
What killed the Linux desktop - foolano
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2012/Aug-29.html
======
cletus
This is the money quote:

> The second dimension to the problem is that no two Linux distributions
> agreed on which core components the system should use.

Linux on the desktop suffered from a lack of coherent, strategic vision,
consistency and _philosophy_. Every engineer I know likes to do things a
particular way. They also have a distorted view on the level of customization
that people want and need.

I like OSX. Out of the box it's fine. That's what I want. I don't want to dick
around with Windows managers or the like. Some do and that's fine but almost
no one really does.

Whereas Windows and OSX can (and do) dictate a topdown vision for the desktop
experience, Linux can't do this. Or maybe there's been no one with the drive,
conviction and gravitas to pull it off? Who knows? Whatever the case, this
really matters for a desktop experience.

I have two monitors on my Linux desktop. A month ago full screen on video
stopped working. Or I guess I should say it moved to the center of the two
screens so is unusable. I have no idea why. It could be an update gone awry.
It could be corp-specific modifications. It could be anything. But the point
is: _I don't care what the problem is, I just want it to work_. In this
regard, both Windows and OSX just work. In many others too.

I can't describe to you how much torture it always seems to be to get anything
desktop-related to work on Linux. I loathe it with a passion. I've long since
given up any idea that Linux will ever get anywhere on the desktop. It won't.
That takes a topdown approach, the kind that anarchies can't solve.

~~~
_delirium
Among non-ultra-geeky Linux users I know (mostly part-time users), "Linux"
does seem to be reasonably standardized as far as desktop components go,
because by "Linux" they mean "Ubuntu". It's possible the Ubuntu desktop
dominance came a bit too late, though, and still isn't entirely complete.

My own experiences aren't great with Windows, though they're smoother on OSX
than Linux. The problem I have with Windows is that stuff does break, but it's
inscrutable how and what to do about it, whereas at least on Linux there is
usually _some_ way to do something about it if you're tech-savvy. If anything
gets borked in Windows, it's wipe-and-reinstall time; back when I used it
full-time I probably did that once a year on average.

I find OSX to be poor for package management, though. I've gotten so tired of
headaches with installing and managing updates of stuff, and badly interacting
upgrades of the OS and separately installed packages and system versions of
python/ruby/etc., that I do most of my dev work in Debian in VirtualBox now.
In that aspect, it's Debian that's centrally managed with real release-
engineering and integration tests, whereas OSX is an anarchic mess of 3rd-
party software that nobody's responsible for integrating and testing.

~~~
justincormack
Windows is horrible to use, everything is poorly designed. Linux (Ubuntu in my
case) and OSX just work sanely mostly, but OSX is a horrible dev environment,
so I moved back to Linux.

~~~
cooldeal
>Windows is horrible to use, everything is poorly designed

Without qualifiers, that statement is meaningless. Perhaps you mean it's
horrible for _some_ devs? (Millions of others are doing just fine with Visual
Studio).

For regular users, dropping them to Linux will be like replacing your mom's
car's controls with the controls found in an airplane cockpit(command line) or
playing "who moved my cheese ?" with the Linux desktop. Granted, everything is
moving to the web these days, so why not just give them an iPad or a
Chromebook?

~~~
eitland
Ubuntu works just fine for two kind of users:

1.) Grandmothers and the like who just want to read their mail and check the
news.

2.) People like me who can and will use 4 + 2 + 1 + 0,5 hours to customize it
over the course of 6-12 months to have an almost perfect working environment
instead of living with a slower OS without virtual desktops.

The only thing I can think of that needs tinkering is some online banks that
require applets to work, but then again even Windows doesn't come with Java
preinstalled.

~~~
ps2000
I think you mean Debian.

I know lots of people who successfully installed Ubuntu that don't know what a
boot sector is but are still happy with it. (After all most people use web
apps anyway.)

------
ajross
I think some of this is perceptive. It's true that the attempt by both
Canonical (Unity) and Red Hat (Gnome 3) to sort-of-incompatibly break away
from the _so close to standard that it hurts to type this_ Gnome 2 environment
did a lot more harm than good, at least as far as platform adoption goes.

And clearly OS X is an extremely polished Unix and is going to appeal to the
more UI-focused of the hacker set. And Miquel is definitely among the most UI-
focused of the hacker set. He's also an inconsolate "platform fan". Much of
his early work was chasing Microsoft products and technologies, of course; now
he's an iPhone nut apparently, and that doesn't really surprise me.

But at the same time the Linux desktop was never really in the game. I use it
(Gnome 3 currently) and prefer it. Lots of others do. For many, it really does
just work better. But in a world where super-polished products are the norm, a
hacker-focused suite of software isn't ever going to amount to more than a
curiosity. (And again, I say this as someone who will likely _never_ work in a
Windows or OS X desktop.)

So in that light, I think the idea that the Linux desktop got "killed" is sort
of missing the point. It's no more moribund now than it was before. It's more
fractured in a sense, as the "Gnome" side of the previous desktop war has
split into 3+ camps (Unity, Gnome 3 and Gnome2/Xfce, though there are other
spliter camps like Mint/Cinnamon too). But it's here and it works, and it's
not going anywhere. Try it!

~~~
wpietri
_So in that light, I think the idea that the Linux desktop got "killed" is
sort of missing the point. It's no more moribund now than it was before._

I strongly disagree. It is losing exactly the sort of person that the author
is: developers who, all else equal, would rather use Linux. But who eventually
get tired of the BS and just want something that works and you can actually
get software for. I have a lot of sympathy for that.

I write this from a Linux laptop, but that's more out of mulish stubbornness
and 15 years of accumulated irritation with Steve Jobs and his dickish
business practices.

The last time I got a new laptop I knew I didn't have time to screw around for
days with X configuration files. And so I paid a vendor several hundred
dollars over list to give me a laptop that JFW. And despite that the sound is
still way too quiet. After a few time-boxed 2-hour excursions into whatever
sound system they're using this week, I still can't fix it. I've given up.

The only legitimate reason I have for staying on desktop Linux is that I code
for Linux servers, and I think it's impossible to really understand system
performance if you're not running the same OS. But even that seems shaky to
me; hardware keeps getting cheaper and developers keep getting more expensive,
so it just doesn't matter as much.

One day some bright Linux spark is going to "innovate" again in a way that I'm
expected to put up with their rough edges for 6 months (hello, Unity!) and I'm
going to say fuck it and buy a Mac because I just don't have time to screw
around right then. Or maybe I'll just want to watch a Netflix movie without
hassle, or play the video game my pals are all talking about. And maybe by
then it will be a fancy dock for my 8-core Android phone.

Overall, I agree with his point, except that I don't think Linux on the
desktop is so much dying as cutting its own throat.

~~~
learc83
Many of the problems people have with Linux have nothing to do with Linux
itself.

When I first tried to use Linux about 7 years ago, wireless drivers were a
huge problem. Manufacturers didn't provide assistance--not much Linux distros
could do about it at the time.

These problems are simply inherent to Linux being a minority platform.

~~~
msbarnett
> Many of the problems people have with Linux have nothing to do with Linux
> itself.

I disagree.

What the OP is complaining about is the same thing Miguel was complaining
about, and it's the exact same thing JWZ called out 9 years in his CADT
rant[1]. It has nothing whatsoever to do with manufacturers failing to provide
drivers and everything to do with attention-deficit devs never wanting to
knuckle down and do the hard, unglamorous work of long-term maintenance and
bug fixing.

Working systems (with known bugs) are thrown out and re-written as new,
incompatible systems with even more bugs. Everything breaks every time some
idiot decides that they'll rewrite the audio/desktop inter-
op/init/logging/whatever subsystem because This Time It'll Be Done Right™.
This perpetual treadmill of half-working betas never ends.

It gets old.

[1]: <http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html>

------
jrockway
I've used Linux for years and have never had these problems. I think the issue
is that getting everything working requires a deep understanding of each
component and the system as a whole. If you just follow advice on forums, you
will make things worse because you're doing things you don't understand to a
system that you don't understand. That's not going to lead to success. You
need to be able to think critically about what's wrong and what needs to
change, and then execute those changes. No, that's probably not worth doing if
you already like Windows or OS X. If you don't, though...

(And, there are of course Linux-based systems that were built by someone
controlling the whole experience, and those work really well. Android and
ChromeOS come to mind, though those aren't really _desktops_ per se.)

The other day, someone here was complaining about udev. It has ruined Linux
forever, or something. I have a different experience: udev has made my life
very easy. I have a rule for each device I care about, and that device is
automatically made available at a fixed location when it is plugged in. For
example, I have a rule that detects a microcontroller that is waiting to be
programmed with avrdude in avr109 mode that symlinks the raw device
(/dev/ttyUSB<whatever>) to /dev/avr109. I then have a script that waits for
inotify to detect the symlink, and then call avrdude to program the
microcontroller. A few lines of shell scripting (actually, it's in my
Makefile), and I can just plug in a microcontroller, press the programming
button on it, and everything just works. No screwing around with figuring out
which device address it's assigned to. How do you do _that_ in Windows?

~~~
jsnell
I have used Linux as my main desktop and laptop OS for 17 years, and see these
problems frequently. It used to be a system I could keep completely in my
head, and understand what was happening and why. But from maybe 2005 onwards
there has been a persistent and accelerating trend of replacing the old
working and transparent (though possibly a bit baroque) infrastructure with
fancy new components that are completely inscrutable. And the lack of
transparency gets worse and worse the thicker these layers of garbage get.
It's mostly fine as long as things work. But things never seem to work if you
have a configuration that differs even a bit from the default.

Want to log in from a terminal and start X? Well, too bad there's some new
infrastructure this month that makes sure you'll only get access to the sound
device when you log in from a properly configured gdm. Want to modify the
keyboard layout? Whoops, the xmodmap format that had been stable for a couple
of decades now changed for the third time in a year. Want to add a tmpfs on
/tmp to fstab? Well, too bad. Some implicit and undebuggable circular
dependencies in systemd will make the system unbootable.

And the sad parts are that the problems this new infrastructure is supposed to
solve never actually existed. "Great, now audio doesn't work at all. But if it
worked, it would have full support for network transparency". It's easy to
understand why the problem exists - creating something new tends to be more
rewarding than working on the old stuff. It's much harder to see how to fix
this madness.

~~~
aaronmhamilton
PulseAudio doesn't depend on GDM, you just need to create a config for it;
What I do (on fedora) is move the default.pa from
/var/lib/gdm/.pulse/default.pa to ~/.pulse...

You can't expect everything to work when you tear out components then fail to
configure things properly...

~~~
jsnell
I wasn't tearing out components. I was doing everything exactly the way I'd
been doing forever, and it no longer worked. Which is bad in itself, but maybe
it's understandable that niche usecases break every now and then. It's just
that it's happened so often and for so many parts of the system that it's hard
for at least me to think it's isolated incidents rather than a cultural issue.

The truly toxic part is that every single transition adds complexity and
reduces transparency, making it harder and harder to understand the system.
It's just not the breakage alone, or the complexity alone, or even the lack of
transparency. It's the combination of all of those.

In the start of this thread jrockway proudly says that all you need is deep
understanding all the components and the system as a whole. Back in the day
this was not actually an unreasonable thing. But it's been getting less and
less reasonable for a long time.

(Incidentally the audio example in my original message wasn't even directly
related to pulseaudio. It was a few years back, but IIRC it was some daemon
tweaking the device permissions, and something else adding users to a special
group in the GDM login path but not the console one.)

~~~
aaronmhamilton
Well, GDM tends to handle a lot of initialization that it shouldn't be the one
doing, using a distribution that doesn't assume you're using GNOME may help
with this.

About the transitions supposedly adding complexity; I don't know about you,
but systemd, for example, has greatly simplified configuration and management
of services, mountpoints, timers, and all sorts of things.

I use awesome in Fedora 17 on some early-2010 entry-level consumer intel
hardware, everything is zippy, easy to configure, and doesn't break on me all
the time; I feel bad for you man.

------
luriel
JWZ identified the issue Miguel discusses in this post ten years ago, he even
gave it a name: CADT

<http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html>

Also, part of what killed the Linux desktop was Miguel and his total lack of
understanding of the unix philosophy which drove him to create abominations
like BONOBO. D-Bus is not much better either.

That he fell in love with an iPhone goes to show he didn't fully appreciate
the value of open source either.

We were just yesterday commenting with some friends in #cat-v how Evolution is
one of the worst pieces of software ever created, and Evolution is supposedly
considered by Miguel and co to be the epitome of the Linux desktop.

~~~
Argorak
How does falling in love with an iPhone show that you don't fully appreciate
the value of open source? Tell me about any good open source handset that came
out before the iPhone. OpenMoko? I mean, you really had to love open source to
put up with it.

Yes, there is still Android but, given how modified the usual handset is, you
can't buy a free and open Android on the market as well.

So, where is the problem in using a closed device when "open" just doesn't
deliver?

~~~
luriel
There is a big difference between using and loving.

~~~
Argorak
Which leaves your point unexplained. So, let me reply in an equally enigmatic
fashion:

There are many reasons for which a thing can be loved.

------
hnriot
Speaking as someone running a Linux desktop (and am writing this on one)
there's not much to say other than I agree. I run linux because work gave me a
PC and there's no way I can write software on Windows. Of course we all have
servers managed off in the corporate cloud somewhere that run ssh/vnc etc, but
there's no way I wanted to install putty again or miss out on the unix
commands that make (work) life more enjoyable, so I installed Linux, because I
write server software, and client sometimes, but browsers make the operating
system moot pretty much. There's more variation between browsers than between
operating systems - mobile aside. And when I need to try something on Wintel I
spin up a cloud instance and use vnc.

When i'm not on Linux I run OSX everywhere else (and IOS) because its unix-
like (is) and because it works so well. I am sure Windows 7 and 8 are great,
but I doubt they have gotten rid of c: or \ as path delimiter or any of the
other nonsense that DOS introduced (copied from PIP) back in the dark ages.
why should they, MSFT still runs DOS apps so they aren't going to change and
choosing between OSX and Linux on a non-work desktop is a no-brainer, Netflix,
Photoshop etc etc etc...

~~~
josephcooney
Why is / inherently better as a path delimiter than \ ? DOS was built to be
compatible with VMS and other DEC OS's, which used / as a switch character.

~~~
keeperofdakeys
If you could arbitrarily pick any character, both are as good as each other.
However '\' is currently an escaping character in nearly every program that
needs such a function, so as things currently are, '/' is better. This begs
the question of when '\' as an escape character became mainstream though.

------
nathanb
I think the article does a great job of explaining the problem, but doesn't
explore the ramifications far enough.

Let me give an example: a few months ago, a new version of Skype was announced
for Linux. I was excited, since I used Skype 2 for Linux but then it stopped
working for me and I couldn't be bothered to fix it. But if you go to the
Skype for Linux download page, you will find a few downloads for specific
distros, then some tar files which are, statistically speaking, _guaranteed_
not to work.

Long story short(er), I still don't have Skype working on my desktop, because
my distro isn't in the list, I can't get one of the other distro packages to
work on my system, and of course none of the statically-linked binaries work.

(I could almost certainly get it to work if I was willing to install 32-bit
binary support. But it's 2012. If your app requires me to install 32-bit
binary support, I don't need your app _that_ badly.)

Steam for Linux, recently announced by Valve, will run into the same problem.
I suspect it will actually be Steam for Ubuntu and Debian, possibly with a
version for Fedora, assuming you have the proper libraries installed and are
using the right sound daemon and graphical environment.

But if big-name software comes out for Linux, hopefully distros will get in
line. Do you want to be that distro which can't run Steam? Doesn't really
matter if you think that OSSv4 is superior to ALSA and PulseAudio...if Steam
requires the latter, you will toe the freaking line, or disappear into
obsolescence.

~~~
jvm
What distro are you running? It must be sort of out there that you're having
such difficulties. I'm running Arch which is not widely supported, but user
submitted build recipes (think brew on OSX but with way more options) work 95%
of the time (e.g., no trouble with Skype, Spotify, etc.)

~~~
nathanb
I'm running Arch as well, though I don't use the AUR. Stuff tends to crustify
too much and too easily in there.

~~~
jvm
Once you install yaourt or packer though it's really easy to at least see if
the AUR package works (Skype works fine, e.g.). If not then maybe you're on
your own, but if you're having trouble it can still be useful to see how
someone else built it in the past.

------
wheels
I'd agree with a whole lot of what's said here, but also add:

One of the big thrusts of the Linux desktop wasn't simply dominance itself,
but for it to simply _not matter_ what you were using on the desktop. The
Linux desktop fought to produce the first cracks in Windows hegemony a decade
ago, but the final push came from the rebirth of Apple and the rise of the
smartphone.

Today people happily do their normal productive or recreational tasks from a
variety of computing environments: Windows, GNOME, Unity, KDE, OS X, iOS,
Android, et al. Probably the majority of (Western) web users use at least one
non-Windows internet device.

During the golden age of the Linux desktop everything seemed predicated on
reaching exactly this point -- that you wouldn't _need_ Windows, and then, by
virtue of competing on a leveler playing field, the Linux desktop would
ascend.

But the Linux desktops didn't "scate where the puck is going" -- or their
attempts at such missed the mark. By the time we reached the era post-Windows
dominance, the Linux desktops weren't positioned to take advantage of the new
playing field dynamics. The rest of the industry isn't even all that concerned
with the desktop wars anymore. It stopped mattering very much -- and
ironically, that came around to bite the projects in the ass that first got
the ball rolling.

------
thiderman
I never understood this. Why would market share of Linux on the desktop
matter? I've always viewed Linux on the desktop as something for power users
and developers, and thousands of said power users and developers are
continually developing and maintaining multiple distros and thousands of
applications. It's not like it's a stale and abandoned paradigm that's left to
die.

~~~
darkstalker
Was gonna say exactly the same. People thinks that if it's not popular among
the masses it's "dead". Totally wrong, since it covers a completely different
niche.

The author seems to forget that some people actually _enjoys_ configuring and
hacking their systems in detail. Also there is the people who hates using the
mouse, and wants to do everything with the console and keyboard.

------
chimeracoder
> (b) incompatibility across Linux distributions.

This is completely missing the point - a statically compiled end-user binary
should be compatible across _all_ distributions of Linux, using the same
version of the kernel or _any_ newer version.

The only caveats to that are (a) hardware and (b) poorly-packaged software.

(A) is the fault of hardware manufacturers and is increasingly not an issue
these days anyway; driver issues are becoming increasingly rare.

(B) is easy to solve for any open-source software, as it is the responsibility
of the community for that distribution to provide the appropriate packaging.
They _prefer to do it themselves_. And they're good at it - it gets done!

If you want to ship a closed-source binary on Linux, just make sure you don't
dynamically link it against any libraries that you don't also ship with the
binary. Problem solved.

Honestly, I can't remember _one single instance ever_ where I have run into
end-user software that will run on one distribution of Linux and not another,
as long as that principle was followed.

~~~
migueldeicaza
Many sophisticated libraries on Linux uses dynamic modules or require
components that are configured as part of the system.

Consider D-Bus, if you statically link, but the system changes the format or
location of D-BUs configuration files, all of a sudden your app no longer
works.

So in theory, yes, this could solve some of the problems. But it requires a
massive effort to make the Linux desktop libraries static-linking friendly,
which they are not.

------
dchest
Software compatibility in OS X?

A lot of applications break on newer versions of Mac OS X. That's why there
are websites like <http://roaringapps.com/apps:table>

Also, there are a lot of "transitions" that Apple loves doing: PowerPC ->
Intel. Java -> Objective-C. Carbon -> Cocoa. 32-bit > 64-bit. Access
everything -> Sandbox.

See also Cocoa docs: "method X introduced in 10.5. Deprecated in 10.6".

I have a few devices that don't work in 10.8.

Basically, what I'm saying is that OS X is a _bad_ example for backward
compatibility. Windows is much better at this. Open source software is much
better at this.

------
patrickaljord
What killed it is that it didn't have a huge and multi-billion dollar company
betting on it (on the desktop) like Microsoft and Apple had, even Apple with
its billions is still around 5% market share worldwide so having 1% is still a
great accomplishment when you think that it had no support from huge
corporations.

Now take the mobile world for example, Linux on mobile had been around for a
decade but it never really took off until a huge company like Google decided
to throw its billions of dollars and its great ingenuity at the task. Getting
an OS to be popular is just incredibly difficult and it needs way more than
just good driver support and/or good software. It needs marketing, talking to
manufacturers, dedicated and well payed devs, designers, UI and UX
professionals, sales, R&D and so on and so forth.

Focusing on the technicality of drivers and API is typical of us devs, but it
has nothing to do with why Linux didn't take off on the desktop, sure Linux
did fail because it couldn't do any or some of that well, but why couldn't it
do any or some of that? Because it didn't have a huge and focused company
pushing for it. How many popular desktop OS are there? Only 2, I think that's
enough to show that it's incredibly hard to get into that market and that only
a huge company can make it. Also, let's not forget that Windows was good
enough and there was not much Linux could do to attract users, in fact this is
still true and probably why even OS X is still at 5%: Windows is good enough
and it's the de facto standard used by +90%. Having the best UI and UX in the
world like OS X doesn't help that much either.

~~~
alpeb
Redhat and Canonical are big companies that did bet the house on Linux. A few
years back I was confident Canonical was what desktop Linux needed to get its
shit together. And today I'm typing this on a Zareason laptop that's supposed
to provide 1st class support for Ubuntu (even has an Ubuntu key), and the mic
doesn't work, Fn keys don't work, youtube videos appear in monochrome blue,
and it likes to boot itself up randomly from time until the battery drains...

~~~
patrickaljord
> Redhat and Canonical are big companies that did bet the house on Linux.

No, RedHat bet the house on server Linux, never on desktop. Canonical did bet
the house on desktop linux bit it's a tiny company that has yet to turn a
profit (or a significant one).

------
gvb
I'm typing this on my work laptop running a linux desktop (Ubuntu FWIIW). Our
engineering servers at work run linux and, as a convenience, have the desktop
installed. As many of my co-workers run linux desktops as OS-X desktops (and
the engineers running OS-X or Windows have VMs running linux... desktops).

When I go home, I'll be using my personal laptop running linux. My wife and
kids run a netbook with a linux desktop.

The linux desktop may be dead to Miguel, but it works just fine for me, a lot
of other people in my life, and a lot of people in the world.

<shrug>

~~~
diminish
Optimistically speaking, i moved from mac/pc to linux 9 years ago on desktop
dragging dozens of people with me. My experience so far is everything gets
better year by year. Yes, Apple took away some shine out of Linux since a
couple of years, but I see this as a gain, because those people will be
unixified and will be better adapted to Linux setups in the next decades.

I never consider OS/X despite some fanciness; it is limited in choice of
hardware, it is totally dead on server side, its unix-ness was/is crappy,
despite being developed by the (the most valuable) cathedral in the world. its
support for open source dev tools is miserable, despite some recent
improvements, its game support is miserable (compared to windows) and it goes
worse in openness day by day. Just a crowd of ordinary users, waiting to be
sold trivial app store apps maybe an appeal to some developers, but OS/X
appears like a toy casio personal organizer OS from 80s to the DIY/Linux
developer desktop users.

------
pfedor
Yeah, right, because OSX cares so much about backwards compatibility. They
care so much that they actively go out and intentionally break APIs, like say
when CGDisplayBaseAddress() stopped working in Lion, breaking fullscreen in
every single SDL-based game (and by "breaking", I mean the game will actually
crash when attempting to enter fullscreen.)

------
mbell
Arguing about the niceties of the UI is all well and good but the actually
problem is far more fundamental.

What killed the linux desktop? Drivers. Mostly graphics drivers but some
others as well. Who cares if the UI isn't ideal if the damn thing can't sleep
and wake up properly, or if it spazs out every time I plug in an external
monitor.

~~~
jfaucett
absolutely agree. I love linux, its a great os but drivers are a nightmare,
honestly, I've never had any linux distro, where I could comfortably buy an IO
device and not have to worry about compatability issues. This to me is the
biggest problem by far with the os(s) in their current state.

~~~
chimeracoder
What do you mean by 'an IO device'? I can count on one hand the number of
driver issues I've had, and none of them qualify as IO devices.

~~~
jfaucett
monitors/graphics cards,printers,modems,network cards,joysticks,etc.

~~~
chimeracoder
Are you using really old hardware? I've never had any problems with any of the
above. Monitors should be plug-and-play if you're using a modern DE (and if
you're not, you probably know how to set them up). If you have separate
graphics card, you may have issues with battery life, but that depends on the
model, and they still _work_.

------
davidw
I used to be really into the whole free software thing, but have mellowed with
age.

However, no way in hell anyone will get me to switch to Mac OS. I am simply
too enamored with having an environment that I can hack on if it strikes my
fancy, as well as an environment that I can customize how I want it. Despite
all its flaws, it still does focus follows mouse pretty well, and not having
that would drive me batty.

Also, Apple is an 800 pound gorilla that has always been about Being In
Control. The Samsung lawsuit wasn't anything new:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation)

I just don't want to be part of that kind of walled garden.

------
agentultra
I'm writing this from my laptop which is running Ubuntu as its desktop.

I don't really see how the Linux desktop is dead. I've been running the same
OS on this same laptop since 2007. The only upgrade I've added is an SSD and
an extra gig of memory. It's still pretty speedy and I've never had any
problems.

I use a Macbook Pro with OS X at work because that's just what I was issued by
default. I hate it. I hate the over-reliance on the mouse, on gestures, the
abundant and tedious animations; I hate the crappy ecosystem of package
repositories and how most of the packages are broken or completely mess with
the system; I hate never being able to find where any of the configuration
files are or where something is installed; I hate the plethora of ways you can
start and stop services; the confusing GUI; the masochistic meta-key layout;
the awful full-screen support; and the complete lack of customization options.

I've had much better experiences with the Linux desktop for 95% of the things
I do.

Now before some OS X fan-person decides to point out how woefully misguided
and ignorant I am, my point is that there are different folks out there who
want different things from their desktop experience. Apple gets to decide top-
down what that experience is all the way down to the hardware. I prefer a
little more flexibility. I like being able to swap out my own battery or
adding a new memory module when I need one. I like being able to switch from a
GUI desktop to a tiled window manager. Some folks don't -- there are Linux
distros that hide as much of that as possible. Either way there are plenty of
options and I think that's a good thing. Competition breeds innovation and
even though I don't particularly like Unity I am glad to see people trying new
things.

The Linux desktop isn't dead. It may just smell funny. You may switch to OS X
and wonder why anyone could possibly want anything else. I just gave you a
bunch of answers.

------
scrumper
There's room for many approaches, of course. While the perfectionism (or is it
lack of pragmatism?) of Linux and its developers may well have held back its
wider adoption on the desktop, there's a lot to be said for the its
development community's single-minded pursuit of quality and correctness.

As well as Linux's presence in the data centre, witness the success of
'embedded' Linux: many TVs, routers, set top boxes and other bits of sealed-
box electronics all run on it. It's broad in its scope because of the large
team of divergent interests working on it, and it's able to support those
systems because it's been well made as a direct result of that team's
philosophy. Is it really so bad that the average Facebooker does't want to use
it?

It really is very, very hard indeed to be all things to all men and no single
system around today can make that claim. Linux has its place in the world of
computing, just like Android, Windows, OSX and everything else.

------
dumb123
There never was a "Linux desktop". Linux is a kernel. GNU is a set of
utilities. And X11 is a mess.

Did you know that X11 is why we have shared libs (the UNIX version of "dll
hell")? If not for having to run X11, shared libs really would not have been
needed.

There are many window managers. Maybe too many. Too much choice for a noob.
That selection or the pre-selections Linux distribution people make does not
equate to "the" Linux Desktop. It equates someone else's configurations and
choice of applications. It equates to having to fiddle with X11, whether you
are just configuring it or developing programs to run in it. And that has
always been extremely frustrating for too many people- constant tweaking; it
never ends. This is like a brick wall to people who might want to try Linux,
coming from Windows. You are inheriting a system that's been configured to
someone else's preferences. (Same is true with Apple, but they have a knack
for making things easy.)

I skipped Linux altogther and went from using Windows to using BSD. I've also
been a Mac user. And BSD is way better than OSX, or any of the previous
MacOS's for doing most everyday things: email, internet and secure web
(ramdisk). Moreover it's flexible - you can shape into what you want - without
this being an overwhelming task of undoing someone else's settings.

If you want a citation for the shared libs thing I will track it down, but
honestly anyone can do it on their own. The historical research will do you
good. Educate yourself.

------
nnnnnnnn
An interesting observation is that tablets are becoming the new desktop and in
that space linux, through android, is becoming a dominant player. In a way,
the linux desktop is finally here and it's winning against both Microsoft and
Apple put together.

All of the article's criticism of mainstream workstation distributions is
accurate, of course. But it's important to note that those represent nowhere
near the sum total of the linux user experience these days.

~~~
eropple
In no way is that "the Linux desktop" "winning" at anything, because (at long
last) the navel-gazing of the Linux community has been pushed aside in favor
of one group saying "this _is_ how it will be" (and then some OEMs scribbling
a little on the walls, but not much).

Android is only "Linux" when it's convenient for Linux advocates, but it's
never "the Linux desktop".

------
aartur
> In my opinion, the problem with Linux on the Desktop is rooted in the
> developer culture that was created around it.

This developer culture DEFINES Linux. A fruit is either an apple or an orange.
I couldn't have an OS with wonderful package management, developer tools,
endless configurability AND a desktop Miguel de Icaza dreams of.

~~~
j-kidd
But I can have an OS with wonderful package management, developer tools,
endless configurability AND a desktop Aaron Seigo and friends created.

~~~
fosap
The desktop wouldn't be configurable. Or not much more than Channing the
background image.

------
imperialWicket
This flame ignites periodically, and I'm always left wondering when exactly
the Linux desktop died? Some have noted similar aspects already, but here's my
2 cents:

I'm on Linux now (GNU/Linux, maybe lump BSD in there too, I'm using "Linux").
I know plenty of users on Linux. I know plenty of users of Windows and OS X
who run virtual Linux Desktop distributions for testing/development/security.
I'm sure some of HN are running Linux.

Does Linux have the potential to enter the market as a third core option for
desktop usage - not really. But why does it matter?

The problem with Linux is that there are too many choices. People who like
technical choices and options trend toward Linux (needs citation).

John Q. ComputerUser isn't going to use Linux unless his geeky son or nephew
installs it for him AND provides support. He can't get support anywhere else -
because there are too many possibilities for it to be fiscally effective.

If/When something gets confusing or broken on Windows/OS X, you call JoeBob's
SuperDuperPuter, and say it's broken. JoeBob asks, "What Windows version?"
While he might need to poke and pry a bit to get the user to tell him he's
running Millenium edition, once he gets that data, it's a pretty
straightforward troubleshooting effort and fix.

If you call some mythical Computer Service group that actually supports Linux,
and say your machine is broken, they would need to know a LOT more about your
system just to figure what they need to do to start.

Distribution? Parent Distribution? Shell? Window Manager? Hardware? ...

I find generic computer service companies to be extremely expensive. To be
able to provide even basic service for Linux in general, your techs need to be
very familiar with more operating systems (emerge, apt, yum, zypper, pacman),
and more core applications. Each service effort inherently takes longer. These
factors pile up and everything becomes necessarily more expensive. It's
downright impractical to support Linux generically. The support costs for one
or two issues on Linux would far outweigh the cost of an upfront OS license
and cheaper support for the end user.

Linux has (and will likely continue to have) a comfortable hold on the
technically-capable DIY market. It may not be on track to step beyond that
market in the desktop arena - but that certainly doesn't indicate it's time
for a toe tag.

~~~
jiggy2011
As someone who previously worked doing Windows support, actual
"troubleshooting" on desktops is pretty rare apart from a handful of common
cases.

Most of the time all that happens is virus scan -> backup -> reinstall.

~~~
imperialWicket
Exactly - that's much more succinct than I put it. Comparatively, it's not
often that a Linux issue is solved by those same steps (or any given set of
steps - there's just more variation).

------
mistercow
>And you can still run your old OSX apps on Mountain Lion.

Having been a small-scale Mac developer for many years, that really made me
chuckle. Not since OS X 10.2 did Apple release a major upgrade that didn't
break my apps and make me struggle to push an update out as quickly as
possible to fix all the things that Apple broke. Apple has heard of
deprecation, but they don't seem to really grok the concept.

If I had been developing for Linux, I could have simply tested on pre-release
versions of the distros I wanted to support and would have been ready when the
new versions were released. On OS X I would have had to have paid a
prohibitive fee for that privilege.

In any case, this article made me happy. You see, for so many years, I used a
Mac, and everybody said "Apple is on its last legs; the Mac will be dead in a
few years". Apple had to scramble to compete, and that drove them to provide
such a good product. But I knew that situation might not last forever, and I
was right. After seeing the turn that Apple had taken over the last few years,
I switched to an Ubuntu laptop six months ago.

It's refreshing, once again, to be using an OS that people are calling "dead".

------
billswift
Linux is too hard to configure; if the distro gets it right out of the box
it's fine, but not otherwise. I started with Windows 3.1 in 1995, mostly used
Slackware, and some Windows 95, from 1996 to 2000. Slackware and Windows 98
from 2000 to 2004. But from the time I got on the Internet in 2004 to the
present I have mostly used Windows (98, XP, and Vista) because I have not
managed to get any version of Linux that I have tried to connect through a
dial-up modem. I have to admit I have only tried sporadically, since Windows
just works, and my efforts to get some Linux distro to work have been so
frustrating. (Note that though a frequent user, I am not a programmer or
professional sys-admin.)

ADDED: jrockaway's comment, added while I was writing this, hits it just
right: "I think the issue is that getting everything working requires a deep
understanding of each component and the system as a whole." Which is what
makes it so frustrating, even to very intelligent people who have other
interests than computers in and of themselves.

------
Nux
Please ignore Icaza. As for the famous death of Linux on the desktop let me
tell you something: IT NEVER HAPPENED. What are those people smoking?

I've been using Linux for the last decade and every year it gets better, more
polished, more integrated, featuring a better design; I hear more & more
people talking about it and using it. Linux is more alive than ever on the
desktop!

Depending on your needs, Linux can make an exceptional desktop. Yes, true, it
is not for _everyone_, but then again neither are Windows or MacosX.

~~~
TheRealDunkirk
The Linux desktop never did any better -- RELATIVE to the rest of the market
-- than Ximian Desktop on Red Hat 6.2. If de Icaza wants to blame someone for
the failure of the Linux desktop, I would point the finger back at him. He's
the one that dropped out of the effort, became a Microsoft shill, and
continues to push (the speciously patented) Mono to this day. Also, I don't
know why he's lamenting a strong leader casting a clear vision on the desktop
these days. Canonical is doing EXACTLY that.

------
jfb
Nothing "killed the Linux desktop"; it still thrives for those that want it,
and it's steadily improving. It never came to dominate the market, and one can
argue about the reasons it never displaced Macintosh (still less Windows). It
_probably_ has a lot to do with lack of a single, unified vision, and the
market fragmentation caused by the different distros, and the lack of market
pressure to ship, as it relies on volunteer labor, but I'm not going to
presume.

Personally, I've been primarily a Mac user since the Mississippian
superperiod, but I used an X-11 Windows(™) environment (on top of FreeBSD) for
years at work. I don't miss it, even one iota, but I know plenty of smart
people who prefer that sort of thing. _De gustibus non disputandum est_ and
all that.

------
farinasa
When the iPhone 3GS came out, battery life tanked on my 3G. They fixed that,
after some period, only to break the reporting in the firmware. Now the device
thinks it's dead after a few hours. Replace the battery, same life time. At
this point, I'll never expect and apple device to last longer than a year and
therefore will not buy one.

Additionally, OSX is no linux replacement. Bash is completely different except
for cd, rm, and ls.

------
brianobush
funny; I am using a linux desktop right now. not dead yet.

~~~
hnriot
by choice though, or out of work necessity?

~~~
antihero
I use Linux as a desktop OS out of choice. Originally, no - because I couldn't
afford a MacBook, but I've learned to love it and I don't have any need to
switch.

Linux desktop is an OS for people who are willing to invest time to get an
utterly fantastic, fascinating experience. It doesn't suit modern instant-
gratification culture, no, and yes, it takes experience and expertise to get
the most out of it, but once you get there, it's bloody amazing.

I'd recommend having it as a small hobby as well as tool, so you can spend
time learning and figuring things out and broadening your knowledge.

Disclaimer: Using Arch Linux with the i3 window manager. No, it's not for
everyone, but I absolutely love it.

------
pavanky
Not this post again. Those who thought Linux can compete with heavily
subsidized windows on Laptops or OSX with Apple's flashy interfaces are
dreamers.

Linux has been for those that like to get dirty and it is doing that job quite
well. Canonical came a bit late to the party and wasn't large enough to
matter. RHEL just went after the servers. To make a fair comparison, Linux
should have had a big player backing it strongly on the Desktops / laptops
10-15 years ago (like Google is doing now with Android). HP and IBM did their
half assed attempts, but they were never really behind it completely.

------
expaand
I love Linux, and as a developer, use it as my main os (ubuntu). It is so easy
to develop on, and it's package management is superb. I don't use the desktop
per se, that much, and am usually command-line driven.

I have a Mac, and use it for some things, at times. It's nice, for sure, but I
love the openness of Linux, even though, of course, there can be many very
painful hardware issues (video, sound, etc), all of which I have experienced
at one time or another.

I am wondering - I hear Google is working on a "Android desktop". Would that
perhaps maybe change things regarding the "Linux desktop" a bit?

~~~
kwijibob
Android desktop might be excellent. However alot of the Android stack is not
open source or free software.

An Android desktop will be a proprietary desktop built on top of an open
source kernel.

It might be terrific, but it won't fulfil the dream of a free software OS and
desktop.

------
xradionut
Back in the day, before setting up Linux was a breeze, I got tired of mucking
around with configuration and such just to get a usable Unixy desktop and
environment. So the day OS X Jaguar was released I purchased a Mac.

Now if I need to fire up Linux for a project, (usually for a microcontoller or
such hardware that needs C), a virtual machine or appliance that I can launch
from Windows 7 does the job. This is also how I keep Windows 8 contained,
safely in a virtualized box that I don't have to deal with it, unless I need
too... ;)

------
macco
The Linux desktop never got killed! It never was really living. As long as
Linux is not sold on computers, it will never spread. Maybe things change in
the future, Canonical is doing an insanely great Job bringing Linux to the
masses. But personally I think Linux will take of in new markets (China,
Brazil, etc), not in allready established ones.

By the way, in my oppinion only a small fraction is buying Macs because of OS
X, it's the Hardware. Design and Usability of Ubuntu is a lot better than OS X
at the moment.

------
pixelmonkey
First of all, the Linux desktop is not dead.

As I wrote on my blog recently:

"In the [past three years], Linux has grown — albeit slowly — in desktop
usage. After nearly 2 years of no growth (2008-2010, lingering around 1% of
market), in 2011 Linux saw a significant uptick in desktop adoption (+64% from
May 2011 to January 2012). However, Linux’s desktop share still about 1/5 of
the share of Apple OS X and 1/50 the share of Microsoft Windows. This despite
the fact that Linux continues to dominate Microsoft in the server market."

It may be in third place in a desktop market with primarily three OSes, but
usage has never been higher.

As I discussed in this article, most of the original reasons that stopped
Windows / Mac users from using Linux years ago are no longer valid. However,
the irony is that it's easier than ever to get by with a Free Software
desktop, but harder than ever to avoid proprietary software and lock-in,
thanks to the rise of SaaS and the personal data cloud.

I agree with de Icaza that the "Open Web" is more important these days than a
Free Desktop. But the linked Wired article's conception of Open Web refers to
things like HTML5, JavaScript and CSS. These aren't the problem. They are an
open delivery mechanism, yes, but usually for proprietary software.

Modern SaaS applications accessible through the web browsers using open web
standards are the modern equivalent of an open source Perl script wrapping
calls to a closed-source, statically-compiled binary.

You can read more about my thoughts on this in "Cloud GNU: where are you?"
<http://www.pixelmonkey.org/2012/08/18/cloud-gnu>

------
jcfrei
in a q&a round at aalto university in finland linus adressed the question why
linux never took off on the desktop: the lack of being a pre-installed os. he
mentions that without preinstalled operating systems there's now way to gain a
significant market share in the desktop segment.

the whole talk by itself is very recommendable:
<http://youtu.be/MShbP3OpASA?t=23m45s>

------
zwdr
Thats just bullshit. The Linux desktop maybe isn't broadly accepted or
mainstream, but I dont see the Problem in that- after all Linux remains a
system for power users, even if some Distros want to change that. And there
really is no better desktop environment for those people than the Linux
desktop. Windows is shit incarnated, so lets not even begin to talk about it.
What remains? Mac OS. Sure, it has a more accessible GUI, but not a more
efficient one. I cant think of something more elegant than a tiling wm, be it
awesome, wmii or xmonad. Everything based on moving a cursor just feels
awkward in comparison to the simplicity of ~5-10 keyboard shortcuts. And
tiling also means that I always have everything in front of me. Fumbling
around to find some window is HORROR.

I think the Linux desktop simply has more options for experienced users. I
simply see no way how I could be more productive with a GUI designed to cater
to lusers.

------
antihero
It's still very much alive if you don't give a shit about normal UX
conventions or popularity, and there are hundreds of thousands of excellent
3rd party applications that run perfectly.

It's getting really irritating when someone who's jumped ship to OSX declares
it "dead" because they have a shiny iDevice and an expensive laptop.

------
spiralpolitik
Largely the same issues that killed UNIX as a viable desktop alternative are
the same issues that are killing Linux as a viable desktop alternative:
Fragmentation and lack of consistency across different distributions.

This is compounded by most distributions having a lack of centralized vision
on how everything fits together. They are merely a collections of individual
parts rather than a collection of parts that are designed to work well
together and they lack the polish as a result. While the lack of centralized
vision was fine for SunOS circa 1992, it simply doesn't cut the mustard in
2012.

Ubuntu seems to be trying to push such a centralized vision with Unity, but I
fear they lack the clinical editorial willpower to make the hard decisions
required to see it through to its ultimate conclusion.

------
giulivo
Compare Linux to OSX makes no sense to me. Linux has always been missing
features when compared to alternatives; the GNU system was actually written to
emulate the alternative.

But the GNU/Linux project had a very different objective. Fighting for
freedom. If it is still freedom the driving force, then we should encourage
the enthusiasts and get back to work on improve Linux, as it has been done for
the past years. By doing so Linux already reached the excellence in some
fields.

If you're just competing on features, you'll be missing some great benefits
and enjoyment. And to be honest, in terms of features OSX isn't that good
either as Windows is still used by the majority for one reason or another.

------
buntar
Miguels affection towards his iPhone is a bit unconsidered and superficial.

But anyway, a more interesting question could be: What does it take to bring
an ex-linux user and now happy OSX user back to linux?

I used Windows for 3 years, then linux for 2 years. During that time I did a
lot of installations (mostly ubuntu and debian) on a lot of different devices.
During this time, while fighting with drivers, minor display problems, and
spoiled windows users I lost my faith in linux as a desktop os and switched to
OSX.

I can just speak for myself, but this few points would bring me back to linux
in no time.

Presenting Distribution "Utopia"

1\. No X11 based display stack, it is replaced with something conceptually
simpler (like cocoa).

2\. (Multiple) monitor recognition 100% accurate. (Probably connected to Pt.
1)

3\. The audio setup is not much worse then the one of OSX.

4\. Throwing Gnome and everything that is based on Glib out. It's 2012 there
alternatives to faking oo with C. Qt isn't allowed either.

5\. Throwing APT out. No more dependency management for a desktop OS please.
Then kill Perl as requirement for running an os.

Ahhhhh, I feel better now :-). This is the opposite of what Miguel demanded,
he cares for backward compatibility.

When I think about it. "Utopia" would be similar to Android. No fear to throw
old stuff out.

Android as a foundation for a new desktop linux?

------
aj700
1\. If this is true, and it seems right to me, maybe some of the massive
effort put into designing new GUIs for Gnome/KDE/etc should be put into
hacking the look and feel of the OS X desktop?

Unsanity ShapeShifter hasn't worked since OS 10.4

and I know about

<http://magnifique.en.softonic.com/mac> \- 10.5 only

<http://www.marsthemes.com/crystalclear/> 10.7 support claimed, but it's not
very radical. I'd love xfce's window look controls or a Stardock windowblinds.

I know Apple don't want anybody to do this. I know they will deliberately
introduce changes that break hacks. But as I said, how can it be more effort
than Linux?

\-----

2\. To try to prevent OSx86 hacks, DSMOS.kext uses crypto to prevent the
system running essential UI elements like Finder, SystemUIServer, etc. Can't
we build our own versions of those parts?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93Intel_architectur...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93Intel_architecture#Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X.kext)

\-----

3\. Is this true?:

Linux desktop - dying, dead

Windows 8 - trying so hard to copy OSX/iPad/Springboard/Launchpad that
everybody is gonna hate its TWO UI's! (dying?)

Mac - winning, won (by default?)

~~~
brainsqueezer
I both use KDE and OS X. Some details are different but the ideas behind are
mostly the same.

------
ChuckMcM
This article hits so many sore spots right on a pustulent scar tissue.

I had run a Linux desktop (a Debian build mostly w/ KDE) for a while and kept
getting hammered with random stuff breaking for random, and often poorly
considered, reasons. I gave up and went back to running a Windows deskop with
a X-server to pull up windows on my Linux box.

Then I went to work for Google and they did a really good job of running
Ubuntu as an engineering desktop (calling their distro Gubuntu of course) and
I thought "Wow, this has come quite a ways, perhaps Linux has matured to the
point where there is at least one way to run it reliably. And so I installed
Ubuntu on my desktop and tried that for a while.

For "using" it, it was for the most part ok if once every few days I did an
apt-get update/upgrade cycle. For _developing_ it was a real challenge. Pull
in the latest gstreamer? Blam blam blam things fall over dead, update their
packages (sometimes pulling git repos and rebuilding from source) to get back
working, and now apt-get update/upgrade falls over the next time because
you've got a package conflict. It is enough to drive you insane.

------
ilaksh
Proud Ubuntu user here. Ubuntu 12.04 is not bad at all. Supports the fancy
font he used on his blog. Flash is working. WebGL is working. LibreOffice
opens Word docs when I need to. Audio is working.

I have Windows 7 on the other partition mainly to play games.

There was a minor issue with Ubuntu trying to melt the CPU in my laptop the
other day, but its not so bad since I upgraded, and I found this powertop
thing that also helps.

------
rjzzleep
i guess if you don't mind that osx used 5% active cpu just for flashing bubbly
buttons that's alright.

i like osx, I think it does have a good ecosystem for GUI APPS. but at pretty
much everything it fails. It's a performance nightmare and the filesystem
makes me want to punch a kid in the face(yes sorry, I also don't think you
should be doing opengl in javascript, but hey) everytime it kills the cpu.

Now, with all the mentioned above I do wish there was a better ecosystem for
app development. I mean something like xcode 3 not 4. Yes we have QT, yes we
have glade, but build an app with the interface designer and bindings, mvc
concepts and it just helps a lot.

You can do most of it with Vala, granted, it's just shittier documented and
not as "round", there are no standard concepts to follow, etc. And yes, I do
like my linux customizability, but we have stuff like CERT best practices for
secure C coding. Why can we not get something like that for linux gui
programming.

ps. gnome3 can go right where it came from

------
stevencorona
In like 2006 I switched from Windows XP to Linux. This was before Ubuntu was
what it is today. I learned using Slackware and eventually switched to Gentoo.
It was cool and gave me nerd cred when I went to college.

I switched to OSX for exactly the reasons the author mentioned. The fact that
I have an awesome UI + ability to use the shell all day is a huge win for me.

~~~
slogdrat
The machine that ran Windows XP can run Linux
(<http://wiki.debian.org/Hardware>). So you can switch to Linux any time.

However, people cannot switch to OSX. The machine that ran Windows XP and
Linux WILL NOT run OSX. So, no, you didn't switch to OSX, you purchased new
hardware that is strictly controlled (motherboard, video card, etc).

Then, in an incredible blunder, de Icaza said, "Many hackers moved to OSX...
working audio, working video drivers, codecs for watching movies..."

Uhhhh, yeah, if Linux gave up on supporting scores of hardware platforms and
hundreds or thousands of hardware components, OF COURSE it would have working
audio, video drivers, and codecs.

~~~
to3m
I installed this thing called "EEE Ubuntu" on my little EEE PC a few years
ago. That "EEE" in the name meant, or so the website very strongly implied,
"specially designed for the EEE PC". I think there were just 2 fundamental
models of it at the time, both very similar in terms of underlying hardware.

Needless to say, the sound didn't work. And the wireless didn't work. When I
clicked "suspend", it said it was out of swap space. When I closed the lid, it
crashed.

------
richardk
For what it's worth, GNU/Linux never really was about some desktop conquest,
so this whole discussion "What killed the Linux desktop" is quite absurd.

That aside, what we have here is a thread apparently devoted to shitting on
the work of people who built something for fun and gave it away for free.

Good job folks!

------
lobster45
I would have to say Apple killed Linix. As many others have noted here, OSX
has improved to the point where many Unix admins run OSX and it runs the tools
they have for their work. Also Mac hardware is better than PC hardware so you
buy a macbook with OSX and you are happy.

------
greedo
OSX didn't kill the Linux desktop, Office and Photoshop did. Just as it killed
the *BSD desktops. Lack of high-end applications that were compatible with
what the business world was using doomed anything that didn't have at least a
tacit blessing from Adobe and Microsoft.

------
bobbles
"As for myself, I had fallen in love with the iPhone, so using a Mac on a day-
to-day basis was a must."

What? How? I've got an iPhone and have never felt like having a Mac was a
must. Am I missing some major parts of the system that don't work if you don't
have a Mac?

------
agumonkey
Does anyone feels that linux and desktop are at odds with each other? Don't we
like small components to bind together using pipes ? Desktop apps are the
reverse, big black boxes that barely communicate with anything (I'll admit I
don't know dbus)

------
brudgers
> _"is not a sexy problem."_

This pretty much describes the root cause of nearly all the impediments to the
adoption of FOSS in general and GNU/Linux in particular by the general public.
It touches everything from backwards compatibility to documentation.

------
jeremyjh
Its strange for me to read something like this since I have recently switched
back to Linux and I've never been happier with it. I've been a sometime user
of it since around 1997 but it could never survive long as my primary OS. I
bought my Frankenputer parts from Newegg without checking on hardware
compatibility for any of it and it all worked great. I had only one problem
which was wake from USB keyboard and I googled it down pretty quick (was a new
issue with Ubuntu Precise it seems).

I like OS X too and had a Powerbook for years but all other things being equal
I'd prefer to develop and deploy on same OS and Linux is just fine for
development so far.

------
tylermenezes
Way too true. I ended up going back to Windows, because the audio would
frequently (3-4 times an hour) stop working on my laptop until I restarted
pulseaudio. And that's on Ubuntu certified hardware...

Not to mention the problems we had with our streaming servers and ffmpeg. It
turns out that there was a big flame war on libav vs ffmpeg, and _someone from
the libav camp managed to get the ffmpeg package marked as deprecated (it's
not) and redirected to the libav package_ on Ubuntu's apt repo. So we're stuck
either compiling from source or running our own repo. Seriously? (fwiw, the
rationale is that libav pushes new versions more frequently)

------
tzs
Ingo Molnar has some interesting thoughts on this subject:
[https://plus.google.com/109922199462633401279/posts/HgdeFDfR...](https://plus.google.com/109922199462633401279/posts/HgdeFDfRzNe)

------
fdr
I more or less disagree. My main frustration with Linux For Personal Use is
that I can't buy a piece of hardware that I know won't regress with new
versions of a distribution for three plus years or get any service if it does.
My reference for the importance of this is a perfectly usable 2008 refurbished
Macbook. I upgraded the RAM once recently for a bit more snap, but otherwise
have no complaints over the three or so Macintosh releases since then.

Could the UIs and third party application situation be better? Of course. But
considering all the garden variety crash bugs, power management bugs, lockup
bugs, video driver misbehavior, hit and miss peripheral support, and in
general just analysis paralysis about what hardware I should buy, and even
then there is a less-certain future with regard to regressions.

Even given Windows's monopoly power in the commodity desktop and laptop
markets, its reputation for dealing with sleep and drivers is only so-so
compared to Apple Hardware and Software. If Window's monopoly power -- which
buys you full attention from hardware manufacturers and their driver divisions
-- only gives you mediocre results, what are the odds that a bunch of kernel
hackers who receive almost no continual consideration from hardware vendors
have a chance? To me, it looks like absolutely not a chance of becoming stable
over time. I have completely given up on Linux laptops for this reason: by
using desktops with Linux only I have cut out a lot of the problems, but not
all of them. It's a kind of medicore that I can bear.

I want someone to sell me Linux distribution on a laptop that simply will not
break over in its kernel-oriented features in five years of upgrades. I want
that distribution to stop-ship if it a new version introduces a power
management bug to an old laptop, and do whatever it takes to work around some
lousy hardware bug or whatever. I want them to do whatever to work with Skype
(such as statically linking whatever libraries, etc) and test Google Hangouts
to make sure the webcam and microphone works. And it they don't work, they
absolutely cannot ship. Until that day, I use Linux -- and I do mean the
kernel in most of these cases -- as my personal operating system most of the
time in spite of these problems because of my professional and philosophical
needs, and not out of preference in any other dimension.

~~~
ikawe
Is there anything like a hardware regression suite for testing new kernel
features? or what about distribution features?

I don't even know what that would look like. Does anyone else?

Maybe a registered farm of devices that test distribution release candidates.

------
ZeroGravitas
The first comment explodes this piece:

"I mean, look at OS X itself. Sure it's doing fine, but powered by iPhone and
iPad, not by people wanting a new desktop. And it still has minority
marketshare despite being from one of the most profitable companies on earth
and despite Microsoft's repeated weird Windows-rethinks."

Basically, path-dependant lock-in means we're lucky not to be using x86-based
wPhones that don't even have web browsers. The linux and open web communities
have achieved amazing things, enabling Apple's comeback along the way.

------
zerostar07
Could it be that the main issue is the lack of leadership? We don't have many
linux kernels yet we have dozens of incompatible desktop configurations and
the list keeps growing. I think if there was a clear winner in the desktop
wars, desktop apps would be of much higher quality.

And also the horrible aping of other environments and stupid UI eyecandy.
Given that the majority of linux users and developers are technical, that's
surprising.

------
Apocryphon
You really have to wonder if the advent of Windows 8 and disgruntlement with
it from Valve, Blizzard, etc. might have repercussions on this whole
situation.

------
hcarvalhoalves
Linux isn't dead in the desktop because it never was a product in the first
place.

The first attempts were Mandrake and Conectiva. Canonical has been doing a
good job lately, the problem is that the platform is now beyond hope on the
desktop, it simply doesn't gather traction from 3rd party developers - the
most important thing for a desktop OS. You're pretty much limited to the FOSS
utilities that exist on the repositories.

------
rbanffy
Seriously... Is this discussion still relevant?

Anyway, my bet on what "killed" the Linux desktop would be the Windows OEM
licensing terms. Nothing really killed it because it was always a very
specialized product.

Do we always have to see a problem when someone doesn't make the same choices
we do?

------
shmerl
Ask Mozilla how they manage to distribute their tarballs which work on all
major distros.

------
charlieok
"Miguel de Icaza — once a central figure in the development of the Linux
desktop environment GNOME — says the open web is now a greater concern than
free software."

I was kind of hoping those two things would each help drive the other forward.

------
leishulang
OSX got nice touchpad, Windows has awesome game libs, and Linux comes with
shit loads of developer goodness. But yea, now OSX has home-brew so it almost
like a better linux, but still forces you to buy overpriced hardwares.

------
chanux
In a comment Miguel says,

 _Because the developers have moved on to greener pastures._

Of course, it all boils down to _green_ at the end of the day.

------
radley
Linux desktop will rise again as Android PC.

~~~
shmerl
No Android please! Linux desktop is shifting from X.org to Wayland, and
Wayland is making inroads into mobile as well. Android is really a completely
side thing for conventional Linux.

------
Xyzodiac
I'm in the same boat as the author, I really have few complaints after moving
full time to OS X from Linux.

------
guilloche
The Linux desktop is not killed and will be more prosperous with Windows 8 and
secureboot shit.

------
alpeb
The concept of Linux on the desktop is as aberrant as the concept of Windows
on the server

------
option_greek
I hope we won't see a "what killed the android phone" post sometime in future
:(

------
sjtgraham
I dislike titles such as these that beg the question.

------
jawr
Since when was it dead?

------
programminggeek
Lack of killer apps?

------
nirvana
I think he's right, but I think he's missing a key point.

Design. Design is what killed the linux desktop. It never had it. OS X has it.
Even windows, crappy as it may be, has it.

Before I go on, let me say that Design is NOT "making it look pretty". In
fact, thinking that this is what design is, is what leads many linux advocates
to reject the needs of design.

Apple's work looks pretty-- _because_ it is designed to function well.

Design is about usability and understanding the user and making an interface
for the user that works well according to the users understanding, perspective
and needs.

Design is an engineering discipline.

Seriously.

The Linux community hasn't had that, and I've seen many of them reject it. In
fact, you can see it in the rejection of apple's patents. This is why they
think that apple patents are not original is because they reject that any
engineering went into them. But that's just one example. You see it all the
time in lots of contexts. Look at the UIs of Linux... they didn't design one,
they just copied windows.

Literal copying is about as far from design as you can get.

Sure, over the years, designers have taken cracks at bringing design to linux,
including the work of Ubuntu, but it is rejected by the community.

Rejection of design is a cultural trait of the linux community. They reject it
as a discipline, doesn't even see that it exists. (broadly speaking, of
course.)

But as users, they have been influenced by it and many of them have switched
to OS X because it is the best designed operating system.

And then they write long blog posts about how its wrong that OS X does things
a certain way ... based on their lack of design perspective that would let
them see why things should work that way.

Its ironic.

But its fine- if you want to run a linux desktop and don't value or care about
design, more power to you. Won't ever fault someone for making that decision.
We should all use the systems that we prefer.

But the culture that doesn't value design, and can't even see it as an
engineering discipline, is going to have a great deal of trouble making
something usable by the mainstream.

~~~
untog
_Even windows, crappy as it may be, has it. [...] Apple's work looks pretty--
because it is designed to function well._

Actually, I'd say the same of Windows, if not more so. I far prefer the
Windows 7 interface to OSX, it's just stuff like the terminal/command prompt
that really lets Windows down.

~~~
tsahyt
I heard Windows PowerShell was decent. No first hand experience though

~~~
Derbasti
But it is not Unix.

~~~
tsahyt
If Unix is what you want, you shouldn't be using a system that isn't Unix (or
Unix-like in the case of Linux).

However, there's still Cygwin which is reasonably good.

~~~
Derbasti
Except that it is dog slow, horribly out of date, neither really compatible
with Windows nor Unix paths, and lacking support for graphical stuff.

Well, I use msys and eshell instead, which I find less jarring.

------
scoith
Apple builds fancy gadgets and gathers a fan-boy population, and eventually
starts selling more. This really doesn't say anything about Linux desktop.

This whole thing about backward compatibility and the discussion that
surrounds it is just vague. Here's a practical "true story" for you: I'm using
GNU/Linux for more than 10 years now, and it is still alive.

Never had any vague binary compatibility problems either, because I'm not
strangely expecting to use an ancient binary version of Gimp on my current
system. That's because FOSS is source oriented, not binary. I'm not suddenly
trying to use a 15 years old graphics card whose driver is longer in the
kernel either, because I don't use a 15 years old graphics card.

~~~
diminish
well said; the linux user is mostly a diy developer like me; I enjoy the fact
that what I am running on my laptop runs on my servers and everywhere..
Windows can't do this, (So I was using windows server on desktop), OS/X is
dead on server.. Linux is pretty much the only sane option for independent
developers.

------
kingmanaz
I'd say it was the lack of a standardized install convention for "guest" (non-
nix) software.

What to do about it? Couple golang's preference for large statically-linked
binaries with a one-folder, one-executable install convention and Linux may
become more inviting for non-nix apps.

For example, imagine "/outside/myapp/myapp" is a large, unix-unfriendly,
statically-compiled binary placed in it's folder by a OS-provided install
utility. "Myapp" was probably developed for Mac or Windows and by design does
not give a damn about /etc, /lib, /var, etc. These app should just be allowed
to crap their configuration files into the home directory into which it has
been placed ("/outside/myapp"). If one no longer needs the app, the folder is
deleted along with everything else the app created while it was being used.
Tidy. Behind the scenes such an app would be compiled to call the standard
Linux APIs, yet it would probably avoid any dynamic dependencies. Disk space
is cheap. Just bundle it all together and throw it somewhere where it can run
in peace.

Amiga's icon files are another approach. Rather than a large, monolithic
registry tracking everything in the system, executables exist in tandem with
an "icon" (.info) file. This file is generated by the OS and tracks the
executable's location and other settings in the workbench (desktop). A modern
reincarnation could potentially track anything. Instead of accumulating
registry filth with every uninstall one can simply remove an executable and
its associated .info file. Instead of adhering to the heir convention, the app
plays nicely in its own folder with it's own registry. By using an ".info"
file, portable non-nix installs could reside anywhere, and not in a prefabbed
"/outside" folder.

The smartphone penchant for portable installation should come to nix,
particularly with non-unix software. It should be encouraged, and that's
coming from an OpenBSD user. Unix needs a playground for non-unix apps.

