There's always been a lot of debate about why Linux is not popular on the desktop, outside the realm of geeks and computer nerds, and I count myself among their number. I've been a Linux geek for years, have worked at Linux Geek Shangri-La (Red Hat) and even get paid to beta test Linux OSes for a living. But I'm not John and Mary Public. I'm not the type who things AOL = Internet and the only way to do something is via Microsoft software.
Not me, I use Ubuntu on one system, Fedora on another, RHEL on a third, and have other Linuxes sitting around that I swap in from time to time just to see what they offer. But that's just me. And I am a self described Linux Geek, as I said before. So what about the public? What about the 85% of the population that just wants a computer to do computer stuff, and don't care one wit about OSes, drivers, and memory mapping?
Great strides have been made in the Linux space to make it more user friendly. Analogous to the days of DOS and Windows 3.1, Linux early on followed a similar model, where you'd boot to a console, then start and X session to get a somewhat usable GUI. As GUI code progressed, and as the OS itself progressed, they became more synonymous. X IS Linux. At least, by appearances, it is. Today's Linux is still following the Console-with-GUI-layered-on-top model, but the GUI has gotten to be so good that the newer and more casual Linux users are falling into the same trap that Windows users fell into.
Whereas, with Win 3.1 and DOS, you had to actually know CLI usage and Windows was just ... errr... Window dressing (pun intended), the advent of Windows 95 and all subsequent releases prevented people from actually learning what the CLI is, and what is actually going on underneath the pretty desktop and task bar.
The same can be said for Linux now, only, Linux is just in the preliminary phase of this transition. Yes, X is only a layer on top of the underlying OS, as opposed to BEING the OS, but people coming from the Windows 2000, Windows XP and Vista world don't, for the most part understand that dynamic. Thus, the new generation of Linux users are as uncomfortable with the Bash or ksh shells as their predecessors were with the DOS prompt in Windows 9x.
Another problem in the transition for most people is that they grew up believing that Windows is just Windows, and it runs everything. They don't understand that Linux, Windows and Mac OSX are completely different operating systems. To Joe User, they OS is just the GUI that pops up on their screen. Just another program, and Joe User has no idea how or why it works or is even necessary.
Thus, we run into people like this woman who complain rather vocally because they can't and don't understand why the Linux on their new Dell laptop isn't accessing the internet. Or in the case of the woman in the story I just linked to, can't understand why she can not install and run Microsoft Word on Ubuntu.
Sure, I know, and most every Linux Geek knows that it's as simple as running Wine or some other Windows emulator, but Jane Public doesn't know that. The average Linux neophyte doesn't even understand what an emulator is, or why one is necessary. They get frustrated because they can't run MS Office, or IE on Linux. They get upset because they "Can't connect to my AOL" and so forth.
That is the chief reason why Linux is not seen more in the Desktop space. Until some distro works in seamless integration of windows emulation, and truly simple plug-and-play network configuration, people who know nothing but Windows will remain that way. Until there is a Linux distro that allows an easy and pain-free transition from the Lock-Step world of Microsoft to the orderly and organized anarchy of the F/OSS world, Linux on the desktop will remain a niche item.
Das Aggregator!