
We shouldn’t blame ourselves for the Linux desktop’s microscopic market share - Liriel
https://valdyas.org/fading/hardware/why-we-shouldnt-blame-ourselves-for-the-linux-desktops-microscopic-marketshare/
======
ridiculous_fish
Right conclusion but wrong timeline and wrong OS! The big loser here was not
Linux, it was Be, makers of BeOS.

BeOS was ahead of its time. It had a modern GUI, where each window had a
dedicated thread. It had a fantastic filesystem, with journaling and database-
like searching. Very advanced.

Be tried very hard to get OEMs to ship BeOS. But Microsoft's "per-processor"
licensing meant that OEMs were charged for Windows on every computer they
sold, even those without Windows.

At the end, Be was offering to license BeOS _for free_ to any OEM that would
ship it as the default OS (even allowing dual boot), and still had no takers.
Then they tried to license BeOS to Apple, but they misplayed their hand and
Apple went with NeXT. That was that.

By the time Linux became plausible on the desktop, the per-processor licenses
were gone.

~~~
type0
For those interested in continuation of Be spirit, check out Haiku OS
[https://www.haiku-os.org/](https://www.haiku-os.org/)

~~~
rvz
The philosophy of Haiku sounds like a goal that what Linux should have been
for the desktop. Unfortunately the distro ecosystem has riddled it with
endless pitstops of issues, competition of similar technologies like KDE,
GNOME, X11 and Wayland fighting each other, whereas OSes like macOS, Windows
and Haiku have an integrated system and a consistent experience of their OS.

------
JohnFen
From my own selfish point of view, I'm actually happy that Linux has a small
consumer marketshare, as long as it's large enough to support serious
development (which it is).

I've been noticing that as various applications, operating systems, and
platforms have worked to become more focused on the common person, they've
been increasingly becoming less useful (and more of a pain to use) to me. I
fear that if Linux actually broke into the mainstream, the same fate would
befall it.

~~~
fortran77
I feel the same way about my favorite programming languages. I'm glad there
aren't giant Haskell conferences that are more concerned with making the
language "friendly" and "accessible" than making it useful. This is what
happened to Python, etc, and I don't think it's a good thing.

~~~
azinman2
What's wrong with trying to bring people in? Why be elitist with tooling?

~~~
antepodius
It guarantees the userbase is elite.

~~~
azinman2
And tiny. Why is this a good thing?

~~~
antepodius
A tiny userbase working on tony codebases that implement just enough feautures
that the program's worth it for elite users can be worth it to elite users.

------
myrandomcomment
Absolute drivel not worth reading. All politics and pontificating. Linux
desktop lost because the market did not want it. That is the system we live
in. Rants about Bill Gates needs to be in jail are nonsense (and I used OS/2
until 99!). I had a BeOS desktop also. They lost. Gates for whatever issue you
have with his hard nose legal business practices is doing a ton of good work
via his foundation. Linux desktop lost the battle, get over it. Be happy it
won the war as it is in most embedded systems and almost all the servers in
the world. By this logic I should be mad about that because Solaris was so
much better as a server.

~~~
iudqnolq
One can do bad things and also donate a lot of money later. See also Family,
Sackler

------
twotwotwo
I'm not hugely disappointed with Linux's marketshare per se, because that
doesn't affect a Linux user's life as much as you might think. It does what I
need it to, stably, and I rarely run into old annoyances like hardware
compatibility or incompatibility with specific tools I need for work. It's
encouraging that Mac OS and now Windows (with WSL) have made some effort to
become more reasonable Unix dev environments too. The dollar cost of the OS on
new machines doesn't seem intolerable; you can do a lot with a cheap Chrome OS
or Windows device.

There _are_ problems today that might not exist in a more Linux-y world,
especially the remarkable power of a few huge companies to shape users'
computing experiences. On the other hand, if Linux had had some huge
commercial backer, whatever popular distribution won could have ended up with
similar issues. In any case, my preferred desktop "winning" is not the only or
best solution to those problems; users get some support from market forces
(which I think we can partly credit for useful cheap devices and Microsoft's
transformation) and where they don't help, well, regulation, including
antitrust regulation, is always out there.

------
wmf
The Microsoft antitrust case was a long time ago and AFAIK they stopped the
licensing shenanigans. Since then macOS has increased share significantly and
Linux has gained almost nothing.

~~~
goalieca
You sure about that? Chromebooks are everywhere.

~~~
wmf
ChromeOS also has lower market share than macOS (despite running on far
cheaper hardware) and I don't consider ChromeOS to be desktop Linux.

~~~
freedomben
More and more I think you should. I would have totally agreed a year ago, but
it's now very easy for the average user to install any Linux app they want
from distro repos. Chrome OS is totally Linux now.

------
esotericn
I believe this is tautological.

Mass market products compromise. They simplify. They market, advertise,
etcetera.

A truly mass market GNU/Linux distro with the clout of a Microsoft or an Apple
would inevitably, I believe, end up forking off into its' own barely
compatible universe.

If we're lucky, the 'old' universe sticks around. If we're unlucky, it
fragments the ecosystem too much and the proper power user OS falls apart.

Android is an example of precisely that.

I've been using Linux for my entire adult life. All of the reasons that people
give for not using it are reasons I use it. "It's too much tinkering", "I had
to look at a config file", "I wanted to compile something to change it", etc.

~~~
enobrev
To be fair, those reasons aren't as pertinent as they once were. I have a
linux-only household and rarely tinker (besides my server, but that's a
different category of system). Sure the occasional config file and maybe a
compilation if I need the very latest of something, but otherwise, linux is
pretty damned solid without digging in too deep these days - which includes a
triple-monitor custom desktop.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
> maybe a compilation if I need the very latest of something

It boggles my mind that it is 2019 and some people find it acceptable that you
have to compile from source to install up to date software. Or to install
software to a different location. Or to have two versions of the same software
installed.

This is a ludicrous regression from the state of personal computing in 1985.

~~~
esotericn
What's the big deal with compiling?

Rust's package manager for example compiles everything. 'cargo install bat'.
There, you compiled it.

Python programs, JS are essentially being compiled on the fly.

The Arch AUR is a oneshot 'makepkg' command even without a helper.

It's only this big scary thing if the build tools are crap and you need a
bunch of manual interventions.

Again, I find it strange that developers shy away from this. I can see that
the man on the clapham omnibus may not be impressed.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Yep, compiling is so seamless that nobody ever uses something docker to fully
contain their build environment to avoid conflicts and missing dependencies.

Not to mention little things like not all software being open source, having
to have compile dependencies installed that are not runtime dependencies,
compilation being slow for a lot of languages, etc.

Here's how installing up to date software goes in a sane world: Download
latest software direct from developer (or copy from some other media). Done.
That's how AppImage works, it's how RiscOS worked, it's how classic MacOS
worked, it's how DOS worked, it's how NeXT worked, and it's how a lot of
Windows software works (though sadly not all of it).

~~~
esotericn
I've never encountered this (compiling) as being a problem - my distro
provides build scripts anyway. We're moving towards reproducible builds now,
which have a hard requirement of a 'one command' build process to reproduce
byte for byte output.

I think within a few years we'll see distributions that have the option to
build from source in the package manager as a first class citizen.

To me, that's the sane way to distribute software. Provided unverifiable
binaries are sketchy. Closed source software is something other people use.

Almost no software provides binary releases at the commit level. Sometimes you
can have nightlies.

Again, I think this is something that seperates userbases. You don't want
this, you see it as effort or something. I see it as being absolutely
necessary.

So, YMMV I guess. /shrug

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
> I've never encountered this (compiling) as being a problem - my distro
> provides build scripts anyway.

Consider the common case that the software you want to install is not in the
repo.

> Closed source software is something other people use.

Great for you, but what's this thread about again? Oh yeah, Linux Desktop
being useful for people who aren't currently using it. As in, basically
everybody who uses a personal computer.

Why do they use proprietary software? Because they have shit to do and they
need tools. They can't always write the tools themselves so they pay someone
else who has written the tool they need.

This isn't rocket science, yet Linux Desktop evangelists still don't get it
even after 20 years.

~~~
esotericn
You're replying to my original comment that states that this is tautological.

I don't think that the Linux Desktop will be successful, and I think if it
ever is, that would be because it's moved away from the principles that make
it interesting to people like me to begin with.

I'm not talking about the man on the clapham omnibus, so responding to me
along those lines is kind of silly. I don't expect the general public to
spanner.

I do have disdain for developers that moan about it though.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Alright, let's forget about the general public.

I, as a tinkerer, developer, and general personal computing enthusiast think
it is absolute unmitigated bullshit that my only options for installing
software are to restrict myself to what is in some repo maintained by
volunteers, or try my best to match the build environment of the developer and
compile from source.

I don't like useless busywork, and I don't fetishize complexity. I do like the
idea of an open and free operating system, so it bothers me a lot that the
only one even coming close to being useful to me is still so far off.

~~~
esotericn
I just feel like we're in different worlds.

> try my best to match the build environment of the developer and compile from
> source

This is analogous to someone releasing a Windows executable without the
correct DLLs or whatever. The developer hasn't given you what you need to
install it.

Your problem is with the developer of that software.

Again, YMMV, I reckon we just use different things. I've literally never had
this problem for over ten years now.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
That makes you an outlier, considering how many developers now ship their
build environment in a docker container to avoid these problems.

------
mlacks
I think a big part of the lack of Linux (desktop) adoption is the DIY/
hobbyist vibe that it continues to put off. The consensus among the Linux
community is that for the regular non-techie consumer, all they need is a web
browser and an office suite. That’s missing a key part of the equation: Linux
desktops simply aren’t available in regular stores for people to see.

Sony has a similar issue with their smartphone division. For whatever reason,
they are no longer displaying their products in cell phone carrier stores in
the US. The consumer doesn’t even have the chance to think about a Sony
product before making the commitment to a competitor, forming a good
relationship with that manufacturer, and repeating the cycle to avoid change.

Why aren’t Linux laptops in best buy or the military department stores?

~~~
tapland
Every now and then a system with Ubuntu installed makes it to retail shelves.
I dubt they sell well since you need something really special (like the very
nice build quality on the old aluminium MacBook, with most consumers knowing
or seeing someine able to use them) to consider the jump.

~~~
type0
Yeah, and if they do sell any amount, someone inevitably complains

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qj8p-PEwbI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qj8p-PEwbI)

------
Artistry121
How did he do this?

“ So, to make things painfully clear: Bill Gates made it so that his company
would tax every computer sold no matter whether it ran Windows or not. If a
manufacturer wanted to sell computers running Windows, all the computers it
sold were taxed by Microsoft. He would get paid for the work a Linux
distribution was doing, and the Linux distribution would not get that money.”

~~~
henryfjordan
Contracts. You, as Microsoft, tell Dell and HP they can either pay for a
license for Windows for every computer they sell regardless of whether or not
they install Windows, or they cannot have a single license for Windows. Dell
and HP then choose: Hope people accept linux/BSD/Other and stop selling
windows, or sell windows and pay some extra.

Nothing illegal about it unless you are exploiting a monopoly (which Microsoft
did according to the author of the post).

~~~
tenebrisalietum
It would have been very interesting if things could have worked out where OEMs
refused to pay that MS tax and instead provided instructions on how to
purchase and install your own operating system separately.

~~~
JohnFen
I remember that some OEMs (including one or two major ones) had started to go
this direction, offering "naked" PCs without an OS at all.

Microsoft's response was to demonize the practice as encouraging piracy. Their
argument was that obviously nobody wants a computer without Windows, so people
buying them that way were clearly intending to install a pirated copy.

------
microcolonel
Why should I care? The community (both drive-by and commercial members) is
extremely productive, and together we make it useful at work and at home, and
that's good enough.

------
StreamBright
Linux is not a desktop operating system as it lacks the integration that made
both MacOS and Windows excellent desktop OSes. The LUG guys think whatever
they want, but for a p50 user Linux is not even an option.

------
AnIdiotOnTheNet
This is a comforting lie Linux Desktop evangelists tell themselves because
they can't accept that they've failed to build a good product for over 20
years now.

Here's just one example: to this day, it is still difficult to install
software that wasn't specifically compiled and carefully packaged for your
distro. Software compiled just 2 years ago often won't work _on the same
distro_ today. It's insane. And the OS is full of things like that.

~~~
type0
> Software compiled just 2 years ago often won't work on the same distro
> today. It's insane. And the OS is full of things like that.

That's equally true for Windows, and there is no OS called Linux, you don't
have to be an evangelist to know that

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
> That's equally true for Windows

No it isn't. People routinely run software that was compiled decades ago on
Windows.

> and there is no OS called Linux

Maybe that's part of why it's so shit? You have a problem with it, and someone
pops up and says to use a different distro (with it's own set of different
problems) or condescendingly explains how "Linux is just a kernel" like anyone
gives a fuck.

------
jrockway
I am not necessarily sure that only monopoly powers got Microsoft to where
they are today.

Microsoft did a lot to cultivate their platform. They invested heavily in
developer tools and APIs. Why do games use DirectX and not OpenGL? Better
tools and better hardware support. Why do games only run on Windows? Because
they use DirectX. Therefore, people buy Windows computers so that they can
play games. Microsoft's investment in tooling paid for itself in sales right
there. I imagine people also enjoyed Visual Studio (probably more in the past
than now), good optimizing C/C++ compilers, and tools like that, as well. They
had a platform, and they made it easy for you to use their platform. All that
was engineering investment, not evil business practices. Though I'm sure that
taking over the world was on their minds. What mattered was getting other
people to help them, and that is something they succeeded at.

The other crucial thing that Windows did was allowing drivers to be shitty
binary blobs. That is the best you can get out of most hardware companies.
They make a million different products a year, and they don't have time to
update their drivers when some kernel API changes. And, they stole a lot of IP
from their competitors, so they can't release the source code and let the
community do it for them. And, their customers probably never update to the
latest version, so they'd have to maintain 100 different forks. But with
Windows, you just make binary blob and it works for decades. Microsoft gives
you an API, you program to that API, and Microsoft does the dirty work of
keeping it working as they change Windows. (Linux doesn't have this, and
that's why your Android phone only gets updates for like a month after it
comes out.)

The Linux community says "drivers must be free", "only the highest quality is
allowed", "software freedom is more important than having the latest
features", and "we're sorry that you can't use patented algorithms without
getting caught, join our fight against software patents!" The hardware
manufacturers said NOPE to that. They don't make software, they don't invest
in software engineering, and they'll do the bare minimum to sell their chips.
Microsoft recognized this and made something that would work for them. The
result is where we are today.

None of this is to discount Microsoft's questionable business practices. They
certainly engaged in them. But I don't think they were as crucial to the
success of Windows as the engineering investments they made. They had a
stranglehold on the browser market for years and were even investigated by the
government for it. Then someone came along and wrote a better web browser, and
now nobody even knows what Internet Explorer is. Bundling it with Windows
didn't matter; people use the built-in browser to download Chrome the instant
the Windows installer exits.

------
new_realist
You can blame yourselves; the Mac was similarly disadvantaged, and yet clawed
its way back and is 10x more popular than desktop Linux.

------
1hackaday
It would be very easy for Linux to increase its market share: make it easy to
run Android apps.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Make it easy to run applications period. Adopt something like AppImage,
standardize on a base set of libraries that all applications can depend on. It
isn't rocket science... which is exactly why the Linux Desktop complexity
fetishists hate it. Come on y'all, let's invent a new package manager, maybe
using ML and a blockchain!

------
grzte
The Linux desktop is still a clusterfuck today. Bill Gates doing bad stuff 20
years ago has nothing to do with it.

~~~
Nextgrid
I recently had to set up Ubuntu 19.10 on a friend's laptop with a dead
keyboard so had to use the on-screen keyboard. For some reason the keyboard
wouldn't show up in the installer's text fields so no way to enter username,
password, etc. It works everywhere else, but not in the installer, presumably
because it's using the wrong toolkit out of the dozens of GUI toolkits
available and the rest of the desktop doesn't recognise its text fields
properly.

So unfortunately I still have to agree - how come the _built-in_ installer
program not play ball with the _built-in_ accessibility features, and why
wasn't this tested?

Logging in with the OSK also had a quirk - if you request the OSK on the login
screen, common sense would suggest that you also want the OSK to persist once
you're logged in... but no - once logged in you have to manually go in
settings and enable it again. This is not a big deal, but just having someone
think about the UX would've taken care of this.

Finally getting Netflix to work was annoying; Firefox is actually nice enough
to let me know that the page requires DRM content and offered to enable it in
one click without arguing about licenses or non-free software, but it still
didn't work... after searching around it seems like I had to enable the non-
free repo and install an extra "libavcodec" package. I figured it out, but I
wouldn't blame a casual user if they gave up and said "Linux sucks".

~~~
microcolonel
> _after searching around it seems like I had to enable the non-free repo and
> install an extra "libavcodec" package._

Isn't ffmpeg a basic dependency of Firefox? Can an Ubuntu user explain how
it's possible to install Firefox without its dependencies?

~~~
Nextgrid
It was _libavcodec-extra_ which I presume isn't a dependency, or otherwise the
stock Ubuntu ships with broken dependencies out of the box but I'd find this
extremely unlikely.

~~~
microcolonel
It's just so strange. H.264 decoders are free now, because Cisco buys a huge
unlimited license for their good software decoder every year, maybe Firefox
doesn't have the ability to link against that?

Shipping a web browser package without a functioning H.264 decoder, for most
people, is like shipping a kernel without mouse drivers.

~~~
dottrap
The terms of Cisco's patent license are tricky. Basically, you must use
binaries built by Cisco. Even though the source is available, Cisco's license
only extends to binaries they build. If you build the code, you are not
covered by Cisco's MPEG/H.264 patent license.

Cisco also only builds a limited number of architectures and platforms.

All of these things make it difficult to depend on for open source projects
like Firefox.

