I get sick and tired of this issue. Yes, it is, for the simple reason I've been using it daily (since 2000) and excusively (since 2003). No need to decicate a blog on that.

Naaa, it is not ready. Why, simple: I`ve using it for about a year, excusively using it. Its ok, i ve everything working but when it comes to use a specific application there is no way we can say it is ready. I`m a graduated student of Electronic Engineering and i use a list of softwares (Matlab, Multisim, Opnet, Protel, Orcad, SuperPCB, LabVIEW, Proteus. MPLAB, MikroC, MikroBasic) altough there are a few that has Linux versions, those are not the same as in windows.. the developent is not as in the Windows Version... But, why dont i use the Open/Linux version or options to those softwares? is there any? no.. when it comes to scince there just is not.. (Except computer Scince) ... thats why, tomorrow, i ll have to reformat my harddrive and reinstall windows, not becose the Operating System, but because of the dependecies and software that Linux, cant, yet, port to. But, maybe Linux is ready, but to who? people to check mails, whatch movies and thats all? Well, if u consider your self like this kind of user, give a try..

Linux is awesome but, no way it is ready for mainstream desktop. Why? Two words: "Adobe Photoshop" and "Games". Until you have those, there will be no wide acceptance... especially "Games" :)

Linux user since 1998.

For me personally, Linux on the desktop was ready a long time ago, and Windows on a desktop was never ready for me.

When I read that, I stopped. The whole article must be as dishonnest as this statement.

Joel, what you said is not response for "Is linux ready for Desktop" but "Is people ready for Linux", because linux as OS is ready for desktop for many years but when people dont use it, programmers don't build programs for it.

Dima

Shorter Kir Kolyshkin:

Linux is ready for the desktop, as long as you have 10 years experience in Linux.

Most of the commenters here have completely missed the point. His entire point was that there is no point at which any technology becomes suitable for everybody. Linux is unsuitable for many Windows users due to being too confusing or just plain different. Windows is unsuitable for many Linux users as it fails to provide the flexibility they require.

There is no 'ready for the desktop', only whether a solution is suitable for a particular person or business. When I saw the title of this article my first thought was "not another one..." but this is the most sensible "ready for the desktop" post I've yet read.

@Dima

Um, you got that wrong, it goes like this:

"Linux is ready for the Desktop, as long as you don't have 10 years of Windows experience."

Someone who is new to computers will find Linux is just as easy to use. The problem arises when trying to take away something that someone is already used to, to replace it with something new and different.

Erm..I got the wrong poster, it should have been @SDC.

What people mean is "is Linux ready for the >mainstream< desktop?" The mainstream is users who are not too smart and have painfully and slowly become used to Windows over the course of years. For them, it would take a long time to learn to become productive with Linux. As a solution for them, even the easiest current free Linux distros like Freespire are too unfriendly for the average, 100 IQ Windows user.

Maybe someday Linux will have enough GUI configuration and there will be a version that is similar enough to Windows to help the average user, but that day is a long way off.

BTW games and Photoshop are not the problem. Windows gaming is on life support, most people use consoles instead. And Photoshop runs ok under Wine, plus if you can afford Photoshop you can afford Windows + a good firewall and antivirus and you probably have no need for Linux.

Of course Linux works well as a desktop for the people who like to learn about computers and those who have invested many hours to learn its ins and outs. But it will not reach the mainstream until it gets a lot more Windows-like.

When should a user switch from Win to Lin? When the hassle of switching is less than the cost they save by not buying windows when they get their computer (well under $100 for XP home OEM). Or, when the hassle of switching is less than the hassle of keeping antivirus and antispyware software working.

Don't bother saying "but Linux comes with $1000s of dollars worth of free (as in beer) software." There is free software to do virtually everything in Windows too. Openoffice, Gimp, etc. work on Windows too.

well in my opinion LINUX still need a long time to pass till it will be ready for the desktop computers, because :
1. as you know there are many linux versions and NOT a single united version of linus and every company claims that its linux OS is the best among the other.
2. The linus GUI (the KDE AND THE GNOME,etc..) are very beautiful and very fast to be loaded than the slowly GUI of the windows OS, but the CONSOLE settings is kinda complex and need alot of time to make the people get used to it (the shell commands in my viw is hard to memorize and sux) I think most of the people want a GUI that work as the SHELL COMMAND (like the control panel in the windows for better access and beautiful icons,etc,,,)
3. Drivers problem: although in the recent years many companies made nice collection of drivers but still there are some companies still dont have drivers on the linux and therefore if you got a hardware that has no driver on linux then you will enjoy it alot.
4. if you compare the linux to windows from all the aspects who do you think will win??!! off course it will be the windows. Although it got many bugs and many security hole but if you come to the GAMES (as you know that they use directX ) for the games and also use opengl (limitied) and most of the gmaes run on the direct X.

For me I think that the Mac OS is better to be used than both the Linux and the Windows....

Shorter Timothy:

Most people are too stupid to use Linux.

Shorter Barius:

Linux is ready for the desktop, if you're too stupid to know the difference between Linux and Windows.

---

Are you guys completely oblivious to what you're saying? It is not surprising that "the masses" are uninterested in Linux, when Linux advocates are full of contempt for anyone with less than a PhD or MSEE.

You linux people just don't get it - the only couple of reasons why the majority of people in the world run windows are as follows:
1) Windows is easy to learn and hard to break for novice (yes, i said hard to break compared to linux. You don't believe me? give a desktop PC to a user for a month and see what happens).
2)Windows is just as flexible as linux for experts
3) Windows Desktop has dozens of times more apps for it than Linux.

Most non-IT professionals will go for Windows or Mac, because there are all the needed apps for them, while linux is only good for running services/servers.

I challenge every linux expert out there to reliably run run their system for an extended period of time after it has been configured for professional use (video editing, photo processing, sound editing, or even games). But then again - there are very few apps and games to do all this.

I'd like to echo Yuri's comments and add the following, my primary machine is a laptop at home and at workand I'd love to challenge anyone to show me a linux laptop functioning on a WPA2 PSK wireless network.

I look forward to the day when linux is a real alternative but I don't think it is there yet.

I have been running multiple desktops and laptops on linux for years. My main machine that I use right now I play games on some native others with the aid of WINE and Cedega. I have all the support I need in Open Office 2.0.x and Firefox / Thunderbird. I do all my photo editing w/ Gimp with the Photogimp makeover. I organize all my photos with FSpot and music is handled easily by Amarok as is my iPod. I also use GnuCash for my personal finances which is just as powerful as quickbooks.

As for the WPA2-PSK under linux, not a problem. Runs great under Ubuntu on my laptop.

Three months ago i had to rescue a windows installation that my grandma has trashed again (4th time in four months). So the first thing I did was decide on her behalf to install Ubuntu. I told her it would be a bit different than XP but all the programs were very similar that she used. Now each time I visit I ask how the PC is going and the reply is always the same great no problems. The important question is users are ready just not well informed. When you buy a PC and windows is already installed most users will use it. The only time users will use linux is when manufacturers say up yours to the extra cost of pre installed windows on ALL machines. Then this will open a new market that will see linux apps developed at a improved rate

I think your viewpoint is flawed. I like Linux, I think it has some great distributions, but it still requires, even in Ubuntu (the currnet 'flavour of the month' distribution), a knowledge of CLI. For example I recently installed Ubuntu 6.05 on my PC. Most things worked great except I was really annoyed by the fact the only resolution I could get was 1024x786, where I had a display capable of 1600x1200. I had not had this problem on other distributions such as Suse and Fedora, which in turn had their own problems (3D acceleration etc). Ok, so I checked on the internet to see if this a common problem with an easy solution, and wow, I found an article named something like 'easy way to increase resolution on Ubuntu 6.05'. So I copied this tutorial word for word, editing in the terminal with copy and paste for 100% certainty, and I also made a back-up etc, all in the terminal... But guess what, I had an X display problem on next log-in, no GUI. Well, in Windows every possible display is displayed in the control panel, and it is easy and fast to adjust the screen resolution. Windows is easy, you do not have to have esoteric knowledge of command lines to discover the ideal screen resolution. My mum can change the screen resolution in Windows, but not in Ubuntu which requires the terminal. Is this user friendly? Short answer NO. Does this mean you gain an understanding of the inner working of your OS, that through painful discovery you understand how your OS works, how it was built, how it can be altered in nigh on impossible ways compared to Windows, YES. But does the average Joe really care? NO. ME, I just want to change my screen resolution, not waste half a day of my life finding out, trawling through inadequate documentation, searching on various forums and reading through stupidly in depth tutorials, how to alter the inner workings of a text file on Linux in the terminal. This sucks! Guess what, I have work, and my coffee is going cold, then later on I have a social life, I don't want to find out nor do I gain any kind of happiness by learning about CLI. In terms of my specific problem, well luckily I do know some basic CLI so was able to overwrite the file with a back-up and reinstate the previous working X, but this means I have to have a low resolution to work with. I am a Linux newbie (had about 4 months experience overall) but I don't care about this. I should not need to know how to use a CLI just to use an OS the way I want, this is not the 1980's! I would like to see Windows die, and in fact I already work with OS X to avoid using Windows. But I really can't be bothered to invest a portion of my life understanding the inner working of an OS just to do basic things, like adjust screen resolution, alter settings, print something, etc... I also find the boot and shutdown times on Linux, in general, to be painfully slow compared to Windows. Windows looks like a ferrari compared to Linux when it boots up. OS X is the fastest of the bunch overall though.

Anyway, my point is, ready for desktop? Ready for linux gurus more like. You forget we mere humans do not care for a CLI and want easy app/package installation. Linux can be great yes, but needs to evolve more before it can replace Windows. I do however belive that Linux can be a serious competitor to Windows in the future, but it needs a unity, perhaps have one desktop environment for example? Gnome, KDE? Great, so I can run two (or a dozen) different desktops on my OS? Wow, but hey, which one runs all the programs I need? Oh, some run on this one and others run on this one, or one is optimized for this one and not for the other? Jeeez, why would any non techie person care about this? Well, just maybe, and I really hope it happens, a distribution will revolutionize Linux enough to make it distinct, user friendly, FREE, and powerful enough to compete against the monolith that is Windows, but right now it doesn't exist.

The most successful linux implementations are of the type where the user doesn't even know what operating system they are using. For instance:

- TIVO users, numbering in the millions, are all GNU/Linux users.
- Many millions of students worldwide will be using Linux on their school-issued $100 OLPC portable computers.
- Tens of millions will be using Linux on their mobile phone or other portable device.

Windows/Intel started out being the leader for low-end functionality and price (compared to alternatives Apple's Mac, Sun/HP/IBM/etc's UNIX, etc.) That distinction is now Linux's.

Something chronologically wrong with the author's history here. I've been using Linux since around 1993, and I specifically remember using kernel 1.2.3 around 1996-1997. Development was in the 1.3.x tree.

First, where in creation did you get the 1.0.9 kernel at this time and where did you get the 1.1.x dev kernel? You were either using a ridiiculously old kernel, or you are mistaken.

The Microsoft advertisements on this site make me sick.

It drives me mad to see people complaining about lack of games for Linux, try www.tuxgames.com or www.linuxgamepublishing.com, or www.happypenguin.org.
Sure there arent as many as in windows, but there ARE games, good ones!

Having used Unix when there was Windows 3.0, before there was Linux for Electronics Design, I can say that one can do some truly impressive EE work in a non-windows OS. It does generally require more license fee's for the pro grade SW.

There are getting to be some not bad hobby grade / semi-pro grade EE packages for Linux that are free. The professional grade stuff for Linux is still quite expensive. Give Linux a few years in this area and use it for hobby projects.

Linux will be ready when you don't have to use the command line, manually edit config text files, and you can explain to your mom over the phone how to do pretty much anything...(the real sign of ease of use)

I was able to resize the screen size in Ubuntu. I found it in Preferences. I never saw Linux before

As said by someone above, you're missing the whole point of the article. Ease of use and usefulness is objective. As a guy, you might have no use for tampons, but would you then say that nobody needs them? What about vaccinations before going away on holidays? You don't need them to go to Australia, so nobody needs them.

Linux is ready for the desktop, when users realise IT'S NOT WINDOWS!

And I hope to God it never becomes like Windows.

At the moment, Linux does everything I need it to do, without the added Windows hassle. I don't even have to google to install a program, I just type one line and ten seconds later the program is open. When I install Linux onto a computer, I boot it for the first time and am welcomed with a fully functional desktop. When I boot Windows for the first time, I can not do the following as I can in Linux:

1. Connect to the internet wirelessly. Linux does that. And if I can't connect to the internet, how am I supposed to install drivers for my machine? With Windows, you need a second pc to install.
2. Play music. Windows doesn't install sound drivers.
3. Play games. Windows doesn't configure my graphics card, so most games complain of no 3d acceleration, and those that run don't run very well at all.
4. Install programs easily. With Linux, I type less than one line to install my favourite program. In windows, it takes 10 minutes of Google searching to find it, then I have to download it, then find the .exe, double click it, then click next a half a dozen times, wait for it to do it's thing, only then can I run it.

I think the argument here should be "Is Windows ready for the desktop?" Because it sure doesn't supply the simplicity and ease of use our friendly Penguin does.

@ Ubuntulover. I could rezise my screen as well, but no more than 1024. I had a screen capable of 1600x1200. Ubuntu did not recognize this. The option did not exist. I had to rewrite the X Display in terminal and my lack of knowledge messed everything up (I was following a tutorial specific to my distribution and version number, and specific to my problem word for word with copy and paste from web browser). Since I knew some basic CLI I reverted to a back-up, but it did not solve my display woes. This is not a general Linux problem, it is probably just specific to Ubuntu 6.05 and my specific hardware configuration (I did not have this problem with Suse and Fedora for example, but they in turn had other, more serious problems requiring the terminal). What this demonstrates to me is that problems still crop up which require a visit to the terminal, which is not my idea of fun.

@ Gerry. Windows come pre-installed on almost every desktop / laptop sold, most people do not install from scratch, they get a new computer via FedEx, sign for it, plug it in and everything works. They might one day decide to buy something like a new printer, and following the basic 3 instructions to install a driver for it, insert a CD, double click on Install.exe, click OK, they could then go ahead and use it (on a reboot of course!). This is the one thing that Windows has, a layer of ease of use. Of course under the surface it is ridden with bugs, and problems are always there to thwart you. Oh and what it doesn't have, and probably never will have, is security, stability and a clear conciounse. I am not anti Linux, I use Linux and work day to day on a Unix/BSD OS (aka OS X). I just do not agree that Linux is ready for mainstream yet, it needs to have an amazing desktop, a simple (hidden a la OS X) filesystem and rock solid package installation. Software is getting better every day, the alternatives to Windows are numerous, but come on, get real Linux is still a geek OS.

Is Linux ready for the desktop? I've been using it since 2002. Sometimes it's a pain in the butt with hardware, but it has a lot to offer. I'm an economist and Linux offers all of the software tools I need. If you have an interest in computers as something more than another piece of equipment you have to work with like a TV or a calculator, you should give Linux a try. If not, stick with what you're familiar with. I just happened to discover Linux when I had time and desire to explore. Since that time, I tried to use OS X on a Mac - hated it. It's different enough and I don't have a desire to figure out the differences. Doesn't mean OS X isn't ready for the desktop. Occasionally I use Windows XP. I don't like that pretty much for the same reason.

Linux, particularly distros like ubuntu, are definitely "ready" for desktop use. It's the majority of users that aren't "ready" for desktop use.

What continues to amaze me is how much sympathy people who have a clue how to use a computer (or a given OS) have for people who don't know how to edit a text file. I mean comeon, there is a learning curve to anything to do with computers, why should we continue "making it easier" rather than "making it better".

Catering to people who don't want to know how anything works, just want to click a button and it happens "automagically" means trading off the options, freedom of choice, and in general dumbing down everything til all it can do is what the developer decided it "should" do, not necessarily what the user "needs" it to do.

I'm primarily a windows user, and there is a lot I dislike about both windows and linux. I've dabbled with various linux distros for a couple years, and the main reason I keep ending up back on the M$ teat is the lack of apps/packages I like for linux. That I am sure will continue to change though.

Ofcourse Linux is ready for the desktop, it just depends on your level of expertise, and your technical requirements.

if asked is a CAR ready for the road ?.

is the same question, you'll get lots of people saying a 1960 hillman is "ready for the road".

and if driving a 1960's car is all you require then YES, Linux is ready for you.

but if you be a little more specific, you can ask is a 1960's hillman hunter beter than a 2007 Lexus.

clearly both are ready for the Desktop (ROAD), and if you dont mind not having cruse control, air bags, much performance or relaibility then your 1960's gelipie will be fine.

ie. Linux is fine for the Desktop if your requirements are not too great.

But if you want performance, relaibility, support and so on, including greatly reduced legal issues.
You'll not even consider Linux for your Desktop for a second.

Lets face it, if you want to do anything serious or commercial with your computer you need to use an operating system that is commercially compatable.
and linux is far from being a commercial grade product.

its great for the desktop if your a programmer or geek, but for the general users, or power users.

its just NOT POSSIBLE, to get the applications required with Linux to do your work.

they dont have the apps, and they NEVER WILL..

There will NEVER EVER EVER be a linux TT3080 satellite telephone system configuration software by Thrane & Thrane.

it would be necessary to run two operating system, and i would have to switch to windows everytime i needed to do any real work.

as for the Desktop itself, GET A GRIP please !!

walk through an office building, and quickly glance at what people are running on their computers.

NOT THE DESKTOP, sure its there, but they will have wordprocessors, speadsheets, Email clients and so on, you DONT SEE the desktop.

Linux guys, really have to get over this "Desktop" thing. its irrevalent.

but at least its a vast improvement on command line Operating system, man that went out in the 60's, get with the times guyes.

we dont want "retro" computing, we want leading edge.

you cant be leading edge by copying what everyone else does, you'll always be behind.

quote:: Linux is ready for the desktop, as long as you have 10 years experience in Linux. ::quote

I've been using Linux on my desktop since 2000, full time since 2002, a total of a little under 6 years (as Jan 2007), Linux on the desktop was ready for me in May 2002. I use Mandriva Linux Powerpack, which I happily pay for.

My thoughts on the "Is Linux Ready for Desktop?" discussion.. http://www.prestonlee.com/archives/94