This article is full of nonsense. The Linux desktop push isn't failing because it has experiences and apps that are similar to Windows and macOS. Being able to run Windows apps on Linux is a benefit, not a failure. As for religious wars over init systems, desktop environments and package managers, competition is making the options stronger, not weaker. Competition is a reason why package management on Linux is far better than equivalents on Windows and macOS.
The main reason for Linux not taking off on the desktop is because most users don't care about what OS they run, they just want a computer that works. If the PC they buy comes with Windows out of the box, they're going to stick with that. Until you get manufacturers shipping PCs with Linux as the default OS, you're mainly going to see desktop Linux as an enthusiast-only option. It's no accident that one of the devices helping to spread Linux (the Steam Deck) comes with Linux as the default option.
> As for religious wars over init systems, desktop environments and package managers, competition is making the options stronger, not weaker.
Competition can definitely improve things, but it's not universally positive. In particular, endless competition in parts of the operating system makes it hard to build anything on top of them. E.g. if you want to distribute an application for Linux, do you build a Flatpak, or a Snap? Or take a more traditionalist approach and make RPMs, DEBs, etc.? You either pick your favourite and leave out a large fraction of Linux users who disagree, or you have to do more than one of these. This is definitely a drag on the ecosystem.
I agree that most users don't care about the OS, though.
It's because the software they use is not available. Put aside there are alternatives. There are not alternatives for some software. I would use Linux if Autodesk made Revit and AutoCAD for Linux.
I would venture to guess that kids know the difference between Mac and Windows and probably prefers one over the other.
> Being able to run Windows apps on Linux is a benefit, not a failure.
It is a massive moral failure though. It shows that after two decades of work, the Linux community has been unable to build a simple sane functional stable development environment better than Win32.
It's 2025. The "year of the linux desktop" has been a meme for years. No one says it in earnest. No one is having init or DE wars. And while there is plenty of healthy discussion about flatpak and other alt forms of software distribution, this is exactly the kind of innovation and experimentation that leads to the usability improvements the author wants to see. Linux is doing just fine, and I'm glad there are multiple options to accomplish similar tasks.
Linux becoming better than Windows to run games is the sort of thing that should actually scare Microsoft because it can lead to non-engineers installing linux because game go fast. The people spending a grand on gpus will put up with real hassles to that end.
The /r/Linux Reddit very much exists contrary to your take, and you’ll see many commenters here also argue about whether it is the year of Linux on the desktop.
Never underestimate the identity association in enthusiast communities.
> The problem is that these are "wins" because they bring Linux closer to Windows or macOS.
I disagree that this is an issue. The main advantage of Linux for me is that I have choice (including using various desktop environments that the author is annoyed by; I used GNOME for years and eventually had too many problems with it so I switched to KDE), and those choices are not controlled by one entity which, in the case of Apple and Microsoft, view me only as a customer to extract money from.
One of my complaints with Gnome is that I can’t hand it to a normal person and let them use it because it’s not obvious how to use it. The entry point to everything looks like a horizontal scroll bar in the top left corner and basic actions take more clicks than Windows.
The biggest battle desktop Linux is losing is the one where a minority of devs are dictating their preferred compute paradigm to a majority of users that don’t agree it’s a good solution.
I can “fix” Gnome in about 2m with extensions, but that doesn’t help when a new user loads it up for the first time and is hit with the unintuitive ideology of some nerds.
Agree. In addition, I don’t believe that significant amounts of switching was ever going to happen without desktop Linux becoming more like its commercial counterparts. One has to remember that most computer users use computers as tools and don’t relish having to learn a whole new set of conventions.
There will always be more “Linuxy” out in the weeds desktops for people who want them. Most people who want that built their own setup anyway, making whatever the big DEs do more or less moot.
Every distro except arch is full of preinstalled crapware. Some like OpenSuse even have preinstalled crapware bundles where stuff you uninstall comes back after update
Linux desktop has already arrived for me. All the apps and utilities I need is there, all installable via apt. It's not a Linux problem anymore when the hardware manufacturers won't support it.
GNOME is nice, KDE is nice, and we have other options for people that don't like the two previous one. The issue we have now is walled garden, when some proprietary software won't support standards and even their own file format.
> While this could absolutely happen, the way that Linux as a whole has been developing over the years isn't always conducive to making the world's Windows and macOS users convert en masse.
Its the way Windows is developing that is driving this change. GNOME might be hardly usable but Microsoft managed to top that.
Edit: I retract the last sentence. I'm currently trying GNOME and its less usable than Windows.
Edit 2: I accidentally minimized Steam to tray, but Gnome has no tray. Steam continues running invisible without being represented somewhere in the UI. One of the developers of Gnome (the only DE where this happens) said this is an application bug[1]. And then continues to complain that devs only test against "stock" environments.... but Gnome is the stock environment. What an ass.
I do understand why people bash Gnome and their developers. The hate is deserved.
Stock Gnome is indeed a mess, but thankfully we're not limited to that. KDE, Xfce, and Cinnamon all offer environments that are far more intuitive to use, especially from someone coming from Windows. And there are good distros built around all of these as the primary DE. I usually recommend Mint (the default edition, i.e. Cinnamon) to people who get UX fatigue from the recent developments in Windows land and want something that "just works" and isn't made by developers who have a permanent you're-holding-it-wrong mentality.
This article is kind of old hat - it's basically been true that Linux is fine as a desktop OS for Grandma since some point circa 2010 +/- a few years. The big requirement is that Grandma just uses web browsers and other basic software from the OSS ecosystem, hardware was relatively compatible to begin with, and somebody does the OS upgrades for her every 3 years.
The real issue is that these kinds of "grandma" users maybe just don't use computers anymore. And the folks that do are joined at the hip to proprietary software like Photoshop or CAD programs or whatever else they care a lot about and don't want to relearn, and also make enough money that the costs are invisible. Or they're business computers and not using what's familiar (Windows) is a support cost.
From this perspective, gaming and specific hobbyists are basically the only feasible audiences for the Linux desktop unless people are very much pressured by software costs, or annoyed by proprietary software (DRM, lockdowns, upgrades, etc.) enough to switch their major activity to an open source option. In which case they awkward situation of "software works better on Linux, but won't try Linux until confirmed they like the not-totally-integrated-and-nice-on-windows-or-mac software running not on Linux."
I do think there ought to be more of a business case for Linux as a business OS as you should get reduced hardware and software and support costs, but there aren't actually a lot of people with the right experience and expertise to run a business off Linux as a desktop OS to begin with and so those savings can't be realized effectively.
That said, as computers get more locked down, I think there will be a bigger drive for power users who influence friends and family to switch.
Any case, my house has had year of the Linux Desktop ongoing since circa 2006.
The year of Linux on desktop is not come=ing, because the year of anything on desktop is not coming, and hasn't been for maybe a decade. Every new mass-market thing runs either in the browser, or, more rarely, specifically on mobile phones. Or maybe it's a game, so it completely eclipses whatever platform experience. If not that, it's entrenched ancient desktop software, like Excel (turning 40 in a few weeks), which is also its own world.
The "desktop" itself, the underlying OS, is irrelevant to most users who are not hardcore pros, like, well, software developers.
I feel like I could have read this article back in 2004. The main benefit is that you get to choose. The other two big operating systems don't really allow much choice.
> Meanwhile, the Linux community spends enormous energy on debates that rarely affect mainstream adoption. Consider the “init wars,” where systemd sparked endless flame wars (and memes) about the proper way to boot a Linux system.
This is almost in anything. We had play ground arguments over whether SEGA or Nintendo were better. Then Playstation vs N64 vs Saturn. There was Amiga vs Atari. BSD vs Linux. Vim vs Emacs. Ford vs Chevy.
Most of the uses for a casual computer user have been replaced by smartphones and tablets.
Then you have walled gardens like the Apple ecosystem where interoperability is superior among Apple products which cross sell each other. If you got an iPhone, now get the Apple Watch and a Macbook and all integrate well.
Then you have games, where consoles will give you a decent experience for less money.
Then you have professional users where the most common use case is office documents. This remains contentious but there are more alternatives now like web apps, MS Office clones like Libreoffice, Softmaker Office/FreeOffice, WPS Office.
Then you have specific desktop apps for specific OSes and there you are tied to an OS. This is one of the few legitimate uses for Windows I can think of.
I need to have Outlook, Zoom and zScaler working seamlessly. Not with wine or whatever but right there bam it works. Otherwise I cannot use the OS in my company.
I can install them if this is easy.
Now, I've been using Linux since 1994, wrote a small bit of the kernel at that time (you may have ran it, it was for a well known NIC) and I use it daily on my systems. Via ssh or remote dev in vscode.
I have no idea what the graphical interface is today and how to configure it. I could learn if this is easy.
One thing I know is that the sound did not work on my Thinkpad last time Ininstalled Ubuntu and the second screen would not wake up (the third did). Surely googling and chatgpting would help but in Windows 11 it just works.
This desire for “year of Linux on the desktop” is always attributed to “Linux lovers,” and other nebulous fan voices. This article uses the word “win,” but as far as I can see the prize they are looking for is… a lot of additional non-technical desktop users? Why? What’s the goal here that actually benefits Linux or broader open source development?
I think one of the reasons is that if you think it's better and see how other users are struggling with all the bs these companies are throwing at them, it's only natural that you would suggest what works for you.
There is also another reason, though, and this is more on a platform level, i.e. think globally, act locally. If more users are on Linux then companies will start to target it as a platform that requires first class support. So, then, even if payable, we would also get native Linux apps for enterprise. This would be a win.
As it stands, Steam was the big push but we need more companies to adopt this approach. Don't get me wrong, even wine was amazing, but Proton is such an easier experience that makes it all a breeze.
So, why? In the long run, it will be a better experience for all of us, Linux native users.
(This is a dupe so I'll copy my comment on the old, unloved post from 5 days ago...)
Linux is a fish, stop trying to make it a bird. The fact that a significant portion of the Linux-user population thinks/believes/hopes/expects that it will someday be a bird won't make it so, or do anything to unblock the technical, legal, and organizational roadblocks.
If you want a FOSS desktop OS that can win the "right battles", here's what you do:
1. Come up with a name and a logo. Trademark them. Make a basic set of rules that people have to adhere to if they want to use your logo. Obviously, get a lawyer to look it over to ensure it's ironclad.
2. Fork FreeBSD (or any other open-source-but-not-copyleft-licensed kernel)
3. Pick a GUI layer. GTK, Qt, WxWidgets, doesn't really matter as long as you keep the API stable so programs written in 2028 will run in 2038 (good luck doing that on Linux).
4. Create a driver API interface so someone can write a Realtek Wifi driver once and it'll never need recompiled or updated for a newer kernel. The driver file will work in 2028 and 2038 (of course, excepting the case where there's a new CPU architecture, or a security vulnerability).
5. Stabilize the application-level API as well. That means, probably pick a version of glibc and stick with it forever. Patch vulnerabilities, but maintain backward compatibility as much as possible. Application binaries should work forever.
If your instinctive reaction to these bullet points is to think "who's gonna do all that" then yeah, I agree with you. It's not going to happen.
The Linux Desktop is not failing because there is no such thing as Linux Desktop.
Windows is an operating system made by Microsoft for PCs, macOS is an operating system made by Apple for Macs but a product call Linux Desktop does not exist.
There is Ubuntu, REHL, Debian, Fedora, Arch and many other operating systems based on the Linux kernel - which is a just a kernel - that are built for different purposes, none of them targeting mainstream desktop usage.
In the history of operating systems based on Linux there were a few products targeting mainstream desktop users like Lindows and Ubuntu, but the only really successful, at least for some time, was Ubuntu.
Developing GUI applications for Linux is also a huge pain. Developers not familiar with Linux need to learn so many things...
What is X11, Wayland, GNOME, KDE, d-bus, application ids, portals, etc.
Then once you have a working application, users request having it distributed as .tar.gz, snap, flatpak, you name it. Then dependencies are missing on some Linux distribution or there are random bugs with Nvidia graphics cards.
Compare that to developing for Windows, where most things "just work"
> What is X11, Wayland, GNOME, KDE, d-bus, application ids, portals, etc. ... Compare that to developing for Windows, where most things "just work"
This is a weird complaint, and I'm saying this as a mostly-Windows developer. Windows has an insane number of technologies, many of them replacements for older replacements for older replacements ... etc going 30+ years back. Do you know how registration-free COM works, for example? Probably not, yet it is there, and if you go to the Windows section of MSDN and just start reading through the docs, you'll have to read through that too.
You can reasonably argue that it's not a thing that you actually need to know to write an app for Windows, and it's true. But similarly you don't actually need to know what d-bus is, never mind how it works, to write an app for Linux. If you use a reasonably high-level framework such as Qt, it takes care of all that for you. Hell, you can even go for .NET Core + Avalonia to get something very similar to WPF on Windows.
And then there's Electron, which lets you pretend that everything is just a browser...
Nah, writing the apps for Linux isn't difficult at all. OTOH you're right in that distribution is a pain, and end-user support across numerous wildly different distros can also be a pain (especially when they start packaging a patched version of your code in their package repos!).
[+] [-] ZenoArrow|6 months ago|reply
The main reason for Linux not taking off on the desktop is because most users don't care about what OS they run, they just want a computer that works. If the PC they buy comes with Windows out of the box, they're going to stick with that. Until you get manufacturers shipping PCs with Linux as the default OS, you're mainly going to see desktop Linux as an enthusiast-only option. It's no accident that one of the devices helping to spread Linux (the Steam Deck) comes with Linux as the default option.
[+] [-] takluyver|6 months ago|reply
Competition can definitely improve things, but it's not universally positive. In particular, endless competition in parts of the operating system makes it hard to build anything on top of them. E.g. if you want to distribute an application for Linux, do you build a Flatpak, or a Snap? Or take a more traditionalist approach and make RPMs, DEBs, etc.? You either pick your favourite and leave out a large fraction of Linux users who disagree, or you have to do more than one of these. This is definitely a drag on the ecosystem.
I agree that most users don't care about the OS, though.
[+] [-] room505|6 months ago|reply
I would venture to guess that kids know the difference between Mac and Windows and probably prefers one over the other.
[+] [-] notnullorvoid|6 months ago|reply
It's entirely possible for a large enough brand to ship a Linux based desktop OS to mass adoption. It has already been done once with ChromeOS.
Linux will never be the name users remember, and it's not meant to be.
[+] [-] gjsman-1000|6 months ago|reply
It is a massive moral failure though. It shows that after two decades of work, the Linux community has been unable to build a simple sane functional stable development environment better than Win32.
[+] [-] discardedrefuse|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] x0x0|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] dagmx|6 months ago|reply
Never underestimate the identity association in enthusiast communities.
[+] [-] TacticalCoder|6 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] garciansmith|6 months ago|reply
I disagree that this is an issue. The main advantage of Linux for me is that I have choice (including using various desktop environments that the author is annoyed by; I used GNOME for years and eventually had too many problems with it so I switched to KDE), and those choices are not controlled by one entity which, in the case of Apple and Microsoft, view me only as a customer to extract money from.
[+] [-] donmcronald|6 months ago|reply
The biggest battle desktop Linux is losing is the one where a minority of devs are dictating their preferred compute paradigm to a majority of users that don’t agree it’s a good solution.
I can “fix” Gnome in about 2m with extensions, but that doesn’t help when a new user loads it up for the first time and is hit with the unintuitive ideology of some nerds.
[+] [-] cosmic_cheese|6 months ago|reply
There will always be more “Linuxy” out in the weeds desktops for people who want them. Most people who want that built their own setup anyway, making whatever the big DEs do more or less moot.
[+] [-] nancyminusone|6 months ago|reply
-no ads
-no tracking
-no vendor lock in
-no preinstalled or unremovable crapware
That's enough for me. Yes, it's not perfect, but you're simply allowed to say no.
[+] [-] TiredOfLife|6 months ago|reply
Every distro except arch is full of preinstalled crapware. Some like OpenSuse even have preinstalled crapware bundles where stuff you uninstall comes back after update
[+] [-] skydhash|6 months ago|reply
GNOME is nice, KDE is nice, and we have other options for people that don't like the two previous one. The issue we have now is walled garden, when some proprietary software won't support standards and even their own file format.
[+] [-] senectus1|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] blueflow|6 months ago|reply
Its the way Windows is developing that is driving this change. GNOME might be hardly usable but Microsoft managed to top that.
Edit: I retract the last sentence. I'm currently trying GNOME and its less usable than Windows.
[+] [-] blueflow|6 months ago|reply
I do understand why people bash Gnome and their developers. The hate is deserved.
[1] https://discourse.gnome.org/t/feature-request-show-when-apps...
[+] [-] int_19h|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Glyptodon|6 months ago|reply
The real issue is that these kinds of "grandma" users maybe just don't use computers anymore. And the folks that do are joined at the hip to proprietary software like Photoshop or CAD programs or whatever else they care a lot about and don't want to relearn, and also make enough money that the costs are invisible. Or they're business computers and not using what's familiar (Windows) is a support cost.
From this perspective, gaming and specific hobbyists are basically the only feasible audiences for the Linux desktop unless people are very much pressured by software costs, or annoyed by proprietary software (DRM, lockdowns, upgrades, etc.) enough to switch their major activity to an open source option. In which case they awkward situation of "software works better on Linux, but won't try Linux until confirmed they like the not-totally-integrated-and-nice-on-windows-or-mac software running not on Linux."
I do think there ought to be more of a business case for Linux as a business OS as you should get reduced hardware and software and support costs, but there aren't actually a lot of people with the right experience and expertise to run a business off Linux as a desktop OS to begin with and so those savings can't be realized effectively.
That said, as computers get more locked down, I think there will be a bigger drive for power users who influence friends and family to switch.
Any case, my house has had year of the Linux Desktop ongoing since circa 2006.
[+] [-] nine_k|6 months ago|reply
The "desktop" itself, the underlying OS, is irrelevant to most users who are not hardcore pros, like, well, software developers.
[+] [-] extraisland|6 months ago|reply
> Meanwhile, the Linux community spends enormous energy on debates that rarely affect mainstream adoption. Consider the “init wars,” where systemd sparked endless flame wars (and memes) about the proper way to boot a Linux system.
This is almost in anything. We had play ground arguments over whether SEGA or Nintendo were better. Then Playstation vs N64 vs Saturn. There was Amiga vs Atari. BSD vs Linux. Vim vs Emacs. Ford vs Chevy.
[+] [-] floxy|6 months ago|reply
Time for a Cathedral and the Bazaar refresher?
https://web.archive.org/web/20250307173133/https://www.catb....
[+] [-] DonHopkins|6 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] k__|6 months ago|reply
She's 58 and a book keeper.
She even went so far and got some windows apps running with wine. All just with the help of a forum posts she found via a web search engine.
[+] [-] graemep|6 months ago|reply
They usually do not need to know - they just see a software centre which is app store like.
> they care that their favorite apps will work
That depends on app developers.
> that updates won't break anything (which Windows does all the time)
Already done
> and that they don't have to learn a list of text commands to make basic changes to their computers.
Already done.
[+] [-] 29athrowaway|6 months ago|reply
Then you have walled gardens like the Apple ecosystem where interoperability is superior among Apple products which cross sell each other. If you got an iPhone, now get the Apple Watch and a Macbook and all integrate well.
Then you have games, where consoles will give you a decent experience for less money.
Then you have professional users where the most common use case is office documents. This remains contentious but there are more alternatives now like web apps, MS Office clones like Libreoffice, Softmaker Office/FreeOffice, WPS Office.
Then you have specific desktop apps for specific OSes and there you are tied to an OS. This is one of the few legitimate uses for Windows I can think of.
Otherwise Linux is king.
[+] [-] BrandoElFollito|6 months ago|reply
I can install them if this is easy.
Now, I've been using Linux since 1994, wrote a small bit of the kernel at that time (you may have ran it, it was for a well known NIC) and I use it daily on my systems. Via ssh or remote dev in vscode.
I have no idea what the graphical interface is today and how to configure it. I could learn if this is easy.
One thing I know is that the sound did not work on my Thinkpad last time Ininstalled Ubuntu and the second screen would not wake up (the third did). Surely googling and chatgpting would help but in Windows 11 it just works.
[+] [-] bee_rider|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] prerok|6 months ago|reply
I think one of the reasons is that if you think it's better and see how other users are struggling with all the bs these companies are throwing at them, it's only natural that you would suggest what works for you.
There is also another reason, though, and this is more on a platform level, i.e. think globally, act locally. If more users are on Linux then companies will start to target it as a platform that requires first class support. So, then, even if payable, we would also get native Linux apps for enterprise. This would be a win.
As it stands, Steam was the big push but we need more companies to adopt this approach. Don't get me wrong, even wine was amazing, but Proton is such an easier experience that makes it all a breeze.
So, why? In the long run, it will be a better experience for all of us, Linux native users.
[+] [-] g42gregory|6 months ago|reply
But MacOS always gets it right: in any browser, the websites look “juicy” for the lack of a better word, and pleasant to look at.
Why can’t Linux fix this and render closer to MacOS?
Hopefully, without all the other “value added” stuff.
[+] [-] phendrenad2|6 months ago|reply
Linux is a fish, stop trying to make it a bird. The fact that a significant portion of the Linux-user population thinks/believes/hopes/expects that it will someday be a bird won't make it so, or do anything to unblock the technical, legal, and organizational roadblocks. If you want a FOSS desktop OS that can win the "right battles", here's what you do:
1. Come up with a name and a logo. Trademark them. Make a basic set of rules that people have to adhere to if they want to use your logo. Obviously, get a lawyer to look it over to ensure it's ironclad.
2. Fork FreeBSD (or any other open-source-but-not-copyleft-licensed kernel)
3. Pick a GUI layer. GTK, Qt, WxWidgets, doesn't really matter as long as you keep the API stable so programs written in 2028 will run in 2038 (good luck doing that on Linux).
4. Create a driver API interface so someone can write a Realtek Wifi driver once and it'll never need recompiled or updated for a newer kernel. The driver file will work in 2028 and 2038 (of course, excepting the case where there's a new CPU architecture, or a security vulnerability).
5. Stabilize the application-level API as well. That means, probably pick a version of glibc and stick with it forever. Patch vulnerabilities, but maintain backward compatibility as much as possible. Application binaries should work forever.
If your instinctive reaction to these bullet points is to think "who's gonna do all that" then yeah, I agree with you. It's not going to happen.
[+] [-] pengwinhayden|6 months ago|reply
Where is the translation layer that lets me seamlessly run x64 apps on Linux on Arm?
[+] [-] cwillu|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] akagusu|6 months ago|reply
Windows is an operating system made by Microsoft for PCs, macOS is an operating system made by Apple for Macs but a product call Linux Desktop does not exist.
There is Ubuntu, REHL, Debian, Fedora, Arch and many other operating systems based on the Linux kernel - which is a just a kernel - that are built for different purposes, none of them targeting mainstream desktop usage.
In the history of operating systems based on Linux there were a few products targeting mainstream desktop users like Lindows and Ubuntu, but the only really successful, at least for some time, was Ubuntu.
[+] [-] CommonGuy|6 months ago|reply
What is X11, Wayland, GNOME, KDE, d-bus, application ids, portals, etc.
Then once you have a working application, users request having it distributed as .tar.gz, snap, flatpak, you name it. Then dependencies are missing on some Linux distribution or there are random bugs with Nvidia graphics cards.
Compare that to developing for Windows, where most things "just work"
[+] [-] int_19h|6 months ago|reply
This is a weird complaint, and I'm saying this as a mostly-Windows developer. Windows has an insane number of technologies, many of them replacements for older replacements for older replacements ... etc going 30+ years back. Do you know how registration-free COM works, for example? Probably not, yet it is there, and if you go to the Windows section of MSDN and just start reading through the docs, you'll have to read through that too.
You can reasonably argue that it's not a thing that you actually need to know to write an app for Windows, and it's true. But similarly you don't actually need to know what d-bus is, never mind how it works, to write an app for Linux. If you use a reasonably high-level framework such as Qt, it takes care of all that for you. Hell, you can even go for .NET Core + Avalonia to get something very similar to WPF on Windows.
And then there's Electron, which lets you pretend that everything is just a browser...
Nah, writing the apps for Linux isn't difficult at all. OTOH you're right in that distribution is a pain, and end-user support across numerous wildly different distros can also be a pain (especially when they start packaging a patched version of your code in their package repos!).