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.
While I would like to agree with this article and say that linux is ready for the Desktop I sadly have to say no way.
I run several of the major distos as servers and desktops (Mandrake, Suse, Fedora/Redhat, Gentoo (those are what I have running right now). I find that the two that are the easiest to use by far are Mandrake and Suse. However this is even once you get them configured - For instance:
I have a newer ATI vid card (9600 Pro), to get acceleration on all every one of the distro's I have to install the kernel module (steps are slightly different with almost every distro), install the driver itself, and then run the config which basically is xfconfig requiring the whole Horz/Vert sync on the monitor. While this in itself is ATI's fault it still hurts, and hurts badly. Expand this to scanners/printers/dig cameras/etc and the issues just keep growing.
Your normal user would not know where to start, hell your normal user can barely figure out how to get a toolbar back after they "accidentally" removed it.
Other issues are in fact standardization. Is KDE or Gnome the linux desktop....... umm well it depends on what you want right? Well your standard user doesnt want choices, they need a familiarity and know that they can sit down and expect the same behavior every time from an OS. I personally like the choice, they dont. Going beyond just the GUI - whats your text editor? whats your shell editor? hell whats your shell? these choices are all things that just confuse those poor helpless users - ask them and your likely to get a question back at of "well whats best?" - tell them its just a matter of personal preference and take a picture of the look you get...... cause it will be priceless.
Now "Linux isnt as polished" - well it isnt. I find polished (for desktop use) to be having an easy GUI to do just about whatever you need. This simply isnt the case, some distro's are close but not complete. Once again personally I love having the ability to open a file and modify/look at whatever. Your average user is scared to death of this - and at times to make the OS work you have to do this.
And then theres applications and compatibility. How many IE specific web sites are out there? Expecially Web Apps! Sorry you cant use your online turbo tax anymore/etc (actually not even sure turbo tax maybe Moz compatible - but you all get the point). Once again not the fault of Linux, but still a huge downside. Then take your applications and installation. Could you imagine your typical user searching rpmfind to resolve dependencies? I think not.
Lastly to address the comment on X isnt fast. Well, it is fast but unfortunatly just not as fast as XP/2003 on a newer machine. How can I prove this technically? Well I cant nor have any desire too. For me its a matter of having a dual boot system and noticing that the XP/2003 gui is just a little bit snappier on the same exact hardware (Gnome or KDE) - that all the proof I need.
Linux makes a great server and a great desktop for the technically advantaged. However ready for the common desktop? No way.