The Linux desktop, Macs, and barking dogs

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

That comes from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Silver Blaze, a Sherlock Holmes short story. I've been plowing through all of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories over the past month and was struck by this famous dialogue last week, especially as it pertains to the Linux desktop.

There are, of course, the constant reports of how easy Linux is to install and use on the desktop. Then there are the more pragmatic posts like this one from Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, calling out a few things Linux needs to succeed on the desktop (device drivers, applications, and power management are his suggestions), despite its otherwise strong credentials.

And yet the dog isn't barking. Few are buying. Why?

It could be that a dearth of applications that consumers really care about (e.g., Microsoft Office) is stifling Linux's voice on the desktop. I buy that.

But I think there's a more subtle problem: no one cares about replicating their existing experience for a slightly smaller price tag. It's simply not worth the risk.

Contrast this with Macs. The Mac is on a tear, gaining market share at a torrid pace. It solves Linux's core application problem by embracing a native version of Microsoft Office, but that is an important precondition to success, and not the determining condition.

No, the Mac is exploding in popularity because it's cool. Look at Apple's Mac ads. They're not about "equal functionality for less." They're about "we're cool and the PC is lame." People are willing to take a chance on cool. They're less likely to take a chance on "good enough and cheaper." No one wants to date you just because you're frugal, but they just might if you're cool.

It's possible that the Linux desktop's future is to appeal to enterprises: boring but cheap works in the enterprise. Sort of. Hence, IBM recently clamored for not-even-close-to-being-sexy vertical applications on Linux as a way to make Linux more relevant on the desktop.

Prediction? It won't work, even if Linux gets such applications. Why? Because enterprises still have to deal with people, and people want to use what's easy, looks nice, etc. I'm not suggesting that Linux doesn't have these attributes: I'm suggesting that consumers simply won't care until the Linux desktop appeals to something more than a few pennies in their wallets.

The Linux desktop is going to have to be much cooler and much better marketed before it's going to resonate with a wider audience. It's not really about being technically better. It's about something more (and less). It's about people wanting to use it, rather than having to use it.

That's what is carrying the Mac. People are looking beyond the Mac's applications dearth (compared with Windows). They're looking beyond its cost. They're looking beyond its flaws. Why? Because it's a beautiful machine that does really cool things like easy integration with their iPods and consumer productivity (iMovie, iPhoto, etc.).The company also has done a great job of marketing Mac security.

Put most simply, the Linux desktop needs much better marketing if it ever hopes to make a splash. Unfortunately, the developers who prize its stability and security are going to be the wrong ones to market its consumer-facing attributes.

[Motyoj]

Good points made. It shows that the consumer is pretty silly when making choices on big purchases. I like Macs because I have never had to reinstall the OS in all the time I've used them. (I've used both Macs and PCs since the early nineties) Not to mention viruses and spyware. I'm surprised more people aren't hosing Windows in favor of Linux. It makes sense for a budget but is it cool? Hell yeah!

[b_baggins]

There's nothing silly about wanting something that you think is cool. It's silly when you get something because OTHER people think it's cool.

[rdwalton]

Is that so Motyoj? Why don't you mac guys cut all the lying. Why not say "buy a hybrid and never have to fill up with gas again." Or "never smoke and you will never get cancer."

You guys would make great politicans or maybe not, look at Al Gore and he's a mac freak.

If you go into a mac store, there are PLENTY of macs just waiting to be serviced and repaired with crashed hard drives and other issues.

Get Real!

[Pishkado]

I don't see where Motyoj said Mac hard drives, which are sourced from the same vendors as make everyone else's hard drives, are any more immune from crashes than anyone else's, or that Macs never had problems. He said, from his own personal experience, that he's never had to re-install the Mac OS, and that it has less viruses and spyware. (It's hard to argue with the facts on that one; he didn't say it doesn't have any.) You sure took that a long ways past anything he said, or implied, to attack his post. Talk about creating a straw man just to have something to knock down!

Windows may be the right choice for you. I don't know. Neither does anyone else here. But this kind of irrational attack on Macintosh users says a lot more about you than it does about Macs.

[Sabroson]

"Why don't you mac guys cut all the lying."

Define "Mac guy" rdwalton?

Is that ... a person that purchased a Mac .. instead of a Windows PC? Does that make this person a lier?

Obviously Macs are just PCs, with Harddrives, memory, displays ... and OBVIOUSLY they have the same problems as PCs in terms of hardware. Apple does not make the memory chips, nor the harddrives, nor the displays. They are all made by OTHER companies, just like PCs.

Now, you have to be blind not to see that MacOS X is superior to Windows, and that the Mac provides a usable solution out of the box.

Perhaps you haven't even tried it because your prejudice against Macs prevents you to look outside your world. And not knowing Macs makes you feel you are right?

Most people using Macs have used Windows. Most people using Windows have never touched a Mac. Who knows more?

[b_baggins]

Yep. Linux needs a cool factor. But it will never happen. Because the people who write and use linux think plaid polyester pants and pocket protectors are cool. And they don't have any money to hire cool people to make up for that.

[The_Decider]

Yeah, IBM, Red Hat and Novel have no money.

Linux is poor until you pull your head out and realize it is a multi-billion dollar business.

[Ian Kirkland]

@rdwalton:
"If you go into a mac store, there are PLENTY of macs just waiting to be serviced and repaired with crashed hard drives and other issues."

Obviously you've never lived with a Mac.

I've been a Mac user since 1984, the very first model. I've never had a hard-drive crash. I've also managed hundreds of Macs in busy environments and never had a hard-drive crash. In all that time I've only had my machines serviced twice. Not a bad record.

I have put up with lots of flaky Windows machines in those years as part of my responsibilities.

So I at least know both sides of the street, unlike so many Window fanboys, and I chose Mac every time.

[Sabroson]

I have lived with Macs since 1984 too. They had 3.5" Floppies.

I have had 3 Mac computers with Hard Disk crashes. The Mac is NO BETTER or NO WORSE to PCs in that aspect.

What makes the Mac unique is the Software... and perhaps the way they are designed in terms of putting together all the parts. And I have to admit they are better in doing so... but that does not mean that a Seagate drive on a Mac will be more reliable than a Seagate drive on a Dell.

So ... lets be honest here. Macs are PCs that run some other Operating System. That is all. And running windows on a Mac does not make the Mac hardware any worse either.

My advise to all ... try Windows Vista .. try a Mac .. try Linux if you will .. and get your own conclusions. My personal conclusions are ... Vista needs work, Linux is best for servers, Mac is best for desktops.

Perhaps Windows 7 should go the Mac route ... build on top of Unix.

[FellowConspirator]

Hehe. I have some Macs, Dells, and HPs (deal with all three at home and at work). Were there a Dell or HP store you'd see the same stack of computers waiting to get fixed. But Apple's the only one with retailers and service departments (and in high-profile places like Malls).

They (all the computer vendors) just don't seem to make them like they used to. I've had a few Dell laptops that had nothing but trouble, but that's rare... The part that fails most (90% of the time) these days are the hard drives -- and they all use the same disks from the same manufacturers, so there's no getting around that.

[ArtInvent]

This is certainly all true and has been commented on before many times. It bears repeating, of course, because it continues that no one does anything about it. One of the big problems is that Linux is free, so where does the budget come from for any kind of marketing campaign, much less one as sophisticated and sustained as those of Apple or HP? The closest I've heard so far of any leadership in Linux addressing the problem, is Mark Shuttleworth's recent comments that Linux needs to be beautiful, that it needs to out-polish the Mac in terms of UI and coolness and sexiness. I think Linux has turned a corner somewhat, in that 99% of developer efforts up to this point have been in terms of core function, stability, and security, and rightly so. Now it seems that most of that is under control, so time and effort and thought can be put into polish, attractiveness, and UI innovation. Let's hope that people rally behind these efforts, there's every reason to believe they will.

[rdwalton]

@lan Kirkland, but 90% of the world uses the Microsoft OS, so they must be doing something right.

And I know both sides too, and I choose a PC every time.

[Penguinisto]

90% of the US prefers to drink cheap domestic beer as well... does that make Bud Light better than Sam Adams? Probably not. ;)

[CharlesRovira]

I wish people would stop pitting Apple (a consumer hardware company) against Microsoft (a software company, mostly, and starting/trying to get into software as a service company.)

Its a mugs' game and shows that they don't really understand either company.

Microsoft is being a victim of its own success. (They got large sales [multi-thousand unit volumes,] with some major customers who developed their own proprietary software solutions AND LIKE IT THAT WAY! [Q: Why they are meeting some major resistance to Vista and Software-As-A-Service? A: Their customer base doesn't NEED, want, nor feel like paying for, Microsoft to be anything more. Their customer base would be happier if Microsoft would just make their existing software work more securely and invisibly.])

Apple is a victim of their own success. But at least they're not being frustrated by rejection. They are resisting the perception of some pull by the enterprise market.

Apple doesn't make screws to bind things together and then complain about their product being countersunk.

Most of the supposed rivalry is a creation of (and exists only in,) the narrow media which covers the enterprise and software.

[Ilgaz]

Apple is a software company who happens to make hardware that their software will run perfectly on. Serious, that is the trick. They are in fact a huge software/design company.

[The_Decider]

What hardware does Apple make?

[CharlesRovira]

I wish people would stop pitting Apple (a consumer hardware company) against Microsoft (a software company, mostly, and starting/trying to get into software as a service company.)

Its a mugs' game and shows that they don't really understand either company.

Microsoft is being a victim of its own success. (They got large sales [multi-thousand unit volumes,] with some major customers who developed their own proprietary software solutions AND LIKE IT THAT WAY! [Q: Why they are meeting some major resistance to Vista and Software-As-A-Service? A: Their customer base doesn't NEED, want, nor feel like paying for, Microsoft to be anything more. Their customer base would be happier if Microsoft would just make their existing software work more securely and invisibly.])

Apple is a victim of their own success. But at least they're not being frustrated by rejection. They are resisting the perception of some pull by the enterprise market.

Apple doesn't make screws to bind things together and then complain about their product being countersunk.

Most of the supposed rivalry is a creation of (and exists only in,) the narrow media which covers the enterprise and software.

[Ilgaz]

Think about this very deeply especially after Intel switch. Apple is a huge software company which disguises itself as a hardware company. They happen to make hardware but the hardware itself is built to run software at perfect level.

[robmclaughjr]

I love technology. Love Windows, Mac, and Linux and I remember the bad/good old days of DOS/C-64, etc. I hear a lot about how Windows is best because it has all the software... Guess what? There hasn't been any innovative new software for years worth mentioning. It's all coming off the Internet and all OS's handle these just fine. Sure, a bunch of speciality business software exists for Windows desktops but the masses just need a nice OS to run a browser, office applications, and a few other typical things in a nice environment. Under these conditions, Windows hassling, spyware, commericalized environment feels shoddy compared to the Mac (or Linux) experience. One example, these clowns at Adobe, ATI, and Real put this ridiculous automatic update crap on my XP workstation. Is their software really so horrible and dangerous that I need to spend $$$ in processing cycles and electricity consistantly checking for the up to the minute update? Get real! Anyone can see their just doing this for marketing purposes and probably stealing personal information about my browsing habits. If their software is in such deperate need for constant updates, then it is beta software and unready for release. Windows today feels like a cheesy huckster show with every application helping itself to my processor time to fill some marketing clown's database. It seems like the really innovative stuff is coming out for the Mac and Linux from the University/Open Source community. And they let their tools operate as is, without requiring constant "phoning-home". Here's an idea..somebody write an application which counts processor cycles stolen by automatic update software and calculate, versus electric rates, how much money these companies are stealing from us by month/year/etc.

[migbeil]

As far as OS X reinstalls, I've had to do two. The hard drive on the mac mini my sister bought from me (after I upgraded to an iMac) died a horrible death. I had to install a new drive than do the needed OS reinstall. More recently, I did a fresh install on my iMac of Leopard due to the incredible bugginess after the upgrade from Tiger. This does not, however, compare to my experiences in regards to Windows which needs a fresh install seemingly every year under normal use.
I think the real reason Linux hasn't taken off is that it still requires an above average user to download, install and work out any issues (not to mention UNIX command line knowledge is a plus). My non-techie, younger brother just finally invested in a replacement for his six year-old celeron Dell which has had issues for the last four years. Never did he put the effort into backing-up and reinstalling to remedy these issues. He just lived with the ever-increasing problems. Non-tech people are afraid to install an OS or handle any driver,etc. issues. Linux, once set up, is rock solid and GNOME and KDE are both looking very attractive these days. Linux is getting better and I can see it eventually taking some share with the average user. BTW, my brother's new computer...Macbook Pro.

[kelmon]

Well, installation problems would clearly put people off but I'd argue that the "real" reason is that not that many people have actually heard of it. If you don't know that something exists then you aren't going to seek it out.

[alegr]

I haven't had to reinstall my XP since it came in 2002. Was just installing service packs. And I don't use an antivirus. And never had viruses. The secret: properly configured user accounts.

When I upgraded the hard drives, I used disk clone programs (like Partition Magic) to transfer the whole system drive to the new one.

[The_Decider]

alegr, Reinstall Windows and you will realize how much that POS has slowed down.

If you have no software to detect viruses you can't claim you don't have any, unless you can put all your executables through a hex editor and can tell, not frikken likely.

In other words, you are living in utopia because you choose ignorance.

[The_Decider]

Than Linux shouldn't want to own the desktop. Nothing ruins a good product faster than business and marketing morons.

[devil_can_do]

Funny because this morning one of the designers here at work was walking the halls cursing under his breath because his vaunted Mac workstation took a dump and they had to call someone out to come fix it. I can also remember on more than one occasion we've had a hard drive crash. We have also had to have someone come out because of a fan that died on a workstation as well. Then there is the workstation I often work at that sounds like a vacuum cleaner that intermittently spools up like a turbo. Other than all of those incidents, I would say they are perfect, kinda.

[David.WilkinsonGM]

"it's a beautiful machine that does really cool things like easy integration with their iPods and consumer productivity (iMovie, iPhoto, etc.)."

Why do we think that easy integration is "really cool"? I love my Mac, but at this stage of the IT industry's development I have a perfect right to expect easy integration; I shouldn't be wowed by it. We have all suffered from Microsoft lowering our expectations. After living with Macs for a few years, my son had his first IT class at school. What did he ask when he came home? "Dad, how do you reboot a Mac?".

[William Crow]

I think Gore is a nut but I still appreciate my iMac, not for being cool, but for the same reason Motyoj (JoyTom backwards) states. I had troubles with Windows like you wouldn't believe. Not only did I have to reload it 2-3 times a year but I spent hours upon hours of mental time reading and thinking about the latest virus, etc., fixes and software.
I had been Windows forever. I've had my iMac, and thus the Mac OS, for 1 1/2 years. I've had not one problem. Its been a dream in comparison.

But let me repeat...I think Al Gore and his acolytes are nuts.

[jrmcneal]

Linux is inevitable; unavoidable. Everyone is willing to pay for the expensive brand; until they are made foolish by someone with a better, cheaper brand. It's not something that will happen overnight, but it will happen. Give it time. Tomorrow's argument won't be Apple, Windows, Linux. Tomorrow's argument will be what's the best window manager on top of Linux. Mac is marketing. And marketing can create big waves, but only a better product can bring a monsoon.

[kelmon]

I honestly hope you are right but history is strewn with better products that didn't make it. There is every danger that Linux could be one of those products unless it learns how to market itself to its potential customers.

[gsekse]

There will aways be people that want "pretty" out of their computer system. Some of us just want the computer to do the work we want done. That is why some people pay loads of money for a sport car, while others buy a yugo. I use windows at work, Linux at home and my wife runs vista. While Linux isn't perfect, it runs the same speed two years later as it did when installed. For some reason, MS products "slow down" over time and glitch. I will never understand this. My feelings are that service pack 3 has a "randomizer" in it in order to cause NT to malfunction and slow down randomly. This is to make the user go buy a new computer and get vista in the bargain. This is why I won't use MS products at home and will probably switch my wife over to Linux when her system gets old.

[kelmon]

The article is entirely correct. One of the fundamental problems that Linux has gaining traction as an alternative to Windows is that it isn't marketed. People don't see adverts for its presence and they don't see it on the computers they go into stores to buy. Apple has really helped themselves with a high street presence where people can see the alternative and try it. Linux's reliance on "word of mouth" is going to take a long time before it hits some form of critical mass to adoption.

Next, Linux needs to make it easy for the customer to decide what it is that they want. The current multitude of distributions are just too damned confusing. Everyone complained about the ridiculous number of editions for Windows Vista and the Linux distributions are worse. Just pick a good distribution and focus on that. When a potential new customer goes to Linux.com or Linux.org the selected distribution should be shown front and centre, and as impressively as possible. By all means keep the different distributions but hide those for the experienced users looking for something more rather than baffling potential new users.

Aside from this, Linux does need to differentiate itself and show why it is good for the customer beyond being cheap.

[tacit]

*shrug* I use, and program, Macs, Windows systems, and Linux systems. As I sit here typing this (on a Mac), I have two Mac systems, one Windows XP system, and three Linux boxes on my desk. My server is a Linux Gentoo system. At home I have a Mac and a Windows system.

In my experience, a lot of the Mac vs Windows vs Linux debates are based on complete ignorance; you'll have Windows users who have never used a Mac trashing Macs, you have Mac users who don't even know what Windows looks like trashing Windows, and they both trash Linux even though neither one of them even knows what Linux is. It's pretty sad, really.

I personally like the Rule of 2000, which is "If you do not have 2,000 hours of experience on a computer platform, you are not qualified to hold an opinion about it, and you'll only look like a fool if you do." (2,000 hours is roughly one year of 40-hour weeks.)

Now, having said that:

Linux is still a non-starter on the desktop. It simply does not have the ease of use. Linux is created primarily for programmers by programmers; everything from the huge array of different options to the terse and sometimes incomprehensible dialogs to the fact that many distros sport a clunky installer obviously designed as an afterthought helps to ensure that casual home users won't want it.

It is fantastically powerful, but that power comes at a price; using Xterm or editing configurations in /etc is not a good way to get things done for a non-programmer. Sure, there are front-ends and configuration utilities to take away much of the pain, but anyone who's ever tried to make a wireless card work in Linux, or who's ever had to manually edit the X configuration file because the automatic configuration program freaked out over some weird monitor setting, will quickly realize how far it has to go in terms of usability.

Windows and Mac OS X are about on par with each other in terms of stability; a well-maintained system with no hardware problems is pretty trouble-free in either case. The difference is when something goes wrong. Windows is dependent on a complex, fragile registry database, and as someone who's had to rebuild the registry by hand on at least two separate occasions, I can say that this makes for some pretty hairy troubleshooting.

It's also been my experience that Windows is more prone to driver problems. This is NOT Microsoft's fault; blaming Microsoft for shoddy third-party software is just silly. Driver problems are, however, more likely to cause system failure on Windows than on Linux or Macs.

On the other hand, Windows has more driver problems because there are more devices available for Windows systems than for Macs or Linux systems. (Sorry, guys. It's true.)

For me, personally, the issue comes down to user interface. I've been using PC systems since 1982 and the days of DOS 2.11, and I've been using Macs since 1984 and System 1.1. Today, comparing Gnome, KDE, Windows Vista, and OS X, the best user interface goes to OS X. I'm simply more productive on an OS X system; and that's not just a question of familiarity, since I'm equally familiar with, and comfortable with, Windows.

And that's what does it. It's not a religion, guys. It's not about what's "cool." It's not about impressing other people. It's not about holy wars. These things are just tools, nothing more. The best one is the one that lets you get done what you want to get done.

Anything else is just dumb.

[Matt Asay]

I agree...to a point. I remember when I switched from Windows to the Mac. It was really hard for a few weeks: things weren't where I expected them to be. But now it's natural and I've become a bit religious in advocating the Mac to family, friends, co-workers, etc.

I don't think that most people make a decision based on their experience with the Mac, however. They make their decision based on experience with an iPhone, iPod, etc., and then get used to OS X after they've bought into the beauty of the product. But the marketing comes first.

[The_Decider]

"Linux is still a non-starter on the desktop. It simply does not have the ease of use."

I see you are as ignorant about modern Linux as Matt is. 3 clicks to install and 2 more to have a completely updated, fully featured OS. You might try Linux today before spouting such nonsense.

[Chapmaniac]

Tacit, your reply should be rubber stamped across most of the forums I've encountered on this issue. Your statements were educated, factual, insightful and completely unbiased.

Thank you for putting this issue "to bed" finally. Too bad tomorrow will spawn a new thread in another forum (or even this one) on the same exact subject!

[jrepenning]

True, Matt ... but unavoidable? Not so clear.

To paraphrase: the open source philosophy and phenomenon has gone a long way toward eliminating the R&D cost of software, at least for the Linux desktop market. But there are other costs, such as marketing.

But looking at the "social" arena, it appears that marketing is tipping into the open-source, free-labor-pool realm as well. Can one avid Linux marketer become the Linus Torvalds of Linux _marketing_? Maybe so....

[Matt Asay]

I hope so. I actually think Mark Shuttleworth may be that guy, or one of them.