Linux-Windows gap to remain for five years

Summary: The Linux desktop experience is now closer to the Windows environment than before, but the gap in mainstream adoption for the open source OS will not close anytime soon, says an industry analyst.

The Linux desktop experience is now closer to the Windows environment than before, but the gap in mainstream adoption for the open source OS will not close anytime soon, says an industry analyst.

Laurent Lachal, U.K.-based senior analyst at IT advisory firm Ovum, said inconsistencies across Linux distributions still stand in the way of wider user uptake.

"For one, Linux has two main GUIs (graphical user interfaces), KDE and Gnome. Some see that as choice, but overall it confuses the market," Lachal told ZDNet Asia in a phone interview. He added that each GUI is further tweaked for different distributions, further compounding the disparity.

Different distributions also have different ways of allowing users to perform tasks, such as terminal commands.

Some distributions also try to mimic Windows as closely as possible in order to entice Windows users to migrate, but has often resulted in only "good enough" experience for "basic" enterprise tasks.

Read more on "Linux-Windows gap to remain for five years" from ZDNET Asia.

Topics: Hardware, Linux, Open Source, Operating Systems, Software, Windows

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

195 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • In other words...

    This only confirms what we have been saying for sometime now.


    Desktop Linux lags behinds Windows (And Mac) for these facts alone, but the biggest one is mainstream application software compatibility which so far, were you to look at system requirements would only support Windows and Mac...

    There are many people saying that if Linux wants to see more than ~1% desktop share, there needs to be ONE unified effort. Not [i]thousands[/i] (Literally). And hopefully Richard Stallman will not be a part of that effort.


    And am I the only one upset by the fact that Linux has to imitate Windows to get users to switch? How many of them switch just for the fact that it looks like Windows only to find out it isn't, and won't run their apps?

    Don't imitate Windows, create your own UI and be your own OS. But hey, Imitation is the best form of flattery... ;)
    The one and only, Cylon Centurion
    • 1 Word... Ubuntu

      The closest thing that Linux has to a unified front is Ubuntu. While some users don't like it, overall, the word has been good. I personally don't care for it, but I still feel that Ubuntu will probably be the way to go for the simple fact that the forces are rallying behind it.

      5 years is probably a reasonable guess before the market with accept anything but Microsoft.

      Apple has gained popularity though, so perhaps if Ubuntu gains corporate support, things may change. If Novell gains, I see may be 6 or 7 years before acceptance, and any other distribution would take additional time.
      nucrash
      • Yeah

        I've tried it too and i don't particularly care for it either. (Not to mention all the so called "IT professionals" running around here saying Winbloze sux0r! Use Ubuntu!!! :) turn me off to using it as well.)

        However, I do agree that it is the closest thing to a unified effort to get Linux mainstream, although, even Ubuntu is fragmented with Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc... (And you thought Windows had too many versions! Haha)


        The thing with Open source i think is that it can be modified so much that it becomes its own OS. I don't know how third party companies are going to be able to support that fact. Maybe there is a way, I don't know too much about supporting open source, but as far as I can imagine the difference between Fedora Core 11 and centOS is the same as the difference between Windows 7 and Mac OSX.
        The one and only, Cylon Centurion
        • Difference between CentOS and FC11

          The main difference between CentOS and FC11 is that FC11 is newer and cutting edge where CentOS is based off RHEL which is older and stable. The difference is nothing like the difference between Win7 and OSX. It's more like comparing ubuntu with debian. Same OS just uBuntu is newer.

          BTW RHEL and to a lesser extend SuSE already have some commercial software support. So why push for it with uBuntu too? What we need is companies like Adobe and Game Studios to start releasing Linux versions of their software.
          codeguy007
          • why push Ubuntu as well? because..

            .. Ubuntu, unlike the others, is usable right away after installation?

            SuSE's install process was a nightmare, as was the way things were organized in the menus. It kind of reminded me of the time i "upgraded" from Win98 to XP the first time, was so confused because nothing was where it was "supposed" to be. I never did get the repositories working, because the links on the site for 10.2 were wrong, and they weren't setup and ready to go after the installation. i shot them a message and they removed the links, and instead of putting up the correct ones they posted openSuSE 10.3.

            RHEL, are they still making that? Not that it matters, since this is about DESKTOP linux not server. CentOS i've heard good things about, but never used myself. From what i was told it just lacked in hardware support, and was more oriented toward server use. about half(or more) the linux distributions are for server use, and probably about 1/4 of the rest is more centered for research, rescue/boot CDs. there are really only a couple distros meant for Desktop use.
            Fedora Core i found to be too limited in what could and couldn't be installed though that more then likely changed since i've last used it(i hope). Other-wise it was very stable and fairly easy to use.

            PCLinuxOS had a very small repository, and most dependencies needed for things i used everyday just weren't there. there was also a rather ugly bandwidth cap when downloading from their repository.

            Xandros I actually kind of liked way back in 2.0, it just was not free to download things from the repository with the "Open circulation" edition. ultimitely though it's the distro that actually gave me the ambition to actually try to make the switch from windows in the first place.

            Ubuntu this is the one i keep coming back to time and time again. It really has just about everything that most people need...not necessarily out of the box, but the various multimedia packages people want are in the repository. My only complaint is, their focus is purely on security in terms of when they update their repository. my concern would be more toward certain apps stability, mostly Pidgin, and certain DVD related apps. It would be nice if they had better GUI Video/DVD authoring/editing/ripping apps. Maybe this will change with the newest release, who knows.
            Debian...well i've not tried pure Debian. the big reason is the fact that it's install spans 5 FULL DVDs. not something someone would like to download even on the fastest of connection speeds, nevermind my worthless 20k dialup i get on my second phone line, or even the 48k on the main line. I'd actually have to buy it from a store somewhere online to get it in less then about 8 months, likely more. 4.4GB x 5 = 22GB. I hear from so many folks on forums that say Debian is sooo much better then ubuntu...but with no proof offered...strange eh?


            as far as companies needing to make their software and have a version ported to linux.. i agree completely. except adobe.. they can keep their over-priced garbage. i mean seriously.. they want over $1000 for photoshop...you can do pretty much everything photoshop has on GIMP, with the gimpshop plugin. In all honesty i've seen much better work done with the GIMP. the only difference between the two other then the price-tag, is the menus organization, and a couple names of tools are different. Don't know about others but it's my opinion that software should [u]never[/u] cost more than the MS OS it runs on. I could see maybe $40, but $100+? um.. no thanks.
            sir_cheats_alot@...
          • ..Stay out of the enterprise, then..

            "but it's my opinion that software should never cost more than the MS OS it runs on. I could see maybe $40, but $100+? um.. no thanks. "

            Wow - a thousand bucks is expensive for software, eh? Don't try to set up any kind of accounting or customer management system for any business that doesn't run in a basement, then.
            daftkey
          • That was not the issue

            I guess he ment that why to pay extra for software when the free one does more or less the same for 98% of all users?
            That saveing would be interesting for most enterprice companies too. Just becouse it cost lots to buy, it donesn't need to be any better, or even as good as the free one.

            So if you can't controll the software expenses, stay out of Enterprice buissiness, will you?
            Jxn
          • Agreed...

            SuSE's installer YAST is (or was) horrible. Haven't tried it in the last year or so. If you like the KDE DT with decent repositories and fantastic hardware detection, Mepis or Mint you might enjoy.
            Dave32265
          • Just a short notice

            5 DVD is with ALL software in the repository AND sources to them. You would have that with Ubuntu too.
            Just download one CD and install base system from that. Then you can install rest of your software from Internet. If you want to have them on a CD, download the two or thee first CD:s, that would cover most of your need.
            Jxn
        • I agree from the other side.

          "Not to mention all the so called "IT professionals" running around here saying Winbloze sux0r! Use Ubuntu!!! turn me off to using it as well."
          I agree. Being a FLOSS advocate I find quite annoying when "Linux" people makes unsubstantiated claims against other OSs. It has the effect you just mentioned.

          "Ubuntu is fragmented with Kubuntu..."
          This is a misconception, it's not fragmentation. It is the same OS different skin. This is a real conundrum: On one hand Consistency constraints, choice liberates. On the other, consistency is required to increase adoption. I have no solution for this one yet.

          "the difference between Fedora Core 11 and centOS..."
          The difference is that Fedora is experimental, CentOS is enterprise class. But they are really not that different.

          I still don't get people that want "Linux domination". The thing about Free software is FREEDOM. Not everybody wants it, very few understands what it really means.

          http://puppy:linux@puppylinux.asia/tpp/rarsa/SFD2009/WhatAreWeCelebrating.swf

          If tomorrow 100% moved to FLOSS without understanding the rights and freedom it provides, we wouldn't be better off.

          rarsa
          • A couple of problems....

            Its funny he talks about "Linux people" talking about Windoze when he is normally one of the first on the scene with one of those "it didn't work out of the box for me" stories that has no details but plenty of "*nix doesn't work".

            Second why bother entertaining his posts when he admits he doesn't even know the difference between FC and CentOS. How can you suggest consolidation of something when you don't even know where the differences are?

            I agree with you that we don't need Linux domination. And for the most part I don't see the Linux community calling for Linux domination. This talk mostly comes from so called market experts, bloggers and Windows fans that insist on talking about market share. They have yet to realize that market share doesn't mean much to the general Linux community outside of better support for some software packages. There's no parent company that's going to fail causing Linux to die if it doesn't gain market share like MS would. As long as the people that want to use Linux get to use Linux then all is well.
            storm14k
          • Ok

            Just because I have tried it and didn't stick with it, doesn't mean I'm not willing to discuss it...


            After all, I am here to learn...
            The one and only, Cylon Centurion
          • It seems

            like you have cooled off a bit from earlier posts.

            Keep in mind that just as Linux have the "Winsux" extremist, so Windows has the "Linsux" extremist. I have also noticed more Windows proponents who insult people that have problems with Windows security or stability issues just as we have Linux techies insulting Windows users for not being more technically inclined.

            Unfortunately with such posters, all of us will get caught in the cross fire from time to time.

            Welcome to the discussion.
            Viva la crank dodo
          • @Viva

            The thing with me is, if you want to flame, I can flame right back. Haha. Sadly, there are some people here that will never be able to carry on a conversation...


            But in all honesty I come here to learn and keep up with the news about all things tech, and while I do use and prefer Windows, I am open to chit chat about Mac and Linux (Even though I have had little to no success with it) as well, after all, I am in school for computer repair and networking, there will be times where I encounter all 3 operating systems, but it really bothers me when someone comes along and posts nothing but "Windoze sucks", etc... I'll admit, I am quick to defend Windows when I feel it is deserved.

            Windows does have its weaknesses but it also has its strengths... Something most people here will never notice, and I wish more people would.

            But thank you :)
            The one and only, Cylon Centurion
          • I was thinking the same...

            Each time those words, "sux0r" and "... sucks", appear in the talkbacks you can be sure it was an M$ shill who wrote them, most probably in his windoze machine.

            Linux people use M$ and windoze, mostly for the fun of it. Those words he mentions are belong to M$ shills, we don't need them, they <del>can</del> <ins>should</ins> keep them to themselves, it's their property.
            The Mentalist
          • My name is windoze...

            ... and I use lindoze just for fun too. Pot, kettle, black.
            eargasm
          • Thank you

            For clearing that up for me!
            The one and only, Cylon Centurion
        • Distributions

          You are all correct, to an extent. The beauty of Linux is its configurability. I personally like Ubuntu. With VirtualBox (running a virtual XP for those apps without representation), there's absolutely nothing that I cannot do with or on it. Actually, XP in VirtualBox runs faster than the native XP on the same laptop did. But that's kudo's to the VM stuff.
          Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, DSL, etc. are all really like getting Windows systems from HP, Acer, Lenovo, etc. They are tailors of the same underlying system.
          The fault is that each of these distributions customize locations and sometimes use different utilities. BUT, they follow the LSB (Linux Standard Base) which means that they are compatible (It does not mean that each app knows where the libraries and supporting files are located. THIS discrepancy is really the big issue. If Linux distros as a whole would standardize on file locations, then the application packaging issue wouldn't be a big factor.

          For instance... A great text editor and programming tool "UltraEdit" (www.idmcomp.com) is being built for Linux. It is a single build, yet they have to spend the administrative time to produce binary installations for Red Hat, Ubuntu, SuSE, Fedora. Then they still have a tarball so that you can build it yourself, if you have a different distro. This is a PAIN for the third party. MAC and Windows both use executables because their file/folder configuration is known and can be easily used (based upon version checking).

          So, if you are a user that has purchased "Window Blinds" to customize your XP theme, then you almost doing the equivalent of choosing a different distribution and you would be one of the people who would most likely find benefit in Linux. If you, however, just want your system to work, then stick with MAC or to a bit lesser extent, Windows. Choice is never a bad thing. As long as there are people who want to know how things work, and/or who believe that there is a different way to do things, there will always be a choice.
          The fighting and comments are just plain silly... Choose and accept, or choose again. When you find what you love, stick with it.

          Have fun computing... You'll do better work.
          icetnet
          • It doesn't have to be that hard

            Installing Linux apps does NOT have to be as hard as you say - some proprietary apps and many open source apps are being shipped with very Windows-looking installers. The install package is called autopackage, and when you install it, it can actually detect and automatically pull dependencies from the appropriate repositories. Xara Xtreme for Linux is one such application.
            kimvette
          • Not sure is has to be that hard either

            Most Linux distros use one of the package management systems that can grab dependencies as well. I don't really see the need for Autopackage. The two biggest formats are DEB and RPM and they can be converted to each other. If each system would support the other that would simply a few things.

            However there is nothing difficult about using the systems to begin with. You download the package and double click. I don't even do that. I click the link to download and let Firefox open it with the package manager and let it install at that point.

            Sorry but application installation on Linux has long since passed other OS's. I amazed my wife with this fact just last night. She hadn't really payed attention before to how I got software onto the computers.
            storm14k