One paragraph from an interesting read... https://michaelcornelison.substack.com/p/why-is-desktop-linux-a-market-failure
From the technical perspective I think that developers doesn't care anymore about using Gnu/Linux dependencies from distro repository. They just bundle them with app, really, which resolves this problem with supporting many versions of Gnu/Linux. It increases storage space needed to install, but in this day and age it doesn't matter that much. From big business perspective there is not too much to gain. Gnu/Linux users prefer open-source software instead of proprietary, so it is hard to sell it to them, especially by big developers. In the last decade there were more innovation in mobile apps and web browser apps than desktop apps. In general golden age of desktop apps for whatever OS is over, except some scenarios, mostly professional settings. Last but not least I do think that author uses false dichotomy. In his mind software is either used by billions of users, or it is a failure. It is like saying that small, local shop or bakery run by your neighbor for the last 20 years is failure, because he didn't expanded it into a chain of hundreds of of them across the whole country. No, is not a failure as long as customers are served, owner fulfills contracts and it didn't went bankrupt.
There's nothing to gain because big business is not interested - and won't be until Linux can provide a professional office suite. And then also the multitude of specific business software in use today. Every user, regardless of OS, prefers open source [aka free]. You've been here long enough to see the bitching about any sort of price introduction on a previously free item. That's a personal interpretation, but the analogy is wanting. Meanwhile, from the newsdesk : Linux Crosses 4% Market Share Worldwide According to StatCounter's data, by the end of February 2024, Linux has achieved a 4.03% desktop market share. https://linuxiac.com/linux-crosses-four-percent-market-share-worldwide/
I wrote my "recipe" for how to make linux desktop a success back in 2009. Most of the stuff on that list still hasn't been done. So. Mrk
Looking through the Dedoimedo Linux archive for 2009, I guess it was this one: Expanding Linux desktop market
Linux is too hard for most people. Prior to Windows 95 tech people and nerds (same?) used PCs. With Windows 95 and America Online everyone had a PC. Most of everyone is not nerd enough to learn alternative OSes.
As mentioned an office suite that integrates seamlessly with MS offerings, And an equivalent performance & acceptance of gaming. That should increase Linux usage quite a bit. But MS won't give up it's stranglehold easily. So it'd still be a long haul to 10% market share.
I agree. Even with the most basic of things like downloading software. Windows - download .exe file - click to install Linux - download Snap or Flatpak or AppImage or Deb or RPM or With Windows one size fits all. While the multiple choices available in Linux might appeal to us, for the average punter it's just a big headache.
Just some thoughts. Linux has been a long time in development to the stage where most people that are conversant with computer usage, could operate it on some level, as an 'everyday' operating system There are (and have been) through it's developmental history the more arcane versions of Linux which are interesting and useful to the more 'dyed in the woad' Linux people. Most of these types of distributions are for a Linux 'elite' and personal computer users among the general public understand that if they've ever tried to introduce themselves into that world in the past, that they often have been met with snobbish scorn, unhelpful derisory comment and critical , hurtful, 'snippy', acerbic dialogue. People, (like myself) have not come to and settled on Linux easily. I tried for decades to come to terms with the developing Linux and was thwarted and left feeling uncomfortable, deflated and inadequate every time. The main answer to the original posters question, is, I believe, that 'the market' is corrupt, monopolistic and has corporate interests at it's fore generating massive amounts of money, power and has a massive political component. Linux, on the other hand has developed into a broad spectrum of usability, diversity and iterations, is in essence a 'people's' 'enthusiast's' generated operating and is by standards other than money and corporate power, a fantastic success, and maintains a high degree of moral integrity and user input and remains not a monopoly. That is one of it's greatest achievements. Linux is a success it's just that it need to be evaluated using a different yardstick. My main worry about Linux development is that some of the more 'modern' thinking people involved in the development are playing 'catch up' and want to mimic the 'success' (as they see it) of the more mainstream operating systems. Part of Linux's charm is in it's 'utilitarian' ethos not gimmick and gui, usability and functionality over 'gloss'. I find it amazing when I listen to reviewers of Linux 'distros' that they often spend far too much time and emphasis on 'backrounds and (what are in essence) just desktop backround photos. It's an operating system, not an arcade! In my opinion, this is the worst way that Linux could go. It must keep it's integrity at all costs. Let the philosophical polarities stay as they are and please do not try to turn Linux's evolved 'silk purse' into a mainstream, 'sow's ear'. GUI and 'decoration' are important in an operating system but not to the detriment of the bones of 'structure' consistency, usability and ethics. No 'phone homes', no tricky traps,, spyware, commercial programs, absolutely necessary 'services' only and continuity of philosophical, implementation and platform. Linux, does not need to be the 'next big thing' or a single one operation 'connected', 'button'. It has it's place and it's currently a good place unless it it becomes corrupted by short thinking 'delvers' or tries to become what it is not.
The multiple install formats for Linux is a problem even if some of he tech minded users will praise it. I tried Linux last year for 3 months last year and just returned to Windows because it's way simpler for me to get the software I need working. Some software I use daily for work wouldn't work even under emulation because it failed to negotiate the secure encryption needed. Otherwise it was quite stable but trust me, the first time a normal users runs into an install failure because of dependencies, he'll have someone wipe the disk and have Windows installed. The average users want their computers to work, not learn how it works. In the end, Windows just gave me less of a headache for day to day use. Also the lack of native commercial software is a problem. For some software there is no free or even an alternative. Don't even try to tell a normal user that it can run on emulation. They average user probably doen't even know what emulation is and will just prefer to run it on Windows where it "just works". Word is an industry standard for pretty good erason, for instance. If you don't need its advanced features, any open source text editor will do. If you DO need them, though, there's nothing that even comes close. The same goes for other industry standard software. In other works my problem was software sided. If I didn't need such specialized software, I'd use Linux. Until it's natively available and supported I won't bother. Maybe when I'm retired.
That's true but 90% of people (yes, I admit I pulled that number out of my imagination) are probably looking for the arcade. I worked on a device we were selling that was running a node.js app on a Linux based device. The dev team had a hard time working with Linux, the end users knew nothing of it, and updates were a pain as you cannot assign version numbers to files. We'd have to update based on checksums and spent weeks on creating a private repository that broke when the next point release of the OS came out. We switched to Windows 11 and micro PCs, eliminating most of the issues. The skill level and effort it takes to use Linux beyond a web browser and email client will stop it from ever being popular enough to grow beyond where it is. The fact that it is free is a huge incentive and even that hasn't been enough for widespread adoption. I'd really like to see an alternative OS but it will have to be something easier to use than this.
I use Linux mainly as my daily driver because over the past many years of using it on again and off again repeatedly, I've a decent handle on it, it suits my basic home user needs, and I especially appreciate its superior privacy focused platform to that of Windows. Unfortunately it's not suitable for most newcomers unless they're willing to devote plenty of time and mental energy in solving quirky issues through Googling or friends and family that occasionally happen with all the distros (at least all that I've ever tried have some issues).
For business to business software, containers like Docker are the norm for a few years now. Now when cloud industry settled on standards for basic container interfaces you can migrate to other containers like Podman without too much problems as well. I thumb up sdmod post.
