To push desktop Linux, radical shift may be required
 | ||
 | Email weblog link | |
 | Discuss | |
 | Blog this |
Andy Oram
Nov. 13, 2003 07:05 AM
Permalink
In the server market, Linux and Microsoft were supposed to be mauling each other like jackals by now. Instead they are contentedly polishing off the bison of Solaris, IRIX, and other proprietary Unix server software. Linux and Microsoft Windows have both grown in the server market--Windows faster than Linux.
Linux on the desktop is a similarly confusing story. A conference on desktop Linux, the first of its kind, was held in the Boston, Massachusetts area on November 10. The forum allowed the leaders of Linux and free software development to evaluate the progress these have made on the desktop.
Linux as an end-user system is at an early stage, but inroads are impressive. One statistic puts annual growth of Linux on the desktop at 44%. It is already in heavy use as a limited, kiosk type of application (point-of-sale terminals, for instance) and as a technical workstation. More general use is expected to come within the next couple years.
By now, free software office utilities are perfectly satisfactory and largely compatible with Microsoft Office; if they lack certain features of Office, they also lack certain bugs, and compensate with their own features and bugs. A sizeable base of knowledgeable administrators has emerged. And installation shouldn't be such a big issue. Windows installation can be hard too, and people often turn to professionals for installation.
So why hasn't Linux made big inroads yet among ordinary computer users? Let's look at a few theories--two that are relatively commonplace, and one of my own.
The first theory is that Linux's advantages will eventually overcome corporate and government conservatism. A roadmap was even laid out in the Desktop Linux Conference (described in my weblog from the conference). In fact, the tipping point could be so near that we may all soon be laughing about the time we were worried about Linux's difficulties. Japan and China, combining one of the world's most important established economies with one of its most important emerging ones, are pouring huge amounts of money into Linux. IBM is no slouch either. People are getting it: Linux is a solution to many current computing ills.
A second possibility is that Linux may not catch on at all for Mr. and Ms. Average Schmo, at least not for the foreseeable future. But is that so important? Linux could meanwhile become dominant for servers, embedded systems, and kiosks. It could also reach the Average Schmos on large organizational networks using Linux Terminal Server Project.
But we should also consider a third theory. Nat Friedman of Ximian (now Novell) explained at the Desktop Linux conference that the highest barrier to Linux adoption is the cost of rewriting applications. This was the conclusion of a consulting firm brought in by the city of Munich to determine whether it should replace Windows with Linux. The consulting firm warned that application migration costs would override the savings in licensing fees, and Microsoft came in with a stunningly low counter-offer. Munich decided to move to Linux anyway, for strategic reasons. But it's a hard decision to make.
Friedman and the Munich consulting firm were not the only ones to point this out. Back in September, the well-known consulting firm Gartner reportedly told companies that it would cost them money to move to Linux--precisely because they'd have to rewrite their applications. For desktop users, "migration costs will be very high because all Windows applications must be replaced or rewritten." And this is the same Gartner that had warned companies to get off of Microsoft Windows because of security flaws! (Before Gates and Ballmer started to make grand promises about putting security at the top of their priorities.) Despite Linux's advantages in the areas of licensing, stability, and openness, Gartner believes companies would lose money by switching.
Another article is more hopeful but suggests that it would take five years to see financial benefits after a switch from Windows to Linux.
And that leads me to my theory.
For Linux to reach the ordinary user, it has to offer more than good office suites and The Gimp and other free software implementations of common applications. Most people won't make the move just so they can keep doing what they did before. Security and freedom mean a lot to a few of us, but they are not enough incentive for the vast range of Average Schmos. And we need those Average Schmos; the median is the message.
People will move because they feel forced to--because there is an entirely new way of working that the old system cannot offer, and the new system can. It must be a shift that sweeps up millions of adherents and becomes a perceived necessity.
Historically, graphical user interfaces were just such an innovation (although if you were around when they first came in, you might remember how many ordinary people stubbornly stuck to their old command or full-screen utilities for years). The Internet was another: Microsoft, AOL, and others had to really scramble to avoid being swept into the dustbin by it.
No single new application is enough to cause a switch. Microsoft is perfectly capable of writing applications, so if somebody thinks up a neat utility on Linux, people will soon get something like it on Windows. What we're talking about is a new paradigm (pardon that word); a whole shift as big as GUIs and Internet use. What could it be?
Let me break my chain of reasoning here to point out that Microsoft itself is not afraid of changing the way people use computers. It's forging ahead with initiatives such as Longhorn and SharePoint which, if they live up to the hype, will put people in new relationships with their data and with each other. Microsoft has put tremendous energy into separating data from presentation and creating frictionless chutes that carry the data from database to office application to Web page with minimal user intervention.
As usual, one can get snowed when presented with Microsoft's lists of audacious upgrade features. But what emerges for me, as the basic Microsoft vision for the computing future, is an impressive pervasiveness of data--data that can instantly be viewed and tabulated by anyone who wants it using the most convenient tool at hand, without fussing over conversions and conscious transmission from place to place.
Microsoft is not stuck in the past; they're pulling as hard as they can to move their users to these upcoming innovations--trying to make them seem indispensable to staying competitive--because otherwise the company will have to stand by and watch the hose that gushes license fees gradually diminish to a trickle over the next couple years. No, Microsoft is pushing ahead. If any developers are stuck in the past, it's the free software programmers diligently recreating what's been done before.
But the kink in Microsoft's hose is that its business plan is a plan for business, not for end users. On the whole, Microsoft's initiatives revolve around corporate data use, and depend on adoption by corporations. And corporations are naturally conservative. They're afraid, for instance, that the grand SharePoint achievement of integrating office applications and corporate servers will lead to more bugs and security problems with both. They're not likely to budge.
Individual users, by contrast, are not conservative. History has shown them to be, if anything, quite reckless. Look at what hordes of ordinary people did when they get their hands on Web server software in the early 1990s. Look at the current popularity of instant messaging, and now SMS, both of which started as novelties. Look at the millions who signed up for the original Napster, and then slid over comfortably to current peer-to-peer systems.
So Linux has a natural user base it can appeal to. The very people advocates are trying to reach--individuals at home and in school--are the people likely to drive radical innovation in computing.
The area where Linux excels is services. Apache, Samba, MySQL, and mail transfer agents are practically household words thanks to Linux (although of course they run on many other systems too, and are found on Windows more often than people give credit for). Anything that you need to do that requires running a service benefits from the state-of-the-art network stack and security offered by Linux. This includes peer-to-peer applications, as I explained in a talk I gave back in 2002.
What's the advantage of running an application as a continuous, background service? Many find it hard to remember, because the division between server and client has become so commonplace (and the second-class citizenship of the Average Schmo, exiled to the client side, has been enforced for so long). Advantages include:
You're more in charge of your own data. You don't have transmit it to some remote system under somebody else's bailiwick or beg for someone to put it up for you before others can access it. Immediacy opens up whole new dimensions, such as the ability to provide dynamic, instantly customized content.
You're more in charge of your own processing. You can choose when to process information in tiny chunks and when to postpone processing and do it in batches. You can choke off access or open up new threads to accommodate more. The simple, synchronous connections clients have may work for small amounts of communication, but when you get busy it's critical to have the flexibility of a server.
You're more likely to be able to support multiple users. Many servers recognize the idea of an account and offer access controls.
But running a service on your computer is socially disruptive. It puts control in your hands rather than in a central professional staff, so it's suspect in large organizations. It also bothers Internet providers because you need potentially more bandwidth, a static IP address, and perhaps a domain name. But accommodations have been made for activities as diverse as file-sharing, Web servers, and chat. The practice may grow, and that's where the arguments against migration to Linux break down.
Andy Oram is an editor for O'Reilly Media, specializing in Linux and free software books, and a member of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. His web site is www.praxagora.com/andyo.
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a comment.
Showing messages 1 through 19 of 19.
-
Cell + Linux rules all
2003-11-21 10:08:58 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Thats right just wait to IBM/Sony's new Cell processor comes along with a fully optimised linux version for it. You should in theory be able to run all future playstation 3 games on it as well as emulate x86 as fast as any Intel cpu. microsoft will die along with x86 architecture cause Cell + Linux will rule them all.
-
a "STANDARD LINUX"
2003-11-18 03:09:08 dublinclontarf [Reply | View]
when someone earlier talked about a standard linux, where everything, from all distributions,from applications to interfaces should be standardised to one standard.
This is quite correct I think.
When Linux is being installed have an international "Standard Install", available on all linux distors.this would automaticaly handle partitions everything except the root password.
With a standard desktop.
BUT allow for everything to be customisable, u get me?
Standardised but totaly customisable.
so the desktop layout, should be researched and then standardised across the board, but should be totlay customisable, menu's and everything.
That would make things a lot easier(at least I think).
And on installing applications; unless theyre distributes with the dependancies I can never get them to work(because not everyone has the internet or wants to wait an hour downloading a dependancy just to get MP3's & ogg players working).
In short build for the idiot but allow for the advanced.
-
No need to change anything -- linux will rule
2003-11-17 11:51:07 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I see no point in these analysis of "what needs to be done" nature. The whole point of GNU/linux is that it develops itself trough decentralization and and individuals developing for their own selfish needs -- not as a part of some grand scheeme to unseat microsoft. Linux will improve as corporations, foreign goverments and users invest time and money into development tp fulfill their needs. Over time GNU/linux will dominate because Microsoft cannot compete with Free, and by free I mean bouth free as in freedom, and free as in beer.
-
What's the business model for apps developers?
2003-11-16 13:29:14 dkurman [Reply | View]
I manage a corporate network and played out the scenario of migrating to Linux.
It isn't the OS, the utilities or the Office suites as much as the specialized business software. Software like CAD and vertical apps. When I talk with some of these vendors they say they can't afford to give it away. They need a return on the effort spent developing and maintaining the software.
These developers have the perception that Linux/Open Source is about free software. They said it is hard enough managing piracy in the Windows environment.
Because we need this software for our business over 95% of the desktops must remain Windows.
...WINE and vmware do not help...I tried.
Could this also affect games on Linux?
-
I belive the answer is WINEHQ
2003-11-16 07:08:37 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
In my opinion, there is no doubt that linux is a BETER os than windows, if a user spends enough time understanding it, in linux you can do virtualy anything.
In my modest opinion, the key to make sure the avarage user changes to linux is to make sure they can run the SAME aplications in linux (not a better/worst version) and i belive WINEHQ is the answer. It is not perfect, it still has a lot to go but if linux can perfectly (or close enough) emulate windows, and be able to add every program ever made to windows to gnu-linux, with the kernel as it is and the stability linux is offering, i have no doubt the consumer will change.
I think this is also the answer to the problem of licences described above.. is companies can use the same program in gnu-linux they used in micro$oft window$, there is no need for them to re-lincence it and it becomes a simple economic reason to change: THEY SAVE MONEY.
If they change, their workers will follow, i am sure...
Sérgio Gaspar Lisbon-Portugal :)
-
When are you people going to face reality?
2003-11-15 20:44:30 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Microsoft totally rules, and will continue to rule!
Abandon your elitist self-delusion!
-
Mainstream desktop Linux
2003-11-15 16:47:48 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I think a good way to give Linux a more mass market must have feel it should be targeted at the core people who drive the hardware market...Gamers. Linux could be such a great pc gaming platform. One thing about being a windows gamer that really needs sorting is stability and the fact that windows actually inhibbits performance of the hardware your using. If there was a viable option other than windows that was cheap and reliable could run all th latest hardware and games, surf the net and entertain in general I would not look back. Where MS have failed (not giving uses flexability and choice) Linux has the potential to compensate. Imagine what would happen if I posted a very impressive bench mark score on a gaming site and I was running the game/demo/benchmark on Linux....a bit of pride and willy waving would do Linux good.
-
Good article but....
2003-11-14 21:39:14 linus_sixpack [Reply | View]
Wide descriptions like this can never be complete. There is a second element going on regarding money.
To the extent that computers, and with them operating systems, are purchased for want, I agree with most everyone who posted. Talk about your wants for an OS, they probably each represent some of the market.
There is a second element -- need.
Corporations would buy only what they need for computers if they could do so cheaper. When Windows achieved its success it was the cheaper option that ran on more hardware that is no longer the case.
Look at recent news for Thailand -- to basically remain in the market Microsoft reduced its price for Office by 87%, and still seems to have lost. When a desktop computer costs $200 far more people are going to resent paying $200-800 for Microsoft software. Microsoft prices have to come down. When that happens Linux has a whole new competitor.
Linux for the most part, is driven by far more modest margins than windows. It is lean and competative in the new emerging markets.
With satisfied need comes popularity and maybe more software writers. Certainly Linux is already getting more sources that twist it to what people want. If the projects are GPLed we'll all eventually see the new products.
my .02
-
Push Linux to Desktop
2003-11-14 21:08:02 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
The author wrote
But we should also consider a third theory. Nat Friedman of Ximian (now Novell) explained at the Desktop Linux conference that the highest barrier to Linux adoption is the cost of rewriting applications. This was the conclusion of a consulting firm brought in by the city of Munich to determine whether it should replace Windows with Linux. The consulting firm warned that application migration costs would override the savings in licensing fees, and Microsoft came in with a stunningly low counter-offer. Munich decided to move to Linux anyway, for strategic reasons. But it's a hard decision to make.
It is certainly true that IT shops cannot afford to rewrite all of their applications today to take advantage of Open Source. But they can surely stop the insanity of platform lock, in their current and future development.
Will it mean some retraining and rethinking? Of course. However, it can also mean huge savings in the future and increased business opportunities. Linux nor Windows is going away anytime in the near future. Can your company support customers who use both, or will it be only one and not the other?
How well will your company be able to compete for services and goods, when your customer base might not be able to run that new Visual Basic or DOT.NET application, nor access your services and sales, because you have been shortsided enough to have a "write here, run only here" type of mentality? Do you really want to pay all of those license fees and cost ad-infinitum, or would you like to have more leverage and control on how and where your business IT resources are spent?
These should be the questions that todays IT departments and companies ask, and it is the xplatform developer that can provide the answers.
The reason that this problem has and currently exists, is that there were precious few XPlatform options in the past. That has now changed with the ubiquity of Java, the new comer of Python, and the newer xplatform widget sets (like QT and wxwindows) that are made with Xplatform in mind.
XPlatform development is the key to Linux growth and adoption, but for not for this reason alone. XPlatform development also affords the best potential for expansion in IT savings and freedom, not to mention commercial business venture expansion.
-
RE: To push desktop Linux, radical shift may be required
2003-11-14 21:06:56 sidboyce [Reply | View]
Progress on that front may not be as swift as some would like, but it's happening. I have a colleague who asked to borrow my SuSE CD's for an install. I thought it was for his company laptop, but a few weeks later I got a thank you call, saying that his wife loves it, she's able to do her photography work, plus all the other usual things a computer is used for without having crashes and losing hours of work. That lady is no techie and her husband is no Unix guru, but somehow they figured Linux would be the answer - they didn't even ask me what camera software was available. They have now bought a copy of SuSE Professional.
Linux has proliferated under it's own worth in the gold virtues of stability, security and usability - contrary to daily news items. No glitsy multi-million dollar TV ad campaigns and it continues to sell itself by reputation. There is more of it about than you'd think, ask the OTHER guy with the worried look that talks the worried talk (postcode Redmond), he's seen the future.
-
Two applications are missing for small business
2003-11-14 18:54:09 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Two application are missing for small business: Good Accounting Package to replace QuickBooks and Fax Communication package to replace Winfax.
-
Killer apps? Games would be nice
2003-11-14 08:40:02 fastluck [Reply | View]
Does anyone know why I write software for a a living (for peanuts) instead of counting beans in a back-office budgeting place (for fewer peanuts)? The same reason I have computers all over the place now. Because I've always liked video games. I bought a Commodore 64 in the '80s because of the overwhelming availability of games on that platform compared to the CoCo III and Nintendo systems I already had. Before long, I realized that I liked controlling the computer on a lower level. And I was off...
Here's my point: Look at the games that install with [pick your linux distro]. They either suck or have graphic routines so bad that the animation makes them unusable on most systems. Or they don't have sound. Or they're just plain stupid. Or, the screen comes up, and you're left looking at it, wondering what the point is. Having a lot of good arcade-quality games available, and not having any of the sucky ones available as a default, would do a lot towards capturing at least a segment of the market. I'd like my son to learn Linux. But until it has good games to suck him in, he's not going to budge.
Also, let's quit saying that linux offers a lot on the desktop. It doesn't, at least by comparison. Hardware detection's getting fantastic. Kudzu rocks! But although you can detect the existence of a new printer, you still can't detect what it is. When someone buys a computer, it can be purchased with everything set up. But what happens a month later when the grandma, grandpa, wife or college student purchases a printer? Or, God forbid, a scanner? Unless they have a good administrator-friend on call, they've got a really cool piece of technology to use for a paperweight. This precludes adoption by the masses.
It doesn't matter that the OS itself is vastly superior to Windows. It doesn't matter that the user can control code bloat down to the most minute detail. It doesn't matter that the user never has to deal with the blue screen of death that I actually encountered when I was reading this article. I want everyone to use Linux because I wouldn't mind writing code for it. But for now I'm writing code for Windows because that's what people are using.
John
-
The Killer App is Ubiquity
2003-11-14 08:06:55 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
What continues to hold Linux back is, in part, the same list of usual suspects as has always been there (difficult to maintain, too much reliance on the command line, dependency issues with installing applications, etc).
Many will argue that these problems are more issues of perception than real problems. I think that the biggest thing holding Linux back is people's perception of it.
The Average user, when confronted with something new, is not going to care about it if it offers them nothing or has no relevance to their daily computing life.
What we need is better visability in a positive light. We need role models in the form of avergae users who successfully migrated to Linux without giving up or losing anything. We need to make the connection between Linux and the desktop in the minds of the average user.
In short, Linux on the desktop needs to advertise. And it needs to show that Linux is everywhere - on the server, on the PDA, on the utility appliance, AND ON THE DESKTOP.
But we must answer the basic question that every potential user will have - "why should I bother? What is in it for me and what will happen to my ability to work/communicate with people still on Windows if I do switch?" But they are also going to want to know and care about what happens to their investment in Windows by switching to Linux.
So, yes, we need the office suites that seamlessly work with Micorosoft office file formats. We need IM clients and email tools that are every bit as good as the Windows version (if not better). We need to be able to tell them that they won;t need some of the utilities they bought for Windows because those problems do not exist on Linux or are handled automatically.
And we need to provide ease-of-use that IS BETTER than what Microsoft offers. "Just as good as Windows" will not drive the masses from Windows - it needs to be "insanely great" (with apologies to Apple).
-
Individual Application Installation
2003-11-13 23:12:47 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Being one of those users that constantly flip-flops between linux and windows. I can honestly say that the only real stmbling block left for the average joe is the installation of applications. I really want to switch and stick with linux, but. as bad as "dll hell" (witch isn't really even an issue in recent years) is, the dependancy problem in linux is far and away a worse problem. Not to mention compiling. RPM is a step in the right direction, but you still ahve the dependency problem. What linux needs is a standard set of libraries, and if a library is needed that's not in the standard base, it should be included in the application installation. I'm often surprised how often the OS installation is brought up as a problem, but never individual apps.
-
Control issues...
2003-11-13 12:41:17 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I remember a similar article to this (I don't remember where) about Linux needing a "Killer App" that would set it apart from Windows.
But my feeling is, and has always been that Linux itself is a Killer App. Or, to be more exact, a Killer OS, in the sense that it offers so much flexibility to the end user. It gives the user full control over their computer. And depending on your skill level, that can be a good thing or a bad thing...
If you are on this website reading this article, you probably know enough to determine what you want to do with your computer without any outside help. But the average Joe Mousemover may not have that knowledge. He may need prompting.
With Linux, no one is there to prompt him, or to suggest what he might want to do with his computer. But with Windows, you start up IE for the first time, and you get directed to MSN. Hmmm, maybe he will subscribe... Start up Media Player, and you get ads from Microsoft partners. Hmmm, maybe he wants to buy a CD.
I don't want to start a flamewar, but I hope my point is being made... Windows will walk the semi- and non-skilled user through things, and prompt and suggest things for them to do, etc. Linux will not. In order to reach the desktop user, Linux must learn to do lots of handholding and suggesting. Once that happens, and it stays free and open, Linux will be the Killer OS.
-
Radical shift
2003-11-13 08:57:49 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
The only reason why I have not made a shift to Linux/Open Source computing is that I have problems with finding print drivers for newer printers. Other than that, I would be willing to commit. First of all, I really like the idea of have a stable operating system/platform, that allows the average user to learn more about computing that just how to use Microsoft products.
-
Too much choice ?
2003-11-13 08:31:48 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I installed Redhat 9 last week - i've done quite a few installs of previous versions but this was the first time i've actually needed a GUI on a Linux box. I think the problem is - there is too much choice. No flames please, but I really don't think Joe Punter cares whether it's Gnome or KDE as long as it runs. I initially chose Gnome, but then reinstalled after a hardware problem and chose KDE instead. Surely the average user just wants a reliable back end, and a desktop that works. If you install Windows, you get a Windows desktop: you don't get a choice but you can customise the appearance. The fact that you don't get a choice means that every copy works consistently (i didn't say reliably).
-
Bullseye!
2003-11-13 08:07:42 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I couldn't agree more. If all Linux will ever be is a copycat of Windows, then it will never seriously challenge a $40B giant that can afford to constantly innovate and advertise.
The new computing paradigm must so compelling, as to not only generate widespread interest and have people standing in line to get it, but have 3rd party software firms rushing new products into the market to catch the wave.
The redirection must not be restricted to merely a new GUI, but to every fundamental aspect of an operating system, including the current stale file system models.
Failure to take this new direction will result in a future that is remarkably like the present.
| Showing messages 1 through 19 of 19. |
Return to weblogs.oreilly.com.
Weblog authors are solely responsible for the content and accuracy of their weblogs, including opinions they express, and O'Reilly Media, Inc., disclaims any and all liabililty for that content, its accuracy, and opinions it may contain.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
What we need is an open source RAD development tool.
Also installation tools need to be developed and speaking of applications, how about games? A lot younger users stick with Windows just for games.