2014-06-26 16:48:13 +00:00
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
layout: post
|
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Some thoughts about that dead Linux Desktop"
|
2016-02-26 15:19:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
date: 2012-09-05T09:01:31Z
|
2014-06-26 16:48:13 +00:00
|
|
|
|
tags: [linux]
|
|
|
|
|
|
permalink: /blog/2012/9/5/some-thoughts-about-that-dead-linux-desktop
|
|
|
|
|
|
published: true
|
|
|
|
|
|
author:
|
|
|
|
|
|
name: Gergely Polonkai
|
|
|
|
|
|
email: gergely@polonkai.eu
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were some arguments in the near past on [What Killed the Linux
|
|
|
|
|
|
Desktop](http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2012/Aug-29.html). After reading many
|
|
|
|
|
|
replies, like [Linus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Torvalds’](http://www.zdnet.com/linus-torvalds-on-the-linux-desktops-popularity-problems-7000003641/),
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have my own thoughts, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know my place in the world, especially in the online community. I’m a Linux
|
|
|
|
|
|
user for about 15 years and a Linux administrator for 10 years now, beginning
|
|
|
|
|
|
with WindowMaker and something that I remember as GNOME without a version
|
|
|
|
|
|
number. I have committed some minor code chunks and translations in some minor
|
|
|
|
|
|
projects, so I’m not really into it from the “write” side (well, until now,
|
|
|
|
|
|
since I have began to write this blog, and much more, but don’t give a penny
|
|
|
|
|
|
for my words until you see it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m using Linux since 2.2 and GNOME since 1.whatever. It’s nice that a program
|
|
|
|
|
|
compiled years ago still runs on today’s Linux kernel, especially if you see
|
|
|
|
|
|
old DOS/Windows software failing to start on a new Windows 7 machine. I
|
|
|
|
|
|
understand Linus’ point that breaking external APIs is bad, and I think it can
|
|
|
|
|
|
work well on the kernel’s level. But the desktop level is much different. As
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Linux Desktop has such competitors (like OS/X and Windows’ Aero and Metro),
|
|
|
|
|
|
they have to give something new to the users almost every year to keep up with
|
|
|
|
|
|
them. Eye candies are a must (yes, of course my techy fellows, they are
|
|
|
|
|
|
worthless, but users *need* it), and they can not be created without extending
|
|
|
|
|
|
APIs. And the old API… well, it fades away fast. I don’t really understand
|
|
|
|
|
|
however, why they have to totally disappear, like
|
|
|
|
|
|
[GTK_DIALOG_NO_SEPARATOR](http://developer.gnome.org/gtk/stable/GtkDialog.html#GtkDialogFlags)
|
|
|
|
|
|
in Gtk3. It could be replaced with a 0 value (e.g: it won’t do anything). This
|
|
|
|
|
|
way my old Gtk2 program could compile with Gtk3 nicely. Also, there could be a
|
|
|
|
|
|
small software that goes through your source code and warn you about such
|
|
|
|
|
|
deprecated (and no-doer but still working) things. Porting applications between
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gtk (and thus, GNOME) versions became a real pain, which makes less enthusiast
|
|
|
|
|
|
programmers stop developing for Linux. Since I’m a GNOME guy for years, I can
|
|
|
|
|
|
tell nothing about Qt and KDE, but for the GNOME guys, this is a bad thing. As
|
|
|
|
|
|
of alternatives, there is Java. No, wait… it turned out recently that [it has
|
|
|
|
|
|
several security
|
|
|
|
|
|
bugs](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/31/critical_flaw_found_in_patched_java).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also it’s not that multiplatform as they say (I can’t find the article on
|
|
|
|
|
|
that at the moment, but I have proof). Also, the JVMs out there eat up so much
|
|
|
|
|
|
resources, which makes it a bit hard and expensive to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I see another problem: those blasted package managers. RPM, DPKG,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portage, whatever. What the hell? Why are there so many? Why do developers
|
|
|
|
|
|
reinvent the wheel? The nave is too small or there are to few spokes? Come on…
|
|
|
|
|
|
we live in an open source world! Contribute to the one and only package manager
|
|
|
|
|
|
(which one is that I don’t actually care)! I’m sure the two (three, many)
|
|
|
|
|
|
bunches of develoeprs could make a deal. Thus, it could become better and
|
|
|
|
|
|
“outsider” companies would be happier to distribute their software for Linux
|
|
|
|
|
|
platforms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And now that we get to the big companies. I don’t really understand them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nVidia and ATI made their own closed source drivers for Linux. Some other
|
|
|
|
|
|
hardware vendors also write Linux drivers, and as the kernel API doesn’t really
|
|
|
|
|
|
change, they will work for a long time. But what about desktop
|
|
|
|
|
|
application vendors? Well, they try to stick to a desktop environment or two,
|
|
|
|
|
|
and if they change too frequently, they stop developing for Linux, like Skype
|
|
|
|
|
|
did (OK, maybe Skype has other reasons, but you see my point). But why? The
|
|
|
|
|
|
main part for Linux programs is the Linux kernel and the basic userland like
|
|
|
|
|
|
libc/stdlib++. If you write graphical software, it will have to use X-Windows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it’s much different in many ways, mostly because they have a… well… pretty
|
|
|
|
|
|
ugly design by default. But still, it’s the same on every Linux distributions,
|
|
|
|
|
|
as it became somewhat an industry standard, as it was already on the market
|
|
|
|
|
|
back in the old UN\*X days. The protocol itself changed just like the Linux
|
|
|
|
|
|
kernel: almost no change at all, just some new features.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what kills the Linux desktop in my opinion is these constant wars inside,
|
|
|
|
|
|
and the lack of support from the outside. Open Source is good, but until these
|
|
|
|
|
|
(mostly the first) problems are not resolved, Linux Desktop can do nothing on
|
|
|
|
|
|
the market. It’s a downward spiral hard to escape.
|
