My Letter To A Linux Desktop User

By Daniel Miessler on January 31st, 2007: Tagged as Linux | OS X | Productivity | Religion | Windows

I know you don’t believe me, as we’ve had this conversation before. But there will come a time in your life when you will grow tired of fixing your tools. This will likely lead you to Windows or OS X — both of which, if you avoid tweaking, offer much more stability through updates and patches than Linux desktops do.

So again, let me restate my blasphemous claim:

Linux desktops are currently still for hobbyists and tweakers, i.e. those who enjoy tinkering constantly with the very platform that they work from. Those who wish to actually work — in an uninterrupted fashion through multiple, major updates — are left with the options of either installing an extremely stable, non-cutting-edge distribution and not updating any pivotal packages, or going with an alternative operating system.

In short, I equate “fixing” my operating system with “repairing” a hammer: I might do it once, but the second time the head pops off while I’m trying to work — it’s getting replaced.

I know a number of Linux desktop fans that consider Windows and OS X to be the “dirty” options for a number of reasons, but virtually every time I speak with them I get another reinstall story. They’re constantly repairing this or that in order to get the experience they want. And again, if that’s what’s fun for them, and they enjoy hacking their system and making cool new features work, then that’s awesome. In that case I think Linux is the ultimate desktop.

But for those who just want to work, I find that even my friends who love the Linux desktop more than anything are constantly frustrated with it. You take something like Ubuntu — it’s designed from the ground up to be a stable desktop. I have a friend that uses it and complains constantly about the fact that if you update it enough it breaks. The solution, if you want stability from it, is to basically not touch the thing and wait for the next version to get new features.

So from me to you, I ask you to probe your own thoughts on the matter. Do you want to use your system as a transparent tool to accomplishing something, or do you want your system to be in the forefront — constantly requiring your attention because this feature isn’t working right, or that part just broke after an update? If the answer is the latter, I’ll just shut up, because that’s obviously perfectly legitimate. But if it’s the former I ask you to take another look at your OS choice on the desktop.
I know a guy who’s been doing hardcore C programming for 25 years, and is an absolute Unix GOD — but he uses Windows for his operating system. Why? Because he has work to do, and he doesn’t want his OS getting in the way.:

– Edit: I probably should have pointed out that I am an avid Linux advocate. I am a member of the Free Software Foundation and give to my distro regularly. The site you are looking at is running on Gentoo, actually — a distro I’ve been using since 2002. At work I use Ubuntu Linux as my primary operating system, and while I’m no super-guru, I’m decently versed in Linux in general. In short, my comments come from a familiarity and love for Linux, not from some random troll world.

  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • description
  • Google
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!

Viewing 76 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    But that is the point...
    with Linux if there is a feature you wish to use or play with you CAN but if you do not want to, as you noted... install it and only apply security patches and not the newest updates to the packages. I would note that it is normally not the linux kernel or the disto but a particular package. So that would be like me telling a windows user do to the crappy programming of a 3-party app that they should not use windows because the crashes. No, the answer is not to use that software, or that version of the software... etc.

    I am one of those who like to tinker so it is not a frustration to me... the frustration I feel is when I start something and can not figure it out, but it has never (I may be forgetting something but as a rule of thumb never) impacted my productivity or my work quality.

    But, I agree if someone does not understand what Linux is and how packages work, and how to control the installation... then it would be hard for them to achieve the stability that the *nix folks boast.

    That is my take on it...
    • ^
    • v
    Daniel,

    Your premise is invalid. Linux is not monolithic - there are well over 100 different distributions with attributes that span the gamut. Certainly Linux desktops as you describe it exist, and those distributions address the desires of Linux hobbiests as you describte.

    I offer you disproof by counterexample. Linux desktops exist that are more solid and reliable than any flavor of Windows and are just as well supported. Here are a number of such that fit this description:

    1. The (K)Ubuntu distribution known as Dapper Drake, version 6.06 LTS (Long-Term Support)

    2. Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation.

    3. Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop

    4. SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop

    All are: easier to install than Windows, more reliable, and less prone to exploits (by count - not the same as saying they are not exploitable). All are as easily updated, and one is free (as in gratis), while all the rest are free (as in open source, easily examined).

    I know the things I have claimed from personal experience (well, except for SuSE - that one is by reputation). I have used computers since I started college in 1972, graduating in 77 with my Master's degree in EE. I have used Windows since version 3.0 was released in 1990 and Linux since 1996. I use several flavors of both Windows and Linux every day. Like you, I want an OS that is not an end but a means. As reliable tools go that I can "just use," Linux is my OS of choice.

    Reliable, unbiased information is hard to find. There is a great deal of FUD on both sides. I hope my experiences help you.

    Regards,

    DaCAP
    • ^
    • v
    Very helpful indeed, DaCAP.

    I suppose that the issue isn't so much that the operating system leads to tweaking issues; it's probably more accurate that the tweaking fetish leads to the operating system/distro choice.

    Hmm, this would make my entire point invalid. I'll think about it some more. Thanks for your comments.
    • ^
    • v
    Go read Barry Schwartz's "The Paradox of Choice". I don't want a bazillion choices, for the very reasons he states in the book. I don't care about 1000's of linux packages for my desktop system. But I do want a stable OS as my platform for development, and Mac OS X does that beautifully for me. I use Linux for all my server-related work, and it's perfect for that, but I'll never again use it as my desktop machine unless Macs go away and the only other choice is Windows.
    • ^
    • v
    Interesting, Scott. This is precisely my choice as well -- Linux on servers, OS X on the desktop.
    • ^
    • v
    Hmmm...I'm kind of torn on the matter. Everthing I've read so far, from the article to the comments, are valid and make valid points. I fairly recently converted to Ubuntu from WinXP and will say that I've had to do reinstalls on both OS's. I've done more WinXP reinstalls only because I've used it more, but I think when I reach the point that I've used Ubuntu just as much, I will have the same amount of crashes/reinstalls.

    It is simply in my nature to "mess with things" in ANY OS that I am utilizing. If you ask me which is easier to crash, I say Ubuntu for obvious reasons. Linux puts the power at your fingertips and lets you "mess with anything" with ease. While you can "mess with alot" in XP, it is more sugar-coated there, you have to dig hard to mess something up, but I have, numerous times. Don't know where I'm really going with this...

    Well to focus on the main article, I would have to agree with the writer on one premise alone:
    Yes WinXP or MAC OSX is the platform to utilize to get work done, but only because they are designed in such a way that they are harder to screw up yourself. I'm not saying Linux is unstable, quite the contrary, if you let that box sit there serving up webpages with Apache and you don't "mess with stuff" it is inherently MORE stable that any other OS.

    Bottom Line: All three OS's are pretty good at what they were designed for. Can't really count Linux as an OS as it has many flavors, each with it's own purpose, but even those specialized distros are pretty good at what they were designed for. Yes Linux draws "tweakers" and PC enthusiasts and it caters well to them. Yes Linux draws business for server use and it caters well to them. Yes Windows draws the vast majority of the planet, because it caters well to the vast majority of the planet. Mac OSX caters to those who love it as well. You see? You find what works for YOU, it's as simple as that. Sorry to get a little long-winded there.
    • ^
    • v
    There's really nothing to stop you from messing around with or tweaking any operating system -- you can download or buy apps that will change your Windows themes, make Mac OS do things differently and so on, and many people spend hours and hours doing just that.

    The point Daniel is making (I think) is that at least on Windows or Mac, mail and other apps just work and you don't have to (usually) do anything other than input your account names, imap servers etc.

    I've probably just stepped in it, because many will argue that you can install, set up and run mail clients and image programs on Linux. And they're right. But from my own experience, it has always been a hassle updating my desktop linux system, and I don't have that same hassle factor with Mac updates. Plus, the apps for the Mac tend to fit into their environments well, even the third-party ones, while apps for Linux and Windows are functionally and visually inconsistent from a UI perspective. So call me shallow.

    I don't want to have the operating system in my face, I want to use it as a platform for doing other things, just like I want my fridge to chill my food without any assistance from me. I use Linux for all my servers because it's just plain incredible in the server role. But I use a Mac for my frontend because I have enough other distractions and my operating system interface shouldn't be one of them. From what I hear, Vista tells you about *every* event that happens on your box like an "overeager Boyscout". Really, I don't need that much information.
    • ^
    • v
    I use Linux, and only Linux when I work. My current Linux box, that I have had for two years, still has not crashed on me. I am even running a testing version of an operating system, with all of the latest beta software.

    My workflow is great. I get more done in a day than most of the other designers in my office, and yes, they are on Macs.

    It really has nothing to do with the operating system, it has to do with how well you can use it.

    Please stop trolling. This article is totally unsubstantiated.
    • ^
    • v
    Paul, you had me up until "trolling"...

    It's called "presenting ideas and having a discussion" -- learn the difference.
    • ^
    • v
    I will jump back in this and into it...

    I am sure that if one could never learn how Linux truly works all of these things would be true and that going to OS X would alleviate their learning curve... LOL (it was a joke people) But a joke with a point. People have historically had to learn the operating system, and with great ability comes great configuration options (marvel spoof). That is not so much the case today, but two years ago it was very prevalent. It is a reputation they will have to deal with.

    I, for the most part, think that it is a matter of choice that has no real connection to 'better/best' but more to 'style'.
    • ^
    • v
    I took Dan's article is an opinion piece, not as a declaration of scientific fact and not meant to apply to every human being who uses Linux. There are always implicit assumptions made in most things people write -- if we have to caveat every article or comment we post, the caveats would smother us.

    I'm sure there are pockets of people who use Linux on the desktop and have no upgrade issues, and I'm sure there some of them who have a great workflow and love the apps that they use. Great, they should keep doing it for as long as they want.

    But I agree with Dan--many people eventually get fed up with tweaking the tools. Look around at any technical conference and you'll see a large portion of the attendees carrying Macs. Look at any business conference, and you'll see mostly Windows. If it wasn't the operating system that was the issue, you'd think all the technical folks would be running Linux -- they are after all the ones who know how to use it best.
    • ^
    • v
    Scott,
    I agree with your point but your conclusion might need some work...
    at the tech situation I would not say OS X is there because they all tried and used linux and were able to use it, then got tired of maintenance. First, depending on what the conference was, that might not even be a true statement. The reason most people use what they use is experience. I am certain, had I used OS X prior to drinking the linux cool-aid I would be agreeing with Daniel. But as time would have it I did not, so I am not... at least not exactly.

    The reason you see windows in business is M$ had a better marketing machine. And a lot of tech's can not use linux or OS X. They can use windoz because that is what they know because that is what they use at work because it is a business decision. It is market share. We are the remnant that have stumbled onto a truth that the main stream can not see.

    By the method of reason one would conclude that albeit there would be a good portion running 'other' OS's, that since most would be windows (market share... its a fact) that windows is right.

    I am bouncing around between things at work, on my linux laptop, doing several things so I hope all that flowed well.
    • ^
    • v
    Daniel, have you nothing to say about my reply before I called you a troll?
    • ^
    • v
    @Paul:

    I have no doubts that your claims are true. Again, I think my comments apply to a certain kind of user, not everyone as a whole. Also keep in mind that I've been running Linux myself consistently for the last 5 years (albeit only on servers).

    So it's not a matter of bashing Linux, the idea was that if your focus is working rather than fixing tools, many distros -- even those dubbed "desktop" distros -- are rather unstable over time. I do agree with you and Rick, however, that if you know your shit and spend a little time, you can keep it running solid.

    So, yeah...agreed, but this is a discussion, not a troll-fest. Take a look around the site. I work hard to come up with content that I and others find useful; I don't run around spamming or trolling with garbage to generate hits. If I wanted hits I'd get a real domain name and start pumping out "popular" content instead of random thoughts and technical articles.

    Anyway, have a good one.
    • ^
    • v
    I thought this was going to be a discussion around Dan's claim that there will come a time in your life when you will grow tired of fixing your tools, and that will likely lead you to Windows or OS X. Instead, it's turned into a "my OS is better than yours" and that's not even the point.

    Paul, all you've said is that you aren't yet tired of tweaking your tools because your desktop needs are well-supported by Linux and the apps you run on it, and you aren't spending a lot of time tweaking them or messing around with upgrades that break features in those apps. Congratulations. You are the one person on the planet who is running Linux as a desktop or laptop and who spends less time tweaking and upgrading than a comparable Mac OS X or Windows user. I simply don't believe you.

    Rick, my point was that between techies and business users, techies are the ones who are more likely to have a real choice about what they run because they are skilled enough to maintain their own systems. More and more of the techie group are selecting Macs over Linux because it's they're so much easier to use. Fine, this isn't scientific evidence--I didn't claim it was, and I'm not interested in debating it. I'm simply describing what I see and saying why I think it is so, much of which is based on discussions with these same people as to why they're running Macs. You don't have to believe it, but please don't tell me why I think what I do. I'd rather hear what your observations are and what you see.

    For the record, I have 20 years of Unix experience as a sysadmin, network engineer and software developer. I've seen the Unix wars, I've installed and used DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP and all the patches. Ugh. I've worked on Cray's, SGIs, DEC's (VAX and Alpha), 386s, 486s, 586s, 686, AMDs, SunOS, Solaris, even the 3B2. I started running with Linux before it was 1.0. I started on the Sinclair ZX-80 almost 30 years ago, moved to the Atari 800, then the Atari 1040ST. I even have a C book from the early 80's, and a GNU Emacs manual from 1985. I've written 6502 assembly language. I've been to more conferences, both technical and business, than I care to remember. I've been around the block, and I've heard all the arguments for and against this or that OS, and all kinds of OS and language religious wars, and I'm fed up with all of them.

    What have I learned? I've learned that none of us really know anything, and most of us believe our own bullshit. What I haven't learned yet is that it is impossible to have a good discussion on something like a human factors issue online without offending somebody's feelings about their fucking choice of operating system.
    • ^
    • v
    By the way, I could be completely wrong about all of this. Yep. I could.
    • ^
    • v
    > What I haven’t learned yet is that it is impossible to have a good discussion on something like a human factors issue online without offending somebody’s feelings about their fucking choice of operating system.

    Exactly. That's what I was looking for -- a discussion. I put out my thoughts, someone else puts out theirs; it's an amazing concept. Too much to ask for, evidently.
    • ^
    • v
    In regards to:

    "[If] you avoid tweaking, [Windows and OSX] offer much more stability through updates and patches than Linux desktops do."

    and

    "I have a friend that uses it and complains constantly about the fact that if you update it enough it breaks"

    I've never had these issues in FreeBSD or Gentoo Linux. In fact, I find more issues in Windows and OSX, because I have all of my software upgraded in one fell swoop in my OSes, while my OSX lab machine needs most applications to be updated manually. I won't even get into how hard it is to keep my applications up to date in Windows, nor the dozens of cases I've had where an official update of Windows or Office breaks something terribly. These are of course my experiences, yours will vary.

    Another possibility is that your friend is new to Ubuntu and isn't as familiar with it's foibles and problems as they were in Windows? The first time I tried FreeBSD I was cursing up a storm and scared my neighbor. But now I have more issues in Windows; perhaps this is just a case of unfamiliarity?
    • ^
    • v
    In response to the original article:

    It has been my experience that Windows and Linux and OS X are very very similar. They are simply different approaches to the same problem. The choice of operating system depends on the person using it. For example, I have used Windows, Linux and OS X. There are things I like in each of them. There are things i dislike in each of them.

    There exists this perception that computers/operating systems are like toasters. Meaning, they can be fixing by randomly prodding them with a fork. Operating systems are very fragile. It is a miracle that they work at all. For me, the best update procedure exists in OS X. It is to the point. It doesn't rely on a specific browser (Windows i am looking at you). Linux update procedures are usually quite painless. It depends which distro you go with.

    Not being able to stop tinkering with the OS is not the fault of the OS. It is the fault of the user. I have a desktop machine running Xubuntu. I use it most of the time to get work done. It took a very short amount of time to set up. It does everything i want it to. I can run Eclipse and write the Java code i have to write.

    There is a difference between an OS for getting your work done and a "home computer" OS. "Home OS" is a tough choice. However, i can see no reason for saying that Linux or OS X are bad choices for any kind of comp sci or programming related work.

    my .2 cents.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, apparently I hit a nerve, which to anyone who knows me is never my intent and I do not get offended. I was trying to add to the discussion. I see that for me to agree and point out my perception on 'your' thoughts were presumptuous but it was not meant the way you have apparently taken it.

    You are right though... it is APPARENT you can not discuss without offending someone.

    And for the record... I am glad you have the background you do... it makes you someone worth discussing with... me, not so much... I am just barely qualified to discuss any of this... ;-)

    so, now that we have all gotten a little hot and said the same thing... it is choice based on preference (style) not better/best (science).

    Ooh... and all those I know most run windows and I personally know more linux/bsd users than OS X, but that is because my field and associations.
    • ^
    • v