For years technology fans have been fighting over one of the most foolish mottos ever mentioned by the Linux community: the year of the Linux desktop.
The exact wording may vary from year to year, but the idea remains the same. We find ourselves taking sides, arguing for our own perspective as to whether we believe that Linux on the desktop is honestly ready for the masses. And when someone disagrees, we attack them as spreading FUD.
Its clearly not the most effective model for success if were interested in moving this platform forward.
So rather than continuing the usual arguments any further, I want to instead take an honest look at where today's desktop Linux distributions are from a casual user perspective.
Im not talking about the casual Linux user mind you, rather those of the typical Windows computing variety.
Getting the operating system installed
One of the biggest obstacles pointed to by non-Linux users is that the Linux desktop is too difficult for the casual user to install without help. Possibly, however most people dont install their own operating systems. Geeks do, but Joe User is frankly not among this group of DYI types.
Despite that fact above, most people who discover Linux do so by following some links to a download page, which then translates into the need to burn an ISO image to a CD. This means most people trying out Linux for the first time would be considered Windows savvy. Clearly, the argument of Linux installation being too difficult suddenly becomes a loaded statement.
The problem is less about the OS installation and more about confusion with something known as dual-booting their operating systems. Often Windows gamers will do this as they wish to explore various Linux distributions without losing their Windows installation.
Unfortunately dual-booting some Windows releases (such as Vista) is a bit of an art. This is not pointing fault at one OS versus the other. Rather the fact that you are better off either utilizing a LiveCD/Flash Drive instead for Linux use, or considering using something like Wubi which gives you an easy to remove installation of Ubuntu.
Is the issue of dual-booting a reflection of difficulty in installing popular Linux distros? Hardly. Rather, dual-booting is not near user friendly, while solo booting is.
The next statement that keeps cropping up is that Linux has awful hardware detection and support. Unfortunately for those making this claim, it really depends on your perspective. Nearly everything you hook up to a modern Linux distro will work out of the box.
Does this mean that desktop Linux has perfect hardware detection then? No, there are still devices that can provide problems for someone not wanting to try and integrate the missing driver modules into the kernel themselves. Many of these devices, however, are wireless based.
The issue of wireless compatibility is something of a touchy subject for me personally. Reason being is that none of the distros out there are willing to STOP trying to support wireless vendors that work hard to make sure that their products are incompatible with desktop Linux as a whole.
Despite vendors such as Edimax and Intel providing chipsets that actually work well with Linux, the interest of poorly supported chipsets provided by Broadcom (among others) continues to frustrate new Linux users on a daily basis. In the eyes of some developers, this line of thinking is called progress.
We see developers wanting to be fair to people who are too cheap to simply drop $20-something on a device that can be supported very well out of the box. Popular support for poorly supported chipsets is a false ideal that will continue to hold back Linux on notebooks each and every day in my honest opinion.
I use nothing but Edimax (Linux supported models) dongles and Intel integrated wireless devices. Needless to say, I do not have connectivity issues. And I left netbooks out of this point due to the fact that they also fall into the integrated wireless arena. They, too, use compatible wireless hardware.
Another hassle for new users is webcams. Even though I have yet to run into a webcam that did not work pretty darn well, I have found plenty of evidence out there that some models will not work as needed due to a compatibility issue.
As an example of how this might limit a casual user, take getting a webcam working in Skype. If the cam is known to be a V4l2 webcam, chances are that it will work well with a proprietary VoIP program such as Skype. However, if it is among the older webcam models, using older V4L1 technology, chances are good you will need to use this command to get Skype working with your cam:
bash -c 'export LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libv4l/v4l1compat.so; skype'
For someone such as myself, this is an easy add-on to my existing menu entry for Skype in my program list. To the new Linux user, they would not even know such a thing might be needed without some substantial digging.
Yet at the same time, all of the following work out of the box with zero interaction from me on my Ubuntu Linux desktop machine: both of my Logitech webcams, Wii guitar, Olympus digital voice recorder, USB Plantronics headset, three different USB external hard drives, DV video camera, 3-in-one HP printer/scanner, bluetooth dongle, external Sony DVD-burner, and Wacom tablet.
Based on my own experience, new user-friendly distributions tend to provider fantastic hardware support. Perfect? Hardly. But darn good nonetheless.