Re: Linux on the desktop - it's come a long way, but is it there yet?

["Ben Eisenbraun" <user=82@nabble.blu.org>]

 On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 09:12:52AM -0400, Rich Braun wrote: 
> Well I just had to vent.  My conclusion:  Linux is *still* not truly 
> ready for the desktop, at age 17. 

The BLUG's monthly mail thread debating "Is Linux ready for the desktop" 
has led me to do a little thinking about this question over the last 
6 months or so, and I've come to a conclusion: 

The question is moot. 

Here's why.  Computing history is littered with the corpses of "superior 
technologies" that lost out to supposedly inferior competitors.  There seem 
to be few cases where a technology, especially an operating system, is so 
absurdly far ahead of its competition that people will adopt it regardless 
of cost. 

In this case, the cost is switching from a known software platform to an 
unknown one.  This is a cost that we as geeks discount heavily, since 
it's a relatively simple process for most of us to learn the basics of a 
new operating system.  We have the advantage of already understanding an 
operating system (perhaps more than one) and have the conceptual 
framework in our heads to slot in the technologies and lingo of a new 
operating system. 

This is not true for non-geeks.  It's akin to learning a foreign language. 
For your average non-technical user older than 30, it's probably hundreds 
of hours of study and reptition to learn and retain the knowledge.   
That's a high cost for most people. 

As an aside, I think this cost will be lower in the future.  For a 15-year 
old, this process is not as big a deal; they're already multilingual, 
since they grew up using an operating system, a gaming console, a cell 
phone, the Internet. 

Given that there will _always_ be a cost associated with switching your 
choice of operating system, the question should not be "is Linux ready 
for the desktop" but rather "who will sell the Linux desktop to the 
masses". 

Microsoft had Gates.  Apple has Jobs.  Who does Linux have?  Who has the 
combination of engineering vision, marketing savvy and ruthless business 
sense to put Linux on the desktop on a wide scale?  Is anyone even 
trying?  The only person I can think of is perhaps Mark Shuttleworth.   
Are there others? 

Rich's complaint about dual head configurations under X11 is a valid one 
in my experience, but it's a purely technical problem.  One that can be 
solved with an appropriate application of man hours by an individual 
motivated to put Linux on every desktop. 

The problem is that there's no such individual.* 

-ben 

*This is only a problem if you want Linux on every desktop.  I'm not 
sure I care one way or the other. 

-- 
if you can't be just, be arbitrary.             <william s. burroughs> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss