Submitted by After years of being relegated to server racks and the desktops of ultrageeks, Linux is finally making some headway as a viable alternative to Windows on the consumer desktop. That’s the optimistic message delivered by a newly energized contingent of Linux proponents. By employing the same consumer-friendly marketing techniques practiced by Microsoft, and by taking advantage of the rising popularity of web-based applications, Linux vendors are getting ready for what they say will be a wave of consumer interest in the free operating system.
Just kidding.
Seriously it may well be coming though. A few years ago I would have said never but I now have a laptop that runs Ubuntu as the only OS and in the last year its been a breeze to both maintain and use. I also have a desktop machine that is likely going linux because the move to Vista is just too much for it.
I truly believe it is the future.
That is EXACTLY what I thought when I saw this headline.
You are right, desktop linux is making huge leaps forward, but this article is yet another puff piece done to fill a slow news day.
if there’s one thing Linux needs, it’s *more* forks. The desktop and the server aren’t mutually exclusive and using one mans experience, as prominent as it may be, to justify a split seems absurd. It’s also not like his project was nicked without a decent replacement.
Some people think that having lots of forks is a bad thing. Rational people, however will be able to realize that there is no evidence that forking is detrimental.
Forking in open source software has led to the democratization of software development, has prevented Linux (etc.) from becoming too bureaucratic and committee-oriented (unlike most s/w projects) and has allowed individual talent to shine where otherwise, it might have been stifled. If there were different server and desktop branches of the Linux kernel, then Con Kolivas probably wouldn’t have quit, and everyone would be a lot happier.
Don’t forget, due to the permissive nature of the GPL, improvements made to one fork of a project can easily be merged into other projects, this way everyone wins.
People would not be happy with multiple major kernel trees any more than they are happy with multiple major distributions. You think driver compatibility is a problem now? Imagine how bad it would be with two or three major kernel projects.
This is the reason why there’s no development branch anymore. It’s simply too much to maintain two branches at once. Nobody will run the development branch if they can’t have their proprietary crack. We’re not talking about putting the pieces together in various ways (as in distributions). We’re talking about splitting our effort among divergent kernel development projects.
I really think that a lot of people are overreacting to this issue with Con. This isn’t elementary school, where everybody is brilliant and deserves an equal amount of praise. This is real world kernel development going on out in the open. Patches will be rejected more often then they are accepted. You have to have a thick skin, and you have to be graceful in defeat.
This has been Con’s initiation to the world of mainline kernel hacking, and he didn’t like it. Remember, he’s a relative newbie that mostly maintained enthusiast patchsets before moving on to swap prefetch and SD. He picked very contentious areas to begin his kernel career. The scheduler is the third rail of kernel development, like Social Security is to American politics. You have to realize going in that you’re facing an uphill battle at best.
At the end of the day, you have to admit that Con is no Linus. He’s not going to go off and maintain his own desktop-oriented kernel tree. He wouldn’t be successful if he tried, and more importantly, he won’t like it. He’s not cut out to be a maintainer. Who knows what he’ll end up doing next, but Con will not fork the Linux kernel.
Nobody is forking the Linux kernel. Not right now. There’s simply no reason to take such drastic measures. CFS is a perfectly fine scheduler, an improvement over O(1), and Linux kernel development is going really well. Forking is not any anyone’s best interest at the moment.
Take the scheduler for example, there is a weigh up between throughput and ‘teh snappy’ – if you tweak it for optimum throughput, its almost a guarantee that you’ll end up with an operating system that isn’t snappy enough for the end user.
It isn’t about a fork/independence for each project, but for a realisation that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach. If you’re a vendor for the desktop and server, you’ll need to have a kernel with different optimisations for different purposes.
I don’t see it as a bad thing, it means that requirements for both end users can be focused on rather than it being a situation of ideas being at logger heads – one wants a feature for the server but could effect desktop performance and vice versa.
Edited 2007-07-27 01:06
Well, you can have pluggable schedulers just as Linux has pluggable elevators. But more importantly, ongoing work suggests that you don’t need to hard-code for throughput or latency. You can make it a tunable.
The primary tunable in the new “fair” schedulers is granularity, which controls the amount of time that must pass before the scheduler can switch out the running task in order to maximize fairness. Raising this value leads to more throughput, while lowering it results in lower latency. If you keep the scheduling fair, a single tunable is all you need to dial-in your particular place on the throughput/latency trade-off.
The primary difference between a desktop OS and a server OS is what kinds of applications they run. A kernel shouldn’t care what applications it runs. It’s job is to make sure that resources are distributed equitably and efficiently among the applications. There is indeed a “one size fits all” solution, with strategically-placed knobs to control the few fundamental trade-offs.
Specialization at the kernel level is bad. Vista gives Windows Media Player 80% of each timeslice if it wants. Is that the way an operating system should work?
untill u take the word “compile” completely out of installing software and you NEVER have to open a bash shell. when that happens THEN it is the year for the linux desktop. were getting closer though and thats what counts.
“compile” is never involved in “installing software”. Compiling or build a software is always at least one step before installing, no matter if you are an end user and install pre-compiled software, or if you are a developer and build the software yourself.
But you were probably just flamebaiting, weren’t you?
That’s easy. I NEVER have to open a bash shell, I use zsh
you right i should have clerified. make it so the USER never has to dompile anything to get it to work.
As a Linux user since 1999, with SuSE 6.2, I have never had to compile anything to make it work. Note that I said “never had to compile”, not “never compiled” – I have compiled some things for various reasons, but never just for regular production software.
Also, and this goes back to SuSE 6.2 as well, when I was a n00b I never opened a terminal for the first 6 months, and everything “just worked”, although I admit some of it didn’t work that well, as most KDE apps were in Alpha, and Gnome was in an even earlier state. The only thing that required any “technical stuff” was editing one text file to unlock the modem, a fix that was easily found using Altavista search (it was pre-Google) on a friend’s machine.
edit: typos
Edited 2007-07-27 09:21 UTC
Well said & I agree.
After years of being relegated to server racks and the desktops of ultrageeks, Linux is finally making some headway as a viable alternative to Windows on the consumer desktop.
They’ve been saying this since color text installs in Slackware were considered to be a luxury item. I’m pretty sure I’ll know when Linux has arrived when the following happens:
1. When I buy a new piece of hardware, there’ll be drivers and a quick start guide in there for Linux, as there is for Windows and Mac.
2. My co-workers start talking about Linux, as they do now days about Myspace, dvd ripping, P2P, etc. So far, I’ve only heard one mention about Linux, and that came from a guy who doesn’t even use it.
So far, I would say that beating the ‘Linux is ready for the masses’ drum before it really is has probably caused more harm than good. A lot of folks out there who tried Linux in the past now have a bad taste in their mouth, thinking that to use Linux means you still have to spend days trying to set it up and installing apps means you have to compile them from source. (Eg – see the post right above mine as an example.)
Edited 2007-07-26 17:06
Unless, you know, the drivers are already included in the kernel by default, as is the case with most hardware these days…
Unless, you know, the drivers are already included in the kernel by default, as is the case with most hardware these days…
And how the hell is Joe Sixpack supposed to know that? Unless vendors start putting a ‘works with Linux’ logo on the box, which I guess is the same thing as providing drivers and a quick start guide
Some vendors have already begun to put Linux logos (or mentioning Linux support on their packaging). It’ll happen more as Linux use increases.
Personally, I prefer “App compatibility database” solutions, with links to them in the main menu or in the browser.
BTW, Joe Sixpack isn’t the current target of Ubuntu desktop solutions. The target market is the “intermediate” computer user, who has *some* notions of what Linux is, and who knows he must verify hardware compatibility before buying.
Conquering desktop market share requires a strategic approach – you can’t just indiscriminately target everyone and their dog, and in fact no one is really trying to do that right now.
BTW, Joe Sixpack isn’t the current target of Ubuntu desktop solutions. The target market is the “intermediate” computer user, who has *some* notions of what Linux is, and who knows he must verify hardware compatibility before buying.
Hopefully Dell does verify
Joe sickpack knows as he hears it from the curet users. It’s one of the things I mostly propagare. It works out of the box (for the most, that is, forget most built-in sd card readers).
I also tell people that you always buy an OS and get specific hardware, not the other way around. Or do people get a C64 and ru windows ?
And I also show compiz, beryl, kiba-dock etc on old “crappy” hardware and outperform the people who have their shiney new systems.
Basically, I edcate them wat it can and cannot do. The SD card stuff is easy. $8 fo a multicard reader is easy.
“Unless vendors start putting a ‘works with Linux’ logo on the box”
Now that is a bloody good idea!
Not necessarily, because advocacy and adoption are not the same thing. You need to advocate Linux, because otherwise people would end up brainwashed by the likes of Microsoft into thinking there’s no alternative. You know that many already think that. Gotta keep making noise and pointing out things like DRM, lock-in, alternatives and unfair practices.
As long as people are aware of choice, someday they get curious and try it. Some may get a bad taste, but they’ll try again someday. Evil corporate types stay the same, free software always gets better. Just make sure people get the info, they’ll change sides if they want to, in their own time.
As long as people are aware of choice, someday they get curious and try it. Some may get a bad taste, but they’ll try again someday.
Or at least you hope they will …
Evil corporate types stay the same, free software always gets better. Just make sure people get the info, they’ll change sides if they want to, in their own time.
Corporations are not inherently evil. Whether they are good or evil depends on what will make them the most money. Take Apple for example – they’re ‘the good guys’ when it comes to desktop computers, but they rule portable media space with an iron fist. (Otherwise, why can’t I play wma files on an iPod?)
And corporations do change when they start losing money. Take Nintendo for example – compare them to how they were in the past (when everyone hated them) compared to how they are now. IBM, the same way. Anyone remember Apple’s ‘1984’ commercial?
Edited 2007-07-26 21:22
I’ll know when Linux has arrived when there’ll be drivers and a quick start guide in there for Linux and My co-workers start talking about Linux
I agree. So how will these conditions come about? Should the Linux community self-impose (somehow) a moratorium on Linux advocacy in order to lower expectations? Or should we take every opportunity we have to inject the word “Linux” into the public consciousness? Somewhere in between?
I agree with maddog that volume is the central impediment to desktop Linux. So we should turn up the volume, right? OK, not the same kind of volume, but if the average Linux user is “louder” than the average Windows user, then maybe ISVs and IHVs will perceive more volume.
All we can do is keep developing the software and keep telling people about it. Everything else is out of our control. Eventually a few key players will jump on board, and while there may never be a proverbial “year of desktop Linux,” there will be a point where most of the industry begins to support Linux as a first-class platform.
Somehow, I don’t think that subtlety will work in our favor. I’m sure that some people have had bad experiences with Linux in the past. But a lot more people are having good experiences today, and every time we make a positive impression, we gain one more person that tells their skeptical friends that Linux is easy, useful, and fun.
We’re not going to change minds by keeping people away from Linux. We can only move public opinion by exposing people to Linux.
I agree. So how will these conditions come about? Should the Linux community self-impose (somehow) a moratorium on Linux advocacy in order to lower expectations? Or should we take every opportunity we have to inject the word “Linux” into the public consciousness? Somewhere in between?
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t talk about it, but I am saying that the Linux community as a whole need to make more of a concerted effort to be honest about it’s strengths, as well as its weaknesses.
For the time being, people who are making the switch need to know about the benefits, but also need to be told that most likely, the switch at this time won’t be an easy one and there will be some amount of pain involved in switching. While some will be honest about this, others will tell that it’s so easy to use, even your grandma could set it up. This is not the kind of expectation you want to give a user considering making the switch. While it might tip the balance in favor of the person actually trying Linux, it also sets them up for disappointment when they start running into problems they originally did not anticipate.
“By employing the same consumer-friendly marketing techniques practiced by Microsoft….”
That made me chuckle.
“Most users can get it running without ever having to type text commands into a shell terminal, a rarity among Linux distributions.”
Simply not true.
“Because of the hackability of free software, he explains, those who package Linux are in a unique position to improve their users’ experience out of the box.”
Hackability of poorly designed software.Cannot be marketing Linux and making reckless statements like that.
Edited 2007-07-26 17:16
It looks like it’s the “Next year is the Year Of Linux On The Desktop”-time of the year again.
In fact, it has been the year of desktop Linux since about 2000, EVERY Year.
Which is a good thing!
Before 2000, Linux was not really usable as Desktop machine, after 2000 Apps like OOo, KOffice, KDE, GNOME, Gimp and the likes were available to ease the desktop application itch and the installers became better with every release.
And people started to actually use Linux on the Desktop. Of course, first where the people who were not put off from typing shell commands and editing configuration files, but that was a start.
From then on, every year the linux distros became more and more desktop-friendly to more and more users.
Today, you can give an Ubuntu CD to anybody who maintains his own private WinXP box, and be sure he can install it and find most of the hardware in a working state after installation. He will be able to immediately write a document, draw a picture and manipulate is photographs with close to no learning.
Of course it would take that guy some time to really learn the ins and outs of Linux, but basically everything works, and he can start using Linux.
in 2000, maybe 1% of the WinXP users had been able to switch (from a competence point of view), now probably 50% are principally able to switch, at some point in the future everybody who can install and maintain Windows will be able to install and maintain Linux.
This of course does not mean that everybody who CAN switch acually DOES switch, adoption itself in large quantities will take lots of time (like most of the number crunching ist still done in FORTRAN, because switching to a different language is not convinient).
So I guess, you will have to hear the “next year, desktop Linux year” phrase quite often in the future.
For ME, the year of the Linux desktop was 2000, this was the year when I booted Windows only to play games, for everything else I used Linux.
And for me that year was 1999.
Then I found out it sucked. Not because of lack of applications, becasue you’re right on that. It was also easy use, no problems there. It just wasn’t a desktop system. Not even BestLinux (SOT), and RedFlag was real desktop systems. They were just made to look like it.
They found out they could run WoW on it, and they happily switched, haven’t gone back. Apparently they get more frames per second on Ubuntu than Vista.
Until Blizzard relizes that your friends are playing WoW on Linux and bans their accounts. It has happened and will happen again.
Then they will get a lot of attention from the press, backpedal (declare it a mistake) and reactivate the accounts.
It has happened and will happen again.
Business as usual
LOL… tell that to my two friends who STILL have their accounts banned for running it on Linux. lol
the people that were using linux and got banned, were also using hacks. there were some people who got banned because of just using linux, but blizzard fixed that and reinstated their accounts.
i have been playing wow with linux for a bit more than a year, even said i was using linux on blizzards site. blizzard doesn’t really care what os you are running on. they are probably glad they just dont have to make a linux version lol. though i wish they would.
compiz-fusion is gorgeous on my aging thinkpad and works out of the box with open source drivers and 512MB of ram. Vista doesn’t deliver 1/2 the user experience on the same hardware (I tried).
An empty desktop with Vista Home took up a bit more than 800MB of ram. As pretty as Vista is, it got wiped out for XP on the one machine in my posession that runs windows.
I’d like to elaborate on a point that I think is worth to be mentioned.
When I first read the statement “Linux [is] Not Just for Servers Anymore”, I tended to ask myself: What is a server? How does it differ from a desktop? And why shouldn’t Linux be good be for something else than servers just right now?
Today, most desktop PCs are servers. Some of them intentionally offer server functionalities (serving web pages, sharing files and databases, offering remote access). Some of them even run “headless”.
There’s one problem I see: While server activities are one of the specialities of Linux OSes, they can cause problems on the desktop (home user’s) site. Because server operations do make a difference between the administrator (who has special knowledge and experience, the ability to read and the power to solve problems on his own) and the “ordinary” users (who expect everything to work by its own), security barriers are abandoned step by step to make the “non-server type user” feeling comfortable with the Linux OS. As long as abstraction tools, included in a GUI framework (usually KDE) do offer easy access to these administrative tasks, and as long as there is a proper preconfiguration, there surely won’t be any problem to make use of Linux outside a server environment.
A personal note: I’m using Linux since 1995 on the desktop, allthough FreeBSD and Solaris are my main OSes at home and at work. Coming from the world of mainframes and commercial UNIX OSes, Linux OSes were really a joy to use. All of them are great desktop OSes and, at least for me, always have been.
Because of its ongoing good development, Linux will increase its mind share, usage share, and, maybe, its oh joy oh praise oh market share.
Linux is a great OS for servers, desktops, and mixed forms, hey, even for embedded devices – and has been for years. I always thought this is OS News, not OS Olds…
Ubuntu in particular is installed on 6 million to 12 million computers worldwide in more than 220 countries…. i run ubuntu. and you know. i wonder where they got this information? canonical?