

Linux Founder Linus Torvalds 'Still Wants the Desktop' - Tsiolkovsky
http://www.eweek.com/enterprise-apps/linux-founder-linus-torvalds-still-wants-the-desktop.html

======
_asciiker_
I have mixed feelings about Linus Torvalds, I disagree with many things he
says and agree strongly with other things.

Linus once said: " ...Microsoft makes terrible operating systems".

Seriously?.. Forget marketing for a second, if you compare the best Linux
Desktop with Windows 8.1, in almost all technical aspects Microsoft Windows
8.1 is vastly superior, it boots faster, applications run smoothly and pretty
much everything you plug in works immediately.

Don't get me wrong, I am a Linux Administrator and all our servers run either
Debian or CentOS, I would not use anything else unless I am absolutely forced
to by a client.

but as far as desktop usage is concerned and after using Ubuntu for 2 years
(which is a really good OS), Windows is just better (and I can play games
while drinking a glass of wine instead of spending 30 minutes tweaking
"Wine"), much more refined and in tune with every day use.

~~~
AceJohnny2
Note that Windows gets a huge benefit from being the effectively monopolistic
system that dictates the terms for software and hardware (thanks to huge
investments, granted. DirectX or the CLR didn't pop out of Zeus's forehead
fully-formed).

So HW "just works" with Windows because that's what (and most of the time all)
it's been tested against. For example, remember that the Linux ACPI coders
have resigned themselves to "Windows is the Standard" whenever they have to
deal with buggy hardware that doesn't follow the specs.

As for software, well, it's actually an amazing technical feat that Wine even
exists. Amusingly, people don't have that complaint on OSX.

Linux has its share of flaws, but those you cite are unfair.

------
SiVal
The problem with Linux on the desktop is that it doesn't have any significant,
practical advantage to offset the significant, practical disadvantages.

BENEFITS:

\-- Costs $0: But that is also the marginal cost of Windows and OS X. When you
pay what you must pay for the hardware you want, you can almost always have
Windows or OS X at no additional cost. So, if Linux is also available at no
additional cost, so what? The benefit to the end user only shows up when
building custom hardware, repurposing old hardware, or using a VM--things I
care about but the average consumer doesn't.

The zero cost benefit of Linux is of more value to hardware manufacturers than
to consumers.

\-- Freely modifiable: But you can freely modify Windows or OS X systems, too,
with preference settings, or utility apps, or writing your own code in any
number of languages, including code that uses system APIs to make big changes.

The fact that Linux lets you change even those things that are not exposed via
APIs is once again of more practical value to hardware manufacturers, or
certain other businesses or organizations, than to consumers.

COSTS:

\-- You have to set it up yourself, and it never seems to work right. The
problem is not Linux itself, but the fact that Windows and Mac are pre-
installed, pre-configured, and tested by teams of experts, but doing that job
for Linux is up to YOU. Few consumers want to deal with debugging system
service (audio, network, battery, etc.) problems. Even the little bit they
still have to do with Windows or Mac outrages most consumers. The last thing
they want is for this problem to be WORSE.

Where Linux has been successful, it has been on the server (no audio, GUI, no
battery, etc.), or on client hardware platforms (like TiVo), where the Linux
configuration was done by the platform maker, not the consumer. Once again,
manufacturers are the direct beneficiaries.

\-- You can't run a lot of the software you want to use. This problem has
dogged Mac users for decades. It's far worse on Linux.

\-- You have to do your own tech support. Your techie neighbors, friends, and
relatives can usually help with Windows problems and, in some geographic
locations, even Mac problems. But online is all you have for Linux, and some
of those people are not as "sociable" as your friends and family. To be a
desktop user (or even a Mac user in some places), you have to be a techie
yourself or have a close, personal relationship with one. That rules out most
people.

\-------------------

I still want desktop Linux to succeed, too, but I'm not sure what could make
that happen. I'm afraid it would take a big, powerful company that DIDN'T
already have its own non-Linux OS to push, that would build the hardware and
pre-install Linux and somehow resolve the lack of Excel, Photoshop, ....

Google is the only remote possibility that comes to mind with maybe a desktop-
Linuxy Android or something, but I'm not holding my breath.

~~~
gillianseed
>But that is also the marginal cost of Windows and OS X. When you pay what you
must pay for the hardware you want, you can almost always have Windows or OS X
at no additional cost.

Eh? You do realize that when you buy a new computer with Windows, the price of
the OEM Windows license lands on YOU as it is baked in to the asking price,
it's not as if the OEM is carrying that cost for you.

Likewise the cost of Apple developing OSX is baked in to the price of a Mac.

~~~
SiVal
That's why the marginal cost of Windows or OS X is zero. If the cost of the OS
is "baked in", rather than offered as an optional add-on, that policy makes
the price with or without the OS the same to you, which by definition makes
the MARGINAL cost of the OS zero.

~~~
gillianseed
Not if you can buy the computer without the 'bundled' OS, or better yet, build
your own from components.

~~~
SiVal
And that's why, in my original post, I wrote, "The benefit to the end user
only shows up when building custom hardware, repurposing old hardware, or
using a VM--things I care about but the average consumer doesn't."

------
Eiriksmal
So the crowd "erupted into boisterous applause" when he states that, yet
probably had a huge group of developers from Gnome present who actively work
to destroy the desktop through forcing us into a single-task, phone-like
mentality via the joys of Gnome 3. The twisted part of this seeming cognitive
dissonance is that the Gnome developers certainly don't see how their personal
view of what a computer should look like and how users should interact with it
is killing the desktop. In their world I suppose "desktop" simply means "not a
phone" or "does not run off a li-on battery."

(I've heard that more recent Gnome 3s added back much of the desktop
functionality by default (desktop icons, minimize buttons in the title bar,
etc.), but after trying the abomination that was Gnome 3.0 in Fedora 15, I
fled to XFCE's loving embrace and never looked back. Maybe the Gnome devs
changed their minds, maybe they're just kowtowing to the users' demands.)

~~~
rukittenme
I've been using Gnome long term. I find it incredibly useful and productive.
It scales very well and is completely touch capable but, make no mistake, it
is a __desktop __environment.

If you like to theme try to find a Gnome 3.10 distro, otherwise Gnome 3.12 is
my favorite desktop environment _ever_. It is a work of art.

~~~
collyw
How can Gnome "scale"? You are only going to use it one one desktop. You ain't
going to scale it to 1000 cluster nodes.

~~~
rukittenme
I meant scale in terms of device size.

------
walterbell
Linux (Android) has made good progress on mobile SOCs. Desktop motherboards
continue to shrink as more functions move onto the "CPU". The reduction in PC
hardware diversity is bad for desktop hardware innovation, but it cuts the
cost of Linux testing and reduces the historical advantage of Windows.

New AMD x86 CPUs include an ARM coprocessor and blur the memory boundary
between CPU and GPU. Nvidia's K1 processor is transcoding ARM instructions to
the hardware ISA, but is theoretically capable of transcoding x86.

What defines a "desktop"? Large monitor & keyboard? Or large local storage?
ChromeOS has the first two and simplifies centralized management, but is
dependent on public cloud. As mobile & PC hardware architectures converge, we
need to decide if desktops are systems-of-record or local caches.

~~~
boyaka
I believe he is referring to x86. ARM has the advantage in mobile because of
power efficiency, but it does not have the compatibility with the commodity
consumer hardware necessary for the desktop/laptop experience. I would like to
see evidence of ARM being able to match the performance of x86 in difficult
desktop computing tasks, and then I might consider that being an option.

All popular tasks done using Windows applications need to be accessible to
users. Some ways I see this happening:

1) An alternative application for everything is provided (many companies are
working on this, including Google...)

2) Provide seamless interfaces to Windows applications on the same platform,
utilizing hardware virtualization

3) Provide seamless, high performance abstraction at application/process layer
that can run Windows apps (JVM, WINE)

Options 1 and 3 would liberate the operating system from x86, but major
improvements to the hardware and/or the software stack are needed to drive
options 2 and 3. I am not confident ARM will be efficient/fast/compatible
enough to knock x86 out of the box for typical desktop computing tasks even if
option 1 is achieved. Though there is certainly potential for
improvement/development of ARM in all of the aspects where I'm suspicious it
is lacking compared to x86, I think that would take longer than it would to
achieve option 1. There is also the possibility of creating a new architecture
that is either compatible with or has features equivalent to x86, or performs
so well that it can accomplish option 3 seamlessly, but that will also take a
long time to pan out.

~~~
walterbell
An intermediate version of #2 would be to give Windows ownership (IOMMU) of
the GPU, mouse/touch and USB. This would cover the most problematic devices.
The rest of the hardware could be virtualized by Linux, which would make a
huge amount of Linux software available as local web services. Or create a
market for a Windows X server to run Linux desktop apps.

Have you considered Qubes for option 2?

~~~
boyaka
I'm certainly interested in trying it out! I've really only gotten hands on
with virtualizing Linux within itself. Being more advanced than the average
user I've never had much of a desire for running Windows apps within Linux
(just switch partitions), and I definitely try to roll with option 1 for
personal purposes. I love trying out all the different kinds of OSes. I'll
take a look at Qubes though; even though I'm not dependent on Windows,
investigating ways to help others break their dependence is highly beneficial
for everybody including myself.

