Linux is dead... at least on the desktop

While Linux implementations in the datacenter may be on the rise, PC World says that Linux on the desktop has already died , perhaps as long ago as 2008.

Ironically, Linux has become easier to use over the years with the Ubuntu Distribution leading the way in ease of installation and use. It is no longer required to know how to compile your own kernel (like I did back in the Slackware days!), nor is it necessary to configure audio/video drivers or your XFree86 setup. Everything is done for you – which should make things easier for your mom and dad to use.

Unfortunately, as the article points out, a lack of content is what has kept Linux as an afterthought on the desktop market. Most of this has to do with Digital Rights Management (DRM), the system that content providers use to limit how and when you can use their media. For example, playing regular DVDs out of the box requires extra work due to the “Content Scrambling System” or CSS for short. In order to play DVD video, you need to manually install an extra package because it’s not included in Linux distributions due to licensing and legal issues. While the installation is not difficult, most normal end users would simply throw up their hands and say that Linux is broken if they can’t play a movie on their newly installed system.

Another problem is the fragmentation of Linux distributions. While most people have probably heard of Red Hat and Ubuntu, there are dozens more that are more obscure – from Absolute to Zorin. While most have a standard base (Zorin, for example, is based on Ubuntu), making tools compatible across all of the distributions is very difficult. The article gives an example of Flash not working well in the past due to Linux fragmentation and poor drivers.

The article goes on to say that the only hope Linux has on the desktop is with the current shift towards cloud computing, where the choice of desktop operating system is unimportant. That said, Linux is still strong in the server, appliance, and mobile markets and all signs are that it will remain so due to the very flexibility that prevents it from being a mainstream operating system.

http://www.neowin.net/news/linux-is-...on-the-desktop

[Hlingler]

???

Seems to be working fine here.

V

[jpollard]

Works fine where I worked (DoD). They used Linux/BSD/Solaris. I used Linux
for desktop use ever since about 1995.

[pete_1967]

I wonder if anyone told that writer in PCWorld that that proprietary Mac desktop is based on free, open source operating system?

Meanwhile I continue using my still breathing Linux desktop.

[mwesten]

Originally Posted by Hlingler

Seems to be working fine here.

Mine is too!

[bob]

PCWorld is a joke compared to PCMag. That said, we'll always hang in the 1% range and that's fine with me. It's an OS that I choose to use, however there's nothing wrong with Win7 or whatever else works for others.

[kona0197]

I don't think Linux is dead on the desktop. However I do agree with some of the points in the article.

[Wayne]

Whenever I see headlines like that I just think to myself "Here we go again, another loser journalist who needs to justify to his boss why he 'deserves' his bloated salary"

[psd911]

Well I just switched from windoze to Fedora a couple of days ago. Tired of all the $$ to pay out for security and lost time. I'm hoping I can make a 100% move in the near future. So it just came alive in my world.

[brunson]

To paraphrase Mark Twain... "Reports of its demise have been greatly exaggerated."

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by pete_1967

I wonder if anyone told that writer in PCWorld that that proprietary Mac desktop is based on free, open source operating system?

Only because Apple open-sourced XNU.

Also, what does being based on an Open-Source Kernel has to do anything. Linux essentially rejects the world, so the world ignores it. Mac OSX embraces standards, open or not, therefore relevant to the world.

[pete_1967]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Only because Apple open-sourced XNU.

Eh, no. Because OS X is based on BSD, and FreeBSD specifically.

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Also, what does being based on an Open-Source Kernel has to do anything.

How about: if that kernel didn't exist, neither would the OS that is using it?

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Linux essentially rejects the world, so the world ignores it.

Really? Damn it's terrible that such widely rejected OS is used all over the place from servers to mobile phones to ereaders and what nots.

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Mac OSX embraces standards, open or not, therefore relevant to the world.

Ok, Microsoft doesn't embrace standards, so they are irrelevant to the world then?

================================================== ================================================== ===============================
What the writer of that article doesn't realise is that there is no aftermarket for Linux machines thus retailers have zero incentive to push them to the consumer. Also, apart of few games, there is no such commercial must have, killer application (virus scanners excluded) for consumer desktop that doesn't have free alternative available (better than commercial one or not), therefore companies haven't got much will to port their products. Open source applications such as Firefox and Open Office can't be compared to popularity of operating system because it is tad easier to install a desktop application than replace your OS.

Doesn't mean that I ever expect Linux to be dominating OS on desktop, but I don't even want it to be.

[RupertPupkin]

s/Linux/BSD/g

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by pete_1967

Eh, no. Because OS X is based on BSD, and FreeBSD specifically.

Wroooooong.

The only BSD part of Mac OSX is the POSIX API (Something Linux stilll doesn't fully implement), networking stack and the Unix compatible Daemons. The main component of the Darwin Kernel is XNU, a NeXT technology. XNU itself is not even UNIX, so it can't be based on BSD.

Originally Posted by pete_1967

How about: if that kernel didn't exist, neither would the OS that is using it?

That still doesn't answer my question. Mac OSX is based inherently based from Mach, not BSD. Extra functionality was added to the kernel by using code from the BSD kernel thus making the XNU kernel.

Originally Posted by pete_1967

Really? Damn it's terrible that such widely rejected OS is used all over the place from servers to mobile phones to ereaders and what nots.

So is OS/2, HP-UX, Windows, Mach, Minix, XNU...

Hell, a Phone beats Desktop Linux. (Which is what the post is about)

Originally Posted by pete_1967

Ok, Microsoft doesn't embrace standards, so they are irrelevant to the world then?

For a start Microsoft do embrace standards, so your post just wreaks of someone just blatantly rolling their head on their keyboard.

[DBelton]

Where I work, linux is THE only desktop application allowed. Anyone that tries to connect to the mainframe system with a windows machine is locked out immediately and not allowed to connect.

This is done because of all the security problems in a windows machine.