7 ms·

I understand the desktop market, but I don't understand why a Linux distribution hasn't taken hold on the desktop market. A vast number of users use their comp

by hluska 8y ago

I understand the desktop market, but I don't understand why a Linux distribution hasn't taken hold on the desktop market. A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document. There are several Linux distributions that can do these things quite easily out of the box. Meanwhile, Microsoft has been steadily sabotaging Windows. And Apple is simply too expensive for the average user. That doesn't seem too controversial. You'll have to explain why I should 'refrain from commenting'.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
> A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document. This kind of condescension towards users and what they use a computer for is precisely why Linux doesn't have a foothold on the Desktop. Linux Desktop people design for some imagined person who, to the extent that they even exist, doesn't care at all about their operating system. They try so hard to make it easy by automating what they think the user wants to do that they make the system incredibly complicated and inflexible so everything falls to pieces the moment the user tries to color outside the lines. This is sorta what parent meant, I think. If you don't understand why Linux is a failure on the desktop, you don't understand why people use desktops.
- hluska 8y ago
  You would have more success convincing people if you were a little more charitable. It is very difficult to have a reasonable conversation when it starts with an insult. That is not condescension as I am not condescending towards users. Rather, it's reality. I volunteer with an association of retired people and 100% of our executive and every single member I have ever spoken to fits in in that group. They don't do more than that because frankly, they don't particularly like their computers. I also briefly sold computers when I was in University. Over that 18 months, I'd say that 85% of people who needed my help were looking for machines that could do exactly that. Finally, I really question what kind of Linux distrust you use. With a half decent, consumer focused distribution, I can't imagine how anything could fall to pieces the moment someone colours outside the lines.
  - Karunamon 8y ago
    >Over that 18 months, I'd say that 85% of people who needed my help were looking for machines that could do exactly that. Woudln't a Chromebook fit their use case a bit better? The chances of needing to drop to a CLI to do something basic or fix some thing that an update broke drops from low double digits to effectively zero.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      If all you really need is a browser anyway, I don't know why you wouldn't use a Chromebook. That's not a knock on Linux. It's a knock on any full-blown desktop OS. I certainly couldn't use a Chromebook as my only machine. I need other systems for working with media, games, etc. But I travel as often as not with just a Chromebook these days. Added: Or just a tablet. My dad always considered PCs a necessary evil. He doesn't really type much and he's far happier with my old iPad than he ever was with a PC--or than he would be with a Chromebook.
  - lakechfoma 8y ago
    If we're trading anecdotes about a really specific subset of users here, I know a bunch of "retired people" who also almost exclusively do email, but you know they also like things to be easy, intuitive, familiar, functional and still kind of pretty like they're actually part of the future. They absolutely can not have it break. And you know what? They do want more features that they can use, it isn't that they only want email because it is all they can use, it's just the rest is not easy/intuitive/familiar or is providing no greater value to their now limited time. What value does linux desktop bring to them? It's a liability with no advantages. So now a bunch have started using things like amazon photos which has encouraged them to become more interested in their android devices, branching out into other fun photo apps and home IoT crap. Another bunch (quite the dividing line here) has gotten more involved in iCloud shared albums and thus again more interested in the Apple ecosystem. They went from cheap "PC" buyers to MBP because they thought the UX was that much better, because facetime and iMessage and other cool things. Linux Desktop can't compete even in that easiest of user segments.
    - 8y ago
- dghughes 8y ago
  I'm not who you replied to but I didn't think what they wrote was in any way condescending. The Android OS pointed out the OS didn't matter much for most tasks. Many users don't need Windows they just need an OS. I'd even say most people are perfectly happy with a phone and an Internet connection. Complexity of any OS is a turn off for users, the OS of a phone is meant to be intuitive.
- zitterbewegung 8y ago
  The lightweight window managers seem to do the least of this imagined user problem.
- realusername 8y ago
  Every time I've put a Linux distribution to very inexperienced users, it worked well, there's a lot of UI things which tend to work better on Linux compared to Windows. I think the main thing is there's no real point to switch so no one does.
- whydoineedthis 8y ago
  So Google is condesneding to it's users? Because guess what a chrome book is! It's even worse actually - and trumpets please - they are now improving linux support on chromebooks. The reason no linux distro has taken off is because even at free it's not cost effective for a hardware manufacturer to install it. Windows, when purchased in bulk as an OEM install is like a whopping $10 - but comes with all the 1st class driver support from manufacturers and software support from software vendors. So, if you are HP and need to support some umpteen million devices sold this year, you push Windows out the door, not Linux. This is also why Apple doesn't allow it's OS sold seperately anymore and try to tie it down to the hardware as much as possible - if they don't sell the hardware they really don't care if you paid them money for the OS. The OS was cheap to build (relatively speaking). Until someone comes up with a better piece of hardware for running linux, then Mac and HP, Dell, etc, etc will maintain their dominance.
  - Zardoz84 8y ago
    Dell have computers with Ubuntu pre-installed.
    - whydoineedthis 8y ago
      and they don't refund you the windows license fee. So yes, they did the install as a convenience for you, but there is no real focus on linux.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  I recently retired from a small organization, 4000 users. A large chunk of those people could probably switch from Windows to Linux desktops just fine. But then the desktop support folks would have two platforms to support instead of one. Then would their linux client software give them all the same functionality they are getting from outlook, skype and exchange? I have no idea, but I'm guessing the savings would have to be substantial for anybody to even start investigating this.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document. Yeah... so why do they need to switch to Linux to do that? Windows can already do those things fine. Is Linux cheaper? Computers without Windows seem to cost the same as computers with Windows. And the actual cost to the OEM is probably something petty like $50 so it's not really an issue.
- ascom 8y ago
  Dell will reduce the price of many of their computers by $101 if you select Ubuntu instead of Windows.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    As much as people spend on training and support, I doubt that is enough to get many people to switch.
- reacweb 8y ago
  Yes Linux is cheaper because you do not need to change your computer as often. It is also cheaper because you spend far less time for system administration. Since may 2017 (when I bought my last computer), I have a dual boot windows/ubuntu. I use windows around 5 minutes each month for a single application. I have lost far more time in administrative tasks on windows than on linux: on linux all updates happen in background. On windows, computer was stuck during hours incrementing a percentage.
  - wilsonnb3 8y ago
    > It is also cheaper because you spend far less time for system administration. This is highly dependent on how much experience one has with Windows and Linux, as well as the specific workload the computer is running. I've had both Linux and Windows installations that always worked without any issues. I've also had both Linux and Windows installations that break on a weekly basis.
influx 8y ago
How about they want all the features of their expensive hardware to work? I’ve used Linux for 20 years and I cringe thinking about getting random WiFi, sound or blueray players to work. Much less properly suspending or using the correct power modes.
golergka 8y ago
> A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document. They do use Linux for that - they just don't use a desktop. Android.
agumonkey 8y ago
- brand: microsoft is a single point, has been there since the dawn of PC - ergonomics: linux GUIs are often of no value to the average user. Too diverse, too much change. Unless you do the effort to educate them they will never care. The leap is staggering.. remember people still don't understand web browsers and clicks fully. [2] - economics: microsoft spends money on OEM deals, which means their software ends up on laptops on shelves that the average joe sees. Also, linux doesn't benefit from scale prices, the few machines that were open source from start were quite expensive with lower perf hardware. a hard sell in terms of numbers Linux can't get more market share with never ending lib / framework shifts, inconsistent GUIs [1] and technical appeal only. [1] that said win10 inheritance of win8 second layer is bridging this gap, it's super annoying to have to deal with fakely easier configuration panel but resort to the older one for denser information [2] and for the joke, windows still follows CUA 99% so you get a very decent keyboard driven GUI. Linux is inconsistent, you may or may not .. sad considering we all love our keyboards #vim
TuringNYC 8y ago
I work at a startup. We have high-end System76 Linux Desktops...and we still cant get the video driver working on Ubuntu with Dell Ultrasharp monitors. The monitor half works and acts up every time the plug moves or every time we take the laptop mobile and plug it back in. I cant imagine a retail desktop user tolerating these things. Aside: There was some only-half-joking discussion in the office that someone should attempt to re-write the display driver as a 20% time project.
- bennofs 8y ago
  I feel like recent windows versions aren't that stable either though. There are times (for example one particular Bluetooth speaker) where I reboot into Linux to get things working... Pair that with the horror that is Windows update and I am not sure if Windows is less pain for the average user. But there are definitely things were Linux is hit or miss (ime): - video drivers (integrated graphics work well for me) - integrated SD card readers But if you don't have too fancy hardware requirements I think Linux can be OK.
bunderbunder 8y ago
There is room for that use case, as evidenced by the success of Chromebooks. I know quite a few people who are very happy with them. But we don't really want to count that, because that's not what we meant. What we wanted is something that has all the options and configurability and openness of Linux, but on the desktop. And Chromebooks lack all of that. I'm inclined to take that as a pretty clear confirmation that Linux on the desktop, as the Linux community tends to envision it, hasn't happened because Linux on the desktop represents something most consumers don't actually want.
DannyB2 8y ago
> A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document. Chomebooks. These may very well become the standard desktop / laptop Linux. * they are very secure * they run Chrome extensions / apps * the latest Chrome OS runs Android apps (and desktop integration will improve in a couple releases) * very soon Chrome OS will run Linux desktop apps (eg, will install .deb files, apps like Gimp, Inkscape, etc) integrated into the Chrome desktop, without being in developer mode (eg "rooted") * Chromebooks are very successful in education * A fleet of chromebooks (eg, a school district) can centrally control their chromebooks, including policies. Fleet owners can negotiate volume pricing from multiple vendor suppliers. Chromebooks that are lost, stolen or eaten can be replaced for $67 / unit. * You can buy expensive high end chromebooks that are very nice, thin, powerful, all day battery, etc IMO, this could become "the year of the Linux desktop"
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Year of the Chromebook maybe, but having the entire userland replaced with a proprietary web browser on top of the Linux kernel is probably not the victory the Linux Desktop community was hoping for.
  - DannyB2 8y ago
    A userland Chrome browser is what Chromebook WAS. What it is becoming is a desktop. With Linux and Android apps integrated. There are a lot of good Android apps that would be useful on a laptop. There are a lot of Linux apps that are useful on a laptop. Good security. With secure verified boot. Yet Linux apps that run in a strong sandbox allowing untrusted code. Android apps run in a different sandbox. All this is transparent to the user who sees a desktop. The Chrome OS and Android are self updating. I don't know about Linux apps yet.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      Android, again, was a complete replacement of the userland tooling developed by the community. For all intents and purposes it is a completely different system. Even Windows can run Linux apps these days. It still doesn't seem to me that that qualifies as "year of the Linux Desktop" as it is intended.
magicalhippo 8y ago
> I understand the desktop market, but I don't understand why a Linux distribution hasn't taken hold on the desktop market. Because there's about 600 million distributions wasting energy competing. They waste energy on solving the same problems in slightly different ways, rather than working together to solve new problems. As a user I don't _really_ care about window managers, package managers, KDE vs Gnome, or systemd vs whatever. I want my desktop to enable me to perform the tasks I want to do. I do for example care that there's no decent remote desktop support on Linux. That's one of the primary reasons I still run a Windows desktop on my main machine.
- Zardoz84 8y ago
  Pardon ? Remote desktop was far better on Linux that any Windows solution. You ever try NX ? It was really amazing! Even it was working very soft, running across a poor ADSL internet connection!
silverlake 8y ago
Chromebooks are a popular Linux desktop. Tablets and phones are enough for many people.

by hluska 8y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

> A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document. This kind of condescension towards users and what they use a computer for is precisely why Linux doesn't have a foothold on the Desktop. Linux Desktop people design for some imagined person who, to the extent that they even exist, doesn't care at all about their operating system. They try so hard to make it easy by automating what they think the user wants to do that they make the system incredibly complicated and inflexible so everything falls to pieces the moment the user tries to color outside the lines. This is sorta what parent meant, I think. If you don't understand why Linux is a failure on the desktop, you don't understand why people use desktops.

hluska 8y ago
You would have more success convincing people if you were a little more charitable. It is very difficult to have a reasonable conversation when it starts with an insult. That is not condescension as I am not condescending towards users. Rather, it's reality. I volunteer with an association of retired people and 100% of our executive and every single member I have ever spoken to fits in in that group. They don't do more than that because frankly, they don't particularly like their computers. I also briefly sold computers when I was in University. Over that 18 months, I'd say that 85% of people who needed my help were looking for machines that could do exactly that. Finally, I really question what kind of Linux distrust you use. With a half decent, consumer focused distribution, I can't imagine how anything could fall to pieces the moment someone colours outside the lines.
- Karunamon 8y ago
  >Over that 18 months, I'd say that 85% of people who needed my help were looking for machines that could do exactly that. Woudln't a Chromebook fit their use case a bit better? The chances of needing to drop to a CLI to do something basic or fix some thing that an update broke drops from low double digits to effectively zero.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    If all you really need is a browser anyway, I don't know why you wouldn't use a Chromebook. That's not a knock on Linux. It's a knock on any full-blown desktop OS. I certainly couldn't use a Chromebook as my only machine. I need other systems for working with media, games, etc. But I travel as often as not with just a Chromebook these days. Added: Or just a tablet. My dad always considered PCs a necessary evil. He doesn't really type much and he's far happier with my old iPad than he ever was with a PC--or than he would be with a Chromebook.
- lakechfoma 8y ago
  If we're trading anecdotes about a really specific subset of users here, I know a bunch of "retired people" who also almost exclusively do email, but you know they also like things to be easy, intuitive, familiar, functional and still kind of pretty like they're actually part of the future. They absolutely can not have it break. And you know what? They do want more features that they can use, it isn't that they only want email because it is all they can use, it's just the rest is not easy/intuitive/familiar or is providing no greater value to their now limited time. What value does linux desktop bring to them? It's a liability with no advantages. So now a bunch have started using things like amazon photos which has encouraged them to become more interested in their android devices, branching out into other fun photo apps and home IoT crap. Another bunch (quite the dividing line here) has gotten more involved in iCloud shared albums and thus again more interested in the Apple ecosystem. They went from cheap "PC" buyers to MBP because they thought the UX was that much better, because facetime and iMessage and other cool things. Linux Desktop can't compete even in that easiest of user segments.
  - 8y ago
dghughes 8y ago
I'm not who you replied to but I didn't think what they wrote was in any way condescending. The Android OS pointed out the OS didn't matter much for most tasks. Many users don't need Windows they just need an OS. I'd even say most people are perfectly happy with a phone and an Internet connection. Complexity of any OS is a turn off for users, the OS of a phone is meant to be intuitive.
zitterbewegung 8y ago
The lightweight window managers seem to do the least of this imagined user problem.
realusername 8y ago
Every time I've put a Linux distribution to very inexperienced users, it worked well, there's a lot of UI things which tend to work better on Linux compared to Windows. I think the main thing is there's no real point to switch so no one does.
whydoineedthis 8y ago
So Google is condesneding to it's users? Because guess what a chrome book is! It's even worse actually - and trumpets please - they are now improving linux support on chromebooks. The reason no linux distro has taken off is because even at free it's not cost effective for a hardware manufacturer to install it. Windows, when purchased in bulk as an OEM install is like a whopping $10 - but comes with all the 1st class driver support from manufacturers and software support from software vendors. So, if you are HP and need to support some umpteen million devices sold this year, you push Windows out the door, not Linux. This is also why Apple doesn't allow it's OS sold seperately anymore and try to tie it down to the hardware as much as possible - if they don't sell the hardware they really don't care if you paid them money for the OS. The OS was cheap to build (relatively speaking). Until someone comes up with a better piece of hardware for running linux, then Mac and HP, Dell, etc, etc will maintain their dominance.
- Zardoz84 8y ago
  Dell have computers with Ubuntu pre-installed.
  - whydoineedthis 8y ago
    and they don't refund you the windows license fee. So yes, they did the install as a convenience for you, but there is no real focus on linux.
amanaplanacanal 8y ago
I recently retired from a small organization, 4000 users. A large chunk of those people could probably switch from Windows to Linux desktops just fine. But then the desktop support folks would have two platforms to support instead of one. Then would their linux client software give them all the same functionality they are getting from outlook, skype and exchange? I have no idea, but I'm guessing the savings would have to be substantial for anybody to even start investigating this.

chrisseaton 8y ago

> A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document. Yeah... so why do they need to switch to Linux to do that? Windows can already do those things fine. Is Linux cheaper? Computers without Windows seem to cost the same as computers with Windows. And the actual cost to the OEM is probably something petty like $50 so it's not really an issue.

ascom 8y ago
Dell will reduce the price of many of their computers by $101 if you select Ubuntu instead of Windows.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  As much as people spend on training and support, I doubt that is enough to get many people to switch.
reacweb 8y ago
Yes Linux is cheaper because you do not need to change your computer as often. It is also cheaper because you spend far less time for system administration. Since may 2017 (when I bought my last computer), I have a dual boot windows/ubuntu. I use windows around 5 minutes each month for a single application. I have lost far more time in administrative tasks on windows than on linux: on linux all updates happen in background. On windows, computer was stuck during hours incrementing a percentage.
- wilsonnb3 8y ago
  > It is also cheaper because you spend far less time for system administration. This is highly dependent on how much experience one has with Windows and Linux, as well as the specific workload the computer is running. I've had both Linux and Windows installations that always worked without any issues. I've also had both Linux and Windows installations that break on a weekly basis.

influx 8y ago

How about they want all the features of their expensive hardware to work? I’ve used Linux for 20 years and I cringe thinking about getting random WiFi, sound or blueray players to work. Much less properly suspending or using the correct power modes.

golergka 8y ago

> A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document. They do use Linux for that - they just don't use a desktop. Android.

agumonkey 8y ago

- brand: microsoft is a single point, has been there since the dawn of PC - ergonomics: linux GUIs are often of no value to the average user. Too diverse, too much change. Unless you do the effort to educate them they will never care. The leap is staggering.. remember people still don't understand web browsers and clicks fully. [2] - economics: microsoft spends money on OEM deals, which means their software ends up on laptops on shelves that the average joe sees. Also, linux doesn't benefit from scale prices, the few machines that were open source from start were quite expensive with lower perf hardware. a hard sell in terms of numbers Linux can't get more market share with never ending lib / framework shifts, inconsistent GUIs [1] and technical appeal only. [1] that said win10 inheritance of win8 second layer is bridging this gap, it's super annoying to have to deal with fakely easier configuration panel but resort to the older one for denser information [2] and for the joke, windows still follows CUA 99% so you get a very decent keyboard driven GUI. Linux is inconsistent, you may or may not .. sad considering we all love our keyboards #vim

TuringNYC 8y ago

I work at a startup. We have high-end System76 Linux Desktops...and we still cant get the video driver working on Ubuntu with Dell Ultrasharp monitors. The monitor half works and acts up every time the plug moves or every time we take the laptop mobile and plug it back in. I cant imagine a retail desktop user tolerating these things. Aside: There was some only-half-joking discussion in the office that someone should attempt to re-write the display driver as a 20% time project.

bennofs 8y ago
I feel like recent windows versions aren't that stable either though. There are times (for example one particular Bluetooth speaker) where I reboot into Linux to get things working... Pair that with the horror that is Windows update and I am not sure if Windows is less pain for the average user. But there are definitely things were Linux is hit or miss (ime): - video drivers (integrated graphics work well for me) - integrated SD card readers But if you don't have too fancy hardware requirements I think Linux can be OK.

bunderbunder 8y ago

There is room for that use case, as evidenced by the success of Chromebooks. I know quite a few people who are very happy with them. But we don't really want to count that, because that's not what we meant. What we wanted is something that has all the options and configurability and openness of Linux, but on the desktop. And Chromebooks lack all of that. I'm inclined to take that as a pretty clear confirmation that Linux on the desktop, as the Linux community tends to envision it, hasn't happened because Linux on the desktop represents something most consumers don't actually want.

DannyB2 8y ago

> A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document. Chomebooks. These may very well become the standard desktop / laptop Linux. * they are very secure * they run Chrome extensions / apps * the latest Chrome OS runs Android apps (and desktop integration will improve in a couple releases) * very soon Chrome OS will run Linux desktop apps (eg, will install .deb files, apps like Gimp, Inkscape, etc) integrated into the Chrome desktop, without being in developer mode (eg "rooted") * Chromebooks are very successful in education * A fleet of chromebooks (eg, a school district) can centrally control their chromebooks, including policies. Fleet owners can negotiate volume pricing from multiple vendor suppliers. Chromebooks that are lost, stolen or eaten can be replaced for $67 / unit. * You can buy expensive high end chromebooks that are very nice, thin, powerful, all day battery, etc IMO, this could become "the year of the Linux desktop"

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Year of the Chromebook maybe, but having the entire userland replaced with a proprietary web browser on top of the Linux kernel is probably not the victory the Linux Desktop community was hoping for.
- DannyB2 8y ago
  A userland Chrome browser is what Chromebook WAS. What it is becoming is a desktop. With Linux and Android apps integrated. There are a lot of good Android apps that would be useful on a laptop. There are a lot of Linux apps that are useful on a laptop. Good security. With secure verified boot. Yet Linux apps that run in a strong sandbox allowing untrusted code. Android apps run in a different sandbox. All this is transparent to the user who sees a desktop. The Chrome OS and Android are self updating. I don't know about Linux apps yet.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    Android, again, was a complete replacement of the userland tooling developed by the community. For all intents and purposes it is a completely different system. Even Windows can run Linux apps these days. It still doesn't seem to me that that qualifies as "year of the Linux Desktop" as it is intended.

magicalhippo 8y ago

> I understand the desktop market, but I don't understand why a Linux distribution hasn't taken hold on the desktop market. Because there's about 600 million distributions wasting energy competing. They waste energy on solving the same problems in slightly different ways, rather than working together to solve new problems. As a user I don't _really_ care about window managers, package managers, KDE vs Gnome, or systemd vs whatever. I want my desktop to enable me to perform the tasks I want to do. I do for example care that there's no decent remote desktop support on Linux. That's one of the primary reasons I still run a Windows desktop on my main machine.

Zardoz84 8y ago
Pardon ? Remote desktop was far better on Linux that any Windows solution. You ever try NX ? It was really amazing! Even it was working very soft, running across a poor ADSL internet connection!

silverlake 8y ago

Chromebooks are a popular Linux desktop. Tablets and phones are enough for many people.