I understand the desktop market, but I don't understand why a Linux distribution hasn't taken hold on the desktop market.

A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document. There are several Linux distributions that can do these things quite easily out of the box. Meanwhile, Microsoft has been steadily sabotaging Windows. And Apple is simply too expensive for the average user.

That doesn't seem too controversial. You'll have to explain why I should 'refrain from commenting'.

> A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document.

This kind of condescension towards users and what they use a computer for is precisely why Linux doesn't have a foothold on the Desktop. Linux Desktop people design for some imagined person who, to the extent that they even exist, doesn't care at all about their operating system. They try so hard to make it easy by automating what they think the user wants to do that they make the system incredibly complicated and inflexible so everything falls to pieces the moment the user tries to color outside the lines.

This is sorta what parent meant, I think. If you don't understand why Linux is a failure on the desktop, you don't understand why people use desktops.

You would have more success convincing people if you were a little more charitable. It is very difficult to have a reasonable conversation when it starts with an insult.

That is not condescension as I am not condescending towards users. Rather, it's reality. I volunteer with an association of retired people and 100% of our executive and every single member I have ever spoken to fits in in that group. They don't do more than that because frankly, they don't particularly like their computers. I also briefly sold computers when I was in University. Over that 18 months, I'd say that 85% of people who needed my help were looking for machines that could do exactly that.

Finally, I really question what kind of Linux distrust you use. With a half decent, consumer focused distribution, I can't imagine how anything could fall to pieces the moment someone colours outside the lines.

If we're trading anecdotes about a really specific subset of users here, I know a bunch of "retired people" who also almost exclusively do email, but you know they also like things to be easy, intuitive, familiar, functional and still kind of pretty like they're actually part of the future. They absolutely can not have it break. And you know what? They do want more features that they can use, it isn't that they only want email because it is all they can use, it's just the rest is not easy/intuitive/familiar or is providing no greater value to their now limited time. What value does linux desktop bring to them? It's a liability with no advantages.

So now a bunch have started using things like amazon photos which has encouraged them to become more interested in their android devices, branching out into other fun photo apps and home IoT crap. Another bunch (quite the dividing line here) has gotten more involved in iCloud shared albums and thus again more interested in the Apple ecosystem. They went from cheap "PC" buyers to MBP because they thought the UX was that much better, because facetime and iMessage and other cool things.

Linux Desktop can't compete even in that easiest of user segments.

Totally agree with your familiarity argument. I think that's the main reason why Linux can't compete.

One can think that the desktop OS for a regular user is a commodity, so why replace it? The benefits for the regular user of using Linux are not tangible, so there's no point for them in not using what has worked for them throughout the years.

What I don't agree with, is that you make it sound like Linux "breaks" and would cause problems, and more extreme that it can not even compete.

There are lots of segments where Linux can adapt perfectly to user's need. The fact is that user's are not willing to change and don't really NEED to change. It is not because of supposed Linux short comings.

I don't think there's even an argument that it can compete when it comes to integrations with mobile, other in-home devices, and other peoples data/devices. Yeah it's an issue that there are basically two walled gardens people get into, but Linux isn't even in the neighborhood. It can certainly compete on "a web browser exists and works" but my point is people actually do want more than that.

And it does break. I mean even if the drivers and necessary software is all great, at some point something weird happens and doesn't unhappen. My Fedora install has software I downloaded in the software GUI that won't update. It sends me (garbage) messages about SELinux constantly. The toast doesn't autohide and toast pops up for too many things. It's still usable, nothing is "broken", but it's death by a thousand cuts. No one wants all this confusing crap that isn't "just working". I don't get that feeling in macOS or Windows 10.

Of course, but I think that your portrayal of the regular user is not of a regular user at all. The regular users I know don't even know what syncing is, what the cloud is, what integration is. I know lots of people that have their home computer running with the "walmart" or "samsclub" user.

Of course Linux breaks, I've seen it break in all the imaginable ways in all layers in all the distros I've used (from Gentoo stage 1 back in the day to Ubuntu). But I hardly see problems when running Ubuntu on regular hardware.

I could perfectly argue the same thing about Windows, it is a well know fact that Windows over time without expert supervision, will end up badly: full of unwanted adware, bloatware, and shitty software ruining the experience. I'm sure most of us were asked a lot of times to fix an aunts/friends PC.

I could also say the same thing about MacOS. The UI experience is completely different from Windows, personally, I hate the interface and I don't enjoy it. On the other hand, regular users are willing to put up with the difference, why? because it's a Mac! It's a beautiful industrial design product and people who are able to afford it are proud of it.

I regularly use Linux, Windows and macOS. I think nowadays they are all solid choices. And the differences stem from personal preferences. What I don't think has place nowadays is to speak in absolutes: "macOS is the superior usability experience", "Linux can not compete in even the most basic use case", "Windows is the only solution for enterprise users" we hear so often.

> Of course, but I think that your portrayal of the regular user is not of a regular user at all.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Someone mentions a problem with the Linux Desktop and immediately the excuse is "normal user doesn't do that".

I see what you mean. And this is the problems with this subject and why most of the times these discussions end up nowhere.

We end up discussing on what this hypothetical "regular user" does with biased examples from our own experience. The ones who really have a basic idea of what regular users do are the big players like Apple, Google and Microsoft; from all the telemetry they collect.

I'm certainly not condescending "regular users", on the contrary; I understand why a lot of people don't want to deal with technology and I defend the fact that systems should be easy to use. From your comments I think you're trying to portray us as if we think that regular users are stupid. Which is certainly not the case.

My point is that most people don't base their purchase decisions on technical grounds. Mostly because of money and sometimes status factors.

Again, all these coming from my personal experience; I haven't taken the time to search for an actual statistical study on user preferences. I know I've installed Linux on a lot of people's home/personal computer without them knowing what happened and are happy to this day.

Condescension doesn't mean you think they're stupid (though it is clear that many do), it means you look down on them, which is what it sounds like whenever anyone says "they just need this and that and they don't care about the other things". The implication being that they are not sophisticated individuals who may actually aspire to use their computer as more than a web kiosk if it wasn't treating them like a child. Many of them probably won't, and that's fine, but doesn't mean we should be designing things only for them.

> The regular users I know don't even know what syncing is, what the cloud is, what integration is.

And that's fine! That's exactly my point, this stuff should have a low barrier to entry so that all users can enjoy these great features. I think it's wrong to look at users who only know email/search and relegate them to that for eternity when they might be very happy sharing family photos through some service that Linux doesn't integrate with.

> Linux Desktop can't compete even in that easiest of user segments.

This is amusing, because I had to use a MBP for work a year ago, and I still have flashbacks of how painful it was to use in general usage. I mean, for heaven's sake, copy and paste was always, constantly broken. I'm not actually sure how you manage to break something that's been a mainstay of the computer UI for 37 years, but they managed it. And that's not to talk about the window focusing problems, and all of the other crap I experienced. Have you ever seen a (very skilled) senior developer lose all of their windows? I have. It was a regular occurrence because the MBP was unable to cope properly with a second monitor of varying sizes.

Alas, I will leave it there. /rant

I've never heard of these complaints? This sounds much more like typical Linux Desktop issues in my mind.

Though at this point Windows 10 constantly loses windows on monitors that no longer exist...sometimes even the password prompt on my work laptop lock screen ceases to exist but I found plugging it into an external monitor brings it back on the laptop monitor...

I'm not going to discount your anecdotal experience, but this is literally the first time I've ever heard of issues like that on a Mac. The only copy/paste problems I ever run in to is copy/paste from a VMWare VM to the host OS.

>Over that 18 months, I'd say that 85% of people who needed my help were looking for machines that could do exactly that.

Woudln't a Chromebook fit their use case a bit better? The chances of needing to drop to a CLI to do something basic or fix some thing that an update broke drops from low double digits to effectively zero.

If all you really need is a browser anyway, I don't know why you wouldn't use a Chromebook. That's not a knock on Linux. It's a knock on any full-blown desktop OS.

I certainly couldn't use a Chromebook as my only machine. I need other systems for working with media, games, etc. But I travel as often as not with just a Chromebook these days.

Added: Or just a tablet. My dad always considered PCs a necessary evil. He doesn't really type much and he's far happier with my old iPad than he ever was with a PC--or than he would be with a Chromebook.

"With a half decent, consumer focused distribution, I can't imagine how anything could fall to pieces the moment someone colours outside the lines."

The complaint resonates with me, and I originally used Linux circa/prior to kernel 2.2.16.

It's hard to pin down any specific issue, but I perceive consumer Linux even today as very brittle and the user-friendliness as mainly nailing "no user serviceable parts inside" covers over everything.

For example, I have an installation where basically all I ever do is start up KDE, select the start menu to open Konsole, and run something from the command line. At least once in the few weeks I've been doing this, something got completely screwed up to the point where the interface was unusable and I went to the text-mode console, logged in as root and shutdown -r now'ed. Previously, I got an installation in a completely unusable state because I had no alternative but to power-cycle it when it bogged down.

The attraction for me is the built in programming tools, the bash shell, free software, and today, the lack of advertising and tracking - when it comes to the actual OS I'm very much the stereotypical Mac user who wants it to just work. I just don't want today's Mac hardware.

I avoided Windows 10 for quite a while, but I finally upgraded a few months ago, and so far it hasn't crashed or failed me.

I think that your view on the needs of the regular user is pretty agreeable. I don't get why you got these kind of replies. Nothing you said was controversial about the regular user's needs.

I too have experience working with some non-profits and also some schools, were I've maintained their Linux desktops and the users never really complained about their experience.

Of course, you would sometimes get the usual "where's Word?", "This .exe I downloaded does not work", etc. we all know about. But regular users who complained about the desktop experience per se were not common.

I think that the main reason why Linux on the desktop has not seen major growth is because of inertia, Windows is still the standard and why change? If you buy a cheap laptop/pc at Walmart you're still getting Windows. Why would a regular user bother to change OS? Also, one has to admit that without getting in to the details, Windows 10 is a pretty decent OS.

Inertia did not stop the iPhone from completely destroying BlackBerry, and it didn't stop Android from replacing Windows as the primary internet appliance for many, many people.

Linux Desktop has had decades and the backing of large companies to fight inertia, yet hasn't succeeded. Why?

It's not groundbraking. At the time the iPhone was announced, I still used a Sony Ericsson 530i. And that was a normal mobile phone back then (nothing fancy, just normal). And although the software on the iPhone was basically just a browser (even without copy/paste, which amused me to no end), it was a browser that displayed proper HTML, not that mangled mess you got from Symbian phones.

Compare this to Linux: It started out very obscure, lagged behind in usability for years and finally managed to catch up. But now, at this point, everyone is so used to Windows (including the crap) that the general response is "meh, it's good enough". Plus, no Linux driven company will ever start a marketing campaign that comes anywhere near what Apple did back in the day.

Edit: Also, since you mentioned BB: From my perspective, they also never did usability right. Before the iPhone, Nokia was the usability king (at least in my circle of usage), but Ericsson and BB weren't that bad compared to them. That changed rapidly after capacitive touchscreens were widespread in consumer grade electronics.

Perhaps because Gnome is a crap.

> I can't imagine how anything could fall to pieces the moment someone colours outside the lines.

Try and install an application to a different disk. Or even a different directory. It can't be done in any major distribution because package managers make the assumption that you will never want to place an application anywhere but the same place the rest of the OS is, because they also make the assumption that all applications should be part of the system, because Linux has no concept of separating "system" from "application" in the first place.

I know what your response will be: "normal users don't care about that"[0], which I think illustrates my point rather well.

[0]It's also rather likely you'll go with something like "Windows applications normally don't let you do that either", which is at best a half truth but, more importantly, is a whataboutism.

I don't have issues installing eclipse on /opt/

I have bought a Giada i53 (Core i5 Mobile, 500 Go, 4 Go) for my parents in may 2013. I have installed ubuntu gnome 14.04. I live far away and performs all the administration remotely. It takes me around 5 minutes every 2 weeks (apt-get update, upgrade). I think ubuntu is perfect for old retire people who know someone who knows linux.

I don't think this is a reasonable scenario for the vast majority of people, even if you know someone who can SSH to your desktop for updates.

I'm not who you replied to but I didn't think what they wrote was in any way condescending.

The Android OS pointed out the OS didn't matter much for most tasks. Many users don't need Windows they just need an OS.

I'd even say most people are perfectly happy with a phone and an Internet connection. Complexity of any OS is a turn off for users, the OS of a phone is meant to be intuitive.

I recently retired from a small organization, 4000 users. A large chunk of those people could probably switch from Windows to Linux desktops just fine. But then the desktop support folks would have two platforms to support instead of one. Then would their linux client software give them all the same functionality they are getting from outlook, skype and exchange? I have no idea, but I'm guessing the savings would have to be substantial for anybody to even start investigating this.

So Google is condesneding to it's users? Because guess what a chrome book is! It's even worse actually - and trumpets please - they are now improving linux support on chromebooks.

The reason no linux distro has taken off is because even at free it's not cost effective for a hardware manufacturer to install it. Windows, when purchased in bulk as an OEM install is like a whopping $10 - but comes with all the 1st class driver support from manufacturers and software support from software vendors. So, if you are HP and need to support some umpteen million devices sold this year, you push Windows out the door, not Linux. This is also why Apple doesn't allow it's OS sold seperately anymore and try to tie it down to the hardware as much as possible - if they don't sell the hardware they really don't care if you paid them money for the OS. The OS was cheap to build (relatively speaking).

Until someone comes up with a better piece of hardware for running linux, then Mac and HP, Dell, etc, etc will maintain their dominance.

Dell have computers with Ubuntu pre-installed.

and they don't refund you the windows license fee. So yes, they did the install as a convenience for you, but there is no real focus on linux.

Every time I've put a Linux distribution to very inexperienced users, it worked well, there's a lot of UI things which tend to work better on Linux compared to Windows.

I think the main thing is there's no real point to switch so no one does.

The lightweight window managers seem to do the least of this imagined user problem.

- brand: microsoft is a single point, has been there since the dawn of PC

- ergonomics: linux GUIs are often of no value to the average user. Too diverse, too much change. Unless you do the effort to educate them they will never care. The leap is staggering.. remember people still don't understand web browsers and clicks fully. [2]

- economics: microsoft spends money on OEM deals, which means their software ends up on laptops on shelves that the average joe sees. Also, linux doesn't benefit from scale prices, the few machines that were open source from start were quite expensive with lower perf hardware. a hard sell in terms of numbers

Linux can't get more market share with never ending lib / framework shifts, inconsistent GUIs [1] and technical appeal only.

[1] that said win10 inheritance of win8 second layer is bridging this gap, it's super annoying to have to deal with fakely easier configuration panel but resort to the older one for denser information

[2] and for the joke, windows still follows CUA 99% so you get a very decent keyboard driven GUI. Linux is inconsistent, you may or may not .. sad considering we all love our keyboards #vim

I work at a startup. We have high-end System76 Linux Desktops...and we still cant get the video driver working on Ubuntu with Dell Ultrasharp monitors. The monitor half works and acts up every time the plug moves or every time we take the laptop mobile and plug it back in.

I cant imagine a retail desktop user tolerating these things.

Aside: There was some only-half-joking discussion in the office that someone should attempt to re-write the display driver as a 20% time project.

I feel like recent windows versions aren't that stable either though. There are times (for example one particular Bluetooth speaker) where I reboot into Linux to get things working... Pair that with the horror that is Windows update and I am not sure if Windows is less pain for the average user.

But there are definitely things were Linux is hit or miss (ime):

- video drivers (integrated graphics work well for me) - integrated SD card readers

But if you don't have too fancy hardware requirements I think Linux can be OK.

> A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document.

Chomebooks.

These may very well become the standard desktop / laptop Linux.

* they are very secure

* they run Chrome extensions / apps

* the latest Chrome OS runs Android apps (and desktop integration will improve in a couple releases)

* very soon Chrome OS will run Linux desktop apps (eg, will install .deb files, apps like Gimp, Inkscape, etc) integrated into the Chrome desktop, without being in developer mode (eg "rooted")

* Chromebooks are very successful in education

* A fleet of chromebooks (eg, a school district) can centrally control their chromebooks, including policies. Fleet owners can negotiate volume pricing from multiple vendor suppliers. Chromebooks that are lost, stolen or eaten can be replaced for $67 / unit.

* You can buy expensive high end chromebooks that are very nice, thin, powerful, all day battery, etc

IMO, this could become "the year of the Linux desktop"

Year of the Chromebook maybe, but having the entire userland replaced with a proprietary web browser on top of the Linux kernel is probably not the victory the Linux Desktop community was hoping for.

A userland Chrome browser is what Chromebook WAS. What it is becoming is a desktop. With Linux and Android apps integrated.

There are a lot of good Android apps that would be useful on a laptop. There are a lot of Linux apps that are useful on a laptop.

Good security. With secure verified boot. Yet Linux apps that run in a strong sandbox allowing untrusted code. Android apps run in a different sandbox. All this is transparent to the user who sees a desktop.

The Chrome OS and Android are self updating. I don't know about Linux apps yet.

Android, again, was a complete replacement of the userland tooling developed by the community. For all intents and purposes it is a completely different system.

Even Windows can run Linux apps these days. It still doesn't seem to me that that qualifies as "year of the Linux Desktop" as it is intended.

Definitely not Linux Desktop as intended.

Android is indeed quite different.

Chrome OS is somewhat different. Today I use Crouton to run one or more Linux desktops (currently Ubuntu Unity and Xfce) on my Pixelbook. I've blown away an older Ubuntu 16.04 I had. Thinking about blowing away the Ubuntu Unity and keeping only the Xfce. Each Linux desktop takes about 5 GB with a few additional apps installed including LibreOffice, GIMP, Inksacpe, wxMaxima and Eclipse / Java. Using Crouton means my Pixelbook is in "developer mode" (which means rooted).

I look forward to the integrated Linux apps and expect one day I will switch out of developer (rooted) mode back to normal. This is called a "power wash" on the Settings and resets everything for security and verified boot so no unauthorized code can ever execute.

> A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document.

Yeah... so why do they need to switch to Linux to do that? Windows can already do those things fine.

Is Linux cheaper? Computers without Windows seem to cost the same as computers with Windows. And the actual cost to the OEM is probably something petty like $50 so it's not really an issue.

Yes Linux is cheaper because you do not need to change your computer as often. It is also cheaper because you spend far less time for system administration. Since may 2017 (when I bought my last computer), I have a dual boot windows/ubuntu. I use windows around 5 minutes each month for a single application. I have lost far more time in administrative tasks on windows than on linux: on linux all updates happen in background. On windows, computer was stuck during hours incrementing a percentage.

> It is also cheaper because you spend far less time for system administration.

This is highly dependent on how much experience one has with Windows and Linux, as well as the specific workload the computer is running.

I've had both Linux and Windows installations that always worked without any issues. I've also had both Linux and Windows installations that break on a weekly basis.

Dell will reduce the price of many of their computers by $101 if you select Ubuntu instead of Windows.

As much as people spend on training and support, I doubt that is enough to get many people to switch.

How about they want all the features of their expensive hardware to work? I’ve used Linux for 20 years and I cringe thinking about getting random WiFi, sound or blueray players to work. Much less properly suspending or using the correct power modes.

> I understand the desktop market, but I don't understand why a Linux distribution hasn't taken hold on the desktop market.

Because there's about 600 million distributions wasting energy competing. They waste energy on solving the same problems in slightly different ways, rather than working together to solve new problems.

As a user I don't _really_ care about window managers, package managers, KDE vs Gnome, or systemd vs whatever. I want my desktop to enable me to perform the tasks I want to do.

I do for example care that there's no decent remote desktop support on Linux. That's one of the primary reasons I still run a Windows desktop on my main machine.

Pardon ? Remote desktop was far better on Linux that any Windows solution. You ever try NX ? It was really amazing! Even it was working very soft, running across a poor ADSL internet connection!

There is room for that use case, as evidenced by the success of Chromebooks. I know quite a few people who are very happy with them.

But we don't really want to count that, because that's not what we meant. What we wanted is something that has all the options and configurability and openness of Linux, but on the desktop. And Chromebooks lack all of that.

I'm inclined to take that as a pretty clear confirmation that Linux on the desktop, as the Linux community tends to envision it, hasn't happened because Linux on the desktop represents something most consumers don't actually want.

> A vast number of users use their computers to check email, look up things on the web, and type up an occasional document.

They do use Linux for that - they just don't use a desktop. Android.

Chromebooks are a popular Linux desktop. Tablets and phones are enough for many people.

Taking that statement out of context reverses its meaning.

The author clearly believes they know why it hasn't taken over the market. That's the entire point of the article, and they start explaining immediately after the sentence you quoted.

I can understand why something happens and still be amazed by it. That's what the author is saying. They understand why, but it still amazes them.

You could argue that ChromeOS has, since it's based on Gentoo.

> If you don't have my opinion you should stop talking

Oh boy

The average user probably wouldn't know the difference, since a computer is a browser and an office suite -- but there's no real incentive to sell anyone Linux? It wouldn't make anyone much more money, so what company would bother?

Thinking out loud, I haven't thoroughly researched my position but it sounds plausible.

edit: the implication being they're just going to use whatever is installed on the laptop that they pick up for $400 at the store, which of course will always be Windows, since Microsoft can afford to make the effort to sell it. Why would any regular person go to the effort of installing another OS for the same functionality?

What could happen to demand if you dropped $150 from the price of a machine that would serve the needs of those average users?

Windows costs the OEM much less, it's almost free when you add in the money they get from bundling software like antivirus trials etc.which they won't get from installing Linux or selling without an OS.

Also their support staff are trained to handle Windows. Adding Linux to the mix will increase costs.

What would happen is the Asus Eee, which got such a high rate of returned units from people who didn't understand Linux that it ultimately got canceled.

I wonder what's the rate with current Chromebooks for example?

The UX of the distro chosen for EEE PCs (unfortunately I don't remember the name anymore) was really strange and something that was alien for users of any mainstream Windows, Linux or Mac desktop. I wonder if it could have succeeded better with something like Xubuntu instead.

Most likely, the price would drop no more than 10$. OEMs don't pay much to Microsoft.