68 lines
4.9 KiB
ReStructuredText
68 lines
4.9 KiB
ReStructuredText
Some thoughts about that dead Linux Desktop
|
||
###########################################
|
||
|
||
:date: 2012-09-05T09:01:31Z
|
||
:category: blog
|
||
:tags: linux,ranting
|
||
:url: blog/2012/9/5/some-thoughts-about-that-dead-linux-desktop.html
|
||
:save_as: blog/2012/9/5/some-thoughts-about-that-dead-linux-desktop.html
|
||
:status: published
|
||
:author: Gergely Polonkai
|
||
|
||
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’s
|
||
<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 Gtk+3. It could be
|
||
replaced with a 0 value (e.g: it won’t do anything). This way my old Gtk+2 program could compile
|
||
with Gtk+3 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.
|