For the past few years, I find Ive been repeating myself every six months. A new version of Ubuntu comes out. I download it; I try it out. And in the end Im right back on my Windows 7 desktop where everything works anyway, and where I have even less incentive to trade up for anything but a Mac.
I give them credit for trying, though. Oh, how they do try. This time around, the big attraction is the Unity interface, which borrows elements from both Mac and Windows and ends up with the worst of both worlds. Outside of that well, my not-yet-three-years-old notebook still doesnt suspend and resume correctly.
Heck, it didnt even start from Ubuntus live USB drive without me passing custom boot parameters. And then there was the time I booted and the left-click button for my touchpad wasnt working, for no apparent reason. And
And the beat goes on.
Believe me, I used to think Linux on the desktop was one user interface revamp away from hitting it big time. Now I realize the problem is much more fundamental: Linux was never created to serve an end-user market, and end users are hard to serve properly. The only way Linux can be so reworked is if someone removes it from its native environment and single-handedly shapes it into something else.
Thats a move which would inspire (and has inspired) no end of outrage from open source purists and an effort some orders of magnitude larger than anyone wants to admit. Desktop Linux, it seems, may well be a contradiction in terms.
Picking your poison
For most people, personal computing comes down to two basic choices: Mac or Windows. The former is a little more expensive, but you pay for the privilege of using Apples ecosystem and end-to-end engineering. The latter is a little flakier and less consistent, but its improved drastically over the last several years and you get instant access to what pretty much everyone else is running. And again, you pay for the privilege of using what theyve engineered. By and large, you do get what you pay for.
Both of these environments have a few things in common, not the least of which being they were assembled from front to back by a single authority. Neither one is perfectly consistent, but theyre both of a high enough consistency that I can sit down at my buddys Dell PC or his Macbook and still find my way around most of the time.
Or, more important, in both environments I can write apps that only have minor internal differences and do not have to be regenerated from source to be useful. A lot of this is thanks to relatively stable APIs that allow third-party extensions to the system without needing access to its sources.
The vast majority of the time especially as far as end users are concerned thats more than enough.
Users need more than just sources
Linux started as, and continues to be, a platform where access to source code and system internals is more significant than endpoints and delivery. This isnt a bad thing by itself. Its just that it also ends up being antithetical to what an end-user system is all about.
The pieces crucial to making a cohesive desktop are scattered between too many different authorities, and the end result is an environment where attempting to create stable software for end users is a lot harder than it needs to be. Worse yet, its an environment that is hostile to proprietary software which, for all of the bile directed at it, isnt going away anytime soon.
No serious attempt to create a Linux desktop environment has addressed these issues. The few that have (Corels stab at an end-user Linux comes to mind) all quickly vanished. Every attempt since then has revolved around various attempts to perform evolutionary improvements on the look-and-feel of the system. Theres been little or no attempt to create the one thing that Linux needs most: a total ecosystem for the user thats a) consistent beyond superficial cosmetic stuff and b) not arbitrarily hidebound by the political limitations of free software.
If that sounds like a tall order to fill, it is. Dont kid yourself into thinking otherwise.
What making a real Linux desktop would require
Ive figured for a long time that the only way the Linux desktop distro creators could break out of their rut is if one of them broke rank and used Linux as source material for something that had little connection to its origins.