Linux Desktop

See Also: WhyLinux

Many Linux companies unwisely targeted the desktop market.

This is a good point. People don't buy software to have the software; they buy software so they can do the things they like to do with a computer.

I'm a fairly good example: As someone who's been a programmer for almost five years, in lots of different for-real computer languages on Unices and Windows, you'd think I'd be entirely comfortable using a Linux desktop. And yet I use a PowerBook. Almost all of what I do on a desktop computer is what most people do on a desktop computer: word processing, web browsing, email, image editing, listening to MP3s, managing my finances. (And in my case, I also program things in Perl and Java to help solve specific problems, and I do quite a bit of telnetting.) Yes, you can do all of those things on Linux. But you can do them just as well on MacOS, and it'll be a lot easier to get a laptop that runs MacOS, too.

And yet when I got serious enough about programming to run my own server at home, I chose Linux without a second's hesitation. (well, I considered BSD, too, but let's not get into that particular flame war ...) Even though I'd never installed or sysadmin'd Linux in my life, and honestly sysadmining is not my favorite thing in the world. But I knew that on a decent Linux distro I'd get support for everything I need on a server: web serving (Apache), source control (CVS), database (mySQL), etc., etc. Support for these things on a Windows or Mac server is a joke.

When it comes to what people want out of a desktop, Linux still seems to be playing catch-up. When it comes to what people want out of a server, Linux seems to be in the lead. -- FrancisHwang

Response to objections

SteveHowell, MichaelLeach, SteveHowell

My perception that the Linux GUI was radically different from Windows was completely unfounded. A lot of common Windows metaphors are copied by Linux desktops and applications.

Exactly. Then why waste time, money, and resources on a copy. There's nothing unique about the Linux desktop.

What makes the Linux desktop unique is that it runs on the Linux kernel. When you go from Windows to Linux, you will not waste a great deal of time on learning new desktop metaphors.

Alternatively: what makes the Linux desktop powerful is its _configurability_. I can choose a desktop that's virtually indistinguishable from a Microsoft offering (with five+ years' Linux experience, I sometimes still have to squint and look twice). I can choose one that looks _nothing_ like the Win95 GUI. More importantly, I can choose and configure a WindowManager or DesktopEnvironment? that fits the way _I_ work, not the way some monolithic abusive monopolist thinks I should work. A lot of this may be turning _off_ features I dislike, it may also be adding hotkeys and features I _do_ like (virtual desktops, to quote comments elsewhere). The key is that the control is in _my_ hands.

My particular Linux desktop has nice features missing from the common Windows setup, such as four virtual desktops.

This is in Windows as well. What do you think is powering the 8 monitor displays on stock trading floors? It's not exclusively Linux. Those are 8 real displays, not 8 virtual displays that one monitor shares. virtual desktops are a great feature: easy, very powerful.

The commons Window setup has one desktop. Obviously, it is technically possible to enhance the Windows desktop. I'm only making the harmless point that Linux desktops have some nice features that many typical Windows users have not encountered before. While MS Windows add-ons can provide virtual desktops (and I've used them), it's a mode of operation that breaks many assumptions, and that many programs don't deal well with. This may simply be a matter of developer awareness, but in general, X11 apps fit the multiple-desktop model far better than Win32 apps.

If you use a CLI, you will find Linux shells more full-featured. My particular Linux shell has file completion and color support. It's better than the Windows 98 shell. Just like you can get a Windows-like GUI on Linux, you can also get a Linux-like CLI on Windows, so this is not a make-or-break criterion. Though again, the Windows metaphor handles alternate shells far more poorly than Linux does, and the default Windows shell is a deliberately crippled PoS.

Insofar as you want Linux to be like Windows, then there is good progress to report. Things aren't likely to regress, either. Despite religious differences, KDE and Gnome are likely to converge on good features and diverge on arbitrary features, which is good for the consumer, in my opinion.

-- SteveHowell

You must be crazy to use CLI when you can point & click OR drag & drop.

That's a highly subjective opinion. Can you qualify this otherwise flamebait?
Agreed. The converse is the case: You must be crazy to open, navigate, open, navigate, point, click, drag, and drop when you could accomplish the same task by typing a simple command. Also, again, command-line utilities tend to be more configurable, easier to configure for unusual requirements, easier to script, and so forth, so that you can do more with them.

CLIs reward folks with good memories and verbal-based learning and problem solving styles by erecting the fewest possible barriers. GUIs assist the memory challenged (e.g. myself) and those with visual learning styles by showing them possibilities and arranging images that trigger the problem-solving parts of their brains. I have long felt that the *nix community was made up largely of the former type, and that if they were more sympathetic to the burden that memorizing all of that Unix trivia represents for the rest of us, we might have seen a fully-embraced Linux Desktop much sooner. There is, however, no doubt in my mind that the first environment that is equally loved by CLI people and GUI people, and everyone in between, will be community-developed on Linux. -- KenCarpenter

FrancisHwang said: "Support for these things on a Windows or Mac server is a joke."

Not anymore. MacOsx has support for Apache and CVS, and you can install MySql easily. System administration skills needed are trivial (I'm living proof). Don't be surprised if MacOsx gets a lot LinuxDesktop users, just from sheer convenience. I admit you don't want to be using a Macintosh as a server in a closet when there are cheaper alternatives. -- SeanOleary

Yeah, I should've qualified that I meant pre-MacOsx. OS-X, being BSD-based, is a totally different kettle of fish.

I use a LinuxDesktop and I am very happy with it. However, it is not nearly as smooth as a mac or mswindows desktop. True, I like the power that I get in some very important areas, but there are some aspects of the LinuxDesktop which lag far behind ms windows. I use a Linux Desktop because it is empowering. It provides much more flexibility to work the way I want to work. Where it is lacking is not so important for me to want to trade away the power in other areas. -- EricHerman

If something goes wrong with your Linux box, you'd better know what you're doing. If something goes wrong with your Windows box, you'd better start p[r]aying. --TimKing

If something has gone wrong with your Linux box, you should have known what you were doing before you did whatever you did to cause something to go wrong with it. If something has gone wrong with your Windows box, don't install any more software on it or plug anything else into it. And don't go to any web sites.

There are a number of initiatives to improve the LinuxDesktop experience.

See also the list of X11 WindowManagers.

CategoryLinux