Can Linux Replace Windows?

by David Risley on Aug 2, 2007 | 112 comments

As a bit of a follow-up to my recent editorial about the different operating systems battling it out, a few readers made comments about Ubuntu and Windows and, essentially, that I was giving Windows a little too much credit. So, I thought I would write another one here specifically to address the issue of Linux actually replacing Windows. Can it?

In short – not yet. And here’s why.

Microsoft Made The Rules

Back in 2001, Microsoft came out with Windows XP. At the time, it was essentially the only desktop operating system worth anybody’s time. At the time, Microsoft Office had won the war of the office suite. Internet Explorer had pushed Netscape out of the market by riding the coattails of Windows’s success and essentially forcing users to Internet Explorer. A legal battle ensued against Microsoft on that one, leading to the eventual loosening of the grip on the internet by Internet Explorer (although some would argue they still have a tight grip). All the time, Linux was quite popular as a server (mainly because Windows is too unstable), but as far as the desktop goes, it was mainly for geeks.

Today, open source has made a bit of a comeback. OpenOffice has become a worthy competitor to Microsoft Office, so much so that it made Microsoft re-think their office suite and now Office 2007 uses more open document standards. Firefox was borne out of Netscape’s grave and is now quite popular. And we have Linux itself having grown into the desktop arena with popular desktop options Gnome and KDE, both of which give Vista a run for it’s money.

So, things have changed. But, enough for Linux to take over? No, and that is because Microsoft’s initial success has basically meant that it made most of the rules. People have gotten used to the way Microsoft’s software works. We’ve gotten used to the way they do things. Microsoft, too, isn’t exactly an open book on how they have done things, so it leaves others to get as close as they can, but not quite there.

The popularity of Windows also means that most vendors dedicate most of their energy to making their wares work in Windows. And therein lies the reference to the capitalist market I made in the prior article. The market has chosen Windows and now we are dealing with that choice. Vendor support for Linux and other platforms ends up being more of an afterthought. Wine is an open source implementation of the Windows API that is available for Linux, allowing you to run Windows software on a Linux system. But, Wine isn’t perfect. It can run some software, but the support is spotty. Another option would include virtual machines inside of Linux to run Windows software, but that doesn’t appear to be very workable at this point either.

The best option for Linux is to use software natively written for Linux, but that supports the Microsoft standards. Now that Microsoft seems to be opening up some of it’s file standards, perhaps this can be done a little better by the Linux world. For example, OpenOffice offers document support for Office files. But, it only goes so far. Some of the fancier features of Office can’t be saved properly in OpenOffice, and that is because the exact format of the DOC files was only known by Microsoft. Now that Office 2007 is using an open XML standard, maybe this can be alleviated.

People Want an Alternative

Microsoft has made the rules here and that is because Linux took too long to go consumer on us. Yes, we are now seeing a comeback for open source, but the progress is slowed in the operating system arena because of the incredible prominence of Microsoft Windows. But, markets tend to give and take, and my sense is that Microsoft is now on an ebb. Windows XP was pretty good, and still is. I am now using Vista, which puts me in a position to recommend to others that they continue to run XP for now. Vista just isn’t ready. Which leads me to my point…

Microsoft’s handling of Vista seems to be a sign to me that the company is indeed losing it’s grip on the OS market. It took them six years to come up with Vista, and I’m left scratching my head on exactly what all the fuss was about. And after Vista’s release, the hardware support in Vista is a bit lackluster. Some hardware vendors are playing hell providing Vista support for their stuff due to the huge changes Microsoft made inside Windows. At the same time, Vista is an absolute beast of an operating system. While it really requires about 2 gigs of memory to run respectably, Ubuntu Linux can do so with only 512 MB.

So, while the success of Firefox shows that people wanted an alternative to Internet Explorer, I really do think Vista is the tipping point for a desire for an alternative in the OS arena. People are tired of Microsoft. They are tired of the barrage of security concerns, of the blue screens, the lock-ups. I, for one, would LOVE to have a viable desktop operating system that is really a drop-in replacement for Windows. But, Linux just isn’t there yet for the reasons above.

What would need to happen for Linux to become more of a replacement?

Linux needs to operate more and more like Windows. It is getting there. But, Linux needs to get such that you don’t need a command line hardly at all. Installing programs should be as easy as double-clicking a file (not tracking down package dependencies). Again, Linux is going to have to play by the rules set by Windows in order to take Windows down a notch.
Open standards need to become more the norm than the exceptions. Companies should make a special point to use open standards. For example, using OpenOffice rather than Microsoft Office will make your documents more open and more cross platform.
Vendors need to flow more effort into supporting Linux. It’s a bit of the chicken and the egg problem, though. They will put more effort into it if Linux gets popular enough to warrant their time. On the other side, Linux isn’t really going to get that popular if these vendors don’t do it.

Moving to the Web

The trend of late is that a lot of desktop software is being replaced by web-based counterparts. In fact, just a couple weeks ago I have officially dropped Outlook as my email client in favor of Google’s Gmail service. I spend most of my day inside my web browser, and it wouldn’t matter what computer or what operating system I am using, Gmail would still work the same way. And Firefox is available for both Windows and Linux.

It doesn’t stop with Gmail, though. There are now web-based apps that cover everything from finance, graphic design, time management, office suites – you name it. All of it is dependent only on the web and the server it sits on. As these types of things get more popular, it just won’t matter what operating system one is using.

With the move toward web-based software, and the valiant efforts of projects like OpenOffice and Firefox, I think the scene is shifting toward open source and away from the days of Microsoft as the dominant force. This will open up more opportunities for the likes of Ubuntu and others, but it is up to the developers of those systems to seize the chance. They can’t re-invent the way the world works, and the computer world is still very much revolved around the way Windows does things. So, open source developers need not be snobbish about being anti-Windows. No, on the contrary, get in there and do what Windows does the way Windows does it, then show people that they’re doing it without any Microsoft labels all over it.

Then you’re getting somewhere.

Like what you read?

If so, please join over 28,000 people who receive our exclusive weekly newsletter and computer tips, and get FREE COPIES of 5 eBooks we created, as our gift to you for subscribing. Just enter your name and email below:

If you enjoyed this article, you might also like...

Post A Comment Using Facebook

LR
*. But, Linux needs to get such that you don’t need a command line hardly at all.
You don’t need a command line at all. Ive used mine twice in over a year of using Linux,once to Ping Yahoo and the second time to check out my video card.
Everything has been done with the GUI,just like Windows.
Installing programs should be as easy as double-clicking a file (not tracking down package dependencies).
There are now download managers which can do that already.
.
* Open standards need to become more the norm than the exceptions.
That’s happening as well.
* Vendors need to flow more effort into supporting Linux.
With Dell supporting Linux, this should began to happen much faster.
Dr. Dog
David,
I second LR’s comments and will add a few of my own.
* I have converted our entire home over to Linux (Ubuntu) six months ago. My wife and daughter are technonewbies so command line has no meaning to them. After the initial ‘How do I do….’ phase and a few script/icon tricks by yours truly I have not had a peep out of either one of them since. They do the usual web/email/VOIP/graphics for the most part. I have been able to provide an equivalent replacement in every case.
* Updates, aaaah what a relief! Instead of the almost daily update shuffle with Windows I now have the whole update cycle cron’d to run apt-update every Friday at 6am. Automatic, and it’s green ball every time.
* I think you dismiss the virtualization aspects on the desktop at your own peril. Two forces are going to pop this pretty quick — corporate bottom lines and cheap 4 core cpu’s next year. Companies are looking for ways to reduce costs. What better way to do that than to simplify the back up process with virtualization? You put a very thin Linux layer as Host. Virtual on top of that. Then put your working OS on top as Guest. Most of the major Virtual layer products support snapshots. Couple that process with say something like Unison and you have the means to automate desktop backup very easily without using the morass of MS/third party tools. Kaching.
And don’t forget that most of the large companies also posses the option of having 2 images running concurrently as part of their licensing agreement. If you are a license holder in such standing there will be strong economic pressure to use both concurrently on the desktop to provide more horsepower to the end user. So why burn up a MS license as Host to run a version as Guest. You don’t.
* Now I will agree that a lot of packaging needs to be updated. But it is improving and one can subscribe to commercial services (RedCarpet) to have a better experience.
* I guess my final point is cost. For the average business app user Linux for the current distros have a very interesting attribute. If I went to Vista I am looking at a desktop replacement. Most companies will not fork over the labor to pop the case to do the upgrade. Whereas I could drop in say Kubuntu or Suse, whip in Compviz, add Star Office and be pretty much of a comparable stature for those class of users. And I do it using the current hardware. For somebody sitting there with 150k seats that’s about $200m not spent over a period of years. No small matter.
* Last one. DRM will be the bane of Vista. You hear the horror stories all the time of subsystems not working or valid CD’s not capable of being played. Once a perception gets laid that Vista is ‘crippled’ its very hard to purge it from the collective mindset. Which is where for the home user they seem to be headed. The irony is that from the time that MS responded to the content providers to the time that Vista implemented it half of the major content providers are now backing off DRM because they are losing sales. Heh.
Justin
David was actually spot on. Just because things are in the works now that are making Linux and other alternatives more available to every user doesn’t mean that they have made enough of a transition.
Is Windows falling while alternatives are rising? Yes. However, very few users are aware that anything exists outside of Windows.
Simply because Microsoft was able to capture the grip on the public before Apple got to them, we saw MS explode in all directions, completely enveloping the market and keeping for itself an Intel-like position on the ladder. Not to overstate David’s point, but they have been crushing the opposition for almost 2 straight decades now.
All of that means that alternative operating systems will remain alternative until they can surpass MS. Making progress isn’t enough for a buyer. It has to be excellent. Right now, MS is their definition of excellent. Whether or not MS is better doesn’t matter, simply because they were 1st.
Kevin
To me its all about software. More companies need to embrace Linux, until that happens than I will not fully switch over.
chris
Give it a little bit more time. I switched to Linux about 6 months ago and am making it pretty good. I only use the command line for Whois and Ping and thats it. I think possibly in 2008, if things keep going the way their going in Linux development, it will be a direct competitor. I do have a windows box only for iTunes, but it looks like the iPod can sync with amarok, so i may not have a win comp. for much longer.
Ray
Bravo. I agree 100%.
Johnny K
“While it really requires about 2 gigs of memory to run respectably, Ubuntu Linux can do so with only 512 MB.”
Ubuntu works acceptably well on 128 MB. Ubuntu Lite is a variation of Ubuntu that can run on 64 MB. That’s 32x memory less than Vista requires.
http://www.blogmyway.org BLOGMYWAY.org
In my opinion, Linux gives me a piece of mind. I don’t have to worry about computer viruses much and firestarter gives me a lot of peace.
I’m pretty sure Linux had already taken over the server market. The desktop market is only a matter of time.
Vista aero glass effect can be achieved on Linux with XGL.
What’s so hard about “apt-get update” and then “apt-get upgrade”?
PCLinuxOS is the easiest Linux, give it a try. So many Linux versions out there, pick and choose. All for free! You can’t do that with Windows.
In my opinion, first time computer users usually pick Windows, but when they get smarter about computers & OS, as usual they eventually move away from Windows and right into Linux’s lap.
I guess the ending = happy ending for Linux. Why? Many eventually turn to Linux through time, because Windows is not perfect, and viruses are so annoying, and my friend’s neighbor lost $30,000 of dollars in her bank account because she used Windows.
http://www.glikk.com Joey
You’re exactly right when you talk about the things that Linux needs to improve before it will really take on windows. I have been a linux user (Ubuntu) for about 6 months now and I love it. I’m not going back to windows. That said, linux still needs those exact 3 refinements before I’ll be telling my friends to use it.
supertux
If you want linux to be more like windows….you might as well run windows
Dave
Nope. What Linux needs is a terrific GAME. Something that will sell the OS, and not be playable on M$ systems.
http://www.mindblowingidea.com usacomputertec
Actually PCLinuxOS is so you don’t need to use the command line unless you want to install VMWare-Server or something like that.
Nathan
I agree on a few points, but I think there are some critical problems here… I for one do not want Linux to become more windowsy. That would be a step back. Linux needs to improve and evolve, but not pick up on windows’ mistakes.
If I misunderstood, and you meant Linux needs to become easier and simpler, then I agree. However, cutting out the command line is a horrible idea, and was one of the worst things microsoft did in windows. The GUI has its advantages, but the CLI has some advantages of its own that can’t be ignored. Making the transition easier should be the goal, since I think all will agree that an adept user can do things faster in CLI (usually) than in GUI.
As for installing programs needing to be simpler, I have had demonic experiences with windows installers, and when they fail, it is virtually impossible to get done what you want done. Installing on Linux is much faster and easier on all fronts, unless you’re compiling. And now there are ways to use software without even installing it! (CNR, Klik, etc.) And package managers make installation quick and easy. So I have to install a couple dependencies… Big deal! It’s better to have a package manager do that for me, and I never worry about it, than to have them bundled in a .exe installer (IMO). And there’s no comparison between package managers handling installed software, installing/removing software, upgrading software, and all the other things they do; versus the way windows does it.
All this is not to say that Linux doesn’t need to continue to change. I’m all for further innovation and easier usage. In fact, microsoft dropped this entirely with vista; which has no new features worth paying for, and countless ‘features’ you don’t want. I simply believe that Linux can and will, if not replace, then match windows in the market without becoming more like windows.
Wilson
Quoting: “People are tired of Microsoft. They are tired of the barrage of security concerns.”
Quoting: “Linux needs to operate more and more like Windows. It is getting there.”
I know the contradiction wasn’t intentional… but I find it amusing.
I’ll be arguing from a negative point of view… feel free to flame me.
I’m a OSX/Windows user (still XP). I’ve toyed with linux back in the day where it was still crudded up, so I’m put off from linux for a very long time. (I spent most of the time finding equivalent apps to windows).
Linux distros really just need to merge. Yes I’ve seen linux lovers bag windows a lot… but I’ve seen linux users bag out other linux users just because of the distro…. If you want something to win home user market, pick ONE distro and make it win.
Articles should be titled “Will Ubuntu take over Windows”, or “Will Knoppix take over Windows”. You’d probably go further by making an OS based on linux, and not even mentioning the word ‘linux’ on anything. For every lover of linux, there is one who hates it… but fail to mention it, then at least everyone is curious.
Just to let the author know -> Ubuntu is a shining example of a reasonably well managed distro. It pretty much does everything windows does, so windows users with not a lot of technical knowhow can use it. Pretty much everything’s automatic in it nowdays. Yes, things aren’t always as simple as dbl clicking a .exe file, but that’s not the distro’s fault is it? Its the programmers who can’t be bothered putting the extra effort in to create installers for the 1001 distros out there… BUT Ubuntu is getting popular.. and who knows.. maybe there will be at least an Ubuntu installer for apps later on.
Even so.. Ubuntu still can’t beat Windows just yet.
The problem doesn’t lie in the OS… it lies in the 3rd party apps.
Open source 3rd party apps have a lot of crap out there. Too many variants of the same thing. Something needs to be standardised. The Ubuntu group is just going through all the crap and finding the good stuff, but it can’t do everything by itself.
Some comments to Open Source Hippies:
- Know what ‘Open Source’ means.
- Not everyone is motivated by price… just because its free doesn’t mean its not crap.
- Just because something is closed source -> doesn’t mean its not free.
- If you need to use your Nvidia card, but there are no drivers for u… don’t sit around and twiddle your thumbs and winge to Nvidia. That didn’t work on your parents, so why should it work on them?
http://www.techzilo.com/ TechZilo
I installed Ubuntu, but soon got tired of it – it refused to recognize my printer and N73.
And ofcourse, for us teens, there are not enough games – only those from the makers of Doom and Quake.
Linux-specific games suck big-time anyway.
http://ilaniam.com Ben
“Linux needs to operate more and more like Windows”, more like OS X!!! Windows is by no means hte benchmark in usability and interface design.
Anton
Whay are u only discussing Windows and Linux?
What about Apple’s OS X, which in my opinion beats both these competitors in usability, performance, look-n-feel, cool factor, stability, etc.
It runs Microsoft Office. It doesn’t get slow because no registry. The only area I think it is lacking in is support from 3rd party vendors like for instance if I have software for my mobile phone or GPS device, etc and the co. doesn’t write software for Apple OS. I am then still able to get around this with a virtual machine or even booting into another OS.
comments?
Lewis
Linux needs something similar to an “.exe”. Maybe when you download a program from the internet, you would get this file that, when launched, would automatically in the background do all the terminal stuff to install. That way people who don’t like the terminal could have these programs do all the interaction necessary with the terminal.
mb
On “What would need to happen for Linux to become more of a replacement?”
The first bullet is a done deal. Pretty much all Linux Distributions have clearly SUPERIOR Package managers vs Microsoft XP/Vista.
The second bullet is coming. More and more people are concerned about who owns their data, and how accessable that data is to multiple applications.
The third bullet is the main one — but perhaps not for the reasons you site… What drives Desktops more than anything is GAMES. Specifically 3D Games. Linux can compete against Windows, and generally offers better features, in everything but the gaming arena. In order for Linux to compete here it needs NVIDIA and ATI/AMD to support the OS in a big way — and that’s just not happened yet. One good thing is that Vista’s DirectX10 has not caught on, and Vista’s shot itself in the foot with percieved slower performance — leaving an opening for competition… (i.e. OpenGL). If Vendors such as Dell get their way, Linux will indeed soon have a killer 3D environment — and a SW system that Game developers could tweek to the hilt for performance…. If game developers realized this — that they could have complete freedom over the OS and HW to tweak it to the max for their own game… I think that there would soon be a jump the shark moment…
brent
Blue screens? Lock ups? lets move away from Windows 2000 guys – it’s only 7 years old. Or maybe you need help installing and maintaining Windows.
Simon
Dont forget about Microsoft having the Graphics nitch – Windows is pretty much the only way to play popular games such as Guild wars and World of Warcraft, which see millions of players each year and make billions. Linux would have a tough time.
Not saying that I am a diehard fan of microsoft, far from it. I plan to have a dual boot windows/linux system very soon
just visiting
Hi, you might be interested in the following article, “Linux is not Windows,” which responds to your argument here:
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
Ryan
I actually give M$ a lot of credit, they manage to suck money out of ignorant people everyday. In fact my school now requires me to take an Office class to graduate, and if it weren’t for my absolute disdain I might for M$ I might actually by that bloated peace of garbage. Now I will present you with my case. Vista is old it was built off of the windows 98 base. Instead of Sexyifying XP the best move they could have made IMO, they attempted at reinventing the wheel. Then when they realize their software is garbage they try and smash the open source community with patent violations. So as that hot girl from thought works said “Enterprise = Bloated, Corrupt, and Incompetent.”
So as long as people want to use software that is a money pit let them have it. As most people in the industry I know with much rationale will quickly elevate themselves into a more flexible and productive os.
Now for ease of use I think ubuntu for surpasses windows. Install time is far less and best of all its free. Driver support is getting better everyday and apt-get is a decent package management system, albeit needs improvements.
I use debian etch, its ubuntu without the training wheels, and at the office I use OS X.
In closing I hate M$, I hate M$ users. And while apple maybe corrupt and steve jobs sucks. NOTHING beats a bash shell
dos?? wtf

John
Vista was not built off of the Windows 98 base. It may still have some legacy code but the kernel is it’s own.

Pingback: Can Linux Replace Windows? « Tech Enthusiast
Shay
Sad to say but I believe that Windows will rule the roost here in America for at least another 30 years. Not because Linux is the lesser (which as an OS it is just barely the lesser….but it’s mainly driver support and apps that are holding Linux back) but because people do not like change. One of the few reasons people will change is money. If Linux is able to continue to provide what they have so far for free, or substantially cheaper than Windows, that’ll be what makes people switch.
Fact is Linux isn’t there yet….but Linux has made leaps and bounds faster than anything I’ve ever seen. However if your a basic computer user or new to computing then Linux IS there….I would highly recommend Ubuntu to a basic computer user or someone new to computing….I have my mother running Xubuntu on her year 2000 Gateway for about 6 months now and it’s absolutely perfect for her. We are even scanning in all of her picture albums using her computer…she downs the pics from her camera…prints docs…plays games (way hooked on mahjongg…LOL)….the whole shebang…with very few problems. She is in her mid 60′s and the transition for her from Windows was absolutely nothing! Just like Dr. Dog there was a few How do you do’s and that was it.
Video editing, a few games, and a couple of pieces of hardware are what keep me having to use windows. None of which have anything to do with the actual OS. Actually my main game UT2004 comes with a Linux install right on the Windows install disk! So really for me it won’t be much longer.
The rest of the world however will switch much faster than America….MS is an American company and the rest of the world have no loyalty ties to MS….and would love to send MS packing and will.