Posted on Wednesday 19th of December 2007 at 10:17 in Linux

Why Linux didn't win in 2007 and why it won't in 2008 either

2007 was touted as 'the year for Linux' and indeed the first quarter looked promising but things never really took off. Why is that?

I wrote about how 2006 was a year of big gains for Linux and that was true; I also wrote that second article about the gains made in Q1 2007 and how it was a promising start. It looked like Linux was taking the mainstream market with Ubuntu being picked up by Dell and offered as an alternative to Windows systems.

Weren't Ubuntu machines selling well with Dell?
Apparently things are going okay for the major vendor who took the bold step of offering Linux to the masses. See below for an extract from the LXER interview with John Hull - the manager of the Dell Linux engineering team:

The original sales estimates for Ubuntu computers was around 1% of the total sales, or about 20,000 systems annually. Have the expectations been met so far? Will Dell ever release sales figures for Ubuntu systems?

The program so far is meeting expectations. Customers are certainly showing their interest and buying systems preloaded with Ubuntu, but it certainly won't overtake Microsoft Windows anytime soon. Dell has a policy not to release sales numbers, so I don't expect us to make Ubuntu sales figures available publicly.

Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, OpenSUSE, Fedora 7... Lots of good releases
And that's leaving out things like Sabayon, Mint, Gentoo and Knoppix (to name a few). 2007 had a lot of great releases that reached eagerly for my coveted title of Most Usable Linux 2007, many aiming for intuitive user experiences. Ubuntu 7.10 was a great step in the right direction but it clearly wasn't enough.

Everyone was looking to Ubuntu to set the world on fire and it didn't. It made excellent progress but we're not where we thought we would be.

It was another textbook case of "this will be the year" without anything firm to base that on. True we knew Linux would be doing a lot of good things this year and I never predicted that Dell would start selling them.

ubuntu

Why 2007 didn't become "year of mainstream Linux"
We started the year with good promise, but we still weren't in a position to release "normal" people onto the distros. Ubuntu was always the best bet and even 7.04 (which Dell were shipping with) had some big usability flaws. I wouldn't have been comfortable selling machines to the mainstream market with something that wasn't bombproof.

I've used Ubuntu since Breezy Badger so I've seen things progress an awful lot, so I know how far things can go over the course of 12-18 months. Gutsy Gibbon was a great release but not quite mainstream worthy; yet it was another massive step in the right direction.

I'd be surprised if Ubuntu was in a mainstream worthy position before October 2008. It's moving in the right direction but there's a lot left to be done.

Ultimately 2007 was a good year for Linux but it wasn't "the" year. 2008 won't be the year either unfortunately. I hoped Vista would be the catalyst for the mass conversion but the climate wasn't quite right, and until the leading releases (Ubuntu, PCLOS, etc) make something so painfully simple that you don't need to be a computer scientist to understand what you're doing.

I'm yet to announce who wins my most usable Linux 2007 but there are a few key candidates. As far as Linux in 2008 is concerned I'm thinking it'll be similar to 2007 - a few massive wins that come too early. I think Ubuntu 8.10 is going to be the one that makes the waves, but it's up to everyone else to prove me wrong.

Enjoy this article? Why not subscribe to the full RSS feed?

Comments

Showing most recent 20 of 42 comments [View all comments]

As a developer it should matter what platform you’re running on, Linux, Windows, whatever. Developers should create applications that always works. That certainly hasn’t been done much. Java and .NET helps a lot in the good direction. Personally I hope that Microsoft’s strategy: ’DotNet everywhere’ will succeed and that we (developers) can create applications that will work on any platform. If the programming API (or subset) is the same for all developers, we could all collaborate.
What I don’t like is that Microsoft has a leading position in DotNet even if it’s an open standard. Implementation is done first by Microsoft for the Windows platform. It should be functional from scratch for ALL PLATFORMS. Linux is a very good platform, but developing applications to run on it should be much easier.

bugger

i like linux...its been a fun project teaching myself about what else is out there besides bill’s vision of what computers should be. but not everyone is like me, or you for that fact. they dont know the 1st thing about programming, using command lines, or any of that crap. and they dont want to have to learn any of it to be able to use the computer. they have been using wondows for a long time, and have become used to MS holding their hand while using the computer. and thats why linux will continue to struggle. its not designed for everyday people. until it is, it will continue to struggle gaining mainstream acceptance from ordinary people. now dont get me wrong and think im dissing linux. im not. but im trying to see it from other peoples perspectives. i greatly look foward to the day that linux can be used in a more mainstream fashion, catring to both the novices and the technically inclined, but until then...

regular joe

Linux and usability is an important issue, even for professional software developers. Software nowadays is much more than just a few lines of source code. Software comprises massive models, -packages, -components, -development environments and -interfaces. The code is not the isue in Linux but the interface to the code is a major and still unresolved issue.

When developers on other platforms develop in integrated development environments like netbeans or visual studio and visualise their code. These developers handle sources and dynamic linking in a visual manner and dragging and droppeng components onto the desktop or server. Whereas Linux is troubled by masses of engineers writing command line code to configure their windows, graphics and audio.

The big problem here is not Linux, the Linux Kernel or anything Linux related. The problem is excellent software developers that are not looking at Linux in an abstract manner. Those developers are trying to adapt to a changing world in which software is not code but an abstraction. They are less adaptive to generic environments, do not work fast, stick to command line ... and that creates a problem for the rest of us.

Below are the greatest problems linux faces:

* linux is neither fun nor entertaining?
* media developers are major problem
* xorg and consortium are unadapted
* generic applicability and abstraction
* distributions are not flexible kernels
* plug and play never autoconfigured
* difficult hardware avoided not faced
* developers are often angry at world
* overall weak attack strategies etc..

still: Linux Rules!

Herbie van Tetering

Linux taking over? Please not. I love Linux. If it takes over, it will be just like another mainstream OS. Then, I’ll have to abandon it too because there’d be less fun. I will miss the satisfaction of compiling from source (and get the best performance from an app).
I think the ability to compile from source is the best strength of Linux and open source. Just the other day I had a problem because there was no VMWare pre-compiled for Ubuntu 8.04. They have 7.10 but no 8.04. And there’s no source to compile. Fortunately, at least the vmware drivers are opensource and with a bit of tweak to the source, it can work nice in 8.04.
Then I want virtualbox but I need USB support. Again, it’s closed source. The OSE one does not have the USB I need. So, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to compile from source? Sure, it’s not as double-click-next-next-next. But configure-make-make-install is just about as easy - as long as all dependencies are there (which is the thing that should be fixed!)
In other words, let it be NOT mainstream. Let us compile from source. We’d have more options. I just wished I can compile Office 2007 in Linux right now... link it to winelib or something. And maybe Sony Vegas too. Then i can definitely ignore XP. I love OpenOffice and it can do what I want but it’s not that suitable for an enterprise environment yet.
It’s a wonder that hardware vendors care to provide Mac drivers (only 10% of the market) but not Linux drivers. Maybe Linux people should be less adamant about everything being open source. I mean, we must respect that the hardware manufacturers have only the hardware and drivers to make money... I don’t see a sound card builder making money from support...

Universal Cynic

Okay, I know that some people really are paranoid about viruses, which is fair enough as you’re "supposed" to be -- although I like to take a walk on the wild side due to the fact that I don’t even have a virus scanner running on WinXP at all; SpyBot scans and a bit of common sense prevent most disasters.

But hearing someone mention how they tried to install Norton AV software on Ubuntu just made me laugh... That’s not what you use WINE for, mate. If you really must have a virus scanner on Linux, there are alternatives like ClamVM etc. Not really sure about them though, as I’ve never bothered.

Marc K

"All these people who say "but Linux is still too hard" are full of it or they haven’t tried Mandriva 2008 ONE (GNOME) yet! It offers hassle-free computing Windows can only dream of, and its free!"

Another reason why linux isn’t winning, there are to many versions available. A big selection of choices isn’t always a good thing

DLE

stolen,

I agree. Linux is far too tied to the command line. I want to preface all this by saying that I’ve been diving into Linux for about 2 years now and it’s been quite an educational adventure and I’m excited about where things are headed. Progress is happening and it’s great to dig my nails deep into it at whatever pace.

That being said, Linux will not be a viable option for the average desktop user until things "just work"... right out of the box. The average desktop user could care less about what a kernel or terminal are, and would dread trying to tinker with config files to get a display working right, for example. (Think GUI for everything.) I’m fine with tweaking files until the A.M to get my perfect system, but let’s think about the average Joe. Surfing on the web with on your laptop with a Broadcom 4311 should be effortless, but it isn’t for many. Discouraging? Yes. Do you think the average user wants to spend time on Google to figure out why they can’t play a DVD on their brand new distro? I think not. I can give many examples here, but most of us (even after a year or so like me) are well-versed in this area. This isn’t the fault of Linux developers, of course, but we can accept that Linux has a way to to crawl before mass-adoption by your typical lazy Average Joe.

Let’s get real. The bottom line is that until Linux "just works" it will *never* be the year of Linux. Period. I will always enjoy my journey into the land of penguins, but let’s take a step back and remember what *newbie-land* feels like. Compile from source? Yeah, I wish I could reproduce the expression my Grandma made when I mentioned that. Dependencies? Wine? Please. (You’re talking about the beverage, right?) Why does my cursor disappear? (Again the list goes on, depending on the hardware hosting the install.)

Just why would a typical Mac or PC user ever switch over, even with extensive marketing and vendor’s opening up availability? At this stage for the masses, Macs and PCs are just "easier."

(Please excuse my over-use of parenthesis, quotes, asterisks, and other embellishments.)

axis

I think "year of the linux OS" is every year that the user can choose from the variety of good linux distributions and free software. Additionally I think that it is not a matter of linux running windows programs but a matter of people asking for software they need in a linux environment. Linux is NOT windows. It doesn´t want to copy or even be placed in the footsteps of windows. It is completely different in it´s approach and philosophy and therefor will never be windows or its replacement.
For offering something like windows Linux would need ONE standard. That would include the distribution, the windows manager, and the standard tools shipped with it.
It would need to cut choices from the beginning and tell the user that this is what he/she gets and that he/she has to live with it. The basis would be completely and strictly dictated. But that is what Linux isn´t doing and I am glad that it is "our" way. Of course it is a pitty that you can´t run all windows games on linux, but hey, you can´t run all playstation, xbox or nintendo games on linux either.

A lot in the mainstream market is shifting. GOS, Ubuntu and SUSE are spreading the linux OS onto mainstream computers like the ones from Dell, Asus and so on.
People will get used to the different way of linux and maybe that will motivate more closed source developers to support linux but thruthfully I would rather like more variety from open-source sources.

In the beginning I was comparing "our" software with microsoft´s software too, but with time I stopped doing so and only looked at the usefulness of software for my needs and hey, I can live with what I found pretty well. Maybe the best step for now would be better information pools for people searching for specific software because out there is a lot going on.

Sorry for my spelling, I am not a native speaker (german).
Have fun!

Gregor

Ive been a long time windows user. I remember the old days of Atari 800’s and not being about to buy the ’cool’ games because it was on the commador 64 system. I was ’kinda’ happy when more and more programs were on the windows 3.1 system that i can buy and use.

The other day i put Ubuntu on my old laptop to play around with it to see what Linux was all about. Kinda of a cool OS until I tried to download and install the norton anti-virus program I get free from the military. I had no bloody idea how to install this program. I looked and googled alot of information and after an hour, gave up trying to install the program.

For someone who enjoys using the computer, linux just upset me on how difficult the commands are to use. The different .taz, .rpm, etc was just a pain to figure out.

If linux wants to be in the main stream of the average computer user, they have to make it easier to use.

Just my two cents of thought here.....

WizMedic

I’m viewing this on Ubuntu right now. You lose!

Josh Davis

Hi to everyone.
I must agree with most of the people who pointed out that there’s no special year(or ever will be) to be pointed as "Linux year".
The truth is there are a lot of things that are missing from the "linux picture" and until won’t get fulfilled we won’t see and explosion of "linux" on the desktops any time soon.
What are the things that are missing? Simple: more applications, and what’s more important the possibility to run ANY WIN application on linux.
I’m a PHP developer, I use for my coding "Eclipse", which is a very popular IDE and for the right reason;
the thing is that there’s no usable application/tool for managing VISUALLY(diagrams, etc) and creating DB schemas; so I must use a WIN app for that, which gives me a lot of pain in the as* on my Suse box.
I think, things like "installing a software" had been already resolved, OS installations also are made for dummies since at least 2 years, the only things that are missing are tools(applications) for each aspect of a PC use :
-development(too few or not as valuable as on W),
-gaming(give me an example of a game with stunning new generation graphics, I didn’t find any)
-office(openOffice makes a lot things but still can’t get to do things like MS O)

I think that the first linux distro to have answers to these 3 issues will have it’s year!

Anyways, until then WIN will still be around to run this or that.
Cheers!

PHPDeveloperFromRomania

>If Linux can force a deal like Bill Gates did and require that ALL NEW desktops and Laptops have Linux on them

Since I dont know the guy, I figure Mr. Gates is one of those people that can work magic with people and deals - he puts the right people together and makes a deal work. This is why windows is everywhere - he got the right people and made some great deals. A couple decades ago we were that close to running an OS based on CP/M, Amiga or Atari (and the major CPU made by zilog...) Mr. Gates got some clunky DOS and made a deal with IBM - a major player. He made history that day.

And this is exactly why Linux is not going to suddenly take over. Linux is about freedom of choice. Its the intellectuals’ OS of favor. Geeks & techies like it because its secure, out performs win on *any* hardware and runs like a champ. To take over a majority of people - non technical people mind you - will have to choose linux over the default windows install (or demand it pre-installed) and learn some tech stuff.

I have dealt with non-techs for years. Learning technical computer stuff scares most them - the rest dont have the time. Some people are just lazy. As long as the thing comes with windows they will use it. Suffer maybe, but its easier, less time consuming, and simpler than moving to linux.

Computers are just complex tools. It has been possible for years to do all the computing you want on many OS and hardware platforms. Some may perform better but most kinds of shovels dig holes for those that figure out how to use them.

Windows provides an adequate platform for the majority of computing needs. Non technical users can adapt to its idiosynchrosies. (hey, I think its a word...)

For Linux to overwhelm windows - yes even 51% desktop share - it will have to be a dummy proof install. No crapped out HD partitions - all the basic stuff. Modern installers are almost there. It will have to convert windows installs painlessly. It will have to maintain the win app install base and run 90% of it - *all* games and most business apps.

The computer is a tool - I am going to play Halflife 2 and other new games, even if I have to dual boot to win xp to do it.
These simple facts keep windwos on the desktop.

Random()

Your claims for Linux to "take over" Windows are laughable, at best, considering how well it has been advancing (better a slow, steading march than a tiring sprint), but the comment

"I wouldn’t have been comfortable selling machines to the mainstream market with something that wasn’t bombproof."

simply made me laugh quite loudly.

The default Linux kernel is more bullet-proof than the default Windows kernel.

You can make as many questionable claims as you wish about so-called "security through obscurity" or "open source is open access to exploiters" but let me make mention of one thing:

Ignoring all other points, you do not have to be an administrator on a Linux machine to do your daily tasks as you do on Windows. That alone makes Linux much more bullet-proof than the Windows kernel.

Unless you are confusing "bullet-proof" as a different meaning than the majority of people know, kind of how most people confuse familiarity as user-friendly... In that case, there is not much I can say.

Y’arr

===There are few advances in computing that can be pointed to as a sea change of the magnitude of Windows 95. In 1994 I only knew a few people that had a computer, but by 1996, only a few people didn’t have one.=======

If Linux can force a deal like Bill Gates did and require that ALL NEW desktops and Laptops have Linux on them, Windows will be history in a couple of years....and there will be " a sea of change"

JAFO

"Somebody asked "What features are needed to make Ubuntu mainstream"
Here is my list:"

I do not agree with MS Office compatibility. You will be running a wild goose chase as MS continues to change their protocols and file formats...keeping you from spending time developing features to rival and surpass Office.

Second as someone stated the WORST you have to do on a source install is type "configure" "make" "make install" but I don’t see the average user needing to do this. Even the applications that aren’t in the repos often have .deb files. To be honest installs are actually more dumbed down than windows as it is. You don’t have to click next, next, next or choose anything.

As for "swap" "root" "mounting" being hidden I don’t know how much more you can hide it. If you don’t know about it then you aren’t going to find any of that as it is. And hiding it any further is going to alienate your power users. I believe there is currently a great balance between accessibility for power users and shielding the daily user from ruining their system.

My neices and nephews jump onto my Ubuntu machines and have not even mentioned that I have switched from Windows. I’m not even sure if they know. All they know is that menus are now in different places. But since they know how to read they know how to navigate around without a problem. I’m sure most users could if given the chance. But instead we see article after article hypothesizing about what the average user won’t be able to do.

Phil

The year of GNU/Linux is the year for those who adopted it to do their mainstream work. So it could even be 2000!
I have used GNU/Linux mainly since Mandrake Linux 7.2
It was the distro that made installing ’Linux’ a breeze and it was the distro release that worked with all the hardware I had without a hitch.
I am typing this on
Linux khanashr 2.6.17-5mdv #1 SMP Wed Sep 13 14:28:02 EDT 2006 x86_64 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+ GNU/Linux
Listening to audio streaming from smoothjazz.com via Rhythmbox 0.9.5
It plays my all the music / movies I have. I am able to write CD/DVD’s with K3B.
I surf the net with Firefox 2.0.0.6 (update to 2.0.0.11 not done yet)
The few documents/spreadsheets/presentations I have to open are handled by OpenOffice 2.0.3
By the way my Kensington Web cam works with GNU/Linux, totally unusable with MS Windows since Windows XP.
Therefore if there was a year of GNU/Linux for me it was back then.
I still have Windows cause games (I like to play em) are made only for Windows on the PC. No choice there.
All I can say is if you want a ’stable’ and ’cheap’ OS (with a whole load of software thrown in for free) there is none to beat GNU/Linux.
Whatever OSX maybe you still have to pay and works only on Mac hardware. So it is no real competition to GNU/Linux

So my desktop is GNU/Linux

khanashr

"2007 was not the Year of the Linux Desktop" has no more meaning than "2007 was not the The Year of the Mercedes".

I wouldn’t say the Mercedes cars are a failure, likewise Linux Desktops are not failures. They are just not used by everyone.Neither are Mercedes cars. Do I prefer a Mercedes? Yes, I do. Do I prefer the Linux Desktop? Yes, I do.

So What? If I choose something better than the next guy then it doesn’t matter that the next guy chooses something else. That’s his business, not mine. I’m happy, so is he.

jack s

You need to reach the younger generation. That means games, games games. If it doesn’t have games the kids don’t want to know. I’ve seen ’Vista only’ games in the local game shop.
And they’ve borged Mark Russinovich. He’s doing a lot of interesting stuff lately. He might even help make Windows fit for the desktop.

Shippetaro

"Somebody asked "What features are needed to make Ubuntu mainstream"
Here is my list:
Wine 1.5"

Wine isn’t even at a 1.0 release yet but it has come on leaps and bounds. I’m now using Wine to play games in my Linux environment. Sure people say that it "stops companies making Linux clients" but I looked at the Linux Client for Never Winter Nights recently, they wanted me to download over 1GB and THEN install the game. I’d rather not play the game thanks.

I do run Quake Wars though, this provides a great Linux client which wasn’t a massive download or a faff to install, and I run Doom 3 too which has a Linux client, they did a good job too. I run Steam in Wine and this works well, not as fast as Windows but with plenty of speed.

leenukes.co.uk

Add a comment

Latest Content

Related Content

Recent Comments

Why Linux didn't win in 2007 and why it won't in 2008 either