By Andy McCue, 8 November 2006 17:00
COMMENT
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."
Comments
There are 14 comments. Join the discussion
1. Umbrae
This is because most people that make these decisions have no idea what it mean technically. So it is seen as a risk. Not only that, MS offers deals to those that threaten to move. If they seem serious: they get a big discount on licenses.
2. anonymous
I don't ever see terminal server-like environments taking off as a replacement for the desktop. For certain speciality or restricted environments, it certainly makes sense. But web-PC pundits tried this in the late 90s and it didn't work any better then.
At least in the US, slow-speed dialup connections are still pretty prevalent---and I can't imagine a user waiting 4 hours to load a word processor.
If the entire US had extremely highspeed broadband which was as reliable as the telephone and power grids, I might see it as a possibility.
Until that point, it won't be a viable option.
3. Rodd Ahrenstorff
Your quote; "the open source desktop dream looks to be all but over." reminds me of our (Linux advocates) dream when Linux would be viable on the enterprise server. That has come to pass...don't be so quick to give up on a successful Linux desktop.
Also, as the IT Director for a small non-profit (160 employees) it's unlikely we'll be purchasing any Windows Vista desktop software for the very same reason you surmise Linux adoption rates are slow: retraining staff.
Have you seen the recent quotes by Lenovo and Acer management...little interest in their corporate customers about deploying Windows Vista. Really, who need Aero's fancy graphic abilities in a corporate desktop: almost nobody.
I agree that Linux has an uphill battle to become a viable alternative for the many markets where Windows XP Pro is deployed on the desktop. It will take several more years of solid development and dedication. However, to say that Linux "appears it never will" take hold on the corporate desktop is just plain short-sighted and ignores the success of Linux on the server. A comfort zone where NetWare and Windows once enjoyed total domination.
While the IT world moves away from fat-client desktops to web based applications and thin-client computing, a light-weight Linux works well in that space. More so than Windows XP Embedded or WinCE because Linux is cheaper (look at any thin-client terminal pricing) and requires no user training.
I guess my cup is "half full" while yours is "half empty"...
4. Dominic Sotirescu
It is not Linux that will replace Windows, it is MAC OS X (Unix by the way). If Apple stops fooling around with hardware and concentrates on software instead, It is just a matter of time...
5. Dominic Sotirescu
It is not Linux that will replace Windows, it is MAC OS X (Unix by the way). If Apple stops fooling around with hardware and concentrates on software instead, It is just a matter of time...
6. Simon
Once again I spot that very Microsoft way of altering reality to suit the status quo ! Once again the cost eqyuation is made false to support no change - ie the comparison is not between "cost of supporting Windows" and "cost of supporting Linux", it is made against "cost of supporting Windows plus Linux, plus all the costs of retraining Windows people to learn Linux".
There are plenty of Linux people out there, lots of us in fact. The real problem is that the managers and IT people are too comfortable in their ways (and Windows gives the illusion of ease of support) and so highlight "problems" like this to justify slacking !
7. anonymous
The technical case for Linux versus Windows is not what the decision is based on - it's based on the business model around installing, managing and using the desktop as a platform for work. Microsoft's model has thousands of partners, large and small, writing apps, developing tools, and performing services - all underwritten by a fiscal guarantee that the
OS company will not go under or be bought out anytime soon. The Linux model is much more complex in order to replicate that same level of services, and the "free" tagline simply vanishes. As for the security by obscurity angle - that argument defeats itself! If people broadly adopt Linux, it will be a bigger target for hackers, which will defeat the purpose of those adopting.
8. Jesus Mudando
Isn't this observation a bit short-sighted? To assume that the market forces in China and India might NOT shape or affect market share and further development of Linux desktop computing is a bit narrow-minded. And... who's to say that the newest gaming consoles won't become hosts for Linux desktop environments? Or maybe a quasi-Linux desktop that supports an AJAX framework and applications are delivered via browser? Seems like Google may be an "800-pound Gorilla" that demands its own free platform... It seems its a little too early to assume the Linux desktop is dead.
9. anonymous
I used to think the same thing until I saw Ubuntu linux on the desktop. I am now in the process of learning the ins and outs of linux, and with Wine this will provide the legacy compatibility with windoz apps that I need to run.
I am building machines on Ubuntu now for friends who are not computer literate. It is no harder to use than Windows and offers a rich collection of applications via its repositories.
Developing economies will find Ubuntu a more than viable alternative to Microsoft offerings in a lot of areas.
10. Jimbo von Winskinheimer
The truth of the matter is that most CIOs, and IT professionals in general, are not willing to make any move outside the box. They are either scared, lazy or ignorant. They'd much rather sit in their safety zone, even if it means continuing to use a buggy, insecure and unproductive MS Windows product.
11. arthur brogard
Well that's right. Linux has to jump ahead.
The VT100 on every desktop is the future, I'd imagine. Why MS still isn't there I don't know. PC's many times more powerful than the VAX I used to work with still can't handle multiple users.
They are just not computing.
The future is the past. The past was good. Except we didn't have a GUI.
And people at home didn't need a mini or a mainframe.
So we've filled the world with GUI's and PC's in a wild frenzy....
Now perhaps the frenzy is beginning to die down a bit and rational thought is beginning to creep in.
Millions of pc's at home and in business are overpowed by orders of magnitude for the work they do.
We're into overkill.
Now's the time to strike.
Two clearly different markets: home and office. One clear strategy: a Linux server and terminals.
Sell it to the consumer, sell it to the business. Here's a server will cost you less than Windows for software. Runs all the software you want. Installs automatically from distro DVD's.
Here's any number of terminals for the kids rooms, the kitchen, the workshop.... or all over the office.
Bang, boom, it's done.
Any smart distro maker could put it together.
And so could Redmond.
It is just a question of who is going to be first.
And it should be Linux.
12. Robert D. Martin
Here are just a few more obvious reasons for the decline of Microsoft and the rise of Linux, Open Source and Public Domain in general over the coming years.
(1) Microsoft binds each Vista license to a single hardware setup
(2) Microsoft limits its window of support to five years (or so)
(3) DRM + TCPA supported by Microsoft in Vista leave everyone else but the user in control of the PC and of business and personal data
(4) Patents on ideas stifle software development, free speech and even scientific research
(5) Microsoft and others seem intent on returning us to the days of dumb terminals fed by and restricted to access to servers elsewhere.
In other words...:
Just as the personal desktops were originally the domain of Microsoft, then first came their wresting domination of the server world out of the grasp of Unix and Novell. So this time around Virtualisatoin, Linux, Mac OS, Java etc. are in the process of first retaking the server, then of swamping the PC desktop.
In particular...:
(1) I for one have come to customarily Grandfather-Father-Son my Windows installations on the same or secondary harddisk in order to more easily recover from more serious backlashes, be they due to OS or application related crashes or in order to regain a slimmer system from which to work. Does Microsoft really expect to shine while proclaiming my such backing up of the OS criminal?
(2) and (3) It has also come to pass that I have upgraded cpu, mainboard, graphic adapter or electrical supply. Am I really expected to ever and again repurchase Vista when such hardware upgrading or software renewal become due?
(4) Even for gaming purposes and for the sake of full usage of some future web2.0, I see no compelling need to accept such idionsyncracies from Microsoft. And sometime or other it is going to dawn upon the public at large that free speeach and free exchange of ideas be essential as much to scientific research as to the normal functioning of human society. Preferably the appropriate backlash will come before we suffer for the lack of it.
(5) I for one prefer not to have only a dumb terminal access all my applications and data, stored on some server(s) elsewhere in the world. I desire/need local access and backup and shareability.
In summary...:
Open Source and in particular Linux may be developing just in time into a viable choice in itself, not just as an alternative to Microsoft, nor simply from the standpoint of being at all able to accomplish the necessary such backups and upgrading over time, but also by way of rescuing us all from all too shortsighted intent upon immediate gain pushing the cutting edge of patent right and other development.
Remember the Alamo! Let's all hope, that the present day defenders of the last bastions can again win enough time for the rest of us Texans to first entrench and defend ourselves and then to drive those Mexicans back out of our human rights homeland.
13. Steve Niemiec
All these comments may or may not be true, but Linux desktop could appear as a 'consumer product' rather than as a PC as we know it. Imagin Tesco, WH Smith and the like selling a small broad band box which simply 'works'. A low powered motherboard, USB storage? external power, flat screen etc. All for under £200 and running linux, one for every kid in the house.
If this were to happen and the systems work as reliably as mobile phones, mp3 players and toasters then this is how Linux will get onto the desktop, not from business but from consumer driven products.
14. Christopher Stura
This article does not seem very feasible and is not constructive either. It simply say's that a lot of people in IT think that linux will not replace windows. This is not constructive as people change, time moves on and idea's and philosophies are different. I think if you look to the future, you should look into the universities, which are now widely using linux on both the client and the desktop. The same university students are developing Linux "open source" apps to make a name for themselves in the software industry and eventually find a job. One of the best things a student can do to get a high profile job is contribute to the Linux kernel. So I think Linux will be the future of the desktop, because people comming out of our schools already know how to program Linux, and already know how to use it. So Linux adoption is only a matter of high profile IT job replacement it will not come in the near future as the windows generation still has about 20 years of life before retirement, but make no mistake it will come.