linux Is Desktop Linux Becoming Fractured as Open Source Matures?

[Nothing Here]

Until quite recently, the Linux world had, for the most part, only two major desktop environments: GNOME 2 and KDE. Fast forward to the present, however, and there?s an immense litany of different choices, all vying to become the new face of your open source operating system. To me, this shift signals a new paradigm in the world of free software ? a turn that could have major consequences throughout the channel. Here?s why.

First, let me clarify what I mean about the choice of desktop environments available until a few years ago. By no means were GNOME 2 and KDE the only options, or the only serious ones; there have long been a huge range of interfaces for Linux beyond GNOME and KDE, many of them very stable and usable.

But until recent years virtually all mainstream distributions shipped with GNOME or KDE by default. Unless you were a power user interested in trying out obscure alternatives, GNOME or KDE was what you got when you decided to install Linux.

Now, however, the field has undeniably changed. KDE has lost the prominence it once held, and GNOME 2 has been deprecated in favor of GNOME Shell. What?s more, a variety of new projects have sprung up, many of them endorsed by major Linux distributions, for creating entirely novel desktop environments. The most prominent examples include Ubuntu?s Unity, Linux Mint?s Cinnamon and MATE, an effort to revive GNOME 2.

Compartmentalizing Open Source?

The open source ecosystem has never been short on different choices, and in that sense the rapid expansion in the number of desktop environments offered to users is unsurprising. Just as there always will be lots of Linux distributions to choose from, so always will there be plenty of desktop environments.

But given the extreme diversity of competing Linux interfaces that have popped up in only a couple of years? time, and the complete failure of the community so far to coalesce around one or two leading ones, this may represent something more significant than the natural tendency of open source developers to fork projects. It?s a bit early to say definitively, but I wonder if we?re trending toward the fracturing of the world of desktop Linux itself into different poles that will never be as compatible as they once were.

Traditionally, one could run whichever Linux distribution one wanted and still be able to use all of the open source software out there. Most programs were installable on any Linux distribution, and KDE applications could run in GNOME, and vice versa, easily enough.

But with different distributions now clinging to their own individual desktop environments, which in some cases are being developed in-house rather than upstream, cross-distribution compatibility no longer may be such a sure thing. With Unity, GNOME Shell, Cinnamon and MATE diverging in such different directions, there may come a day when an application designed to run in one of those environments won?t work in any of the others.

Such compartmentalization of desktop Linux seems yet more likely given Ubuntu?s plans to adopt the Wayland server and the HUD interface. Don?t expect other distributions or desktop environments to rush to ensure compatibility with those changes. Nor is Canonical likely to make it any easier to install Unity on other distributions, another restriction on cross-distribution compatibility.

Would the open source channel fall apart if desktop Linux distributions grow more distant from one another, in technical as well as political terms? Certainly not, since there?s a lot more to open source than the Linux desktop. But a shift like this could be somewhat of a shock for users accustomed to the interchangeability that traditionally has been almost a given in the open source world.

Source

[Sylar0]

Yes clearly, I dont even use any form of open source I dont like the idea of non professionals writing my software. However it seems to me the problem is a lack of unity between open source providers. If everyone agreed to write open source for one compatiable enviroment there might be a chance of a "6 months of linux on the desktop" SERIOUSLY.

[ViperAFK]

Unity, Cinnamon, and Gnome-shell are ALL gnome 3. Different shells yes, but still gnome 3. They can't really be considered their own separate DE"s IMO.

[Solid Knight]

Becoming fractured? It's been fractured for a long time.

[+virtorio MVC]

Yes clearly, I dont even use any form of open source I dont like the idea of non professionals writing my software. However it seems to me the problem is a lack of unity between open source providers. If everyone agreed to write open source for one compatiable enviroment there might be a chance of a "6 months of linux on the desktop" SERIOUSLY.

Please describe the kind of person who you think is writing open source software (as a general rule).

[cork1958]

Yes clearly, I dont even use any form of open source I dont like the idea of non professionals writing my software. However it seems to me the problem is a lack of unity between open source providers. If everyone agreed to write open source for one compatiable enviroment there might be a chance of a "6 months of linux on the desktop" SERIOUSLY.

"If everyone agreed to write open source for one compatiable enviroment there might be a chance of a "6 months of linux on the desktop" SERIOUSLY."

I could almost go along with that line, at least.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

I like the fact there are choices out there. I've tried most desktops, and I'm happy with KDE for now, but who knows what the future holds? There are some good ideas in Gnome 3 and Unity. Maybe I'll go to one of those, or another desktop altogether, one day. If there are people who want to stay with one desktop, I don't know why they can't do that.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Back in 2009 when Ubuntu was all the rage I thought desktop Linux was evolving nicely. Today it has major usability problems and I fear the culture just isn't there to produce a good, consistent user experience on any distro. It used to be a fun toy but now desktop Linux isn't even that. It's completely dead as far as I'm concerned.

[farmeunit]

Yes clearly, I dont even use any form of open source I dont like the idea of non professionals writing my software. However it seems to me the problem is a lack of unity between open source providers. If everyone agreed to write open source for one compatiable enviroment there might be a chance of a "6 months of linux on the desktop" SERIOUSLY.

I would venture to say that most open source programmers also write code for companies. That's how they make a living. They do open source for the greater good. Not to mention the fact that problems tend to be fixed faster and more secure.

[remixedcat]

thing is the linux community spends more time arguing instead of innovating.

[Nothing Here]

thing is the linux community spends more time arguing instead of innovating.

Now that is exactly what I've been waiting to hear. If ppl were to spend as much time innovating and sharing ideas as they do in arguing, I think Linux would be much more credible. At this point, with all the squabbling going on, we aren't.

I fully believe we can have many choices in what we want in an OS, but to argue amongst ourselves is blatantly childish. Why quibble about what our DE is? Gnome vs. KDE. Xfce vs. LXDE? Openbox vs. Blackbox? I mean WTF?!?! Really? It's a load of horse manure!

Or the constant crap that BSD is better then Linux or vice-versa and don't get me started on Solaris! Let's work together, share everything with out all the BS and maybe one day, we might be credible.

[Dot Matrix]

Now that is exactly what I've been waiting to hear. If ppl were to spend as much time innovating and sharing ideas as they do in arguing, I think Linux would be much more credible. At this point, with all the squabbling going on, we aren't.

I fully believe we can have many choices in what we want in an OS, but to argue amongst ourselves is blatantly childish. Why quibble about what our DE is? Gnome vs. KDE. Xfce vs. LXDE? Openbox vs. Blackbox? I mean WTF?!?! Really? It's a load of horse manure!

Or the constant crap that BSD is better then Linux or vice-versa and don't get me started on Solaris! Let's work together, share everything with out all the BS and maybe one day, we might be credible.

It's apparently much easier to spread FUD about Windows (8), than it is to innovate a useful OS. :pinch:

[Nothing Here]

It's apparently much easier to spread FUD about Windows (8), than it is to innovate a useful OS. :pinch:

And what does that have to do with the OP? Stay on topic please.

[Slayer]

Linux has been fractured since the advent of "distributions". That's the nature of the operating system. The fact that you can choose (and have to for some distributions) a shell says it all. If the second layer of software is completely user-choosable, god help the GUI. Although X.org have luckily done well in aggregating its user base from XFree, the experience is completely fractured beyond that. I have never recommended Linux to the average person, only to people that know a fair amount about computers or people that have brought the idea up to me. It's not ready for the average user and it may well never be.

[Motoko.]

I have this feeling that every programmer who writes free software for Linux wants to be the one to take it to the top(for whatever selfish/egotistical reasons it may be) I believe this is also contributing to also what remixedcat said in regards to fracturing by arguing instead of innovating.

One thing I realized about Operating Systems is this, the corporations with the money are able to assemble the people they need. Whereas with free software it's totally dependent on the programmer whether he or she wants to contribute code to the community, this can cause a disparity between the haves and the have nots in terms of innovation and progress.

[threetonesun]

With tablets on the rise, we'll never see desktop Linux hit mainstream, and I'm afraid that given the fragmentation in the community over UIs, we'll also never see a decent Linux tablet UI that can compete with any commercial company. In the end, as Redhat and Ubuntu got bigger, people started to realize, "hey, if we want to replace Windows, there's already a UNIX based system with a great UI and unified hardware drivers," and started buying more Apple products.

That said, Linux will trudge along, and continue to be improved, and people will use implementations of it on their own hardware and spend the time and money to build their own commercially acceptable UIs for it. Linux isn't going to die anytime soon, but any chance it had of being a desktop OS contender is in the past.

[Dot Matrix]

And what does that have to do with the OP? Stay on topic please.

Whoops, quoted the wrong post. It was in reply to RemixedCat's post. But what I was trying to get at was there was an article posted a few days back called "Why Windows 8 is DOA", written by a Linux zealot. This guy seems way too concerned with Microsoft's operating systems, rather than focusing on OSS software. So aside from in-fighting, there is also fear that is contributing to Linux's woes as well.

[Farstrider]

Yes clearly, I dont even use any form of open source I dont like the idea of non professionals writing my software. However it seems to me the problem is a lack of unity between open source providers. If everyone agreed to write open source for one compatiable enviroment there might be a chance of a "6 months of linux on the desktop" SERIOUSLY.

Sorry to disagree completely, a vast majority are preofessionals!

Now that is exactly what I've been waiting to hear. If ppl were to spend as much time innovating and sharing ideas as they do in arguing, I think Linux would be much more credible. At this point, with all the squabbling going on, we aren't.

I fully believe we can have many choices in what we want in an OS, but to argue amongst ourselves is blatantly childish. Why quibble about what our DE is? Gnome vs. KDE. Xfce vs. LXDE? Openbox vs. Blackbox? I mean WTF?!?! Really? It's a load of horse manure!

Or the constant crap that BSD is better then Linux or vice-versa and don't get me started on Solaris! Let's work together, share everything with out all the BS and maybe one day, we might be credible.

Once again, sorry to disagree with the above statement, the fact is all people argue (When it comes to software) number one and secondly other closed sourced companies don't argue?? Most of the arguing that gets seen or referred to are just nobodies and are not representative of the bigger groups out there! It's pretty much like here when you get threads that break down into chaos because someone still want's to use Windows XP and everyone shouts them down because they "should" be using Windows 7! Perhaps not the best parallel, but I am sure you get my meaning.

[xxxxxx.xxxxxx]

Now that is exactly what I've been waiting to hear. If ppl were to spend as much time innovating and sharing ideas as they do in arguing, I think Linux would be much more credible. At this point, with all the squabbling going on, we aren't.

I fully believe we can have many choices in what we want in an OS, but to argue amongst ourselves is blatantly childish. Why quibble about what our DE is? Gnome vs. KDE. Xfce vs. LXDE? Openbox vs. Blackbox? I mean WTF?!?! Really? It's a load of horse manure!

Or the constant crap that BSD is better then Linux or vice-versa and don't get me started on Solaris! Let's work together, share everything with out all the BS and maybe one day, we might be credible.

What a waste of time this was.

Linux in its truest form is opensource. I think we can all agree on this. Open source and the free software movement makes all source available to anyone who wants to download it. Anyone can change the source to a means that they prefer or to add functionality that it is missing. This ability gives GNU/Linux the upperhand because there can be 1 program with a multitude of remixes all with their own performance, functionality or eyecandy customisations which will attract different users.

Unity, Ubuntu HUD, Cinnamon, Gnome, KDE, LXDE, Openbox, Blackbox, Fluxbox, Xfce, MATE, TWM, Afterstep, CDE, IceWM, FVWM etc. Are all remixes of source code, adding changes to exsisting code to change appearance. People argue because people have different opinions. These arguments are what creates innovation in opensource products.

These arguments don't only exist in GNU/Linux platforms, but in the Windows market also. Did you forget about all the arguments when Microsoft went from Windows XP to Windows VIsta, or Windows 98, to ME, to 2000?

GNU/Linux will remain to live on, BSD will remain to live on. Richard Stallman will remain to live on and become world leader^*. Arguments will continue between communities and Linux will still live on. Linux will never die, it has too much of a hold on the server market for this to happen, will it ever take over the Desktop. No. It was never meant to, it is there to provide choice. It provides this choice by offering a number of alternatives in software whether it be Windows Managers, Desktop Environments or Applications. If you want to be using one desktop and have less of a choice then perhaps GNU/Linux isnt for you, use Windows.

*Note: Richard Stallman may not actually become world leader.

[ichi]

Is Desktop Linux Becoming Fractured as Open Source Matures?

Not really, it has always been kind of fractured but that's part of the point of Open Source in general and Linux in particular.

Up until recently we didn't have any company pushing their own vision of the Linux desktop, but that's it. Canonical's desktop (or anyone else's) will never become the standard that unifies the Linux desktop expecience, because Linux is about "what works for me". That's why it's hightly successful as a niche OS but doesn't make a real noticeable dent on the global desktop marketshare, and it'll remain that way for time to come.

Regarding the incompatibilities between DEs, well, so far every Linux app works on every DE and WM and I don't see that changing. Not even with Wayland.

Ubuntu's HUD is much like the global menu: just because you can use it there doesn't mean the app will break in other DEs.

[bjoswald]

It's never been organized. Every single project Linux has looks something like this:

1. Development

2. Public release

3. Bug reports filed

4. Months of idle time

5. Developer response: "Whenever we get around to it"

6. More idle time

7. Development halted

8. Development continued by random person in random counrty

Linux needs some kind of rule set or standard to follow if they ever want to get anywhere. They keep trying to reinvent the wheel, but never

agree on one design.

[Sylar0]

Please describe the kind of person who you think is writing open source software (as a general rule).

One man and his dog why would any quaified professional baring having too much money write code for free?

"If everyone agreed to write open source for one compatiable enviroment there might be a chance of a "6 months of linux on the desktop" SERIOUSLY."

I could almost go along with that line, at least.

Cool brother.

I would venture to say that most open source programmers also write code for companies. That's how they make a living. They do open source for the greater good. Not to mention the fact that problems tend to be fixed faster and more secure.

Id say its less secure I mean the source code is normally public.

Sorry to disagree completely, a vast majority are preofessionals!

Once again, sorry to disagree with the above statement, the fact is all people argue (When it comes to software) number one and secondly other closed sourced companies don't argue?? Most of the arguing that gets seen or referred to are just nobodies and are not representative of the bigger groups out there! It's pretty much like here when you get threads that break down into chaos because someone still want's to use Windows XP and everyone shouts them down because they "should" be using Windows 7! Perhaps not the best parallel, but I am sure you get my meaning.

Why always figured open source was hobbists?

It's never been organized. Every single project Linux has looks something like this:

1. Development

2. Public release

3. Bug reports filed

4. Months of idle time

5. Developer response: "Whenever we get around to it"

6. More idle time

7. Development halted

8. Development continued by random person in random counrty

Linux needs some kind of rule set or standard to follow if they ever want to get anywhere. They keep trying to reinvent the wheel, but never

agree on one design.

Agreed.

[ichi]

One man and his dog why would any quaified professional baring having too much money write code for free?

The thing is people working on big open source projects do more often than not get paid to do so.

Regarding why would a qualified professional contribute code for free, the answer is simple: because he wants to.

Just because you work for a software company doesn't mean you are working on the kind of project you are really interested in. Coding on your free time is a way to scratch an itch.

[Anibal P]

The only "problem" Linux has is people like the ones posting here, that have NO CLUE how Linux or Open Source works, so the vast majority of you should have never posted, you come off as complete ignorant fools

[Growled Member]

Disversity is a great thing and it's what makes Linux strong. I like having choices. It's a bit funny, as I get more powerful computers I'm attracted to less powerful desktops. I like for my desktop to get out of the way and let me work. Currently on #! and loving it.