Is the Linux Desktop Really Useless?
Preston Gralla, a columnist for Computerworld, recently wrote a column titled, "Why You Shouldn't Care About Linux on the Desktop". When I read the column in the printed weekly edition of the magazine, I was a bit shocked. Gralla is an author who, according to his bio, has written more than 35 books on computers, software, the Internet and other subjects.
In his opinion piece on the Linux desktop, he mentions a recent survey that states the Linux operating now has a 1% share of the market. He then states: "Linux backers touted the 1% breakthrough and prognosticated that Linux could eventually reach 20% market share. My response: Not in this lifetime. And in any event, you simply shouldn't care about Linux on the desktop." Why shouldn't you care about an operating system that runs efficiently and doesn't need constant rebooting? To continue his claim, Gralla states, "... Linux isn't faring so well on netbooks these days. Analyst firm NPD Group found that, by the beginning of this year, only 10% of all netbooks sold had Linux on them, and that number is likely shrinking." Just because a computer is not sold with Linux doesn't prove anything at all. I purchased an Acer Aspire One netbook that came with Windows installed but erased it and installed Ubuntu Linux once I received the computer. And, it was very easy to do. However, according to the "figures", I am counted as a Microsoft Windows user because that was the operating system that was on the computer when I purchased it (I couldn't find the version of Linux I wanted at the time). And, since Linux is free, it doesn't require that I register it so how can I be counted as a Linux user? It would be different if Gralla had focused his article on just registered sales but, instead, he chose to focus on the actual operating system.
Gralla went one to state: "Desktop Linux will simply never be popular enough for most people to care about. One big reason is the difficulty of upgrading and installing software.... when you try to install new software, or upgrade existing software, you'll be in for trouble. I won't get down and dirty with the details here, but believe me, it's not pretty." I am not sure where Gralla has been in the past few years but that just isn't true at all anymore. Upgrading is much more easier than any Windows product I have used (and I began using Windows with v1.0). As for installing programs, all it takes it a click, a password, and it's done. And, it's free! Why would a man who works for a well-known computer magazine, and has authored many books on computer-related subjects, make such statement?
It's interesting that Gralla writes books about some of the very subjects that people declared the same thing he says about Linux, e.g., the Internet will never amount to anything, the personal computer will never be popular. His comments seem to imply an ignorance in regards to understanding technology.
You cannot compare "figures" of Microsoft with Linux. How is that possible? I purchased two computers that, according to "figures" I am using Windows; however, within minutes of getting the machines home, I got rid of Windows and installed Linux. How does anyone track that "figure"? I didn't register my version of Linux. The "analytics companies" think I am still using Windows.
If the Linux desktop is difficult to use, then why is it that many governments around the world have mandated the use of Linux desktops for their users, replacing all the expensive Microsoft desktops? If the switch were that hard, then the money spent for "re-training" would make the switch cost prohibited. How is it that many libraries, along with schools, are now using it? If it were that difficult to use, how could you expect someone off the street to walk in and use it? (See also: "Linux lands on government desktops in Europe"; "Federal IT managers increasingly considering Linux"; "China to install 142,000 Linux PCs in classrooms"; "Linux saves Singapore's national library 30% over Windows 2003", and "Chilean government moves to Linux in high schools")
I am very surprised at Computerworld for allowing such backward thinking. These are not the type of comments I would expect from a magazine that covers the ever-advancing tech world. I realize there is an ongoing debate between Linux and Windows users. And that's great. But this is not a debate. It is just the result of someone who is very misinformed. Gralla's comments sound more like a Microsoft evangelist than an author of computer-related books.
Posted: June 1, 2009