Why Linux is a desktop flop?

NetworkingStudent

I'm not trying to start a war, but looking for an opinion..does anyone think Linux is a flop in the corporate environment? Specifically, the desktop user environment?

I always thought it would be pretty easy to convert to Linux, if a corporation wanted to, However; according to this article it would be a tough sell.

Why Linux is a desktop flop
Compatibility

But the single biggest disadvantage Linux has on the desktop is in applications, says Patrick Gray, president of business strategy consultancy Prevoyance Group.

"Traditionally, Linux has been a bit more difficult to install, use, and manage, but much of that has been assuaged with variants like Ubuntu," he says. "But despite narrowing the usability gap, Linux still lacks many commercial-grade applications."

demonfurbie

Its becoming less of an issue now with most applications being webbaised, I think the real issue the interface being diff than windows

ptilsen

Good article. I do think Linux has a shot on desktops, but only because of session virtualization technologies. Throw an RDSH or XenApp farm together and let your Linux users access those. The rest, run natively or via web browser. That's a big part of why we see thin clients run Linux.

The problem, as the article said, is that Linux is simply not free, especially in the corporate environment. It's not even cheap, and it's more costly to support. These are things that can change, but not overnight, and probably not in the next few years.

rsutton

Linux would work for most users, however they would have to learn new ways to do the same things. That's fine for the younger, hipper generation, but management does not approve.

Forsaken_GA

If the trend hadn't been towards mobile, I think it'd have been embraced a bit more. The problem now is that alot of companies don't issue desktops. They issue laptops. The mobility question offsets VDI quite a bit... for example, if someone wants to work while in flight or on the train or somewhere they don't have internet access, they're not going to want to rely on apps pushed via VDI.

For stationary workstations that do most of their work through web based apps, linux is perfect.

However, I believe the largest hangup is simply institutional inertia. The enterprise has been deploying Windows as the primary user OS for over 20 years. I honestly think OS X has a better chance to displace Windows in the enterprise than Linux.

Asif Dasl

Yeah with Windows being deployed for the last 20 years there is a real lack of linux skills, so if you've got those, it's mostly work on the server side of things. Desktops/Laptops running Office have been the norm - but the support cost is not just the OS itself, it's everythings else that adds up. I will definitely be trying to up my linux skills after my summer study break though.

Daniel333

Recently we converted our internal dev from Ubuntu to Mac because of Unity complaints (coupled with the fact the NIC was having issues on our new models under Ubuntu 10.04). Personally I think it was an excuse to be trendy and free MacBooks but what ever.

I kept a notebook on consulting trips I did I am going to have to dig it up. But from memory...

1) Software support is still a major issue in areas I have worked. Demand for the latest version of Office in businesses is overwhelming. You would be shocked how many companies will order 40-50 $300 workstations, then toss in a $500 copy of office. Similar experiences with Adobe software.
2) Multimonitor issues in 10.04/.10 of Ubuntu we major issues in a test deployment we need with a computer XenApp customer.
3) Sleep/hibernate not working correctly on fleet of laptops a customer had who was already a Firefox/OpenOffice user (should have been an easy convert!)
4) Ubuntu was too much of a resource hog compared to Windows FL.
5) team of 12 java programmers, we couldn't get flash to work in full screen on the x64 bit version at the time.
6) No vSphere client
7) Active Directory support was crappy
A centOS shop we were working with wanted Fedora desktops. We had them running for months but switched to Vista/Mac after complaints of stability and a poor interface.
9) Brand name, "what's an Ubuntu? I can't even spell that!" Mac and Windows just sound better to users.

For me the bottom line, people buy something for 3-4 key features (office, adobe, IE, AD, Hardware specific) and branch out from there. If even one of those 3-4 items is missed then they will not be going Linux.

joehalford01

I cringe at the thought of teaching normal users how to use linux anything. Moving from XP to WIN 7 is hard enough.

Sorry, Openoffice and Libreoffice are not replacements for Microsoft Office, especially if you want to look professional sending documents to your customers. Yes, I can remember to save it as a .doc, but can my users???

Active Directory and Group Policy are powerful ways of controlling the desktop.

I love linux because its different, stable, and cool. It's just not there yet for the needs of most shops with non-sophisticated users.

Almost forgot, sometimes things just need to work. I get that with windows. With Linux I'm spending two hours sifting through knowledge-bases trying to figure out how I can get program-x to work with distribution-y. That's fine at home, but doesn't cut it when people are waiting on me so they can get their work done.

NetworkVeteran

joehalford01 wrote: »

It's just not there yet for the needs of most shops with non-sophisticated users.

It's not there for the needs of shops with sophisticated users, either. Those are moving to Apple. Expensive buggers, but incredibly reliable and easy-to-use, backwards-compatible with Windows, and you can drop to a Unix prompt anytime.

Forsaken_GA

NetworkVeteran wrote: »

It's not there for the needs of shops with sophisticated users, either. Those are moving to Apple. Expensive buggers, but incredibly reliable and easy-to-use, backwards-compatible with Windows, and you can drop to a Unix prompt anytime.

Yup. I would love to have a mac simply because I'm most effective with a unix prompt. Work handed me a laptop running XP. First thing I did was install VirtualBox and Debian in order to get that. So Linux has a place for me as a sophisticated user in the enterprise, but only because they won't give me OS X

tpatt100

Linux is great for everything BUT the desktop. Servers it is fine for enterprise depending on what you need it for. Linux shines for network and home appliances where developers can do what they want, change it and the users and support mostly just have to deal with a gui front end for most issues.

N2IT

+1 @ Joe

Users are having trouble with the change from XP to Win 7, can you image the transition to Linux. No way.

the_Grinch

I'm inclined to agree with those who pointed out virtualization of applications. Once more companies start doing that, I think you'll find more of them converting to linux. With Citrix you're talking about a simple to install plugin and they have access to all their apps. On top of now not having to worry about virus they might pick up. But yeah, even Ubuntu has a learning curve and things tend to break when you move version to version. I often wonder why companies don't deploy SuSE more. Very good at going from one version to the next without breaking and has a decent interface.

Forsaken_GA

tpatt100 wrote: »

Linux is great for everything BUT the desktop. Servers it is fine for enterprise depending on what you need it for. Linux shines for network and home appliances where developers can do what they want, change it and the users and support mostly just have to deal with a gui front end for most issues.

Depends entirely on the work you do. I much prefer a linux desktop over a windows one. Which is why my current windows work box is basically just a hypervisor for my debian VM, where I do all my real work.

it_consultant

the_Grinch wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree with those who pointed out virtualization of applications. Once more companies start doing that, I think you'll find more of them converting to linux. With Citrix you're talking about a simple to install plugin and they have access to all their apps. On top of now not having to worry about virus they might pick up. But yeah, even Ubuntu has a learning curve and things tend to break when you move version to version. I often wonder why companies don't deploy SuSE more. Very good at going from one version to the next without breaking and has a decent interface.

So, SuSE is more Windows-like? I am not making fun, really, because I really like SuSE. It just seems funny that there is finally a linux distro that would give you the same general capability that Windows has been doing for years.

What is the benefit of the Linux desktop? I can only think of 1 thing, security and virus resistance.

tpatt100

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Depends entirely on the work you do. I much prefer a linux desktop over a windows one. Which is why my current windows work box is basically just a hypervisor for my debian VM, where I do all my real work.

True, I guess I was thinking more "mainstream" uses where Linux works for people who sell devices who just want to click on some menu and have the device do stuff like TiVo or home routers, media centers, etc.

shred805

linux all the way, But I dont agree with how they are changing the desktop window manager constantly , they are trying to make it easier for people to switch over but i think they are making it harder because they keep changing things. There are pros and cons to both, it all depends on what your doing like Forsaken said. The only reason I would find myself on windows is playing a video game, other than that i find windows useless and a mess. or supporting someones laptop at work, but thats just me

ally_uk

I'm going to be blunt, Linux is a pain in the ass I dislike Unity I think it's awful I prefer the look and feel of Gnome 2.0. Why is Linux a desktop flop?
It's because people are used to Windows because that has been there way of getting sh**t done for years, Change for people can be scary your average user doesn't care about package managers, They don't care about command lines, they don't give a rats ass about Bash scripts or editing Xorg, They just want a machine they can fire up and put it to work and want the familiarity of what they are used to. They want there Microsoft Office, There Adobe packages, They are not geeks, or Open Source professors they wouldn't know anything about emulating windows programs via Wine or any of that complicated stuff and to be quite honest I don't think they would care.

They want the GUI to have some kind of familairty that's the problem with Ubuntu just as users were getting used to the feel and behaviour of the layout what do they do? they go and mix it all up by adding in Unity which alienates new adopters of Ubuntu, Annoys the geeks who like the Look and feel of Gnome 2, So a new user who was getting comfortable finding there way around Ubuntu from previous versions has to start all over again and adopt to this new Unity way of working.

Why isn't Linux more standardised What I mean by this in terms of the desktop version? why don't creators of various distros collaborate together and make it a joint effort to improve the Linux Desktop Experience, hold a group meeting work out what works, what puts people off Linux. Instead of releasing hundreds of different distros which different packages etc, Create One and actually make it the best desktop experience you can, strip out all the complicated crap all the administration stuff users do not need hell lock the GUI down to only show a few icons such as " work, internet" " shutdown " print " Email and have Microsoft office already emulated and setup out of the box.

Each release of Ubuntu is becoming more bloated aswell get rid of that Unity rubbish take it back to basics keep it simple that's what I reckon

onesaint

I think the only flavor of *nix that has any shot is OS X. It's polished works well and is easy. Exactly what the iPhone is and the rest were not. So easy a 5 year old can do it. Fortunately for M$, Apple won't separate it's hardware from the OS and thus minimal threat.

Unix was made for computer scientists, by computer scientists. Even it's descendents are just way beyond a standard user's ability. All the while it's the holy grail for an admin. What amuses me is Linux Desktop GUIs try to be Windows like, while Windows server Tries to be more Linux like.

demonfurbie

ally_uk wrote: »

I'm going to be blunt, Linux is a pain in the ass I dislike Unity I think it's awful I prefer the look and feel of Gnome 2.0. Why is Linux a desktop flop?
It's because people are used to Windows because that has been there way of getting sh**t done for years

just wait till windows 8 and there much loved gui is totally changed

i hate unity as well why i use mint

paul78

demonfurbie wrote: »

just wait till windows 8 and there much loved gui is totally changed

Yeah - I remember thinking the same thing when Windows 2.0 came out with an overlapping window interface -

ally_uk

Dont get me started on Metro my first reaction when I saw that in the developer preview was

" How the hell do I turn this crap off "

Why they have included it with Server 8 I don't know I thought servers were supposed to be streamline, less bloat, and configured the hardcore way through the CLI?

Qord

I've read the article a few times now and have been keeping an eye on the thread and responses. I really do like Linux in general, and I love tinckering with different flavors. I have to say that I disagree with Linux being a desktop "flop". If it was truly a flop, distrowatch wouldn't exist. Linux is just another OS, it just has a lot of variety. However, it's not for everybody. It's more for hobby enthusiasts than anyone else, even though distros like Ubuntu, Mint, and Mandrake are trying to change that. BUT...all of that is kinda out of context in the the thread here. Like others here, I didn't like Unity so I moved away from it. But only after I figured out how to make it work for me. That's possibly the best part of Linux: If you don't like something, you can change it.

NetworkingStudent wrote: »

I'm not trying to start a war, but looking for an opinion..does anyone think Linux is a flop in the corporate environment? Specifically, the desktop user environment?

I would say no, simply because it never had a chance. In the early days of M$, Bill Gates spent a ridiculous amount of time schmoozing the right folks, CEO's, CFO's, other high-level execs. It didn't matter if Apple or Unix presented a better product back then because the people who made the money decisions fell victim to Gates' marketing. Once he had the heads hooked, there was nothing any IT tech could do to make it different.

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I honestly think OS X has a better chance to displace Windows in the enterprise than Linux.

Can you imagine what would happen to the market if Apple "changed" the hardware end and opened up bulk licensing agreements similar to what M$ has now? I'm almost positive that if we could image old Dell boxes with OS X via multicast we'd have minimal Windows machines left afterwards.


I don't see any Linux distro (in their current forms) being highly adopted in enterprise environments any time soon, even with the trend of web based applications and virtualization. There's just too much lacking, from a truly comparable office suite, AD organization, and GPO control....it's just not easy enough yet to make these happen. The problem is that M$ is too easy to handle now, so easy that anything else becomes dificult in comparison.

Forsaken_GA

Qord wrote: »

It's more for hobby enthusiasts than anyone else, even though distros like Ubuntu, Mint, and Mandrake are trying to change that.

I'm going to assume you mean this in the context of a desktop OS, as there are many, many companies that have built their product and rely on Linux and other free Unix variants as a core part of their business. The enterprise doesn't deploy an operating system because a few hobbyists like it .

As for a desktop OS, there are a great number of operations people that would sincerely disagree with you. Some of those hobbyists do real work for really good money using a unixy desktop

Can you imagine what would happen to the market if Apple "changed" the hardware end and opened up bulk licensing agreements similar to what M$ has now? I'm almost positive that if we could image old Dell boxes with OS X via multicast we'd have minimal Windows machines left afterwards.

I think it would be an incredibly stupid mistake on Apple's part. They've tried it before, and it almost killed the company. Killing off the licenses to the clone makers was one of the first things Steve Jobs did when he came back.

You do understand that Microsoft doesn't really make any money on their operating systems in the consumer market, right? Where they make their money is from the software they sell you to run on that operating system, Office in particular.

You have to understand. Apple is not a software company. They are not a hardware company. They are a *computer* company. They don't sell individual bits and pieces, they sell an experience, and they do it on their terms.

Whether you think that's a good idea or not, if you're being sane and honest, you cannot discount the effectiveness of the approach. The company's valuation on Wall Street is proof enough of that.

tpatt100

Apple is a "brand" also, the computer is the "Apple experience". Microsoft Windows is an OS, most people don't care what it is running on, its a computer. For Apple to set themselves apart they have to sell the whole package, it doesn't benefit them to just become an OS that is not part of the hardware.

DevilWAH

Qord wrote: »

However, it's not for everybody. It's more for hobby enthusiasts than anyone else, even though distros like Ubuntu, Mint, and Mandrake are trying to change that.

I think its the field you are in not if you are a hobbiest.

I see it as windows has the desktop market at the moment, and what ever people say for 90% of companies the benefits of moving to linux as a desk top are outweighed by the issues it will cause, new skills required to manage and retraining all there users. Just becasue some thing is better does not mean it is best.

Carrying two spare wheels is better than one, but for the average person does the extra weight and space taken up in the boot/trunk make it worth it?

How ever if your doing the Dakar rally you might want to carry three or 4.

With Linux it is not going to replace (in most cases) windows systems that are all ready in production, if it increases in usage it will come from new institution's, where the cost and skills are not already in place so the total cost is lower.

tpatt100

I think for the majority of users, thin clients with icons will satisfy the needs of most consumers and people in the workplace. So Linux clients could work, the problem is the backend and corporations/businesses being able to find enough of a reason to justify changing things up. Usually it is just easier to find ways to save money in other ways and keep Windows than it is to replace the foundation.

joehalford01

tpatt100 wrote: »

I think for the majority of users, thin clients with icons will satisfy the needs of most consumers and people in the workplace. So Linux clients could work, the problem is the backend and corporations/businesses being able to find enough of a reason to justify changing things up. Usually it is just easier to find ways to save money in other ways and keep Windows than it is to replace the foundation.

This too. Before our upgrade to Win7 I researched moving to thin clients. By the time you factor in the cost of the back end, retraining users, thin clients themselves, it was cheaper to just order entry level workstations with Win7 professional and office included. With the proper image, it took five minutes for most people to self adjust and the only real issue I've run into are a handful still using programs designed for WinXP and full admin rights.

Forsaken_GA

DevilWAH wrote: »

With Linux it is not going to replace (in most cases) windows systems that are all ready in production, if it increases in usage it will come from new institution's, where the cost and skills are not already in place so the total cost is lower.

There are somethings that Windows solutions are better for overall, Exchange being the big one. There's no really good comparable solution in the unix realm. For the most part, companies run a hybrid mix. Both sides have gone a long way to address interoperability issues, to the point where an enterprise that runs only one OS platform across the board is a rarity, most environments will be a mix, though they might skew more heavily towards one side or the other.

DevilWAH

For thin clients you already have a fair number of solutions, "Wize terminals", Google crome OS, and a fair few others, that all though many built on Linux as as embeded systems, these in my view are very different to a Linux desktop.

And what I see mostly in people going to thin clients, they run a back end on Citrix/VMware and guess what OS they deliver to the user... Windows..


In the many solutions I have seen large companies use when it comes to thin clients, only one has done away with the users desktop complete and provided a complete solution via web based apps. However the users love it, and the admin guys like it to, no more desktop support, no more roaming profiles to manage. A user simple has an account that allows them to authenticate, and a very simple logon script that contains there file storage locations so they can get access to shared drives.

A box breaks down and they take a new one out, plug it in and take the broken one away to be fixed, so minimal down time for users. Even if you spill your coffee over your client box while your in the middle of some thing, simply log on to the one on the next desk and your session and work are waiting for you.

The 10 help desk engineers gets reduced to 2 and the savings you plow back in to server engineers to manage the back end.


The trouble is if you go this way you can't do it half heartily or you end up with a horrendous system. As while it centralises the management it also centralises the issues. So where as before you might have 500 desktops of which 50 had issues. that meant 450 people where issue free. but going thin clients any issue can affect every single user, so rather than having 450 happy and 50 pissed of users, you now have 500 slightly annoyed users

However despite these issues I think the thin client will kill of the OS as we know it in terms of Desktops. I see Linux or a deritive as the driver behind the thin clients them selves, with multi vender back-end systems much as we see today.

Qord

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I'm going to assume you mean this in the context of a desktop OS, as there are many, many companies that have built their product and rely on Linux and other free Unix variants as a core part of their business.

Correct, I meant as a desktop OS. From what I've seen, any shops that run linux en masse are niche operations with a very tech savvy crew. This isn't a viable option for most organizations. And there's no mistaking that Linux is a huge part of the back end. I'd say roughly a third of our servers are Cent, and I wouldn't have any complaints if we migrated fully.

And I completely undestand the business plan behind Apple's strategy. All I'm saying is that (in my opinion) if they did transition to a more open installation base M$ would have a much smaller market share than they currently enjoy.

tpatt100 wrote: »

For Apple to set themselves apart they have to sell the whole package, it doesn't benefit them to just become an OS that is not part of the hardware.

I understand the experience, the style, the brand. But I can't help but wonder where they'd be if marketwise if they weren't hardware dependent.