Linux not ready for the desktop
I don't care how many times Linux fanatics beat their chests decrying the lack of adoption of Linux by the masses. Linux on the desktop is just not ready for "prime time."
I have been using Linux since Mandrake 9.1 and computers since 1984, so I know what I am talking about when I say Linux is not ready for the desktop. The complexity of trying to install and then configure Linux is no piece of cake. In every installation I have ever personally done I have always had to go running to the Linux forums to figure out why my video card is not working as it should, or why the Windows partitions just don't want to mount, or why Firefox can't seem to find Java even though Konqueror can.
I don't see the average computer user messing with the Linux command-line and editing fstab or xorg.conf files. And how many of them would be able to ask the right question? Until Linux can be as easy to install, configure, and reconfigure as Windows, I don't see it dethroning Windows anytime soon.
Don't get me wrong, I am hoping that Linux does get better, and soon!
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
although i partly agree Linux is not ready for desktop, i believe Windows is already dethroned by Mac OSX long time ago. (ps: i do not own a mac.)
Windows is installed on something like 90 percent of the personal computers in the world. Your comment flies in the face of reality.
It is ready for the desktop. But most of us, and some of our hardware, are not ready for Linux. When I was a student I had to learn the DOS commandline, from scratch, and I did, and all my fellow students did, the computer inclined and the computer haters. It can be done.
It could be easier, but is already easier enough if you really believe you have something to gain from the effort. The problems you mention with hardware are common, but it is not Linux fault. Not all hardware vendors are supporting Linux, although the numbers are growing, and also the number of hacks to get through vendors blockades. If vendors just stopped been foolish our experience with Linux will be better. I also have had many hardware compatibility problems, but my experience with Linux software has been more than great when those are conquered. (my Linux stuff, if interested)
Why Windows and Mac OS have less problems? Because hardware vendors prefer to pleased them, as peasants bow to their overlords. I can understand that, they have to make money, but their hardware will cost me the same if I want it for Win, Mac or Linux. So, what is the deal?
I advocate Linux as a way to gain freedom, to free ourselves from equivalent or inferior technologies that want to control what you do and sell you inferior solutions disguised as userfriendly features.
Your account of Linux annoyances is truthful, but I do not agree with your conclusion (and you are not the only one) about desktop Linux in general. My experiences and the way I deal with Linux problems take me the other way.
To long a comment. Sorry, Nasty One
. I think I will revamp it as a post later and make a trackback to your post.
i meant Mac OSX is a much superior and “ready for desktop” system then Windows (which was the subject i assume). No viruses or such crap, no hardware driver problems, very well esthetic – consistent – ergonomicly designed desktop. it has everything a real end user (not a geek or power user) needs. i see no advantage of Windows over it except some specialized applications that only works in windows. Linux distributions are still suffering from over-fragmentation such as: multiple GUI systems, multiple package managers, too many application doing the same thing, lack of hardware support etc.
subject of “Freedom” is controversial if you ask, but that is a long issue to discuss here.
At the end, i am not a believer of OS’es or meaningless OS wars. IMO, in the near future desktop OS’es will lose it’s importance while most applications will work over the network. Games will move to consoles, and most will be actually server driven. Thus, interest in platform independent server side software developement will be increased. that is why i enjoy coding in Java. it is performant, and i do not care about the underlying operating system.. of course, this is my opinion.
Reality is people don’t have time to waste on all the front end Linux crap in the business world. All people want to do is sit at their desk and use MS Word, Input records in an Excel Spreadsheet, listen to some music in the background, do their presentations in Powerpoint, and be able to collaborate with others using the same applications. That is reality.
Nobody has time to convert that GPL Office Star bs or whatever it’s called to a Word doc. Usually these apps have 50,000 configurable options and the users don’t know or care what half that crap is. When a parternet company and yours collaborate and share files via email it becomes one big uneeded headache. You best believe that all the templates are not going to carry over, yada yada and so forth. You ended up spending all this stupid time troubleshooting dumb issues and users are clueless of what the heck they are doing. Users have Windows at home so their supervisors don’t have time for them to learn a bunch of avoidable crap at work. It is just not worth it in the end.
Develop and enforce by your Data Security Policy, secure the users Windows Desktops properly, and go home on time.
I work in IT Network Security and I have absolutely no desire to ever troubleshoot a desktop again, nor am I a Microsoft fan, but the bottom line is even if I don’t I know that no matter what I do on the backend it’s still all about the user.