Will Linux ever go mainstream?

Some thoughts on Linux as a desktop OS

Published on January 13, 2004 By Draginol In Personal Computing

Linux will never make it mainstream on the desktop unless Microsoft does something incredibly stupid.

I fought in the trenches of the OS Wars back in the 1990s. During the height of the Microsoft-IBM battle for the desktop with Windows 3.1 vs. OS/2, myself and Dave Barnes from IBM went on the road together demoing OS/2 and OS/2 + Object Desktop to HP, Gateway, Dell, Compaq, and the rest in an effort to get OS/2 pre-loaded.

At the time, OS/2 was remarkably better. There was no debate about that. Windows 3.1 was a 16bit shell on DOS that could barely multitask, crashed constantly and had a primitive shell. By contrast, OS/2 2.1 was a full 32 bit OS with preemptive multitasking, multithreading, an object oriented shell that could even run DOS, Windows as well as OS/2 programs. OS/2 was a far better choice.

And OS/2 still lost. Linux advocates are stuck on the edges nit-picking some piddly issue here and there about Windows. It is very unlikely that ever again an OS will have such a clear and easy to see set of advantages like the kinds OS/2 had over Windows. And if OS/2, backed by IBM, couldn't defeat Microsoft, who in 1994/1995 was much less powerful than they are today, I just don't see what chance Linux has even if they do get their act together.

Which brings up the next issue, Linux advocates. Unlike Mac users who have a good reason to brag about MacOS X (particularly 10.3), Linux, as a desktop OS, is inferior. Its best argument for it is that it's "free". But when you can get a Dell PC with Windows XP on it for $399 (including monitor), such arguments seem kind of weak. Linux, as a desktop, feels taped together. It has so many rough edges. And it delivers no significant benefit over Windows for those rough edges.

That was ultimately what doomed OS/2 - by 1997 when Windows NT 4.0 was available and mature OS/2 wasn't delivering anything significant over Windows NT in exchange for the host of minor annoynces OS/2 had. That new piece of hardware that either didn't work under OS/2 or required some weird tweaking. That program you wanted to try out that just didn't quite work under emulation in OS/2 for some reason. That web page that didn't display quite how it was supposed to because it was using ActiveX or some new version of Shockwave or whatever got old too.

OSes can get away with such announces if they provide something blatantly concrete in return. I just don't see what Linux delivers in exchange for the pains it requires of its users. Linux advocates on the net tend to fall into the old "OS/2 hard luck syndrome" (as we used to call it). Where for whatever reason, every possible problem one could have with Windows seemed to happen to Linux (or OS/2) advocates such as system crashing, lost data, fires, you name it. Such arguments are never compelling to normal users who found Windows ME (ack) "good enough" and Windows XP to be a panacea of stability. The same is true of arguments that boil down to "I don't need that feature." which regularly comes up when discussing software that isn't available or features missing in a "equivlanet" piece of software.

For these reasons, I think Linux will always be a hobbiest OS on the desktop and a good server OS for those either on a budget or who need to a very custom solution.

Comments

Lunaticus Minimus

on Jan 13, 2004

Several times over the course of the years I've pondered using Linux..
But it always comes down to..why do I need Linux?
If I custom build a pc, I can arrange to get some version of Windows without too much cash..
If I buy a pc, it comes loaded 9 times out of 10 with some form of Windows, as well.

XP has surprised me, both home and pro in the leap of quality from 98..
Why do I need Linux, unless it's to feel elitest and nickpick at windows? (even if it's a misguided nitpick)

Jason

on Jan 13, 2004

Maybe Linux will not take on the "Home User's" desktop, but it will certainly work itself into the business line of workstations.
Linux is very customizable such that for the home user no one has really step up and made all the various app seamless. But in business you only need a set of core apps that can be made to work together. The idea of a "game/work" computer system is going to be disappearing...
The above is my opinion and may not reflect reality...

stevendedalus

on Jan 14, 2004

I stupidly tried Linux at one time in conjunction with Linux WordPerfect. It was a disaster, not even the monitor & mouse were compatible. Too bad about OS/2; I could never understand why IBM continued to surrender to Gates.

Oscar

on Jan 14, 2004

I have tried to switch to Linux a couple of times and still have Redhat 9.0 on one of my harddrives. It was kind of fun to try and make it work as a hobby... and the desktops were different. But forget printing anything decently or trying to get the programs I absolutely had to have (dictionaries etc..) work under WINE or more expensive emulators (win4lin etc...). Anyway I changed hobbies and decided to devote my free time to learning Spanish so Linux hasn't been used for 3 years.

Brad is absolutely right, windows Me seldom crashed... I never lost data and my machine is on 24 hours a day. Actually Linux froze much more often than Windows ME although it may have been I was doing something forbidden?? It was hard to say.

The sense of community with Linux is fun and a lot of people devote a lot of time to posting how to things on the internet. As a hobby it is great as a desktop alternative to windows for the average user no.

What really needs to be done is breaking up Microsoft into Baby Bills, that would give us lots of fun alternatives, and we came so close to it what a shame.

webfun

on Jan 14, 2004

I have three answers for you : KNOPPIX, SunSuseJavaDesktop and Apple OS/X

"LINUX HAS arrived on the desktop"

See http://webfun.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=4661 for more info

Andreas

on Jan 14, 2004

Interesting post and I largely agree. But I see Linux growing stronger in the server market by the day (companies switching from other flavours of Unix to Linux) and I think that Linux in the server market will extend to more than customized servers and budget options.

I also think that this might be the way that Linux will enter the corporate desktop. I don't know much about how well OS/2 fared in the server market, but I do think that OS/2 was not as strong in the server department as Linux. There might be a spillover effect from the server installations. "Hey! Linux are working great on our servers, why not run it on desktops?"

Alex T6903

on Jan 14, 2004

I’ve run a lot of OS’s in my day DOS/Win 3.1, OS/2 Warp, Win 95/98/ME/NT/XP, Mac OS, & Red Hat. The best one of any by far is Win NT, if it supported current hardware I’d still be running it over XP.

OS2 never even had a chance, even IBM didn’t offer it standard on it’s computers, OS/2 was an extra cost option. It’s not like selling extra copies of OS/2 would cost IBM much. How is IBM going to convince someone to pay extra for OS/2 over Windows?

Linux was stable enough, my problem with Linux is that everything takes at least an hour to do. If you want to install an application that isn’t included in an RPM, you’re going to spend an hour doing it. If you want to install some new hardware, one hour. If you want to set up a network, one hour. Eventually I just got sick of spending so much time doing simple tasks that would only take a couple of minutes in Windows.

Linux could end up going mainstream but it would take a Mac OSX type shell to do it and I don’t think there is enough leadership in the Linux community to make that radical of a change.

Sam

on Jan 15, 2004

webfun:

KNOPPIX and SunSuseJavaDesktop - The problem isn't so much the GUI, but the lack of software, lack of supported hardware, and low market share. Hey, *nix OSs are stable and secure - the server market will eat them up with hardly any aggressive marketing. However, you don't get to be number one in the consumer market with an open source product - Microsoft will outmanouver every design-by-committee upstart without so much as breaking a sweat.

Apple OS/X - Will never ever work on anything except Apple hardware. And there's no way that Apple can beat HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer, Fujitsu-Siemens, etc, etc, etc. People will continue to buy Wintels because they're cheaper, they do everything MacOS does (albeit with less style and ease of use), and they're cheaper. Did I mention they're cheaper? Software and hardware are cheaper too!

I do think Apple will expand its user base in the coming years, but I think Apple's market cap is at about 10% tops (If I can ever afford to buy two new computers, one of them will be a Mac for sure).

kthxbye

on Jan 15, 2004

webfun: "and Apple OS/X. LINUX HAS arrived on the desktop"

Uhm.... you -do- know what OSX is, yes? OSX uses a Mach kernel (Which is BSD-based,) and is based on... BSD.

BSD is not in any way, shape or form, Linux.

BSD is a Unix. Unix != Linux. Linux != Unix. BSD != Linux. (And, to show my own bias for a moment: BSD is what Linux wants to be when it grows up. ^.^)

Brad: "and a good server OS for those either on a budget or who need to a very custom solution."

This is the only statement I really have a problem with in your entire thing. Linux is a good server OS across the board - for any use (much like... yes. BSD! ^.^) It's not only for people who are on a limited budget or need a custom solution.

It's finding most of its gains in server situations where traditional Unixes might have been used - simply because Linux and BSD both are technologically superior to any of the commercial alternatives out there. Microsoft's offerings, despite their claims, simply do not scale nearly as well as they claim that they do once you get up into the large enterprise range. By now, hopefully, people know I like both Windows and BSD (and feel pure indifference to Linux.) so don't think I'm only saying this out of any MS-bashing here. ^.^

Sadly, Windows still starts to crumble under any heavy (and by heavy I mean /heavy/. ^.^) use. Linux and BSD don't.

fugmulch

on Jan 15, 2004

for xthxbye - a userfriendly fan by any chance? this is a recent userfriendly cartoon: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20040108

he touches the bsd vs. linux vs. unix vs. whatever pretty often.

that being said, i don't think linux will ever hit mainstream, at least not in its current form. for one, there are not enough games, i believe that games more than any other software drives the market, just look at the store shelves. how $39 word processors are out there compared to $39 RPS genre games? also, i see the many of the same issues with linux as i did with OS/2 (i was a die-hard for 3-4 years before i gave up, but i always had a windows partition to run games) and drivers. your average user does not want to tinker with drivers, or look for them on the internet, they want plug'n'play. your average user desn't care (anymore) how much memory or hard disk space or resources the o/s need because the offerings for hardware are much more robust than 5 years ago. besides, people buy ferrari's when they only need saturns when looking at computers, but that is a different ounce of pudding.

zergimmi

on Jan 22, 2004

Linux is mainstream, and with countries such as china adopting as their OS of choice, well numbers speak for themselves. Just so you understand what I mean Brad, China has announced that it will in the future be supporting Linux as the Industry standard in Government and Private sector, and has already secured contracts purchasing up to 200 million units for this year alone, , this would indicate that this is mainstream.

Tech Cat

on Jan 22, 2004

China using Linux as their mainstream OS is laughable. China's choice is based on their lack of money rather than which OS is the best.

zergimmi

on Jan 22, 2004

Tech Cat is the shortsighted tpye of argument that is the very reason why MS should be worried about emerging economies. I should say that China was an example only, many countries including largeish first world economies are now adopting Linux for many purpose from servers to desktops, this penertration is especially obvious in Government systems and schools, which is where these arguments are won and lost.

If Linux is no threat, why is MS so worried. Why are they suing linux on so many fronts, on the flipside if this OS is so bad, why iare large corpoations adopting it as their main OS, and why are schools porting their systems to this, besides the fact that it may be cheap or free, and may be a bit behind the eight ball, its acceptance and penertration is far higher than that of OS2 and is developed by many more software houses and supported by mny more. Still looks like mainstream, or is mainstream just the US.

messybuu

on Jan 22, 2004

Tech Cat is right on the money, unless Linux supporters are saying that vinyl is far superior to leather, or that plastic bumpers are far superior to metal ones. Each kind of entity mentioned is notorious for taking inferior alternatives to save money. Not that it doesn't make Linux less mainstream, but it's only mainstream for its price tag, not for its features.

Tech Cat

on Jan 23, 2004

The Chinese space program is probably running on Linux and gun powder

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!