14 ms·

Fragmentation Is Why Desktop Linux Failed [video]

109 points by axiomdata316 8y ago

d--b 8y ago
Fragmentation is one thing, but I don't think it's the main point. I've tried Desktop Linux many times. Mostly to avoid paying for Windows. And every time, there is something that I would like to do that I can't do, and then I'm back to Windows. Whether it's some kind of website addin (things like video conferencing, or offline video player with DRM that require you to download an app), or some development tool (Visual Studio!), or some game, or my printer. The issue is a catch 22: because Desktop Linux is not well adopted, companies don't develop for it. If companies don't develop for it, then there are things you can do on other systems that you can't do on Linux. And so Desktop Linux does not get more adoption...
- toastal 8y ago
  And then there's some companies more invested in the idea of it and having an alternative to Windows like Valve that continue to build for Linux anyways.
- rocky1138 8y ago
  This experience is very common. Eventually, people have had to essentially decide to either "burn the ships" and live without the thing they need or give up and live with the pain of Windows. The good part is that over the past couple decades, the things that require Windows has become vanishingly small. Almost everything can be done on Linux these days.
- opan 8y ago
  Rather than hoping for popularity and the attention of companies, I think it makes more sense to help the plethora of free software continue to improve so that people don't have to be tied down to an operating system in the future. Emacs can be used even on Windows. Even if free software doesn't already support an OS, someone who cares more than the others can take it into their own hands to port it. This seems more sustainable to me.
- agentPrefect 8y ago
  This is precisely what fragmentation causes.
- black-tea 8y ago
  When I find something I can't do on Linux I generally take that as a sign that it's not worth doing anyway. Your examples are perfect: video conferencing, DRM, Visual Studio, using a printer that only works on Windows... All things that I'm glad are automatically filtered from my life.
chomp 8y ago
Very heavy headline for a very nuanced position by Linus. It's an open secret that the ideal of choice fragments the focus of creating a tight UX on the desktop. You have to understand when you watch this video though that all Linus and the kernel team can do is make the kernel itself. The community is what will end up driving the desktop UX, and they haven't done a great job creating something that can capture the average PC user. I am not sure if this is even a bad thing. My daily driver is a Dell laptop running Fedora and I don't think I'd change a thing aside from some minor UX gripes about Cinnamon. ChromeOS really is the best hope for mass Linux adoption, and I personally know people who hate the Linux desktop experience but use a Chromebook daily. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here other than my personal opinion that desktop Linux has found a local maximum and I think only the distros themselves can push DE volunteers to find something that has wider appeal (I'm not sure if that is even desirable, because again, I'm personally very happy with my experience).
- wmf 8y ago
  all Linus and the kernel team can do is make the kernel itself In some sense that's a self-imposed limitation. Linus could have chosen to create an OS (like BSD) instead of a kernel.
  - chomp 8y ago
    Yeah, Linus is in a power position and could lean on teams to create his vision of Linux on the desktop. But he's a very tech oriented guy and that's ok. He has a tech vision of what the core of the OS should do, and I think the community needs that as much as a person who guides the frontend vision (which is absent for now).
    - stickfigure 8y ago
      Also... this is the guy who invented git. I'm not really sure we want him working on a desktop UX.
      - ivalm 8y ago
schizoidboy 8y ago
Actual quote from Linus as opposed to the click-bait title: > I still wish we were better at having a standardized desktop that goes across all the distributions. There's been some progress there. I mean, this is not a kernel issue, so this is just more of a personal annoyance how the fragmentation of the different vendors have, I think, held the desktop back a bit. But there has been some progress on that front too with Flatpak and things like that, so I'm still optimistic, but it's been 25 years. It's going to be another few years at least.
- marmot777 8y ago
  Yes, he essentially says we're on our way there but we have a few more years or so to go. The headline hyperbolic click bait.
- msiyer 8y ago
  Considering what KDE has achieved with Plasma 5, I am really happy. I use Plasma 5 on all my machines that are capable enough to handle it. Gnome 3, consequently, has never found a place. On old machines, I use Xfce only. Xfce is, in no way, for the masses. Plasma 5 could easily be the Desktop Environment that everyone loves, if they continue to improve. I have helped people migrate from Windows to Plasma 5. They loved it. However, getting\installing software and general system management is still not straightforward enough. We also need system management tools that are solid. No terminal gymnastics at all for the common user on distros targeted at the masses. Flatpak is all cool, but we need core user-space applications to be standardized. LibreOffice, for example, needs to become the industry standard office-suite. How can we achieve that? People I know just do not want to move away from MS Office. Even government agencies invest heavily in MS Office. This might just be the most important impediment. I think, the Linux ecosystem shows us what a real "free market" looks like. Lots of small players and no monopoly. People love choices and they have. You want a minimal Window Manager, you got many to choose from. You want a full-blown Desktop Environment, you are spoilt for choice. Not a bad thing in an ideal world, but...
  - lstamour 8y ago
    I bet Linux for the desktop will actually start when Microsoft ports Chromium-based Edge and Office apps to Linux for specialty users, primarily developers. I mean, if you want developer mindshare and apparently improving or replacing cmd.exe will never happen... it’s not like these proprietary apps aren’t possible to ship for Linux to run at least as well as they do on an Android phone...
Joeri 8y ago
I doubt there’s a single reason why desktop linux failed. I do know why I stopped using it: driver support, lack of some of the commercial apps I wanted (and no good open source alternatives), constant rewriting of things that were fine as they were. The former two are indirectly caused by the lack of an ABI, the latter due to the nature of volunteer development work (maintaining is less fun than rewriting).
- opan 8y ago
  What sort of commercial apps weren't available that you needed? Is it something like Photoshop where you found the alternatives lacking, or something more niche where there was nothing like it at all?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  I think there is a single reason, one reason in particular that every problem with Linux Desktop ties back to: The people who make it have a low opinion of users. Every time this sort of thing comes up you get dozens of posts about how the "average user" wants this, or doesn't want that, or just uses the OS that came with their computer, or just wants it to be pretty, etc. Consequently, they think putting lipstick on a pig will work and are really surprised when it doesn't.
kristianp 8y ago
That opinion has been around for a while; see: One Frickin' User Interface for Linux (2003) http://web.archive.org/web/20070830173313/https://cs.anu.edu.au/people/Hugh.Fisher/writing/1fui.html http://web.archive.org/web/20070830173313/https://cs.anu.edu...
- Alan_Dillman 8y ago
  No friggin way. Only having one user interface is what drove me away from Windows. I'm not alone in my desire to have things my way, and to meddle with everything. Every time someone rolls out a new distro, a new package manager, or just a new DE, Its because someone wasn't satisfied with following someone else's lead. All of us, you, me, the author of that article, Linus, and Stallman, have one unifying trait: "Not satisfied with the menu". Collectively, Linux is never going to be satisfied with any menu. The linux community exists as a perpetual diaspora. It was born from people wandering away from fiat design. The vast disjointed ecosystem happened because of this adventuresome spirit, and its delusion to think that any sort of 'one size should fit all' paradigm is going to quell that. Or that it could be enforced. "The 1FUI will require the backing of a major vendor as champion and enforcer to succeed." I don't know what that author thinks, fifteen years later. I'd tell him that "Fewer options is never a solution to people who went looking for more options". The Linux community has spent 27 years persistently solving a problem: Not enough options. 'One Frickin User Interface' is like trying to make a river flow uphill.
eindiran 8y ago
Maybe $YEAR_OF_THE_LINUX_DESKTOP isn't 2018, but I don't think the clickbait title saying that desktop Linux has failed is fair. We're light-years ahead of where we were in 2011, let alone 2007. The majority of users who now try Linux desktops do so without any real workflow-breaking issues. Graphics card drivers and printer drivers often work out of the box for me. All things considered, I think desktop Linux is doing very well.
- ahmedalsudani 8y ago
  Not only that. I'd venture to say no desktop is near as good as the Linux desktop. (For a certain type of user, I should qualify.) Don't get me wrong; there are issues. X is a system from a different era. (Graphics) Performance is pretty bad, the effects are janky, the primitives disparate. But! As a "power user" I dread having to use any other system. On Linux, there is an incredible variety of window managers, file navigators, terminal emulators, etc. The whole gamut. My workflow revolves around i3 and my i3 configuration. I have sworn off macs, and when I use windows, I have learned to press Super+1 for Firefox and Super+2 for Steam. Beyond that is a dark forest which I refuse to explore!
  - RussianCow 8y ago
    I don't think anyone here is talking about power users when discussing the failure of Linux on the desktop.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      I'm a power user, and developer, and I certainly do think the Linux Desktop is an utter failure. I cite as evidence how awful Windows has become and how few people, power users included, have switched to Linux because of it.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    As power graphics user/developer, after my Linux zealotry years, I just settled back on Windows/macOS, because as you say "(Graphics) Performance is pretty bad, the effects are janky, the primitives disparate.".
nabla9 8y ago
Mixing music over the voice did not work for this video.
mevile 8y ago
Android shows how you do it. You get a big company with tons of money that wants to seriously build a working platform from end to end. If a company with pockets deep enough had stepped up to create a 3rd viable platform for consumers based on Linux, we'd have it. Mark Shuttleworth's pockets were not deep enough. System76's pockets aren't deep enough. It would have to have been a company like HP or Dell. Dell played with consumer side Linux but never found it lucrative to go all in.
- taeric 8y ago
  Isn't android heavily fragmented? There are hopes they will get better, for sure, but there is a marked difference between Samsung and other phones. I don't see that going away anytime soon, sadly.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    It is. It has the same problems with everyone having different UI tweaks, but at least the base Android comes with _some_ UI. Fragmentation isn't that big of a problem for users, because there's only so much you can do on a phone - between your photo album, contacts app, web browser and social media, any kind of UI will do. It also helps that most popular apps ship their own UI.
    - flukus 8y ago
      Android took off when we had HTC sense, Samsung touchwiz and others, almost no one was running the stock UI. But if KDE and GNOME and others were all running on GTK you'd still probably call it fragmented. There's no consistency between apps on android so you don't notice it as much.
  - wvenable 8y ago
    Yes, but apps (for the most part) run consistently across all Android phones. There are multiple UI's but a "single" API. Desktop Linux is fragmented at a much deeper level than just what they look like. This adds a lot of unnecessary complexity to the Linux desktop experience for developers and that ends up affecting the end users more indirectly.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
valrama 8y ago
Well, you just wait - Microsoft is going to come to our rescue: https://www.zdnet.com/article/ms-linux-lindows-could-microsoft-release-a-desktop-linux/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/ms-linux-lindows-could-microso...
killjoywashere 8y ago
Desktop Linux is like the Hogworts limit of academic incentives: wonderful baubbles to play with appear constantly, as if from thin air, but you're never getting an Air Force or intercontinental shipping system out of it.
qwerty456127 8y ago
Linux desktop has not failed and desktop environments competition is a major reason why it is getting better and better. Many people love GNOME3 (and it is a de-facto standardized desktop) but I hate it and love KDE5 (and so do many other people). I hated Unity at the beginning and switched to XFCE when it was introduced but once Unity got improved I've began considering it a perfect desktop. Tiling WMs are awesome (pun intended) for particular tasks on particular display configurations. I also hope somebody is going to implement a Haiku-like WM on Linux or invent something entirely new. Diversity is good!
- kungtotte 8y ago
  For existing Linux users, the situation is indeed fantastic. We have lots of choices and we're aware of this. But if you think of "Year of the Linux Desktop" as the point in time where you can get the Windows-using masses to switch, diversity is a big problem. People don't want to be told that they have to make umpteen choices about what software to use if they want to use a different OS, they want a cookie cutter experience. This is why "Windows like" is a selling point for many DEs/distros. It's the McDonald's principle: everywhere you go a Big Mac is a Big Mac. You don't have to worry about figuring out what appeals to you in the local cuisine.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    > People don't want to be told that they have to make umpteen choices about what software to use if they want to use a different OS, they want a cookie cutter So they install Ubuntu. How is that any different from Windows or Mac (where one still can go onto the internet and download a multitude of choices of software). The real answer is that ordinary users don't install OSes. 'Fragmentation' (real or imagined) is a red herring.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Ordinary users install software, and then their beloved software only works in Ubuntu, but they got XYZ distribution with their computer, which just happens to have other package format, additional paths, .so versions, startup scripts and then everything falls apart without technical help.
root_axis 8y ago
I don't think the Linux desktop has failed. If popular adoption is the standard then MacOS is also a failure of sorts. At the end of the day, there was just no reason for anyone except enthusiasts to end up with linux on their machine since with rare exceptions you literally couldn't buy it anywhere. If you don't build software, you have pretty much zero incentive to use a linux desktop, especially when factoring in the monumental software compatibility hurdles for non-technical users.
- shaan7 8y ago
  This ^
- rocky1138 8y ago
  > If you don't build software, you have pretty much zero incentive to use a linux desktop, especially when factoring in the monumental software compatibility hurdles for non-technical users. I respectfully disagree. Ubuntu really works well for a lot of non-technical folks. A few of my non-technical family members run Ubuntu variants and have remarked at how much better it is than their old Windows 10 install. I don't think they'll be going back. Unless you've got strange hardware like a Mac, Linux for the most part "just works" these days. The biggest barrier to desktop Linux for your average citizen is that the advantages of FOSS, stability, and cost just aren't enough against the disadvantages of Windows. If Microsoft started charging people $1500/year to run desktop Windows, you'd see a lot of people look for alternatives.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    I actually agree with everything you wrote there and have also switched some of my relatives over to a linux desktop. Unfortunately, a technical relative willing to set everything up isn't a practical path towards popular adoption. You have described the linux desktop as a viable alternative to Windows, but you haven't shown any incentive for someone to switch. I think the Linux desktop is a superior experience, but if it doesn't come preinstalled and preconfigured on commercial computers there is just no scenario where the average user will even get to use a linux desktop.
aussieguy1234 8y ago
Failed? I got rid of windows back in the windows 98 blue screen days. I've been using Linux desktops ever since
- GordonS 8y ago
  No offence, but the success of desktop Linux isn't measured by the adoption of 1 person.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  This is such a Linux Desktop community statement. "Your experience is irrelevant because it Works For Me(tm)".
hspak 8y ago
Is there anything preventing the Linux Foundation jumping in and officially supporting a desktop environment? Is it because the two main DE’s are already more-or-less backed by a foundation and the LF hopping in would fragment it even further? Ubuntu tried for a while to lead their own efforts (MIR/Unity) and in the end, they pulled the plug and decided to just adopt Wayland/Gnome. Do people consider this a good change for the linux desktop landscape?
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  > Is there anything preventing the Linux Foundation jumping in and officially supporting a desktop environment? How would it change anything? Stock Ubuntu, Stock Fedora, Stock Red Hat, Suse Enterprise Linux at least all ship Gnome Shell as the default desktop. If the LF said "Gnome Shell is the default 'official' Linux desktop", what would change? I don't think Best Buy would immediately begin stocking Linux desktops.
_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
As has been already pointed out, this isn't really what Linus said. And, in any event, fragmentation has nothing to do with it. Ordinary users (and even many advanced users) don't install operating systems. And one has to go out of their way to buy a machine with Linux pre-installed (and ordinary users don't go out of their way, certainly not for something that they know little or nothing about). If real (decent) machine with Linux on them were sold in Best Buy etc. there would be substantially more users of desktop Linux. Let's not pretend that multiple distributions is the reason.
- rocky1138 8y ago
  This is true, but a good chunk of marketing will also be required as, by default, people will instantly believe the "alternative" to Windows is a worse imitation. After all, if it's the same as Windows, why not just run Windows? So, it would have to be spun in the right manner as an upgrade as opposed to an alternative.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    > people will instantly believe the "alternative" to Windows is a worse imitation. Why? I would think the opposite would be true, generally. Right now in most people's minds there are "PCs" (i.e. Windows machines), which are more budget-friendly, and Macs, which are fancier but more expensive. Just put Kubuntu on a machine and sell it for more than the comparable machine running Windows and people will assume it's better.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  I think that's a convenient ego-saving scapegoat for the Linux Desktop. Chrome was never pre-installed and people went out of their way to get it because it was a better product.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    I never said users don't install software, I said they don't install OS's. Of course users install software, you can't keep them from installing nearly every weird thing they come across online, that's why a quarter of the machines running desktop Windows are part of botnets. And of course part of the reason people installed Chrome is because Google owns half of the web and they kept popping up messages telling people to install Chrome. (If it was really about installing better software, we would see Firefox dominance: even privacy and openness etc. aside, Firefox has been an objectively better browser than Chrom{e|ium} since at least version 56.)
marmot777 8y ago
As someone who recently used a Linux laptop for a week before punting and going back to Mac, finding this talk right now is a cool coincidence.
- VvR-Ox 8y ago
  interesting. What where the reasons if I may ask and what about OSX/macOS did you miss on linux?
  - marmot777 8y ago
    I love Linux for servers but I have a lot tools that work a certain way for work and it would have taken more time than I had to get my Linux set up that way. Part of it was frankly the Linux laptop I ordered was made of cheap plastic, and the track pad didn’t work very well. I was disappointed I spent all that money and they skimped on things that really affect the user experience. So it could be I ordered a Linux laptop from the wrong company. Of course, I won’t name names. I was behind on my work, stressed out, and having trouble sleeping so I sent the laptop back and bought a MacBook. So in thinking about it, if the laptop had been made of higher quality material and the track pad had worked well, I ay well have had a different experience. It also fell in a week where I head very limited time.
joe_the_user 8y ago
Really, the reason desktop Linux isn't popular is: 1) A few things still don't work. Vanishingly few now but still a few. 2) Linux can't be simply as good as Windows or MacOs, it would have to be better for people to make the effort. And it's not going to be better. I don't think "better" is possible now (not in a fundamental, decisive way. Lots of little ways sure but, again, I don't think that's what people care so much about). An Os is just a way to launch apps and we've kind of a limit on such goodness. My desktop Linux launches my apps, especially my browser and that's about it. I like being independent of the corporate megamachine but most people would not spend the hard two hours required for this.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  > Linux can't be simply as good as Windows or MacOs, it would have to be better for people to make the effort. I really don't think this is the reason. Pretty much anything is better than Windows, but defaults rule supreme and Windows is what you get on your computer until you pay extra for MacOS. Ordinary users aren't likely to change the OS on their computer any more than they are to swap the engine on the car.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Cocoa and Android Frameworks are the only tooling that compares to Windows developer experience for UI/UX centric devs. For how much effort GNOME and KDE devs have put on their frameworks, they still don't offer the full stack experience across APIs, IDE, GUI tooling and OS APIs.
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      Ok. Of course there's a sizable group of devs who really don't like the Windows developing experience (part of why Microsoft has been so keen on getting the the subsystem for Linux into place, to lure Linux-centric devs over). But I think that's largely irrelevant to desktop share. It's not as if the majority of Windows users are developers.
Santosh83 8y ago
Linux not gaining majority maindshare on the desktop may have something in common with why Chrome has gained just that in browser space, i.e., getting bundled in or preinstalled. The vast majority of PC/laptop users will not have a compelling reason to change the OS that comes preinstalled with their computer, and that is almost always Windows. If Linux can find an OEM to massively push it out on a range of machines (not just targetted at developers), then we'll see the tide turn, but I suspect OEM will fear the wrath of the behemoth...
- chmln 8y ago
  > Linux can find an OEM to massively push it out on a range of machines Who is Linux? I feel like the Linux Foundation won't do much to dethrone Windows, with Microsoft as a platinum dollar bag on board.
hguhghuff 8y ago
The average professional website /web application looks more visually consistent and appealing than any Linux desktop, ever. No matter what desktop they always end up feeling weird and like the spacing is wrong or the fonts don’t match or something. Put another way, it’s no longer hard to design brautfinand consistent User interfaces but for some reason that’s never been possible on a Linux desktop. Linux desktops have always had a sort of Frankenstein feeling to them, clearly made up of a hodgepodge of boys that just don’t quite fit together.
InclinedPlane 8y ago
It's amazing how so many smart people can be so blind. I've been using unix and linux for about a quarter of a century. I cut my teeth on proper X Window terminals and Motif Window Manager (and NeXTSTEP and SGI IRIX workstations, etc, etc.) I was using firefox on linux before it was even named firefox. I've used a variety of desktop linux distros over the years, but I've never felt compelled to actually make the jump for good. In theory I'm the perfect candidate for switching to a linux desktop but for me it's never been worth it. Yes, desktop linux can be a perfectly fine experience, but is it a superior experience? Every time I've made a serious effort to try out a desktop linux OS it's always felt like a bit of a downgrade. Not just because of all the stuff I miss out on like being able to run games and other software I like, but even well beyond that. Despite most desktop linux distros being pretty decently polished there are inevitably a few dozen little completely unfinished and often completely buggy or broken parts of the OS lurking around. It's like opening a door in a house and finding everything ripped down to the studs with an excitable nest of raccoons roosting where a bedroom should be. The fact is, it's pretty common to have to do some rather serious "IT department self-service" when you try to use desktop linux, just in the course of dealing with ordinary trivial stuff like power management, connecting to wifi, watching video, etc. I remember the bad old days of X Window config nightmares: type in the correct horizontal sync frequency in kilohertz to avoid blowing up your monitor. Things are light-years better than those days but they still aren't at the "install off a usb drive and everything basic mostly works with at best some annoyances" level. The value proposition of a linux desktop has to have a lot more to it than "you can have a kind of ok experience with it if you don't ask for too much" if it's going to get any sort of adoption. Especially in a world where the competition isn't just windows/macos computers but android/ios tablets and smartphones as well as chromebooks. Linux has such a compelling story in the server space, but people need to really stop pretending that they can just tweak that story a bit and push it into the desktop space, it still needs a ton more work to get there.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  The fact that you are being downvoted is a pretty good data point for why the Linux Desktop sucks and continues to suck. Rather than develop something good, the people who work on and evangelize the Linux Desktop would rather stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that everyone who doesn't use it is just too stupid to see how obviously superior it is.
sandGorgon 8y ago
And one of the biggest reasons here is package management - the rpm, Deb , Pacman split is one of the biggest divides. I don't know if I should add APK to this list. We had a chance to fix it in the new world, but it's gone back to a zeroinstall versus flatpak versus snap vs Deb vs rpm vs Pacman ecosystem. Lets see if Docker CNAB and systemd push this ecosystem forward. Reposting http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linu...
- opan 8y ago
  I think Nix and Guix are going to solve this problem better than snaps and flatpaks. Not only are they really good package managers, but they were made to work on other distros.
docker_up 8y ago
The idea of a Linux Desktop is about 10 years too late now and fading fast. I'm using Windows 7 on a desktop built in 2012 and I have no impetus to change. My wife has abandoned her desktop for an iPad Pro, which she uses at work extensively. The only thing she needs a desktop for is Excel, which she uses hardcore. The only application I run on my desktop these days is Chrome/Firefox. Other than that I'll run Sublime because I'm a programmer, but there's nothing else I really need. Everything else is on my iPhone.
sunstone 8y ago
In my experience the real barrier to regular users adopting Linux has been Microsoft Office. The UI is not a big impediment but when it comes to "How do I send and receive word/excell documents?" That's where the wheels fall off. Sure there are work arounds and other formats etc but for most people that is just too much hassle.
- RussianCow 8y ago
  This is mostly a non-issue with LibreOffice, unless you work with the advanced features of the Office programs (most people don't). Sure, the UI isn't as good, but I don't think that's the biggest barrier to adoption, or even close to it.
  - Hydraulix989 8y ago
    Anyone who uses Excel for any kind of serious work quickly gets frustrated by the LibreOffice limitations.
    - RussianCow 8y ago
      Hence: "unless you work with the advanced features of the Office programs"
      - Hydraulix989 8y ago
        Even basic formulae behave differently though.
  - rushikesh98 8y ago
    Umm, no. The only time I use W10 is reading ppts by profs because Impress really messes the rendering.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - 8y ago
facorreia 8y ago
Poor sleep or suspend support is much worse.
RandomTisk 8y ago
Every desktop distro needs to have a "Home User" GUI configuration option either as a default or an option during the setup. This should emulate the UX of either Windows or MacOS as closely and as shamelessly as possible.
- chopin 8y ago
  Linux Mint is close enough.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Linux Desktop's failure isn't, and never has been, that it just doesn't look enough like Windows. People have been saying variations of that idea for decades now and look where it has gotten us. Stop looking down on users as stupid people who don't have good reasons for the choices they make and need to be fooled into using your system!
dschuetz 8y ago
The title is not just click-bait, it's flat-out wrong. Instead of failing it's become even more successful over the years, because of the efforts of thousands of maintainers and developers. The recent support/endorsement from Valve is just another success story. And Linus is not the only one who's identified several competing major software projects as the main culprit for Linux desktop lacking traction in the past years. I'm surprised though, that systemd was adopted unanimously almost immediately on every major distribution over classic Init despite lots criticism and protests. But they can't agree on which GUI is best for a Linux desktop? Why is that I wonder?
- mateuszf 8y ago
  > Why is that I wonder? Maybe because"configuring" packages and services (main job of init system "users") is lot easier than writing gui applications. App developers use so many languages and frameworks (often with failing cross platforms abstractions) that it would be really hard to "force" them to use a common standard.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  You mean the 1% desktop users running Steam?
NetOpWibby 8y ago
I'm so glad I come to the comments.
Animats 8y ago
The amusing thing is that Microsoft blew it. Windows 7 was generally considered good, but Windows 8 and 10 are widely acknowledged to be awful. Windows 8 tried to make a desktop work like a tablet. Windows 10 has intrusive ads and data collection. Most of corporate America would rather stay on Windows 7. Linux on the desktop works just fine. I've been using it almost exclusively for five years now. I also have several notebooks using it. It's less trouble than Windows. This should be Linux's moment on the desktop.
- jchw 8y ago
  Some of my friends ended up trying Linux in the Vista era. What happened was interesting. I don't think any of them became full-on Linux users, but some of them continued to use Linux alongside Windows. What this signifies to me is that Linux has some strengths that people really want, but it doesn't do a great job of replacing Windows in its current state. I find this to be my exact problem, too. Windows does a lot of things right that Linux may never, and the app library on Windows is probably going to be the best on the desktop for at least another 10 years if not longer. Linux, however, has a beautiful experience for developers and sometimes even for power users. You can turn on and off almost any feature you want, there's a ton of alternative setups. You can even run a different libc if you really want to. I still use a Linux desktop as my primary, but I have never managed to escape dual booting or virtual machines entirely, and I'm not sure when it might be possible.
  - vorticalbox 8y ago
    >the app library on Windows is probably going to be the best on the desktop for at least another 10 years if not longer. The app market will very quick shift if linux really starts to get the ball rolling. Just look how quickly developers jump on the mobile train.
    - jchw 8y ago
      >Just look how quickly developers jump on the mobile train. Interesting. I don't feel similarly about the progress of mobile apps. Like sure, there's a lot of mobile apps, but I feel like they are a lot less mature and developed than desktop apps are. I would guess by development effort spent, desktop apps still outpace mobile apps. Don't get me wrong, I get that games and apps must be adapted for the amount of system resources and for the input devices users will be using. But that doesn't mean PS Touch is the same as Photoshop. It feels like a toy version of Photoshop that you can use in a pinch between having access to real Photoshop. I doubt the same number of people hours went into both. Linux ports couldn't work that way. You would want the same thing you have on Windows.
agentPrefect 8y ago
Which is what a lot of people have been saying for a very long time.
macdice 8y ago
The whole concept that "Linux is just a kernel" sounds like some kind of whining pedantic hair splitting, unless you understand that almost all the stuff that ships in a Linux distribution including all the FOSS stuff we call "the desktop" runs perfectly well on all modern Unix-like systems like FreeBSD et al. xorg, Firefox, Gnome/KDE/foo/bar, yada yada. Admittedly there are fewer and fewer Unix-like systems left (I cut my teeth on OSes that are now dead and buried), but it's a massive disservice to all these wonderful projects that we don't have a better ways to describe this stuff so that we don't have people talking about "the Linux desktop". Get off my lawn, etc.
- jillesvangurp 8y ago
  It's worse, things like the Gimp and most most other major user facing linux applications have a history of also being built for windows and mac os. E.g. I regularly use Darktable on my mac and with the last release they also started supporting windows builds. Why not? The more users the better from their point of view. Linux has a software packaging issue. There are several so-called package managers and they basically have overlapping goals and they all suck from an end user perspective. On Ubuntu when you do an apt-get install darktable, you pull in a gazillion of packages. Everything and the kitchen sink, basically. On a mac, I drag the darktable.app file to the applications after I download it. And it runs. Exact same software. It's a 217MB self contained package. There are no software conflicts. Apple designed the way that stuff works last century when they were designing OS X and wanted to keep the simplicity of how software installations worked on OS 9. The disk usage is a non issue There are no dependencies to manage. This stuff works across major versions of OS X even. Package managers don't solve a problem real users have. The existence of package managers led to what we now call distributions, which made a lot of sense in the early nineties when slackware came in the form of 27 disks (been there, done that) but not this century. No two distributions are the same. They each need to test and integrate the same software to work in their ecosystem. Even major versions of the same distribution tend to be very different. I personally think Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. have no business whatsoever acting as a gatekeeper here and I tend to think of them more as an obstacle then as an enabler. E.g. I know the Darktable people are preparing a 2.6 release (awesome stuff). I'd like to get a binary package from them as soon as they release it. I don't see what value Ubuntu doing the same months (optimistic?) later adds. Why wait? Their need to test before they can integrate is self inflicted. It's a problem they have yet to solve. Flatpak and similar solutions are sort of aiming to solve this for linux. But standards are lacking, progress is slow, and this stuff is nowhere close to being standardized. So, again fragmentation. Compare that to the docker eco system. Most custom stuff you deploy to a server comes as a docker image. And you can run those on many different operating systems. This kind of OS neutral way of packaging software needs to start extending to desktop software. We need Docker for end user applications.
newnewpdro 8y ago
It's as if Linus is oblivious to Google's Fuchsia effort. Before Linux conquers the desktop via ChromeOS, ChromeOS will have pivoted away from even running it on bare metal.
mverwijs 8y ago
OT: I wish Youtube / technology in general had an option to filter out noisy background music.
lmedinas 8y ago
My view on the topic: I have used Linux Desktops for about ~15years and involved in the Development community it astonished me how frequent the APIs break specially at Desktop Application/libraries level. I remember several libraries, like GTK+ deprecating often APIs even during stable releases. The consequence of this is that the main application developer spends a big part of its time constantly updating its application instead of developing new features and make it feature rich. The same can be said in order parts of the Desktop like the transition from X11 to Wayland/Weston and all the Desktop Environments that some years ago fragmented and decreased their quality. Unity, KDE and GNOME all failed in producing a Desktop that really appealed to all users. Finally for me another failure is the package management. For the App developer he needs to get his app packages for all major distributions and imagine the effort of the App developer and App maintainer to support different libc and userspace tool versions. All in all the Application developer has such a huge burden that he is most of the time updating his app to new apis/tools than actually developing new features.
atlih 8y ago
I think it failed not because of some wrong technical setup or fragmentation but because nerds generally don't care about the novice user experience, it's near the bottom of the list of priorities. For profit companies don't care either but are instantly rewarded for it financially so those that get it done increase their market share. It's a sad dilemma that I have no idea how or if it can be fixed because I would love not having to use a mac and use Linux as a desktop instead.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Nerds don't even care about the nerd user experience. If you complain about anything then you should fix it yourself, or you're doing it wrong, or it isn't actually a problem because they've never encountered it.
skocznymroczny 8y ago
A good start would be implementing flicker-free boot on Linux. Windows and macOS had it for a long time. On Linux, it takes 5-6 mode changes before the system actually boots. It doesn't make a good impression on users, especially ones unfamiliar with Linux to see the system constantly go dark, make some noises and switch from text mode to graphics mode constantly. Same thing for shut down, most Linuxes when shutting down flash text mode for a bit with lots of messages like "trying to kill xxx unsuccessful". To an average user that screams "this software is unfinished and can break any moment", which doesn't inspire confidence. I think the best chance for unification was Ubuntu and Unity. I use Unity on Ubuntu 18.10 because I don't like the GNOME interface (and it's much slower on my low-end laptop too). Unfortunately, the community seems to enjoy reinventing things. Implementing new stuff is exciting, fixing bugs isn't :(
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  To me this sounds like the rough equivelent of "users aren't buying our product, it must be because it is the wrong color".
therealmarv 8y ago
It's not that. It's that if I create and want to sell desktop software I would not loose substantial user base by NOT supporting Linux. I would concentrate my investments on Windows and/or maybe macOS and Linux is third and only nice to have. Nearly nobody makes big money with Linux desktop programs. Companies like e.g. Adobe know that.
- danShumway 8y ago
  On the other side of things, if I wanted to support only Windows, I would need to use Windows as a development machine, which would be a substantial loss to productivity for me. I don't feel like Windows in its current state is a platform that I would recommend to anyone who uses computers as a professional. So when I get to which platforms I support, if it's something personal for me, I only support Linux. If it's something that I plan to sell, I support Windows because that's where the money is, and Linux because, well, I've got this build sitting here, so I might as well throw it out as an experimental build (see Spotify, Unity, Reaper, etc...). Even if I'm developing a game that will rely on Windows specific APIs, I prefer to put those parts in last and do the majority of development on Linux. The exception to that is if I know I'm going to be doing a lot of support. I feel like handling support for Linux users is worse than handling support for Windows users, and will often cost me more time and money in the long run. So when I think about much bigger environments like Adobe, I'm sure they have Linux builds internally, because I just don't believe that their entire development staff would be content to use Windows. I would be willing to bet pretty heavily that there's a subset of Adobe engineers who have internal builds of Photoshop compiling on Linux. But compiling Photoshop for Linux is not the only challenge to actually releasing it on Linux. Linux fragmentation means you never know when something is going to go terribly wrong because somebody swapped out a random part of the host OS. It means another testing environment, and another set of internal documents about production deployments. I feel Linux is currently hands down the best engineering environment out there. But engineers don't handle support calls. So I would hazard that a lot more software is out there that could already run on Linux, but just hasn't been released.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Usually engineers at companies like Adobe use whatever the IT department allows their computer images to be. Normally rogue installs aren't well seen from security point of view.
hyperman1 8y ago
I am missing an important part in this discussion: The absolute lack of a stable API for GUIs. Command line tools, web servers, ... are easy: Take POSIX and be a bit conservative with the edge cases. It will work with a recompile for most linux distros,BSDs, OSX and if you're willing to look at e.g. cygwin, even windows. I had to compile an ancient linux 1.x program last month, and it works. The GUI world however is a different beast. There is X11 which only offers the most basic of primitives for drawing and pointing, nothing decent for text, and the API designers want to take away even that with wayland. There is GTK that actively does not want to provide any form of stability. There is QT which has a hard-to-interop C++ API and every major version breaks everything once more. And i haven't said anything of the licenses This means no community investment can be made in Linux GUI's: Every year or so, you have to do serious upgrades or a GUI application simply perishes. Which is basically insane. It means that whatever Linux GUI exists today is temporary for everything but the biggest applications. Ironically, win32 is the only reasonable option on Linux: wine will provide a good enough environment, and as they are anchored API-wise to microsoft, they can guarantee they'r there for the long term. But how I dream for a posix-like API that both GTK and QT could provide.
sys_64738 8y ago
For me, the weakness in Linux on the desktop is laptop battery is generally poor compared to running Microsoft or Mac OS X. Second is multiple monitor support is such a hassle in Linux. For Microsoft it is an excellent experience and OS X isn't too bad either. A couple of data points to ponder.
NullOtoko 8y ago
Sadly, this is the nature of open source and decentralization. If your code can be easily forked, if consumers have freedom and control instead of an authoritarian entity gatekeeping what can be done with their software, then fragmentation will occur. As users tweak and change systems and software to meet their needs, a variety of options and choices become available. Each branch on the tree results in further fragmentation. For the standard user this is a bad thing as it means they can't just learn one widespread system. For users like me this is a boon, because it gives variety. If I don't like how Gnome works, I can use KDE, if I don't like APT I can use YUM. If I don't like SystemD, I can use another INIT system.
sakthimurugan 8y ago
Impressive content, keep doing more https://www.fita.in/big-data-hadoop-training-in-chennai/ https://www.fita.in/big-data-hadoop-training-in-chennai/

109 points by axiomdata316 8y ago

d--b 8y ago

Fragmentation is one thing, but I don't think it's the main point. I've tried Desktop Linux many times. Mostly to avoid paying for Windows. And every time, there is something that I would like to do that I can't do, and then I'm back to Windows. Whether it's some kind of website addin (things like video conferencing, or offline video player with DRM that require you to download an app), or some development tool (Visual Studio!), or some game, or my printer. The issue is a catch 22: because Desktop Linux is not well adopted, companies don't develop for it. If companies don't develop for it, then there are things you can do on other systems that you can't do on Linux. And so Desktop Linux does not get more adoption...

toastal 8y ago
And then there's some companies more invested in the idea of it and having an alternative to Windows like Valve that continue to build for Linux anyways.
rocky1138 8y ago
This experience is very common. Eventually, people have had to essentially decide to either "burn the ships" and live without the thing they need or give up and live with the pain of Windows. The good part is that over the past couple decades, the things that require Windows has become vanishingly small. Almost everything can be done on Linux these days.
opan 8y ago
Rather than hoping for popularity and the attention of companies, I think it makes more sense to help the plethora of free software continue to improve so that people don't have to be tied down to an operating system in the future. Emacs can be used even on Windows. Even if free software doesn't already support an OS, someone who cares more than the others can take it into their own hands to port it. This seems more sustainable to me.
agentPrefect 8y ago
This is precisely what fragmentation causes.
black-tea 8y ago
When I find something I can't do on Linux I generally take that as a sign that it's not worth doing anyway. Your examples are perfect: video conferencing, DRM, Visual Studio, using a printer that only works on Windows... All things that I'm glad are automatically filtered from my life.

chomp 8y ago

Very heavy headline for a very nuanced position by Linus. It's an open secret that the ideal of choice fragments the focus of creating a tight UX on the desktop. You have to understand when you watch this video though that all Linus and the kernel team can do is make the kernel itself. The community is what will end up driving the desktop UX, and they haven't done a great job creating something that can capture the average PC user. I am not sure if this is even a bad thing. My daily driver is a Dell laptop running Fedora and I don't think I'd change a thing aside from some minor UX gripes about Cinnamon. ChromeOS really is the best hope for mass Linux adoption, and I personally know people who hate the Linux desktop experience but use a Chromebook daily. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here other than my personal opinion that desktop Linux has found a local maximum and I think only the distros themselves can push DE volunteers to find something that has wider appeal (I'm not sure if that is even desirable, because again, I'm personally very happy with my experience).

wmf 8y ago
all Linus and the kernel team can do is make the kernel itself In some sense that's a self-imposed limitation. Linus could have chosen to create an OS (like BSD) instead of a kernel.
- chomp 8y ago
  Yeah, Linus is in a power position and could lean on teams to create his vision of Linux on the desktop. But he's a very tech oriented guy and that's ok. He has a tech vision of what the core of the OS should do, and I think the community needs that as much as a person who guides the frontend vision (which is absent for now).
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    Also... this is the guy who invented git. I'm not really sure we want him working on a desktop UX.
    - ivalm 8y ago

schizoidboy 8y ago

Actual quote from Linus as opposed to the click-bait title: > I still wish we were better at having a standardized desktop that goes across all the distributions. There's been some progress there. I mean, this is not a kernel issue, so this is just more of a personal annoyance how the fragmentation of the different vendors have, I think, held the desktop back a bit. But there has been some progress on that front too with Flatpak and things like that, so I'm still optimistic, but it's been 25 years. It's going to be another few years at least.

marmot777 8y ago
Yes, he essentially says we're on our way there but we have a few more years or so to go. The headline hyperbolic click bait.
msiyer 8y ago
Considering what KDE has achieved with Plasma 5, I am really happy. I use Plasma 5 on all my machines that are capable enough to handle it. Gnome 3, consequently, has never found a place. On old machines, I use Xfce only. Xfce is, in no way, for the masses. Plasma 5 could easily be the Desktop Environment that everyone loves, if they continue to improve. I have helped people migrate from Windows to Plasma 5. They loved it. However, getting\installing software and general system management is still not straightforward enough. We also need system management tools that are solid. No terminal gymnastics at all for the common user on distros targeted at the masses. Flatpak is all cool, but we need core user-space applications to be standardized. LibreOffice, for example, needs to become the industry standard office-suite. How can we achieve that? People I know just do not want to move away from MS Office. Even government agencies invest heavily in MS Office. This might just be the most important impediment. I think, the Linux ecosystem shows us what a real "free market" looks like. Lots of small players and no monopoly. People love choices and they have. You want a minimal Window Manager, you got many to choose from. You want a full-blown Desktop Environment, you are spoilt for choice. Not a bad thing in an ideal world, but...
- lstamour 8y ago
  I bet Linux for the desktop will actually start when Microsoft ports Chromium-based Edge and Office apps to Linux for specialty users, primarily developers. I mean, if you want developer mindshare and apparently improving or replacing cmd.exe will never happen... it’s not like these proprietary apps aren’t possible to ship for Linux to run at least as well as they do on an Android phone...

Joeri 8y ago

I doubt there’s a single reason why desktop linux failed. I do know why I stopped using it: driver support, lack of some of the commercial apps I wanted (and no good open source alternatives), constant rewriting of things that were fine as they were. The former two are indirectly caused by the lack of an ABI, the latter due to the nature of volunteer development work (maintaining is less fun than rewriting).

opan 8y ago
What sort of commercial apps weren't available that you needed? Is it something like Photoshop where you found the alternatives lacking, or something more niche where there was nothing like it at all?
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
I think there is a single reason, one reason in particular that every problem with Linux Desktop ties back to: The people who make it have a low opinion of users. Every time this sort of thing comes up you get dozens of posts about how the "average user" wants this, or doesn't want that, or just uses the OS that came with their computer, or just wants it to be pretty, etc. Consequently, they think putting lipstick on a pig will work and are really surprised when it doesn't.

kristianp 8y ago

That opinion has been around for a while; see: One Frickin' User Interface for Linux (2003) http://web.archive.org/web/20070830173313/https://cs.anu.edu.au/people/Hugh.Fisher/writing/1fui.html http://web.archive.org/web/20070830173313/https://cs.anu.edu...

Alan_Dillman 8y ago
No friggin way. Only having one user interface is what drove me away from Windows. I'm not alone in my desire to have things my way, and to meddle with everything. Every time someone rolls out a new distro, a new package manager, or just a new DE, Its because someone wasn't satisfied with following someone else's lead. All of us, you, me, the author of that article, Linus, and Stallman, have one unifying trait: "Not satisfied with the menu". Collectively, Linux is never going to be satisfied with any menu. The linux community exists as a perpetual diaspora. It was born from people wandering away from fiat design. The vast disjointed ecosystem happened because of this adventuresome spirit, and its delusion to think that any sort of 'one size should fit all' paradigm is going to quell that. Or that it could be enforced. "The 1FUI will require the backing of a major vendor as champion and enforcer to succeed." I don't know what that author thinks, fifteen years later. I'd tell him that "Fewer options is never a solution to people who went looking for more options". The Linux community has spent 27 years persistently solving a problem: Not enough options. 'One Frickin User Interface' is like trying to make a river flow uphill.

eindiran 8y ago

Maybe $YEAR_OF_THE_LINUX_DESKTOP isn't 2018, but I don't think the clickbait title saying that desktop Linux has failed is fair. We're light-years ahead of where we were in 2011, let alone 2007. The majority of users who now try Linux desktops do so without any real workflow-breaking issues. Graphics card drivers and printer drivers often work out of the box for me. All things considered, I think desktop Linux is doing very well.

ahmedalsudani 8y ago
Not only that. I'd venture to say no desktop is near as good as the Linux desktop. (For a certain type of user, I should qualify.) Don't get me wrong; there are issues. X is a system from a different era. (Graphics) Performance is pretty bad, the effects are janky, the primitives disparate. But! As a "power user" I dread having to use any other system. On Linux, there is an incredible variety of window managers, file navigators, terminal emulators, etc. The whole gamut. My workflow revolves around i3 and my i3 configuration. I have sworn off macs, and when I use windows, I have learned to press Super+1 for Firefox and Super+2 for Steam. Beyond that is a dark forest which I refuse to explore!
- RussianCow 8y ago
  I don't think anyone here is talking about power users when discussing the failure of Linux on the desktop.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    I'm a power user, and developer, and I certainly do think the Linux Desktop is an utter failure. I cite as evidence how awful Windows has become and how few people, power users included, have switched to Linux because of it.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  As power graphics user/developer, after my Linux zealotry years, I just settled back on Windows/macOS, because as you say "(Graphics) Performance is pretty bad, the effects are janky, the primitives disparate.".

nabla9 8y ago

Mixing music over the voice did not work for this video.

mevile 8y ago

Android shows how you do it. You get a big company with tons of money that wants to seriously build a working platform from end to end. If a company with pockets deep enough had stepped up to create a 3rd viable platform for consumers based on Linux, we'd have it. Mark Shuttleworth's pockets were not deep enough. System76's pockets aren't deep enough. It would have to have been a company like HP or Dell. Dell played with consumer side Linux but never found it lucrative to go all in.

taeric 8y ago
Isn't android heavily fragmented? There are hopes they will get better, for sure, but there is a marked difference between Samsung and other phones. I don't see that going away anytime soon, sadly.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  It is. It has the same problems with everyone having different UI tweaks, but at least the base Android comes with _some_ UI. Fragmentation isn't that big of a problem for users, because there's only so much you can do on a phone - between your photo album, contacts app, web browser and social media, any kind of UI will do. It also helps that most popular apps ship their own UI.
  - flukus 8y ago
    Android took off when we had HTC sense, Samsung touchwiz and others, almost no one was running the stock UI. But if KDE and GNOME and others were all running on GTK you'd still probably call it fragmented. There's no consistency between apps on android so you don't notice it as much.
- wvenable 8y ago
  Yes, but apps (for the most part) run consistently across all Android phones. There are multiple UI's but a "single" API. Desktop Linux is fragmented at a much deeper level than just what they look like. This adds a lot of unnecessary complexity to the Linux desktop experience for developers and that ends up affecting the end users more indirectly.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

valrama 8y ago

Well, you just wait - Microsoft is going to come to our rescue: https://www.zdnet.com/article/ms-linux-lindows-could-microsoft-release-a-desktop-linux/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/ms-linux-lindows-could-microso...

killjoywashere 8y ago

Desktop Linux is like the Hogworts limit of academic incentives: wonderful baubbles to play with appear constantly, as if from thin air, but you're never getting an Air Force or intercontinental shipping system out of it.

qwerty456127 8y ago

Linux desktop has not failed and desktop environments competition is a major reason why it is getting better and better. Many people love GNOME3 (and it is a de-facto standardized desktop) but I hate it and love KDE5 (and so do many other people). I hated Unity at the beginning and switched to XFCE when it was introduced but once Unity got improved I've began considering it a perfect desktop. Tiling WMs are awesome (pun intended) for particular tasks on particular display configurations. I also hope somebody is going to implement a Haiku-like WM on Linux or invent something entirely new. Diversity is good!

kungtotte 8y ago
For existing Linux users, the situation is indeed fantastic. We have lots of choices and we're aware of this. But if you think of "Year of the Linux Desktop" as the point in time where you can get the Windows-using masses to switch, diversity is a big problem. People don't want to be told that they have to make umpteen choices about what software to use if they want to use a different OS, they want a cookie cutter experience. This is why "Windows like" is a selling point for many DEs/distros. It's the McDonald's principle: everywhere you go a Big Mac is a Big Mac. You don't have to worry about figuring out what appeals to you in the local cuisine.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  > People don't want to be told that they have to make umpteen choices about what software to use if they want to use a different OS, they want a cookie cutter So they install Ubuntu. How is that any different from Windows or Mac (where one still can go onto the internet and download a multitude of choices of software). The real answer is that ordinary users don't install OSes. 'Fragmentation' (real or imagined) is a red herring.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Ordinary users install software, and then their beloved software only works in Ubuntu, but they got XYZ distribution with their computer, which just happens to have other package format, additional paths, .so versions, startup scripts and then everything falls apart without technical help.

root_axis 8y ago

I don't think the Linux desktop has failed. If popular adoption is the standard then MacOS is also a failure of sorts. At the end of the day, there was just no reason for anyone except enthusiasts to end up with linux on their machine since with rare exceptions you literally couldn't buy it anywhere. If you don't build software, you have pretty much zero incentive to use a linux desktop, especially when factoring in the monumental software compatibility hurdles for non-technical users.

shaan7 8y ago
This ^
rocky1138 8y ago
> If you don't build software, you have pretty much zero incentive to use a linux desktop, especially when factoring in the monumental software compatibility hurdles for non-technical users. I respectfully disagree. Ubuntu really works well for a lot of non-technical folks. A few of my non-technical family members run Ubuntu variants and have remarked at how much better it is than their old Windows 10 install. I don't think they'll be going back. Unless you've got strange hardware like a Mac, Linux for the most part "just works" these days. The biggest barrier to desktop Linux for your average citizen is that the advantages of FOSS, stability, and cost just aren't enough against the disadvantages of Windows. If Microsoft started charging people $1500/year to run desktop Windows, you'd see a lot of people look for alternatives.
- root_axis 8y ago
  I actually agree with everything you wrote there and have also switched some of my relatives over to a linux desktop. Unfortunately, a technical relative willing to set everything up isn't a practical path towards popular adoption. You have described the linux desktop as a viable alternative to Windows, but you haven't shown any incentive for someone to switch. I think the Linux desktop is a superior experience, but if it doesn't come preinstalled and preconfigured on commercial computers there is just no scenario where the average user will even get to use a linux desktop.

aussieguy1234 8y ago

Failed? I got rid of windows back in the windows 98 blue screen days. I've been using Linux desktops ever since

GordonS 8y ago
No offence, but the success of desktop Linux isn't measured by the adoption of 1 person.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
This is such a Linux Desktop community statement. "Your experience is irrelevant because it Works For Me(tm)".

hspak 8y ago

Is there anything preventing the Linux Foundation jumping in and officially supporting a desktop environment? Is it because the two main DE’s are already more-or-less backed by a foundation and the LF hopping in would fragment it even further? Ubuntu tried for a while to lead their own efforts (MIR/Unity) and in the end, they pulled the plug and decided to just adopt Wayland/Gnome. Do people consider this a good change for the linux desktop landscape?

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
> Is there anything preventing the Linux Foundation jumping in and officially supporting a desktop environment? How would it change anything? Stock Ubuntu, Stock Fedora, Stock Red Hat, Suse Enterprise Linux at least all ship Gnome Shell as the default desktop. If the LF said "Gnome Shell is the default 'official' Linux desktop", what would change? I don't think Best Buy would immediately begin stocking Linux desktops.

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago

As has been already pointed out, this isn't really what Linus said. And, in any event, fragmentation has nothing to do with it. Ordinary users (and even many advanced users) don't install operating systems. And one has to go out of their way to buy a machine with Linux pre-installed (and ordinary users don't go out of their way, certainly not for something that they know little or nothing about). If real (decent) machine with Linux on them were sold in Best Buy etc. there would be substantially more users of desktop Linux. Let's not pretend that multiple distributions is the reason.

rocky1138 8y ago
This is true, but a good chunk of marketing will also be required as, by default, people will instantly believe the "alternative" to Windows is a worse imitation. After all, if it's the same as Windows, why not just run Windows? So, it would have to be spun in the right manner as an upgrade as opposed to an alternative.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  > people will instantly believe the "alternative" to Windows is a worse imitation. Why? I would think the opposite would be true, generally. Right now in most people's minds there are "PCs" (i.e. Windows machines), which are more budget-friendly, and Macs, which are fancier but more expensive. Just put Kubuntu on a machine and sell it for more than the comparable machine running Windows and people will assume it's better.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
I think that's a convenient ego-saving scapegoat for the Linux Desktop. Chrome was never pre-installed and people went out of their way to get it because it was a better product.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  I never said users don't install software, I said they don't install OS's. Of course users install software, you can't keep them from installing nearly every weird thing they come across online, that's why a quarter of the machines running desktop Windows are part of botnets. And of course part of the reason people installed Chrome is because Google owns half of the web and they kept popping up messages telling people to install Chrome. (If it was really about installing better software, we would see Firefox dominance: even privacy and openness etc. aside, Firefox has been an objectively better browser than Chrom{e|ium} since at least version 56.)

marmot777 8y ago

As someone who recently used a Linux laptop for a week before punting and going back to Mac, finding this talk right now is a cool coincidence.

VvR-Ox 8y ago
interesting. What where the reasons if I may ask and what about OSX/macOS did you miss on linux?
- marmot777 8y ago
  I love Linux for servers but I have a lot tools that work a certain way for work and it would have taken more time than I had to get my Linux set up that way. Part of it was frankly the Linux laptop I ordered was made of cheap plastic, and the track pad didn’t work very well. I was disappointed I spent all that money and they skimped on things that really affect the user experience. So it could be I ordered a Linux laptop from the wrong company. Of course, I won’t name names. I was behind on my work, stressed out, and having trouble sleeping so I sent the laptop back and bought a MacBook. So in thinking about it, if the laptop had been made of higher quality material and the track pad had worked well, I ay well have had a different experience. It also fell in a week where I head very limited time.

joe_the_user 8y ago

Really, the reason desktop Linux isn't popular is: 1) A few things still don't work. Vanishingly few now but still a few. 2) Linux can't be simply as good as Windows or MacOs, it would have to be better for people to make the effort. And it's not going to be better. I don't think "better" is possible now (not in a fundamental, decisive way. Lots of little ways sure but, again, I don't think that's what people care so much about). An Os is just a way to launch apps and we've kind of a limit on such goodness. My desktop Linux launches my apps, especially my browser and that's about it. I like being independent of the corporate megamachine but most people would not spend the hard two hours required for this.

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
> Linux can't be simply as good as Windows or MacOs, it would have to be better for people to make the effort. I really don't think this is the reason. Pretty much anything is better than Windows, but defaults rule supreme and Windows is what you get on your computer until you pay extra for MacOS. Ordinary users aren't likely to change the OS on their computer any more than they are to swap the engine on the car.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Cocoa and Android Frameworks are the only tooling that compares to Windows developer experience for UI/UX centric devs. For how much effort GNOME and KDE devs have put on their frameworks, they still don't offer the full stack experience across APIs, IDE, GUI tooling and OS APIs.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    Ok. Of course there's a sizable group of devs who really don't like the Windows developing experience (part of why Microsoft has been so keen on getting the the subsystem for Linux into place, to lure Linux-centric devs over). But I think that's largely irrelevant to desktop share. It's not as if the majority of Windows users are developers.

Santosh83 8y ago

Linux not gaining majority maindshare on the desktop may have something in common with why Chrome has gained just that in browser space, i.e., getting bundled in or preinstalled. The vast majority of PC/laptop users will not have a compelling reason to change the OS that comes preinstalled with their computer, and that is almost always Windows. If Linux can find an OEM to massively push it out on a range of machines (not just targetted at developers), then we'll see the tide turn, but I suspect OEM will fear the wrath of the behemoth...

chmln 8y ago
> Linux can find an OEM to massively push it out on a range of machines Who is Linux? I feel like the Linux Foundation won't do much to dethrone Windows, with Microsoft as a platinum dollar bag on board.

hguhghuff 8y ago

The average professional website /web application looks more visually consistent and appealing than any Linux desktop, ever. No matter what desktop they always end up feeling weird and like the spacing is wrong or the fonts don’t match or something. Put another way, it’s no longer hard to design brautfinand consistent User interfaces but for some reason that’s never been possible on a Linux desktop. Linux desktops have always had a sort of Frankenstein feeling to them, clearly made up of a hodgepodge of boys that just don’t quite fit together.

InclinedPlane 8y ago

It's amazing how so many smart people can be so blind. I've been using unix and linux for about a quarter of a century. I cut my teeth on proper X Window terminals and Motif Window Manager (and NeXTSTEP and SGI IRIX workstations, etc, etc.) I was using firefox on linux before it was even named firefox. I've used a variety of desktop linux distros over the years, but I've never felt compelled to actually make the jump for good. In theory I'm the perfect candidate for switching to a linux desktop but for me it's never been worth it. Yes, desktop linux can be a perfectly fine experience, but is it a superior experience? Every time I've made a serious effort to try out a desktop linux OS it's always felt like a bit of a downgrade. Not just because of all the stuff I miss out on like being able to run games and other software I like, but even well beyond that. Despite most desktop linux distros being pretty decently polished there are inevitably a few dozen little completely unfinished and often completely buggy or broken parts of the OS lurking around. It's like opening a door in a house and finding everything ripped down to the studs with an excitable nest of raccoons roosting where a bedroom should be. The fact is, it's pretty common to have to do some rather serious "IT department self-service" when you try to use desktop linux, just in the course of dealing with ordinary trivial stuff like power management, connecting to wifi, watching video, etc. I remember the bad old days of X Window config nightmares: type in the correct horizontal sync frequency in kilohertz to avoid blowing up your monitor. Things are light-years better than those days but they still aren't at the "install off a usb drive and everything basic mostly works with at best some annoyances" level. The value proposition of a linux desktop has to have a lot more to it than "you can have a kind of ok experience with it if you don't ask for too much" if it's going to get any sort of adoption. Especially in a world where the competition isn't just windows/macos computers but android/ios tablets and smartphones as well as chromebooks. Linux has such a compelling story in the server space, but people need to really stop pretending that they can just tweak that story a bit and push it into the desktop space, it still needs a ton more work to get there.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
The fact that you are being downvoted is a pretty good data point for why the Linux Desktop sucks and continues to suck. Rather than develop something good, the people who work on and evangelize the Linux Desktop would rather stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that everyone who doesn't use it is just too stupid to see how obviously superior it is.

sandGorgon 8y ago

And one of the biggest reasons here is package management - the rpm, Deb , Pacman split is one of the biggest divides. I don't know if I should add APK to this list. We had a chance to fix it in the new world, but it's gone back to a zeroinstall versus flatpak versus snap vs Deb vs rpm vs Pacman ecosystem. Lets see if Docker CNAB and systemd push this ecosystem forward. Reposting http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linu...

opan 8y ago
I think Nix and Guix are going to solve this problem better than snaps and flatpaks. Not only are they really good package managers, but they were made to work on other distros.

docker_up 8y ago

The idea of a Linux Desktop is about 10 years too late now and fading fast. I'm using Windows 7 on a desktop built in 2012 and I have no impetus to change. My wife has abandoned her desktop for an iPad Pro, which she uses at work extensively. The only thing she needs a desktop for is Excel, which she uses hardcore. The only application I run on my desktop these days is Chrome/Firefox. Other than that I'll run Sublime because I'm a programmer, but there's nothing else I really need. Everything else is on my iPhone.

sunstone 8y ago

In my experience the real barrier to regular users adopting Linux has been Microsoft Office. The UI is not a big impediment but when it comes to "How do I send and receive word/excell documents?" That's where the wheels fall off. Sure there are work arounds and other formats etc but for most people that is just too much hassle.

RussianCow 8y ago
This is mostly a non-issue with LibreOffice, unless you work with the advanced features of the Office programs (most people don't). Sure, the UI isn't as good, but I don't think that's the biggest barrier to adoption, or even close to it.
- Hydraulix989 8y ago
  Anyone who uses Excel for any kind of serious work quickly gets frustrated by the LibreOffice limitations.
  - RussianCow 8y ago
    Hence: "unless you work with the advanced features of the Office programs"
    - Hydraulix989 8y ago
      Even basic formulae behave differently though.
- rushikesh98 8y ago
  Umm, no. The only time I use W10 is reading ppts by profs because Impress really messes the rendering.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - 8y ago

facorreia 8y ago

Poor sleep or suspend support is much worse.

RandomTisk 8y ago

Every desktop distro needs to have a "Home User" GUI configuration option either as a default or an option during the setup. This should emulate the UX of either Windows or MacOS as closely and as shamelessly as possible.

chopin 8y ago
Linux Mint is close enough.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Linux Desktop's failure isn't, and never has been, that it just doesn't look enough like Windows. People have been saying variations of that idea for decades now and look where it has gotten us. Stop looking down on users as stupid people who don't have good reasons for the choices they make and need to be fooled into using your system!

dschuetz 8y ago

The title is not just click-bait, it's flat-out wrong. Instead of failing it's become even more successful over the years, because of the efforts of thousands of maintainers and developers. The recent support/endorsement from Valve is just another success story. And Linus is not the only one who's identified several competing major software projects as the main culprit for Linux desktop lacking traction in the past years. I'm surprised though, that systemd was adopted unanimously almost immediately on every major distribution over classic Init despite lots criticism and protests. But they can't agree on which GUI is best for a Linux desktop? Why is that I wonder?

mateuszf 8y ago
> Why is that I wonder? Maybe because"configuring" packages and services (main job of init system "users") is lot easier than writing gui applications. App developers use so many languages and frameworks (often with failing cross platforms abstractions) that it would be really hard to "force" them to use a common standard.
pjmlp 8y ago
You mean the 1% desktop users running Steam?

NetOpWibby 8y ago

I'm so glad I come to the comments.

Animats 8y ago

The amusing thing is that Microsoft blew it. Windows 7 was generally considered good, but Windows 8 and 10 are widely acknowledged to be awful. Windows 8 tried to make a desktop work like a tablet. Windows 10 has intrusive ads and data collection. Most of corporate America would rather stay on Windows 7. Linux on the desktop works just fine. I've been using it almost exclusively for five years now. I also have several notebooks using it. It's less trouble than Windows. This should be Linux's moment on the desktop.

jchw 8y ago
Some of my friends ended up trying Linux in the Vista era. What happened was interesting. I don't think any of them became full-on Linux users, but some of them continued to use Linux alongside Windows. What this signifies to me is that Linux has some strengths that people really want, but it doesn't do a great job of replacing Windows in its current state. I find this to be my exact problem, too. Windows does a lot of things right that Linux may never, and the app library on Windows is probably going to be the best on the desktop for at least another 10 years if not longer. Linux, however, has a beautiful experience for developers and sometimes even for power users. You can turn on and off almost any feature you want, there's a ton of alternative setups. You can even run a different libc if you really want to. I still use a Linux desktop as my primary, but I have never managed to escape dual booting or virtual machines entirely, and I'm not sure when it might be possible.
- vorticalbox 8y ago
  >the app library on Windows is probably going to be the best on the desktop for at least another 10 years if not longer. The app market will very quick shift if linux really starts to get the ball rolling. Just look how quickly developers jump on the mobile train.
  - jchw 8y ago
    >Just look how quickly developers jump on the mobile train. Interesting. I don't feel similarly about the progress of mobile apps. Like sure, there's a lot of mobile apps, but I feel like they are a lot less mature and developed than desktop apps are. I would guess by development effort spent, desktop apps still outpace mobile apps. Don't get me wrong, I get that games and apps must be adapted for the amount of system resources and for the input devices users will be using. But that doesn't mean PS Touch is the same as Photoshop. It feels like a toy version of Photoshop that you can use in a pinch between having access to real Photoshop. I doubt the same number of people hours went into both. Linux ports couldn't work that way. You would want the same thing you have on Windows.

agentPrefect 8y ago

Which is what a lot of people have been saying for a very long time.

macdice 8y ago

The whole concept that "Linux is just a kernel" sounds like some kind of whining pedantic hair splitting, unless you understand that almost all the stuff that ships in a Linux distribution including all the FOSS stuff we call "the desktop" runs perfectly well on all modern Unix-like systems like FreeBSD et al. xorg, Firefox, Gnome/KDE/foo/bar, yada yada. Admittedly there are fewer and fewer Unix-like systems left (I cut my teeth on OSes that are now dead and buried), but it's a massive disservice to all these wonderful projects that we don't have a better ways to describe this stuff so that we don't have people talking about "the Linux desktop". Get off my lawn, etc.

jillesvangurp 8y ago
It's worse, things like the Gimp and most most other major user facing linux applications have a history of also being built for windows and mac os. E.g. I regularly use Darktable on my mac and with the last release they also started supporting windows builds. Why not? The more users the better from their point of view. Linux has a software packaging issue. There are several so-called package managers and they basically have overlapping goals and they all suck from an end user perspective. On Ubuntu when you do an apt-get install darktable, you pull in a gazillion of packages. Everything and the kitchen sink, basically. On a mac, I drag the darktable.app file to the applications after I download it. And it runs. Exact same software. It's a 217MB self contained package. There are no software conflicts. Apple designed the way that stuff works last century when they were designing OS X and wanted to keep the simplicity of how software installations worked on OS 9. The disk usage is a non issue There are no dependencies to manage. This stuff works across major versions of OS X even. Package managers don't solve a problem real users have. The existence of package managers led to what we now call distributions, which made a lot of sense in the early nineties when slackware came in the form of 27 disks (been there, done that) but not this century. No two distributions are the same. They each need to test and integrate the same software to work in their ecosystem. Even major versions of the same distribution tend to be very different. I personally think Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. have no business whatsoever acting as a gatekeeper here and I tend to think of them more as an obstacle then as an enabler. E.g. I know the Darktable people are preparing a 2.6 release (awesome stuff). I'd like to get a binary package from them as soon as they release it. I don't see what value Ubuntu doing the same months (optimistic?) later adds. Why wait? Their need to test before they can integrate is self inflicted. It's a problem they have yet to solve. Flatpak and similar solutions are sort of aiming to solve this for linux. But standards are lacking, progress is slow, and this stuff is nowhere close to being standardized. So, again fragmentation. Compare that to the docker eco system. Most custom stuff you deploy to a server comes as a docker image. And you can run those on many different operating systems. This kind of OS neutral way of packaging software needs to start extending to desktop software. We need Docker for end user applications.

newnewpdro 8y ago

It's as if Linus is oblivious to Google's Fuchsia effort. Before Linux conquers the desktop via ChromeOS, ChromeOS will have pivoted away from even running it on bare metal.

mverwijs 8y ago

OT: I wish Youtube / technology in general had an option to filter out noisy background music.

lmedinas 8y ago

My view on the topic: I have used Linux Desktops for about ~15years and involved in the Development community it astonished me how frequent the APIs break specially at Desktop Application/libraries level. I remember several libraries, like GTK+ deprecating often APIs even during stable releases. The consequence of this is that the main application developer spends a big part of its time constantly updating its application instead of developing new features and make it feature rich. The same can be said in order parts of the Desktop like the transition from X11 to Wayland/Weston and all the Desktop Environments that some years ago fragmented and decreased their quality. Unity, KDE and GNOME all failed in producing a Desktop that really appealed to all users. Finally for me another failure is the package management. For the App developer he needs to get his app packages for all major distributions and imagine the effort of the App developer and App maintainer to support different libc and userspace tool versions. All in all the Application developer has such a huge burden that he is most of the time updating his app to new apis/tools than actually developing new features.

atlih 8y ago

I think it failed not because of some wrong technical setup or fragmentation but because nerds generally don't care about the novice user experience, it's near the bottom of the list of priorities. For profit companies don't care either but are instantly rewarded for it financially so those that get it done increase their market share. It's a sad dilemma that I have no idea how or if it can be fixed because I would love not having to use a mac and use Linux as a desktop instead.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Nerds don't even care about the nerd user experience. If you complain about anything then you should fix it yourself, or you're doing it wrong, or it isn't actually a problem because they've never encountered it.

skocznymroczny 8y ago

A good start would be implementing flicker-free boot on Linux. Windows and macOS had it for a long time. On Linux, it takes 5-6 mode changes before the system actually boots. It doesn't make a good impression on users, especially ones unfamiliar with Linux to see the system constantly go dark, make some noises and switch from text mode to graphics mode constantly. Same thing for shut down, most Linuxes when shutting down flash text mode for a bit with lots of messages like "trying to kill xxx unsuccessful". To an average user that screams "this software is unfinished and can break any moment", which doesn't inspire confidence. I think the best chance for unification was Ubuntu and Unity. I use Unity on Ubuntu 18.10 because I don't like the GNOME interface (and it's much slower on my low-end laptop too). Unfortunately, the community seems to enjoy reinventing things. Implementing new stuff is exciting, fixing bugs isn't :(

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
To me this sounds like the rough equivelent of "users aren't buying our product, it must be because it is the wrong color".

therealmarv 8y ago

It's not that. It's that if I create and want to sell desktop software I would not loose substantial user base by NOT supporting Linux. I would concentrate my investments on Windows and/or maybe macOS and Linux is third and only nice to have. Nearly nobody makes big money with Linux desktop programs. Companies like e.g. Adobe know that.

danShumway 8y ago
On the other side of things, if I wanted to support only Windows, I would need to use Windows as a development machine, which would be a substantial loss to productivity for me. I don't feel like Windows in its current state is a platform that I would recommend to anyone who uses computers as a professional. So when I get to which platforms I support, if it's something personal for me, I only support Linux. If it's something that I plan to sell, I support Windows because that's where the money is, and Linux because, well, I've got this build sitting here, so I might as well throw it out as an experimental build (see Spotify, Unity, Reaper, etc...). Even if I'm developing a game that will rely on Windows specific APIs, I prefer to put those parts in last and do the majority of development on Linux. The exception to that is if I know I'm going to be doing a lot of support. I feel like handling support for Linux users is worse than handling support for Windows users, and will often cost me more time and money in the long run. So when I think about much bigger environments like Adobe, I'm sure they have Linux builds internally, because I just don't believe that their entire development staff would be content to use Windows. I would be willing to bet pretty heavily that there's a subset of Adobe engineers who have internal builds of Photoshop compiling on Linux. But compiling Photoshop for Linux is not the only challenge to actually releasing it on Linux. Linux fragmentation means you never know when something is going to go terribly wrong because somebody swapped out a random part of the host OS. It means another testing environment, and another set of internal documents about production deployments. I feel Linux is currently hands down the best engineering environment out there. But engineers don't handle support calls. So I would hazard that a lot more software is out there that could already run on Linux, but just hasn't been released.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Usually engineers at companies like Adobe use whatever the IT department allows their computer images to be. Normally rogue installs aren't well seen from security point of view.

hyperman1 8y ago

I am missing an important part in this discussion: The absolute lack of a stable API for GUIs. Command line tools, web servers, ... are easy: Take POSIX and be a bit conservative with the edge cases. It will work with a recompile for most linux distros,BSDs, OSX and if you're willing to look at e.g. cygwin, even windows. I had to compile an ancient linux 1.x program last month, and it works. The GUI world however is a different beast. There is X11 which only offers the most basic of primitives for drawing and pointing, nothing decent for text, and the API designers want to take away even that with wayland. There is GTK that actively does not want to provide any form of stability. There is QT which has a hard-to-interop C++ API and every major version breaks everything once more. And i haven't said anything of the licenses This means no community investment can be made in Linux GUI's: Every year or so, you have to do serious upgrades or a GUI application simply perishes. Which is basically insane. It means that whatever Linux GUI exists today is temporary for everything but the biggest applications. Ironically, win32 is the only reasonable option on Linux: wine will provide a good enough environment, and as they are anchored API-wise to microsoft, they can guarantee they'r there for the long term. But how I dream for a posix-like API that both GTK and QT could provide.

sys_64738 8y ago

For me, the weakness in Linux on the desktop is laptop battery is generally poor compared to running Microsoft or Mac OS X. Second is multiple monitor support is such a hassle in Linux. For Microsoft it is an excellent experience and OS X isn't too bad either. A couple of data points to ponder.

NullOtoko 8y ago

Sadly, this is the nature of open source and decentralization. If your code can be easily forked, if consumers have freedom and control instead of an authoritarian entity gatekeeping what can be done with their software, then fragmentation will occur. As users tweak and change systems and software to meet their needs, a variety of options and choices become available. Each branch on the tree results in further fragmentation. For the standard user this is a bad thing as it means they can't just learn one widespread system. For users like me this is a boon, because it gives variety. If I don't like how Gnome works, I can use KDE, if I don't like APT I can use YUM. If I don't like SystemD, I can use another INIT system.

sakthimurugan 8y ago

Impressive content, keep doing more https://www.fita.in/big-data-hadoop-training-in-chennai/ https://www.fita.in/big-data-hadoop-training-in-chennai/