The obligatory Linux desktop post

Well, it had to happen sooner or later.

I'll admit it. I'm a Linux user. Well, given the choice, I'd be a RISC OS user first and foremost, but since the fastest native hardware available is clocked at a paltry 600MHz, it really won't do for playing fullscreen video or recent GL games just yet.

So I looked for something similar enough that I can cope with its quirks. Having never really liked any OS Apple came out with, and been annoyed by Windows since 95 (if not earlier), I'm therefore a Linux user.

Not that I really mind that. I have a system that was new around 5 years ago, and it's still keeping up quite merrily with most things I throw at it. You get what you paid for, and I got quality parts.

Anyhow. On to the main point of this discourse.

I'm currently running something approximating Linux Mint 3.1 with updates from Ubuntu 7.10 thrown in (although as Linux Mint 4.0 is in beta, I imagine I'll upgrade soon). Prior to this I was running Ubuntu 7.04, 6.10 before that, 6.06 before that and so on, back to 5.04. I dual-booted with Windows XP for quite some time, but I've recently scrapped that, having got most of my games working under WINE or Cedega (other than for the occasional telephone support issue for friends, the XP installation was just for games).

Why the switch from Ubuntu native to Mint? Well, even though I've been using Ubuntu for 3 years now as my main x86 desktop OS, there are still some things I can't quite get right. Believe me, I've tried. So the main reason was to test out these new usability features. I didn't really find anything mind-blowing, but I can see the effort that's gone into polishing the UI with Mint, and I can see that their intentions are good. But back to those niggles.

1. Sound. OK, so I may have what can be classed as a fairly non-standard setup, but I'd like to think that I can tell my audio where I want it to go. Specifically, to my digital out in most cases, apart from occasionally when I'd like in at the analogue out. Oh, and since it's digital, then when there's a 5.1 AC3 stream, I'd quite like it to arrive at my amp as a 5.1 AC3 stream.

2. Monitors. I have a rather shiny Dell 2407WFP. I also have a few less shiny TFTs and a hulking great 21" CRT that I've currently got in a box. However, if, in a moment of whimsy, I were to connect one, I'd really enjoy being able to use it without having to have a massive drawn out fight with xorg.conf. Please? Even just being able to consistently set one output as the main one would be a help.

3. Offline help. Ask a question on Google relating to Ubuntu and the chances are you'll find an answer in the forums. Great. What if I'm not connected to the Internet right now? I'd like a middle ground between "Ask in the forums" and "Read the man pages". Earlier versions came with a local copy of a set-up FAQ. Where has that gone, please?

4. Suspend and resume. Some days, rumours fly about that it's all working marvellously, and everything will be just great. I personally have once, repeat: ONCE managed to successfully suspend and resume my desktop. I think it was sometime in August this year...

5. Customisation. Yes, I have a customised desktop. How did I do it? I edited some .conf files. Some of them by hand. Seriously, this is not the way to do it.

6. Wifi. Admittedly a minor concern to me: I like my wires, but I'd feel better knowing that if I were to plug in my Wifi adapter and try to connect to a WPA encrypted network I might stand a chance. I know of at least one person who gave up on Linux because he couldn't get his wifi card working, no matter what he tried.

As far as I can see, these are the key areas where the "Linux desktop experience" is still failing. Many of them are improving, of course. In the latest release of Ubuntu, systems were put in place to fix the dreaded "No screens" error caused by a misconfigured xorg.conf file, and they seem to work well. Wifi drivers seem to be improving at a dramatic speed, and the inclusion of ndiswrapper in certain distributions is certainly helpful in that respect. However, until they are fixed, one question remains difficult to answer.

Is Linux ready for the desktop? Well that depends on your definition of 'ready'. Is it at a point where it can be used daily by an end user? Yes. Can it be installed on any given computer and be guaranteed to work out of the box? No.

Linux is at a point where if the dude (or dudette) who helps you out with your computers is around, he can probably fix it. I feel it's at a similar point to Windows XP in that respect. For all that XP is entirely GUI driven, many people still need their tech guy(or girl) to get them e.g. on the Internet, or playing Halo 3, or cleaning out the junk from their system. I think a point is approaching where the only difference is familiarity.

However, it's not here yet, and that reason is primarily down to ease of configuration. The new printing tools in Ubuntu are a prime example of just how easy something should be. Setting up my network attached HP 4050 printer was easier in Ubuntu 7.10 than any other operating system I've come across so far. It was even simpler than OS X, which did a very good job, and streets ahead of XP or RISC OS.

I've got a feeling that the problem lies with expectations, and the fact is it is these expectations that are simultaneously driving Linux forward and stopping it from the mass adoption everyone is predicting. If 98% of your OS works out of the box, the user is not going to expect to have to start modprobing to get the final 2% working. It has to be all or nothing. Apple seem to have realised this, and their system is very much a complete package, with the caveat that certain products won't work with a Mac. The issue is that people have come to accept this, buying Apple's line that the Mac is a different computer, and Windows devices can't be expected to all work. Linux PCs on the other hand look exactly like Windows PCs on the outside, and therefore people expect everything that works on one PC to work on another.

So in summary, Linux is stuck between trying to be different and being expected to be the same.

Possible solutions? I'm not sure. Linux compatibility stickers on certain pieces of hardware? Perhaps, but this then leads to the question: how do you specify a version of Linux other than by kernel, which most people shouldn't be expected to know about?

Of course, the obvious solution is to make everything work, and there are people out there working very hard to make this the case, but until a user no longer has to ask the question "Will this work on my Linux PC?" it isn't close enough.

My hope is currently for a middle ground. As a few companies start offering PCs with Linux pre-installed, I hope that those working in PC outlet stores will start to become more knowledgeable about which hardware works with what release of an OS, and which OSes are comparable.

Until then, those wanting Linux will have to do their research before purchasing.