"Unlike the myths that are behind the prevention of Linux adoption, this piece will closely examine the indisputable obstacles and what will have to be done to overcome each of them. In the past, many desktop Linux users have opted to simply point to the hardware industry or Microsoft as the root cause of a lack of mainstream adoption. In reality, there are actually core issues extending beyond hardware - and competition from the proprietary markets - that simply must be dealt with head on. With that said, hardware compatibility and competition from closed-source vendors are valid issues, just not solid core excuses for the lack of mainstream interest. Here are the real hurdles."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-06-24
I'm going to have to disagree. While the author obviously has some biased opinions, he did make some good points. Consistency has always been a problem with Linux. There's just too many distributions and ways of configuring things. That's what keeps Linux from really getting a strong foot hold in the desktop market. People like to use Windows or OS X as a comparison, but I don't think Linux can really be compared to them because of how different it is. While Windows and OS X are complete packages, Linux is basically a kernel where users have the freedom to throw whatever software they want at it. That freedom has led to hundreds of distributions and configurations. In the end, at least for the desktop world, it's what holds Linux back.
Member since:2005-07-05
I have to disagree. So what if there are 100 different Linux distribution? Once you know one, you can be productive on nearly all of them. Also, who's stopping you from choosing Debian, or Ubuntu, or Red Hat and just sticking with it?
I don't know of any GPL clause that says you have to install a different flavor of Linux on every machine you own.
I've heard this complaint for almost 14 years now and I don't believe it stands up to scrutiny at all.
Member since:2006-07-15
>While Windows and OS X are complete packages
Yeah, yeah do not even try to use a driver from release to release - it will break! Even if you don't see the breakage at once. I'm using Mac OS too, it's possible to use a driver, sometimes, between different releases of the system, but don't count on it! So this is the usual FUD of people who are comparing marketing strategies instead of *reality*!
Member since:2005-07-12
Not rubbish at all.
All of his points are valid. They are real issues that regular, and geek, users face with Linux usage. And when "regular" users face those issues, they run away screaming.
I'm a huge Linux user. It's my preferred desktop. I'm also a programmer by trade, and I've used Linux since 2002, and I've used a huge variety of distros, from the more techie side with Slackware, to the more newbie friendly like Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS. And I do continue to have issues. Some I can work around, some just requiring apt-getting something, but others require too much time and effort to make it worth my while.
I have a Dell 1526 Laptop with an ATI grahpics card, an AMD Turion, and a wide screen. I've tried Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, Fedora, Mepis, and openSUSE on this laptop. The only one that worked 100% (all hardware working and properly configured, and software mostly working) is Ubuntu. The rest of them has varying degrees of success, and varying degrees of effort to what did work, working.
Nevertheless, I have Ubuntu working 100%, and dual booting with Vista. I prefer using the Ubuntu side 95% of the time, as it fits my needs very well. Although it does have real bug issues as the article mentions.
But I'd like to add to the guys list, or actually expand on the underlying issues that cause the issues that he is talking about:
1. Lack of a consistent, stable ABI. Linus has said many times that lack of a stable ABI is good for the rapid progress and extreme flexibility of the Linux kernel. But it's a double edged sword. It makes it much much harder for third parties to make drivers for Linux, and it makes it harder for distros to make everything work, and it makes it so that we have the situation of having to compile modules (a stable ABI would mean more precompiled modules could be used).
The lack of a stable ABI, while having it's benefits, undoubtedly makes hardware market adoption harder, and harder for users to get things working.
2. Lack of standards across distros. Distros all have their versions of the file system, config files, libraries, glibc, and so on. This makes it much harder for software developers and ISVs to target Linux. They have to put in a lot of extra effort to compile and deploy to all the distros, for a tiny market share. This makes it not economically viable for ISVs to target Linux.
Linux Standard Base (LSB) tried to solve this issue, but distros pretty much ignore LSB.
Member since:2006-05-11
Member since:2006-01-17
Lack of stable ABI only affects out-of-tree drivers (which are unfinished and experimental most of the time).
And binary drivers, but that is the problem with their vendor's philosophy.
Don't be naive and think there would be much more available drivers were there a stable driver ABI. On the other hand, much of developments in kernel would be impossible while simultaneously keeping the ABI backwards compatible. That philosophy is absolutely valid, given how many problems crappy unfixable drivers cause in Windows and how MS had to rewrite the driver model and ABI (which required rewrite of most drivers) in Vista just to band-aid the terrible situation with XP driver quality.
Member since:2007-04-13
Member since:2008-01-20
Only 1 correct point??? Totally correct about the driver modules, and on brainstorm my ideas were voted down to fix it, on the basis "it takes too much effort". Linux users don't want proper hardware support, or they aren't logical thinkers.
They want the drivers added to the kernel instead, but some people need the drivers to install, and install CD's may take 6 months to be updated, so thats why linux has no future in my opinion. People want better hardware support, but they hate the mechanisms needed to support it, because they might aid closed source companies (never mind they help open source ones too).
If you want to vote for fixing this the right way, some relevent brainstorms are:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/3932/
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/3868/
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/3843/
Things have gotten so incrediby stupid in the linux world, that even when ubuntu does finally start supporting my new computer in 2 months (and yes, I'm not going to buy a out of date system just for linux), I may not even bother. Vista may be closed source, but Microsoft have their head screwed on better then some linux coders at the moment
Member since:2008-03-12
Why do all of the Debian based distros have to call Firefox Iceweasel? Based upon the large percentages of web users whose user agent is some version of Firefox I think that it really hurts user comfort when purists like the developers of Debian who want to everything to follow their licensing terms refuse to work with the Mozilla Foundation to just accept Mozilla's licensing of the trademarked portions of the browser.
I find that pretty petty.
Furthermore, the excessive amount of distros doesn't help mass uptake of the OS either. We have a lawsuit going again Microsoft because people were confused about the difference between Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium. How are you going to navigate the half a dozen major commercial distros? Nobody wants to know the difference between Ubuntu, Linspire, Red Hat, Suse, Xandros, etc.
Ubuntu is starting to become pretty popular as a desktop distro, but if you ask what the easiest Linux distro is you will get several answers, which isn't good.
Hardware and software support issue will vanish as soon as commercial companies show serious support for Linux. For an application like Photoshop a native port would be no small task. Unless there is a big enough user base to purchase said product no one will adopt it. Having more hardware list Linux support on the box and include complete stable drivers in the box will happen just as soon as more companies besides IBM, Novell, and Sun treat Linux as an important platform.
Member since:2006-09-10
Firefox insist that patches are authorised by them before being released if you want to use the FF brand, which Debian found unacceptable from the POV of security fix release time. There's also the issue of incompatibility with the Debian 'constitution'. So the decision to rebrand wasn't entirely political.
Member since:2005-11-02
It isn't purism, it's legality. Is it "purist" not to ship DVD support when doing so is illegal? Most distributions don't ship DVD support by default, or at all, because it is between probably and definitely illegal, depending on jurisdiction.
Debian has two choices: Install Firefox as-is without modifications, which would cause some fairly serious management problems and Debian Policy violations, or rename the browser. Mozilla does not give Debian any other options.
Not renaming the browser and continuing to distribute it in modified form is *illegal*, so that is not an option. Not modifying the browser presents serious technical challenges, to say nothing of security concerns; the effort expendature needed would not be worthwhile when an option exists which makes so much more sense.
If you want to gripe at someone for this, go talk to Mozilla people. Their position is reasonable, but it is still their fault that Debian can't call what they ship Firefox.
Member since:
2007-04-13
He only has 1 valid point: Hurdle 7: Serious commercial interest
The rest is just irrelevant gripes. I'm sorry, but a few flaws does not make a case against adoption. Windows has been seriously flawed in all it's incarnations yet has enjoyed tremendous rates of adoption purely because of it's commercial entrenchment.
All the author talks about in terms of technical issues are minor grazes against the platform compared to some of the deep wounds you could strike against Windows in terms of the billions (or even trillions) of dollars it's insecurity has cost the globe.
Oh wait, I'm defending Linux. I must be hurdle 10, a purist.
Lately lots of governments have been adopting Linux en masse, it is ready and is getting adopted and all these 'hurdles' the author talks about are being addressed along the way.