It's time to retire "ready for the desktop" ( Linux Topic)

Quite a few reviews of new Linux releases these days try to determine if a distribution is "ready for the desktop." I myself have probably been guilty of using that phrase, but I think it's time we officially retire this criterion.

What defines an operating system as being ready for the desktop? Surely everyone has a different opinion on the actual definition. While my search for an official definition or list of guidelines has failed, to me this phrase means that the OS is usable by everyone, meets everyone's needs, and is able to do everything that everyone wants it to do. In that regard, is any operating system truly ready for the desktop?

I'm an IT technician, and clients bring PCs to me for almost any reason, including defective hardware and software not working correctly, among other things. This is regardless of the OS, though Windows XP is among the most common that my clients bring to me for help. This does not mean that Windows XP is a bad OS, it just raises the question that if XP is "ready for the desktop" to the point where it serves as the main comparison point of many Linux reviewers, why am I getting so many machines that run it to fix, and why do I get asked constantly to train people on how to use it or its applications? The fact is, there are just as many people out there who have difficulty using Windows as there are who have trouble using Linux.

I understand that comparing Linux to Windows is a hard situation to avoid, especially considering that Windows is the dominant OS in the market. But I think we should compare them less often, because Linux needs to stand on its own legs rather than in the shadow of its more popular competitor. Each OS has its merits, yet each is separate, caters to different types of users, and has independent strengths and weaknesses that complement each other. Windows has a large collection of commercially supported applications, Mac OS X focuses on usability and supported hardware, and Linux focuses on freedom, stability, and scalability. Since each OS caters to a different audience, there will never be "one OS to rule them all."

Another overdone review trend in the IT press these days is getting a person who is not very computer-savvy to sit down in front of a Linux distribution and seeing how well he (or more likely, she) is able to use it, as a way of determining how ready the OS is for the desktop. If one person is not able to be productive in Linux, does that really mean anything to the rest of us? Each of us has grown accustomed to a certain way of doing things, and each of us has our own preferences. I use Linux because it does everything that I want it to do. I like the way Linux does things, but not everyone is going to agree. If a user has difficulty with Linux and a reviewer grades a distro badly because of this, the review doesn't help Linux users to know whether the distribution would make a good switch from our current one, has great features, or contains any severe bugs.

While I don't feel that naming an OS as being ready for the desktop is a fair argument, I do believe that Linux needs to continue to make strides in usability in order to have a wider audience, such as a focus on getting Windows games to work, and less need for the command line. But assuming that Linux needs to cater to the entire PC world is silly. As it is now, Linux is a very viable option on the desktop. While it's not for everyone, Windows and Mac OS X are not a good choice for some people either.

The truth is that no OS is ready for the desktop, and never will be. An OS that was ready for the desktop would put people like me out of business, because it would be theoretically perfect. Since each person uses his computer in different ways, it's impossible for one OS to cater to everyone. Therefore, you shouldn't ask if an OS is ready for the desktop; rather, is the OS ready for your desktop?

Jeremy LaCroix is an IT technician who writes in his free time.

From one of my blog posts back in Februrary after trying to get one of my programs to work under Ubunto:

As much as I bash M$ the simple fact is they will always be the dominant OS. Not because of some crooked things or getting rid of the competition. The reason M$ will always be the dominant OS is because of ease of use.

The reason Linux will never be mainstream can be summed up in three lines:

$ ./configure
$ make depend && make
$ sudo make install

No. Mainstream people do not want to go to a command line to compile and install stuff. We want to click on a happy little icon, hit next three or four times, then hit finished.

Now I've been in the command line world. I know how to do it, I've done it before. There is no reason for it any longer with today's computers. Linux has GUI available, but still gotta go to the command line to install it or run it, then gotta go to the command line to install anything onto the GUI, then gotta go to the command line to remove anything, etc etc.

Until Linux gets away from requiring the command line it will never ever be mainstream.

“This does not mean that Windows XP is a bad OS, it just raises the question that if XP is “ready for the desktop” to the point where it serves as the main comparison point of many Linux reviewers, why am I getting so many machines that run it to fix, and why do I get asked constantly to train people on how to use it or its applications?”

I have the answer to this question. After 28 years of working with average users I find the answer to be obvious.

1. The average user only learns the function he needs to get his daily tasks done. He is ignorant of 99% of the operating system.

2. The average user doesn't know if his computer has a firewall or anti-virus protection. He has no idea that virus data files must be updated and/or his update license has expired.

3. The average user will click on anything and reflexively clicks yes at every opportunity.

4. The virus writing crowd concentrates on XP because most users use XP. The same is true for malware and adware/crapware writers. There is little point in writing programs that will never run.

Linux is a good desktop if you don't want to run the thousands (millions?) of programs that are available for the PC. Linux is reasonably fast, almost free to operate, and can do most office tasks adequately. The office suite software for Linux is acceptable, but not exceptional.

Linux is ready for the desktop, but not ready for the average user who doesn't want to learn anything and wants to play Doom and Grand Theft Auto.

I use Linux, but have to switch to my PC to run Exchange. Perhaps there is a kluge for that problem, but I don't know it yet.

Until Linux gets away from requiring the command line it will never ever be mainstream.

Technicians go to to the command line interface of XP all the time to, for instance, configure network settings. In addition, although I'm no Linux guru, I've used distributions that didn't require using the command line for the tasks I was interested in doing, Linspire comes to mind.

And although Free BSD isn't Linux, it is a UNIX look-alike, and Apple has chosen it to under gird their standard OS. So more people are using open source than realize it.

Linix may never have the market share Windows does, but the ease of use keeps increasing and the debate seems to have degraded into a mere debate over preference rather than capability.

Why must we get into these sorts of religious arguments on a Sunday?

Engineers work with the seven layer ISO networking model - physical, data link, network, transport, session, presentation and application. Each has defined functions and standards for how it communicates with other systems and with other layers.

Business has added three layers on top of these. They are not defined by any Swiss standards body and there are no RFCs that I know of that explain their functionality.

These three layers are:

Financial - How much will it cost and how does it get paid for. Linux is the superior product at this layer in terms of purchase price. In total cost of ownership terms, the jury is out. This is where the bean counters make their decisions.

Political - Who is for it and can they get it implemented. Microsoft’s marketing clout reaches for the hearts and minds of those of the top of the corporate pyramid. Linux will always be at a disadvantage here.

Religious - Is it a holy thing. This level is ruled by the technical priesthoods. Unfortunately this is where most techies (as opposed to engineers) make their decisions. The vendors strategies at this layer are to get the believers early in their careers and bind them to the order with certifications. The lesser acolytes, the CCNAs, MCDSTs etc. are trained to aspire to higher levels of certifications - MCSE, CCIE, OCM... Oooooo.

Trying to introduce Linux or Mac into an environment ruled by MCSEs can be akin to introducing the Latin Mas at a Ramadan celebration. It can result in holy war. There may be no rational reason not to support Linux in a business, it may be the most cost effective, stable server platform for your business but until the Linux priesthood overtakes the Microsoft priesthood don’t look for wide Linux acceptance in the enterprise.

Poser: After 28 years of working with average users...

The other thing you have to remember about "average" users is that, on average, they are dumber than you.

Windows has to be dumbed because - let's face it - 50% of all people are dumber than average.

Domandred: $ ./configure $ make depend && make $ sudo make install

Expecting that people who are functionally illiterate could type that string of characters without introducing typographical errors - much less that they could understand what they were typing, or why they were typing it - is ludicrous.

It's like asking the average American to get up off his fat @ss, walk over to his TV, unscrew the back panel, and begin testing resistors or capacitors for replacement.

H3ll, the average American can't even set the time on his VCR.

Mainstream people do not want to go to a command line to compile and install stuff.

Define "mainstream". It's not necessarily grandma who can barely see a screen. It people who actually *use* computers who care about things like this. Those people actually can get around on the command line.

I'm getting tired of the "ready for the desktop" criterion to be that any idiot can do whatever s/he wants on a tool as complex as a computer. It was never meant to be that simple, and--as long as you want the power/ability to do whatever you want--it will never be that simple.

Point and click to do whatever you want to do will never happen--even under Windows.

Your three steps you listed above are one way to install software, but it's getting rather long in the tooth. Yum or apt-get, or any number of other package managers have been making software installation/removal even easier than it is under Windows. Graphical frontends to those programs are getting more and more popular. It's now possible to install and run Linux without ever getting into the command line.

I'll never go that route, though, because I like to actually take advantage of the power of my machines. My kids, however, never see a command line, and they prefer Linux over Windows these days.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.