4 ms·

The reason we haven't had the year of the Linux desktop is entirely due to the fact Linux has never been ready to be a desktop operating system for the masses.

by phaus 13y ago

The reason we haven't had the year of the Linux desktop is entirely due to the fact Linux has never been ready to be a desktop operating system for the masses. I love Linux. I use it on my primary laptop, but it still sucks for non-technical people who don't have on-demand access to technically-inclined family members. Linux often breaks when you upgrade it. The solutions may seem trivial to you and I, but non-technical people won't get it. I've had programmers ask me why their internet isn't working when they accidentally kicked their network cable out of the wall or ask me why they couldn't get a monitor to work when it was obvious that their computers weren't turned on. Imagine what the ubiquitous "grandma" is going to think when her graphics drivers stop working after an prompted update. Stuff like this happening in Windows and OS X is so rare that many average users have never experienced it. Linux has come a long way. Ubuntu in particular is ridiculously user friendly compared to Linux from 5-10 years ago. But its still not ready. Not even close.

fzltrp 13y ago
The sad reality is that a computer is a complicated thing. Sometimes, your car breaks and you need a mechanic to fix it. Same goes for computers. And of course, businesses have strong expectations regarding mechanics and liabilities. One main difference between linux and windows is that for the most part, MS isn't concerned about how 3rd party apps should install, upgrade, or remove themselves from the system, outside of security considerations. This burden however falls back mostly on distros in the linux world. Ye. I'd be curious to know how much of upgrade failures are due to userland apps as opposed to OS configuration issues for mainstream distros these days. Also, Windows started with imperfections as well, but customers didn't have much choice at the time, and had to do with all the issues of DOS+Windows 3.11 and then migration paths to Win95/NT and then XP. The road wasn't exactly straight and flat at the time. MS always played the card of compatibility, which was a major factor for companies (who wants the extra headaches of migrating her apps on top of migrating the OS?). Anyway, this topic has been discussed to death already, I'm pretty sure it all boils down to MS having been there before competition, and having managed to keep that step ahead (UEFI anyone?). Businesses can adapt if necessary, they just won't pick the hardest road if it doesn't make enough sense for them money wise, and MS made sure it never did.
kalleboo 13y ago
> Imagine what the ubiquitous "grandma" is going to think when her graphics drivers stop working after an prompted update. That wouldn't be a problem if OEMs sold computers with Linux pre-installed and fully supported. Dells would run a Dell distro of Linux that's properly tested on their hardware.
- phaus 13y ago
  Dell does sell computers with Linux pre-installed. Personally, I'd love to one of their developer ultrabooks, but they are still subject to having things break after an upgrade.
  - kalleboo 13y ago
    As long as it's a minority market, their efforts will be half-hearted. That said, the only PC I ever owned, an HP, had things break after an update of Windows - the graphics card and audio drivers. never quite got them working right again, so I don't exactly have a favorable opinion of that famed easy usability of that OS either.

by phaus 13y ago

fzltrp 13y ago

The sad reality is that a computer is a complicated thing. Sometimes, your car breaks and you need a mechanic to fix it. Same goes for computers. And of course, businesses have strong expectations regarding mechanics and liabilities. One main difference between linux and windows is that for the most part, MS isn't concerned about how 3rd party apps should install, upgrade, or remove themselves from the system, outside of security considerations. This burden however falls back mostly on distros in the linux world. Ye. I'd be curious to know how much of upgrade failures are due to userland apps as opposed to OS configuration issues for mainstream distros these days. Also, Windows started with imperfections as well, but customers didn't have much choice at the time, and had to do with all the issues of DOS+Windows 3.11 and then migration paths to Win95/NT and then XP. The road wasn't exactly straight and flat at the time. MS always played the card of compatibility, which was a major factor for companies (who wants the extra headaches of migrating her apps on top of migrating the OS?). Anyway, this topic has been discussed to death already, I'm pretty sure it all boils down to MS having been there before competition, and having managed to keep that step ahead (UEFI anyone?). Businesses can adapt if necessary, they just won't pick the hardest road if it doesn't make enough sense for them money wise, and MS made sure it never did.

kalleboo 13y ago

> Imagine what the ubiquitous "grandma" is going to think when her graphics drivers stop working after an prompted update. That wouldn't be a problem if OEMs sold computers with Linux pre-installed and fully supported. Dells would run a Dell distro of Linux that's properly tested on their hardware.

phaus 13y ago
Dell does sell computers with Linux pre-installed. Personally, I'd love to one of their developer ultrabooks, but they are still subject to having things break after an upgrade.
- kalleboo 13y ago
  As long as it's a minority market, their efforts will be half-hearted. That said, the only PC I ever owned, an HP, had things break after an update of Windows - the graphics card and audio drivers. never quite got them working right again, so I don't exactly have a favorable opinion of that famed easy usability of that OS either.