The Year of the Linux Desktop won’t happen (and why

The Year of the Linux Desktop won't happen (and why that's okay)

#Year #Linux #Desktop #wont #happen

“Learn Linux TV”

The “Year of the Linux Desktop” is the prophesy that tells of a time when Linux takes over desktops, and becomes the dominant operating system. That might sound great, but it’s not going to happen. And you know what? That’s okay! In this video, Jay (finally) gives his thoughts on the Year of the…



To see the full content, share this page by clicking one of the buttons below

Related Articles


  1. Linux do not have the software yet. Look at image edit software, video edit software. Yes it excist, but its all so simple and basic. Even mediocre software on windows is better then on Linux. The reason I also use Linux today, is for cool server-software and things like this. For desktop, I will continue on Windows until better software coming more to linux.

  2. Let me speak to you from the perspective of a programmer and an accountant who runs his own business. There is no incentive, whatsoever, to use desktop Linux in a business environment. None. Zero. It’s a dead subject. The Torvalds and Stallmans and all the other “neck beards” out there determined a long time ago that if you’re going to write for Linux, your software must be Open Source. That’s a complete “non starter” for commercial software vendors who might have written their software to Linux. This decision, alone, doomed Linux to its 2% market share forever. And why don’t more people use Linux at home? That’s easy to answer. People use at home, what they use at work, which is usually Windows.

  3. I think the "year of the Linux desktop" is almost exclusively about software development. People want big name software like Adobe products and complete compatibility with AAA games. I do think that's a missioner though. Contrary to that argument, I think a lot of the big changes in Linux happen when server side needs shift and begin to overlap consumer needs.

  4. I fully agree with what you say Jay, I have often thought it to be better to have choice which is what we have at present.I have used Windows and Mac but prefer to use Linux,my choice and good for those who want to use something else as it's their choice.

  5. Get rid of the Linux fanboys who actively want to keep it a niche market and it will do better. They’re like the kids at school that stop liking a band when they have a big hit because “they sold out”.

  6. Does it need to dominate? Nope. Windows is fine for the majority of people. What desktop Linux really needs is display link out of the box, it even works on USB3.

    Desktop means Laptop.

  7. I am a technical person and I like how Windows just works. I know how to do what I want and it makes me happy to use it. I have tried to get into various distros over the years and it's foreign to me so I end up hitting a wall on something and transition back. I really liked your point of view on the subject and you are 100% right: You know your favorite OS and it will always seem to be the easiest thing in the world to you

  8. "The year of the Linux desktop"
    Doesnt mean what you stated, but means the year when Linux becomes mainstream so that you can choose It without sacrificing professional software

  9. Your logic is extremely flawed. You claim that the reason Linux hasn't become mainstream on the desktop is because 'people just don't want to try new things'. This argument is incredibly easy to debunk and shows that, no offense intended, Linux users are incredibly out of touch with what the average computer user ACTUALLY wants and cares about. If the reason people are so afraid of trying new things then why is it that in the same amount of time that Linux has existed, people have largely switched from going to brick-and-mortar building to purchase movies, music, video games, etc. to purchasing those online right in their own homes? The digital media market continues to eclipse the physical market year-after-year with more and more people owning a digital copy of their content rather than a physical one. Year-after-year more and more people are choosing to 'cut the cord' and switch to streaming services rather than watch traditional cable. Why are these things true if people are so afraid of trying new things? People simply want ease-of-use. Not freedom, or control, or other advantages of Linux. If people DID want those things, they would not be buying digital media that they don't really own or have control over.

    A lot of Linux users seem to believe that the reason Linux hasn't become mainstream on the desktop is simply because laptops and desktop hardware doesn't come with it pre-installed. Again, this isn't the entire story. Linux has gone from a no name operating system in the server space when it was first invented, to the primary operating system that most devices across the planet run on. Before Linux there were other operating systems that were used in these early infrastructure devices; such as Unix. None of those devices came with Linux pre-installed, yet in the time that Linux has become dominant in those areas, it has struggled to make a dent in the desktop space. Why? It's because these are two entirely different kinds of people that use computers in completely different ways, with different end-goals in mind.

    People who build infrastructure and make servers, IoT devices, etc. are inherently more technically minded people. They HAVE to be to do their jobs. You can't make a server without understanding how computers work, that doesn't make sense. But you don't really need to understand much about computers to power it on and check your mail, browse the web, watch content, etc. The average consumer is simply less technical than the average Linux user simply because Linux REQUIRES its users to be more technically proficient. If your Windows computer starts having problems, what do you do? You call the Microsoft support number and have a trained professional (at lease in theory) help you with the problem. In Linux? Well I guess some distros offer some kind of technical support service, but in Linux it's generally understood that if you're using Linux, you understand that if there is an issue with your computer, YOU are the one who must fix it. Yes there are forums, but let's be real. Going to a forum and talking to a stranger who tells you to run commands you may or may not understand is not exactly on par with Microsoft's offering. No matter how free, private, open, and wonderful Linux may be, this is a deal-breaker for non-technical users. Non-technical users simply want something to work, and if it stops, for someone else to fix it. Why? Because most people don't want to fix stuff themselves. The same way most people take their cars to a mechanic when it breaks down, call a plumber to take care of their pipes, or an electrician to take care of their electrical or appliance problems. People just want someone else to fix there computer issues. This is not an option with Linux.

    The reason that Linux is struggling on desktop is not because people don't want to try new things, as people have shifted from consuming physical media to digital media and streaming content. Linux was not first in the server space either, yet dominates it now. The argument that Windows is first being the reason it's mainstream is incorrect. The real reason that Linux dominates servers and such is because the people who build infrastructure are entirely different from the people who consume it. Average consumers simply want ease-of-use. Linux has many advantages. Ease-of-use is not one of them. It was never really intended to be. People want a system that works, and when it stops, someone else can fix it for them. Same as they do with their cars and home appliances. Linux cannot and will not, ever, provide this. Thus, Linux will always be restricted to only those who are technically minded, whether on the desktop or in the server or infrastructure space. The only way that Linux could ever be mainstream is if it's backed by a company, Like Chrome OS and Android are backed by Google to offer that ease-of-use I mentioned earlier. Of course, many don't consider these 'true' Linux operating systems because of this (which I think is fair). But if something like Linux Mint becoming a mainstream OS running on laptops/ desktops that you can just pick up in Best Buy or Walmart, or whatever, is what you want. Yeah, that's never gonna happen.

  10. What do people actually want from the things they use? They want those things to do what they're supposed to do reliably every time. They want simple and easy ways of getting those things to do what they're supposed to. They also want problems with those things to be easily resolvable (the quicker the better).
    Linux does not offer any of that to normal people. Cope and seethe all you want over that statement, but, if it weren't true, things would be different. Anyone reading this remember cell phones before the iPhone? They were all pretty basic devices, and interacting with any of them was mostly the same. The iPhone was a huge change, and people adopted it like crazy. Think about why that was.

    PS: My first experience with a computer was with the Apple IIs we had at school (one with color, the rest had that green monochrome monitor). I've been using Windows on my PCs for over 30 years now. Same could be said for almost everyone in my age group.

  11. I agree that what you need is a couple of options, all with relatively similar market share. There is a natural corruption that comes with scale. Contrary to popular belief, very few corporations started off with ill intent. Power and influence is naturally corrupting, and they morph into what you see today over time. Yes, Linux is not a corporation. However, a community can develop a hive mind and be just as easily corrupted over time. I honestly think that if Linux became a dominant operating system, it would loose the very aspects of it that so many people respect and enjoy. A lot of the folks that love GNU/Linux and the Linux desktop, are the same folks that would likely leave for something else if the platform grew and become commercialised.

  12. I never get survey too. It's funny bcs most of time i fight for my data… but, when i want to contribute…. silence.
    I like the way gnome handled telemetry, you know what you send… and WHEN. 😉

  13. Imagine buying a prebuilt computer and having to do something as simple as installing a graphics driver on Linux. Holy balls. That requires searching for a guide on how to do it and praying that it doesn't brick your computer. If you're not tech savvy, you're out of luck. Not wanting to adapt to change is one thing, but being able to perform simple tasks is another. Linux is powerful, but it is not easy. As a tech savvy person it's easy to boil it down to refusing to change being the reason, but most people are not power users for the sake or learning, most people are using a computer as a means to an end – to do simple productivity or entertainment tasks. And that is much more difficult.

  14. I would like to see a time where hardware and software manufacturers consider developing for Linux. Obviously user numbers would be a factor here. It would just be great to have more choice of Software for specific use cases (ie music making) or hardware that was fully supported (ie mice keyboards).

  15. Year of the Linux Desktop could come in a nightmare scenario….

    Microsoft completely scraps their kernel and underlying OS, builds their own DE, their own proprietory wine-esque compatibility later, and possibly even start strong-arming manufacturers to have hardware drivers not put into the Linux kernel, but only on their own repository (so the experience is "better" with their distro)… All the while deciding to charge a monthly fee to each user to have access to all of these "features" provided by Microsoft. And no longer needing to spend as much money to patch and fix their OS against threats.

    I would hate for that to be the way it works, but it is the way I could see it happening.

    Linux has succeeded on smartphones, with Chromebooks, etc… The year of the Linux Desktop will occur if Microsoft reskins Linux. Manufacturers don't want to retrain enterprise clients (which won't happen), so… they will still offer Microsoft systems as that is what everyone is used too in majority of corporate settings.

  16. Well, I just watched your video up to the point where you gave your opinion on why Linux has not taken over Desktop and laptop installs and I stopped it there and came here. I have to tell you in my own opinion, you are wrong!!!!!! It is not because people don't want change, but if people are going to change, they need an OS that will be just as good as what they are using currently.

    I have been a Windows user for many years. I have tried Linux with its' many distros. I thoroughly enjoy Linux, but I can't switch to it completely because it cannot run the different Windows programs I use for both work and play. I have spent many hours in both research and application to get certain programs of mine to run. The ones I was able to get to finally operate, usually didn't perform very well. While others were completely dead in the water.

    The Linux mindset is until these Software Program Developers start developing software that operates on Linux, well this is what it will always be. I would suggest this, how about the Linux developers make their OS more friendly to programs designed for Windows? Something better than what wine, playonlinux, or others give you. You know, all those so-called emulators that it's the roll of the dice that they may work or not. I wasted enough hours on that.

    In the end, I want an OS that I can use more than just browsing the web, reading emails, or doing some word processing work. I want an OS that can handle the needs I have for computing. The simple answer is not people liking change, but the simple answer is compatibility! I hope some Developers will read this and catch the idea. There has to be a bridge better than what Linux is offering now!

    I know some of the devout Linux users out there will get upset with this post. Please understand I'm not writing this to destroy Linux, but it's out of frustration of wanting to use an OS that I do like, but can't use completely.


  17. You say people hate change but that is not 100% correct. People have curiosity and some people just want to be different. A USP of Linux is the choice. A lot of people keep jumping over to linux. If hating change were true, Nokia would have never died. Google would have never beat Yahoo. Chrome vs Firefox too and then comes Brave. I don't think "people hate change" is a good argument. They do, but people also desire something new and fresh or if something sounds more reasonable.

    Windows keeps wanting to update my GPU driver. The manufacturer has version 22 and a suite that tells me a lot of info. Windows wants to disable that and replace it with a simple driver that is version 18, which makes the GPU-suite stop working. And there is no "user-friendly" way to stop that behaviour. In Arch Linux, at least, add that to "ignore package" list in pacman conf and it will never touch that specific update/feature. Simple as it can be. There are even GUI ways to do that.

    I recently watched another channel that discusses how Windows wants to control hardware and make it so that it becomes difficult to install any other OS. AMD Ryzen Pro doesn't boot Linux apparently? Is that healthy? So why do you think such a hostile OS should exist? Why should one that takes away the choice from the user, exist? That's the backbone of your argument right? That we have a choice to install whichever we want and if Linux dominated, Windows and Apple would shut down? Well what is Microsoft wanting to do? Then why shouldn't Linux users desire the same too? But the key difference is, Linux will never take away the choice and freedom from their users! MS doesn't have good in their heart and hence why the equal market share argument is invalid. If they weren't doing those malicious things, yeah sure then healthy competition!!

Leave a Reply