Why the Linux desktop dream is over

Will Linux ever be a major player on the desktop? Andy McCue hears from IT chiefs - who, for the most part, answered with a resounding 'no'.

When Microsoft released Windows XP in 2001, the controversy around Redmond's abolition of its traditional volume discount licensing and the cost of upgrading caused a flurry of businesses to explore the possibility of switching to Linux on the desktop.

But despite the many threats to ditch Windows, to date the German city of Munich remains one of the few high-profile organisations that has made the leap. It aims to migrate 80 per cent of the local government body's PCs to Linux by the middle of 2009.

Other threatened migrations came to nought. Famously the London Borough of Newham was involved in open source desktop trials before declaring that switching to Linux posed "unacceptable levels of risk" and then signing a new deal with Microsoft.

That, combined with Microsoft's aggressive 'Get the facts' advertising campaign, which aimed to dispel the 'free Linux' myth and paint Windows as having a lower total cost of ownership (TCO), stopped the Linux desktop movement almost dead in its tracks.

With Microsoft's much-touted Vista operating system launching for businesses at the end of November, that trend shows no signs of being reversed. Despite some of the usual user grumbles about the cost and disruption of upgrading, this time few are talking about switching to Linux as an alternative.

Game over?

Is the Linux desktop dream dead and buried? Check out what the silicon.com CIO Jury had to say about it here, and click here to see other CIO Jury results.

The figures bear that out too. This week research by the National Computing Centre (NCC) found only one Linux desktop for every 300 currently running Windows XP in UK organisations, with one in 10 businesses planning to upgrade to Vista by the end of 2008.

Three-quarters of silicon.com's CIO Jury IT user panel also said they don't ever see Linux being a viable alternative to Windows on the desktop.

Paul Allen, CTO at online share-trading company Selftrade, said: "It's like the old days of open Unix - there are too many competing desktop brands. Also Windows is not just an operating system - it is a GUI environment. Linux wins on the server because all servers need is a basic operating system with access to disks and the network."

Steve Clarke, head of internal computing at AOL UK, added: "Unfortunately the reduced risk from malware and lower licence costs don't outweigh the cost and pain of transition and cross-skilling the support function and user-base. User acceptance is likely to be low and unless Microsoft release Office 2003 for Linux. I just can't see it happening."

It seems that for many organisations the business case for switching to Linux on the desktop simply doesn't stand up. Ken Davis, IT director at TV channel Five, said: "Linux on the desktop is likely to be a fairly marginal thing for some time. TCO is arguable either way and risks of application-incompatibility make it low down the list of corporate priorities."

Dale Vile, analyst at research company Freeform Dynamics, said there are still a lot of practical issues preventing Linux being a Windows replacement on the desktop across the board.

He said: "Mainly due to compatibility reasons, for the foreseeable future Linux is not a viable alternative for a Windows desktop."

But Linux is not completely dead on the desktop and there are two areas where it is making inroads. One is as a replacement for Unix workstations, especially in engineering organisations. The other is for locked-down desktops where users don't need a wide range of applications and often just use web-based apps.

But if Linux is not a realistic competitor to Microsoft on the desktop, then what is? One school of thought is that Mac OS X could overtake Linux in that respect.

Rorie Devine, IT director at Betfair.com, said Linux would have to change drastically to compete at desktop level. "A more likely Unix on the desktop is Mac OS X," he said.

Vile agrees. "There are compatibility issues with Mac OS X for general business computing. That said, Mac OS X seems to be gaining traction and if there is going to be a genuine alternative to Windows then that could be more likely."

Others predict the battleground for control of the desktop is completely changing. Paul Broome, IT director at 192.com, said: "Linux desktop for business is as unsuitable as Windows in what will be a retro terminal sever world in five years. All apps will be hosted on servers locally on the net. So bye-bye all PCs - hello VT100 with a USB port."

David Lister, CIO at Reuters, said Microsoft's ability to respond to new entrants such as Google will ultimately decide the Windows versus Linux debate.

He said: "I suspect the real challenge is less about the operating system and more about the battle for web 2.0, Software as a Service, etc. I'm not sure if Microsoft can reinvent agility although it seems to be trying hard to get there. It'll be a fascinating battle."

So while Linux continues to gain ground in the back-office and server room, the open source desktop dream looks to be all but over.

Gavin Whatrup, group IT director at Creston, said: "There has to be a compelling reason to fix something that isn't broken. Whilst Windows on the desktop has its faults it is stable, useable, manageable and cash costs are low. I don't see Linux replacing Windows on the office desktop unless it can challenge those issues and offer something Windows can't."

Yet one of the organisation that dropped Linux migration plans still thinks it will be the biggest rival to Microsoft's dominance.

Newham's head of ICT Richard Steel said: "Linux is the obvious route to challenge and, as it has some sizeable players involved, has the best chance of breaking through - great for keeping Microsoft on its toes. My view - to have any chance of gaining ground, Linux has to get ahead, rather than always a couple of years behind."