As Archer, I really don't care about any market share. Was Linux developed to be the desktop OS? Not really.
But it can be used as one.
It's totally your choice to run it as one.

So if anything I guess you could say Ubuntu and similar projects are "dead". Because of the so called Bug #1 which calls for bigger market share. But I don't think it's good to say Ubuntu is dead, it can still reach their goal.
I Of course I won't use it myself. But I don't know it could be possible.

So tl;dr: the whole questions is a bit silly. And the article was just to "flame" FOSS users and "freetards" alike.
It's a clever way to get a lot of publicity.

Primoz wrote:As Archer, I really don't care about any market share. Was Linux developed to be the desktop OS? Not really.
But it can be used as one.
It's totally your choice to run it as one.

I agree. That said, Linux has come a long way in the last few years. I do believe the latest distros like Kubuntu 10 and OpenSUSE 11 will be a perfect desktop OS for an average Joe.

While everything mentioned is a big detractor, that doesn't mean that Linux on the Desktop is dead. At some point, someone could come up with a way to make it work. Ubuntu was certainly more of a leap than a step in the right direction. It's moving closer every year. Of course, the desktop seems to be moving away every year too, it's a catch-up race with MS and Apple in the lead. Overall, it does seem Linux is gaining ground, just slowly.

Linux GUI for home use is definitely not dead. Distros like Ubuntu is a good example of that. Most Linux boxes work in a data-center environment and they just don't need a GUI, but it definitely doesn't mean Linux GUI is dead.

Well, actually, sometimes I would love a distribution that just works out of the box on my machines… like Windows 7 manages pretty good nowadays.
On my notebook for example, (I run kubuntu 10.10) I first need to adjust grub start parameters to enable screen brightness adjustment. Then some config file to enable my touchpad scrolling (multitouch is something you cannot even dream of yet…), after that I need to update to the latest 2.6.38 kernel because my WiFi just drops all the time with the shipped 2.6.35 kernel, for bluetooth I need to copy some firmware file, do this and that and hybrid graphics switching is just… impossible.

So, I would definitly recommend everybody using KDE since it just rocks but I would never ever let anybody set up Linux by himself. It‘s still a big pain in the…

I mean, there are tons of topic on Google about problems with particular hardware and Ubuntu is alwas on that “Linux for human being” trip, why can‘t they just add a script that runs on start up and implements KNOWN workaround for issues on certain hardware? For example this firmware thingie is just copying one file over to another, the brightness is just a Grub kernel parameter and touchpad also is just createing some file.
So, you start Kubuntu on your machine the first time and it says like “Preparing your computer for the first run” like you‘re used to from windows, then it looks whatever hardware configuration you have and apply the known appropriate patches. Can‘t be that hard, can it? There‘s enough user feedback to at least build a database.
(Maybe I should start such a project? )

To my mind, the linux desktop is not dead at all, diversity can be linux' strengh because it's a mean to choose, to keep our freedom, to put in light our opinion, linux is a great alternative to Microsoft, Apple etc... It's alive because some of us participate to his evolution (by translating, developping, debuging). I think that Linux maintainment only depends on contributors' work, and fortunately there many (many) contributors all around the world.

Linux belongs to me, it belongs to you, so it's a common thing and a common and constant work too.

To finish : recent evolution about interface and user-friendlyness should give to linux desktop more strengh compared to the other.

david.

It seems that milage varies depending on the system's hardware. On both my old system and new system, everything (except for the hybrid graphics on my new system) worked out of the box after installation completed. However, I explicitly chose hardware vendors who I knew had good support (Atheros for wifi for instance)

I haven't used Windows in about five years for anything at all, and I'm never running out of new applications, desktop environments, and live cds to try.

This is 1 of the problems though. For people who are into this type of thing it isn't a problem. But for people who just want to be able to use a computer for what they need to use it for, and otherwise have no interest in tinkering or whatever, there's just too many products, too many options, and they have to know too much to know the difference between it all.
I make my living by fixing peoples computers, setting up peoples new toys, showing people how to use software and the like.
I hear it ALL THE TIME.
For instance, as was said already about the Android OS being Linux based, few people know that and even fewer know why it matters or what it should mean to them if they buy the phone.
I've been asked many times by friends and family what the differences between the iPhone and the Android are and what's the best one to buy.
I always say the Android, but people still always buy the iPhone. I wondered why for the longest time, then it hit me that it's because when asked about this and I respond with a long winded explanation about why the android is best, it scares people away from it.
They think they have to know everything I talked about in order to use the phone properly, and they feel stupid telling me they don't know WTF I'm talking about.
My point is that the interface for smartphones and tablets is extremely simplified because it's marketed toward people who don't have an interest in tinkering or customizing anything. They want to make and answer calls, they want to take photos and upload them to facebook, get notifications from facebook on their phones, and they really like it when it says "10 minutes ago via:facebook mobile for iPhone" under their status updates. It's why Apple stopped making big ugly beige towers over a decade ago.
It's consumerism.
Linux and KDE aren't consumer based products. Linux is marketed to 3 groups: corporations, developers, technology enthusiasts.
Although KDE4 is great, let's be honest, it takes some tinkering for it to be that way. Look at the screenshot threads, those desktops look great, but they don't come that way right out of the box and if you tell your basic consumer that it'll take some hours worth of searching-downloading-tinkering to make KDE that great, the thrill is gone for them.
The reality is that Linux and any desktop environment for it is NOT a consumer solution. That's not to say that your average consumer couldn't figure out how to make use of it, but when you go out to buy a new pair of jeans you don't go to a fabric store and buy several yards of denim, pattern paper and a sewing machine do you?
IMO, the best way to kill Linux would be to force it into a position of consumer based solutions.

Another major change was Windows 4.x to Windows 5.x (Me to XP) which can also be considered a rewrite as it was a completely different OS to begin with - and that did break backward compatibility. I had games that wouldn't work even with the compatibility layer enabled.

WindowsME was a carryover of the 9X(4.x) system, not actually even Win5.x.
Win5.x started with Windows2000(WinNT5.0), combining the more advanced features of the NT line with plug-n-play support for newer devices and software of the 9x line. The reason the compatibility with legacy games was broken is because the NT kernel didn't directly access the hardware like the 9x kernel did.
In those days the NT line was more of an enterprise version marketed toward corporate networks and design studios because of the protected memory and more stringent security features. NT4 never had USB support during it's entire lifecycle.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Apple redesigned the MacOS over MS policy. I'm sure it was a major factor though. As we all know, Apple stole the GUI from Xerox and MS stole(copied) it from Apple. That started a competition of sorts that continues to this day. MS is always a little bit behind Apple on that. I don't remember offhand, but I don't think that OS9 had USB support either, like NT.
So as these newer technologies based on plug-n-play support continued to develop and really appeal to the consumer, both Apple and MS found themselves in a precarious situation with OS' that were quickly becoming obsolete. MS chose to combine its 2 product lines, Apple chose to totally redesign theirs. Apple clearly made the better choice.
Don't forget too that OSX is based on several BSD's and the mach kernel, only the interface is based on Nextstep and Rhapsody.
Up until Leopard Apple included the classic environment and a full version of OS9 along with OSX which was their rendition of MS compatibility layer.

Dead, it was never alive in the first place. The quality is too low and there is no mechanism to address this problem. I love linux, but the average person just wants to use a computer. The average person is not willing to sort out all of bugs or live with the incompatibilities that go with linux. It is a platform for people who have a strong thread of individualism and interest in computer technology. Here are a couple of high impact recent examples of quality problems that keep it from the desktop.

- Firefox 4 has to disable graphics acceleration on linux only due to shabby quality of video drivers and the x-server.
- Compositing is broken on intel graphics hardware leaving users unable to log in if using kde.

Sadly, it is not hard to add to this list.

Sorry my simple point of view, but: how many desktop computer are sold with linux pre-installed? how many laptops are sold with linux pre-installed with ALL the hardware drivers supported by the vendors? Why people should choose to remove a pre-installed OS in favor of Linux? (I'm talking about the whole people that bought a laptop or a desktop, not the skilled ones). I've a 2008 HP Laptop and still today I cannot use the intel wireless N (just G) because of not well defined firmware problems. More: have you ever seen a Sony Vaio with Nvidia graphic card under linux? This not a Linux issue, this is a vendor choice not to supply linux support. Until that day, I see very hard for my Operating System (desktop enviroment KDE4, gnome, xfce, etc.. comes later for my point of view).

CraigPaleo wrote:As you know, the KDE 3 desktop is made up of the Kdesktop shell, Kicker, and Superkaramba . These components are heavily dependent on the X11 windowing system because KDE was only released on the X11 based systems. These three desktop components of KDE 3 need to be replaced or rewritten in order to allow KDE desktop components to run natively on other systems.

Superkaramba is not an important component of KDE3. And as you know superkaramba also exists in KDE4.

So while they were at it, they chucked all the unwieldy code that had accumulated and replaced it with a much cleaner and more flexible slate.

Do you assume Plasma has clean code?

Anixx wrote:Do you assume Plasma has clean code?

Do you assume it hasn't? Let's not go on speculation-based judgments. What I know is that to reduce clutter and hacks some features are purposefully left out, such as software transparency for panels.

glaston wrote:

I haven't used Windows in about five years for anything at all, and I'm never running out of new applications, desktop environments, and live cds to try.

This is 1 of the problems though. For people who are into this type of thing it isn't a problem. But for people who just want to be able to use a computer for what they need to use it for, and otherwise have no interest in tinkering or whatever, there's just too many products, too many options, and they have to know too much to know the difference between it all.
I make my living by fixing peoples computers, setting up peoples new toys, showing people how to use software and the like.
I hear it ALL THE TIME.
For instance, as was said already about the Android OS being Linux based, few people know that and even fewer know why it matters or what it should mean to them if they buy the phone.
I've been asked many times by friends and family what the differences between the iPhone and the Android are and what's the best one to buy.
I always say the Android, but people still always buy the iPhone. I wondered why for the longest time, then it hit me that it's because when asked about this and I respond with a long winded explanation about why the android is best, it scares people away from it.
They think they have to know everything I talked about in order to use the phone properly, and they feel stupid telling me they don't know WTF I'm talking about.
My point is that the interface for smartphones and tablets is extremely simplified because it's marketed toward people who don't have an interest in tinkering or customizing anything. They want to make and answer calls, they want to take photos and upload them to facebook, get notifications from facebook on their phones, and they really like it when it says "10 minutes ago via:facebook mobile for iPhone" under their status updates. It's why Apple stopped making big ugly beige towers over a decade ago.
It's consumerism.
Linux and KDE aren't consumer based products. Linux is marketed to 3 groups: corporations, developers, technology enthusiasts.
Although KDE4 is great, let's be honest, it takes some tinkering for it to be that way. Look at the screenshot threads, those desktops look great, but they don't come that way right out of the box and if you tell your basic consumer that it'll take some hours worth of searching-downloading-tinkering to make KDE that great, the thrill is gone for them.
The reality is that Linux and any desktop environment for it is NOT a consumer solution. That's not to say that your average consumer couldn't figure out how to make use of it, but when you go out to buy a new pair of jeans you don't go to a fabric store and buy several yards of denim, pattern paper and a sewing machine do you?
IMO, the best way to kill Linux would be to force it into a position of consumer based solutions.

Brilliant observations!

I feel the same.
http://www.hboeck.de/archives/787-The-s ... sktop.html

Some people seem to see Desktop environments more as a playground for creative ideas than something other people want to use on a daily basis in a stable way. This is pretty much true for KDE 4 – the KDE team abandoned a well-working Desktop environment KDE 3.5 for something that isn't stable even today and suffers from a lot of regressions. They permanently invent new things like Akonadi and make them mandatory even for people who don't care about them – I seriously don't have an idea what it does, except throwing strange error messages at me. I switched to GNOME, but what I heard about GNOME 3 doesn't make me feel that it's much better there (I haven't tested it yet and I hope that, unlike the KDE-team, GNOME learns from that and supports 2.x until version 3 is in a state working equally well). I think Ubuntu's playing with the Unity Desktop go in the same direction: We found something cool, we'll use it, we don't care that we'll **** of a bunch of our users. In contrast to that, I have the impression that what I named above – the idea that we can integrate different desktop environments better by standards – isn't seen as important as it used to be. (I know this part may provoke flames, I hope this won't hide the other points I made)

Gerard.