[Pyro MX]

2011 won't be, and 2012 probably won't be either. For all of those with a little sense of humor, I present to you the diagram illustrating the concrete, flawless, irrefutable truth about the GNU/Linux operating system. Free of techno-babble and complex mathematical equations. Black on white, sans-serif, big fonts.

[Bobboau]

its getting closer, all it needs is to stop being actively hostile to the user, and get all of those 0.999s to 1.0s.

it's so infuriating because it's like 94% there it just can't quite get that last little bit done.

I have switched to kubuntu as my primary OS, and got my non-CS nerd sister into it also, but that never would have happened if she didn't have a CS nerd older brother to fight it into submission for her.

[Admiral LSD]

It's been "the year of Linux on the desktop" for over a decade, there's no reason to assume 2010 and beyond will be any different

[Flipside]

I only ever installed Linux once, never got past installing the Graphics Drivers. I could have done it if I'd had the time and energy, but, at the time, I was really not in the mood for typing away into a console and fiddling around for ages just to get it working.

That said, it's more a question of the lack of proper support from the manufacturers than Linux itself that was the problem there, but still, I don't have time to tweak with stuff like I used to, I'd much rather just plug-in and go as soon as possible.

[Admiral LSD]

That said, it's more a question of the lack of proper support from the manufacturers than Linux itself that was the problem there

This isn't quite true. The hardware vendors are hesitant to support Linux because it's in a constant state of development flux. There's no guarantee a driver they release one day will work the next. One solution to this, and the one the community wants, is for vendors to release open source drivers or details on the hardware allowing the community to write their own. However, for various reasons, many hardware vendors aren't willing to do that.

Stuck in the middle of this political posturing and buck-passing are the users who have to deal with having no drivers, closed drivers that do the job, but will die with the next kernel update or poorly crafted open drivers developed from attempts to reverse engineer the hardware in question. It's completely unacceptable in a modern desktop OS.

[Flipside]

That makes sense to be honest, there's always legal wrangling over Open-Source stuff when it comes to commercial products

I tend to think of Windows as a big American car, it's large, not exactly economic, but has low, time-cheap maintenance and gets where it's going on most surfaces, whereas Linux is more like a Kit-Car, it's faster, leaner, can be much more specialised towards a specific kind of use, but it far more maintanance-time heavy, and can have trouble running on some surfaces without considerable work.

It's not a perfect analogy, I know, but close enough

[Nuke]

i filled up a cd case looking for the right distro and im still running windows. i figure il try again in a couple years.

[Spicious]

Hardware support has been fine for me with Ubuntu; better than any version of windows: most devices work out of the box; proprietary drivers just require a few restricted drivers clicks.

The only reason I have windows on my desktop is for games; conversely I only use Linux on my laptop.

[karajorma]

This isn't quite true. The hardware vendors are hesitant to support Linux because it's in a constant state of development flux. There's no guarantee a driver they release one day will work the next. One solution to this, and the one the community wants, is for vendors to release open source drivers or details on the hardware allowing the community to write their own. However, for various reasons, many hardware vendors aren't willing to do that.

To be honest I find that attitude to be one of the major problems I have with the open source community. If something they want isn't open source they just wail and complain that it should be and that all the fault lies with the big company for not making it open source. It never could be a problem with the OS unless the OS happens to be one that isn't open source.

If you've written up your API well enough and don't make major changes to it every five minutes there is no reason for drivers to break with every update. Hell when even ****ing Microsoft can get this right (I've heard surprisingly little in the way of complaints about drivers not working in Windows 7) then the Linux community should hang their heads in shame that they can't.

Linux will NEVER be a desktop OS for the masses. If the community hasn't managed to make it possible in the last decade then they never will. And to be honest I suspect many in the community don't particularly want it to be one as they are comfortable with what they have and dislike change.

I've been using Windows for over a decade now and I've seen it improve drastically since I started. I've had XP for over 6 years and I don't think for a minute that my life would have been made any easier had I been running Linux. And when all is said and done, the purpose of an OS is to quietly do its job and let me get on with using the computer for what I wanted to use it for.

[Pyro MX]

To be honest I find that attitude to be one of the major problems I have with the open source community. If something they want isn't open source they just wail and complain that it should be and that all the fault lies with the big company for not making it open source. It never could be a problem with the OS unless the OS happens to be one that isn't open source.

Because when their drivers don't work it should be the fault of the community that they aren't able to reverse-engineer the hardware to get the specifications right?

If their closed-source drivers don't work or that they are just aren't available, then yes, there's reason to complain. Otherwise, there isn't. Nvidia managed to build up very fine drivers over time (and no, they don't break with each kernel upgrade which, by the way, isn't updated every day either). I've been using them for years without a hitch. I'm for the one who don't mind using closed source software on the OS, just like many others do. Saying that the community acts this way, well... I don't know why then the most popular distro offers a proprietary driver manager to get them for you when something doesn't work. I don't know which API you're talking about that changes every 5 minutes, though. While it's true they evolve at a much faster rate in some cases than some closed-source counterparts, it doesn't mean every change committed to the code base gets implemented and standardized throughout the distros in the same time frame.

GNU/Linux development is different - that doesn't mean it's automatically bad.

[karajorma]

Because when their drivers don't work it should be the fault of the community that they aren't able to reverse-engineer the hardware to get the specifications right?

If the company managed to make a driver that worked for Windows and couldn't make one work for Linux that logically gives at least two obvious problems.

1) Problem is with the companies programmers (Hiring bad Linux coders and good Windows ones).
2) Problem is the OS.

What I don't like is the assumption that it must always be 1) and can never be due to 2).

If their closed-source drivers don't work or that they are just aren't available, then yes, there's reason to complain.

Complain, yes. Insist that the company has to open source the driver rather than simply fixing the damn thing like Windows and Mac OS X users generally complain, no.

GNU/Linux development is different - that doesn't mean it's automatically bad.

Linux is perfectly fine for what it is. An OS for computer techies. If you really think that it's going to become a desktop OS any time soon though you're participating in the same delusion that the community has been involved in for over a decade.

[Pyro MX]

It already is a desktop OS.

If you refer to the fact that it's going to become as popular as Windows on the desktop, then no, I don't believe it will anytime soon (hence the diagram).

Because let's face it - the day it will happen:
A) People will be aware of other software ecosystems than Window's or Mac's (then again, you find more software on both Mac OS and Linux than Windows)
B) People will have made the effort to transition between an OS that they have used for more than a decade and a new one
C) Stores will have given people the choice of the operating system when they buy the computer
D) People (devs and users) will have learned something else than Windows and Windows-related stuff at school. (Kind of relate to point A)

But because some stuff doesn't work on the OS? I don't believe it's the case. Build "Linux-certified machines" with the working software and hardware and support, and you have a perfectly working and productive desktop OS.

[Blue Lion]

At the risk of sounding like an even bigger tool, I have no desire to use Linux simply because I don't have to. What I want to do works with what I'm doing now.

They could roll out a perfect system tomorrow and I probably wouldn't move. There is no real point to. This works just fine and I know it.

[Pyro MX]

The OS you use doesn't matter - as long as people has the choice.

[karajorma]

They could roll out a perfect system tomorrow and I probably wouldn't move. There is no real point to. This works just fine and I know it.

If they had a perfect OS tomorrow I'd move. But if they only had something as easy to use as Windows I wouldn't. What's the point? I already know Windows.

For Linux to make any major dent in the desktop market it needs to be better than Windows and Mac OS X by a significant amount. And at the moment it isn't. It has some large advantages and some large disadvantages. Overall it's not worth the effort of moving yet. Especially once you factor in the lack of commercial software and games compared to Windows.

[Bobboau]

the Linux community has to accept that the command line interface must be abandoned* in the desktop environment, the moment they truly accept this the OS will improve dramatically.

(*will never happen)

[Solatar]

I'm a real fan of the Ubuntu based desktops (I use Linux Mint myself).  They haven't abandoned the commandline entirely, but there are graphical ways of doing most things now.

Plug and play in my experience has been excellent. 

[MR_T3D]

The OS you use doesn't matter - as long as people has the choice.

epic truth.

[Pyro MX]

Not having to tweak the config using the command line is sure a must-have for the general user. But they better let the option there. Because no matter which OS, something, somewhere at some time will need extra configuration that ain't available in GUIs. And in some cases, it's way faster to make your way trough the terminal rather than going deep into poorly designed configuration panels (which are present in any OSes).

But to go back to the circle of hell up there , "lack of commercial software and games" directly enters in there. Companies will not spend money on developing software on alternate operating systems like GNU/Linux because in their views (I generalize here, it's not the case of all the companies), there isn't a market for them to make money. But how do you want to make the market grow if it doesn't have support? It's a vicious circle! You never get out of it. It's not so much a question of usability here, give your mother a completely installed GNU/Linux system like you would have with a Windows system, show her where the buttons are and some "basic training", and it shouldn't be as difficult as making the transition to a Mac (and I speak with experience here ). It's not in the mechanics, it's in the software used. What are the OSS counterparts of what you usually find in Windows or Mac OS? Are there such counterparts? That is where it matters. It is possible to un entirely on non-commercial software, but it requires adaptation. And in some cases, due to the environment and other variables, it's just plain impossible.

So is it about the desktop not being user-friendly? 'Don't think so. But lack of commercial support? karajorma nails it right here.

[karajorma]

It's not just the lack of commercial support though, although that is a big factor. The simple fact is that I have tried Linux before, run into issues getting it to work with my PC and simply uninstalled it because it simply isn't worth the hassle.

If it was easier to get Linux up and running then more people would be willing to try it out as a secondary OS. But when even people like myself who are quite computer literate think that it is too much hassle to get it up and running then that is a problem with the OS itself or at least with the perception of the OS.