As usual, there have been a couple of recent articles surround Linux on the desktop including
one from Infoworld and
another on Datamation. Of course they were covered and discussed by all of the
usual suspects. I feel that it's time for me to give my two cents on the topic.
Before we get too far into things, I think we need to get some nomenclature down. I use "Linux Desktop" to describe the case where Linux is the primary or sole operating system with which a user interacts with their computer on a routine basis. This implies that all of the applications that this user uses on anything other than a special case basis all all native Linux applications running on their desktop. If a user must maintain a virtual machine with some other operating system in it to run applications which they routinely (~daily) use, I'm not sure that this person is really running a "Linux Desktop".
There are several different scenarios or places for a "desktop". Each of these has distinct needs and uses cases for which Linux may, or may not, be a fit.
The first general area is a corporate setting. There are a couple of places in this setting where Linux makes sense and some where it doesn't. The most simple and most fitting place is as a desktop for technical users who are doing specific technical work for which there is native Linux software. These users are primarily working with applications native to Linux with other routine desktop tasks such as email, web browsing or office applications (spreadsheets, word processors, etc) being secondary uses of their machine. For this class of user, Linux makes perfect sense and other operating systems or end up being little more than terminals to some other UNIX machine. The next place where it makes sense is for very strictly configured desktops providing access to a very specific and limited set of applications -- most likely very task specific custom built applications. In this case, the desktop is little more than a modern green-screen terminal. Then there is the case where Linux simply won't work as the desktop. This is really driven by applications that are not available for Linux. For example, consider a user in the finance department that uses Crystal Reports and Microsoft Excel and shares documents with partner companies. Yes, OpenOffice.org provides a spreadsheet, but sharing anything other than the most basic files can be problematic. There are
projects similar to Crystal Reports, but again, they are not 100% identical and bound to be problematic. It simply doesn't make sense to have to retrain staff to use tools that different than those generally accepted and used in their profession and then to deal with document conversions and corrections when sharing with other organizations -- the costs of this are just too significant to justify the Linux desktop for these users. In summary on the corporate front, there are a number of special cases where a Linux desktop makes sense, but plenty where it does not. My thought of the "perfect" corporate environment is one that recognizes that there are different tools and systems that suit different tasks. Users should use the tools that best suit their needs, not just force everyone to use the "corporate standard". The standards should be open standards that allow everything to work together -- think IMAP(S)/SMTP vs MAPI.
The other big area is the home setting, and like the corporate environment there are a number of different use cases. The simple use case, and the one where Linux makes sense, is for the technical user or hobbyist. These users specifically seek out Linux and understand its strengths and weaknesses. The next use case is what I'll call "grandma". When reading about "Linux on the desktop" I often read stories that pretty much go like "I blew away Windows on Grandma's computer and installed Linux for her. I remotely manage everything for her via ssh. All she does is basic web browsing and read email via web mail. She couldn't be happier with Linux." The keys to this is that (a) the computer is really nothing more than a basic web browser to the user and (b) there is someone much more technically skilled doing all of the work of patching the system, installing software, and troubleshooting things. For Grandma, it boils down to the computer being a simple tool that someone else takes maintains. Linux fits perfectly well here, but so does pretty much any other operating system. The last category is "Joe Six-pack" -- the typical person that buys a computer, maintains it themselves and may do any range of tasks on it. This is the largest user base and the one where Linux simply falls flat on its face and doesn't work.
So why doesn't Linux work for "Joe Six-pack"? There are several extremely important reasons that seem to often be lost on proponents of the Linux desktop.
- Different distributions. Joe thinks of his computer as simply the computer. He may vaguely understand that there is this thing called "Windows" on it, but exactly what it is and the concept of an operating system are outside of his grasp, and more importantly his concern. He bought it at some big box store, plugged it in and turned it on. It's "The Computer". He doesn't care about the details of what's running as long as he can complete his tasks. One of the great strengths of Linux is the many different distributions and the innovation that comes with that. It's also a major problem for Joe. Given he can understand (or even wants to) he's running Linux (whatever that is), having to then further understand he's got Ubuntu or Fedora or RedHat or Suse or Gentoo or Mandriva or Kubuntu or Edubuntu or whatever is just too much. It's bad enough being an experienced technical user and having to translate what works on one distro to another -- it's simply far too much to ask of Joe. Hit with those questions, he'll look for a more simple solution. Remember that Joe wants a tool to complete a task, he doesn't want to learn all the details of the computer. The more he has to know and think about what's running on his computer, the less useful it is to him.
- Different desktop environments. All of the different desktops have great attributes as do the stand alone window managers and simple text only console. The problem is, like the distribution issue, can quickly confuse Joe. I've been on a number of Linux User Group mailing lists where "newbies" ask simple UI questions like "my menu thingy disappeared, how do I get it back". Though these are "newbies" they are well above Joe and understand something about the community and joining the mailing lists for help. These answers always start off trying to help the "newbie" figure out which distribution, which desktop and which version of which desktop they are running. Again, this won't work for Joe. He just needs his menu back and having to go through this series of steps just won't work for him -- it's overly complex and requires effort and knowledge which Joe could care less about.
- Applications. In the end, Joe's world is all about applications. The problems are two part. First with finding software and the second is the availability of software that actually meets his needs.
- Finding Software: Joe is perfectly happy to stop by whatever store is nearby and buy a box with a CD/DVD with the application he needs. This is the same paradigm he uses for everything else in his world. If he needs a hammer, he goes to the store and chooses one from the shelf. If he's hungry, he goes to the grocery store and picks up what looks good. The current state of package managers is simply not good enough. First, it is a different paradigm than everything else in Joe's life (going to the store and buying it) but that is becoming less of an obstacle as people are accustomed to downloading and installing software. Joe is more likely to go to his favorite search engine, find software he wants and then want to click "download and install" and start using the application -- just as he can do with the predominant deskopt operating systems. With the plethora of distributions, this doesn't happen. Even if Joe finds a Linux compatible application, the likely hood of being able to click and install from that products web site is slim and at least would require him to understand which distribution he's using and probably require him to manually resolve some list of dependencies (does he really care what libfoo.1.4.3 is and if it's already on his machine?). The current state of package managers and the couple of line description of the software they provide is equally as confusing to Joe. It doesn't provide a rich and easy way to find an application and understand if it is what he wants.
- Getting the right application. There are simply places where Linux does not have applications that would meet Joe's needs. He can't get tax preparation (TurboTax) software to do his taxes. OpenOffice.org is nice for most things Joe needs to do, but standby for flames the first time he has a problem importing or exporting an Microsoft Office document he got from a friend. Then there are the more difficult tasks such as video editing -- I've heard that it's going to be the year of video editing on Linux about as much as I've heard it's going to be the year of the Linux Desktop, and I'm still waiting. For technically inclined people, the above are not always issues since they understand the challenges, understand their options and in many cases simply enjoy working around the problems and coming up with solutions. Joe just wants to perform a task.
In many cases open source projects provide the best solution, regardless of price. There are, though, areas where these offerings just don't measure up, and the desktop for the typical/average user is one of those places. The desktop for the vast majority of users is about applications and completing a task. If they have to think too much about what an operating system is, let alone which one they have, or can't simply and easily find and use software for any wide range of tasks, then that desktop is simply not a viable option.
I've used Linux and other open source systems and tools for many years. I hope that this article will be considered constructive criticism and not just a rant or attack. I think competition and diversity ultimately result in the best solution, but that often has to be balanced with what the goal.
Posts
