Search

Awesomeness tracker

View blog authority

Debunking Myths That Say Linux Won't Reach the Desktop

August 18th, 2008 by Rishabh Mishra

Introduction

Every couple of weeks, I’ll hear someone or read a blog post that says that Linux will never reach mainstream desktop users.

I completely disagree.

Of course, saying that I don’t agree and then ending the post here would be foolish, so I will debunk some myths about Linux, and hopefully illustrate why I think that Linux will reach the desktop.

PS: i80and points out he saw another article titled 9 Linux Myth Debunked. The myths that the author covers are mostly different from the ones covered in the article, and I started the first draft of the article several days before the article was published.

Arguments and my responses

Myth 1: Windows Vista showed us that six different versions of one operating system is bound to confuse users. The hundreds of Linux distros out there will only confuse users further.

Response 1: Users will only be confused if they have to make the distro choice on their own. If users can get help to narrow down the choices to one distro, they won’t feel confusion and frustration due to the massive amount of distros.

Myth 2: It doesn’t matter if Linux is better, because users will not like Linux because Linux is different.

Response 2: Linux will never be Windows, but user interfaces of Linux applications can be made with former Windows users in mind. Clever theming can modify existing application user interfaces to feel more like Windows.

Efforts to make Linux more friendly for former Windows users have already started. There is already an entire Linux desktop environment designed to look like Windows.

Myth 3: Linux will never succeed because big companies do not support Linux.

Response 3: This is a chicken-and-egg issue. Big companies will not support Linux because Linux has few users in comparison to Windows, and some users will not try Linux because the big companies do not support Linux.

But this chicken-and-egg issue does not mean that Linux is doomed. If existing, open-source software can be made more usable for former Windows users, some new users might make the switch to Linux. If enough users switch to Linux, the big companies might reconsider their decision to not support Linux.

On the positive side, look how far Linux has come. Think of all the existing big companies that support Linux. IBM, Dell, HP, Novell, Google, Intel, VIA, and AMD support Linux.

Myth 4: Linux users have to compile everything, which confuses new users.

Response 4: Compiling is only necessary on distros where expansive repositories of software are not available. Users can avoid compiling simply by installing distros that do have the expansive respositories of software.

Myth 5: Hardly any hardware works in Linux.

Response 5: I suggest you read Greg Kroah-Hartman‘s post Linux Driver Project Status Report as of April 2008. If you don’t have time to read the whole post, I’ll just highlight an important part below (emphasis mine).

Back in 2006 I gave a talk at the Ottawa Linux Symposium about a number of myths that are around the Linux kernel. One of them was device and driver support. I stated then, and still do that:

Linux supports more different types of devices than any other operating system ever has in the history of computing.

Later on, a representative from Microsoft validated this statement saying that their research agreed with it, so this is not an unproven statement.

Myth 6: Files from Linux will not work on Windows, and vice versa.

Response 6: Plenty of files from Windows will work on Linux, and vice versa. I will use The GIMP, an image editor available, as an example. The GIMP can open and save Autodesk flic animations, Corel Paint Shop Pro images, and Adobe Photoshop Documents (from The GIMP’s Wikipedia article).

The open source office suite OpenOffice can open a variety of file formats, including those from Microsoft Office.

However, this does not mean that every file format that can be read in Windows can be read on Linux. More obscure file formats that belong to Windows-only applications may not be able to be opened on Linux, unless the Windows application to read and write to that file format can be run on Linux using WINE.

Proprietary codecs may be necessary to play some of the popular media file formats. These proprietary codecs cannot be shipped with Linux due to legal concerns. If your jurisdiction allows it, you can download the codecs and use them. Linux users in areas where just downloading the codecs would be illegal can legally obtain the codecs from Fluendo.

In conclusion, an amazingly large amount of file formats can be played on Linux. There may be slight difficulty in reading and/or writing to proprietary or obscure file formats, but the Linux community can assist with that.

Posted in Linux | View Comments

rev668

I dual boot XP and whatever flavour of linux I'm playing with at the time (currently ubuntu due to all the 'hype')

I've used linux from SuSE 6.4 and even in the latest distro's there are still many things that make me choose XP at boot time...

The default UI - Why oh why does every linux distro I've tried look like it was designed for children? huge icons, even bigger ugly text in menus, it almost feels as if I've dropped down a screen resolution or 2.

Sound - I have yet to get a distro that has good sound support, we have ALSA, OSS, the newer ones which I forget, seems like a mini-battle for sound support.

Until linux allows me to download and install a new program as easily as XP I doubt linux will make the mainstream, if I want to install a new application under linux, I download the equivalent of a zip file, extract it, look through for some kind of install instructions, create directories, change permissions and a bunch of messing about. With windoze you download to desktop and double click... if only linux was that easy.

Having said all that, I love linux and it's quirks (sound support apart). and use it regularly when not gaming :)

Rev
Yaro

"The default UI - Why oh why does every linux distro I've tried look like it was designed for children? huge icons, even bigger ugly text in menus, it almost feels as if I've dropped down a screen resolution or 2."

Sounds to me like there's something wrong with your display. Are you using really old hardware? Or really obscure hardware? Maybe you're using nVidia cards without proprietary drivers? TRUST me, there's no reason why text and icons should be so large, so if it feels like you've lost resolution, you probably have. I'm able to use my full 1680 by 1050 resolution. To make things even smaller, I adjusted my text pitch to only about 88 DPI. Works really well.

As for the rest of the interface... it is EASILY changed.

"Sound - I have yet to get a distro that has good sound support, we have ALSA, OSS, the newer ones which I forget, seems like a mini-battle for sound support."

Actually, we just have ALSA... OSS is usually not even compiled into the kernel and OSS apps just get rerouted to ALSA. Sound usually works perfectly on Linux thanks to ALSA, but there is a new "kid" on the block that screws it all up called "Pulse Audio" that some distributions foolishly bundle by default. Ubuntu, SuSE, and Fedora do it. The others don't.

If you use those that install it by default your best bet is to remove it and get ALSA reconfigured. Believe me, ALSA works perfectly unless the distributor screws it up with PA.

"Until linux allows me to download and install a new program as easily as XP I doubt linux will make the mainstream, if I want to install a new application under linux, I download the equivalent of a zip file, extract it, look through for some kind of install instructions, create directories, change permissions and a bunch of messing about. With windoze you download to desktop and double click... if only linux was that easy."

What? Searching through tools like Synaptic is harder than picking through hundreds of spyware, shareware, commercialware and manually resolving libraries like .NET is easier than the one-command wonders that are apt-get, yum, and pacman? Perhaps you were left totally unaware of Linux package managers? Because trust me, most your Linux distros have massive software repositories that do ALL of that for you, so it sounds like you completely forgot about them or just weren't aware of them to begin with.

Trust me, with package managers and respositories, most Linux distros beat the software installation practices of Windows hands down.
MMike

I personally use Ubuntu linux as my choice at home, however my wife does not want to leave windows. While installing the same network printer on both systems, I noticed the windows version took about 10 minutes while the linux version took about 1.5. I also bring documents from home (linux) to work (winblows) and have never had a problem
worldhate

These 'myths' had been 'debunked' a millions times already... Same story over and over again for the last 10 years... Same arguments on both sides.
And what has changed in the mean time? Not much. Has Linux reached the desktop? No, it hasn't. Will it ever? Probably not.
I like having Linux to mess with, but it seems it just wasn't meant for desktop. Every little thing you want to achieve requires 200 standard actions and a few very esoteric ones, coupled with some deadly pitafalls a new user could never know of... Just google for a tutorial that explains how the same thing is done under Windows and Linux and do the math for yourself. I'm sorry to say, but that's just not the way to reach desktop users.
Yaro

On the contrary, Linux has made *significant* inroads to being a good desktop option. Like the argument above made by the LDP: In only ONE year, Linux went from having few drivers to having the MOST drivers. Dell, Lenovo, and Asus decided that it was time to make Linux desktop PCs.

As for 200 standard actions? Hardly. I'd say maybe ten, which is a nice number: You install any drivers missing (Not bloody likely to BE missing in the first place.), codecs, and your favorite apps with one command, even in power distros like Arch this can all be done with one command. Uno. One single command.

My experience has always been Linux taking a fraction of the time Windows does to be ready for regular use. There will be exceptions, like Arch only having the core so you have to set EVERYTHING up, to Gentoo taking a weekend to install purely because it's a source distribution.

But then take Ubuntu, which has just about everything set up for you, or Mint, which even has all codecs set and ready to go, which even Windows doesn't have.
Wiggsfly

Some very good points. I also believe that Linux is bound to continue to increase it's marketshare in the desktop environment. I doubt it will ever de-throne Mac or Windows, but it will easily become a third mainstream option in the future.
Rishabh Mishra

Thank you.

I think a good portion of the Linux community doesn't want Mac or Windows de-throned, but wants mainstream users to be aware of Free alternatives to proprietary software.

Though, I could see Linux surpassing Mac OS X in marketshare if Apple does not lower the cost of Macs.
Yaro

"Though, I could see Linux surpassing Mac OS X in marketshare if Apple does not lower the cost of Macs."

Won't ever happen, of course. Apple is too convinced that their computers are somehow worth 20%-70% more than PCs, despite Macs being nothing but PCs now with the same hardware and everything.

See, the reason I don't buy the "Macs are going to take over argument" is primarily that reason. By switching to Linux I don't spend ANYTHING. I keep my perfectly good hardware and I get to use a superior alternative to BOTH Windows and Mac OS X.

When switching to Macs, you are effectively doing more than just an operating system change, you're spending more money on entirely new hardware. That costs a lot of money, and I see that's primarily why Macs will never take a significant market share.
Richard Chapman

Linux will never succeed like Windows. Linux will succeed like Linux. In my opinion Myth #4 should be recategorized. It's not a myth at all, it's a lie. Nice debunking though, thanks.
Rishabh Mishra

Wise words. Most Linux users don't want Windows-like marketshare because diversity is better for security (although Linux is very secure).

I also know that you were talking about more than just marketshare, and Linux already has had massive success in many areas.
Yaro

I believe one person debunked the idea Windows is so insecure because of market share simply by pointing out how many LAMP stacks there are that ware in a "better" position to be exploited, and yet the WISA stacks (Windows, IIS, SQL Server, ASP.net) which get nowhere close to a majority share are still targetted.
Dave Field

If could add my 2 pennies worth

Myth1: The issue isn't specifically choice, having 6 Vista versions caused confusion because esentially people couldn't see the differences between what is essentially the same looking thing. With Linux, this is a slightly different ituation, as your getting a lot more choice for your buck. and you are right, some hand holding is required to get the right distro.

However the underlying fact is, Windows doesn't offer you choice, something i don't think the community uses to its advantage. With Windows you get windows, with Linux, you get KDE, Gnome, XCFE etc, there are a multitude of tools to achive the same goal, and as all people work a different way, some will have preferred tools.. how can this be a bad thing?

Myth2: I love this one, people won't use linux because its different.. er Apple? Isn't that different, people use that.. as long as there is a mouse, a web browser, an email client, and an IM, people are in the most happy, hence why these Webbooks are doing so well, its not the OS, its the tools which make the difference.

Myth3, as you pointed out, Novell, Redhat and Sun are HUGE companies. as are Google, amazon, Tivo.. just because you can't see it, doesn't mean its not being used.. people don't actually realise how often they use Linux powered systems..

Myth5: I ask you to install a Logitech Quick cam on windows without an Internet connection or install CD, then on Ubuntu, once you've done that, try an HP PSC.. now tell me that Windows has superior Driver support..
Rishabh Mishra

Excellent response to Myth 1. Some choices can work in the favor of the user, such as choosing Xubuntu or Fluxbuntu for older computers. But there are choices that the user doesn't care about, such as which type of package management system to select. Having multiple package management systems isn't a bad thing, because it allows innovation. But usually, non-technical mainstream users won't feel the need to spend a lot of time thinking about which package management system to use.

In your response to myth 5, you are correct that Windows is more likely to need an Internet connection or driver installation CD for new hardware, due to Linux supporting more hardware out of the box. The problem is hardware manufacturers are more likely to distribute driver install CDs for Windows than release a spec or create a Linux driver. Like another comment author said, this is mostly apparent with the newest hardware on the market that hasn't had the chance to be supported by the community.

Thanks for writing such a detailed comment.
Yaro

Well, while Linux supports more hardware out-of-box than Windows, remember that all across the Internet and driver distribution sphere, Linux has way more drivers than Windows.

The issue is how to get them. While most ethernet I've used works flawlessly with Linux out of the box, what if there's a more "fringe" ethernet card only a userspace driver that doesn't come with your distro works with?

It PAYS to have a separate stream for drivers. My best option would be to just boot into Windows if it has ethernet working, look up my network interface, and find the driver for Linux.

This has not happened to me yet, though, since ALL my drivers are available if not already ready to use with my distribution. The only driver I have to explicitly download is my proprietary nVidia driver. Back when I used Ubuntu it was because they wanted to avoid actually putting anything proprietary ("non-free") in the defalult desktop. I use Arch now. And the reason THAT isn't preinstalled and fully ready is for the same reason NO OTHER video drivers except for vesa are installed: In Arch, X and anything that uses it purely an extra, and the virtual consoles (The TTYs.) have no use for drivers more advanced than vesa.
Dennis Fisher

The hardware myth continues to be perceived that way and is still somewhat of a valid problem because NEW hardware will always work with Windows out of the box, whereas although Linux may, for the sake of argument, support every single video card ever created from six months ago on backwards, a video card released since then, bought at the store and brought home may not work at all until some subsequent kernel release, leaving the user with the idea of poor hardware support.

A huge argument in response to this is usually "well they should research the hardware before buying it!" Why? They don't have to when using Windows, and that's what's setting their expectations, typically.

This is improving as hardware makers are becoming more receptive to Linux and ensuring that their devices work in Linux, but is probably a large part of why that myth continues to be propagated.
42gems

agreed. most hardware companies won't release linux drivers, so new hardware tends to go unsupported under linux for several months before someone manages to knowck together a properly working driver. even intel graphics cards (and intel even releases their own linux drivers) don't have good linux drivers the moment they're released.
Yaro

This is not a strong disadvantage if it takes only a few months. Think of how slowly things take to release between markets by geography, for example. Rarely is, say, a video game released globally on one date, it's more region released.

Cross-platform releases are effectively the same way. New hardware? Wait for its actual Linux "release."

I have noticed nVidia is *very* good at havign drivers ready for all supported platforms FAST though. Note how quickly their drivers are out, supported and set for each new Xorg release.
Rishabh Mishra

Interesting point on the "new hardware" issue. Of course, not all new hardware will work on Microsoft Windows, but you are correct in saying that more newly released hardware will work on Windows compared to Linux.
Jose_X

Users don't have to have choices narrowed down. What they need is simplicity in usage. Virtualization, clever multi-boot, and similar approaches offer the potential to try out many distros. Specialty distros should play a very important and large role in the market place of the future. Allowing for many distros to be spun by users is very valuable as well (and should be an attraction to Linux). The main obstacle to this development is that the tools and technology to tie all of that together seamlessly have not yet been developed nearly as much as they could. Standardization will also have to keep advancing. A distro is a presentation. I see a point in time when there will be more unique distros than there will be PCs to host them. How many distros have you made?
Rishabh Mishra

Interesting thoughts, but in the vast majority of cases, it takes more time to test a lot of distros than just to go with one distro. Users also only want to put minimal effort in installing and configuring their operating system. As there is already a lot of work, such as moving files, that need to be done when switching to a new operating system, it is not best for the user to have to do even more work in order to find out which distro is right for him or her.

I agree that specialty distros are important, but I believe mainstream users generally will want a distro with large software repositories, a friendly community to help with issues, and a very user friendly administration interface. Plenty of specialty distros do not have those three things.

Solutions you mentioned, such as virtualization and clever multi-boot are things that would be good for users that are having a problems specific to a certain distribution.
JohnMc

I would emphasize that adoption is not a problem. ASUS will sell 5m units of the eePC most with Linux installed. Motherboards are coming out that can cold boot into mail and a browser using Linux under the hood. The end user is not aware of it but that is what is happening -- even if Windows is whatis loaded on the hard drive.
Rishabh Mishra

Excellent point. Linux is already well onto its way to reaching mainstream desktop users. Also, thanks for pointing out that tidbit involving the motherboards.

Cheers.

CodingExperiments.com

$ sudo make money

Search

Category:

Archives:

Pages

Meta:

Awesomeness tracker

Debunking Myths That Say Linux Won't Reach the Desktop

Introduction

Arguments and my responses