6 ms·

"Shuttleworth founded Canonical in 2004, back in the day when Linux on the desktop was, if not exactly a contender, at least a more widely discussed alternative

by winslow 13y ago

"Shuttleworth founded Canonical in 2004, back in the day when Linux on the desktop was, if not exactly a contender, at least a more widely discussed alternative to Windows PCs than it is today." I feel like Linux is a better contender now then it was in 2004. Or am I just in a "developers tech savvy world" and viewing linux as a viable contender now compared to the typical layman?

r-s 13y ago
They are simply wrong on this.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Nope, they are very right. In fact, it was even earlier too, e.g all around 1999/2004, when Linux was discussed to win the Desktop "any day now". There were even desktop targeted Linux distros backed by companies such as Corel, startups working on Linux desktop/office desktop stuff (like the Evolution email client or the Nautilus file browser), and skyrocketing Linux IPOs (VA Linux anyone). Plus several attempts at releasing pre-installed Linux PCs at places like Walmarts (that most people bought for cheap and converted to Windows).
  - simbolit 13y ago
    Yes, i remember that in 99 Linux was all the Linux was all the rage and doing something with Linux would shoot VC dollars toward you startup.
  - winslow 13y ago
    True, RedHat had a massive IPO if I recall. Yeah VA linux IPO ouch - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LNUX.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LNUX.png Red Hat went public on August 11, 1999, achieving the eighth-biggest first-day gain in the history of Wall Street.[0] So maybe in a business sense Linux had a better standing versus windows back then compared to current day. [0] - http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/timeline.html http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/timeline.html
georgemcbay 13y ago
It was discussed (in tech media) much more back then ("This is the year of Linux on the desktop!" used in a non-sarcastic manner), but you're right in that it is actually more viable today than it was then, mostly due to Microsoft shooting itself in both feet in the interim. It is still unlikely Linux will achieve any sort of mainstream adoption (for a few reasons, including Ubuntu following a very Microsoft-like policy of going all-in with touch at the expense of UX for traditional desktop users, continued fragmentation of the various distros, etc), but at least these days it isn't nearly as surprising to learn some of your more casually tech savvy friends use Linux as it would have been back then.
- derefr 13y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if Linux achieved a majority-share in the Desktop PC market... caused by the Desktop PC becoming completely irrelevant to consumers. (If only developers own PCs, and the majority of developers use Linux, then the majority of PCs will run Linux.)
  - hollerith 13y ago
    In polls here, more respondents report running OS X than report running Linux on their desktops and laptops. So, it is uncertain whether it will ever be the case that the majority of devs use Linux although I guess there's a good chance of it happening if Apple ever decides to abandon the desktop / laptop market.
    - sirkneeland 13y ago
      Not "if" but "when" (on a long enough time horizon)
    - catinsocks 13y ago
      That or if someone invests heavily enough into building a coherent linux desktop. There are a lot of great things about linux and some of the desktops are quite good (gnome 3.4+, kde) but they just aren't quite there with the small glitches and annoyances that come up just often enough to be off putting for end users. I think linux or another free OS needs a huge backing to make it mainstream and we may see that with android (or something in a similar vein) in the future but for now the desktop is left Apple and Microsoft
Shorel 13y ago
Apple OSX came and gave us a good Unix UI. Nowadays, OSX is seen as the alternative to Windows more than Linux is. However, in some years the Valve's Steam support can make Linux the OS for gaming enthusiasts everywhere.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> I feel like Linux is a better contender now then it was in 2004. Or am I just in a "developers tech savvy world" and viewing linux as a viable contender now compared to the typical layman? For the typical layman, what matters is mostly "can I get it and use it without thinking about it", which is, really, more about major vendor (both hardware and app developer) adoption than it is about substantive features. Insofar as Linux is a contender there, for the average individual user, its largely in the form of ChromeOS rather than traditional desktop linux distros, not because ChromeOS is more feature appropriate, but because of its backing. There is a reason Microsoft is running negative ads about ChromeOS and not about, say, Ubuntu. From a development perspective, Linux has been adequate as a main OS for a long-time, though better virtualization solutions make having to choose one OS full-time -- or use comparatively awkward dual-boot solutions -- less a reality.

by winslow 13y ago

r-s 13y ago

They are simply wrong on this.

coldtea 13y ago
Nope, they are very right. In fact, it was even earlier too, e.g all around 1999/2004, when Linux was discussed to win the Desktop "any day now". There were even desktop targeted Linux distros backed by companies such as Corel, startups working on Linux desktop/office desktop stuff (like the Evolution email client or the Nautilus file browser), and skyrocketing Linux IPOs (VA Linux anyone). Plus several attempts at releasing pre-installed Linux PCs at places like Walmarts (that most people bought for cheap and converted to Windows).
- simbolit 13y ago
  Yes, i remember that in 99 Linux was all the Linux was all the rage and doing something with Linux would shoot VC dollars toward you startup.
- winslow 13y ago
  True, RedHat had a massive IPO if I recall. Yeah VA linux IPO ouch - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LNUX.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LNUX.png Red Hat went public on August 11, 1999, achieving the eighth-biggest first-day gain in the history of Wall Street.[0] So maybe in a business sense Linux had a better standing versus windows back then compared to current day. [0] - http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/timeline.html http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/timeline.html

georgemcbay 13y ago

It was discussed (in tech media) much more back then ("This is the year of Linux on the desktop!" used in a non-sarcastic manner), but you're right in that it is actually more viable today than it was then, mostly due to Microsoft shooting itself in both feet in the interim. It is still unlikely Linux will achieve any sort of mainstream adoption (for a few reasons, including Ubuntu following a very Microsoft-like policy of going all-in with touch at the expense of UX for traditional desktop users, continued fragmentation of the various distros, etc), but at least these days it isn't nearly as surprising to learn some of your more casually tech savvy friends use Linux as it would have been back then.

derefr 13y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if Linux achieved a majority-share in the Desktop PC market... caused by the Desktop PC becoming completely irrelevant to consumers. (If only developers own PCs, and the majority of developers use Linux, then the majority of PCs will run Linux.)
- hollerith 13y ago
  In polls here, more respondents report running OS X than report running Linux on their desktops and laptops. So, it is uncertain whether it will ever be the case that the majority of devs use Linux although I guess there's a good chance of it happening if Apple ever decides to abandon the desktop / laptop market.
  - sirkneeland 13y ago
    Not "if" but "when" (on a long enough time horizon)
  - catinsocks 13y ago
    That or if someone invests heavily enough into building a coherent linux desktop. There are a lot of great things about linux and some of the desktops are quite good (gnome 3.4+, kde) but they just aren't quite there with the small glitches and annoyances that come up just often enough to be off putting for end users. I think linux or another free OS needs a huge backing to make it mainstream and we may see that with android (or something in a similar vein) in the future but for now the desktop is left Apple and Microsoft

Shorel 13y ago

Apple OSX came and gave us a good Unix UI. Nowadays, OSX is seen as the alternative to Windows more than Linux is. However, in some years the Valve's Steam support can make Linux the OS for gaming enthusiasts everywhere.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I feel like Linux is a better contender now then it was in 2004. Or am I just in a "developers tech savvy world" and viewing linux as a viable contender now compared to the typical layman? For the typical layman, what matters is mostly "can I get it and use it without thinking about it", which is, really, more about major vendor (both hardware and app developer) adoption than it is about substantive features. Insofar as Linux is a contender there, for the average individual user, its largely in the form of ChromeOS rather than traditional desktop linux distros, not because ChromeOS is more feature appropriate, but because of its backing. There is a reason Microsoft is running negative ads about ChromeOS and not about, say, Ubuntu. From a development perspective, Linux has been adequate as a main OS for a long-time, though better virtualization solutions make having to choose one OS full-time -- or use comparatively awkward dual-boot solutions -- less a reality.