Desktop Linux is not for the Masses, Windows is
Yesterday, in the “Linux for Everyone” telegram group, I argued a point that I think needs to be made. I think this is one way my views differ from the Linux evangelism crowd and one source of discontentment for people who try Linux on the desktop for the first time. There is this idea among the Linux evangelists that everyone should try Linux and, if they’d only try Linux, they’d fall in love with it like the evangelist did.
In this argument, I was slammed as being “a 90s Linux guy”. I admit that I am that, but I don’t see how that is an insult. After all, Linus Torvalds is a 90s Linux guy as well. Perhaps the person meant I’m too jaded, that Linux needs new blood to invigorate it, etc. It’s not uncommon for zealots to attack “the establishment” because the institution has not ascended to the heights the person thinks it should.
One thing I don’t believe is that using Linux since the 1990s has given me any great expertise in using Linux. I can do what I want to do with it and, if I don’t know something, I can find the answers. I don’t automatically know the answers and I have not developed a mental mind link with Greg Kroah-Hartman. But, one thing it has given me is the ability to experience Linux’s ebbs and flows over time. I’ve seen what has been hyped, the hopes and fears of Linux users over the years, and I think it’s allowed me to develop a more realistic perspective.
It’s been fantasized that Linux is the “Windows Killer” for most of Linux’s lifespan and at least for the last 23 years. One could even argue that around the turn of the century Linux was more in parity with Windows and even offered tangible benefits to Windows, but it’s lost ground since then with Windows improving at a faster rate. It’s not the case that Linux is “finally good enough to take on Windows” now that the new Linux evangelist has found it, this company released a product for it or some other development. Linux on the desktop, when compared to the other OSs available at the same times, has been a reasonable option since the late 90s.
I’d also like to add some qualifying language here. I may not be saying “Linux on the Desktop” every time I say Linux in this article, but that’s the context we’re speaking of. Obviously Linux has taken over the server and embedded markets and excelled there. On the server, Linux became the “Windows killer”. It just never has for the desktop. I’d also note that just because I believe I’ve developed a more realistic perspective here, it doesn’t mean other perspectives are wrong. I think our discourse online would improve if we kept in mind that opinions and points of view are not the same thing as facts.
That being said, if the divide between Linux and Windows on the desktop has never been extremely great, then why has Linux never gained the market share of Windows even in the late 90s when a lot more computer users were proficient enough to install their own OS? This answer is the same reason I say that Windows is suitable for the masses and Linux isn’t:
Linux Offers Less.
Linux users may see that statement and be taken aback or immediately get defensive and try to spin that in a favorable light aka “Yeah! less telemetry!”, but I want you to stop and think about this:
When we speak about Linux and gaming, you will often hear a phrase such as “Out of the top 100 games, Linux plays 77%!”. Well, is there an OS that allows you to play 100% of the top 100 games? Yes there is. It’s Windows.
When it comes to services, they may or may not work in Linux. You certainly can’t guarantee they’ll continue working and they may not work as well as they do on other OSs. Most of them do not officially support Linux. Is there an officially supported OS that you can be guaranteed these services will continue to work on? Yes there is. It’s Windows.
If your work or school requires special software, it also may not be available in Linux. Even moving from specialized software, there are many popular commercial offerings that are simply not available on Linux. Users who collaborate with Microsoft Office, use Adobe products, etc. realize that Open Source really doesn’t provide 100% drop-in replacements for these things, so is there an OS where they’re available? Yes there is. It’s Windows.
If you buy a new piece of desktop hardware, commercial software or a game, in a vast majority of cases, it was designed with Windows in mind and will work with Windows. The exception to that is Mac, which is kept separate from the Windows offerings, and the traditionally embedded ARM which is beginning to move into the desktop — especially with Chrome OS offerings. When you evangelize to Windows people, however, you’re not asking them to give up their Windows PC and buy a Chromebook. You’re asking them to install Linux on their Windows PC or laptop — in which case, that hardware was made for Windows and Linux only supports a subset of that.
We could go on and on about use cases where Linux would not be the best choice. When you speak of “the masses” it includes those people. An operating system for the masses would check the boxes for as many use cases as possible. Windows does that, whereas Linux is always measured in how close it comes to Windows in those areas. When it comes to being a jack of all trades for the desktop, Windows is the indisputable champion.
That’s not to say the average computer user can’t have their needs met with Linux. You can serve the majority without being able to serve everyone aka “the masses”. ChromeOS has shown us that many people can have their needs met with a browser and online services. If that is the case (and I believe it is), then why would they choose to install a traditional Linux distro? The average person couldn’t care less about software licenses, can’t program so they’re no more able to read the source than koine Greek, and probably own a Google dot, Amazon Alexa, etc. so you’re not giving them back their privacy. So, if any OS with a browser would fulfill their needs, why choose desktop Linux?
As far as I see it, the masses are better served by the OS that is more likely to support their hardware, whatever software they want to run, services they want to use and the like — which is Windows. The people who are attracted to Linux: tinkering with their OS, the philosophy, etc. can of course choose Linux. But, I think pushing Linux to the masses at large is a misguided effort because it will only lead to dissatisfaction from those who are better served by Windows. One person championing Linux for every use case can easily lead to ten vocal people telling everyone they know how Linux is trash because of the things they couldn’t do with it.
