This article is full of nonsense. The Linux desktop push isn't failing because it has experiences and apps that are similar to Windows and macOS. Being able to run Windows apps on Linux is a benefit, not a failure. As for religious wars over init systems, desktop environments and package managers, competition is making the options stronger, not weaker. Competition is a reason why package management on Linux is far better than equivalents on Windows and macOS.
The main reason for Linux not taking off on the desktop is because most users don't care about what OS they run, they just want a computer that works. If the PC they buy comes with Windows out of the box, they're going to stick with that. Until you get manufacturers shipping PCs with Linux as the default OS, you're mainly going to see desktop Linux as an enthusiast-only option. It's no accident that one of the devices helping to spread Linux (the Steam Deck) comes with Linux as the default option.
> As for religious wars over init systems, desktop environments and package managers, competition is making the options stronger, not weaker.
Competition can definitely improve things, but it's not universally positive. In particular, endless competition in parts of the operating system makes it hard to build anything on top of them. E.g. if you want to distribute an application for Linux, do you build a Flatpak, or a Snap? Or take a more traditionalist approach and make RPMs, DEBs, etc.? You either pick your favourite and leave out a large fraction of Linux users who disagree, or you have to do more than one of these. This is definitely a drag on the ecosystem.
I agree that most users don't care about the OS, though.
Generally most Linux distributions are literally the same thing underneath. I have recently done an LFS build (using version 12.3 of the book). The same files were in the same directories in Debian, Arch and LFS for the most part.
I even had a look at source code for makepkgs in Arch and they are literally the same commands in the script that the book has you manually type in.
The packaging critique comes up over the years but it is a bit of an overblown.
Building packages for different distributions isn't super difficult. I've build Arch Packages using the ABS, DEBS and RPMS and they are all conceptually the same. Having a quick skim of the Flatpak instructions it doesn't look that different either.
If you don't want to bother with all of that. You can just have a script that drops the installation either in /opt or ~./.local/. I am pretty sure Jetbrains Toolbox does that, but I would need to check my other machine to confirm and I don't have access currently.
If you build an application, The Right Way™ has always, and probably always will be a tarball. Leave to distributions the hassle to distribute your software.
Dunno about not caring about the OS. My mum who's not techy got persuaded to get a Macbook after Windows and is finding it a big learning curve. I remember when Walmart sold Linux machines they gave up because the buyers returned them when they found their Windows stuff didn't run. I'm a fairly normal user and certainly care if it's Mac, Windows or Linux. I wouldn't run linux as my main os as I spend a lot of time in Excel.
It's because the software they use is not available. Put aside there are alternatives. There are not alternatives for some software. I would use Linux if Autodesk made Revit and AutoCAD for Linux.
I would venture to guess that kids know the difference between Mac and Windows and probably prefers one over the other.
> Being able to run Windows apps on Linux is a benefit, not a failure.
It is a massive moral failure though. It shows that after two decades of work, the Linux community has been unable to build a simple sane functional stable development environment better than Win32.
Sane here is bearing a lot of weight. Developing on Linux is far easier than developing on Windows. I've never seen a windows project as simple as nq[0] or dwm[1].
Meh. It shows a good part of software (namely, games) is written for Windows, because the userbase is Windows, because Windows is the lion's share. And it shows people on Linux want that software to run. It's an admission, but not a moral failure.
It's 2025. The "year of the linux desktop" has been a meme for years. No one says it in earnest. No one is having init or DE wars. And while there is plenty of healthy discussion about flatpak and other alt forms of software distribution, this is exactly the kind of innovation and experimentation that leads to the usability improvements the author wants to see. Linux is doing just fine, and I'm glad there are multiple options to accomplish similar tasks.
Linux becoming better than Windows to run games is the sort of thing that should actually scare Microsoft because it can lead to non-engineers installing linux because game go fast. The people spending a grand on gpus will put up with real hassles to that end.
Why would Microsoft be scared? They still own and set the future direction for the Windows APIs that those games are designed for, meaning that they're still in the driver's seat. Proton has to play an eternal game of catch up.
The /r/Linux Reddit very much exists contrary to your take, and you’ll see many commenters here also argue about whether it is the year of Linux on the desktop.
Never underestimate the identity association in enthusiast communities.
> The problem is that these are "wins" because they bring Linux closer to Windows or macOS.
I disagree that this is an issue. The main advantage of Linux for me is that I have choice (including using various desktop environments that the author is annoyed by; I used GNOME for years and eventually had too many problems with it so I switched to KDE), and those choices are not controlled by one entity which, in the case of Apple and Microsoft, view me only as a customer to extract money from.
One of my complaints with Gnome is that I can’t hand it to a normal person and let them use it because it’s not obvious how to use it. The entry point to everything looks like a horizontal scroll bar in the top left corner and basic actions take more clicks than Windows.
The biggest battle desktop Linux is losing is the one where a minority of devs are dictating their preferred compute paradigm to a majority of users that don’t agree it’s a good solution.
I can “fix” Gnome in about 2m with extensions, but that doesn’t help when a new user loads it up for the first time and is hit with the unintuitive ideology of some nerds.
> The biggest battle desktop Linux is losing is the one where a minority of devs are dictating their preferred compute paradigm to a majority of users that don’t agree it’s a good solution.
Absolutely. A commercial product can succeed while maintaining an auteur's vision, so long as that vision largely aligns with users' needs. In contrast, open-source projects are often not viewed through a "product" lens, to their detriment.
When this happens in open source, we get clunky and idiosyncratic (though sometimes lovable) software like GNOME and GIMP. When it happens in the commercial world, we get projects like Megalopolis.
Gnome is way simpler to use than Windows. If you let grandma or a kid with no prior Desktop experience, I’m pretty sure they will find Gnome more intuitive. The problem is that it is too different for a Windows user, so the switching cost is high.
Using a computer take training. Look at a windows user switching to macOS. It's not intuitive for them either. GNOME is actually nice, even if it's less customizable than KDE.
Agree. In addition, I don’t believe that significant amounts of switching was ever going to happen without desktop Linux becoming more like its commercial counterparts. One has to remember that most computer users use computers as tools and don’t relish having to learn a whole new set of conventions.
There will always be more “Linuxy” out in the weeds desktops for people who want them. Most people who want that built their own setup anyway, making whatever the big DEs do more or less moot.
Every distro except arch is full of preinstalled crapware. Some like OpenSuse even have preinstalled crapware bundles where stuff you uninstall comes back after update
Linux desktop has already arrived for me. All the apps and utilities I need is there, all installable via apt. It's not a Linux problem anymore when the hardware manufacturers won't support it.
GNOME is nice, KDE is nice, and we have other options for people that don't like the two previous one. The issue we have now is walled garden, when some proprietary software won't support standards and even their own file format.
> While this could absolutely happen, the way that Linux as a whole has been developing over the years isn't always conducive to making the world's Windows and macOS users convert en masse.
Its the way Windows is developing that is driving this change. GNOME might be hardly usable but Microsoft managed to top that.
Edit: I retract the last sentence. I'm currently trying GNOME and its less usable than Windows.
Edit 2: I accidentally minimized Steam to tray, but Gnome has no tray. Steam continues running invisible without being represented somewhere in the UI. One of the developers of Gnome (the only DE where this happens) said this is an application bug[1]. And then continues to complain that devs only test against "stock" environments.... but Gnome is the stock environment. What an ass.
I do understand why people bash Gnome and their developers. The hate is deserved.
Stock Gnome is indeed a mess, but thankfully we're not limited to that. KDE, Xfce, and Cinnamon all offer environments that are far more intuitive to use, especially from someone coming from Windows. And there are good distros built around all of these as the primary DE. I usually recommend Mint (the default edition, i.e. Cinnamon) to people who get UX fatigue from the recent developments in Windows land and want something that "just works" and isn't made by developers who have a permanent you're-holding-it-wrong mentality.
This article is kind of old hat - it's basically been true that Linux is fine as a desktop OS for Grandma since some point circa 2010 +/- a few years. The big requirement is that Grandma just uses web browsers and other basic software from the OSS ecosystem, hardware was relatively compatible to begin with, and somebody does the OS upgrades for her every 3 years.
The real issue is that these kinds of "grandma" users maybe just don't use computers anymore. And the folks that do are joined at the hip to proprietary software like Photoshop or CAD programs or whatever else they care a lot about and don't want to relearn, and also make enough money that the costs are invisible. Or they're business computers and not using what's familiar (Windows) is a support cost.
From this perspective, gaming and specific hobbyists are basically the only feasible audiences for the Linux desktop unless people are very much pressured by software costs, or annoyed by proprietary software (DRM, lockdowns, upgrades, etc.) enough to switch their major activity to an open source option. In which case they awkward situation of "software works better on Linux, but won't try Linux until confirmed they like the not-totally-integrated-and-nice-on-windows-or-mac software running not on Linux."
I do think there ought to be more of a business case for Linux as a business OS as you should get reduced hardware and software and support costs, but there aren't actually a lot of people with the right experience and expertise to run a business off Linux as a desktop OS to begin with and so those savings can't be realized effectively.
That said, as computers get more locked down, I think there will be a bigger drive for power users who influence friends and family to switch.
Any case, my house has had year of the Linux Desktop ongoing since circa 2006.
The year of Linux on desktop is not come=ing, because the year of anything on desktop is not coming, and hasn't been for maybe a decade. Every new mass-market thing runs either in the browser, or, more rarely, specifically on mobile phones. Or maybe it's a game, so it completely eclipses whatever platform experience. If not that, it's entrenched ancient desktop software, like Excel (turning 40 in a few weeks), which is also its own world.
The "desktop" itself, the underlying OS, is irrelevant to most users who are not hardcore pros, like, well, software developers.
Readit News
The main reason for Linux not taking off on the desktop is because most users don't care about what OS they run, they just want a computer that works. If the PC they buy comes with Windows out of the box, they're going to stick with that. Until you get manufacturers shipping PCs with Linux as the default OS, you're mainly going to see desktop Linux as an enthusiast-only option. It's no accident that one of the devices helping to spread Linux (the Steam Deck) comes with Linux as the default option.
Competition can definitely improve things, but it's not universally positive. In particular, endless competition in parts of the operating system makes it hard to build anything on top of them. E.g. if you want to distribute an application for Linux, do you build a Flatpak, or a Snap? Or take a more traditionalist approach and make RPMs, DEBs, etc.? You either pick your favourite and leave out a large fraction of Linux users who disagree, or you have to do more than one of these. This is definitely a drag on the ecosystem.
I agree that most users don't care about the OS, though.
I even had a look at source code for makepkgs in Arch and they are literally the same commands in the script that the book has you manually type in.
The packaging critique comes up over the years but it is a bit of an overblown.
Building packages for different distributions isn't super difficult. I've build Arch Packages using the ABS, DEBS and RPMS and they are all conceptually the same. Having a quick skim of the Flatpak instructions it doesn't look that different either.
If you don't want to bother with all of that. You can just have a script that drops the installation either in /opt or ~./.local/. I am pretty sure Jetbrains Toolbox does that, but I would need to check my other machine to confirm and I don't have access currently.
RedHats and Canonicals paying enterprise customers are whats keeping the Linux ecosystem alive. No one else brings the required manpower to the table.
.appimage
I would venture to guess that kids know the difference between Mac and Windows and probably prefers one over the other.
It's entirely possible for a large enough brand to ship a Linux based desktop OS to mass adoption. It has already been done once with ChromeOS.
Linux will never be the name users remember, and it's not meant to be.
It is a massive moral failure though. It shows that after two decades of work, the Linux community has been unable to build a simple sane functional stable development environment better than Win32.
[0]: https://git.vuxu.org/nq/
[1]: https://git.suckless.org/dwm/files.html
Surely WSL is not a moral failure for Microsoft.
Never underestimate the identity association in enthusiast communities.
Dead Comment
I disagree that this is an issue. The main advantage of Linux for me is that I have choice (including using various desktop environments that the author is annoyed by; I used GNOME for years and eventually had too many problems with it so I switched to KDE), and those choices are not controlled by one entity which, in the case of Apple and Microsoft, view me only as a customer to extract money from.
The biggest battle desktop Linux is losing is the one where a minority of devs are dictating their preferred compute paradigm to a majority of users that don’t agree it’s a good solution.
I can “fix” Gnome in about 2m with extensions, but that doesn’t help when a new user loads it up for the first time and is hit with the unintuitive ideology of some nerds.
Absolutely. A commercial product can succeed while maintaining an auteur's vision, so long as that vision largely aligns with users' needs. In contrast, open-source projects are often not viewed through a "product" lens, to their detriment.
When this happens in open source, we get clunky and idiosyncratic (though sometimes lovable) software like GNOME and GIMP. When it happens in the commercial world, we get projects like Megalopolis.
I'm not sure that means anything. Every time I have to help my kids or wife with a Windows problem, I'm perpetually plagued by how weird it is.
The only people who find Windows easy or obvious are already Windows users. And yes, the same can be said of Linux environments.
There will always be more “Linuxy” out in the weeds desktops for people who want them. Most people who want that built their own setup anyway, making whatever the big DEs do more or less moot.
-no ads
-no tracking
-no vendor lock in
-no preinstalled or unremovable crapware
That's enough for me. Yes, it's not perfect, but you're simply allowed to say no.
Every distro except arch is full of preinstalled crapware. Some like OpenSuse even have preinstalled crapware bundles where stuff you uninstall comes back after update
Deleted Comment
GNOME is nice, KDE is nice, and we have other options for people that don't like the two previous one. The issue we have now is walled garden, when some proprietary software won't support standards and even their own file format.
Its the way Windows is developing that is driving this change. GNOME might be hardly usable but Microsoft managed to top that.
Edit: I retract the last sentence. I'm currently trying GNOME and its less usable than Windows.
I do understand why people bash Gnome and their developers. The hate is deserved.
[1] https://discourse.gnome.org/t/feature-request-show-when-apps...
This is my first Linux desktop success after several attempts over the past two decades.
I still remember my first attempt (probably late-90's) - it took me 3 hours to figure out how to get an mp3 to play.
Deleted Comment
The real issue is that these kinds of "grandma" users maybe just don't use computers anymore. And the folks that do are joined at the hip to proprietary software like Photoshop or CAD programs or whatever else they care a lot about and don't want to relearn, and also make enough money that the costs are invisible. Or they're business computers and not using what's familiar (Windows) is a support cost.
From this perspective, gaming and specific hobbyists are basically the only feasible audiences for the Linux desktop unless people are very much pressured by software costs, or annoyed by proprietary software (DRM, lockdowns, upgrades, etc.) enough to switch their major activity to an open source option. In which case they awkward situation of "software works better on Linux, but won't try Linux until confirmed they like the not-totally-integrated-and-nice-on-windows-or-mac software running not on Linux."
I do think there ought to be more of a business case for Linux as a business OS as you should get reduced hardware and software and support costs, but there aren't actually a lot of people with the right experience and expertise to run a business off Linux as a desktop OS to begin with and so those savings can't be realized effectively.
That said, as computers get more locked down, I think there will be a bigger drive for power users who influence friends and family to switch.
Any case, my house has had year of the Linux Desktop ongoing since circa 2006.
The "desktop" itself, the underlying OS, is irrelevant to most users who are not hardcore pros, like, well, software developers.