Many reasons why the Linux desktop fails to be what it should be

- English Many reasons why the Linux desktop fails to be what it should be

I have been a full time Linux (Solus OS) desktop user for several years .... (10). This (Linux) has been and will always be my favorite desktop platform. It does exactly what I need and I appreciate it. The " masses " have not migrated to Linux for desktop use as everyone hopes. In this article, I will explain, in my opinion, the reasons why I think this did not happen.

1) Linux is not pre-installed - Having Windows pre-installed on your PC means that people will use it. For someone to switch to Linux, there must be a clear reason to do so. PCs offered in stores either do not have an operating system or come pre-installed with Windows. This is a huge obstacle to adopting Linux on the desktop.

2) Linux freedom vs. convenience - For some, it's a matter of familiarity or reliability. For more advanced PC users, consistent convenience can mean a preferred workflow or set of specific applications. Even when people are aware of other operating systems, they will use what is most convenient. When you use a desktop platform for a long time, you will develop habits and expectations that are not well suited to change.

3) Linux does not have legacy software - Even if we consider what Linux software alternatives suggest, we expect users to change existing " workflows ". I have found many people resistant to this. Not because one type of application is better or worse than another. After all, this is a matter of personal perspective. The real problem is that users have existing " workflows ", file types and general application expectations. Going over this does not always work.

4) Linux on the network is not for everyone - In Linux, Samba and NFS is based on conf. Connecting to the network itself is incredibly simple. Wired or wireless, modern Linux distributions connect to a network in a simple way. But it is unfortunate that even the friendliest distributions have to use the terminal to create a Samba password or edit a conf file for an NFS action. On most distributions, it is practically an impossible mission to " share " a folder on the network.

5) Linux video card support is difficult - From a basic perspective, graphics card support works very well in Linux. However, things get a little confusing when comparing Wayland (each application is a "client", and the video hardware is a "server") vs. X. Two different display protocol options mean different advantages and disadvantages when you choose one face over the other. Some distributions use Wayland as the default protocol, which means that some X-dependent applications will not work. There are laptops with NVIDIA / Intel graphics that tend to sometimes become the biggest challenges for some Linux distributions.

6) The sound of PulseAudio Linux is confusing - Linux audio is actually pretty good. However, the PulseAudio sound server lacks synchronization between the sound server and the architecture. The fact that I can adjust the volume with PulseAudio if the sound device is turned off in the alsamixer is strange. Most popular desktop environments do not take full advantage of what PulseAudio has to offer. Most desktops lack the "record" and "play" tabs in the volume control settings.

7) Linux does not have A +++ game titles - Linux games have come a long way. Thanks to Valve, GoG. Itch, etc., games on Linux have evolved a lot in recent years. I'm not sure the solution is for more game developers to port games to Linux. The solution could be a standardized unitary packaging system. Unfortunately, I will continue to see Linux users justifying the "need" for Windows games by dual-booting their operating systems. Nobody needs games for Windows, it's a choice, it's not a requirement.

8) Linux desktop environments - can understand how some people might feel overwhelmed by variety. Selecting a particular desktop-based distro can be a challenge. There are 7-8 basic distractions that are unattractive, cumbersome, unfriendly to the user and 200 easily cosmetic rejections. It can be absolutely confusing for a newcomer because most people come from the limited world of Windows or OS X. They can't choose, unless they want to use an older version of Windows or OS X.

9) Linux distributions vary in quality - the most popular Linux distributions are fantastic (Linux Mint, Solus, Fedora, etc.). Unfortunately, there are no distributions that are less fantastic. Some of them are really bad. Without labeling some and eliminating others, we can say that it is not enough to choose a distro based only on popularity. My advice is to look at distributions with strong community support or corporate support, depending on what you are looking for.

10) Linux is overshadowed by Chrome - ChromeOS is an incredibly limited operating system but it has gained in popularity due to its ease of use on laptops and integration with Google services. Unfortunately, printing and scanning remain a joke for this operating system. Despite this, the Chrome operating system is based on Gentoo Linux and will probably end up with Google support for a desktop desktop system.

11. The desktop. In 95% of linux distributions, the Linux desktop is a bit unattractive, outdated, unfriendly to the user, with only a few exceptions (eg Deepin). Windows with all its problems has always known to look good. On the principle that the packaging sells the product.

12. Software center and formats . Software centers on 90% of distributions is unattractive and difficult to understand. The terminal although a very powerful tool is "SF" for end users. File formats (rpm, epkg, deb, gold, etc.) cannot be installed universally, each package respecting the rules of the one who created it. If you install software in various formats on various distributions, the files will be installed in one distro in / var in another in / eight or / usr, not respecting any rules. If I were to create a program tomorrow, I would have to wrap it in various formats, wasting precious time. And we wondered why there are no "real" games on linux !!!

CONCLUSION: As long as there are 200 distros, with 30 packaging formats, 5-7 radically different detop environments and with at least proud programmers, who want everyone to show that although their distro is based on another distro with problems, theirs is better, doing nothing but taking a rotten cake to which you would add a sweet icing. Standardization is at least mandatory, the concept of Open Source, is misunderstood by most "distractors" and never justifies the current chaos in the Linux world.

So new distributions appear every day based on existing distributions, contributing to the fragmentation of an already fragmented environment. Because of this there is no standard, you cannot create applications that can be installed easily and quickly on ANY distribution. Nothing new, nothing special, just another distribution based on another distribution that is based on another distribution . If Linux were a "real" alternative, "tomorrow" people would stop using Windows.

For now, Linux means only "Server", a little "IoT" and a bit "Mobile" (through Andoid but not for long it seems); "Desktop" has to wait.