Why didn't Linux succeed as a desktop OS?

I believe it all boils down to marketing. Mac OS X is a Unix variant, an has its own strong following with respect to Windows. Linux would probably share the same spotlight given more exposure to the populace.

Another linked reason could be due to closed source coding, a potential barrier of entry. Though, I'm hoping CS experts would weigh in their opinion on this.

May be people like to move along the crowd..

As people started using windows first they would have been comfortable with known one and didn't want to try something new!

There are many reasons:
1 . Windows took the market earlier by introducing personal computers.
2. Closed source or open source doesn't affect windows market share because of piracy, though open source is free. I think windows is not trying enough to oust piracy because it will decrease its market share.
3. General public uses PC to watch movies,listen to music & document processing in which windows is good, atleast you don't have to mess around with rpms to install players & all types of softwares as in Linux.
4. Linux is mostly useful for student community & is doing very well there, but to get recognition as a user desktop in common public , mass awareness is needed to spread drawbacks of windows.
5. Hardware compatibility is one of the main issues, most of the laptop vendors support windows, if you install linux in those systems then it is very difficult to configure inbuilt hardware like wireless adaptor. Some vendors started supporting Linux, thats good initiative by their side.

Inspite of these huddles future lies in Linux, because its free & open.

vik001indThere are many reasons:
1 . Windows took the market earlier by introducing personal computers.
2. Closed source or open source doesn't affect windows market share because of piracy, though open source is free. I think windows is not trying enough to oust piracy because it will decrease its market share.
3. General public uses PC to watch movies,listen to music & document processing in which windows is good, atleast you don't have to mess around with rpms to install players & all types of softwares as in Linux.
4. Linux is mostly useful for student community & is doing very well there, but to get recognition as a user desktop in common public , mass awareness is needed to spread drawbacks of windows.
5. Hardware compatibility is one of the main issues, most of the laptop vendors support windows, if you install linux in those systems then it is very difficult to configure inbuilt hardware like wireless adaptor. Some vendors started supporting Linux, thats good initiative by their side.

Inspite of these huddles future lies in Linux, because its free & open.

I agree with point number 2, and to some extent with point number 1. However the rest are open to debate in my opinion.

point number 3) Have you had a look ubuntu, all you need to do is install one, I repeat, just one package to enable restricted software (flash,java, codecs, etc). You can , additionally, choose from thousands of software which are completely virus free and useful by the way!!

point number 4) Linux is not restricted to student community, it has its own cult following!!

5) hardware compatibility is an issue, because most of the major distros try to keep the bundled software (including the drivers)completely free!! If that was not the case, you get support for all the cutting edge graphics cards on linux machines!! My laptop, when it was new, had no problems what so ever with linux, linux detected all my hardware and i was able to use it without any problem!! Including the shortcut buttons for the media player on the laptop!!


That said, linux still has a long long way to go, in terms of market share. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that most companies develop software for windows and forget to release corresponding linux versions!!

mad_scientistOne of the main reasons for this is the fact that most companies develop software for windows and forget to release corresponding linux versions!!

This is why I thought open "sourceness" might be a factor. For most linux distros, any software to be released on them must comply somewhat with GNU licenses. Perhaps this is why major software publishers avoid releasing their powerful software (CAD, etc) on Linux is to protect their IP?

What incentive is there for a group to make a very powerful software like MATLAB for free? Sure, they could make money from other software revenue, but that would kind of by hypocritical for those who believe in "free software".

I'm thinking this situation is like a balance scale or Ying Yang, the coexistence of OSS and commercial ones. Its like economics.. if there are people willing to buy and feel the money is worth to compensate the company who produced them, then let it be. If people don't want to pay, then they have a viable alternative with OSS.

mad_scientistI agree with point number 2, and to some extent with point number 1. However the rest are open to debate in my opinion.

point number 3) Have you had a look ubuntu, all you need to do is install one, I repeat, just one package to enable restricted software (flash,java, codecs, etc). You can , additionally, choose from thousands of software which are completely virus free and useful by the way!!

point number 4) Linux is not restricted to student community, it has its own cult following!!

5) hardware compatibility is an issue, because most of the major distros try to keep the bundled software (including the drivers)completely free!! If that was not the case, you get support for all the cutting edge graphics cards on linux machines!! My laptop, when it was new, had no problems what so ever with linux, linux detected all my hardware and i was able to use it without any problem!! Including the shortcut buttons for the media player on the laptop!!


That said, linux still has a long long way to go, in terms of market share. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that most companies develop software for windows and forget to release corresponding linux versions!!

In case of software installation i was talking about the general case, not in particular about one linux distro.
Ya, I have used Ubuntu, software installation is hassle free. But its not in every distro. Mostly the stuck somewhere, dependencies & all that. Every distro has its own speciality. In redhat, you can build servers quite transparently but player installation is not hassle free.

I never said, it is restricted to student community. Mostly they use it, for studying purposes. Nowadays linux servers are used in large scale in banks, military & many other fields & linux is spreading out. But in a normal office, where computer is used for general works, if you replace their windows with linux, they will get very uncomfortable.

I have suffered linux hardware compatibility issue, I tried for 6 months configuring my broadcom bcm4311 wireless adaptor(of HP laptop) in linux, even my RHCSS (Redhat Certified Security Specialist) trainer was unable to do that for me.

dependencies and all are issues usually while compiling from source, not if you install from the repositories..though you may get a slightly older version in the repo, but at least it will get installed 😁

i am surprised that your HP laptop's wireless device is giving you problems (i have an HP laptop too, dv2002tu)..

I have HP pavilion dv2401tu.

My $0.02 -

My new desktop has all the latest hardware and runs ubuntu. I haven't faced any problem configuring all my current devices, including a new HP Multifunction.

Hardware comparability is not an issue for Linux (anymore), I believe.

I had no issues with LINUX detecting any of my hardware, everything was all set and i dont quite have issues with insatllation of software except when there is aproblem with download of the file. Its more to do with market

I can think it somewhat like " buying a daimond" , the more the price , you assume the more better it is and pay right? you don't actually think of price . Though MAC is a variant of linux, i dont think any of their softwares comes for free still it has its own cult following. What more is the brand name, MS , APPLE , people imemdiately relate them to super swesome stuff and buy them, you rarely know the people who are behind simple, neat and decent linux distros(Atleast I don't know about them) except for HP which is ofcourse more into server distros I think.

As far as servers go, I don't know about world server count which run on linux, but at least at my work place all the producations servers are linux based, recently a windows server was made obsolete. So performance too is not a problem as well .

When some one gets accquinted with computer the first thing they know is WINDOWS and how to atl+ctl+del, its only when computers and OS interest them they start discovering good stuff 😀
I think scenario might chance with GOOGLE CHROME opensource OS. Google conveys innovative brand name apart from delevering interestign stuff , so people might go by trend( apart from those few who think abotu the neccesity of a particualr software) and migth give it a try.

I can just boil everything down to customer and market belief trend and ofcourse the percepttion that soemthing free might not be so good 😁

MAC is not a variant of Linux!

Oops! Sorry. i think I meant unix.

Thanks for spotting it out .