Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Mar 2008 16:07 UTC, submitted by moleskine
"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."
Thread beginning with comment 304412
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-05-11
Member since:2006-09-10
Member since:2007-08-19
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:
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.