Jan 15, 2003
Linux's dreams for the desktop died today with
Mandrake's bankruptcy filling. Yes, it was a worthy cause, and we
fought hard, but now it is time to admit it -- it is over. No more.
Finished. Done. Kaput. GNU/Linux's true place is on the server, and
its time for everyone to recognize that. Is everyone with me?
Yeah, right. Just to be clear, I don't agree with a single word I
just said, but that statement is an exclusive first look at what all
of the GNU/Linux desktop critics will start crying out once again.
The reason I can say this with such certainty is that this has
happened before. Other great GNU/Linux companies have come and gone,
and each time the Linux desktop "dies." Somehow, mysteriously enough
-- and if anyone can explain this to me, please do -- this dead
desktop seems to be able to keep dying and dying and dying. It's
almost like the Energizer Bunny, or if it isn't, the critics most
certainly are.
It has been nearly two years since
the demise of venture capitalists' darling Eazel, a company that
burned through numerous millions of dollars of cash to leave
behind... a file manager. I really wasn't impressed at the time,
and I'm still not impressed. Eazel, in reality, did very little for
the overall scheme of things, but as soon as it went under, the
"Linux is for servers only" people started beating their drums of
doom and gloom. At the time I took
a stand against this thinking that one company --
particularly an insignificant one -- was going to single handedly
kill off the GNU/Linux desktop.
The critics
eventually calmed down, but then Dell decided to move out of the
alternative OS desktop business, and all of a sudden the "dead"
desktop had just died again. Now why anyone would take these folks
seriously the second time around is beyond me, but people did and
everyone had to endure the naysayers' awful end-of-the-desktop
predictions again. By now, the Linux desktop has gone through more
than a cat's quota of deaths, at least if we are to believe the
critics.
You can take this article as your warning
that these fellows will certainly be starting up again any time now.
This time they do have a better case, the largest purveyor of
desktop Linux has just declared bankruptcy, but they will still be
as wrong as ever. How can I be so sure? Let us consider several of
the myths that will surely circulate once again.
Myth #1: GNU/Linux was Never Intended for Desktop
Usage
I've heard this one cited over and over again,
and the sad thing is, that it shows that most people don't even
spend enough time to research why GNU/Linux was created before they
claim what it was intended for. Those that do a little research
(very little, actually) will realize that Linus Torvalds, the
College Student of 1990, was hardly designing an operating system
for his
Fortune 500 company's enterprise servers. Rather,
Mr. Torvalds started GNU/Linux for his desktop computer.
One could argue that this changed in the 12 years
since the advent of the Linux kernel, but even if we decide that
GNU/Linux -- or, perhaps more broadly, UNIX -- was never intended
for the desktop, the argument falls apart. First, the person who
claims that might want to fly to Cupertino, CA as I'm sure Apple
Computer's engineers would love to know that their UNIX-based Mac
OS X isn't meant for desktops. They'd better start recalling all
of those desktops they sold with it.
All right, so
Apple is an exception, a critic might argue. Well let me ask this,
then: what makes it an exception? Surely not Aqua, as a nicely
equipped KGX (KDE/GNU/linuX) system is very similar in the overall
"layout" of the system. Granted, Aqua might have some fancy bells
and whistles, but at its core, it is a "wrapper" around a UNIX
kernel just like X11 and your favorite desktop is around Linux.
It should also be said that intended use never
stopped Microsoft from winning market share. Is anyone really going
to argue that DOS was originally intended to power a GUI desktop? Or
what about Windows XP? Is the fact that its NT kernel is the "heart"
of most Windows servers an indication that XP isn't intended to be
a desktop operating system either? I sincerely doubt anyone is going
to suggest that, and any pundit that did would probably end up with
a free pink sheet of paper for their trouble.
Myth #2: GNU/Linux isn't Intuitive Enough
This
point is a bit more valid, but not much. Indeed, the GNU/Linux
desktop is might not be as easy as Windows or OS X in a home
environment. You can't go out to the store and buy the latest
TurboSuperBlastEmUp game for it, nor the latest TurboTax (though
Win4Lin solves at least the latter problem). However, for anyone
from the SOHO sector all the way up to the largest enterprises,
GNU/Linux is perfect for the business desktop.
The
reason is, unlike other operating systems, that you get everything
you need right out of the box. Most GNU/Linux distributions provide
an office suite (or two), development, project management,
financial, and communications tools as soon as you finish the
installation. Further more, most Linux distributions today are
simple enough that someone comfortable with installing a software
program in Windows won't get stuck installing GNU/Linux.
It shouldn't be overlooked that in some ways
GNU/Linux is also more intuitive than other operating systems.
Consider, in the KDE desktop environment, how every application --
and not just Office applications -- get a multi-entry clipboard with
Klipper, or how Konqueror can switch from a file manager to file
viewer to web browser to ftp client (or even SSH client) all without
any effort. Many users also comment on the fact that KDE's
interface is actually more "common" among applications than Windows.
Myth #3: Free Software Just Can't Create a
Desktop
There are plenty of arguments based on this line
of thinking. Some will argue the fact that the lack of forced
standards causes one to end up with too many different looking types
of applications. Some will argue that the developers just don't
care enough about users. And, most of all, some will argue that Free
Software is a sure way for a software company to let all of its hard
work go out the door without earning anything.
The
forced standards argument is an interesting one. Most people don't
like to be told what to do; yet they will argue that everyone should
be forced into whatever interface Redmond or Cupertino decides we
need. Never mind that the latest and greatest from these companies
always require the latest and greatest hardware too. Conversely,
once people get use to the idea of the GNU/Linux desktop, they like
the fact that they can choose the desktop environment that fits
them. Whether it is the small and fast Fluxbox, the utilitarian TWM,
or the glitzy KDE desktop with Keramik or Liquid is entirely up to
the user. Best of all, choosing one or the other doesn't lock you
into using only applications intended for that environment. Thus,
with this lack of "standards," it allows the user to move away from
being forced to buy a size ten shoe (which, for most folks, will be
either too big or too small), and instead choose the right size for
them. Aren't you or your company better at choosing the proper
interface for your task than some far away software development
firm?
The second argument is also easy to
discredit. Indeed, the developers who give their spare time to
create GNU/Linux applications don't always put other users as the
top priority -- generally they develop what
they want.
However, when you get together as many developers as a project like
GNOME or KDE has, it has been shown time and again that virtually
all of the different needs are met, as there are always developers
in the project with similar needs. It has also been shown that a
developer creating an application because
he needs it is a
lot more interested in making that application the best that it can
be.
Finally, we come to the issue of whether a
company can succeed while creating a Free Software desktop. That's
where we can go back to the original focus of this article:
MandrakeSoft. While it probably isn't generally advisable to use a
bankrupt company as an example of how something can succeed, I do
suggest that this company is exactly that. Prior to the arrival of
outside management that operated the company from 2000-2001,
MandrakeSoft was a profitable company. Yes, that is right. Many
people assume that no GNU/Linux distribution was profitable until
Red Hat's black quarter announced last month, but that isn't true
at all. Furthermore, since the original co-founders retook the
company from the supposed "experts," the company has again moved
towards profitability.
MandrakeSoft, the
Example
Thus, it is my opinion that not only is the
GNU/Linux desktop going to stick around (even if it doesn't get
much respect), but that MandrakeSoft has proven a great example of
what Free Software can be. We have a lot to thank this company for,
not the least of which is pioneering the easy to use Linux desktop.
Whether or not the company clears its bankruptcy
reorganization -- and I sincerely hope it does -- it has helped to
clear out all of the myths I listed above. Even if the company fails
to recover, its management's wonderful commitment to the Free
Software community means that its work will never be for naught.
Perhaps, besides the naysayers, that's something
else MandrakeSoft shares in common with Eazel. While the initial
company is gone, its Nautilus file manager has continued to grow and
improve. This is an important demonstration of why everyone should
support Free Software. When dealing with most companies, at least
those in bankruptcy, one would have to worry about getting stuck
with a discontinued product. With Mandrake Linux, it is just as
advisable to go with it now as it was before, especially since
Mandrake's community friendly approach has built up enough
supporters that, like Nautilus, the progress of development will go
on no matter what. Simple put, you can't say that for most other
distributions, certainly not SuSE, LindowsOS, Xandros, or the others
who have placed their core configuration tools and utilities under
proprietary licensing.
The GNU/Linux desktop is
far from dead, and so is Mandrake Linux. If only the naysayers could
learn that.
The entire Open for
Business team would like to express our wish for MandrakeSoft's
continued success. As a shining example of the advantages of Free
Software, at the very least, we would like to express our thanks for
the many contributions that this company has provided to the
community over the past few years.
Timothy R.
Butler is Editor-in-Chief of Open for Business. You can reach him at
tbutler@uninetsolutions.
com.