I think one of the main reasons that Linux has not gained big market shares in deskotp markets is that the majority of common software is still written for Windows platform only. Although you could argue that Linux has several (sometimes even better) alternatives, the main fact remains that PC users stick to whatever is most simple to use, i.e. whatever is most common and most accessible. Until some years ago, Windows represented those ideals, and recently Apple has arised as an alternative. Windows remains, however, a primary choice in many office spaces and this no doubt influences the persective of many (potential) home users.

Recently Apple has been gaining popularity on Desktop and Mobile platform, and I suspect that Linux will profit indirectly from these dynamics, especially on the long term (such that software will eventually become more platform independent). Linux has grown a lot during the past decades, and already presents a viable alternative to desktop users; a good example is Ubuntu. Linux desktop is not dead, but merely at the begin of its lifecycle, it is just a matter of time and conditions before it will be picked up.

This has been discussed at length some time ago: http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/10/18/1312214/desktop-linux-is-dead

In my opinion it is far from dead (I use it and I know a lot of people using it), it is just not mainstream. And in my opinion it has not much to offer for mainstream users compared to OS X or Windows. It is more for people who know what they are doing with computers, which is a small fraction of all users.

Advertisement.

There's a nice article by Miguel de Icaza on "What Killed the Linux Desktop". An excerpt from that piece

"But we missed the big picture. We alienated every third party developer in the process. The ecosystem that has sprung to life with Apple's OSX AppStore is just impossible to achieve with Linux today."

http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2012/Aug-29.html

I think it is dead because Linux still too tied to command line and common users know almost nothing about. Also people want to stay with what they know better and what tbey are used to i.e. PC and MS Windows.

Linux on the desktop is not dead. It continues to gain adherents, who are then , at some point, alienated by some of the silly things that the desktop community does.

The proof is that both Windows and MAX OS (really a UNIX) are both very popular.

A few rules for those that want to rule the desktop

1. The average user doesn't care what's underneath - they want to do a specific set of jobs and not worry about the rest. So when Debian manages to alientate the Firefox community such that they need to have "iceweasel" (which many secure web sites don't recognize) they have just stopped the user from doing important , simple things - like checking their bank ballance.

2. Much as I hate Windows - they don't keep you from doing things - they may hide the registry such that you need a certain level of knowledge to get to it - but it's still there. Not so with Gnome.

3. You should never run as root - I've been developing and using UNIX and Linux for over 25 years and I often run as root - it's very helpful when developing new drivers or debugging. Typeing sudo before every command of import is painful and just turns people off - stop it. One of the top level menu commands on the original Mac was "reformat your harddrive" - people just had to learn that that was a really bad idea most of the time.

Enough rant for the moment.

....JW

I think no, it is still alive and there are many companies already invest on that, such as, Ubuntu, Mandirva,...etc

But, i Think the problem in the marketing for those products and the resources available to teach the under-grades on Linux operating system.

Mohamed Sami, What do you think ?

I think it is far from dead. There was a discussion here formerly on Linux/ubuntu where arguments were developed quite extensively. I only have to say that, although selfishly, I appreciate it is not used by many because it does not attract the attention of virus manufacturers :-)

Hi,

i am using Linux for over 10 years now, and i don't think it is dead, but other OS are developing into a specific direction, while Linux is very fragmented, especially in point of a graphical user interface. While Microsoft and Apple is developing one user interface and they can put all there energy in it, there are two or three main user interfaces and hundreds of modified or small other interfaces on Linux which are all developing in there special direction. So that the user has to decide which interface fits to his needs, and this is for many of the common users a problem, which did not exist, in this depth, in the Windows or MacOS world.

I think Linux could have a better position by the most users if the UIs where not so fragmented. I am using KDE, but i have many problems with it, i also have used Gnome, but there i also have many problem but others.

Sorry for my bad English :-)

Long live Linux, far from dead. Rather, I'd say, Linux desktop is like a teenager, quick and agile, tries new things, but makes some mistakes, recovers and lives on towards maturity.

I am using all three of the suspects in my everyday life: Linux, OSX and Winows. Most of it Ubuntu for the performance and the freedom of choices it offers. I use OSX for the ease of use, for a price. Windows, because sometimes I have to, to be compatible with other entities and events that are tied to this platform because of the heavily funded marketing, policies, and other reasons that big companies use to keep and increase the market share.

There is little marketing for Linux desktops, perhaps, due to the lack of funding and necessity. Also, the variety is there with all the possible distributions, the beauty of evolution through diversity.

I think the Linux desktop is not obsolete at all!

Just we must be aware that we live in a world driven by capitalism, and this implies that what the market sells is not always the best possible solution.

Do you remember for example the '80 "Betamax vs VHS" war?

Regarding Linux on desktops, specifically, I think that the best explanation on why it has not (yet) take-off has been given quite recently by its author Linus Torvalds, during his well famous talk at the Aalto Center for Entrepreneurship (ACE) in Otaniemi on June 14, 2012. Here is the significant portion of this talk:

http://youtu.be/MShbP3OpASA?t=23m45s

Conclusions: technology is moving fast, be prepared for a new "desktop" experience. And Linux, this time, could be one of the big players ;-)

Windows is dominant on the desktop because of Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour. It is impossible to go into a store in our town and buy a PC without Windows on it. When people have a choice, like smartphones or tablets, they don't buy Windows.

Stores recommend Windows because it makes them money. Techs recommend Windows because it generates them continuing business. If I have to take care of somebody's computer for free (friend or relative), I steer them toward Linux because they (and I) will have less trouble with it. Mint Cinnamon is just fine if they don't need wobbly windows. Bodhi runs fast on an old machine; Puppy will run on an antique.

I taught an intro Unix/C programming class this summer for non-CS undergrads. Several of them installed Ubuntu on their PCs at the start of the summer and were pretty excited about it by the end of the class.

I do tell students that I don't think even Ubuntu is quite "ready for prime-time", meaning that a user must be motivated to get it to work; it's not always a simple matter of inserting a CD or flash drive and clicking "OK".

However, students seemed to appreciate the abundance of free software and the ease of installing it, even if software dependencies sometimes rear their ugly heads. Hence my other frequent comment to students is, "it can be just as frustrating as Windows, but the price is right."

Just to clarify my question... I asked "why Linux on desktop is dead" (I really don't know how "dead" changed to "obsolete"). Anyway I reformulate the question according to my real intention: Why Linux on Desktop is not yet widespread? Will it be in a future? I have been using and teaching UNIX/Linux since 1990. So I am a Linux supporter. But the question is not "is Linux better than ... (or the best of ...)?". Thank you for your replies ... I found several interesting considerations in them. Bye

linux din't made sucess because it had no a user guide, hard to personalize, install programs with one click hust as yo do in android and IOS. simple, it is not like windows and never intend to be.

What?

I use Linux as the main OS for 6 years and went through several distributions, and saw how Linux has evolved.

Today I use Fedora 17, with Cinnamon, and I can say with conviction that I would not trade for any other OS.

In recent years Linux has been modified and transformed into a completely friendly to new users, and for those with more practice and more interest has been changing at will.

A wide variety of distributions, graphical environments and software, transform the distribution chosen in the User tool that he needs or wants.

I suggest that those who find the Linux obsolete start to use it, suggestions:

Ubuntu 12.04

Linux Mint, last version

Fedora 17 - Gnome 3 or KDE 4

...

Now, with your question reformulated I'd like to say:

We are trying to do this.

I'm a Linux supporter too, and already convince some friends of mine to use Ubuntu and Fedora, with a good feedback.

I believe that if the major development companies (software and games) begin to develop software for Linux in addition to Windows and Mac, we would have a lot more users. And companies that develop hardware manufacturers (equipment and supplies) give more attention and support to Linux we could expand more.

A user that just want to use a few applications as-is, will probably be better off using Windows or something similar.

However, if one wants to do more than the application writer intended for a naive user, than there's nothing like the power of working in a *nix shell, and being able to do very powerful stuff on the command line.

I was using Linux since 2000 and it is great for me

To me this answer is quite simple: Linux sometimes can be tricky for people who doesn't know much about computers. And most people don't. It seems to me that lots of answers in this thread discussion are considering basically scope of who works and is quite familiar with technology. In this case, there is no doubt that Linux can be an excelent choice. But when it comes to regular users, Linux is not as intuitive as other widespread OS can be. Actually, for most part of these users the rule is "the simpler the better", not because they are lazy or similar but because they will use computer for ordinary tasks that doesn't worth the effort to chose which Linux to use when you can just use what is easy to get support when you need.

We have a great community in our country and I have the answer that you need: because the community has many phases and the global community like any other community is in a phase, currently the characteristics of promotion and lack of a sizeable population, ranks the world community in a fourth phase: diffusion.

3%revolutionaries+scientists ->experts-> more of 10% influencers-> broadcast-> political pressure-> stability + autonomy-> business-> services

We still need to improve the implementation of the requirements of the last phase: it needs to improve the direction of our global influencers. And the problem is that we're still moving the direction of influencers while spreading (this stage). Hence the problem of our global community of being confused in this stage.

Linux currently leads many markets ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVpbFMhOAwE ), but it is a great need for the community to focus on leading manufacturers to open environments. To see linux on desktops, as a global community we need to improve the management of influencers about it.

We use science for build the community in our university and country (http://softwarelibre.ucr.ac.cr/)

I hope to answer your query efficiently ;)

You can follow http://linuxeros-faq.blogspot.com

I would argue with the word "dead" in your question. "Dead" implies it was once alive, and isn't now. Linux has never really been popular on the desktop. As for why that is the case, I think the answer is inertia. Most people get a computer with an OS already on it, and very few people are willing to take the leap of installing another one, even if it painlessly installs itself alongside the existing one. In short, Windows isn't bad enough to motivate people to install Linux. If computers didn't come with an OS and people had to install their own, I expect Linux would wipe out Windows in short order.

I am a developer since last 9 years .. and I used Linux quite often; sometime as a development platform and sometimes I developed components for Linux.

To me major things that are not allowing to grow it as a popular desktop OS:

1. Several distributions are available; so new user is not sure which one is real Linux

2. Unlike Windows and MacOS, there are no adverstisement or commercials on air. So most of the computer literate people think that Linux is still about black console and typing commands and running some scripts. People are not really aware that gone are the days when Linux used to be like that and now its really super user friendly.

3. Availability of quality softwares. Though there are many free software available on Linux but still they are not real match to other softwares which are available on Win and Mac

4. MacOS is bound to Apple and its expensive; Windows is also need to be purchased; its not free. When these two popular OS are not free then why Linux is free. Are there any quality issues with OS !! These are the kind of questions that occupy mind of user.

5. Ubuntu started getting popularity and looks more promising and actually gained more popularity among developers when Google used it as development platform for their Android Mobile OS.But still its more popular among developers not among normal "human" users, again because of above mentioned points.

Who think Linux *based* desktops are dead should just try KDE4 on a decent distribution. I've been working with KDE and Debian for 10 years now and it has really improved my productivity. Mainly because: it is simple and highly configurable, makes all applications *match* each other, no virus, no malware, has great security and stability.

The package managers give access to thousands of productive valuable open-source applications installable in 1 click and designed for work.

While of course, like anyone, I have strong personal opinions on the subject (which I'll spare you), I'm not aware of any serious research data on this question. Might well make for a good PhD topic in a discipline that covers market research.

Who might fund such work?

@Markus: Canonical Ltd has already invested a lot of money in the development of Ubuntu, they may be interested in marketing research.

There are now a number of large-scale administrative IT deployments that have switched from MS-Windows to an opensource-based PC desktop. One prominent example is the LiMux project, which converted the IT infrastructure of the municipal administration of Munich to open-source software (mainly Ubuntu Linux, OpenOffice):

V Grassmuck: Free Software for Munich

http://ddi.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~grassmuck/Texts/Limux.pdf

There are similar projects in various other countries.

So there are now a lot of (i.e., statistically significant) non-technical users to interview, questionnaires to design, people who are equally familiar with Windows and Linux to give example tasks to and monitor how fast and how effectively they solve them, etc.

I'm not in any way an expert on how to do marketing and usability research, but it is not difficult to imagine what research could be done to get solid data on this question. Government departments or large companies contemplating (or having undertaken) such a switch might also be willing to fund related research.

I think the points brought out by Tribhuwan are really interesting. For me the are among or maybe the main reasons why Linux is still not so popular. The fragmentation problem is serious in Linux. So many version are out at the same making it difficult to maintain and for common users, it makes it hard to choose. And people may not take it seriously when it comes to important jobs.

@Guillaume, Few or no virus on Linux does not mean Linux has the best security of the market, viruses for Linux may only have lower impact and may generate no or lower income for the maker.

@Guy, you make a common mistake thinking this is only a statistical related result.. There are many technical and organizational reasons why the Unix architecture and the open source scheme provide best security than proprietary ones - mainly because the bugs and security holes are readable and can be patched by various scaling international communities thanks to open bug trackers. Moreover, it is well known that anti-virus industries NEED the viruses to exist and prefer to target closed systems that nobody can hack. Yes iSheeps and M$ users are good targets..

I think it's a matter of exposure. Most of the people that I know who are not computer science - related don't even know what Linux is. If they knew the name it would be some distant piece of software that they would never ever use (bandwagon effect of using Mac and Windows).

The point that @Guy made about there being many distributions adds to that problem. It's never going to be a preferred desktop OS. It's free (no money made = not enough support for every user beside maybe Ubuntu), it's highly customizable (Seems like a bad thing for the average user when it's too much) and you don't get the well known programs to run on it (unless you use wine which has its own problems).

I am a student and i started using Ubuntu about 4 to 5 years back.. i personally feel linux os is very convenient and safe.. but ya i faced a prob in my last year which made me move back to windows as i was unable to work on my .net project, thus i think still work needs to be done with respect to wine application as there are still many windows applications which do not work under linux

I remember the time Linus Trovalds published his kernel. At that time I was a network administrator in Shahid Chamran University, with a bunch of certificates from Microsoft... MCSE, MCSD, etc. When I found this kernel as a working one, and since we had a famous software bundle GNU (but unfortunately without a functioning kernel then) one -- like me -- said to himself: "that's the end of waiting" and started to work on GNU/Linux...

Who says Linux Desktop is not widespread?

If you mean why not everyone to use that perfect Desktop Operating system!? It's like saying "why all people don't use a simple Nokia 1100 phone!" and "stop letting them to buy that expensive Apple iPhone"... We cannot do that! They have their own reasonless freedom! So they don't all come to Linux... Even that Ubuntu with his nice Ubuntu Software Center which is an analogous to Apple's AppStore...

I love Ubuntu... It's a Debian GNU/Linux... but still easy-to-use as Microsoft Windows and Cute as Mac OS X... It has an special software distribution based on an active user responce system which changes an app to more resonable/responsive equivalent version to version which makes it one of the best Linux Distros ever.

Unity is it's unique Desktop Environment... Although it look and feels more Gnome than KDE... Unity is just another desktop environment over GTK+ which made some administrative limits to make some users happier... those users who had unlimited freedom... an so they prefer Windows and OSX to Linux... Ubuntu made that limitation for costomizability to make those users a fan of Ubuntu!

Please have a look at Unity 4.0... That was a joke I said... unity shell maybe look like MacOSX shell but inside there is a tresure for programmers and developers...

Please look what it have, for "rich content media" developers in version 4.0...

http://unity3d.com/unity/4/?unity4

Wierd huh!? People are always wierd!?

please check it at http://www.ubuntu.com/ and you may also want to read a sample article about it http://blog.canonical.com/2012/09/18/humble-indie-bundle-6-brings-six-new-games-to-the-ubuntu-software-center/

@Vikram Verma: Using the open-source Mono project (http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page) you can run and develop .NET programs under Linux.

My 5 c.

- First of all Linux is very good for developers (who can dig in if needed), but not for the average user.

- The Linux versions change too fast, way too fast. Most people don't need that. Even in the Windows world, XP is for most users still more than adequate and they keep using it.

- Linux is much too much fragmented. That's what killed Unix as well.

- Last bit not least, the average business user needs Office and Outlook. The Linux alternatives (e.g. OpenOffice) are years behind in terms of useability. Nit to speak of the problem of exchanging files with other people. That issue killed WordPerfect as well, even if it was deemed to be superior to MS-Word.

- Stability is king in such matters.

I second all Eric Verhulst's opinions: I will not consider Linux as long as OpenOffice does not do what I want to do (Believe me I tried). I just want to add that the newest release of Thunderbird is a serious competitor for Outlook.

Eric;

I don't want to pick nits, but

1. Unix is far from dead. Ask the major internet providers

2. true, linux versions change quickly, but if you are concerned then get something like Red Hat - they cater to business uses and don't release often.

3. I only use Open Office and don't have any trouble sharing files with others (hint:save as)

....JW

Since linux is open source and some purely business profit oriented people donot like linux so they not providing support to this community.

Since it is not so convenient and easy as the windows operating system for the beginner, the beginner has many difficulties on learning how to operate the operating system, for example, to install and remove software, to learn the text operations. For a layman, his work is to use the computer without spending much time on learning the operating system, including remember many commands.

"...it is not so convenient and easy as the windows operating system..." Surely you jest!

I agree with Tedo, the problem is the habit. But notice that the use of firefox may change the situation.

To quote Jamie Zawinski: Linux is only free if your time has no value.

(In an interview in June 1998; he later claimed that "Bits and pieces of this article have been quoted out of context in lots of places")

That was true last century.

Most of computer users are not from computer science background. They want a system that should be user-friendly, easy to install a software, plug-and-play facility, etc. Windows OS is having a user-friendly graphical user interface, with easy to install software and plug-and-play facility. Doing so is still difficult in Linux OS,

There might be multiple reasons among which one should be the abundance of third-party software providers. That in fact quite few of the software providers targets Linux OSes due to commercial reasons make the Linux desktop unpopular since an OS alone without rich applications would be not really useful for ordinary users. The commercial reasons are probably including that the free products offered for Linux stuff are mostly not promising as moneymakers.

Though it is true that most of the computer users are not from the computer sciences background, which makes it difficult to interact with Linux. But at present we have Ubuntu a very good flavout of linux which has a very good GUI, and if users are educated about the different flavours of LINUX like debian, fedora, Ubuntu, they will surely like these Linux based OSes.

The need of the hour is to educate people about the benefits of using an Open Source OS and educate them about the usage to begin with. Once people start using an Open Source OS they will surely like it because of its features.

Based on my little experience and understanding LINUX based Open Source OSes have lot more to offer when compared to windows but we need to educate the User.

Don't forget that there is also a lot of commercial pressure from Microsoft over the hardware manufacturers for PC to prevent them from developing Linux drivers.

I also think that one of the problem of Linux is the multiplicity of the actors (like the number of different distributions). There is no one Linux, there are several Linux. This does not help to have a clear vision of what Linux is. If you look at Android, that could be considered as a Linux descendant, there are of course multiple actors that use the OS, but there is only one (Google) that controls its development. This provides an easy way for users to identify what is Android, and "who is" behind Android.

In the Linux world, there is not only one user interface (Desktop) as in Windows, but several ones. This does not contribute to see the Linux desktop interface as something standard.

On the other hand, the multiple actors involved in the Linux development also give to Linux its unique diversity!

In my opinion, the reason lies in that linux and the desktop is totally free.

Clients are using desktop for convenience, for helping their work, if with business processors or for recreation if with more about audio or vedio, desktop developers are not paying enough attention to these issues,partly because there are no enough incentive for them to consider all customer experience as much as possible.

Although there are several excellent software but they are separate and not well-known enough. On Windows you can have program suites already meet your needs, while on linux you have to know and install them yourself because there is no such series of program. Customers are lazy enough to type and search them.On the other side the pre-installed programms are not as exquiste as those in Windows.

I use Linux to code while use windows to do couples of other things like watching movies or chatting with friends. As one friend said, Linux is used for working not playing while Windows does.

I would cite these reasons as the main ones:

1 - Quality of end user experience (in general)

2 - GUI consistency / robustness (openness, flexibility and diversity not equal to quality, robustness and high performance)

3 - Development ecosystem (openness, flexibility and diversity not equal to quality and robustness)

4 - Poor work on attracting (commercial) developers and companies to develop specifically for the desktop. (High quality complex software is time consuming and expensive to develop and support. Linux platform still is not famous for widespread ample user base enought to attract business, and - now I am supposing - development of high quality, consistent, robust and high performance GUI Apps seems _very_ hard to achieve in the Linux platform).

As any OS, Linux - and BSDs - have many highly positive examples and cases for each of the points above, as well as many examples for criticism. But I fear the positive examples are fewer in a average end user point of view.

Even I spent years using - and administering - open source software in both server and desktop, today - in the desktop - I simply cannot afford the time to make work or fix simple things that were supposed to just work. At least when compared to other alternatives that are not free and open, but in an affordable price range, the alternatives seem to perform better in general QoE.

I would not under estimate the force and love of applications. Contrary to a few comments pointing at problems in past or developer distributions, one can load, patch, update and maintain a Linux desktop environment and the common office applications with the same overhead as a similar MS distributions, today. But that environment has not made many inroads into the schools or the home. When kids grow up using Linux and it's common apps you will see adoption in the office.

For instance, see the discussions of MS Office vs. profession quality typesetting tools for dissertation and journal publications. Office will always win an audience because they've seen it over and over since they were children - it's easy and familiar, even if it is not appropriate.

Why a typical computer user, used to Windows, who buys a computer with a copy of Windows installed ready to use, should download, burn (supposing that he's able) and install a operative system and stop using the software he's used to? I love open source and the Linux ecosystem. Most computer users just hate learning effort, their lack of skills, system failures or almost every kind of obstacles they find using their computers. Switch to Linux? Why? I think that at this moment there's nothing wrong with Linux, but Microsoft software is omnipresent, it's the standard. Apple has also his great group of followers, but MacOS users and Windows users are not the same ones, they get used to this respective operative systems in most cases because of need, they haven't evaluated and choose between operative systems. They just use what they know.

The main reason what i think that in the case of windows, every major vendor supplies it in one form or the other with thier products. On the contrary, only a handful of vendors supply linux and that too on limited products. Also in windows there are at many times well defined softwares to perform the job while in the linux you have to search for the packages which can be sometimes quite annoying

I am not sure that we have the right numbers. And what does % of a market means? Is it number of computer running Linux vs number of all other computers? Or % of cost of the OS that is used on these computers? To illustrate that let us say we have two computers: one running Linux, another one running paid OS (ie Win or OSX). If we look at number of machines running Linux it would be 50%. If we look at the market % it would be 0% because 100% money we paid went to that second machine that runs paid OS. In the server market, I believe there is way more Linux/BSD machines than any others, but the money-wise it could be 20% (RedHat, Suse,...). Similar thing is happening in desktop market. Apple and Microsoft do count how many licences they sold. Who counts Linux desktops? Again, I think when someone says 1.5 % of desktop market is Linux they may be referring to amount of money paid for those OS licences (Suse, RedHat maybe?). I am not sure if we have any mechanism in place that is actually counting or properly estimating the number of desktops running Linux. Just my two cents on the topic :)

Good question to make to Gartner and others that perform this kind of reports.

Lots of people have to (or are forced to) use word, or other office softwares. Ubuntu is already very good at GUI and many other fronts. If it can support better word, it will become much more popular.

Ubuntu comes with free LibreOffice. I prefer it to MS Office for various reasons.

A desktop operating system should have user-friendly graphical interface. Ubuntu, Windows and many other operating systems provide user-friendly GUI so that users can conveniently work on it. The Linux OS lacks the user-friendly GUI. Its mostly deployed at the server end.

Its mainly because the LINUX is not promoted by the university and college staff during their teaching. If special training sessions can be arranged for the teachers that LINUX can get a spring board jump becoz undoubtedly LINUX is the best once you start working

I would not agree with the statement that Linux does not have user-friendly GUI. Unity, KDE, Gnome, LXDE... they look pretty good and can be customized very nicely. I suggest people take a look at new Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Fedora, Magea, and others... Plenty to chose. Some of the desktop setups are very comparable with Mac or Windows.

I think the count of Linux vs. other systems may be better than you suspect, much of your system information (unless you take steps to shroud it) are accessible to the sites your visit.

See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems#Desktop_and_laptop_computers - particularly the "Web Clients" section

or

http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-daily-20130101-20130131-bar

as a primary source

On the desktop, I think we're looking at an application and utility driven market. If Linux doesn't offer a palpable advantage in those areas, people won't buy, and clearly the price point of Windows is low enough most people aren't sold on price.

One of the main reasons IMO is the fact that it is really hard to find a vendor who gives you a choice about which OS you want pre-installed in your computer. People don't want to install OSs, they want to use their computers. Look at Apple, they ship OS X in their computers and it is gaining a lot of popularity.

On the other hand, universities don't "use" *nix, they just teach how to admin a system so you can find a job a sysadmin and most of the time, they do a very poor job at it because the teachers don't actually know the system. For example, in my school, it is widely know that MS gives some "schoolarship" (they give them money) to most of the teachers of the Basic Computation Department so they teach and force students to use MS tools for development.

Finally, 5 years ago, the Desktop Environments were not ready for popular consumption, we have managed to get better interaction between components since the Free Desktop initiative pushed some useful standards like DBUS, XDG and now systemd is standarizing a lot of stuff between distros (this will make it easier for newcomers to understand stuff as well as it is breaking a lot of the usual functionality but that is another discussion).

In conclusion, I think the problem is basically vendors shipping Windows and not giving a choice.

You are looking in the wrong direction. It is there already. You see all those Google office and apps, sitting there in your web browser? What do you think the software is running under, eh? Your PC is just a fancy front end. When you get down to it, Google Office apps run on Linux. It's moved into the tablet world too, as desktops become more of a specialist thing. Lots of sexy Android tablets and smartphones around. Linux again. That's what's so awesome about being Open, flexible and Free.

I think you unerestimate the commercial investment made in the maintenance of the Linux kernel by large international corporations. Also, I am guessing you have not used the multi-archetecture support for Linux much? It minimises solving the same problem over and over. Oh, and if you think suddenly and arbitrarily changing the user interface is the sole domain of Linux applications, go look at whatever the latest Microsoft lock-in interface is this week. Furthermore, Linux's legacy device support is overwhelmingly superior to anything else.

Advertisement! Just look how companies like Apple and Microsoft Invest money on Ads, Also having good applications can be a reason for example the best graphic designing tool is Adobe Creative Suite which released just for Mac and Windows, another example is Microsoft Office which most ICDL written tutorials and books based on. I know that we have similar programs in Linux but they're not as good as they should.

I agree with Jorge Villaseñor.

Users take whatever operating system is pre-installed in their hardware.

It's easy to understand that most non-professional users prefer to start using their new computer using an already installed OS rather than reinstalling a new one, even if superior.

Most of the time users don't even notice which operating systems they are on: few Android users know they are using a Linux kernel, as Apple users ignore they are on a spin-off of a Mach kernel.

Some real difference is made by applications. But even then, if applications are similar enough, users are indifferent. In an experiment made some years ago in computer classrooms at University of Padova, we switched the default application used to open ".doc" files from MS Office to OpenOffice. Most of the users didn't even notice the switch, and got along really well.

This said, I made several migrations from Windows to Ubuntu with complete user satisfaction. Albeit being quite rigid, Ubuntu makes a very usable desktop for traditional Windows users.

Some Reasons Adversely Effect use of Linux on the desktop environment

nvironment

1) Designing

We endure the endless clicks and screen changes because, so far, no one has figured an alternative that works on small screens. However, that doesn't mean, as GNOME and Unity developers seem to assume, that we want mobile desktops on our workstations. The result is needlessly complicated, and for mouse-users it's an express lane to repetitive stress injury.

2) Change for Its Own Sake

Nothing's wrong with enhancements or innovations. A couple of weeks ago, I was excited to see the spinner that the new Plasma Tablet Interface uses for selecting activities -- it was a fresh and elegant solution to a problem with which KDE has grappled for several years. The same goes for the collapsible icons on the Unity launcher that are provided as an alternative to scroll bars.

3) Imposed Work Flows

When I'm dealing with a minimalist interface, I expect a limited choice of how to work -- I'm not going to complain, for example, about not having icons on a tiled desktop.However, the strength of the big mainstream desktops in the past has always been that you could work any way you liked. You could use desktop launchers, but if you preferred launching from the menu, you could. You could use virtual workspaces, but you could also ignore them. You could fill panels with applets or widgets, or not.

4) Hiding Features without Providing Guideposts

No one, so far as I know, has extensively studied the needs of new Linux desktop users. Yet the myth of the new user, timid and easily overwhelmed by choice, has become a fixture in design. That usually means hiding advanced options or even workaday features like a virtual terminal beneath several layers of interface.To an extent, this tendency makes sense. The users who want advanced features and options are precisely those who are likely to explore, confident in the expectation that what they are looking for exists somewhere.

5) A Lingering Inferiority Complex

For years, the Linux desktop tried to match Windows and OS X. Somewhere in the last half decade, it more or less succeeded. That milestone, even as unnoticed as it was, should have freed designers to do what they want, and to aspire to be the innovators. And, to a certain extent, it did in KDE. Yet when desktop designers started rethinking the menu a few years ago, their first reaction was to mimic what was happening in Windows.

6) Solving Non-Existent Problems

Does anyone remember users complaining bitterly about the clutter in the GNOME 2 release series? That they couldn't focus on their work because of icons on the desktop and panel applets? Because I don't.

7) Eye Candy as a Major Design Goal

A basic principal of typography -- a craft next door to interface design -- is that the best layouts are the ones that don't call attention to themselves. Instead, the best layouts enhance the text and make it easier to read. By contrast, on the free desktop today, looking good has becom...

8)Full access vs. no access

Having access to the source code is probably the single most significant difference between Linux and Windows. The fact that Linux belongs to the GNU Public License ensures that users (of all sorts) can access (and alter) the code to the very kernel that serves as the foundation of the Linux operating system. You want to peer at the Windows code? Good luck. Unless you are a member of a very select (and elite, to many) group, you will never lay eyes on code making up the Windows operating system.

9) Licensing freedom vs. licensing restrictions

Along with access comes the difference between the licenses. I’m sure that every IT professional could go on and on about licensing of PC software. But let’s just look at the key aspect of the licenses (without getting into legalese). With a Linux GPL-licensed operating system, you are free to modify that software and use and even republish or sell it (so long as you make the code available). Also, with the GPL, you can download a single copy of a Linux distribution (or application) and install it on as many machines as you like. With the Microsoft license, you can do none of the above. You are bound to the number of licenses you purchase, so if you purchase 10 licenses, you can legally install that operating system (or application) on only 10 machines.

10) Online peer support vs. paid help-desk support

This is one issue where most companies turn their backs on Linux. But it’s really not necessary. With Linux, you have the support of a huge community via forums, online search, and plenty of dedicated Web sites. And of course, if you feel the need, you can purchase support contracts from some of the bigger Linux companies (Red Hat and Novell for instance).

11) Full vs. partial hardware support

One issue that is slowly becoming nonexistent is hardware support. Years ago, if you wanted to install Linux on a machine you had to make sure you hand-picked each piece of hardware or your installation would not work 100 percent. I can remember, back in 1997-ish, trying to figure out why I couldn’t get Caldera Linux or Red Hat Linux to see my modem. After much looking around, I found I was the proud owner of a Winmodem. So I had to go out and purchase a US Robotics external modem because that was the one modem I knew would work. This is not so much the case now. You can grab a PC (or laptop) and most likely get one or more Linux distributions to install and work nearly 100 percent. But there are still some exceptions. For instance, hibernate/suspend remains a problem with many laptops, although it has come a long way.

12) Command line vs. no command line

No matter how far the Linux operating system has come and how amazing the desktop environment becomes, the command line will always be an invaluable tool for administration purposes. Nothing will ever replace my favorite text-based editor, ssh, and any given command-line tool. I can’t imagine administering a Linux machine without the command line. But for the end user — not so much. You could use a Linux machine for years and never touch the command line. Same with Windows. You can still use the command line with Windows, but not nearly to the extent as with Linux. And Microsoft tends to obfuscate the command prompt from users. Without going to Run and entering cmd (or command, or whichever it is these days), the user won’t even know the command-line tool exists. And if a user does get the Windows command line up and running, how useful is it really?

13) : Centralized vs. noncentralized application installation

The heading for this point might have thrown you for a loop. But let’s think about this for a second. With Linux you have (with nearly every distribution) a centralized location where you can search for, add, or remove software. I’m talking about package management systems, such as Synaptic. With Synaptic, you can open up one tool, search for an application (or group of applications), and install that application without having to do any Web searching (or purchasing).

Windows has nothing like this. With Windows, you must know where to find the software you want to install, download the software (or put the CD into your machine), and run setup.exe or install.exe with a simple double-click. For many years, it was thought that installing applications on Windows was far easier than on Linux. And for many years, that thought was right on target. Not so much now. Installation under Linux is simple, painless, and centralized.

14 )Flexibility vs. rigidity

I always compare Linux (especially the desktop) and Windows to a room where the floor and ceiling are either movable or not. With Linux, you have a room where the floor and ceiling can be raised or lowered, at will, as high or low as you want to make them. With Windows, that floor and ceiling are immovable. You can’t go further than Microsoft has deemed it necessary to go.

15) Fanboys vs. corporate types

I wanted to add this because even though Linux has reached well beyond its school-project roots, Linux users tend to be soapbox-dwelling fanatics who are quick to spout off about why you should be choosing Linux over Windows. I am guilty of this on a daily basis (I try hard to recruit new fanboys/girls), and it’s a badge I wear proudly. Of course, this is seen as less than professional by some. After all, why would something worthy of a corporate environment have or need cheerleaders? Shouldn’t the software sell itself? Because of the open source nature of Linux, it has to make do without the help of the marketing budgets and deep pockets of Microsoft. With that comes the need for fans to help spread the word. And word of mouth is the best friend of Linux.

16) : Automated vs. nonautomated removable media

I remember the days of old when you had to mount your floppy to use it and unmount it to remove it. Well, those times are drawing to a close — but not completely. One issue that plagues new Linux users is how removable media is used. The idea of having to manually “mount” a CD drive to access the contents of a CD is completely foreign to new users. There is a reason this is the way it is. Because Linux has always been a multiuser platform, it was thought that forcing a user to mount a media to use it would keep the user’s files from being overwritten by another user. Think about it: On a multiuser system, if everyone had instant access to a disk that had been inserted, what would stop them from deleting or overwriting a file you had just added to the media? Things have now evolved to the point where Linux subsystems are set up so that you can use a removable device in the same way you use them in Windows. But it’s not the norm. And besides, who doesn’t want to manually edit the /etc/fstab fle?

17): Multilayered run levels vs. a single-layered run level

I couldn’t figure out how best to title this point, so I went with a description. What I’m talking about is Linux’ inherent ability to stop at different run levels. With this, you can work from either the command line (run level 3) or the GUI (run level 5). This can really save your socks when X Windows is fubared and you need to figure out the problem. You can do this by booting into run level 3, logging in as root, and finding/fixing the problem.

I have to use Linux daily for work, but I use Windows when I have a choice. There was a brief period (a few days) when I first installed Ubuntu 12.04 that I actually though that I could switch to it as my main OS at home. But these are the reasons I didn't:

1. MS Visual Studio

There simply is nothing that is a good substitute. KDevelop is my favorite, but it has quite a ways to go.

2. Constant flux

I thought Windows had many updates, but Ubuntu is insane. There are so many updates that I lose any desire to go through them and I just install all. Which makes something go wrong. Maybe it's the new kernel being incompatible with the video drivers. Maybe it's some system settings being wiped somewhere. But in the end I have to spend a day googling solutions. I don't remember ever having a Windows update that messed up my OS like that, which is why I habitually apply them there.

3. Build-it-yourself culture. I don't want to have to figure out how to build some new piece of software every time I want the latest release. And, no, I don't want to use the 3-year old version that's included in the distro.

4. MS Office

Starting at version 2007 MS Office has left the FOSS office packages far behind. And the killer app - OneNote.

5. CLI

It is impossible to work in Linux without using the prompt, since the GUI is a relatively thin shell. And to use the prompt you need to know all your tools already, while in a GUI it is easy to explore what is available. There seems to be a meme going around that the CLI makes you somehow more productive. This reminds me of the scenes in movies and TV shows where the "computer tech" is looking at an image and then proceeds to punch a bunch of keys after which the image magically clears up. So typing a lot is prerequisite to accomplishing big tasks. Hmm, what if I just click on this button with my mouse instead?

6. Half-baked features / stupid decision

For example: the brightness resets to the same value every time I reboot. I can have an entry in a configuration file somewhere that specifies this value, but for some reason that entry will not be updated when I change my brightness at runtime. An older example is the lack of support of so-called "fake RAID" controllers, which actually resulted in data loss for me.

And most importantly - my wife would not be happy if she found herself at the Linux desktop one morning - for many of the reasons above.

I'm a Linux user for a several years. More precisely, I use Ubuntu and Mint flavours and I'm enthusiastic about them, although I'm more a desktop user than a hardcore Linux user, but I enjoy the console and the make-yourself philosophy. However I must agree with Lubomir Antonov and Hemprasad Badgujar. Linux is a system made for Linuxers for Linuxers nad it seems nobody relly care about the basic, desktop user. Do we really want the spread of Linux in the home PC's? Then, the things must go in other direction, trying to make them easy, trying to thing in the needs of average PC users, not only in the Linux lovers.

I thing Linux is close to this goal, but some change of mind is needed now to completely achieve it, and some keys to do so are in the comments I just mentioned.

Desktop users mimic their friends. "Can I use this application on Linux? No? Then, I'll continue with Windows.". Choosing an alternative means accepting some risk. People don't like risk.

Well, IMHO the reason for the weak desktop presence of Linux is the fact that it is practically not possible to develop commercial software for it. Most users have their preferences to some software products running under Windows and cannot find the same tools or similar ones on the Linux platform.

Of course, for very popular software products like MS Office, there are substitions like open office. But for other tools you don't have a replacement, because a software company does not want to waste money to port its products to a platform with the result that these ports will only run on one specific Linux derivate and possibly won't run on different versions of the same derivate.

This is my experience I made with Linux several years ago.

Surely, there are efforts to solve these problems, but as long as these problems are not completely solved, it will not be practical to develop commercial products for Linux. Additionally, this problem makes it difficult for those who develop libraries in form of project work. Typically, the contractors want to have Windows DLLs or Windows-specific sources, since they use Windows, because a software system or DLL will run on upcomming versions, too.

Another problem is the inherent objective with Linux: to develop free software. Most Linux freaks / users want to use this OS, because they do not want to spend money for software. In fact a lot of them reject to spend even a cent for something. But no money-spending users means no market means totally uninteresting for software companies (in particular if they have to disclosure their source codes).

I actually thought most if not all platforms was based on one form or another of Linux, furthermore Linux is everywhere and has been for years. I think google platforms were initially open source, like for their app's I have myy own system set up so I can run Linux or Windows, and I can switch between the two without having to power everything down. Of course the other problem with Linux is that people generally don't it and so are scared to death of it. It is sad because rather then have a good solid system that does not cost hundreds of pounds they would rather have an all singing dancing system with a windows or apple logo on it.

in response to Christian Veenhuis:

I think you totally miss the point here when you say Linux users want to use this OS, because they do not want to spend money for software. This is a general property in human nature, and has nothing to do with gnu/linux.

I think gnu/linux users in general use the platform because :

-they don't want to be bullied around by a big vendor.

-they trust the software because they can view (or let review) the source code if they wish to.

-it's a great development platform

-they seek freedom of choice of how a computer and its desktop software should be used

-etc.

I have been following this thread for quite some time, but all opinions I see seem to be based on likes/dontlikes.

But what about a fact analysis? Linux was never thought to be a desktop OS (if with that you mean fancy UI). It was not its main purpose. Its main purpose is to provide a solid, reliable, free UNIX system, to run flawlessly SQL and Apache servers, and for that you don't need any desktop GUI apart from the old CLI.

If Linux were thought as a desktop OS, it would provide gorgeous desktop API's, as well as Windows does, MacOS does, iOS does and Android does.

The fact that Gnome, KDE, Xfce, etc. still behave as wrappers, that they do provide their own, different API's, is the clearest evidence that Linux was never thought as a desktop OS in the first place. No one would develop Gnome or KDE for Windows or Mac and why? Because solid, consistent GUI API's already exist for those systems, they are actually embedded IN the system.

Want a desktop Linux? Then you need a step forward from Linus to develop a brand new GUI or to embed an existing one into some layer.

But this may automatically disrupt any Gnome or KDE development (or not, depending on which route, either new dev or embedding, is chosen). And that may be not what everybody wants.

All the rest sounds like useless fuss, to me.

@Marino Maiorino

I think you are getting to the heart of the problem with a Linux desktop. Even though the X windows system was available from quite early in the development, and is quite capable of supporting a great GUI. But where's the motivation? It is more than the fact that third party developers are not encouraged; developers are actively *discouraged* - unless they are willing to step into the full open source culture. So they more on. Until you get to a capability driven environment, like corporate servers, where the consumer is not ideologically committed to open source, can developers make money.

Linux grew from a person and a small group committed to understanding and creating a technology. Unfortunately that didn't include GUI design, usability and graphics.

@ James:

I still believe that it is a pity that GUI design is underestimated to this extent. I believe that technology geeks could also invest their interest in this subject and we could see big names shake their knees, and you know why?

Because simplicity pays off big time! And when you don't have big bucks, then you invent simple things to do what others do with very sophisticated tools. I could mention thousands of examples, all turning down to a simple evolution rule: those who survive are the ones who adapt to the environment.

Anyhow, I may be completely mistaken, but I also believe that a Gnome version rooting in Android experience would be an impressive performer. And the looks of Gnome3/Unity are not that far from that.

Just give time to time: pads and tablets are spreading everywhere, Android has a certain influence there, and it is Linux-based. Soon people will want Android-like features on their PC's, and then the games will be over.

@ Jos Kloe:

Well, you're right: to save resources is a general property of the human nature. But this fact does not make my statement wrong.

Actually, this even was not my main argument.

My argument was that Linux will not be as widespread as Windows, because

it is not suitable for commercial use, since it is not possible to develop a software that will run for sure on all upcomming versions of a given Linux derivate (or even on several derivates). If one develops Windows apps or DLLs, one can be sure that they will run on future versions, too (without the need of recompiling something)! This is a very important point if one wants to develop and distribute software products.

BTW: That the Linux users "trust the software because they can view (or let review) the source code" may be, although I'm in doubt that many users did this.

(All think that all tools will be save, because all say that there will be some users who view the code. But how often you or someone you know did this?)

To avoid misunderstandings: I use Linux too with great pleasure.

But I would not use it for professional software development unless a client wants platform-independent or Linux-specific sources.

I think a couple very important points have been missed here and they have nothing to do with Linux and everything to do with Bill Gates. Linux did not even exist until the 90's Prior to that time we essentially had MS DOS, DR DOS and the early versions of Windows which were just a glorified DOS Shell. Going further back in history IBM was looking for and OS platform for its personal computer line CP/M was not a choice, they were interested in DR DOS however Gary Kildall turned them away...insert Bill Gates and the newly formed Microsoft. IBM and MS signed a contract but all PC's huilt had to include MSDOS.... Back then there were many other DOS's out there but MS quickly rose to the top through marketing contracts. Now move the clock forward a few years just to Windows 3.1. The GUI interface is desired in the general market because so many novice computer users failed to understand CLI. OEM vendors now wanted to build PC's and sell them with an OS they sign contracts with Microsoft again with exclusives that lock them into putting Windows on all PC's they sell in order to get special pricing from MS. This same method carriers through with all later version of Windows. At the same time that OEM's are building Windows PC's Microsoft's marketing team is going to public schools and various business cutting deals to put Windows on their computers offering it out as a loss leader. Just the same as Coke and Pepsi use kids to get product followings Microsoft does the same thing. Research shows if you get brand recognition at an early age you will generally keep that customer for life.

So now we have a tow prong attack to get Windows on top of the market OEM builders and Schools. But wait it gets better when we see Windows NT hit the market. NT is a splinter from IBM's OS/2. It initially was a to be a partnership development between Microsoft and IBM but during development Microsoft split from IBM and went on to develop NT. IBM continued development of OS/2 as both a server and desktop platform. For those that have never heard of this is it was to be stable multitasking multi-threaded OS. I trained in OS/2 and it was a great platform, highly stable and it could run Windows programs better than Windows. However IBM lost that market to Microsoft because of bad marketing. IBM was still stuck on the were "Big Blue" paradigm and figured the word would just see and accept the quality product. Obviously it backfired, why? Microsoft took NT to market again as a loss leader to get a foothold in the market. Again they pushed it to schools and again they did a lot of good marketing to position a substandard product as a market leader.

Now we introduce Linux to the market, originally it wa a simple college project of Linus Torvolds but when he submitted it to a Unix users group it took off. However it took off in the techie world and has matured well. It is a truly excellent system today thanks to the millions of developers which have helped move it forward. Although Linux is a technologically superior product and I love open source because I often modify software for my needs, it does not have a central marketing team pushing the product. This is a help and hinderance at the same time. Hinderance because it slows the acceptance in the desktop market its a help because it is open source and everyone can help develop and improve it. It also has been shown that bug fixes are much faster with Linux than with Windows in general. I have been a DOS user to Windows to OS/2 to Linux having used all platforms and put them through some difficult paces Linux is on top for me. Its all I use now Except for my Chromebook and Android tablet - which both are sourced from Linux.

Tom Mckellips,

Nice historical perspective - thanks! To add a little, if I recall correctly, UNIX was a stripped down version of Burrough's Multics mainframe OS (with multitasking support removed) reduced to fit on tiny tabletop computers in (I think) the 1970s, by AT&T or Bell Lab researchers.

As you point out, OS/2 was initially intended to be the follow-on to MS-DOS - until MS bailed around halfway through the development. MS then leveraged the its preload agreements originally granted by IBM to maintain its choke-hold of the effectively non-existent PC OS marketplace. Having run OS/2 for many years to spite Bill Gates (for many years it had a superior object oriented desktop interface and was far more robust than Windows), I was pleased to find two excellent historical perspectives from last year:

http://techland.time.com/2012/04/02/25-years-of-ibms-os2-the-birth-death-and-afterlife-of-a-legendary-operating-system/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/27/the_os_wars_os2_25years_old/

Also - It's Alive!

http://www.ecomstation.com/product_info.phtml

http://www.ecomstation.com/news.phtml?action=fullnews&id=3698

One mistake I think IBM made with OS/2 is that it never, even at the end, made the OS/2 source code publicly available.

Those interested in Linux and other OS market development would do well to study the history of OS/2. At least phones and tablets have not been locked up by MS contracts...

P.S. - Regarding the original question: "Why is Linux on the desktop not yet widespread?" - I think I recall the very same question (maybe it was UNIX) being asked 20 years ago!

Wow - were you guys (Tom and James) in grade school when all this was happening? Since we're supposed to be scientists of sorts let's see if we can get our data straight

1. Multics didn't exist when Unix was created - it was a giant project which was notably behind schedule .

2. Unix was always multi-tasking.

3. The file system , basic structure , memory management of Unix has been copied, but if you see it there - that's where it first happened - by essentially two people Ken Thompson and Dennis Richie.

4. OS 2.2 was released by microsoft - it was typically, for Microsoft, a buggy kludge - people started wearing tee shirts that said "OS 2 Just say no" and IBM decided this was not what they wanted for a customer experience - so they took over development and release OS 2 V3 - which was a very nice multitasking OS.

5. IBM saw that the market for OS 2 was hopelessly fowled and made OS 2 an internal product only sold to those that bought IBM hardware for things like supermarket back rooms etc. It was / is seen as a value add.

John Marland,

Sorry, but you're not only insulting but misinformed. Some of my recollections were faulty (Multics was developed by General Electric, then Honeywell, not Burroughs, etc.), but see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics#Influence_on_other_projects

UNIX

"The design and features of Multics greatly influenced the Unix operating system, which was originally written by two ex-programmers from the older project, Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie. Superficial influence of Multics on Unix is evident in many areas, including the naming of commands (such as "ls" to "list segments" or files). But the internal design philosophy was quite different, focusing on keeping the system small and simple, and so correcting some deficiencies of Multics because of its high resource demands on the limited computer hardware of the time.

"The name Unix (originally Unics) is itself a pun on Multics..."

I bought OS/2 1.1, I think it was, through Warp 4 directly from IBM - to my knowledge MS never sold a single copy of OS/2... Perhaps the two articles I'd previously referenced provide additional information, if you read them...

At least do a cursory check of the literature if you're going to assail other's personal recollections!

I don't know who you bought your copy of OS2 from but I was working for IBM at the time and still have an OS2 Just say no tee shirt in some back closet. I don't have to check the literature - I was there.

John Marland,

When you say you were there, were you a member of IBM's OS/2 development group? Lot's of people were working for IBM at the time who didn't have any idea about OS/2... BTW, you may know what you know, but if you intend to explain to others some supporting evidence would be helpful. I find that you're right, MS did sell OS/2 for a while (through its OEMs) - but I (and many if not most) bought OS/2 from IBM.

See http://www.os2museum.com/wp/?page_id=313

"OS/2 1.0"

"... IBM and Microsoft had a strict division of labor in marketing OS/2, very similar to their arrangement in selling DOS. IBM was offering OS/2 directly to its customers and only provided support for IBM systems. IBM OS/2 was quite capable of non-IBM systems, as long as they were sufficiently compatible with the IBM PC/AT. That included peripherals—IBM offered no support for non-IBM graphics adapters or storage controllers.

"Microsoft was not selling OS/2 directly to end users (not until much later) and instead worked with OEMs such as Compaq, Zenith, Tandy, Epson, AST, and others. It was the OEMs’ responsibility to adapt OS/2 for any custom hardware (in other words, write device drivers)."

"IBM vs. MS OS/2"

"IBM’s and Microsoft’s versions of OS/2 1.0 were very similar and nearly 100% compatible, but not identical. Some of the differences were the obvious result of the way IBM and Microsoft divided the market—for instance, Microsoft OS/2 did not include any drivers for PS/2 systems."

See http://www.os2museum.com/wp/?page_id=219

"OS/2 1.3"

"OS/2 1.3 was developed primarily by IBM. There were no major new features, in part because OS/2 2.0 was looming large on the horizon. The code was straightened out and slimmed down, reducing memory requirements and increasing performance. IBM was still selling OS/2 with PS/2 machines, preferably in large batches to corporate customers, and it was business as usual.

"In the Microsoft camp, things were rather more interesting. The long-term strategy was clearly all-Windows, but that posed serious short-term difficulties. Microsoft needed a platform for their server products, LAN Manager and SQL Server. DOS was clearly not viable for that purpose and Windows NT was a long way off (eventually released in mid-1993). In the interim, Microsoft needed OS/2 even though it was now an “enemy” product. The project known as codename Tiger was Microsoft’s version of OS/2 1.3, sold by Microsoft directly instead of through OEM channels (as the case had been with previous releases of MS OS/2 and MS-DOS."

Now, what about your UNIX assertions?

James Dwyer,

I looked back and from what I found, MS and IBM began joint development of OS2 around 1985 however by the early 90's MS went there own way and IBM continued development. I joined the OS/2 camp around 1993 and was a certified OS/2 sales and support re-seller. I do agree if IBM would have put the source out in the open such as Linux we may still see a large body of OS/2 users today.

We have moved a bit from the original topic of why Linux on the desktop is not seen more. But with our look through history we can see how MS pushed Windows out in the market and kept it in front of users. Unfortunately just because one product is superior to another does not put it on top of the market. I think back to the beta VHS war beta was superior but VHS had the marketing

. I remember reading an article a few years back which pointed out how MS Windows lowered users expectations of quality. I also remember attending a MS conference when we moved from Windows 95 to 98 and I ask the MS rep what changed, his answer was we just made some new icons and prettied it up a bit. IN my opinion the MS focus has always been on the look whereas the Linux focus has been on the structure, security, background reliability. I see commercials on tv today for Windows and MS promotes some new feature which has already been around in the Linux world for quite some time. MS has never developed anything original, it appears they have always taken someone else idea used it remember the lawsuits over defrag? ....and the trend continues..

John Marland,

When you speak Unix assertions - Did it not begin as a project in Bell labs?

Tom Mckellips,

Yes, I agree that we've strayed afield now, but I do think that much can be learned from the history of desktop OS wars. Even now, I think that if you pick up a desktop or laptop PC off the shelf, it is preloaded with Windows - I think still in accordance with MS contracts with PC manufacturers, the cost of Windows is included in the price of the computer. Given that, there's little motivation for a casual user or a corporation to pay additional license fees or invest in the labor required to reload OS and application software. While a great deal of software is now freely available, its support, either from an investment in personal or corporate resources can be significant. As you say, there's more to consider than just which software offers superior features or is more technically or aesthetically appealing.

James Dwyer,

Absolutely I agree with that. If you think back not too long ago (I think it was Dell) began to offer OS choices and Microsoft was going to cut off their special pricing for Windows, so they backed out and stayed with Windows. Microsoft's predatory marketing practices is one of the big reasons I refuse to use their products, it a matter of ethics with me and I think Gates built a very unethical company from the start.

I think, the advertisements and because of the other proprietary software, make this difficult. And no body has time to see how the linux work, everybody needs shortcut

Prasanth G. Narasimha-Shenoi,

I agree with your view of advertising. Windows has the marketing push behind by a single corporation. Linux is a consortium of programmers and users from around the world but has no singe big corporation pushing the marketing of the product. Regardless of quality of product, technological advances, stability , etc. it is the marketing that primarily drives its position in the , market place.