Linked by Ben Mazer on Mon 26th Jan 2004 19:52 UTC
Lately, there has been a "Why linux isn't ready for the desktop" article every 3 days. Most of the time, these articles originate from a lack of understanding or acceptance of the open source system. I'd like to try to address some of the common arguments against linux here, and try to help people understand why linux probably won't be on your desktop for a while.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You make some valid counter-arguments to common points, although you could substantiate these arguments a bit better. I think you also neglect to play up some of Linux's strong points:
1) Software installation. I would not want to teach my mom how to install Windows software. Its a rather complicated and involved process. I could certainly teach her how to install Linux software, though. The process isn't any more complicated than starting up an app, double-clicking the program name, and closing the app. Automatic upgrades of all software on the machine? Synaptic's upgrade feature is 10x easier to use than Windows Update! The former upgrades your whole system in a couple of clicks. Windows Update requires many more clicks, and often requires you to run the thing multiple times for Service Packs or patches that need to be installed by themselves.
2) Lock-down. Kiosk (KDE) provides a very powerful way to lock down a Linux system. Soon, there will be nice GUI tools for it. A lot of desktops need locking-down. Consider corporate desktops, educational desktops, even some home desktops. If I've got an e-mail/internet station set up for grandma, I don't want her accidentally deleting a desktop icon and wondering where the e-mail program went.
3) Ease of maintainence. Linux machines handle abuse much better than Windows machines. Whenever people complain about Windows being unstable, Windows users come back with "stay on top of patches! don't run random programs off the internet! use a registry cleaner! use Norton utilities! use Microsoft's drivers rather than the manufacturers!" Well, its partially a fault of the underlying OS that those measures are necessary. When I used to run Windows, it was rock-solid for me. And this was Windows 95! But my dirty little secret was that I had my full install burned on a CD, and every month or two, I'd nuke my Windows partition (my data was on a seperate drive) and copy the image back over! Now, I've got several Windows machines at home, and they are all in various states of disarrary, because they don't tender-loving-care from their current users. Also, consider what happens when you get a new hard-drive for a Windows machines, and want to move your installation over. If you just copy it over, it is no longer bootable. And once you've made a Windows system unbootable, its nearly impossible to get it back. What happens when you move a Windows installation between machines? Linux will merrily redetect your hardware, while Windows will very often choke trying to reload your old hardware. And then compare the maintainence tools. You can administer a Linux machine over a low-bandwidth modem link with ssh. Try running remote desktop over 28.8kbps! Compare Linux's recovery tools (any CD-bootable Linux distro) to Windows' pathetic recovery CD!
Lastly, I can't stress this enough. Its all about the apps! If Linux had all the apps users wanted, today, companies would flock to it because its cheaper! They would gradually fix the shortcomings of the OS because of the potential cost savings! Its always been about the apps. Why did users flock to Windows 95 instead of MacOS? The latter was far easier to use, far more polished, and about equally unstable. They went with Windows for the apps! Why did users stay with Windows 95 instead of going to OS/2? The latter was easier to use, far more polished, and much more stable. Again, it was the apps!
@Eddy : You make two exellent points. 90% of users will not go out an install their own OS. They don't even know what an OS is. Until Linux comes preinstalled on grandma's Dell, it simply won't get the kind of market share that Windows has. Also, you are precisely right that it matters what you mean by desktop. If you mean scientific/graphics/programming workstation, public kiosk machine, educational machine, corporate desktop machine, or internet/e-mail terminal, then Linux is ready for the desktop. If you mean a replacement for your local Photoshop guru, then probably not.