(NOTE: this is translated and a bit expanded from a comment I originally posted, in Portuguese, on Carlos Rodrigues’ blog.)
Many people (including geeks, and including Linux users) often say that “Linux isn’t ready for the desktop”. Yet, I’m using it on mine (at work), so it must be ready for at least some desktops, right?
One thing is desktop Linux for a geek/sysadmin/etc.. Here… well, I wouldn’t have Windows on my work desktop. It’s simply not usable or flexible enough to me. It may be OK for a “mouse engineer”, but the whole interface (changed little since Windows 95) seems to assume that everything will be done by clicking here and there, and that nobody has more than 3-5 different things open at a time. With Linux (in fact, with X) I get multiple desktops, dozens of simultaneous (and accessible in a non-confusing way) xterms, entire desktops for some graphic applications, speed, smoothness and stability. And it’s configurable for my way of working, instead of me having to adapt to the interface designers’ preferences. For a “power user”, Windows simply can’t compete with a WindowMaker or a KDE. My colleagues at work try to reproduce the functionality they see me using by installing some weird apps on their XPs, but, every time I look at those, I just shake my head.
A completely different thing is a desktop for a “normal” Joe. He’s fed up with worrying about spyware, viruses, growing slowdowns, occasional crashes, and he’s heard about some “Lunix” thing, so he decides to try installing it. This guy will be in BIG trouble: things like mounting/unmounting drives, selecting some of the hardware from a list that looks like gibberish to him instead of having it automatically detected (or inserting the manufacturer’s CD with the driver), using “WinHardware” like WinModems, playing the games he already has at home, using Office with everything exactly like he’s used to… well, all of that will go wrong. What he wanted, really, wasn’t a different operating system — it was a secure, stable Windows.
And I believe that those are what people think of when they say “Linux isn’t ready for the desktop”.
But there’s still a 3rd case, which is an important one: the non-tech person, in a company, who uses his or her PC to write a few reports, read and reply to emails, do some calculations, browse a couple of sites, and nothing else. To that person, a “locked up” Linux, with the applications that person needs in “large friendly icons” on the desktop, maybe a Solitaire or Minesweeper clone or two (to avoid deppression and suicide for lack of them :)) and no more - without the ability to install or uninstall anything, or alter system files, is, IMO, perfect. Much better, and easier to use than any Windows system. The user can’t damage the system (except by using violence against the hardware), doesn’t have dozens of applications or options he doesn’t need - or indeed know what they are -, but only 4 or 5, clearly indicated. And it’s much easier to administer or update remotely by the sysadmin. It doesn’t require an anti-virus or anti-spyware program. It doesn’t become slower as time passes, needing a reinstall after a few months. In a way, it’s much more like an “appliance” (such as a TV set) than a computer: it just works.
Related posts:
RSS feed
I agree with your assessment. It’s the Windows power users who can’t use Linux. They’re used to the way Windows works and can customize it enough that they’re happy. Maybe they run DesktopX and a desktop pager. They probably tweak a few performance settings and have enough time invested in little Windows utilities that switching to a new OS (Mac or Linux) would be very difficult. In fact, I can’t begin to tell you how many Windows users I know absolutely despise Macs because they can’t use OS X.
Yet I use Linux without trouble. Actually, using Windows is painful because I miss all the great stuff I have on Linux such as the flexible Konqueror file manager. No problem, I’m a programmer and am the target for desktop Linux.
My mother is recently retired and had *never* used a computer in her life until two weeks ago. I bought her one for her birthday and installed Ubuntu Linux. I removed desktop icons she didn’t need, created a gmail account for her and setup a gmail notifier system tray icon. She’s as good with that setup as anybody I’ve ever seen on Macs or Windows. It does exactly what she wants: click the gmail icon to read or write email, click the Firefox icon to browse the web and plug the USB cable into her camera to get photos, which automatically open in gphoto.
I’ll admit that she’ll have problems if she wants to get into advanced configuration, but the same holds true for any other OS. At least with Ubuntu she can install new software in a few clicks using Synaptic without worrying about the source (eg. some unknown web site) or spending a lot of money. She can play some games such as solitaire and tetris. With some help I can setup Gaim so she can chat online with friends. Heck, with Gnome’s session management it will save state between reboots, so she can power off her computer and next time she uses it the same apps open as were open before. Seems intuitive to her. More intuitive, in fact, than clicking the ‘x’ to close a window. Even more intuitive than knowing the wallpaper ins’t a window that needs closing. Laugh if you will, but she’s better at Linux that many people reading this comment.
Better than me at least
I admit I’ve never used Linux/Unix/OpenBSD/FreeBSD/OS X (but I used OS/2 a long time ago), and I’ll also admit I’d like to try it one day. Maybe at the start of a long vacation, so I have all the time I need to learn whatever I might need to learn or go through any readjusting period required to get used to the “odd” new interface.
Don’t know if I’m a Windows power-user, but I’d like to give Linux a shot someday.
I use linux on mine too. Ubuntu, for that matter. I dual boot to Windows 2003 though, because I can’t get bluetooth to work on Ubuntu.
Dr. Fil
http://dr.fil.ph