There is no Linux desktop

Every year, Linux enthusiasts hope that the new year will be the "year of the Linux desktop", the year that Linux dethrones Microsoft Windows as the chief desktop operating system.

I have bad news for the Linux enthusiasts.

There is no Linux desktop.

More specifically, there is not one Linux desktop. Instead, there is a multitude. There are multiple Linux distributions ("distros" in jargon) and it seems that each has its own ideas about the desktop. Some emulate Microsoft Windows, in an attempt to make it easy for people to convert from Windows to Linux. Other distros do things their own (and presumably better) way. Some distros focus on low-end hardware, others focus on privacy. Some focus on forensics, and others are tailored for tinkerers.

Distributions include: Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, SuSE, Red Hat, Fedora, Arch Linux, Elementary, Tails, Kubuntu, CentOS, and more.

The plethora of distributions splits the market. No one distribution is the "gold standard". No one distribution is the leader.

Here's what I consider the big problem for Linux: The split market discourages some software vendors from entering it. If you have a new application, do you support all of the distros or just some? Which ones? How do you test all of the distros that you support? What do you do with customers who use distros that you don't support?

Compared to Linux, the choice of releasing for Windows and macOS is rather simple. Either you support Windows or you don't. (And by "Windows" I mean "Windows 10".) Either you support mac OS or you don't. (The latest version of mac OS.) Windows and macOS each provide a single platform, with a single installation method, and a single API. (Yes, I am simplifying here. Windows has multiple ways to install an application, but it is clear that Microsoft is transitioning to the Universal app.)

I see nothing to reduce the number of Linux distros, so this condition will continue. We will continue to enjoy the benefits of multiple Linux distributions, and I believe that to be good for Linux.

But it does mean that the Evil Plan to take over all desktops will have to wait.

OS X is special enough to get names

Apple has several product lines, and two operating systems: Mac OS and iOS. (Or perhaps three, with Apple Watch OS being the third.) The operating systems have different origins, different designs, and, interestingly, different marketing. Releases of iOS and WatchOS are numbered; releases of Mac OS are named.

Why this distinction? Why should releases of Mac OS be graced with names ("Panther", "Tiger", "Mavericks", "El Capitan") and other operating systems limited to plain numbers?

The assignment of names to Mac OS is a marketing decision. Apple clearly believes that the users of Mac OS want names, while the users of iOS and WatchOS do not. They may be right.

The typical user of iOS and WatchOS is an ordinary, non-technical person. Apple iPads and iPhones and Watches are made for "normal", non-technical individuals.

The typical user of Mac OS, on the other hand, is not a normal, non-technical individual. At least, not in Apple's eyes. Apple may right on this item. I have seen programmers, web designers, and developers carry Apple MacBooks. Software conferences are full of software geeks, and many carry Apple MacBooks. (Only a few carry iPads.)

If this is true, then the audience for Mac OS is different from the audience for iOS. And if that is true, then Apple has an incentive to keep Mac OS separate from iOS. So we may see separate paths (and features) for Mac OS and iOS (and WatchOS).

When Apple releases a version of Mac OS without a cute code name, then we can assume that Apple is getting ready to merge Mac OS into iOS.

We no longer think about operating systems

Windows XP remains popular, despite its age, its limitations, and its lack of support from Microsoft.

The desire to keep Windows XP shows that users want stable, reliable operating systems that they can install and then ignore. Well, perhaps not ignore, but at least not think about.

Things were not always this way. Early in the age of Windows, corporations, individuals, hobbyists, and programmers all looked forward to new versions of Microsoft's operating system. Windows 3.1 was desired for its networking capabilities; Windows 95 for its user interface (in contrast to Windows 8); and Windows NT for its security. Windows 2000 brought all of those features together, and was eagerly adopted.

I think that the lesson of Windows 8 (and Windows Vista, and Windows 7) is this: We no longer care about the operating system.

In the old days, operating systems were important -- much more than today. Certain applications would run on only certain operating systems; pick the wrong operating system and you could not run your application. Not running your application meant that you could not get your work done, or deliver for your client.

Today, most applications run on most operating systems. Yes, most Microsoft products run only on Windows, but other products run on Windows, MacOS, and Linux. Moreover, web apps run in browsers, and most web apps run in the popular browsers (Firefox, Chrome, IE, and Safari) and care nothing about the operating system.

Applications are not tied so closely to operating systems as they were.

The mobile world has made operating systems commodities, with equivalent apps available on iOS and Android. In the mobile world, very few people care about the operating system.

With less dependence on the operating system, we tend to think of other things. We still think of performance -- although modern processors are fast enough for most tasks and cloud computing can provide computing power for large tasks.

Today we tend to think of portability (an app for my phone) and network connectivity (coverage by mobile service provider).

The operating system, for most people, is a means to an end but it is not the end. We think of it as we think of electricity, or of sidewalks: there and ready for us to use, but nothing distinguishing about them. They are becoming part of "the infrastructure", that part of our world that we use without thinking about it.

To be sure, there are some folks who do care about operating systems. The system designers, to start. And I'm sure that Microsoft's product teams care about the features in Windows (as do Apple's product designers care about features in MacOS and iOS). Hobbyists and tinkerers enjoy exploring new versions of operating systems. Support teams for large organizations, security analysts, and the "black hat" hackers who look for vulnerabilities -- they all care about operating systems.

But walk down the street and ask individuals at random, and most will answer that they don't care. Some may not even know which operating system are used by their devices!

We've moved on to other things.

The post-PC era is about coolness or lack thereof

Some have pointed to the popularity of tablets as the indicator for the imminent demise of the PC. I look at the "post PC" era not as the death of the PC, but as something worse: PCs have become boring.

Looking back, we can see that PCs started with lots of excitement and enthusiasm, yet that excitement has diminished over time.

First, consider hardware:

• Microcomputers were cool (even with just a front panel and a tape drive for storage)
• ASCII terminals were clearly better than front panels
• Storing data on floppy disks was clearly better than storing data on tape
• Hard drives were better than floppy disks
• Color monitors were better than monochrome displays
• High resolution color monitors were better than low resolution color monitors
• Flat panel monitors were better than CRT monitors

These were exciting improvements. These changes were *cool*. But the coolness factor has evaporated. Consider these new technologies:

• LED monitors are better than LCD monitors, if you're tracking power consumption
• Solid state drives are better than hard drives, if you look hard enough
• Processors after the original Pentium are nice, but not excitingly nice

Consider operating systems:

• CP/M was exciting (as anyone who ran it could tell you)
• MS-DOS was clearly better than CP/M
• Windows 3.1 on DOS was clearly better than plain MS-DOS
• Windows 95 was clearly better than Windows 3.1
• Windows NT (or 2000) was clearly better than Windows 95 (or 98, or ME)

But the coolness factor declined with Windows XP and its successors:

• Windows XP was *nice* but not *cool*
• Windows Vista was not clearly better than Windows XP -- and many have argued that it was worse
• Windows 7 was better than Windows Vista, in that it fixed problems
• Windows 8 is (for most people) not cool

The loss of coolness is not limited to Microsoft. A similar effect happened with Apple's operating systems.

• DOS (Apple's DOS for Apple ][ computers) was cool
• MacOS was clearly better than DOS
• MacOS 9 was clearly better than MacOS 8
• Mac OSX was clearly better than MacOS 9

But the Mac OSX versions have not been clearly better than their predecessors. They have some nice features, but the improvements are small, and a significant number of people might say that the latest OSX is not better than the prior version.

The problem for PCs (including Apple Macintosh PCs) is the loss of coolness. Tablets are cool; PCs are boring. The "arc of coolness" for PCs saw its greatest rise in the 1980s and 1990s, a moderate rise in the 2000s, and now sees decline.

This is the meaning of the "post PC era". It's not that we give up PCs. It's that PCs become dull and routine. PC applications become dull and routine.

It also means that there will be few new things developed for PCs. In a sense, this happened long ago, with the development of the web. Then, the Cool New Things were developed to run on servers and in browsers. Now, the Cool New Things will be developed for the mobile/cloud platform.

So don't expect PCs and existing PC applications to vanish. They will remain; it is too expensive to re-build them on the mobile/cloud platform.

But don't expect new PC applications.

Welcome to the post-PC era.