Chris and I were talking about our Linux usage the other day, and we both came to the conclusion that for better or for worse our main production machines were Linux machines. He still has a Vista machine and I still have my MacBook, but our main desktop machines are Ubuntu boxes. I've been rolling over a few questions: around what it means for an operating system to be suitable for production, and what it means that Chris and I are both using Linux systems for our day-to-day heavy lifting. Then, in order:


Given the nature of my work (both vocational and avocational), I use and rely on computers extensively. While I've done a lot of things to backup my computer in the last few months and days, I cannot abide by a system that won't do what I need it to when I need it. While most computers are pretty reliable these days, the understanding that a computer is going to be there and ready with the programs and the data is as much a matter of trust as it is technical capability. Users need to be able to trust their production systems to keep their data, to run as expected, and to not fail them.

Another factor is user-comfort. While I'm not 100% comfortable with my new computer yet, I know that this is something that comes with time, as we use a system more, we all learn quicker ways of accomplishing common tasks, and it becomes easier to perform our most important computing tasks, and the "price" of converting a project from your mind/speech/analog source goes way down. That's a good thing.

A lot of my own musing on this site about productivity and technical usage, could be classified as being about making systems and users more production ready. While I think hacking on technology is really interesting, and technological development is really important, at the same time doing things with technology, is always the more important thing.


Chris and I are pretty technical users, admittedly, but I think we also have a pretty low tolerance for stuff that just doesn't work. Which says something really fundamental about the status of Linux in 2008. While there are rough spots, the applications are pretty much right where they need to be. For instance, even before I began to seriously consider getting a Linux desktop set up for my own purposes, the vast majority of the software that I use on OS X has very viable Linux ports. While the general usability of Linux-based systems have gotten much better in the last couple of years (thanks Ubuntu), the ecosystem is very vibrant, and that's incredibly important.

Having said that I think we're probably still a few years away from seeing an Ubuntu/Linux Mint that's ready for the general public. There are a few things that need to happen before that, such as:

  • Hardware makers need to continue to make and build computers with Linixes pre-installed. Ubuntu's installer isn't more painful than windows' or OS X's, and convincing average users to switch for ideological reasons after they've just bought a new computer is difficult. Also, given hardware compatibility issues, having companies like Dell and HP make sure that there's support in the OS for the hardware is a great service.
  • The interface needs to get a lot better. This is "just wait and see" issue mostly, but I think GNOME needs work, and without a really good and fun UI, Linux is sunk.
  • X11, the primary graphics/interaction layer for all (?) unix/unix-like operating system GUIs (other than OS X) needs some work. Dual monitor support is lackluster, support for laptop displays is tenuous, and while I don't think we should throw all of X way, a lot of the UI problems are rooted in X's limitations. Of all the parts of the UI in most Linux systems, X is the weakest link. While this is a pretty low level concern, making X better will make the whole experience better. And that's what counts. I may be able to get really impressive system up-times, but unless I can get impressive up-times for X, the former isn't worth much.
  • End User distributions (Ubuntu, etc) and bare-bones distributions (Arch, Gentoo, etc.) need to become even more distinct. Ubuntu should probably attempt to use a more "rolling release" approach to package inclusion and should attempt to cover up command line access the same way that OS X does, say, and the bare-bones distributions should probably avoid delusions that they're going to capture the end user market, and focus at being even more awesome bare bones distributions. The great thing about Linux distributions is that they don't really compete with each other and while the geeks might know this, I'm not sure the general public does in the same way.

That's what I have for now, do any of you have ideas about what more Linux needs before it's production ready for the general use user?