What’s holding desktop Linux back?
I know that this subject has been hacked up by people all over the internet, but now it’s my turn. I’ve been using Ubuntu on my laptop for a few months now and I think it’s great. The operating system starts up and shuts down quickly. It hasn’t crashed or suffered any periods of slowness and I love the idea of being able to search for software and install it AND have the operating system maintain it. After my Ubuntu experience, I had to ask myself, “What’s holding desktop Linux back?”. The answer is commercial software support. Now I know the argument is to use open source programs such as Open Office, Gimp, Evolution, etc. as a replacement for commercial software and though that may work for people who are willing to learn a new software package or are unafraid to venture into the unknown, it does not work for the average computer user. Take my mom for instance. She recently bought a new laptop that came with Windows Vista and wanted to get Microsoft Office for it (until I told her the price). As an alternative I installed Open Office, a product that I find to be a phenomenal replacement for Microsoft Office. She did not agree with my rave reviews. Even though the interface between Microsoft Office and Open Office are similar and they are for the most part compatible, the minor differences were enough to confuse her (such as the default document format being OTD, a format not recognized by current versions of MS Office). Gimp is another such program that is commonly referred to as a replacement for the commercial Adobe product Photoshop. Though there are many arguments that favor Gimp over Photoshop, from a professional graphic designers position, Gimp is severely lacking. Gimp cannot work in 16 bit images, CMYK, utilize Pantone colors, lacks simple features such as the ability to resize text in a vector format, and does not have the “blending options” featured in Photoshop (some may say these effects can still be created, but I guarantee that they cannot be turned on or off, or experimented with the same ease as Photoshop). Even with the advances being made with WINE and the support from Google and Code Weavers, the Linux desktop does not offer consumers the ability to drive down to Walmart, buy whatever software package they are comfortable with, install it, and go. Overall the Linux desktop is good for 2 groups of people. The first group is people who have no need for a computer other than basic use (internet, email, etc. Check out gOS). Linux is good for this group because it’s very stable, it’s unlikely that they will get any viruses and the operating system will generally maintain itself. The second group consist of people who like to control their operating system rather than being controlled by it (the majority of desktop Linux users fall into this category). In my opinion this is where desktop Linux will remain until mainstream software development companies start to write software for it. I sincerely hope that the day comes when desktop Linux does become mainstream, but I don’t just can’t see it happening any time soon.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Gimp is not a replacement for photoshop on the commercial level. It is a replacement for photoshop for the majority of users who run a pirated copy (AKA 98% of all home users), who use it for nothing more than making sigs for forums or editing home pictures….
Also if you look under the preferences in openoffice, you can change the default format to save in…
Also linux will become more widely adopted when more than 1 or 2 major game companies support it, not software vendors, as more home users would rather have the latest game than the latest version of photoshop or office…
February 24th, 2008 at 6:25 am
I think 2 major reasons why are (not necessary in the following order):
1. Linux desktop constant inconsistency
2. Lack of adoption in enterprise environment.
1. I have 5 PCs at my home at my disposal. And finding a single distro that works on all 5 PCs proves to be almost impossible. Distro X might work one PC, but not the other. Then some software packages might behave differently in Distro X vs Distro Y. On the other hand my XP (not Vista - don’t have yet) is transparent. Other than one PC works faster than the other, there’s no visible difference. Linux desktop needs that kind of transparency for mass adoption.
2. I work at one of many companies that use MS products. And even it is quite clear to me and some other employees (not all) that we could use Linux for our work duties, still MS documents are used to exchange data with clients and partners. And Open Office is not that compatible for the task. So there you have it: I am more likely to buy a PC with Windows because I use it at work and because it is a part of job requirements with many other employers.
February 24th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I am not sure if i agree with you. I used to think that desktop linux was an answer for everybody, and I still push its use and await the day when everyone can be Free.
But there are too many computer users out there who are unwilling to learn about computers. They have a hard time understanding how a file system structure is layed out. They don’t understand what a web browser is, or that it can be changed. Or they have no interest, and just want to click the five buttons that they click every time. How do we explain the difference in window managers to them??
I moved to Linux to get away from the constant crashes i had with my 98 and XP setups, but I’ve always been interested in exploring new apps. The move fit me. How many computer users install an application and start out using it by opening the Preferences dialog? *That* is a Linux user — one who wants to understand what can be done.
The friends and family which I’ve switched to Linux see it as an OS, but never as an *opportunity* like I do. They see its lack of commercial apps as a limit, whereas i see it as a blessing. Free software is meant to free its users from commercial restraints. The moment that I can buy boxed applications at the store designed to be installed on “LSB 3.2+ Compatable systems” is the moment we’ve become no better than any other closed computing ecosystem. We subjugate ourselves to their limitations once again.
Any user who is unwilling to learn about the Gimp, Thunderbird, KMail, OpenOffice.org, or any other high-quality native application shouldn’t be using Linux. Yes, these apps have room for improvement, but they also have dedicated fans who will help new users to learn them. If a computer user’s muscle memory or lack of comprehension requires that they use a single, specific product rather than adjust to the new environment, let them use what they’re comfortable with. But please, don’t ruin my ecosystem while you’re at it. I don’t want to troubleshoot Outlook issues on Linux any more than i want to do so on a Windows machine.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:24 am
A computer program is a set of instructions designed to make your computer do something useful. A computer program should be modified if it fails to meet the requirements of the user.
The user is subject to a software proprietor’s whims when they choose to accept proprietary software. In this case, by choosing to accept commercial proprietary software, the user is subject to the proprietor’s decision to not support your requirement of running on a Linux system.
Thus it is the proprietor’s fault for not supporting the user and the user’s fault for choosing to be subject to the proprietor. Subjugation does not happen when you choose commercial free software.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I agree that differences are making people scared of GNU/Linux, but it’s simplistic to say that porting Adobe Photoshop and co to Linux will solve the problem.
The actual Linux desktop is piss easy for even a Windows user to grasp, but it’s different; and Windows users generally seem to be afraid of anything that’s different.
Also, many of your comments could be given about why Mac OS X isn’t more popular. You can’t go to Walmart and buy software for a Macintosh. Certain programs for the Macintosh that are also available on Windows (MS Office especially) have rather large changes from the Windows version.