Linux will become ubiquitous in the year 3000. Okay, that was a horrible joke. Linux is just a kernel, the engine that runs an operating system. By itself, it is essentially useless. Kernels shouldn't be discussed or noticed by normal users. And as such when providing these users with reviews, previews and "professional" opinions, computer consultants, computer reviewers and computer journalists should not spew headlines like "Linux is not ready for prime time", "Linux on the desktop by XXX", "Linux to takeover Windows", "Linux is not ready for desktop" and so on.Editorial Notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com
Linux, the Unix-like kernel, is as flexible, versatile and powerful as any other kernel on earth, proprietary or otherwise. The kernel is not only ready for prime time, it is prime time. It is not only used on desktops, it is used on wrist watches, cellular phones, mainframes, servers and other embedded appliances to mention a few. Perhaps what these computer consultants, reviewers and computer journalists mean to say is, "Are the software applications that run on Linux ready for prime time?".
The response to the last question will vary from individual to individual. Given the already existing sophistication of operating systems, like Windows XP and OS X, operating systems running Linux are ready for the average normal users. "Really? Then why isn't everybody switching over to operating systems running Linux if it is ready for the average normal user", you ask. Well, I think the answer is simple.
Operating systems running on Linux do not provide any strong "user" incentives or reasons for people currently running OS X or Windows XP to switch, among other fears which is the subject of this essay. Computers in general are hard to use. It takes years of training and usage to become relatively proficient in using software applications. Many of us were trained to use Microsoft operating systems and applications right from primary or secondary school. We have learned to accept their shortcomings, and we have mastered ways to be most productive on them. Even if it means dealing with a multitude of inconveniences.
Some adventurous users have ventured into Apple's operating systems. Their operating system has a reputation for being attractive, easy to use and coming with applications and services that make computing a joy for the average user. For many normal users, this is the holy grail of computing as it were today. It is the favorite among multimedia professionals and experts. But all of this come at a "price". And a heavy price for that matter. Being expensive and scarce doesn't help Apple's operating system pervasiveness. And since the Apple management is devoted to quality above all else, we have come accept that the Apple operating system will continue to be targeted at niche few.
Linux is one of the most popular Open Source Software projects. Its popularity is heightened by the fact that it is philosophically free, and it runs a on a multitude of hardware platforms and many software applications have been designed to run on it. Most of the software applications that run on it are provided for free, philosophically, under several free licenses. But, though Linux is widely used on various hardware and for several task-intensive purposes, it has not really garnered much popularity in the desktop market or average home user market. And, unfortunately, it probably never will.
Let's forget about Linux for now. Few users are concerned about Linux or cares about it per se. Linux, the Unix-like kernel, is doing just fine where it is today and it is advancing at an impressive pace. The home user doesn't want to know what kernel he or she is running and if the code in the kernel is cleanly written or not. The home user doesn't want to concern himself/herself with hacking drivers to make the Nvidia graphic card work. The home user just wants to turn on the computer and start using it without reading manual pages and online documentation.
Software applications running of Linux will probably never accrue a mass home user share, not because they are inferior, but because users will move to an unknown territory if, and only if, the new territory provides them with better, more convenient and easier ways of accomplishing their tasks. Software applications aren't getting easier to use. They are getting more complex, increasingly dumb, and excessively patched with redundant features that many ordinary users will never use. Add to that horrible user interfaces designed from God knows where.
In the open source sphere, things don't get any better for the ordinary user. Projects are hardly documented, and even when they are the quality is embarrassing or the documentation is written in an esoteric ramblings that only a Ph.d in Software Engineering and Computer Science, with a Master in Electrical Engineering and Computer forensics can understand.(Man pages anyone?)
Joeiamdumb, a young intelligent person with a genuine phobia for computers, panics when he reads the synopsis of the second line of a man page, and promptly orders the services of the help desk to format his hard disk and replace whatever is on it, operating system running Linux, with a program he is familiar with, Microsoft or Apple operating system usually.
Users are not resistant to change or use something new. But if using their new environment is more of an inconvenience than what they are used to, I really don't blame them for abandoning the alternative. If open source software developers and contributors are even remotely going to steal 50% of the market, then they have 3 fundamental challenges ahead of them. Let my rant begin.
- "Challenges of Open Source Software, Page 1"
- "Challenges of Open Source Software, Page 2"
