For those who know me and know me well are aware of the fact that I am an avid advocate of Open Source software. This is why it pains me so that the open and free desktop ecosystem hasn’t really taken off. In this article I intend to address several issues and subjects that have prevented the open desktop, or more specifically the Linux desktop, from taking off as a desktop as a viable commercial platform. The reasons are many, and we need context. So this will be a long one, ladies and gentlement. My old lit teacher is bowing her head in shame right now…

Current state of affairs

When it comes to that ol’ trope of desktop “market share” Windows still reigns supreme. Even though Apple is a largely succesfull company, boasted as one of the most profitable companies of all time, it hasn’t gained much traction — statistically speaking. Windows is still the king of the hill on laptops and workstations and Android rules the mobile world. But that doesn’t tell you how succesfull a platform is in regards to commercial oppertunity. The big reason Windows hails out in front is because of the enterprise market and people who just don’t want to pay Apple the exorbated amount of money they’re asking for. But that doesn’t matter, because king of the hill in regards to commercial software publishing from a single point, the one that is most profitable, is still Apple’s App Store — and one doesn’t need to guess why.

Apple users pony up way more money than any other user out there, which could be argued is because the Google Play Store simply let to much cruft enter it’s space, allowing for tons of shovleware to make a home where commercial counterparts who actually try to do a good job has to compete with millions upon millions of low-risk counterparts. Apple setup strict guidelines for publishing on their platform and (mostly) properly vets apps. Microsoft’s Store has always been the home of low risk, privacy infringing and resource hogging shovelware, so I wont even dignifiy it by including it into the equation. In any case, the Play Store consists largely of software cobbled together with free libraries, stock material and cheaply bought assets, filling the search screen with cruft that I would hardly advise anyone to install. I’ve personally been trying many, MANY image editors, meme makers, video editors and social platform publishing tools over the years, trying to see if content creation is that much better on the phone. As it is I’d just advise you to stick to your laptop and software made by serious software developers.

But that’s neither here nor there (just one in a series of rants included in this long article). Profits from app purchases are down and slowly declining. Apple is particularly frazzled by this development and has been taking steps to ensure revenue continues to grow. That’s why the next big gambit for each of these stores is an app subscription service, which will be a include a set of software and games curated by each of the giants, that you pay a nominal fee for each month to gain unfettered (no freemium, no micropayments) access to. In my opinion Google stands to win most from this, provided they do a good job of it, since they can then bring the top-notch software and game developers to the forefront. All they need to do is to advertise it properly across the world and those who rarely buy apps are more inclined to fork over the 5–8$ a month required to gain access to this list of software, as they could then sidestep the mess that is the Play Store index.

Can we play with the cool kids?

The fact is that both these platforms implement and use Open Source software, but we want to talk about the open desktop. Arguably the only commercial oppertunities on the Linux desktop are solely relegated to the Steam store front — which is still earning close to zilch. Even Steam on macOS has a bigger userbase than the Linux userbase, simply because more people use macOS than all the Linux desktops combined. Recently the developers of “Rocket League” dropped support for Linux, due to them fazing out DX9 (or DirectX 9). The developer (Psyonix) has said, both objectively on Reddit and like a bunch of sourpuses on Twitter that it’s just not fiscally feasible for them to continue supporting the Linux desktop platform — in particular since they’re now an Epic Store exclusive, which has no plans to support Linux any time soon (which really is the problem they have, because Steam for Linux uses Proton which can run pretty much any Windows game).

So where does this leave us? Where does it leave the open desktop? The same place it’s always been. A veritable money toilet for developers and publishers to pour their money into — or rather: not. Unless said developers of course are smart enough to build cross-platform solutions to start with, like DaVinci’s Resolve or Cocko’s Reaper, the latter being unsupported. But despite these forward thinking developers we’re still stuck in a world that refuses to acknowledge open source desktops.

The gaming world is emblematic of this, as DirectX has always been the make-all and be-all of profits, unfortunately due to the hardware manufacturers not giving proper support for open desktops (I’m looking at you, NVIDIA). However, this is changing ever so slowly (even NVIDIA’s cuvoted EGLStreams are coming to Wayland, despite the pushback).

This is because the Linux ecosystem has proven to be of vital importance for cutting costs and increasing productivity within many commercial spaces, including 3D- and video rendering farms by the likes of Disney, advanced computational simulations, and many other spaces unrelated to this subject. It’s simply cheaper, more performant, portable and scalable. You’d be a fool to try and use anything else but open source software to setup cluster (or “cloud”) solutions for large enterprises. Even Microsoft knows this, with their Azure Cloud tipping the scales as the Linux server is dominant on that platform as well.

If you build it they will come…

So it all begs the question: Linux, as a kernel, and as an ecosystem, has the tools neceesary to be a large commercial success — and has been, through the likes of Android. It performs better, lasts longer and is arguably much more stable. Then why is it such a money drain to invest developer time into the Linux space? It’s time to pull out Chekhov’s gun: it’s the app store — or rather: the lack of one.

For so long the Linux desktop has suffered from fragmentation, which can be argued is to cultivate diversity and discussion around development of fundamental infrastructure on the Linux desktop. Among other things the holy grail of system stability that is the package manager, which Apple just doesn’t want to make as it’s focusing on their internal APIs, SDKs and (you know it) the App Store’s Apple tax. And Windows has been trying to “reinvent” the package manager with NuGet that makes me want to cry into my coffee. A proper package management system is ubiqutous with proper, curated app and system updates that it baffles me to no end that both Apple and Microsoft screwed the pooch on that particular basic infrastructure (Windows Update is a messs).

I mean it’s obvious why. For Apple it’s the Apple tax, for Microsoft it’s the Enterprise license of Windows that allow company to put apps in their shovleware store to distribute internally in their businesses. And this touches on the real problem, that the package manager was never, and never will be, a place to distribute commercial software. It’s a system that’s supposed to maintain the fundamental software stacks of your systems foundations — and nothing more. I’d argue with my tinfoil hat on that Apple intentionally gimped their .pkg package manager to prevent users from having control over their systems (go on… uninstall something).

Knowing all this, after many years of ignoring the Linux desktop as a commercially viable platform on the frontend, two actors have come out with each their solutions to bridge the gap, with only one real alternative for the desktop. First you have Canonicals Snap packages system, which can work on desktops — but is really an attempt at creating a comercial marketplace for the server-space of things. You can run desktop software with it, yes, but the support really isn’t there for things like 3D rendering. Contrast that with the alternative, Fedora’s (or RedHat’s) Flatpak solution, which was painstakingly made for the desktop. But again: neither of these are an actual, factual app store.

They are containerised package manager that are separated from the underlying system, with commercial possiblity tied to them as an afterthought (I’m betting the “Ubuntu Account Payment” system still says “Work in progress” to this day). The common feature between the two however is that the dependencies of these package managers are contained into sandboxed and containerised enviroments. In the case of Flatpak you have system permissions as well, so that an app needs to ask for the right to a resource before it gets it. You should theoretically be able to run snap and flatpak packages on any given system. In fact, if provided enough development and support, Snaps and Flatpaks could theoretically run on any given platform, macOS and Windows included.

But in regards to Snaps, they’re job is to sell Ubuntu Pro installs on in the cloud — which makes Microsoft very happy, as they and Canonical have been holding hands, while sitting atop a tree for a while now. We’re only waiting for them to kiss and get it over with. Therefore: out the window the baby and the bathwater goes in regards to the Snap package system being a solution for the Linux desktop. It’s just not a priority for them anymore (hey there, Unity lovers).

Our knight in shining armor

There is one champion of the Linux desktop, an outfit that has since it’s inception focused on bringing commercial oppertunity to the Linux desktop, a development team that has been unrightfully called a bunch of Apple copycats. Of course you know I’m talking about the elementary OS gang! The heroes we didn’t want, but that we quite rightfully need. I can’t give them enough credit, really.

The past years elementary OS has been lauded as a replacement for macOS, as it has similar UX principles and who are focused on the moneyshot: the app store. They introduced the optional donate feature, whereby you could enter 0$ and get an app for free, or pay whatever you damned please, creating an optional revenue source for developers — which is quite nice. If I really like a piece of software, after having used it for free, of course I’m buying them a coffee — or perhaps even an entire bottle of good whiskey! It’s a weird concept, that no one else has even tried to implement. The only real alternative to it is the “freemium” model, which still continues to piss me off. It’s let me down many a time before. An under-featured app tells me that I only have to pay a small fee to open up some critical features for certain workflows. I agree, only to fork over my hard earned money and discover that said features are as the app itself: underdeveloped. Oh how many times I’ve been let down…

elementary OS has not funded their development through sales or subscriptions however, as they’ve had to rely on crowdfunding through Indiegogo to support their development — which is fine, I guess. Humble beginnings and all that. But recently they raised their swords again to go once more into the breach of solving that eternally frustrating problem: distributing commercial software on the open desktop. They want to take their App Center, which includes a payment system and by utelizing the Flatpak containerised package manager, to bring their App Center to any given Linux desktop. Ubuntu derivatives? App Center! Fedora or RHEL? App Center! OpenSuSE or SLES? App Center? Btw, do you use Arch? APP CENTER! The biggest problem for software developers in regards to publishing on the Linux desktop has always been the fragmentation of the distribution mechanisms. As I’ve stated previously, the underlying package managers were never ment to be used as storefronts. Wether apt, yum, pacman, etc, the overall goal was only to install, update and migrate software for the underlying system.

The elementary OS gang knows this and try to remedy the situation by providing a storefront for all Linux desktops. This will allow developers to publish, sell and distribute their software everywhere the penguin is situated. It’s an audacious plan and a veritable foot in the door to create a viable commercial platform for the open desktop. But they’ve still got a long way to go — for several reasons.

A long road ahead of us…

There are some unadressed problems, some rather large elephants dancing around the room. In the upcoming App Center you can add your debit/credit card locally, which is nice. But in my opinion the App Center should also be able to support other payment methods, like PayPal, Google Pay, Apple Pay, etc. There needs to be an option to implement some form of subscription model as well, for not only one app, but for series or categories of apps, as subscription based software distribution (or the hated SaaS model) is almost an envitability at this point.

Another fantastic idea that only the music software industry has taken to is the concept of “rent-to-own”, whereby you can use the software while paying down the total amount on a monthly basis. Services like Splice now provide top-tier, industry grade software with this downpayment models. There’s less and less outfits today that stick with the tried and true “pay for upgrades” method, outfits such as DaVinci and Affinitiy — which I prefer, but I’m not against subscription models or pay-to-own per say. But to facilitate these services, the publisher needs to be able to cancel access to software when payment has not been rendered. Which brings us to the most villanous elephant in the FOSS room: DRMs.

DRMs are a largely hated concept in the free and libre world, but anyone who works in distributing digitally knows that DRMs are a neccesary evil. Netflix has gotten flak for the limitations of their Linux client since it requires the HDMI-DRM scheme to deliver 4K. But again; that’s for good reason. Film makers might film in 4K or 8K, but both are very expensive propositions. In some cases it’s actual film we’re talking about, which requires it to be digitalized, which is also a costly process. 1080p is still cheaper, as it’s more widely adopted and supported across software and hardware platforms. 4K has barely made it’s way into the general consumer space and we’re still seeing rollouts moving slowly. The cost is real and arguing that the consumer shouldn’t be using DRMs, when the distributors see it as the only way of protecting themselves from pirating (a largely overblown problem really), is shooting yourself in the foot. I prefer DRMs over companies meddling with legislature anyways.

Here’s a fact that Libre enthusiasts (and I mind you that I am one myself) refuses to face: the average consumer just doesn’t give a damn. The average consumer just wants their products and services, and they want it NOW. Whereas the developer wants to protect their revenue source. Heck, even the average consumer is also in some form of business and knows the importance of protecting revenue sources. It’s not too much to ask. It really isn’t. At some point you’ve got to ask yourself: should we not create commerical oppertunities, even though that means we’d be seeing DRMs make their place on the open desktop? Can’t we try and separate DRMd software from the Libre foundation of the system? Can’t we have our cake and eat it too? I think we can, but that would require that people sit down, talk about it and start to hammer out specifications — rather than labour on about ideological disagreements. We need the choice. It’s that simple.

You, after reading this article

Are we there yet?

To sum up the problems of commercial oppertunity on the Linux desktop is one of cost and one of ideological bickoring. Problems that the Fedora community has solved indirectly and that the elementary OS folks are trying to solve directly. These solutions are still in need of more fleshing out however. If the Open Desktop community could come together, and perhaps the elementary OS team would accept the refactoring of the App Center to utelize QT, GTK, Adwaita, Breeze, to support NVIDIA, AMD, Vulcan, DXVK, to run on ARM, RISC-V and even support local package managers like apt, yum, pacman, etc in their update screen. That’s a WHOLE LOT to ask for, but if communities came together and PackageKit could be utelized it’s definetely a possibility to get all our ducks in a row.

Wouldn’t it be a triumph, if the Fedora community, the various Ubuntu derivatives, and so forth, all got together to help create a seemingly single point of distribution and payment for software, that under the hood actualy decentralises distributions to the varying outfits seeking to publish? Wouldn’t that give some much needed leniencies and lowering the barreir to entry for small to big development teams who might be considering the Linux desktop, but who are weary of pulling the trigger? Wouldn’t that entice boutique hardware manufacturers to quite possibly distribute a Linux desktop of their choice? Wouldn’t that bring in the bucks? For all these reasons and more I salute the elementary OS team for taking the first steps no one else bothered to do… possibly because they want more revenue, which is why others have to step up to the conversation to decentralise mechanisms of revenue so that they don’t become what people call them: the Apple of the open source world. I haven’t checked out their new local payment system, but I’m guesssing it goes through one of their own cloud services. This is okay, but publishers should be able to facilitate this process themselves.

If the open desktop is to gain any traction, outside of government bodies, third world markets and discriminatory enterprises, these issues have to be adressed — and in failing to do so we will never see the much joked about “year of the Linux desktop”. We’ll never see it as long as we don’t cater to commercial developers and their need for low-cost integration, easy transactions, protection of digital goods and having varying forms of subscription and downpayment models ready at the mark. The Flatpak developers and elementary OS should really be in deep discussion about this, if a viable DRM solution that doesn’t rub anyone the wrong way is to become managable. Without these important functions and services it’s more likely that I can go ice-skating in hell than having more commercial software developers distribute their products and services to the open desktop — and THAT makes me a very sad panda.