Has Linux failed on the desktop?

In reply to: The market has rejected Linux desktops. Get over it.

Techrepublic's editor has written this fine blog post about why Linux has failed on the desktop and why it will never succeed. I respectfully disagree and will explain why that is.

It’s still too much of a pain

What exactly is pain on the desktop? Isn't pain everything that you're not used to?

I've been using Linux since 1997 where I had to compile very limited driver support for my ancient computer just to get it on the network. Window environment was so limited that I preferred the terminal over the X11 window environment.

In the last couple of years I think Linux has come a long way on the desktop. It may not be completely idiot proof like MacOs but it's getting there with Gnome, KDE and a multitude of other options.

The divide and fail strategy

While the original author thinks that all the different companies working on different goals are a waste of effort and that their split focus causes more harm than good.

This is the biggest strength of open source, not it's weakness. Redhat and Oracle are focusing on servers, Ubuntu is focusing on the desktop and other distributions are focusing on various aspects of computing.

This only means that evolution is a bit slower in a certain direction. It also means that evolution will be more widespread and I believe that in time Linux will also have its place on the desktop.

Not enough innovation

Steve Ballmer has been blowing this horn for a while now; that Linux is stealing innovation made by Microsoft. By this definition, an idea is innovation and implementing someone else's idea is theft of intellectual property.

Try the different types of Linux desktop systems and then tell me that they're not original. Openbox, XFCE, KDE, Gnome, xMonad and others all have their unique aspects while some may be more influenced by other systems.

Then let's look at Windows 7. Microsoft has even admited that Windows 7 was inspired by the Mac. We can even go deeper and say that the whole window concept was concieved by Xerox before Apple stole the idea.

I am seeing more and more new programs on the Linux desktop every year and that argument is simply not valid. Linux is just as innovative as the next operating system.

Businesses want someone to blame

It doesn't matter who makes the software. Companies and IT managers will always rely on IT support at some point. It's not like we can call Microsoft if a bluescreen appears. We call our sysadmin or an IT support company.

Linux and open source does not provide less support than commercial counterparts. If anything, anyone can provide this support because every bit of information is accessible instead of blocked behind a corporate infrastructure.

"Now we’ve got Google Chrome OS being hailed as the latest savior of the Linux desktop."

What makes Jason Hilner think that the Linux desktop needs saving? It's my desktop. It does what I want and if it doesn't; I can change it.

Google Chrome OS is merely what Google thinks the face of the operating system should be and is contributing their additional work back to the community. That is fine, but it is not going to affect others that are working on different Linux desktop systems.

Conclusion

People generally make the mistake of thinking "Linux" as a single entity. Linux is all about the choice and because of that it's not going into one specific direction like it's counterparts.

Linux developers aren't competing with Windows or Mac. They are creating a system like they think a system should be and some companies are uniting such efforts with some success, like the Ubuntu project.

Is the Linux desktop for you?

It all depends on what you want from your computer. I listen to music, watch videos and browse the web. I can do that from my Linux workstation, my Macbook at school or my Linux/Windows XP netbook.

The only reasons I have for not recommending Linux are for gaming and for users that are too used to Windows and/or Office.

As always, the choice is ours!