.random[oid]archive

This article is a mix between my own experience with Linux and the video below, so you should consider viewing it (almost one hour long) before you read what I have written.

For almost a decade now I have read several articles, comments on blogs and forum posts that claim that Linux is ready for the desktop and ready for anyone new to Linux. I have also read an equal number of counter arguments that says it is still not ready for the mainstream and that it might never be. From both sides you have people who have used Linux for years, even decades, and people who installed Ubuntu for the first time and used it for one hour.

Before you go into a fit and start telling me I am wrong, I want you to know one thing first.
This whole article is based on my own personal experience with Linux. I have no intentions, nor do I claim, that my experience should be seen as empirical evidence. I do not see my experience as unique, but it is at least experience that should maybe taken into consideration.
I might not cover all possible “issues”, but I will try to address the most important and broadest ones that can affect most Linux users, and that I have experienced myself.
With that said, this is critique the Linux camp need to accept and address. We need to stop making excuses and decide if Linux is only for geeks or if we want it to be an OS for everyone. And we need to be able to understand that Linux is not perfect.

The hordes of distributions.

A day doesn’t go by without someone asking ‘which distro [sic] should I use?’ Later followed by personal suggestions, being told to ‘Google it’, why you should not use distro X Y & Z and zealots telling each other why their distro is the best in the world. Sometimes that scares most newcomers away; but strangely enough it sometimes helps the poor confused geek to know which distro is best for her/him.
In other words, it almost seems impossible to find the right distribution.

Microsoft got ridiculed for having eight different editions of Windows Vista when it was released, but no one blinks when you tell a Linux hacker that there probably are 200+ Linux distributions. He/she will just tell you that having a choice is important and a good thing. On top of that, some say that Apple is too limiting as it only has one edition for desktops.

If you ask me, all these different distributions are a waste of time. The difference between them is sometimes so minor it is only how they handle packages or that they use the colour blue instead of red.
Do we really need all these different choices? What do we benefit from it?

Best example that comes to mind is the two different Fedora Spins, Lxde and Xfce.
The Lxde spin has a very nice and minimal install, while the Xfce spin seems to be filled with heaps of applications; while doing a default [GNOME] Fedora LiveCD install is much more minimalistic.

From my experience I think the most important difference should be the package handler and desktop environment. All distributions should focus on keeping their software install to a minimal and different spins (or what ever your want to call them) should be consistent with the original.

A package for me?

We need to agree on a packaging system now!
I understand that Debian would never switch to RPM and Fedora would probably never switch to DEB;  but could we make them work together? Or could we make packaging more easier for developers?

As I am not a developer, I have to apologise if what I say has been done or is not possible at all. At least I am willing to try to get the ball rolling.

If I were a developer I would love to have a tool that took my software source that is packaged with .tar.gz and spit out default packages for systems using RPM, DEB, etc.
Now that would be awesome. The latest version of my software would be available as source, a .deb and .rpm the same day; instead of waiting for someone to package it for me as I am too lazy.

My favourite way of packaging software is how it is done on the Mac. This is even simpler than it was done back in the days of DOS. Generally you have a folder (app_name.app) that is disguised as an application by the OS containing all the needed files and it can be run from anywhere on you Mac; doesn’t matter where you put that application, it will run.
Now that is something that would be amazing to have on Linux and this alone would most likely make a lot of people more interested in switching to Linux.

Standards are good.

I kind of disagree that standards are bad and having choices is the greater good. Having too many choices will eventually become an issue. Can we really afford having so many choices? Just take a look at the CD+ and CD- headache the industry created; and not to mention the death of HD DVD.

It is kind of ironic that Microsoft gets a lot of flack for not following standards and sometimes deliberately trying to force out certain standards, but when mentioning that we might need standards for Linux we are told standards are bad.

Market share and marketing.

Why do you think Microsoft and Apple has such a high market share? They give customers one choice, one choice that works. Not only that, they market their products very aggressively.

They also have one main website for their OS.
If I want to know about Windows I go to the Microsoft website, and if I want to know about Mac OSX I go to the  Apple website. Where should I go if I want to switch to Linux? Distrowatch, Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, Arch Linux, Linux.com, Linux.org, openSUSE, etc?

Again, this is why you almost daily have people asking which Linux distro they should use.
This is also why people don’t switch so easily to Linux, unless they are a geek or know a Linux geek.
Also, telling people to RTFM will not win you users; so we need to calm down.

I don’t hate Linux.

My relationship with Linux is a love/hate relationship. At the moment I am only using Linux (Fedora to be specific) on both my Eee PCs and I love it, but I also admittedly hate it with a passion sometimes.

I love the fact that when Fedora releases a new version I can go to there website and get a fully working OS for free.
I hate it because it sometimes feels like I am still using a hobby project OS.

I am not a gamer, so I am very lucky in that department. The only games I play are either on my PS2, Wii, DOSBox or ScummVM; so I don’t really have an issue with trying to get the latest and greatest games working with wine.
So generally I have all the software I need on Linux and it works like a dream.

With that said, it can give you some headache sometimes. Sure, the headache is easily cured if you are a geek, but I am not so sure if any non-geek would want to try to do the fixes I have done to get things working again.

I dare to say I am one of those Linux geeks that are willing to admit that Linux has it shortcomings and that they need to be fixed. We need to stop fooling ourselves. Just because geeks can install Linux and have it up and running in less than 30min doesn’t mean it is ready for the mainstream desktop. Technically it is more or less ready; or ready as any OS can be.

Linux will be ready for everyone when something goes wrong the user will not freak out about how to fix a problem. Linux will be ready when you can tell someone who is not a geek to install it without having to hold that person’s hand all the way during the install process.

Again, these are just my opinions based on what I have experienced with Linux.
What is your experience with Linux? Is it ready for the desktop?

Note: To show my personal experience with operating systems, these are the ones I have used and tried:
DOS, Windows (3.11, 95, 98(se), 2000, XP), ReactOS, BeOS, OS/2 Warp, QNX, Linux (RHL, Fedora, openSUSE, Ubuntu, sidux, Debian), Mac OS (7, 8, 9), Mac OS X and a few different portable and embedded systems.