5 ms·

Funny that Linux is everywhere in the form of Android and Chrome OS, but for all the efforts of Linux on the Desktop, it just isn't terribly successful. Is it a

Funny that Linux is everywhere in the form of Android and Chrome OS, but for all the efforts of Linux on the Desktop, it just isn't terribly successful. Is it a marketing thing? By all measures, Ubuntu (preinstalled) on a laptop is more functional than Chrome OS, or is the continuation of the dumbification of computing interfaces?

CGamesPlay 14y ago
It has a lot to do with diversity: Android and Chromebook are (mostly) the same thing. With desktop Linux, you're supporting every different distribution, hardware, driver, and custom configuration.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  >Android and Chromebook are (mostly) the same thing What do you mean?
  - Shank 14y ago
    Probably in regards to how they're licensed and sold. A chromebook is approved by Google and Chrome OS is developed to run on it. Android is compiled per device so that nothing will break, done by the manufacturer.
jxi 14y ago
It's probably been said over and over again, but the problem is that Linux (or I guess Ubuntu) isn't really easy to use for the non-tech type. It's an OS that gives you an interface to your computer, not an OS that will get out of the way and just help you do what you need to do. However, after switching to Mac, I've realized Windows is not really easy to use either, but that's been kind of shoved down people's throats since they were young, so people kind of know their way around it. Dumbification does imply simplification though so I think it's generally a right direction and may be one factor that makes ChromeOS appealing (the problem there though is that it lacks a few fundamental features right now, but that's more easily fixable).
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  >not an OS that will get out of the way and just help you do what you need to do Huh? Unity, especially with auto-hide is literally more out-of-your-way than any other Desktop Environment in any Operating System I can think of. (And I don't even like Unity, I like Cinnamon and Elementary which are very similar to the Windows XP/7 and OS X style desktop environments.) I'm just really exhausted of non-specific "it's hard to use". (Keep in mind I was specifically talking about pre-installed, though the Windows/Ubuntu installers are nearly the same). If I asked someone to install iTunes in Windows versus install Rhythmbox in Ubuntu, I know which would be easier for someone who had never used either before. Go to a website, download an EXE, bypass the scary security prompt, walk through a six step installer asking about location, menu entries and more. Or open Software Center, type "music player", pick one and click "Install". If "it's hard to use" because people are used to Windows, I throw my hands up, there's no way to reply to that.
  - unimpressive 14y ago
    >If "it's hard to use" because people are used to Windows, I throw my hands up, there's no way to reply to that. That's basically the answer. That and it's hard to use because most of the software in a windows power users toolkit is windows only. So using Linux for them is like using windows and wishing for bash.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      >So using Linux for them is like using windows and wishing for bash. A very eye-opening analogy and one that I can obviously more than sympathize with. (Although Git kindly installs Git Bash now which is appreciated.)
  - jxi 14y ago
    Yes, I think Unity is slightly better, but another problem with most Linux distros is that when things break, it's way harder to fix that on Windows, and in my experience they seem to break all that time after even just a month of use. Yea, I did make the point above that Windows is not easy to use either (heck imo it's worse that Linux now), but people are just used to it, so it's perceived to be easier to use. For your example on Mac though, you simply just drag and drop which is by far the simplest.
lucid00 14y ago
I think the problem with Linux was that it has no argument for it. Everything is just "it's just like Windows and Mac OS, except it's not" and not always equates to "free, open source, no cost, no licence fees, customizable, faster, etc..." but never anything that was a true blue selling point. To the users that have the know how to switch to Linux, all it sounds like is a slight upgrade over their existing setup with less software support. I think Chrome OS is slowly getting attention because it gets out of your way completely. No setup, no worries about losing files, extremely low risk of viruses or malware, you already understand it, and it's the easiest to leave in case you don't like it.
- unimpressive 14y ago
  This. I have more than one friend who says that what they have works, plus they want to play games. EDIT: I have trouble explaining to them that the "slight upgrade" is probably an unbelievable improvement in many aspects. (But a significant downgrade in many others.)
slurry 14y ago
The problem is the GUI. X with multiple widget toolkits laid over it and a desktop environment laid over that is a lot of moving parts that can go wrong. Android and ChromeOS and TiVo and your embedded-Linux toaster don't have this problem. They don't need to run legacy X applications and have monolithic GUI's built from the ground up.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  So, the dumbification of the computer. That's fine, I guess. I'll be the old foagie at the age of 25 who actually owns a real computer that can do more than one thing at one time. Funny that people applaud these "simple" interfaces but whine and moan about gnome-shell embracing a simple, full-screen app, full-screen launcher model...
  - slurry 14y ago
    I'm talking about simplicity of implementation, not interface. The fact that you use a windowing system that was designed for remoting but not displaying wigets for not-remoting but displaying widgets does not make you (or me) smarter.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      I don't understand what X's network transparency has to do with any of this...
      - gte910h 14y ago
        It makes testing software damn hard. You can't justify testing 25 configurations of Linux. There just aren't enough dollars there to justify it. Chromebook and android each present relatively fewer targets to shoot at.
lucian1900 14y ago
The only way to get this popular is to have nice devices sold with the OS installed. Too few people install their own to matter.
gte910h 14y ago
IMO, X-windows is the culprit. The lack of a real winner takes all windowing solution on Linux means everyone has their different flavor of desktop, all of which are slightly different everywhere. And not like Android different, far worse as far as fragmentation goes, especially sound (if you feel like pointing out sound isn't part of the user interface, I'm going to point out you're not the person who feels undeserved by Linux as is). I predict Android on the desktop before Linux on the desktop, and if Linux comes to the desktop, it will come mostly from the work of VALVe saying "This is in" and "This is out" and pick the winners and merge them together into a cohesive whole.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  The existence of X has nothing to do with the multitude of desktop environments. At all. In fact they are almost all working or working to port over to Wayland/Weston already anyway. Why on God's earth would someone want Android on a desktop machine? Why does there need to be one dominant DE anyway? The day that happens is the day the core base of Linux users ditches Linux. It flatly will never happen. You think KDE is going to one day just say "okay GNOME, we quit"?
  - gte910h 14y ago
    >Why does there need to be one dominant DE anyway? Because, if a company is going to write software to run on lots of machines and be closed sourced like most commercial software, it is going to require a pretty stable target to run on. When there are 25 different popular Linux configurations, it is prohibitively expensive to test them all for the number of individual users for each configurations. > You think KDE is going to one day just say "okay GNOME, we quit"? No, I think game/software vendors are going to ignore one or the other, following the lead of someone like valve. Then that one will become very niche, like the BSDs

CGamesPlay 14y ago

It has a lot to do with diversity: Android and Chromebook are (mostly) the same thing. With desktop Linux, you're supporting every different distribution, hardware, driver, and custom configuration.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
>Android and Chromebook are (mostly) the same thing What do you mean?
- Shank 14y ago
  Probably in regards to how they're licensed and sold. A chromebook is approved by Google and Chrome OS is developed to run on it. Android is compiled per device so that nothing will break, done by the manufacturer.

jxi 14y ago

It's probably been said over and over again, but the problem is that Linux (or I guess Ubuntu) isn't really easy to use for the non-tech type. It's an OS that gives you an interface to your computer, not an OS that will get out of the way and just help you do what you need to do. However, after switching to Mac, I've realized Windows is not really easy to use either, but that's been kind of shoved down people's throats since they were young, so people kind of know their way around it. Dumbification does imply simplification though so I think it's generally a right direction and may be one factor that makes ChromeOS appealing (the problem there though is that it lacks a few fundamental features right now, but that's more easily fixable).

drivebyacct2 14y ago
>not an OS that will get out of the way and just help you do what you need to do Huh? Unity, especially with auto-hide is literally more out-of-your-way than any other Desktop Environment in any Operating System I can think of. (And I don't even like Unity, I like Cinnamon and Elementary which are very similar to the Windows XP/7 and OS X style desktop environments.) I'm just really exhausted of non-specific "it's hard to use". (Keep in mind I was specifically talking about pre-installed, though the Windows/Ubuntu installers are nearly the same). If I asked someone to install iTunes in Windows versus install Rhythmbox in Ubuntu, I know which would be easier for someone who had never used either before. Go to a website, download an EXE, bypass the scary security prompt, walk through a six step installer asking about location, menu entries and more. Or open Software Center, type "music player", pick one and click "Install". If "it's hard to use" because people are used to Windows, I throw my hands up, there's no way to reply to that.
- unimpressive 14y ago
  >If "it's hard to use" because people are used to Windows, I throw my hands up, there's no way to reply to that. That's basically the answer. That and it's hard to use because most of the software in a windows power users toolkit is windows only. So using Linux for them is like using windows and wishing for bash.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    >So using Linux for them is like using windows and wishing for bash. A very eye-opening analogy and one that I can obviously more than sympathize with. (Although Git kindly installs Git Bash now which is appreciated.)
- jxi 14y ago
  Yes, I think Unity is slightly better, but another problem with most Linux distros is that when things break, it's way harder to fix that on Windows, and in my experience they seem to break all that time after even just a month of use. Yea, I did make the point above that Windows is not easy to use either (heck imo it's worse that Linux now), but people are just used to it, so it's perceived to be easier to use. For your example on Mac though, you simply just drag and drop which is by far the simplest.

lucid00 14y ago

I think the problem with Linux was that it has no argument for it. Everything is just "it's just like Windows and Mac OS, except it's not" and not always equates to "free, open source, no cost, no licence fees, customizable, faster, etc..." but never anything that was a true blue selling point. To the users that have the know how to switch to Linux, all it sounds like is a slight upgrade over their existing setup with less software support. I think Chrome OS is slowly getting attention because it gets out of your way completely. No setup, no worries about losing files, extremely low risk of viruses or malware, you already understand it, and it's the easiest to leave in case you don't like it.

unimpressive 14y ago
This. I have more than one friend who says that what they have works, plus they want to play games. EDIT: I have trouble explaining to them that the "slight upgrade" is probably an unbelievable improvement in many aspects. (But a significant downgrade in many others.)

slurry 14y ago

The problem is the GUI. X with multiple widget toolkits laid over it and a desktop environment laid over that is a lot of moving parts that can go wrong. Android and ChromeOS and TiVo and your embedded-Linux toaster don't have this problem. They don't need to run legacy X applications and have monolithic GUI's built from the ground up.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
So, the dumbification of the computer. That's fine, I guess. I'll be the old foagie at the age of 25 who actually owns a real computer that can do more than one thing at one time. Funny that people applaud these "simple" interfaces but whine and moan about gnome-shell embracing a simple, full-screen app, full-screen launcher model...
- slurry 14y ago
  I'm talking about simplicity of implementation, not interface. The fact that you use a windowing system that was designed for remoting but not displaying wigets for not-remoting but displaying widgets does not make you (or me) smarter.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    I don't understand what X's network transparency has to do with any of this...
    - gte910h 14y ago
      It makes testing software damn hard. You can't justify testing 25 configurations of Linux. There just aren't enough dollars there to justify it. Chromebook and android each present relatively fewer targets to shoot at.

lucian1900 14y ago

The only way to get this popular is to have nice devices sold with the OS installed. Too few people install their own to matter.

gte910h 14y ago

IMO, X-windows is the culprit. The lack of a real winner takes all windowing solution on Linux means everyone has their different flavor of desktop, all of which are slightly different everywhere. And not like Android different, far worse as far as fragmentation goes, especially sound (if you feel like pointing out sound isn't part of the user interface, I'm going to point out you're not the person who feels undeserved by Linux as is). I predict Android on the desktop before Linux on the desktop, and if Linux comes to the desktop, it will come mostly from the work of VALVe saying "This is in" and "This is out" and pick the winners and merge them together into a cohesive whole.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
The existence of X has nothing to do with the multitude of desktop environments. At all. In fact they are almost all working or working to port over to Wayland/Weston already anyway. Why on God's earth would someone want Android on a desktop machine? Why does there need to be one dominant DE anyway? The day that happens is the day the core base of Linux users ditches Linux. It flatly will never happen. You think KDE is going to one day just say "okay GNOME, we quit"?
- gte910h 14y ago
  >Why does there need to be one dominant DE anyway? Because, if a company is going to write software to run on lots of machines and be closed sourced like most commercial software, it is going to require a pretty stable target to run on. When there are 25 different popular Linux configurations, it is prohibitively expensive to test them all for the number of individual users for each configurations. > You think KDE is going to one day just say "okay GNOME, we quit"? No, I think game/software vendors are going to ignore one or the other, following the lead of someone like valve. Then that one will become very niche, like the BSDs