>has linux desktop failed? Really? Correct me if I am wrong but we are talking about a concept which has spawned thousands of distros used in millions of computers still.
Desktop linux has utterly failed, yes, clearly. OSX grew to over 10%. Linux desktop continues to remain statistical line noise. That doesn't mean that literally no one on the planet uses it, just that a very small number of people use it.
Of course! I don't disagree. And yet here we are at 69.43% desktop market share[0] for Windows for March 2023, decades after I started hearing about how this year, for sure, was going to be the Year Of Linux On The Desktop™.
Most people don't seem to be using the best possible desktop experience. Their desktop is decided by an employer, or whatever is pre-installed, or who knows what. But an ad in the start menu doesn't seem like it's likely to budge that number much.
Show me the desktop Linux equivalent of Android, not Cyanogenmod. It doesn't exist - and you can measure that failure with any number of metrics.
Sounds like what you're really saying is "you can come up with any metrics you want, then define that as failure to justify my position". There's really no objective basis for saying "desktop Linux is a failure", especially when there's no objective standard by which we could say "desktop Linux is a success" either.
Like somebody else just said "market share? Who cares?" Market share is a means to an end, not it's own end. Desktop Linux works reasonably well for a certain population of people with a certain set of values. Does anybody expect that desktop Linux should gain Microsoft Windows like ubiquity?
"Linux did not succeed on the desktop because Linux as a desktop OS did not have corporate backing behind it"
Not true. I cite Sun's OpenOffice effort as one example. Cast your mind back further and there was Caldera Network Desktop backed by Novell (who were a powerful corporation back then). Even today there's Umbuntu. So we can clearly see that many people have tried to make Linux successful on the desktop, and all have failed.
Yes, it is sad, but I wouldn't go as far as OP to claim that Linux desktop "is failing". That would be the case only if the goal of desktop Linux was to "get a considerably large market share". When I am contributing to FOSS, what I care about is that I improve it for whoever is using it now - maybe it is just 5 people in the whole world, that is fine. Sure I would _like_ if it was 5 thousand, and I will try my best to ensure that, but that is an extra, not the end goal.
I agree with everything except for the past tense "failed". I would use the (pause while I look this up) present perfect. Linux has failed on the desktop so far, but with influence from Android platforms and the availability of cross-platform dev tools like Java, Qt, Tk, and crap-in-browsers, it may yet succeed. I work on a desktop application for Windows and OSX and at least 80% of my development I can do on my Linux machine.
EDIT: meant to stick this in - really to capture the desktop market, Linux only needs to emulate or simulate WinXP functionality. For most users, Win7 only adds gimcrackery.
Linux fails because it's not a product. Ironically that's the exact reason why it's a breakaway success in the server world, but gets no desktop market share. When you turn Linux into a product and market it (a-la Android, FireTV, Nintendo Switch, Steam Deck, Tesla Car™, et. al), it's successful all of the sudden again.
Desktop Linux' success is like a hedge bet against Microsoft and OSX. It's just capable enough to be dangerous in a Mexican standoff between the three OSes.
> modern desktops catching up to Windows look and feel
Honestly, ever since Gnome Shell Linux has been ahead of Windows in look and feel, IMO anyway.
That being said, the year of the Linux desktop isn't a thing anymore because honestly, desktops (or laptops) aren't that much of a thing anymore. For consuming media, phones, tablets and TVs are the main devices. For gaming, phones and consoles. Laptops/desktops are mostly for work, most people I know don't even own one.
Maybe $YEAR_OF_THE_LINUX_DESKTOP isn't 2018, but I don't think the clickbait title saying that desktop Linux has failed is fair. We're light-years ahead of where we were in 2011, let alone 2007. The majority of users who now try Linux desktops do so without any real workflow-breaking issues.
Graphics card drivers and printer drivers often work out of the box for me. All things considered, I think desktop Linux is doing very well.
LOL, succeeded means something very different in this context than what you are implying. Linux did succeed on the desktop and in fact it has made many great strides that makes performance and desktop management better than Windows in almost every way. Just because it doesn't have majority marketshare, in part due to Microsoft making backroom deals to ship computers from the slave labor factories that Microsoft supports in order to sell $200 pieces of junk adware laptops at Walmart, doesn't mean that it hasn't been successful.
It's just not desktop. That's all. Linux as the base OS for desktop word processing, etc. has not succeeded, even though it was the OG dream of the Linux community. Linux as the OS to run WINE ... weird case.
But it's simply not relevant. Linux is a success in its own right. So much better than Windows on a server. And the desktop is losing relevance (but it might bounce back when you least expect it).
Sure, desktop use is still a low number. But the desktop in today's world is just a niche market, where Windows has a good share.
In the rest of the computing world, Linux is miles ahead as the major player: The internet's infrastructure is 90-odd percent Linux; the mobile phone world is about 80 percent Linux (Android, Harmony, etc); the smart household-appliance world (you know, the smart fridges, dishwashers, washing machines, microwaves, etc) is almost 100 percent Linux.
In the totality of things, the desktop world is a miserable few percent. Almost negligible actually.
Incidentally, ZDNet's "fragmentation" excuse is bullshit. Just like "fragmentation of brands" on the roads is why nobody buys cars.
That is not why Linux "failed"(1). It is because essential software for the average PC user like MS Office and the Adobe suite is not available. For games the situation has quite improved thanks to Valve.
(1) Linux didn't fail, the desktop is already a joy to use imho. It is just waiting till it reaches critical mass, then the Year of the Linux Desktop will be nigh.
I don't think the Linux desktop has failed. If popular adoption is the standard then MacOS is also a failure of sorts. At the end of the day, there was just no reason for anyone except enthusiasts to end up with linux on their machine since with rare exceptions you literally couldn't buy it anywhere. If you don't build software, you have pretty much zero incentive to use a linux desktop, especially when factoring in the monumental software compatibility hurdles for non-technical users.
It's really not.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/218089/global-market-sha...
reply