Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Jul 2005 16:20 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Linux After AKAImBatman's wildly popular (and heavily criticized) look at what the future of the Linux Desktop might look like, Mr. Batman has decided to write a followup article where he attempts to clear up many of the misconceptions readers have about the original article. In addition, Mr. Batman uses the second part of the series to give technical details about how some of the concepts might be implemented.
Permalink for comment 5900
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Tired Linux Desktop arguments
by JeffS on Mon 18th Jul 2005 20:01 UTC
Member since:

There are so many articles and/or blogs on the internet about "Linux not ready for the desktop", or "what Linux needs for desktop acceptence", or "The Linux Desktop of the future".

All of these keep saying that Linux is not ready, and lacks this or lacks that.

But real life evidence suggests otherwise.

First, Linux, according to IDC, is now ahead of MacOSX (as of last year, actually), and that's not counting all the downloads and disc sharing that goes on, only units shipped.

Second, there is tons of anecdotal evidence that Linux works great for average users. There are so many testaments to someone installing Linux for their Mom, neighbor, friend, Dad, cousin, wife, or whatever, and that person using Linux quite easily and happily.

Third, cheap PCs with Linux pre-installed, like the ones with Linspire and Xandros sold at or Frys, are selling quite briskly.

The major problem is perception. People still think that Linux is only for geeks, in spite of the existence of desktop oriented distros like Linspire, Xandros, Mandriva, and Mepis. Also, people keep saying that this will be "the year of the Linux desktop". This is flawed because there will be no "year of the Linux desktop". The progress of Linux on the desktop has always been, and always will continue to be, evolutionary rather than revolutionary. In short, it will always be steady and gradual.

Reply Score: 3