
The challenges of Desktop Linux  - rbanffy
http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2012/08/31/the-challenges-of-desktop-linux/
======
jiggy2011
The second point: _"Companies tend to depend on a myriad of applications to
run their business, and just a couple of them not running under Linux would be
enough to derail a transition to Linux desktops"_ is the real killer.

This is really the only reason that I can't recommend trying Ubuntu to more
people. People site usability concerns etc and while there are some issues
there I think it's mostly "good enough" now and we're long past the days of
having to compile a .tar.gz full of .c files and fettle with vi in order to
get sound to work.

So the issue is how to get third party developers interested. I think the best
way is by including a _really sexy_ app store. Ubuntu Software Centre is a
start but it's still nowhere close to what Apple has achieved in this area.
Nasty looking icons, inconsistent screen shots (some showing gnome2, others
Unity) and thousands of free apps with weird names don't make it the most
attractive place to shop.

In many ways though , I would consider desktop Linux a success regardless of
marketshare for the simple reason that it is now possible to "use a computer
in freedom". I think the software world would be a bleaker place if Torvalds ,
Stallman et all hadn't spent the hours pushing code. Imagine a world where the
cheapest HTTP server license went into thousands of $.

~~~
doktrin
>> _In many ways though , I would consider desktop Linux a success regardless
of marketshare for the simple reason that it is now possible to "use a
computer in freedom". I think the software world would be a bleaker place if
Torvalds , Stallman et all hadn't spent the hours pushing code. Imagine a
world where the cheapest HTTP server license went into thousands of $_

I completely, wholeheartedly, agree with this. I will always maintain at least
one Linux machine for this very reason.

>> _People site usability concerns etc and while there are some issues there I
think it's mostly "good enough" now and we're long past the days of having to
compile a .tar.gz full of .c files and fettle with vi in order to get sound to
work._

IMHO usability is still a concern. I truly believe it scares off quite a few
potential users.

Anecdote : I've watched as a room full of professional developers cursed at
their screen while working past Unity, dealing with NVIDIA driver
compatibility and playing around with Xorgs. All the while, mind you, the devs
using OSX would occasionally chime in with casual snark such as "oh,
installing tomcat on OSX is really just a drag and drop..."

Obviously, we all got our desktops working - and I'm actually very fond of my
highly tailored Xubuntu setup. However, it wasn't exactly pain free. I have to
think that many a casual user might be put off by such an experience.

~~~
stcredzero
_> All the while, mind you, the devs using OSX would occasionally chime in
with casual snark such as "oh, installing tomcat on OSX is really just a drag
and drop..."_

Dev using OS X here. I've been on OS X since 2003 and haven't looked back. I'm
now doing iOS development.

Unless it's kidding between good friends, I have no need for such snark.
(Though I find it useful as a _symptom_.)

------
winter_blue
Actually, now is a great time to switch to Linux.

The only thing that was keeping my parents and some of my friends was that
they needed Microsoft Office for their work/schoolwork. As of now MS Office
runs like a piece of cake on Linux -- with PlayOnLinux
(<http://playonlinux.com/>). Honestly, it's quite impressive how smoothly it
runs (and how easy it is to install it.)

MS Office isn't the only application that PlayOnLinux supports - there's a ton
of games and other software (Photoshop, Blender, Dreamweaver, Flash, etc.)
that it supports. To top all that off, I feel like the desktop on has gotten
better and better lately. I use KDE 4.9, and I will say it is quite nice. The
level of integration KDE offers and the high quality of many of the standard
apps that come with it will make a Windows user never turn back. Ubuntu too
has a rather simple and straightforward UI (although it doesn't personally
appeal to my taste).

~~~
zanny
Blender is native on Linux since it is FOSS.

Really though, the only real reason desktop Linux never caught on was the
Windows default. That is it. If brick and mortar PC realtors sold Ubuntu
laptops and desktops next to Windows PCs with the same specs and a price cut
of the Windows licensing costs the MS monopoly would have ended a long time
ago.

------
programminggeek
The challenge of Desktop Linux is that it's not a product, it's a project.

Ubuntu is a very successful desktop Linux distro. It's pleasant to use and
very modern. Nerds might hate it because Unity doesn't fall in line with Linux
"the project" so much as its there to make Ubuntu "the product" better.

Overall, desktop linux as an overarching product failed, but so did mobile
linux pre-android, but Android isn't so much mobile linux as it is Android.

Open source is a bit like herding cats and if you don't have a real product
you are trying to ship, devs will scratch their own itch.

~~~
Uhhrrr
I agree with everything except for the past tense "failed". I would use the
(pause while I look this up) present perfect. Linux has failed on the desktop
so far, but with influence from Android platforms and the availability of
cross-platform dev tools like Java, Qt, Tk, and crap-in-browsers, it may yet
succeed. I work on a desktop application for Windows and OSX and at least 80%
of my development I can do on my Linux machine.

EDIT: meant to stick this in - really to capture the desktop market, Linux
only needs to emulate or simulate WinXP functionality. For most users, Win7
only adds gimcrackery.

~~~
glaurent
Tk ? Seriously ?

> at least 80% of my development I can do on my Linux machine.

That's the whole problem right there. The remaining 20% are all the desktop-
integration features and UI polish that is _not_ cross-platform, but which
makes the difference between a run-o'-the mill app and a great one. And OSX
does raise the bar quite high for the latter.

------
SlipperySlope
Stop looking backwards.

The desktop is being left behind by mobile. Recognize that Android/GNU/Linux
has won mobile. Despite an early lead, Microsoft has been crushed worldwide in
mobile by a Free Software platform.

Android provides a platform where both Free libraries and closed source apps
proliferate - and are very inexpensive. All the failures of desktop GNU/Linux
have been solved, or are not relevant, in mobile GNU/Linux.

Regarding the tablet segment of mobile, one could argue that GNU/Linux will
seize the low end and gradually gain market share at the expense of iPad,
leaving no room for Microsoft.

The only reason I care about desktop OS at all is to develop for mobile or
back-end server.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Hey SlipperySlope, where can I check out the latest source for Android?

What is the procedure for getting commit privileges?

Answer key: 1) You can't. 2) Become a Google employee.

~~~
rbanffy
> What is the procedure for getting commit privileges?

Make your own fork. You don't have commit privileges on the Linux kernel,
Apache Tomcat or the GCC compilers and they are all free software.

Oh... As for the source, <http://bit.ly/UhVbyk>

~~~
MatthewPhillips
> Make your own fork.

Can't, only Google employees have access to the current version of Android.

> You don't have commit privileges on the Linux kernel, Apache Tomcat or the
> GCC compilers and they are all free software.

But there is a process for getting commit privileges that doesn't involve job
interviews.

> Oh... As for the source, <http://bit.ly/UhVbyk>

That gives me source for old, outdated versions of Android, not what I'm
looking for. You can get the source for old idTech as well, does that make
idTech open source?

~~~
rbanffy
> Can't, only Google employees have access to the current version of Android.

Wrong. Google employees have access to source of binaries you don't have
access to. If you happen to have the binaries of an unreleased version of
Android, you are entitled to the source. At least, all of the parts that are
under GPL licenses. Google may or may not release sources for other versions.

> But there is a process for getting commit privileges that doesn't involve
> job interviews.

Being able to contribute to the upstream is not what defines free software.
Being able to fork released software and work on it is. Android passes this
test. Also, accepting patches from third parties could open Android to all
sorts of litigation. What if a former Microsoft employee contributes leap year
handling code from their products? The fact Android phones will crash on every
February 29th will be the least of Google's problems.

> That gives me source for old, outdated versions of Android

No. It gives you access to the sources of the Android versions publicly
available. Being open source doesn't mean you get access to pre-release
versions or to every single commit to the codebase. It means you can have the
source code for the binary you have.

------
xentronium
In my crusade of boycotting apple production I switched from OS X to ubuntu.
And you know what, despite high disregard from HN auditory, I've found Unity
to be surprisingly good. For example, unity dock still worse than os x dock,
but it's good enough. Single menu for all apps is familiar from os x, although
I hit it when attempting to move windows more often than I want to.
Application switcher can be navigated with arrows by default, which is good,
although I would also like it to be navigatable via mouse too. 'Spotlight-
like' menu named Dash Home takes way too much screen estate, but again, it's
at least usable. Hotkeys are terrible, though, and first thing I did was
disable alt and super keys calling dock/dash-home.

Overall, I like Unity way more than current Gnome, KDE, XFCE and LXDE. Your
mileage may vary.

I think, the real linux desktop problems are when something goes wrong.
Sometimes updates are unsafe. Sometimes you find a bug in a software. I had 10
or 20 crashes and error report windows in my first day. Commercial software is
terrible too. Skype is buggy, crashes often and is just bad. Nvidia binary
drivers suck and nouveau crashes on my card (560ti). Twinview can only VSync
one screen. Your other screen is doomed to lag on renders. Xinerama has a bug
with cursor randomly jumping over to another screen. Whenever something bad
happens you resort to google and waste 10 minutes+ for fixing it.

I also think that applications not being made for linux is not a very big
deal. 80% use case includes browser, music player and office package. All of
which are included by default in most distributions.

~~~
velodrome
I totally agree.

I have similar issues myself. It always seems that there are glitches all over
the place. I really wish the desktop was as stable as windows (or osx). Don't
get me wrong - I like KDE, GNOME, and Unity ... the problem is that they are
not that stable. There always seems something that is off.

------
yesimahuman
I use desktop linux quite a bit (though only through a VM these days). What's
interesting is many of the applications that always seemed to be missing or
worse than their Windows competitors have been absolutely destroyed with web-
based software. Both Windows and desktop Linux have been losing that battle.

The funny thing is that desktop Linux apps have always been trying to match
Windows apps feature-to-feature, but web developers haven't. Turns out I
didn't need every feature from Excel, I needed something faster, more
convenient, and easier to use.

~~~
bloaf
Speaking as someone who uses plenty of the more obscure features of Excel, I
hate the "lets do everything in our browsers!" paradigm.

That being said, what really matters for the question "why isn't linux
successful" is only: "How easy is it to get the software that does what the
user wants?" For an average home user, I think Linux could have been ahead of
the curve. All a distro had to do was slap a pretty GUI on their package
management system and they would have had an app store where everything was
free and easily accessible. The free office replacements are more than
sufficient for home users, as are the chat clients, web browsers, and media
players.

~~~
progrock
I agree you've got to make it easy for people to find and install software.

It's the same for all OS users though. I know enough Apple and Windows users
that have never installed any software on their machines whatsoever.

My brother called last week asking how he could share some digital photos with
someone, he had over 100MB worth of photos. I suggested he needed to resize
them and possibly archive them. He was absolutely clueless.

People just want to be able to do something with the least bit of fuss. The
goal surely is to make it easier for people to carry out said somethings.

Package management could and should be better than it is. I don't believe that
an app store is the answer to these issues. I've yet to try an app store that
I like (haven't tried Apple's.) Normally it's tricky trying to look for
software, and find solid recommendations.

Ubuntu's software center offers me little extra. I still resort to Synaptic!

If you can't install software easily, then you better offer a good set of
defaults.

------
tsurantino
I don't think there needed to be so many bullet points to explain why the
adoption of Linux as a desktop operating system has been extraordinarily slow
and generally unsuccessful.

In my opinion, it would fall under these two reasons

1) The difference between a Linux desktop & a Windows/Mac desktop is
negligible, or worse. GNOME/KDE don't really add any compelling features that
make them better than Windows or Mac anymore. I remember a few years ago, I
loved putting Ubuntu on my system because drivers would be downloaded
automatically and I could easily access all Linux packages from one simple
package manager. The folder browser was pretty familiar, and the GNOME 2 bar
was a nice hybrid between Mac & Windows, but nothing too special.

However, the driver installation & central package directory have been long a
competitive advantage with the era of Windows 7, etc. Granted, these weren't
"defining" features of Linux, but when I personally used it, these were thinks
that struck me then, but are no longer relevant now.

2) The ecosystem. I think it goes without saying that the Linux software
ecosystem is much more fragmented, and is often found in the "underground".

It's not an issue of whether or not there are substitutes to things like
Office, Adobe Creative Suite products, iPhoto, and other essential apps that
normal people/working people use on a daily basis, etc. (although I do think
that there aren't adequate substitutes for these and that the friction of
trying to get these actual products to work through things like WINE, etc is
too much).

However, because things are so much more fragmented on Linux, it being an open
system, it's harder for there to be de facto software (unless you lurk in some
Linux community, which again, normal people aren't generally interested in).

The user has to make so many choices, which are often arbitrary and needless,
and in doing so becomes frustrated and confused. There is too much stuff to
explain that isn't necessary to explain, and too much detail to go into that
again, is not practical.

The trade-off with Linux is that you get an enormous amount of power and
responsibility. The benefit of this is that you get an enormous amount of
power & responsibility. The cost is...the same, some people just don't want to
bother.

------
rbanffy
I see a much simpler explanation. Linux has, for a very long time, followed
the path opened by (and thus replacing) technical Unix workstations. Those
were specialized machines built for people who would put up with cryptic
interfaces in order to run the powerful software they needed. As any
specialized tool, it has appeal to the few professionals who have actual use
for them.

Only recently (3 years?) Linux distros started being friendly to "mere
mortals". This change coincided with the acceleration of the demise of the PC.
There may never be a year of the Linux desktop.

Yet, Linux is everywhere. As soon as you fire up your network connection, you
are using Linux. Every time I look up the time on my phone, I'm using Linux.
Most internet-connected TVs run Linux, as do most set-top boxes and e-readers.
I amuse myself thinking the convoluted things Steve Ballmer is compelled to do
just to be able to claim he doesn't use it.

------
twelvechairs
To me, 'Desktop' Linux has never worked because the lofty aim of projects like
GNOME to secure 'everyday' users is completely at odds with many of the basic
design decisions of the Linux/Unix platform that underpin it. Things like
storing data in string-based-files, chaining small command-line-tools to do
everything, a historically eccentric file structure, and pluralism in every-
way (eg. custom built binaries on a per-machine basis) are never going to work
for the 'everyday' user. You'd need to have an even bigger project than GNOME
to change these design decisions (like redesigning the file structure and
standardizing the hardware/software platform on which it runs, as OSX did).

That said, many of the components of GNOME (GTK, GStreamer, etc.) are great
and we shouldn't forget their usefulness to other projects whilst the Gnome
Desktop is coming up against these existential questions...

~~~
keithpeter
"Things like storing data in string-based-files, chaining small command-line-
tools to do everything, a historically eccentric file structure, and pluralism
in every-way (eg. custom built binaries on a per-machine basis) are never
going to work for the 'everyday' user."

I'm fairly everyday user most days (LibreOffice, R via R-studio, a bit of
graphics). I never see those things on Ubuntu (12.04, Unity on the laptop).

On Sundays I puggle about a bit with some python, and bodge up a few bash
scripts, but that is out of interest not workflow.

~~~
twelvechairs
Yeah, Ubuntu is much closer to what I was trying to say needs to happen to
overcome these problems (as a whole distribution, not just a 'desktop
environment' like GNOME), and theres a lot of hard work in there, but the
issues mentioned will still cause some problems. For instance, difficulty in
installing less-common software (see the giant page
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/InstallingSoftware>).

~~~
keithpeter
Ubuntu Software Centre is not mentioned in the page linked above, so you must
be referring to fairly _obscure_ packages!

------
goombastic
Gnome 3 completely borked my system of 8 years running on an Thinkpad R50e I
was happy with. There really is no excuse for what happened. There was no cure
either. I am done. Writing from a mac now.

I read that blog post and all I can do is shake my head. They seem to be
fighting the same old monsters for the last 12 years. The list of reasons on
the post sickens me.

~~~
ollyoxalls
What do you mean by borked? Did it actually cause damage somehow or did it
just not run well? I wouldn't expect something so resource intensive to work
well on that computer just as I would be amazed if you could smoothly run
mountain lion on an 8 year old mac. It's actually a major strength of linux
that you can run modern software versions on even extremely outdated hardware;
you just need to choose an appropriate desktop environment.

~~~
goombastic
Borked: Unable to boot into the GUI, unable to downgrade properly or go back
to the earlier version of Gnome. Tried doing stuff manually, ran into a bunch
of dependency issues, gave up. So then I loaded up XFCE and after a while of
using it, saw a mac, liked it, and moved. Also I guess I had moved on from the
time I was more of a hobbyist and just wanted a dependable system. I had
backed up all my config files just in case as well.

XFCE continues to be the only usable UI for laptops IMHO. XFCE actually
rescued said R50e, and yes, I am amazed by the fact that it is usable. But
given that I had been using Gnome for years and years, I personally was not
comfortable with XFCE. The mac gives me what I want, a unixy system and a
stable GUI without the hoop jumping tricks.

~~~
fmoralesc
> Borked: Unable to boot into the GUI, unable to downgrade properly or go back
> to the earlier version of Gnome.

Gnome 3 didn't bork your system, your distro's upgrade path/lack of testing
did.

~~~
keithpeter
<http://clonezilla.org/> has saved my bacon a couple of times when having
upgrade problems with distributions or other radical changes.

------
damian2000
Personally I don't see these points as being that important when looking at
casual home users. I've recently setup a couple of older laptops with Ubuntu
for some family members who just want to use them for watching movies and
browsing the web ... and for that, it excels.

------
progrock
The linux desktop probably hasn't suceeded due to pirating! Imagine if the
developing world jumped onto Linux in a bigger way.

I think MS realise this, there's suggestion that they'll be offering Windows 8
for a reasonable figure for once. Then desktop Linux better beware.

------
chris_wot
The GNOME project has failed because they have hacked at things that don't
matter. For example, what the world wanted and needed was a decent word
processor. It got OpenOffice. It needed an easy to use flow chart creator. It
got dia. It needed project management software. It got... Heck, what did it
get?!?

Cheese and Gnome Shell are all very nice, but so what?

~~~
qznc
The "Gnome Office" was Abiword+Gnumeric. Unfortunately, Abiword did not try to
clone MS Office, but tried to make their own thing. That meant missing/bad
support for opening doc files.

Gnome Planner is the official project management software. Not a serious
solution, though.

------
nuxli
His 1st bullet point says it all. Ken Thompson said the same thing about Linux
in an interview years ago. He said that is Linux's major problem.

I find preoccupation with some company's metaphor to be a sign of lack of
creativity. And the people behind Linux distributions are obsessed with
Microsoft and the "desktop".

The "desktop" is only one metaphor.

Does iOS have a "desktop"?

To speed up Vista when it was first released, I used to disable the desktop in
Windows by changing the registry key that specifies "explorer.exe". I would
just boot to msconfig or task manager.

The system ran much faster that way. Applications can still be minimised. It
worked so well, I never went back to the aero nonsense.

Obsession with a "desktop", and trying to look like Microsoft's version of it,
is one of Linux's major flaws.

~~~
Evbn
Gnome2 doesn't look like Windows, and it looks much better

------
eccp
To all people complaining about unstable apps, poor performance and buggy
drivers: I purchased my last laptop from Dell because I was aware it was well
supported on Ubuntu.

This alone makes a huge difference, trying to install Mac OS X on a frankenmac
will result in an troublesome experience too.

Doing your own transition to free software is also a key for success, and if
you're not tied to a proprietary technology, you should try it. I've been a
full-time Ubuntu user for 5+ years, working as a developer using Java, Ruby or
Python, and I'm very satisfied. Even further, when I had to use Windows 7 or
even Mac OS X it feels odd.

------
webwanderings
One of thing which I believe hindered in Linux’s popularity right from the
early days, was its not so impressive User Interface, compared to Win95/98. I
think this is where/when Windows took off and nobody was able to catch up
comparably for a very long time to come.

Another aspect was the lack of availability of compatible software. Software
back in the days were in the form of CDs-on-the-shelf, and I don’t think
anybody made any of them Linux compatible.

So the challenge was just not there from the beginning to get a hold of
average desktop user.

------
pm90
A dream-wish: The people who developed the Harmattan UI (Nokia N9) design
something new and refreshing for Desktop Linux. I know, that's probably
improbable, but if it did happen... This was the first (and only) UI on top of
linux that I really found beautiful. Android does not have the same polish,
unfortunately..

------
lovamova
elementary OS is doing something right. Learn from them!

~~~
nullspace
They are perfectionists who are doing a good job with all their software. But
they have been working on it for more than 18 months, but have not released
yet. It is tough to make stable and consistently behaving software, but I
can't imagine that they will get too much traction by delaying their release
so much.

~~~
julian37
I haven't actually tried downloading it, but looking at
<http://elementaryos.org/downloads> they definitely seem to have released
_something_.

Also, it seems they've been working on this since 2007 according to
<http://elementaryos.org/team>

~~~
timwo
It definately is a very promising distro, but not right now.

I installed this distro a few weeks back and found out it was Ubuntu 10.10
running an older 2.6.x kernel. To keep things short, it just didn't work very
well on my i7 Sandy Bridge laptop with SSD. I had to tinker with some drivers
to get Wifi working. I had a lot of graphical glitches that I could not get
fixed. The OS also performed like it was running from a USB 2.0 dongle, while
in fact it was running on a SSD. CPU constantly hitting 100% fan usage. Random
lockups were frequent as well.

Altough I really liked the look and feel of this distro, I i was dissapointed
and frustrated not being able to get it to run decently on modern hardware.

Afterwards I installed Pinguy OS built on Ubuntu 12.04 and that worked right
out of the box.

I migth get back at Elementary OS when they release a stable distro built upon
newer Ubuntu builds.

------
radley
Android PC

~~~
wmf
Android is not really Linux and that sounds like a terrible idea (although
less terrible than Chrome OS).

~~~
rbanffy
> Android is not really Linux

I'll agree it may not be a traditional GNU/Linux with an X-based GUI, but it
certainly is as much Linux as, say, OSX is Unix (despite the lack of teletypes
attached to most Macs).

------
batgaijin
Does anyone remember netbooks? How they used to have Linux? That was when
Linux had a real chance.

[http://www.informationweek.com/windows/microsoft-
news/micros...](http://www.informationweek.com/windows/microsoft-
news/microsofts-new-cash-cows-linux-and-andro/231601809)

If you don't think Microsoft is directly responsible for this, you are an
absolute idiot.

Every manufacturer has to pay for Windows Mobile for every Android phone they
sell. No company has stood up to Microsoft. This is a real threat.

You want to talk about Gnome 3? Fuck you. Why would anyone invest a cent in a
WM if you can't distribute Linux installed on a laptop?

People like talking about Microsoft and Apple as though they are different
teams. Nope, they are on the same team: fuck people who think they can get by
without them.

~~~
esolyt
I think there are better words you can use to make your point.

Also note that Microsoft failed to stop Android even though they have been
bullying all Android manufacturers too with their patent portfolio. The reason
Desktop Linux never became a success cannot simply be attributed to
Microsoft's bullyings. To them, it's probably just another source of income,
not necessarily a means to stop free software or Linux.

~~~
batgaijin
What? Desktop Linux never became a success because nobody profits from it
being awesome. That can't happen until you can distribute Linux on a PC
without making some back room deal with Microsoft.

I'm sorry, but this issue makes me very angry, and I feel like most people are
childish fools who pretend that it's the fault of hobby hackers making
software that's difficult to use. No, it's because no matter how awesome Linux
is, you can't distribute it without paying.

Also: Microsoft may have not stopped Android, but that doesn't mean they
haven't hampered it. Without that stupid license every phone would be able to
be sold $8-$15 cheaper.

<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2331462,00.asp>

That might not seem like a lot more, but it's $8-$15 more than it should be.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>That can't happen until you can distribute Linux on a PC without making some
back room deal with Microsoft.

Why not? That ended back in the antitrust days. E.g. See
<http://webapps.ubuntu.com/partners/oem/>

The reason that Linux PCs didn't take off is manifold. First, they're
unfamiliar to the user so the return rate is high when they find after taking
it home that it won't run some app they need. Second, the price is the same or
even more because the OEMs get paid a pretty penny for the preinstalled adware
and bloatware. And all the support and the separate software tooling make it
tough for the OEM to turn a buck. Not to mention that they're wary of showing
it prominently on their site because in the past that lead to a lot of
uninformed people buying them and returning them.

>No, it's because no matter how awesome Linux is, you can't distribute it
without paying.

You're needlessly getting angry for nothing. What's stopping anyone from
selling PCs with Linux? You can start a company today that does that, and
Microsoft won't come near you until you're making hundreds of millions of
dollars.

E.g. See <https://www.system76.com/>

Are they paying Microsoft? Linux on the desktop is suffering precisely because
of the points outlined in the article. If Linux was awesome, less people
would've switched to OS X.

~~~
batgaijin
See: <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090619161307529>

I agree with you, Linux as it stands is crap for the desktop. However, if you
think no corporation wants to distribute it you are crazy.

If you want to make a coherent argument, use something besides System76. There
will always be a niche market that panders, the problem is that no large
corporation currently does with a small subset of their offerings.

