The Linux desktop isn't your father's PC

This post by Michael Dolan at IBM is spot on:

Here's the thing, everyone who hears "Linux desktop" has a knee-jerk reaction and thinks of all the things they do on their own PC, laptop, Mac. The reality is you're probably not the target market for virtual desktops. The market is large desktop environments that have thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of users and who are not doing consumer-oriented work (or shouldn't be). The cost savings of moving from physical PCs in a 1 user to 1 PC model to a managed model with virtual terminals can be significant. We'll see where the market goes for this model, but I know of a few very large companies that want to make this model very real. The economic situation and the impact on IT budgets may act as an accelerant.

Much of the time when I write about the evolution of Linux or the evolution of the client, I get lots of comments revolving around the lack of popular games for Linux or whether the GIMP can replace Photoshop. And, of course, the partisans for whom it's important whether Linux "wins" or "loses" to Windows or Mac OS X jump in with their various ideological objectives. 

Idealogues and fanboys aside, however, part of the problem is terminology. "Desktop" gets used to refer to at least a couple of different things. One is the traditional, general purpose PC as we've come to know it over the past 20 years or so. The other is a shorthand for any client device with a keyboard and monitor. The former is a "fat client" with all that implies for a broad range of hardware support and available applications. The latter is more specialized. It may run only a limited subset of applications. Or it may run primarily network-based applications through an interface, such as a browser. Whatever the details, it's effectively much thinner--whether or not it's actually a thin client.

I'm not going to argue that Linux can't function as a reasonably general-purpose PC operating system. For example, developers who want a desktop, or more commonly a notebook, that runs Linux have lots of good distributions to choose from that (mostly) install straightforwardly. Ubuntu is a current favorite. But that's not mainstream mass market. And for reasons that I've gone into previously, such as the dynamics of independent software vendor support, I never expect it to be such if we're talking an operating system in today's Windows or OS X mold.

But the way that we access applications is changing. Many clients are predominantly platforms for browsers or they serve a very specific purpose. Virtualization could also change how we run an operating system or systems on our PCs and other devices. In short, there are plenty of roles for Linux on the "desktop," but it's not the desktop as we've historically known it.

[3rdalbum]

The headline makes me laugh. The Linux desktop IS my father's PC, actually, and he wouldn't have it any other way.

I understand what you're saying about mass deployments, but you seem to be implying that Linux is only good for "specialised applications" and "basic web surfing and e-mail". I'm surprised anyone still believes Linux can't do serious computing - maybe five years ago you'd be correct, but this is 2008. The old notion of "only developers use Linux" has been well and truly bashed up, but you're still trotting it out with "a developer who wants a Linux desktop".

The guy from IBM is talking about his own field; what his company is pitching to businesses, and that's alright. You've taken it out of its context, though thanks for leaving the phrase "virtual desktops" in so we know what the quote is ACTUALLY about.

For the record, my father has never written a line of code, and the last time he typed on a command line was in the 1980s. The other day he ripped a DVD, edited out a particular piece from it, and sent it to Youtube. All done on Linux Mint, without my help. So please, I'd like to know what small piece of the puzzle remains for Linux before it becomes "ready for the desktop", because I've heard all the meagre little reasons.

[tskaufma]

I think the biggest thing holding linux back for many people (like my parents or grandma [who uses Window Live Messenger and Skype]) is support. If I buy a Dell or other PC with Windows, Dell has call in support. I know I can phone someone who should be able to solve my problem. Although the same (or better) support for Linux can be found on fourms, most people are not comfortable with that.

Once a linux desktop is installed and setup, I agree it can be as easy as Windows. But not everyone can get it into that state.

[perspectoff]

The author of the article, who works for Illuminata, a consulting firm that mostly promotes HP products with Microsoft software, is clearly biased.

This is thinly veiled marketing.

[MSSlayer]

I agree with you except for one thing: command line.

People simply do not understand that the CLI is infinitely more powerful and faster then a GUI. I use both, and for moving, deleting and renaming files(especially a large batch of them), starting and stopping servers, fixing a small error in code, the CLI is considerable faster and easier.

[kojacked]

"People simply do not understand that the CLI is infinitely more powerful and faster then a GUI." but unfortunatly that doesn't matter. If so people wouldn't be buying GUI-based products in droves (i.e. the iPhone, Macbooks, and yes Vista desktops). This mindset, while correct in many ways, doesn't translate to the real world and is why desktop linux in its current form will never happen.

[MSSlayer]

kojacked,

The only problem with your statement is that Linux users don't have to use a CLI anymore.

[Mr. Dee]

The problem is Linux has never caught on, it has not obliterated the enterprise where many say, its the best and cheapest solution compared to the proprietary Unices such as AIX, Solaris and other platforms such as Windows Server which has a healthy penetration in that segment of the market. Now, looking at the desktop, its the worst picture for Open Source and Linux. It just does not offer value to a user who just wants to start their PC, log in, use Mail, surf the web, write a document, listen to their music, watch movies in a way that it just works. Linux is in the mind set of tinkering and unless it gets away from that, it will remain the niche it has been for the past 17 years. Sorry, but major application support counts, that means Photoshop, Office and consumer applications that are appreciated for their share ease of use and entertainment and also get the job done without someone having to Google for the answer. I installed Ubuntu 8.04 when it came out and although the installation went well, I didn't get the full experience of the OS, my video card was not supported. On Windows, that's unacceptable! I couldn't get it to work no matter the amount of solutions I tried. Out of the box its supported on Windows, there are even better device drivers waiting for me from the manufacturers website.

Yes, Linux has the web as a possible solution but I don't see it as being in its favor entirely, it makes it fair game yes. But the applications on the web are more frivolous, basic and just does not offer the functionality of a rich local client. Web 2.0 is still in its infancy and will take at least another 10 to 15 years to seem practical for much of the connected world. The issues of latency, availability of a network connection make it just out of reach for most. I live in a rural area in Jamaica W.I., you want to know how I connect to the Internet? Using a GPRS cell phone modem (Motorola C350 World), its slow, but it works and its fully compatible with Windows. I get my updates and I get to comment here. Linux it would be an issue for the device, so would Mac OS X. What makes it even great is, I have used this phone with updated drivers over the years on Windows 2000, XP, Vista and I am on the Windows 7 6801 beta with it. That's the thing, consistency in user experience and an expectation that it will work, no tinkering like Linux. The thing is Linux has too much ahead of it to really make it viable, the web is only a part of the equation to success, so far, Windows remains the only way to make the connection and I am happy its that way.

[calmor15014]

Your comment about the GPRS cell phone is quite valid - I've been trying to get a Blackberry to work as a tethered device for some time now in Ubuntu 8.04 and 8.10, to no avail.

The video card, however, surprises me. I run a mix of old and new hardware, mobile and desktop, and have never run across an issue where the video card wasn't supported enough to run a desktop. The only issue I have come across dealt with trying to use my PC as a HDTV TiVo-like unit - the ATI drivers weren't supported in the software I was using, but otherwise worked great. As a matter of fact, most things I plug into my linux boxes "just work" as opposed to Windows, where I routinely need to go download (often huge) drivers. My HP printer wanted a 20+ MB "driver only" package - this was supported natively by hplip in Linux. SCSI scanner? No problem.

I do run into the occasional Windows-only proprietary hardware (like most of Sony's products) and even some of that works in Linux. But I can hardly blame Linux for the lack of support for these devices if the manufacturers won't release even binary drivers. ATI and NVidia regularly release new proprietary drivers for Linux - why can't Sony and Lexmark?

[Dalkorian]

by Mr. Dee December 19, 2008 6:37 AM PST
I installed Ubuntu 8.04 when it came out and although the installation went well, I didn't get the full experience of the OS, my video card was not supported. On Windows, that's unacceptable! I couldn't get it to work no matter the amount of solutions I tried. Out of the box its supported on Windows, there are even better device drivers waiting for me from the manufacturers website.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So your claim here is it's the fault of Linux that you bought a video card designed to work only in winblows?

[penguiniator]

"Windows remains the only way to make the connection and I am happy its that way."

That's a strange attitude, being happy that you have no choice.

[Mr. Dee]

So, I should have gone into a Computer Shop asking for a video card that works with Linux. That's like looking for needle in a proverbial haystack. How was I to know that Linux wouldn't support a video card thats in millions of systems from nVidia? Even Mac OS X supports the nVidia Geforce FX Ultra 5200. So Linux is the problem, not Microsoft or nVidia.

[ckurowic]

No tinkering in Windows versus Linux? You are high Mr. Dee. What about everyones favorite POS microsoft product "Outlook". That is the bane of many IT managers existence. Just because you don't have to tinker with windows to get the 3 apps you use to work doesn't mean others don't. I have to tinker with windows all the freaking time to get games to work.

[calmor15014]

Your NVidia card is supported in Linux by NVidia's proprietary drivers. A quick google search found the solution faster than it would have taken to find and download the Windows driver from NVidia's site.

[MSSlayer]

Dee Dee Dee,

Every post you make, makes it clear you are an idiot.

Nvidia has a perfectly good driver on its website for Linux. If it doesn't support your card that is the fault of Nvidia.

[Orion Blastar]

Desktop Linux could mean the marriage of AmigaOS and Linux:
http://anubis-os.org/
http://anubis-os.org/wiki/index.php

Much like the marriage of Mac OS and NextOS made Mac OSX, the marriage of AmigaOS and Linux into AnubisOS could mean an easier to use and configure Linux.

[man_w_balls]

Linux fits my world best as a read-only boot disk, in one form or another. It's like a special tool that fits to answer many problems. With a Live CD or USB stick, you can boot a virus infected Windows machine and run f-prot or ClamAV then download updated definitions and scan the Windows disk to remove malware.
Don't have time for that? Maybe you want to check your online banking at an unsecure computer - just boot up a read-only Live Linux and surf with immunity.
Basically, I carry an Ubuntu USB stick everywhere outside the home, and I can read/write to any FAT32 or NTFS disk unless it's encrypted. BTW, I have yet to encounter an encrypted Windows disk, ever. So any desktop can be the Linux Desktop if you have a Live one in your pocket.

[Remo_Williams]

It might work for home desktops, but it'll never get to work desktops until it has a client that can connect -- natively, without proxies and adjunct servers -- to an Exchange Server. Most big companies live and die by their email and calendars/ contacts, and Microsoft is not letting that particular cash engine become supplanted anytime soon.

-R

[perspectoff]

How wrong you are!

There are several large groupware packages that can supplant MS-Exchange. You just haven't taken the time to know them or use them.

Kolab is the largest free open source groupware solution and integrates with native clients on LOinux.

There is also eGroupware, Citadel, Zafara (one of the largest European MS-Exchange replacements).

There are also Toltec connectors for many Linux clients that allows direct connection to an MS-Exchange server, if a company wants to maintain the expensive MS-Exchange server.

You ought to do a little research before spouting nonsense.

If you'd like a guide on what Ubuntu and Kubuntu can offer businesses (including free enterprise reswource management, accounting, web presentations, groupware, universal threat management, and on and on), take a quick peek at

Ubuntu guide ( http://ubuntuguide.org ) or Kubuntu Guide ( http://kubuntuguide.org )

[rapier1]

How many CIOs are going to approve ripping out a functioning Exchange infrastructure and replace it with Kolab or any of the others. You may find a few here and there but its not goign to be a lot of them. Which makes the comments initial observation about linux clients connecting to Exchange servers valid. His view point is based on the reality of the situation - not the ideal you may dream of.

[ArtInvent]

Software as a service, delivered on the Net, will soon mean that the OS is pretty irrelevant. Already online you can watch tv, movies, and video through a browser; listen to almost any music you can think of through a subscription music service; store and access all your email; edit documents and spreadsheets; use a Photoshop 'light' service from Adobe. Increasingly, even 'high level' apps like serious photo and even video editing and even gaming will be done online. Name an app, and tell me why this won't be able to be served online. This also means that people won't need super expensive computing hardware or fancy expensive OS's. Basically, the only people who will need a full 'fat' OS will be people with slow or no internet.
-
Hey, I love Ubuntu, and I need a Windows machine for video editing - but increasingly all I look at most of my day is Firefox.

[Mr. Dee]

I tried uploading 6 photos I took Christmas day with my family to Photoshop.com and you know what happened?

"Your photos are too big, reduce dimension"
"I am sorry, the service is down"
"I am sorry, there was a time out error connecting to the server"
"Spinning pin wheel of death"

You know what I did, emailed the photos. If I am going to get that kinda experience in a browser, might as well do next best reliable thing. Its just no ready yet, Mobile Me is an example this too, people lost personal data because it just was not ready. The Operating System is not going anywhere, it will be here probably for the next 20 or even more years. People expect reliability and no matter how robust the net has become over the years, there is still work to be done.

[BoboKnows]

The so-called "thin client" story seems to gain traction in the press every 5 years or so, but seldom finds much success anywhere else. This has been going on for about 20 years now -- remember "X terminals"?

Also , mobility is becoming more important; witness the rise in market share for notebook computers versus desktops. Although netbooks could become an enterprise mobile thin client, "mobility anywhere" (particularly off-site) is still quite expensive and would drive TCO for truly thin netbooks above a standard notebook. On the other hand, a no-so-thin netbook (+storage + local apps) is nearly indistinguishable from a notebook.

[sidboyce]

My own father if he was still alive would be 105 in a few days time. So let's look at fathers and grandfathers of 69 and 80+ years respectively. The 69 year old came to Linux 2 years ago having his first encounter with a donated P166 and W2K some months earlier. I installed Linux on a new 64-bit AMD PC for him and he uses it unaided for photographic work, burning CD's and DVD's and a whole host of other stuff.
The 80+ year old is another success, coming to Linux 3 years ago not having used a keyboard before and having to ask what the backspace key was and what it did, pointing to the spacebar and asking what it was. He attended some computers for senior classes - learning under Windows. Many things he has found out for himself and has no trouble using Linux, he even did some of his assignments using Linux, including wordprocessing and spreadsheets with OpenOffice.
His main daily tasks are browsing the web, listening to music, digital camera work, skype, burning CD's and DVD's, email, Yahoo IM, writing letters, some spreadsheet work occasionally and more.
To date he has had only one problem that needed my attention - losing audio on skype, I managed to talk him through restarting alsasound. A few days later, same problem which I had to appear in person to solve, it turned out to be a faulty on-board sound chip. He ordered a new sound card, I fitted it and it was automatically recognised by Linux. He started the mixer and adjusted the sound settings - End Of Story.
So begs the question as to what's so difficult about Linux when 2 complete and aged novices are using Linux boxes on a routine basis.
The 80+ year old has told me that he finds it difficult to get to the PC in the evenings as his younger daughter is using it for her college work as her XP laptop is too slow, no doubt because of all the malware and spyware occupying it. At weekends his grand daughter also hogs the box.
Perhaps the problem lies in age groups that are hard-of-learning and have grown up on Windows, finding it difficult to readjust and retool to anything else.
The problem certainly doesn't seem to be any inherent Linux flaws.

[queticomn]

Ubuntu is the yuppy distro of Linux. Real geeks run openSuSe! :)

[3rdalbum]

I agree with Boboknows - thin client computing has been bandied about for decades, and I remember "applications in the web browser" being "the way we'll do things in a couple of years" back in 1998. It still hasn't taken off. One wonders whether it ever will.

I love the Linux desktop. If I want to tweak things and use the CLI, I can. If I don't want to tweak things, I just use it like a Windows user would. Right now I'm in the "I don't want to tweak things" state of mind and Linux fits into this role like a glove. Anybody who believes Linux is "only" for people to tweak things certainly hasn't used the platform since... well, since applications in the web browser was last "just around the corner".

[weeblnbob]

I agree with 3rdalbum that web apps are long overdue. I guess we just weren't too sure about the intersection to be waiting at. :) The proliferation of small computing devices like cell phones and web-enabled televisions will, I believe, slowly make web-based software of many kinds more available to the masses. After a while, the average user won't want a PC running Linux or Windows but will have some cool, powerful cell phone that can plug into any web-enabled TV to get email, surf the web, use online office software and the like. Online 3D CAD anyone? Of course their 30 GodzillaByte flash drive will plug right in to store it all for them. But then again, why store it at home where it can get lost? Why not use an online file storage site where your data is being constantly backed up. Did any of this make sense?