Will Linux ever be a mainstream desktop play?

Ubuntu has been making gains on the server side of things. And that's likely where Canonical, the commercial entity behind Ubuntu, will earn its profits--as it hopes to do someday.

But its initial efforts on the client side arguably are what really helped shift the limelight to Ubuntu in the first place. Ubuntu gained the reputation of being easier to install and use than other Linux distributions--factors that have kept even many open-source enthusiasts from adopting Linux on their desktops or notebooks. And user experience remains a significant focus area.

Mark Shuttleworth, who heads and financially backs Canonical, is on record with comments such as "I think the great task in front of us in the next two years is to lift the experience of the Linux desktop from something stable and usable and not pretty, to something that's art." Or more broadly, to surpass Apple, in terms of desktop experience.

I strongly suspect that there are inherent trade-offs between the flexibility and choice associated with open source, and the unified approach (epitomized by Apple) that tends to be associated with good user interface design. But the bigger issue with mainstreaming the Linux PC has nothing to do with design and everything with where we are in technology history when it comes to accessing and interacting with software.

Writers of heavyweight client applications (think Adobe Systems' Photoshop, for example) don't want to support additional operating systems. Getting the latest versions of applications for its platform is even a challenge for Apple--resurgent sales and market share notwithstanding.

While there's lots of open-source software for Linux clients, there's a very modest amount of closed-source software available. This is not especially a knock on Linux, per se--though low software costs certainly contribute to Linux's attraction in some cases--but rather reflect the decades-long winnowing of the number of platforms that software vendors are willing to support.

There's also a general maturation of the PC operating system. Linux desktop distributions, Mac OS X, and--dare I say it--Windows are far more alike than they are different. You may choose one over the other to make an ideological or stylistic statement, to gain access to specific applications, or just as a matter of personal preference. But both differences and advances are increasingly at the margins.

I think we see some of this in the relatively slow take-up of Vista. The Microsoft haters blame Vista; the blame at least equally sits on the reality that Windows XP is a good enough desktop operating system for most purposes.

In short, I just don't see a lot of enthusiasm for another desktop operating system in the Windows or Mac OS X mold. This is especially so because it represents the past in many ways. Many new applications are running in the network, and the client--in its myriad forms, from desktop to smartphone--is merely a portal to access them.

In a sense, this is an opportunity for Linux. In a world where all you need is a browser and some other standardized client components, why not Linux? And, indeed, I expect that we'll see Linux on a lot of thinner clients, where it will act more as the underpinning for a browser than as a more generalized operating environment.

But I think that it is important to distinguish this from Linux, the desktop OS--as that term is normally used. This isn't about running games or editing movies on the latest quad-core Intel processor. This is about powering lighter-weight clients in which the operating system--and, especially, the general application support enjoyed by any given operating system--just doesn't matter very much.

[forever4now]

I use Ubuntu exclusively for work and play and I am very happy with it. I have no interest or intention to go back to the world of Windows.

[rucknrun]

I guess you don't play games.

[CoffeeZombie]

rucknrun: You must have missed the last paragraph; he specifically addresses games.

[CBattery]

How many years now has it been 'The year of Linux'?? More than I can count, yet Linux still can't even muster up a whole percent of Internet users:

http://cybernetnews.com/2008/11/03/browser-os-stats-for-october-2008-firefox-almost-at-20/

Heck, the share isn't even going up, it's decreasing month to month. When Macs are killing you by a factor of 8:1 you know you're fighting an uphill battle.

[rcrusoe]

The majority of our business desktop users only require email, a browser, and a basic spreadsheet program. When we can't get XP, we will most likely roll out more Linux desktops for these users. We allow managers to choose Windows or Mac, and the majority these days choose Mac.

All three are "a good enough desktop OS for most purposes".

[mhinnewyork]

I don't think hardware manufacturers are capable of making a good case for Linux. This is too bad, because a good case can be made for it, but selling it to the general public takes a skill that I haven't yet seen anywhere. The most likely scenario is that Linux will be popular on Netbooks geared to newbies and children. That is, geared to users for whom dealing with anti-malware software is out of the question.

[Lerianis]

Why is it 'out of the question' for newbies and children to deal with anti-malware? Heck, most anti-malware is "run the program, push this button... let it kill anything it says is 'malware'".... which is basically what I allow Spybot and Ad-Aware to do: delete ANYTHING it says is malware because.... hey..... never seen any case of them having 'false positives".

[The_Decider]

Clueless as always Leria.

Anti-Malware tools are always behind the curve, AKA they can't catch everything.

Why bother with CPU and RAM draining crap when you don't have to?

[Lerianis]

No, they won't. Not until Linux can: 1. Play the same games as Microsoft Windows, 2. Has a better and more simple way to install things, 3. Is more user friendly in general, and 4. More people have heard about it.

[The_Decider]

Wow, more nonsense

1. Linux is for work and can play most of the games anyway. Windows is a badly designed toy

2. You can get simpler than 1 click install.

3. Linux is more user friendly than Windows ever was. You obviously don't know the first thing about Linux today so need to resort to points that were true 10 years ago

4. Everyone has heard about it, everyone know that *nix powers the Internet which is the main reason people buy computers in the first place.

[foamyfrog]

I personally hope Linux won't become mainstream(and don't think it will, because It takes an understanding of computers many don't have to get it and use it. Most casual computer users wouldn't understand to stripped-down features of it that make Linux so great.) I don't want it to become mainstream, because then they'll end up going down the same deadly road as Mac and Windows. They will make a gigantic media player.

[idfubar]

Is anyone else curious whether the modern "desktop" will evolve into something consisting of a basic host (Windows, OS X, Linux) and a set of virtual machine guests which are customized to a specific purpose (be that Windows applications, managed corporate clients, or even web appliances)? Perhaps the real question is whether the heritage (and purpose) of GNU/Linux is at odds with the notion...

BTW, I've used the IBM Client For e-Business (Linux) as my primary workstation ("desktop") and never had a problem (though I also wasn't playing games)...

[kyle5434]

I'm not sure I'd buy the argument that Linux has to "Play the same games as Microsoft Windows" in order to gain in popularity. If that was the case, the Mac wouldn't be gaining in popularity.

The one area where Linux could use a boost is robust, feature-rich, and well-designed applications that any relatively computer-literate user - from a 15-year-old girl to a 60-year-old grandpa - would most likely want to use. I would include in that list:

* A modern web browser - and Firefox pretty much has that covered
* The ability to play (and encode in) most popular media file formats - many Linux distros (including PCLinuxOS, the one I use) have these easily installable from their repositories
* A simple utility for touching up and sharing digital photos - Picasa for Linux covers most of those bases pretty well
* A good media center/player/organizer - there are lots of open source apps that try hard in this area, and apps like Amarok are getting closer, but they're not quite there in terms of overall features and ease of use
* A good easy-to-use video editing app - again, there are a couple of apps like kdenlive that show promise, but there's nothing like an iMovie or even Windows Movie Maker yet
* A decent office suite (primarily the word processor component) - OpenOffice is probably good enough for 90% of the general users out there

I base this on working with teenagers (and their parents) for past 15 years, and keeping up with the kids as they grow into their 20s and 30s. VERY few of them (5% or less) are PC gamers, though most of them have one or more game consoles. 90% of them spend a fair amount of time on Facebook or some other social media site. 90% do light-weight photo editing and sharing, and occasional basic word processing. 90% of them use either iTunes or Windows Media Center as their media app. 40%-50% of them do some basic video editing and sharing.

Linux could also make some inroads via niche software and applications. A friend of mine who just graduated from optometry school, and opened a practice locally, chose a Linux-based package for patient records and accounting. Bibble is a professional-grade RAW development app for digital photography, and coupled with an easy-to-use color management system could make Linux an attractive platform for professional photographers (especially in light of Photoshop CS and CS2 running successfully on the latest versions of WINE).

I'll be interested to see how things transpire over the next couple of years.

[ferniefromla]

Linux does have a way to go. It will not become a mainstream desktop any time soon. That said, with each year that passes it is showing up in more spaces. Sooner or later consumers will find that there is not a significant difference between any desktop for everyday purposes. For the standard fare such as word processing, mail, spreadsheets and simple photo editing and viewing what's the difference? As long as it works and its easy people won't care. As Linux gets better and easier it will go the route of coffee makers and microwaves. Microsoft will begin to feel the pressure and will have to bring prices down or offer something everyone really needs to remain at 90+% of installed systems. Every year its market share will erode UNLESS it gives us a compelling reason to stay with its OS.

For those of us that have already made the switch we already know how overpriced and over-rated Windows really is. Everything I need in the way of an OS I can meet with Ubuntu. Linux is no longer just for geeks. Shuttlesworth is correct and he is certainly putting his money where his mouth is. The latest Ubuntu is a very fine OS, every bit as good or better than Microsoft. And for those of us that know what we are doing it can tailored to look and perform very much like the Apple OS.

Linux will get there, not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it will continue to challenge commercial products. At the very least it will force Microsoft and Apple to think twice before gouging their customers and holding them hostage to upgrades and changes that they really don' t need. Linux will always be lurking in the background getting better each day and prompting the consumer to ask "what do I need them for?"

[John Howell]

For me, some of the killer features for Linux, Gnome and KDE are the seemless ways it integrates with internet and web technologies. Want to run an application from a desktop on your old slow laptop? Use X-11 and ssh to run graphical apps across your home network or even the internet, and fast boot times.

[carribeiro]

Being pragmatic: evolution of operating systems is incremental. Today's OSs still have concepts and even run code that was written decades ago. That's a shame, because we now have the technology to implement a completely new and revolutionary desktop paradigm. Virtualization technology could be used to implement a new desktop - one where VMs substitute apps, running dedicated and extremely lightweight "micro-OSs". Those OSs would be started, moved and resumed at will. Everything would be networked. Systems would be much more stable, faster, and cloud-aware. However, that's not going to happen, at least with mainstream OSs - Linux included - because it does not make "business sense". It would take a visionary to build it. Unfortunately, there are very few 'Steve Jobs' in the world to make it happen, and the only one that we have is not in the position to do it anymore, for lots of practical reasons.

[The_Decider]

What a security nightmare you want to happen.

No thinking corporation is going to move anything important to the "cloud".