More reasons why Linux has failed on the desktop
- 9
- Add a Comment
Linux enthusiast Gary Nielsen has listed a few reasons why his desktop is still running the Windows Vista operating system and not an Open Source alternative.
His top reason really goes back to my most recent post on this subject: Why Linux will always be stuck in the minority. (lack of good commercial software on the desktop) He also complains about poor wireless support for his machine, and that he doesn’t want to buy a Windows license to run XP/Vista in VMware.
The wireless driver complaint is a common problem with Linux. But it’s not something you can blame on those behind Linux or the various distributions. If the manufacturer has elected to lock up the code, and has no interest in providing any support for Linux, there’s very little anyone can do to provide good support for your hardware.
You just have to chalk it down to experience and refuse to buy any systems in the future that include hardware from that company. Better yet, buy a Linux-ready machine next time from a Dell or HP that has guaranteed driver support.
Gary explains that he cannot run his Windows applications in Linux, and there’s no way to run Quicken 2008 - even with one of the popular ‘emulators’. (WINE is not an emulator) He concedes he could run Windows in a virtual machine inside Linux - but doesn’t want to pay for another OS license.
Unfortunately virtualization is the only forward if you want to run Linux on your desktop while retaining full compatibility with your Windows applications. There are too many headaches and technical issues with trying to do it in WINE or Codeweavers Crossover Linux product.
I already blogged recently why I felt Linux would never make it on the desktop. The fact is the open source movement is almost possessed by a philosophical cult that drives away the best developers from building great applications for the Linux platform. The comments in response to my post just emphasize that point.
If the software isn’t open source and free then it’s not welcomed by the most vocal and respected members of the Linux community. So where’s the incentive for developers and software companies to build great applications for Linux? There is none.
Don’t be surprised when you boot into Linux and start discovering a serious lack of great software on the platform. Do your research beforehand. Free is nice, but it tends not to attract the best developers, investment, or any kind of ongoing commitment to updates and improving the software over time.
Until there’s a sizable chunk of Linux desktop users prepared to pay for the privilege of installing and using great software, don’t expect applications like Quicken 2008 to be ported to the platform. In other words: you’ll be using Windows for many years to come if you depending on the ability to use the best of breed software applications in the marketplace.
9 Comments
Richard Chapman
August 24th, 2008
at 8:29am
“Linux enthusiast Gary Nielsen has listed a few reasons why his desktop is still running the Windows Vista operating system and not an Open Source alternative.”
Your sentence is not correct. Gary listed why Linux is not ready for all machines using his machine and his needs as an example. Gary has an ego problem and his advice should not be used for purchasing decisions. Just to illustrate my point, this is the title to his blog post: “Three reasons Linux can’t take over the desktop”
leftystrat
August 24th, 2008
at 8:53am
Funny, I seem to get everything done in linux, in spite of the dearth of great software of which you speak.
The only thing I haven’t been able to find is admin tools for Windows networks. Thus I’m forced to run XP in a VM or rdesktop to a Windows server.
Btw, if you think Quicken is a killer app, you haven’t used Quicken. It’s bloated, expensive, and privacy-invasive. It spends all its time phoning home.
Bobzilla
August 24th, 2008
at 12:35pm
Commercial software for Linux is just not needed, so let’s just move on. Anybody that runs Linux knows that native Linux applications are all that’s needed. It’s Microsoft shills (like yourself) that try to convince the public that they need commercial software. True Linux users (like myself) well know that your post is nothing more than FUD, to try and scare away new Linux users. If you don’t like Linux and open source software, that’s fine… don’t use it. However that is no reason to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).
Zac
August 24th, 2008
at 2:52pm
There is one reason and that is: It needs leadership.
Bobzilla: Commercial software is needed, this is the reality. You or I may not want it but many out there who do. The lack of leadership in application software development for Linux has left it with huge functional gaps.
E2001
August 26th, 2008
at 3:12pm
Linux apps may be all that’s needed, yes. Now all you have to do is convince all of your major-mega-multi-national corporations to completely re-educate and re-tool. Should be easy enough!
Lovs2look
November 5th, 2008
at 5:42pm
I agree, Linux is no where near ready to take over as the O/S of choice. It’s just too damned hard to do “stuff” that is relatively easy in Windows. Software choice does not cover all bases as Windows does. “Commercial software is just not needed” WTF???
How many users use commercial software on the desktop at the moment…90% or more? Can you imagine, if open source was the only way, all the incompatibilities and shortcomings of just trying to send an email/doc/spreadsheet to your workmate across the room let alone across the world? *SHUDDER*
interval
February 9th, 2009
at 5:39pm
I received a very nice notebook for Christmas two years ago, which was of course pre-loaded with Windows, in fact, it was loaded with the Home Media (whatever) version. The whiz-bang media edition, to me, says I can play dvds on the thing. But this is not the case, you still have to shell out extra bucks to play dvds on the media edition. Not too long after playing around with “Windows” I blew it away and installed Ubuntu, as I would have done anyway. It still burns me that the giftor had to pay the additional $ for the Windows license I hardly used. I continued on after doing a simple apt-get update and upgrade to play my dvds. I find the above comments interesting in light of the fact that something as simple as playing a dvd on my pc was not possible until after I installed Linux. By the way, commercial software is available for Linux. In my experience I pay for nothing and the quality is just as good as anything I could buy for windows, even better in some cases. I honestly don’t know what you people are talking about. Re-educate? My wife is a complete novice. She’s quite happy to use Linux for her every day, sundry net use.
Ghostdizzle
March 10th, 2009
at 2:31am
That’s funny. I had Windows XP media center edition and it played DVD’s just fine.
In fact plain old windows media player will play dvd’s just fine.
Interval you’re either full of S@#@t or you didn’t even bother to find out how to actually open media center and insert DVD.
that post was full of fail.
Ghostdizzle
March 10th, 2009
at 2:33am
“Commercial software for Linux is just not needed, so let’s just move on. Anybody that runs Linux knows that native Linux applications are all that’s needed. ”
Bob the second I can play bioshock or call of duty 4 natively in Linux…. you’ll have a point. Until then I seriously think you’re living on the wrong fucking planet.
That’s why no one takes you guys seriously.