though I can't blame the Linux community for lack of access to bespoke drivers. Not to belittle the tremendous advances that have taken place in the interim, but something died after development of Enlightenment stalled.

<i>Now, I am very aware that the Linux Desktop is SO much better than it was even 5 years ago. We have eye candy up the wahzoo.</i><p>That was most definitely not the major issue 5 years ago. The issue 5 years ago was configuring hardware and god help you if you want to do some multimedia work on a stock linux distro.<p>Things are a ton better today. I don't remember the last time I had to manually edit an xorg.conf. But Linux has neither the standardized hardware of Apple nor the dominant market share of Windows to compel vendors to make their hardware work with linux.<p>Really the best you can do to get that level of compatibility is to get your Ubuntu laptop through Dell.

Using Ubuntu 9.10 and everything works out of the box. Although, I had a problem with WiFi on my other laptop, but doing some /etc configuration solved the problem. Is it that hard to write a few configuration lines only once?

I think this is a problem with perspective. Linux on the desktop is not a homogeneous collection controlled by a single entity. It is a collection of individual pieces. Software vendors have little incentive to make their software work 100% with those individual pieces on the Linux desktop, unlike they do on platforms where they sell other software and services. You get what you pay for, on the Linux desktop, your payment will be in time and effort to get the (usually substandard) free offerings from these software vendors to work properly.

I've recently come to the same conclusion as the author.<p>I've long been an advocate of Linux, but a few years go I sort of gradually switched off Linux on the desktop back to Windows. It wasn't premeditated; I built a new box, made it Windows for gaming, and then one day realized I was using it exclusively for desktop stuff.<p>Well, I say desktop, but I think the real differentiator here is X Window... I use Linux command-line programs for much of my daily desktop productivity stuff -- email (sup+fetchmail), irc/aim (irssi, bitlbee), text editing (emacs), etc.<p>At work we recently rebuilt our boxes using Ubuntu. I was thrilled for about two weeks, and then all those little X annoyances started creeping back in. Frankly, I was kind of surprised; I had assumed that it would have come a lot farther in the few years since I had last used Linux for desktop.<p>Actually using X Window programs has become annoying. I can sort of feel that legion of disparate programmers all taking their own stab at desktop GUI programming and all arriving there somewhat differently.<p>Eventually a few of us broke down and hackintoshed our boxes, and I couldn't be happier.<p>Linux on the server? Absolutely.<p>But on the desktop? OS/X.

Geez, simple solution. Keep another box around, a Mac Mini or a cheap Windows box, for the stuff Linux doesn't do. If you try to get by with a single desktop environment, you'll get fed up with any of the choices out there. It isn't worth the pain. You'll get tired of the Mac when you realize that nice interface is the only... environment... you'll... ever... have. Everything that takes three clicks will <i>always take three clicks</i>. You'll never be able to switch to a tiling window manager for the afternoon. I won't bother listing Windows' shortcomings. And under Linux you will always run into things like Skype that are broken and not worth the trouble of fixing, because you aren't in college anymore and you have <i>real</i> work to do.<p>If I had to do a lot of work on the road, I think I would have to get a Windows or Mac laptop and set up a Linux VM for doing real work. Otherwise I'd go crazy and start carrying two laptops (and forget about ever getting another date.)

I totally sympathize with this kind of issue, it's what keeps me from putting Linux on my parents' computers (though this latest "Alpha Antivirus" thing my dad got is ... pushing my limits).<p>For myself, I am pleasantly surprised at the experience I've had with Ubuntu since I first installed 8.04 and deciding to give Linux desktop yet-another-go. The improvements between releases are apparent and usually make sense. Hardware device recognition and drivers are getting better. Overall it IS getting better, and seemingly faster, so have hope for it.<p>In the meantime it's going to be a bumpy ride not just because of stiff competition from existing "just works" platforms, but because it challenges some fundamental commercial assumptions about operating software and THAT is inevitably going to cause opposition through politics, support bias, etc.<p>Strong supporters are going to shed blood in the hope that future generations won't have to. Isn't that the way it always is?

It's about trade-offs. Yes, there are issues with Linux; there have always been different various issues in any Linux distribution I've used since 1995 which is when I started.<p>But there are issues with Windows and OS X too. And that's where Linux's advantages kick in again. You'll always miss something from the other side of the fence. You'll have to weigh in, and some people weigh to Linux and some people don't.<p>I've never got too far with Windows. I ditched OS X after over two years of everyday use. Despite the uncertainty regarding hardware compatibility in Linux, I really like the way it, namely Debian and recently Ubuntu, gets rid of the _other_ problems so irritatingly present in other operating systems.<p>A Linux system is just too user friendly for users who aren't too system friendly.

Well, I'm in two minds. I've often disliked how Ubuntu, Mint, Gnome, Kde et al have attempted to ape Microsoft's and Apple's desktop experience with only a few new novel features in an attempt to gain mass acceptance, more often than not completely ignoring the fundamental philosophy of Unix, the philosophy that makes Unix-derivatives so great. Then again, it has made more desktop hardware manufacturers take notice of Linux, due to its increasing mass appeal, which has improved hardware support. At least there's enough diversity in the Unix eco-system for me to completely ignore the aforementioned for more novel systems, even though most of the effort seems to be going into aping Windows and OS X.

I had a similar experience. I've now been running a new MacBook for three days and I am not going back to linux.<p>I couldn't believe it when I booted into Snow Leopard and zsh was already installed and configured. I'm sure my jaw actually dropped.<p>That's just one example. So much stuff on OS X just freaking works. It just works. I literally had my whole machine configured and working within around 2 hours. Most of that time was spent simply installing software, not configuring it.<p>&#60;/rant&#62;

Why would you buy a marked-up mac to put ubuntu on it?

&#62;Have you tried anything but Ubuntu?<p>I had this question in my head through the whole essay and the top commenter beat me to it.<p>I've heard thousands of issues with the new Ubuntu release (never bothered trying it myself). I doubt I'll recommend Ubuntu to anyone I know who's interested in Linux for quite a while. I've had great experiences with several of non-Ubuntu distros and will probably recommend them instead.

I wish I could understand people who describe inanimate objects as sexy. I have no idea how to relate to people who choose a laptop because of its sex appeal, which would be a big disadvantage if I ever need to sell to them. There probably aren't that many of them, but they seem to have a lot of money.

Once again: if you want to run Linux on a notebook, check for compatibility before you buy the notebook.<p>Don't know about Apple, but in general hardware support tends to be better if the vendor communicates the necessary specs to the open source community. Somehow I doubt that Apple is very supportive to the "Linux on a MacBook" cause.

We are tired of you being loudly tired of Desktop Linux, FAVO you.

BooHoo ... skype doesnt work so it must be Linux's fault. Macbook pros are intentionally designed to be difficult to dual boot so it must be Linux's fault.<p>Hey I have an idea. Why don't you buy a desktop and laptop with linux preinstalled (they are available online) and then try to install OSX on top of it and dual boot. Then you are really in for a nightmare. You will have to do a lot of hacking and in the end you are still pretty much guaranteed to fail. And then you can write a blog post about how you really love OSX but you are so tired of it.