Why BSD Desktops fail

 We have seen many attempts at a FreeBSD based desktop system and inevitably they all fail.  I was a long time user of PC-BSD and  TrueOS and I loved them both.  They were really good BSD desktops and I feel like they worked fine so I was disheartened to hear that it was being discontinued.  But alas it was.  Now some people are quick to point blame.  Some blame Kris, Kris Moore the developer of the system, to the community who just downloads FreeBSD and adds the necessary package themselves and just do it.  BSD is a great system.  There are plenty of reasons to use it.  Its fast, its extendable and its rock solid.  As I type this I am running behind an OpenBSD firewall and I always have a bare metal system running TrueOS for when I have client work to do and for development.  BSD has some advantages to it that makes this Linux distributor use it for many, many tasks.  Little know task, we actually considered the Lumina desktop for Linspire before we settled on XFCE.  So despite fantastic and exciting work by these guys; why do they ultimately fail miserably?

1.  The Community - One of the things that is an advantage for Linux in general is the community.  Despite there being thousands of distribution you have your diehards.  I would say 5% of our business comes from our users recommendations.  You dont have that with TrueOS or PC-BSD.  Most people when they say BSD, they recommend NetBSD or FreeBSD.  Not the desktop centric BSD's.

2.  Missed Oppurtunities - When Sun pulled the plug on Solaris, lets face it Solaris is on life support ONLY, none of the BSD people approached these customers.  Instead these customers started calling us, the commercial Linux distributors, looking for a direct drop in replacement.  I found myself on more than one occasion telling them "Hey look you already have this UNIX expertise, have you looked at BSD because while Linux is UNIX like its NOT UNIX" the same when SCO UnixWare and SCO OpenServer dropped dead, rightfully so, the BSD people just let them all congregate around Linux.  So for any and all BSD people reading this, remember one thing, conversations dont hurt and if they say no, then its no but at least you have the bird in ear..

3.  macOS (and marketing) - Im gonna lump these two together because it makes sense.  FreeBSD developers seriously need to QUIT telling people who ask for a FreeBSD desktop to use macOS.  I look at macOS the same way I do ChromeOS.  macOS uses the BSD kernel, they use the BSD userland tools but the stuff that matters, the stuff people see are Mac tools; Xcode, Visual Studios for Mac, Photoshop, MS Office, FileMaker Pro.  You cannot take a macOS app and run it on FreeBSD like you cant take an Android-on-ChromeOS app and run it on Ubuntu or Linspire.  What the BSD folks need to do is make a desktop system and market it on its own merits.  Speed, app availability and ease of use with GNOME, KDE or XFCE .  Tell them, hey our kernel is used by Apple, Sony, Panasonic and Vizio TV;s but for gods sake when people ask you for a FreeBSD desktop dont say 'buy a mac"

So those are the three major impediments to having a truly successful BSD based desktop.  Also, a side note.  The BSD folks need to be assertive.  Dont give up just because Linux is more popular.  BSD has it own accolades and you need to push those accolades and once again I cant say this enough, push the merits of your own system.  Popularity doesnt mean that you cant create your own market.  I mean if you think popularity means success you are wrong.  If that was the case Apple would have an 80% marketshare.  So if the BSD people want to succeed on the desktop create a desktop that easy to use, easy to install, and that you can get behind.

Why did OS/2 fail and Windows succeed?

 One of the oldest arguments that I participate in is why did OS/2 fail and Windows succeed? IBM clearly had a head start in development of OS/2. OS/2 was clearly superior to Windows 3.x/95 etc and Windows NT was late. So with all those advantages, why did OS/2 fail? I think the blame could be laid at the feet of both Microsoft and IBM. Quick disclosure, I was an OS/2 guy. I used UNIX and OS/2 throughout the 90’s on a regular basis. IBM back in those days was way to corporate. Microsoft was a dirty fighter. Microsoft would often resort to dirty tricks, and still does, to make sure that everyone stays on their platform. They would go over to IBM’s booths at conferences and install malicious code on their systems to cause them to crash to show how “great” Windows was and leave the IBM guys trying to figure out what happened. IBM would not respond in kind. They took the “They go low, we go high” mentality too seriously instead relying on the users to fight back. Microsoft subjected OEM’s to draconian contracts that Im sure if any of them had half a brain their lawyers would have told them how illegal those contracts were. We acquired an OEM manufacturer and I have seen that contract and no, I would have never signed it. Now I call the tech industry the runway contest. Because we all are waiting for each other to fall flat on their face. Me, if you talk crap about me I will roast the ever loving crap out of you until you regret invoking my name and my companies name. IBM also had a problem internally, Dave Barnes, team OS/2 and the users of OS/2 were more enthusiastic about the product than IBM was. I truly believe in those waning days before the launch of Windows 95, IBM was looking for the exit sign and they got it by signing one of those draconian contracts. 

Now, while an intriguing story those are the yesteryear of computer hardware and software. Whats the point? 

I see a lot of similarities in Microsofts behavior towards Linux. Aside from offering schools and hospitals free licenses and support. They have started to encroach on the Linux ecosystem. Now look, I get that Satya Nadella was a UNIX guy. He was a higher up at Sun and he understands the need for interoperability. That Microsoft, while having a major stake in the server market, is extremely under water when it comes to server adoption so Microsoft has a need to cooperate and extend their tools to the Linux platform but its costing us the Linux desktop. Among consumers we are at 1.5% of user share. Corporate wise I would say 5 or 6% but even thats sinking. As a Linux professional I see more and more Linux development houses and clients who use Linux on the desktop moving to Windows 10 and subsystem for Linux. In some ways I feel like we are falling into the same trap of extend, conquer and devour. Is Microsoft genuine on interoperability? or has Satya Nadella invoked the ghost of Sun Microsystems and their old tactics of kill them with kindness?