Desktop Linux is more of a mess, & more of a pain to install, today than it was in 2010. Why?

[liam_on_linux]

Linux on modern PC hardware is harder work today than it was say 5y ago. Also, the Linux desktop today is inferior to that of 5y ago, more splintered and incoherent, with lots of new tech and new desktops which are not generally well-liked by users. And the thing that nobody is spotting is that all this is a direct result of Microsoft's efforts

Comments

[liam_on_linux]

I don't know why that email address is in the preview. This post started out as an email reply to Sam's mailing-list post on the Bikeshed (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bikeshed), but I removed all quotes...

[andrewducker]

Except that Microsoft mandate that on x86 the user _must_ be able to disable secure boot on x86. So you can always run Linux on them.

On ARM they mandate that you can't disable it. But nobody buys those, so far as I can tell.

Edit: Found the details:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn486875.aspx
(search for "must allow" - it's the second hit)

[liam_on_linux]

Yes, true, you can always turn it off - if you know how, and if you know that you have to. But even then, I am reading of a /lot/ of unhappy people on the support lists who can't get it working. Dual-booting seems very problematic, and since these days nobody gets restore disks, that's a problem. But more to the point, even single-booting seems to be a major PITA.

[sbisson]

No.

Because all that would have to be done in plain sight of the lawyers enforcing the consent decree.

[liam_on_linux]

Because Microsoft is /totally/ honest and never ever finds loopholes, let alone bends, circumvents or abuses the law. Absolutely, yes. How silly of me.

Do you really, seriously trust this company to play fair? Honestly? Because it never has before and I see absolutely no sign of it starting to now. One does not become the richest human in history by fair play, honesty and abiding by the letter and spirit of the law.

[steer]

What I don't get here is that I can buy the claim that the Linux desktop is "splintered and incoherent" but you never follow it through to explain why this is bad. "Splintered and incoherent" is synonymous with "has a vast array of choice" -- they're the optimist/pessimist way of saying the same thing.

Question is, does it matter? I found Linux installs smoothly had has since around about 2008 and don't see anything that could improve it. It's a pain if you do it on old hardware -- everything is -- don't do that.

There's new tech which is not well-liked by all. "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." If you don't well-like a tech don't use the tech.

Also, I've never really understood your believe that Ubuntu looks like it does because it's terrified of MS patents. Ubuntu looks like it does because it shamelessly apes Apple.

[liam_on_linux]

I wrote a bit about this here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/03/thank_microsoft_for_linux_desktop_fail/

GNOME 2 had won. We had one, standard, solid Free desktop that almost everyone liked. Even Solaris ran it.

Now, we have a weird GNOME most people don't seem to like, a weird Mac-like Ubuntu one most people don't seem to like, about half-a-dozen half-assed Windows clones (Cinnamon, GNOME Classic, Consort, LXDE, Razor-Qt, KDE) plus things that are kinda sorta a bit like GNOME 2 (Maté, Xfce).

Divide and conquer is not a new observation. That Red article originally ended with "διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε" (diaírei kaì basíleue) which my editor rather fairly said was a bit on the obscure side.

[steer]

Sure,I've read this article before. I've just never got your idea that it's a great thing if an OS offers only one user environment. Where else is this true? Ubuntu seems to offer a fair amount of choice now. That seems not a bad thing. You seem convinced it's the end of days but I find it rather nice.

I agree with your editor. :-)

What does it mean?

Incidentally, the best estimates I can currently find seem to have Linux desktop share growing -- so I guess at least we can take comfort in the fact that its imminent death isn't hurting its bottom line.

[To be honest, I don't actually care... selfishly, the Linux user share is large enough now that if it shrinks to 10% of current volume, I'll still get good enough support -- because I did when it was 10% of its current volume. So if Linux desktop "dies" it will still be usable to me and it will likely continue to be 50-50 Linux/Mac for the scientific community unless something radical happens.]

[liam_on_linux]

I'm not at all convinced that a single desktop /is/ a good thing. OTOH, I don't like the new direction GNOME is heading in much and I'm not sure about Ubuntu's. I don't personally like KDE but I'm glad to see it has a strong backer

[waistcoatmark]

Unity isn't that bad... Roughly half of Google employees use it with few complaints: the other half use macs. Windows requires special dispensation...