Many of us have heard that this is the "year of the Linux desktop" or Linux is finally becoming mainstream. Linux market share has grown over the past few years. More and more people are getting tired of Windows and accepting Linux as a viable desktop alternative. Gaming is said to be better than ever thanks to Proton. But this is not the "year of the Linux desktop", and Linux probably isn't growing as much as some may think. The fact remains that desktop Linux will never succeed. Here's why.
Yes, there are some distros out there for beginners, but any Linux distro will require using the commandline at some point. Not to mention that most of the time you have to install Linux yourself since very few computers ship with Linux distros preinstalled. This requires downloading an ISO file, creating a bootable USB, then booting into that USB and running an installer which involves disk partitioning and other things a normie wouldn't understand. But most normies probably don't even know what an ISO file is, and the idea of entering a command or booting into a USB might scare them.
Most people use whatever is preinstalled on their desktop, which is usually Windows. Even if you offered to install any Linux distro on their desktop for them, do you seriously expect them to update their system or upgrade to new versions, which almost always requires using the commandline or sometimes even a full reinstall?
Using any Linux distribution, even "beginner-friendly" ones like Mint and Ubuntu, requires more computer knowledge and skill than Windows or macOS. You have to be willing to use the commandline, perform regular system maintenance, and update your system when needed (which usually involves manually checking for updates). When something breaks, don't expect easy support. It's up to you to identify and fix any problems. I doubt most people are willing to do any of this and because of that and the fact Linux doesn't often come preinstalled, desktop Linux will never truly succeed.
Although it's improved, Linux still lacks support for industry standard software including Microsoft Office and Adobe's products. While it is possible to run most of these including Adobe on Linux through WINE, WINE doesn't always work, it will often crash and break things, and it can run malware. And while there are many free and open source alternatives out there like LibreOffice and GIMP, almost none of them are suitable replacements. This is a dealbreaker for many people who rely on these programs, and I don't think most of them would dual-boot or buy a second computer for Linux to use when it's more convenient, affordable, and much less stressful and time-consuming to only use and maintain a single computer with only one operating system, and since Windows or macOS is a must for them, why bother using Linux?
As aforementioned gaming has improved but the vast majority of PC games still don't support Linux natively which means running them in WINE or Proton, and some games including those which use kernel-level anti-cheat don't work at all. This will always be an issue especially if developers were to use WINE or Proton as an excuse to not bother with native Linux support since Linux users can run their games regardless. Another issue is that Steam currently holds a monopoly on Linux gaming which is problematic since it uses DRM on most of their games and requires use of their proprietary client. GOG sells DRM-free games but currently doesn't have a native Linux client (although this could change), not that it's much of an issue since several third-party clients exist.
With all that said, there are some areas where Linux has succeeded. Blender is a bloated but powerful anti-Unix philosophy 3D modeling tool, and professional video editing can be done with the proprietary and invasive DaVinci Resolve. And those aren't the only ones. But until Microsoft Office and Adobe finally support Linux, or get overtaken by programs with Linux support, this will continue to remain a huge hurdle for Linux support.
I don't think anyone argues that Linux is more secure than Windows or macOS anymore. Compared to those operating systems plus Android and iOS, Linux has no focus on security. Madaidan wrote about Linux's security issues years ago and I suspect Linux has fallen even further behind since then. Sure there are distros like Secureblue that attempt to fix these issues, which might be just as effective as removing all the spyware and bloat from Windows then having to constantly repeat that process all while thinking you're safe. It's been proven countless times that security through obscurity doesn't work (more likely the opposite could be true). With all that said, this isn't as much of an issue with Linux's growth because most Linux users either don't care about security or they still think Linux is more secure.
Out of those who do value their privacy and acknowledge Linux's lack of security, many of them still prefer Linux anyways because it's what's available and both Windows and macOS are much more invasive to the point that the better security by default isn't worth it. But what happens when another option becomes available?
Google has been working to bring Android to PCs, and both Android and GrapheneOS have a desktop mode now, which combined with a NexDock or something similar provides a desktop Android experience. Give it another year or two and Linux users, particularly those of mainstream privacy communities, will be ditching Linux and promoting Android as the go-to "privacy" operating system. And overtime, Linux will become less and less relevant as an alternative to Windows and macOS because a secure alternative exists.
Because Linux is an open source kernel and there isn't an official Linux distro, Linux and it's community will always be divided. There are hundreds of distros to choose from which could confuse most beginners, and there's also the choice of desktop environments, package managers, and system components like the init system (most distros use systemd much to the dismay of some software "minimalists" and power users). There are also multiple graphics toolkits (GTK and Qt) which makes it difficult to consistently theme Linux, and even then there are different versions of those toolkits in use. Windows and macOS on the other hand have always been consistent.
There have been efforts to defragment Linux, including Flatpaks for universal package management, but because desktop Linux is open source and modular, it'll always be fragmented. This isn't a bad thing however, because the alternative would mean big corporations like Red Hat having complete control over Linux and making anti-user changes with little resistance, thus driving away longtime Linux users to even more niche operating systems such as OpenBSD. But it is a huge roadblock in desktop Linux adoption and another reason Linux will never succeed.
And even if Linux did become standardized and became as widely used as Windows and macOS, it'd likely come at the expense of power users and longtime Linux users who complain that Linux became too bloated and commercialized and that old Linux was better. It wouldn't be the Linux we remembered anymore. It'd just become another Windows but open source and not as malicious. Would OpenBSD or FreeBSD become the new Linux?
It doesn't matter how much desktop market share Linux has if desktops are a dying market. Mobile devices have become increasingly popular over last couple decades and can now do most of what desktops can do but are even more essential now for most people since they're used for calling and messaging as well (plus tons of other things phones shouldn't be used for). I think much of Linux's "growth" could be coming from Windows users ditching desktops altogether as opposed to switching to Linux. There are still some tasks that require powerful desktop hardware that can't easily be done on a phone yet, including gaming (consoles are an option) and content creation, but for how long?
The bigger issue is that desktops are no longer affordable for average consumers and likely never will be again, due to the ongoing RAM shortage. Some hardware companies like Micron have even stopped selling consumer hardware. I don't expect this to ever end but I do expect desktop hardware to become so scarce and expensive that nobody will ever be able to purchase their own hardware again but instead will have to rent hardware in the cloud, which of course, wouldn't be running Linux. And since phones are more essential for most people, it'd make more sense for normies to invest their money in expensive phones and ditch desktops since they likely can't afford both anymore. Any progress Linux makes on becoming a viable desktop OS won't matter because desktops will be a thing in the past.
Many of us have heard by now that several states including California have passed or proposed laws forcing operating systems, device makers, and app stores to send age-related signals to apps which are now forced to request the age signals from the OS. This law wasn't designed with Linux and FOSS in mind, but centralized locked-down smartphone OSes like iOS, yet it still applies to any operating system. As of March 2026 most states don't require actual ID checks yet, but New York will.
This would bring about the end of privacy and software freedom as we know it. All Linux distros, package managers, software repositories, and apps will be forced to modify their software to collect your data to comply with these laws. And this includes everything from browsers to commandline tools. Dig Deeper covers this more in-depth, but basically, this will kill off just about every single FOSS program and independent software repository because governments clearly don't care about open platforms like Linux. I wouldn't be surprised if it became illegal to use Linux in the future.
June 2026 Update: Linux and other open source operating systems are exempt from the California and Colorado laws. While this is a win for Linux, it also potentially introduces a new issue for Linux adoption. Should websites request age signals from the OS for age verification, and Linux isn't required to comply with such laws, it's possible that sites will start blocking Linux users entirely if they don't support age verification. So we could be nearing a future where sites can only be accessed through proprietary operating systems, similar to how many Android apps will only function on stock Android, which would kill any chance of Linux ever succeeding.
Desktop Linux has been making progress. It isn't as frustrating and complicated as it once was, but for all the reasons above, it'll never truly succeed. And with the end of desktops seemingly inevitable, any progress Linux makes towards widespread adoption could be all for nothing. We can forget about the "year of the Linux desktop" because Linux is dying.