Why should Linux be doomed (or killed as wired puts it) just because Windows & MacOS have more idiots using it? For a desktop there are certain design choices to be made. If one wants to target users, then one should use sensible defaults and try to hide complexity. If one wants to target hackers, then one should have a lot of easily accessible APIs, preferable accessible via a CLI. That means exposing complexity. For the two groups consistency in a UI does mean two different things, users want a "intuitive" UI, whatever that means. Hackers want a UI which is based on principles, such that one can deduce the proper operation, even if it is complicated and takes some time to learn in the beginning.
The list could go on, but in short: I have different needs on my desktop than the average user. And if Linux would become a sensible desktop OS for the average user, then I would likely move to BSD (or Plan9 or whatever).
Upvoted because it's a rant and a good one too! I agree with your conclusion. Same here although I think that won't happen. Linux is really just a kernel, the whole UI/UX stuff is happening at distribution level and I think there'll always be a distro for the hacker type.
Agreed. I don't even know what this "Linux Desktop" is what most people are talking about here[1]. If I walk around at work or look amongst my friends which use Linux there's no single desktop that is the same. THAT is the Linux desktop IMHO and that is its strength.
Linux on the desktop isn't doomed at all. People saying the opposite are either naive or have interests to lie about it.
I am absolutely sure that Microsoft and Apple are fighting against desktop Linux any way they can as it takes away market share and any amount of market share is fought hard about these days.
In my opinion Apple and Microsoft favoured (paid off) bloggers/(ex-)developers, and opinion writers do their best to spread FUD and anti Linux propaganda all the time and everywhere. I think that a large part of the Ubuntu Unity FUD for example comes from there.
Look at any discussion remotely about Linux or Ubuntu and you will see random comments about how bad Unity is, even here in this thread. Even if the topic has nothing to do with Unity. It's not a coincidence.
I am a developer using Unity and find it the greatest thing that ever happened to Linux, and the non-developer people I support on their Ubuntu Unity machines just love it, they wouldn't want to change anything.
All I see is that the Linux desktop now is getting really competitive (yes I mean Ubuntu 12.04) and that's why we hear all this FUD now. With "competitive" I mean usability, security, ease of use and style. The market share is low, yes, but it's slowly growing and it will continue to do so.
The Linux desktop being dead is just a laughable idea when looking at the facts.
Why should Linux be doomed (or killed as wired puts it) just because Windows & MacOS have more idiots using it? For a desktop there are certain design choices to be made. If one wants to target users, then one should use sensible defaults and try to hide complexity. If one wants to target hackers, then one should have a lot of easily accessible APIs, preferable accessible via a CLI. That means exposing complexity. For the two groups consistency in a UI does mean two different things, users want a "intuitive" UI, whatever that means. Hackers want a UI which is based on principles, such that one can deduce the proper operation, even if it is complicated and takes some time to learn in the beginning. The list could go on, but in short: I have different needs on my desktop than the average user. And if Linux would become a sensible desktop OS for the average user, then I would likely move to BSD (or Plan9 or whatever).