Why don't more people use desktop Linux? I have a theory you might not like
I've been using Linux since 1997, and it's only failed me on one rare occasion. Considering the length of time, that's an impressive run. Imagine you've managed to work with an operating system for nearly 30 years and have had minor problems a handful of times and only one serious issue.
That's a win, no matter how you look at it.
No viruses, no malware, and no forced updates that lead to the operating system failing.
During those early years, however, it wasn't exactly easy. Because I installed Linux over Windows on my first PC, I had no choice but to learn the ins and outs of the OS. Caldera Open Linux 1.0 and Red Hat Linux 5.2 weren't exactly user-friendly.
Today is not yesterday
Today's Linux is not yesterday's Linux. Now, the platform is incredibly easy to use. You no longer need to use the command line. You don't have to compile your own kernel, write bash scripts, work with regular expressions, or install your own firmware.
It's just so simple now.
Given that, why aren't more people using Linux on the desktop?
Also: 8 things you can do with Linux that you can't do with MacOS or Windows
To give you an idea of the numbers, last year Linux surpassed MacOS as the second most-used operating system for gaming. Couple that with Linux hitting 4% market share worldwide in March 2024, and, well, the numbers might be something to celebrate, but there's really not that much to huzzah over.
Even so…huzzah!
My theory
Here's the thing. Over the past few years, I developed a theory as to why Linux has yet to really take over the desktop. By all accounts, it should have. It's free, it's remarkably stable, secure, and easy to use, and it's fun. On top of that, the majority of desktop use cases these days are centered on the web browser. That alone kind of kicks to the curb the idea that a lack of applications is the issue stopping so many from using Linux.
So, what's the problem? Open-source community, cover your ears (or your eyes).
The problem is the lack of a representative Linux version.
Hear me out.
Also: The best Linux laptops
When someone comes to me asking how to get into Linux, they do not need to hear a laundry list of distributions to choose from. I don't want to have to say, something akin to, "You could try Ubuntu, Linux Mint, elementary OS, Zorin OS, or Ubuntu Budgie." Although that's true, it can be overwhelming for someone who's never even seen the operating system in action.
Every single Linux user has an opinion on what distribution is best-suited for new users. Sadly, that variety of opinions doesn't help the cause. About a decade ago, that very issue led me to an idea, one I believe would vastly benefit Linux.
Consider this: An "official" Linux distribution.
Also: The most important reason you should be using Linux at home
Think about it. If there's one distribution that becomes the official flavor, a few things could happen.
First, there'd be less confusion for new users. If someone wants to try Linux, they turn to Official Linux (or whatever the name would be). That version of Linux would be user-friendly, stable, receive TLS-level updates, and would be geared toward (you guessed it) new users.
Second, companies that want to port their software or make their hardware available to Linux wouldn't be faced with having to make it work for hundreds of distributions (or even just a handful). They'd only have to work with a single flavor of Linux. That could equate to even more software and hardware being made available for Linux.
Another added benefit would be that more businesses would be willing to use Linux as a desktop operating system.
The big caveat
Here's the issue: Which distribution should it be? Ubuntu? Linux Mint? elementary OS? Zorin OS? Fedora?
This is where things get tricky. If you ask a Ubuntu user, of course, they'll say the official Linux distribution should be Ubuntu. The same holds true for every distribution and every user.
Also: How to install Ubuntu Linux (It's easy!)
To get around this, I would suggest basing the official Linux distribution on Debian but with a few queues from other distros, such as:
- Standard users added to the sudo group
- Both Snap and Flatpack support are built in
- User choice of web browser (even with a tool allowing them to easily switch)
- New release software available
With those bits in place, the distribution would be maintained and controlled by a collective of users, developers, and corporations (such as Intel and AMD) with a vested interest in the success of this project. There wouldn't be a single person or company running the show, to maintain a level of autonomy, so everything would be handled via committee. There would also be corporate backing for things like marketing (such as TV commercials).
Also: Want to save your aging computer? Try these 5 Linux distributions
There might be worries around eliminating choice and the public failing to see Linux offers a world of choice. Yet this official distribution would be used to promote Linux and expand its reach. This wouldn't be about squashing innovation or removing choice. Instead, it would be about reaching a much larger audience with an ease Linux hasn't enjoyed since its inception. In fact, Linux outreach has been pretty bad since, well, the beginning.
It doesn't have to be that way.
Also: The best Linux distros for beginners
With an official distribution, everyone would know where to point new users to and companies would have a much easier time supporting Linux.
What do you think, Linux community? Is this the way to help the open-source operating system finally reach a double-digit market share?