Linux: Does Being Competitive with Windows Matter?

How many times have you heard this statement: "It's the year of the Linux desktop." Not recently? Then how about "Linux is making gains on the Windows desktop"? Still leaving a bad taste in your mouth? Bet I know why.

For years, both the statements above have been over-used to the point that either idea is now completely meaningless. Not due to anything negative with the Linux desktop, mind you, rather due to inherent differences in how Linux is marketed to the world, who its intended audience is and whether mainstream adoption even matters in the first place.

The idea behind the Linux distribution Linspire (aka Lindows) was to create a competing desktop environment for PC users not inclined to drop everything and move over to the Mac if they had a distaste for Windows. On the surface, it was an interesting idea. Unfortunately, at the time the Linux desktop technology of that era was not ready for the target market Linspire was going after.

With a more mature desktop experience, the Linspire model might have made greater inroads early without as many hurdles. But the fact is that Linspire took a desktop experience that was aimed at those seeking freedom and tried to make a Windows OS alternative out of it.

Linspire was hardly alone in this path of "conquering Windows" with the Linux mindset. Other Linux distributions of the period were also targeting new users. Unfortunately for adopters of these Linux distributions, functionality like Bluetooth, out of the box wireless connectivity, and other important items were simply not there yet on the Linux desktop. Sadly, this didn't stop many made-for-newbie distributions from pitching the idea to people anyway.

My switch to Linux wasn't an immediate one. But what was apparent early on during my Linux adoption was my motivation for making the switch in the first place – no longer wanting to use Windows.

This is where I think the confusion begins for most new Linux adopters. As we make the switch, we must fight the inherent urge to automatically begin comparing the new desktop experience to our previous experiences with Windows. It's a completely different set of circumstances, folks.

Some stuff is easier, other aspects of using the Linux desktop is a bit more involved. Yet once all is said and done, you’ll become a stronger, more self-reliant computer enthusiast if you stick to your efforts and work through any perceived challenges while discovering Linux.

I've grown to dislike the idea of comparing Windows and Linux as I feel that it's a lot like comparing apples to oranges. Both run software and each of them has its strengths and weaknesses. Trying to trump one over the other is time wasted in my opinion and leaves you with no benefit. It took me years to fully comprehend this, but the fact is that expecting one to behave like the other is just a silly waste of time.

All too often I see Linux users complain because something that worked fine with Windows failed to operate as expected with the Linux desktop. This of course, leads back down the road of comparing Windows with Linux.

The face that one platform can support a specific device while the other platform cannot (and so on) doesn't really solve the problem of getting said device working. You can see where this dysfunction of thought can become a big problem, fast.

I’ve learned to look at this in a completely different light. I start off by voting with my wallet. I purchase from those companies that support my chosen platform – Linux. Granted, there are some limited exceptions to this rule, generally my computers are almost always purchased from Linux offering vendors. For my peripherals, I use HP printers and Logitech webcams. And my wi-fi options either bear the name Intel or Edimax.

By taking this approach to my hardware and peripherals, I am avoiding the prospect of falling victim to the usual "it's not compatible" hoopla we see filling the various Linux forums. While it's not 100% foolproof, I've found that by supporting those vendors that support my platform choice, I'm working to keep a positive experience with Linux firmly in my sights.

Another issue with comparing the Linux and Windows desktops is what some have referred to as the “dumbing down” of the Linux experience. This is an area in which I have some mixed emotions.

Half of me remembers what it's like to learn a new platform from scratch, while the other half of me feels like – in the quest to make desktop Linux more like Windows – we're sacrificing basic skills that give Linux enthusiasts an advantage over users of other platforms. Problem solving skills, anyone?

As Linux distributions like Ubuntu begin to make the same mistakes found with Linspire and Xandros, among others, I cannot help but wonder: is history is repeating itself?

The difference is that things are happening in reverse this time. Linspire, nearing its demise, was becoming more "open" with their Freespire distribution efforts, while Ubuntu is locking down default installations with its Unity desktop. And the Ubuntu application store is demonstrating a remarkable similarity to that of Linspire's CNR software management concept.

Now, the application store idea Ubuntu is using isn't all that bad. Rather, it's how the desktop is slowly forcing things by default that has me shaking my head in disgust. Take installing a Debian software package, for example. In older releases of Ubuntu, one would end up installing a software package downloaded onto their desktop via Gdebi. Today, Ubuntu defaults to its software center instead, which is much slower to load than Gdebi and results in a much slower user experience.

The same kind of backwards thinking applies with the next release of Ubuntu, version 11.04. As you’ve likely heard by now, the desktop provided on Ubuntu 11.04 will be the "netbook friendly" Unity desktop instead of the regular GNOME shell.

For intermediate to advanced users, no big deal, just boot into a GNOME shell and life is good. But for users who are less familiar with this kind of desktop swap, it's going to be like trying to run Android or iOS on your desktop PC. And once again, I see another example of Ubuntu trying to get Linux to compete with proprietary operating systems.

Need more evidence? Consider Ubuntu's eventual adoption of Wayland over X11. Only a year ago or so, one could make changes to their Xorg file if something on their Linux desktop became problematic. Then came the Ubuntu adoption of "BulletProof X." A nice idea at first, but users are not able to use "dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg" for a fast X server repair.

Once again, dumbing down the desktop experience while forcing users to go without a valuable learning experience. Now for the big question: isn't there a fair chance that by moving to Wayland this kind of limiting experience could become even worse?

At the end of the day, the awesome thing about using Linux on our desktop is all the choices it gives us. The problem is, as distributions like Ubuntu try to compete with proprietary desktop choices, we find much of the Linux platform taking on characteristics that might be more harmful than helpful to Linux adoption.

Imagine two distinctly different users, each running some sort of Linux distribution. The first user switched to Linux because they wanted something like Windows, but without a hefty price tag and licensing headaches. The second user chose Linux because they wanted the freedom to customize their desktop and participate in an open source ecosystem that embraced the values they felt good about.

User one is happy to use Linux on the desktop until the day arrives when something suddenly stops working as expected after an update. Frustrated, they give up and fall back to their proprietary desktop.

User two will at some point face a similar challenge. But instead of giving up, they take the time to troubleshoot the problem and finally decide to purchase a new peripheral device to help ensure the problem at hand won't come up again in the future. They do this because they’re willing to make a small investment in equipment that works well with their desktop environment. Even more important, they made this change because they took the time to understand why the problem happened in the first place – owning hardware designed for a proprietary operating system.

Now I can’t speak for everyone, but I think we could use more users like the second Linux enthusiast. People who are willing to troubleshoot, learn and then share their knowledge with others provide better overall value to the Linux community than those who simply complain because something stopped working and are unwilling to rectify the problem.

Sadly, though, with some Linux distributions trying so hard to compete with proprietary operating systems, we'll likely end up with more of those users who expect an idiot-proof experience than those who are willing to invest a little time learning about how their computer works.

So is competing with Windows hurting Linux adoption? In the short term, perhaps not. But when you look at long term user retention, I think it could be hurting Linux adoption as we end up with a group of individuals who are all too willing to drop Linux the first time something doesn't go according to plan.

Even more important, they made this change because they took the time to understand why the problem happened in the first place – owning hardware designed for a proprietary operating system.

This sorta feels like being told by Obama we voted against his agenda because we're too stupid to grasp it. I agree that hardware manufacturers should be more open to Linux users, but that's the way it is for now. My OS works for me, not the other way around.

There have been a few things I like and a few things I don’t. BulletproofX is pretty cool, though it threw me for a loop when I first found the xorg.conf missing. I really prefer the old init.d to the newer thing that kind of hides the scripts from you.

Gnome has gone in some directions that I don’t care for like the Indicator Applet. I was excited to hear that Ubuntu is creating their own replacement for Gnome.

I think we’re all just resistant to the changing of things that we’ve used for years and are very familiar with. I know I am anyway.

Configuration and compatability are the 2 things holding Linux down. When people can put a program disc in written for Windows and install it as easily the masses will come but not a day before. Don’t get me wrong I like Linux. Suse is my pick. With all the programs that are written to run on Mac and Windows this shouldn’t be the hurdle it is and if I owned Mac I would see helping Linux as a win for myself. Apple has a chance with Linux to correct the mistake they made when battling IBM all those years ago.

Linux has a real chance if it would stay real simple and work well. Windows got too complex as the kitchen sink got added.

Agreed. The biggest problem I see is not really the complexity of an OS, but the forced inclusion of that complexity into every install. That's why I really like Linux. You can install only what you want. You can choose the version that you want that includes the tools you are looking for.

Keep all those different distros--they're designed for a specific purpose. Keep the GP distros--they're designed for general desktop use.

Windows? You basically get one version. They're starting to split off into Enterprise and personal versions, but they're the ones making the decision as to what goes into "Enterprise" Windows vs. "Home" Windows.

I want to make that decision. It's my computer.

If my linux distribution stops working, I would switch to another distribution (hear that, ubuntu?), not to ms windows (pretty sure that's the "proprietary desktop" they're talking about). That's because windows costs too much, pure and simple.

With all the programs that are written to run on Mac and Windows this shouldn’t be the hurdle it is...

Linux does not have a Registry. Linux has a totally different file system and executable philosophy. Different commands. Different security.

OTOH, I do run Windows programs "just by inserting the disc" into my Linux laptop. WINE has come far in the past few years.

Linux wil never be a desktop competitor until two things happen:

1 - Linus Torvalds and the leadership of the Linux community unite around a common accepted list of parts for the operating system. One kernel, one window manager, one desktop. I don’t mean a weasel statement like “we prefer X or Y”, but “A, B, and C are the official components of the officially recognized and supported complete Linux OS”. They can of course allow others to use whatever desktop, window manager, etc, that they prefer, but Linux.org has to officially support only one standard.

2 - If they do that, then the second thing Linux needs will happen: commercial desktop software support. HP, Corel, etc, is not going to start writing commercial desktop software if they have to contend with 3 window managers, a dozen desktops, and God knows how many kernel configurations.

You don't know much about how Linux works, do you?

The window manager has zero effect on how programs run.

The window manager has zero effect on the kernel or its configuration.

The window manager is, actually, just another application that is running on the OS.

Any corporation can take the preferred kernel version and create a corporate-standard desktop. There are plenty of commercially available software--a lot of which is actually more expensive than Windows software. However, they are highly specialized, and most users wouldn't know how to use them anyway.

That is definately one thing MS could do better: Allow users to select the features that are loaded. I don’t need, for instance, and entire subsystem for text recognition of speech recognition. Get rid of that overhead. As it si now I have to turn it off but it is still there.

I haven’t looked at an Apple/Mac in over 20 years but I’d guess the programming is still based on Unix? I see programs that will run on Mac and Windows all the time so I would think that being based on Unix as well Linux would have an easy time with Mac apps? I also should have pointed out that I was referring to home users not business. I can use Wine too but I don’t see my mother using Linux or Wine but I will take a look at the new stuff. Passion and Linux seem to go hand in hand I think sometimes Linux fans forget the market decides.

I think we’re all just resistant to the changing of things that we’ve used for years and are very familiar with.

For me, at least, part of the explanation is that the old things work, and the new things often don't.

For instance, Debian switched its default init system to dependency-based. That caused X to fail to start, when the nVidia driver is used.

Fortunately, Debian leaves options available, and I promptly switched back to the traditional SysV numeric-based init style. Works fine.

...but I don’t see my mother using Linux or Wine but I will take a look at the new stuff.

I can see that. My kids (younger than 10 at the time) both learned Linux/WINE without any assistance from me at all. My 9-yo installed it while I was out of town. They now go back and forth without any issues.

Passion and Linux seem to go hand in hand I think sometimes Linux fans forget the market decides.

True. To be honest, I don't care if Linux ever catches on in the market place. That's not my goal with it. I use it because I like it.

A big problem in adopting Linux is what do businesses do? Between the changing Linux environment and the immense cost of purchasing compatible software and switching data over, few businesses can afford it unless they launch with Linux in the beginning.

Not wanting to speak out of ignorance, perhaps I can be enlightened. Here’s our situation: We have fifteen desktops running XP SP3, and two servers running 2003 Server Enterprise, one with Exchange. We have a domain/client environment with static IPs using two domain controllers and full security rules implementation.

We regularly use ACT, Quickbooks, Microsoft Office (primarily Outlook, Word and Excel), Acrobat (the write version, not the reader), and Photoshop. These are used every day. QB and ACT databases are on one server and accessed by workstations.

I understand the email, spreadsheet and word processor programs are easily transferred with few problems and we can open documents created in the MS office suite. However, the licenses for our business programs would cost tens opf thousands of dollars to replace not to mention the time spent importing data.

Am I incorrect? Is such a move possible without breaking the bank?

The biggest issue I see (mainly because of lack of familiarity them) is ACT and Quickbooks.

I understand that QB will not run under Linux at this time. The conversion to another package would probably be prohibitively expensive, depending on how you are using it, of course.

The other software functionality would be fine, I think. No software licenses would be required to convert. Same with the backup solution. Backup with Linux is usually free, and some can restore from bare metal at that price point (I think--am not certain).

Your biggest cost would be the labor for converting the data.

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.