Indeed. The year where one could make do with the Linux desktop came and went not long after Ubuntu was first released. I am confident that I could give one to my parents and they could eventually learn to function with it. The question is, when will the year come where it is the easiest and most attractive option? I'm a little bearish about that being soon.
It depends on your use case. If someone did not have 10+ years of intensive windows using wants to browse, listen to music and read some e-mails for example and than Linux or rather Ubuntu is the most attractive solution. You don't to check your anti-virus software every few weeks and upgrade for all your tools a coming automatically. The hardware costs far less than a mac and the software is free, which non of the alternatives is.
In fact i do see more and more non-techies with ubuntu net/notebooks (central and southern europe if that matters)
The question is, when will the year come where [Linux on the desktop] is the easiest and most attractive option? I'm a little bearish about that being soon.
I used to be, but I'm coming round to the view that with all of the big commercial players, now including Microsoft, pushing heavily towards services and "the cloud", the decay of their traditional desktop offerings will create an opportunity for a Linux-based (or other OSS) platform to become relatively attractive a lot sooner.
This is partly about the operating system itself, but it's just as much about the applications. Building a direct competitor to MS Office is something few sane people would consider attempting, given market conditions and the effort required. Implementing a native desktop competitor to a typical on-line "office suite" today is something a small team of smart people could do, reaching functional parity within months, and there is nothing close to a dominant incumbent in the market yet, nor is the user experience for these web applications anywhere near as polished.
In short, as they lower the barrier to entry and open up the market, they make it easier for Linux-based applications to catch up. They also make it more attractive for someone to invest significant resources to polish up those applications as a commercial venture.
I don't think the rest of the world is moving on, at least not for long. Full cloud has too many fundamental drawbacks to become a universal solution. It's the buzzword of the moment, but it's taken a very long time to get there by tech industry standards, and it's still underwhelming even today.
With execs at the big publicly held software firms looking to the next quarterly financial call, they're all going with the hype anyway. That creates an opportunity for a disruptive movement that shifts the market instead of pandering to it. My guess would be that private clouds, software-defined networking and a bunch of tools that better support things like remote working and BYOD will steadily push full external cloud solutions out of most large corporations, and smaller scale tools based on the same basic ideas will emerge to support SMEs.
And that brings me to my big question: What is the only operating system in the world that is already demonstrably a credible platform for all of server, desktop and mobile computing?
What alternate reality are these guys living in? When my mom, an accountant, buys her next computer, it will almost certainly run Windows, because the accounting software she uses targets that OS. The same will be true for many other categories of software for a long time.
Accountants and financial advisers are cheap bastards who have to deal with crap loads of regulatory compliance rules and complicated software that integrates with lots of other companies and governments, costs a fortune and never works properly.
People who package up all this shit and stick it on the web so the end user maintenance cost isn't there are winning over standalone PC software vendors these days.
And it all works via a web browser (which conveniently doesn't require windows).
Even if you bag Office 365 for comms which is typical at the moment from what I've seen, it works on anything.
I've seen IFA's and accountants wholly running off ChromeBooks and iPads in the UK. The only complaint they have is printing and even that's pretty much solved.
Yet my accountant and I use web-based accounts packages, making the desktop OS irrelevant. The same will be true for many other categories of software.
I use FreeAgent (as it doesn't feel like I'm using an accounts package).
The place I used to work used Xero, which is a bit more traditional in how it lays things out (for example, Xero uses ledgers, FreeAgent just has you categorise your income and outgoings).
I know a former coworker who is maintaining 3-4 different desktop accounting packages on independent VMs, each on a different application and windows versions because different clients are attached to their particular rev of the accounting software. He got to this point because he was sick of working out how to get multiple versions of the software to play nice with one another. On the one hand this locks in Windows pretty tightly - on the other, the OS in the VM is just acting as a fat compatibility layer waiting to be replaced. I think he's moving on to experimenting with Wine next (or maybe this is a use case for Docker).
This isn't some a large enterprise company either, just a small accounting consultancy trying to maintain client compatibility.
Good point when 90% of businesses and professionals use Linux desktops that will be the day that they beat out windows for desktops my bet is desktops will be extinct by the time that happens.
it's the same waffle we've been hearing for years. I am running Ubuntu 13.10, but leaving OSX aside, there's no way in hell Linux is going to make a dent in the desktop market. It wont be linx, it will be some future OS, possible Android that replaces Windows. I know Android is linux underneath, but in much the same way OSX is BSD underneath - to the point that to the user, it doesn't matter much.
"I know Android is linux underneath, but in much the same way OSX is BSD underneath"
Utterly false. Terrible comparison.
OS X merely took parts of FreeBSD, NetBSD, and the Mach kernel. The result is some codebase that is very different from any kernel, and that is not following at all the current developments of the FreeBSD/NetBSD/Mach kernels.
Whereas Android's Linux kernel shares ~95% of its lines of code with the stock Linux kernel source from kernel.org. Every time Linus releases a new kernel, the Android developers merge their branch with Linus' branch, almost on a month-to-month basis. Android is Linux (the kernel). Period.
Now Android for the most part may have a mostly pure kernel(although I wonder how you come up with ~95%), but it's userland is mostly BSD based(see libc, libm, etc) as is OS X.
> OS X merely took parts of FreeBSD, NetBSD, and the Mach kernel.
Since this is also a large part of how the Linux kernel evolved minus Mach/XNU, I'm not clear where your beef is.
The difference is that Linux isn't, and doesn't claim to be a whole system. For example, Android isn't Ubuntu, but Android and Ubuntu are equally Linux.
EDIT: I am not trying to make the "Linux is just a kernel" point here. Android is by no means a "traditional" distribution of Linux, but I just don't see why that makes it "not Linux". Busybox is available for it (Android is designed for embedded systems, after all) so what's the difference?
Yeah, "Linux is a kernel" and all that. Except, for many of us, Linux is also an ecosystem, and the Android ecosystem is definitely not that ecosystem.
> I know Android is linux underneath, but in much the same way OSX is BSD underneath - to the point that to the user, it doesn't matter much.
So you define Linux as what? X11? We'll that's going away, so that can't be it. Gnome and KDE? There's also Unity now and Elementary so that's too restrictive... so what exactly is Linux to the user?
When my mom, an accountant, buys her next computer, it will almost certainly run Windows, because the accounting software she uses targets that OS.
Accounting software is being taken over by the web. More generally, the entire financial industry is being taken over by the web. The impact of iPads and smartphones isn't a small contributor to this movement.
There are enormous numbers of office workers who could very easily transition to Linux desktops with barely any notice that they did (Firefox is firefox is firefox, after all).
It took a decade+ longer than most expected, but the operating system really is becoming irrelevant.
Intel pushing Linux has nothing to do with Linux and everything to do with the fact that Intel long ago decided to focus on speed over energy efficiency and were caught with their pants down when the future of computing turned out to be low-power SOCs (systems-on-a-chip).
With both Microsoft and Sony choosing AMD x86 over Intel for the next generation of video game consoles and Microsoft and Apple clearly moving to ARM for all their digital appliances, what does Intel have left?
The next best story for linux has been enterprise linux. A stable kernel, easily configurable(and free)toolset and a growing engineering pool has driven this market. In terms of dollar value this market is nearly (if not the same) as large as the handheld/portable linux market that android has conquered.
And yet, in 2013, I had to search in Google for hours, read a lot of documentation and tweak a lot of settings in order to
1. get AMD / Intel switchable graphics working in Ubuntu
2. stop the CPU fan from making too much noise!!
Windows 8 got both this right even without me thinking about it.
The increasing market share of Linux in the tablet, smartphone, and cloud (server) business signals the year of Linux on the desktop? Well, I've had my laugh for the day.
This wolf's been cried about many times, but I do think there is a hole in the market right now: Right now Microsoft is the only option for affordable really high-end desktop/laptop computers.
Contrary to the current hype, mobile is not going to replace the desktop/laptop except at the low end. If you want to do anything compute-intensive you need a "real computer."
You have Apple of course, but Apple gets unreasonably expensive for many applications. The Mac Pro is not cost-effective for power users. Their laptops are a tad better but not great.
> This wolf's been cried about many times, but I do think there is a hole in the market right now: Right now Microsoft is the only option for affordable really high-end desktop/laptop computers.
Regardless what I think about that claim: That market segment is miniscule. One of the reasons Apple has done so well is that Apple has managed to capture the relatively price-insensitive part of that market segment, and as a result their average revenue per unit is north of $1000.
The average price per unit for PC's on the other hand has been steadily declining to the ~$500 level.
> Contrary to the current hype, mobile is not going to replace the desktop/laptop except at the low end.
So 95%+ of the market, in other words. The PC vendors have been in crisis for years as PC's got "fast enough" that consumers started prioritising low price rather than maximizing performance within their budget.
> If you want to do anything compute-intensive you need a "real computer."
Most users don't do anything more compute-intensive than Facebook and Youtube on their PCs.
"Right now Microsoft is the only option for affordable really high-end desktop/laptop computers."
I have a high end laptop that doesn't run Windows as the primary OS. (I occasionally run Windows in VMs to verify that cross platform OSS software runs on it and on Patch Tuesday to fix the latest exploits...) Other than that, Linux is my primary personal machine at home for development, research, office work, music and movies, etc... I'm also shopping for a new desktop and home media server that will probably not be Windows.
Windows currently has a chokehold on the desktop market with it's huge ecosystem of applications and entertainment, that's what's preventing many folks from moving. Games and accounting applications are the only reasons that my spouse still runs Windows at home.
You're absolutely right. For the 10% of the population that runs compute-intensive apps, they're going to need a good desktop every few years. The other 90% will probably just keep their old desktop for a decade and keep upgrading their mobile devices.
Sure, tablets will replace PCs in many places. However that war they cannot win. In meantime core PC users are switching to Linux. They can do this because so many great apps live inside browsers now.
Wow, how far has Microsoft screwed up their decades long partnership with Intel that Intel would throw public support behind the Linux desktop is pretty stunning. It doesn't matter because Windows will obviously outsell on desktop/laptop PC's from major vendors like HP and Dell, but still. Microsoft has really fallen these last few years.
Intel has been supporting Linux for a long time. They've even had their own Linux distributions and UI framework development since at least Moblin, which came out back when netbooks were all the rage - around 2008?
If anything, Intel seems to have had remarkably little success considering the amount of effort they've put into Linux. Moblin was merged with Nokia's mobile Linux Maemo to create Meego, and that floated in the market like a rock tied to a solid block of concrete.
Since then, Intel has been doing Tizen with Samsung. It's a closed-development mystery OS that seems to be meant for everything, with every kind of UI, but still isn't shipping anywhere with any kind of UI anytime soon.
Even beyond using linux as a desktop OS, Intel has had an internal Linux distro for a much longer time (if I remember right, they were still stuck on Linux 2.4.x back in 2007, as re-writing a lot of their custom drivers and kernel changes would was taking them a long time to move up to 2.6.x). A lot of their new CPU testing (for development and QA) is done with Linux. It just gave them the control they needed to test new CPUs, chipsets, and other components.
I worked at Intel for a brief bit in their software group - it is literally a comical place. There is no chance anything interesting is making it out of there.
Intel has been vocally supporting Linux for years, including contributing OS code, drivers, software dev tools, and even rewrites of the OS for platforms (see Tizen). They were doing this long before MS's decline.
Also free C compiler for Linux which costs 400$ (or w/e it is now) on Windows :(
It was major pain untile recently when gcc port caught up with visual studio compiler as there was nothing else with decent performance and C99+ support.
Whatever else, I do appreciate Intel's efforts in this area. My home desktop/Mythbox/media server/game machine is running all open source code (there might be a few binary blobs for device firmware though).
Of course, all that available source code hasn't helped me debug a video de-interlacing issue with Intel's hardware accelerated video decoding... the next ingredients I need are time and motivation. :-)
Intel has been paying lip service to Linux for years but most of their desktop/mobile Linux initiatives have failed. If nothing else, it's a great bargaining tactic to keep Microsoft in check.
Seems like a pretty good hedge on Intel's part considering how Microsoft has been pursuing a device-centric future for Windows where x86 is supported but so is ARM.
MS and Intel have the same partnership as airlines and hotels. Each wants their partner to make as little profit as possible, as that leaves more client money for grabbing.
Intel has been among the top 5 Linux kernel contributors for many years.
>"has seen Chromebooks race to a quarter of all computer sales and one fifth of all new PC school deployments."
Are there any hard numbers on Chromebook sales apart from nebuluous things like "being on top of Amazon" etc.?
I find it really hard to believe that quarter of all computer sales are Chromebooks. Does anyone have a source? One would expect Google to announce real shipments if they were that good.
Web usage metrics from a few months ago showed that Chromebooks are used even less than Windows RT.
Also, I find it strange that SJVN likes to promote Chromebooks, which are even less "Free" and open compared to Windows machines and force the user to upload everything to Google's cloud.
Not sure why that is posted in the "Linux and Open Source" ZDNet blog when it is all about taking even more control away from the user.
>Outside of the community, most people don't see Linux's impact. Linux is usually invisible. When you go to any large Web site--Google, Facebook, Twitter--you're using Linux."
>It's not just that even the most die-hard Windows users are invisibly using Linux every day
Does that mean that programmers who claim to have gotten rid of Microsoft/Windows products are really using Windows without knowing it whenever they click on a Stack Overflow link? :)
>Does that mean that programmers who claim to have gotten rid of Microsoft/Windows products are really using Windows without knowing it whenever they click on a Stack Overflow link? :)
This! The whole article reads ass-backwards by suggesting that if you're accessing a Linux-hosted site you're somehow using Linux on your desktop. I have strong aversions to this kind of sophistry, b/c readers who don't know that that makes no sense innocently repeat it, thereby confusing others or being publicly smashed down by folks who do know better.
Who cares - people like them, they have a nice sized niche. Just like macs, just like other distros.
They're great for schools - esp. high schools. iPads are probably the more suitable option for elementary age kids.
And luckily prices are staying down. Chromebooks are <$300. iPad minis are $329.
Windows 8 tablets are good for math/science/engineering majors who have to run windows software and might need to use the stylus for notes/drawings.
Even though I've used middle of the road laptops running Ubuntu the past 6 years, I ended up getting a higher end Windows 8 touchscreen laptop to use for video editing, games, graphics, etc. I'll dual boot to Ubuntu or else run it in a vm.
Sorry to reply to myself but I seem to have found a source for the below.
>I find it really hard to believe that quarter of all computer sales are Chromebooks. Does anyone have a source? One would expect Google to announce real shipments if they were that good.
>Web usage metrics from a few months ago showed that Chromebooks are used even less than Windows RT.
>Chromebooks have in just the past eight months snagged 20 percent to 25 percent of the U.S. market for laptops that cost less than $300, according to NPD Group Inc
So, 20% to 25% of laptop sales costing below $300 became "25% of all computers" ? I don't know if the Intel guy said that in this keynote, or it's SJVN's mistake, but it's just terrible reporting.
That's an interesting reply, with links to several different articles to back your point. Also, an interesting comment history.
Do you, or a company you're employed with, have a financial relationship with Microsoft? A simple "Yes" or "No" will do, thanks. I'm very trusting and will believe you.
No, and never did. I am actually working on NetBeans/PHP/Drupal(gah!) on the other monitor, though I am primarily a C# guy.
And even I did work for MS, how does that invalidate any of my points? If I worked for Microsoft, does that suddenly mean it's okay for ZDNet to claim 25% of all computers being sold are Chromebooks? Interesting that no one is questioning SJVN's ulterior motives, if any! I do believe it's just to garner clicks though, Ed Bott will probably reply with an article debunking this one and ZDNet and its "journalists" will laugh all the way to the bank.
"No-one"? I don't represent "the whole planet other than jmcintyre", so don't worry about it.
I've found that Microsoft shills won't answer that question directly, which is why I honestly believe you. I wanted to ask you: why is it that you spend time defending a multi-billion dollar corporation, for free, when they actually pay people to do this?
I can understand volunteering time to a community effort like Linux, but I don't understand why you'd exert the same effort for a company that pays people to do the exact same job?
> I wanted to ask you: why is it that you spend time defending a multi-billion dollar corporation, for free, when they actually pay people to do this?
This confuses me. Debates about facts should never be limited to marketing departments versus the world, with everyone who agrees with the corporation sitting by quietly.
It's something like being a devil's advocate, plus being a fan. Spreading mistruths actually hurts things. When people say things like "Windows 8 won't boot without secure boot enabled", it's no longer opinion(like "MS sucks and is dying") but an objective fact that can be checked.
It's not effort expended per se, since it's more like debating merits of phone OSes at the water cooler rather than work. If they're paying people to do it, then they're doing quite a shitty job. I don't feel the need to "defend" other companies, because companies like Apple and Google already have plenty of fans who point out inaccuracies in stories or comments even before I even get a chance to comment.
Imagine an article which erroneously claims Windows Phone has "25% of the phone market" and that "Android is declining". Now imagine the HN comments on it and how karma might be distributed on those comments. Do you really think the equivalent to the following comment which is currently on top would still be on top?
programminggeek> "Microsoft has really fallen these last few years."
Or would it be a comment accusing the author of being a "Microsoft shill" ?
The moderation on here is pretty brutal even when pointing out objective facts, I have seen people get hellbanned by getting downvoted for making comments that people don't want others to see, but are true.
Ok, that makes sense when it's factual matters. But I have seen people whose entire comments history is comprised of defending a corp, whether that be MS, Apple, Google, or other. And I mean literally all their comments: no jokes, no random asides. Everything is supporting "their" company. I guess they must see it like it's a football team they support.
And there is no "if" on whether MS are doing it (employing paid shills). It's a fact that they are. They may well be doing a shitty job, but they're hired all the same. Of course MS are not the only ones; other companies do exactly the same thing. That's pretty much what "Social Media Consultants" are.
Sorry, Intel. The year of the Linux desktop will never arrive until I can watch Youtube videos with the goddam Flash player (or anything else) in Linux.
Signed,
- No-flash Giardini who cannot watch Youtube videos on his Linux box.
Sorry, for an Internet user, life w/o Youtube is like being a blind man with a white cane.
I've done that. Doesn't work for most of the Youtube videos I want to view.
BTW why the downvoting? I'm simply stating the facts here: most Youtube and Flash videos can't be viewed on Linux, period. It's been true for several years now and sucks bananas.
If you've got a Linux distribution that allows display of more than 80% of Youtube and Flash videos then please tell me what it is. Otherwise don't be buttsore and downvote me simply because I'm stating an unpleasant truth.
Pick any distribution, any browser, and even pick which flash implementation to install (including Adobe's). Flash has worked fine on Linux for about a decade.
Haven't tried Opera, but Ubuntu with Firefox and Chrome work perfectly well with flash for me. It's not a general issue that affects everyone; it's a problem with your setup.
I haven't tried playing 80% of videos on YouTube (ain't nobody got time for that), but of the videos I've tried to watch, all of them have played just fine (with a few buffering/[quality settings refusing to stick] issues which I've experienced equally on Windows boxen). Videos on other sites seem to work most of the time, especially if I temporarily disable AdBlockPlus.
1) Sure, yeah, any day now. Yet Flash is ubiquitous and Youtube uses Flash for most of the video I view.
2) I see no evidence of Windows dying either.
Flash has been "dying" for nearly two years now yet looks pretty damn healthy from here ( and I still can't watch Youtube on Linux). It's absolute rubbish to use an OS w/o access to Youtube and other (usually Flash) video sites.
I run Windows on a second machine just for Youtube/Flash but I'm about to abandon Linux due to the clumsiness of this arrangement.
2006 http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1836228,00.asp
2008 http://www.maximumpc.com/article/2008_year_of_the_linux_desk...
2009 http://www.fastcompany.com/1116502/2009-year-linux-revolutio...
2010 http://xerosphere.net/is-2010-the-year-for-linux-on-the-desk...
2012 http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/133669-could-this-be-the-y...