Why Linux Doesn't Spread - the Curse of Being Free

Vlad Dolezal tips us to a philosophical take on why Linux hasn't grown to challenge Windows as the most popular operating system. According to the author, the reason is simple; Linux is free, and humans tend not to equate free things with being valuable. "Here's what Compy McNewb sees. He can get both OS's for free. But one of them is worth over three hundred dollars, while the other one is worth nothing. 'That's not true!' I hear you scream. 'Linux is worth a lot! It's just being offered for free!' I know it's not true that Linux is worth less than Windows. It's far more valuable to the end user in terms of getting things done. But that's not what Average Joe Computer Newbie sees. He sees a free product versus a three-hundred-dollar product he can get free. It's all about the perception!"

Or it is not spreading

[zonky (1153039)]

because it is relatively difficult to buy as a pre-installed system.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[ushering05401 (1086795)]

Yeah, that has to be reason #1. Outside my professional acquaintances I know very few people who would ever attempt re-installing Windows without a pro technician, much less the great unknown Linux.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

My system is just so much easier to use in a general sense using free software. My computer used to feel like a wrestling ring with two dozen different companies and a few organized criminals duking it out while I tried to keep things from falling apart, with anti-spyware and anti-virus programs acting like my assistant referrees. That feeling is just gone. I don't think I could go back to the way things were before and be happy working that way now.

I'm sure I'll need to work with MS tech to make my living in the future, and I'm pragmatic about it, but it sure is nice to be free of their crap.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[erlehmann (1045500)]

when i present ubuntu, i highlight the integration:
- synaptic is a killer application, the dumbed down version is literally idiot proof
- when i click on a file, if a suitable program isn't installed, i get a prompt if i want it
- when i input a command and a suitable program isn't installed, i get instructions to install it

combined with my subtle RDF, it works quite nicely ;)

Re:Or it is not spreading

[howlingmadhowie (943150)]

i know you're just a troll, so i'm writing this to inform anybody who may not be aware of these facts.

• you don't need to defrag ext2. it doesn't get fragmented
• if you do not distribute software licensed under the gpl, you do not need to supply source code. this means, if you use gpl-ed software internally, you do not need to inform people of the fact and offer downloads on your website.
• the license for the gnu compiler collection is even less restrictive. you do not need to release the source of programs compiled using the gnu compiler collection, even if you do distribute this software. this means you can use the gcc to compile proprietary software.
• it's called the general public license

Re:Or it is not spreading

[garutnivore (970623)]

if you use gpl-ed software internally, you do not need to inform people of the fact and offer downloads on your website.

Aiee! Software is for external use only. Do not ingest!

Re:Or it is not spreading

[FireFury03 (653718)]

# you don't need to defrag ext2. it doesn't get fragmented

This is misinformation. ext2 (And ext3) _do_ get fragmented. They just don't fragment as badly as other more simplistic filesystems such as FAT.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[diskis (221264)]

By confessing that you use Dreamweaver, you instantly lost all credibility on this website.
Plese log out, and sign up to the facebook dreamweaver users- group.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[eldepeche (854916)]

It may also shock you that people expect all those funky email forwards to work.

You mean those great VBA attachments?

Re:Or it is not spreading

[phillips321 (955784)]

amsn has webcam capabilities.
research has never caused problems for anyone, maybe you should try it sometimes?

Re:Or it is not spreading

[orasio (188021)]

amsn has webcam capabilities.

research has never caused problems for anyone, maybe you should try it sometimes?

Well, in Soviet Russia... you get the idea.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[Fafnir43 (926858)]

I'm doing a Computer Science degree in Cambridge (world ranking university, partnered with MIT). I'm getting top grades. That didn't mean terribly much to me, either - I understood the second sentence, but not the first. Granted I'm only in my first year, but the point here is that "Computer Science" != "Training to become a Linux sysadmin", and expertise in the former does not somehow confer expertise in the latter (although it makes it much easier to acquire).

Understanding the concepts behind algorithmic complexity and programming in general won't tell you anything about the specifics of shell scripting, any more than a deep understanding of C will give you the ability to code in FORTRAN without having some idea of the syntax.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[Average (648)]

This is one of modern Linux's greatest assets. When I re-install a box for Windows I have to:

Find the right OEM disc.
Step through the install.
Deal with activation headaches.
Uninstall a dozen OEM programs I don't want.
Run through several reboot cycles of upgrades.
Download drivers, antivirus, utilities from a dozen sites.
Download the free (beer and speech) apps I need and use from more than a dozen sites. Go back and get Windows add-ons I needed for things like Paint.NET.
Round up 7 or 8 CDs worth of software. Many of them needing codes and activation (or cracks). Install these one by one.

A full day shot.

Needless to say, Ubuntu Gutsy is much faster to get going. I've used Unixes for 13 years now. But, I use synaptic because I don't want to have to care any more. If I worked with 200 Windows machines, I'd create a images and force matching computers. But, I (like many small business types) am dealing with only 15 or 20 computers, every single one of which is unique.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[tsa (15680)]

Joe user says: "Every time I want to play an mp3 on my Ubuntu a weird popup comes up telling me about plugins?! And my wireless network card doesn't work. Give me my Windows back!"

Re:Or it is not spreading

[kjkeefe (581605)]

Joe user != dumb. If someone is knowledgeable enough to have MP3's on their system to play, they are knowledgeable enough to google "play mp3 in ubuntu", hit I'm feeling lucky, and find their answer right there.

As for the wireless, what would do if some piece of hardware didn't work in windows? Get one that does. I recommend Joe does the same, there certainly are plenty of wireless cards that just work in linux.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[tsa (15680)]

Joe user just bought a laptop and doesn't know the difference between a window and the screen. That's the audience we're talking about here. They just want their computer to work.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[2short (466733)]

I'm a Linux user and fan, but if we're going to discuss why Linux hasn't spread faster than it has, let's not be disingenuous:

You double-click the icon, you get music or you don't; If you didn't, it failed. You can research why it failed, it might even be easy to research, but it already failed.

As for the wireless, what would you do if you had a wireless card that couldn't work under Windows? Send it back as a hardware failure; There aren't any wireless cards that don't support Windows.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[0100010001010011 (652467)]

Or an even bigger pandora's box: "I can't get my iPod to work on Ubuntu and where can I find iTunes"

Re:Or it is not spreading

[pherthyl (445706)]

The thing is though, it's not even the viruses for me. I have been running XP and previous versions of Windows for years and years, and I haven't had a virus since Blaster. Most of the time I don't even bother running an antivirus program or a firewall and my system is still clean. If you have a little bit of common sense your chance of being infected is very low.

But I still get the same feeling that my computer is just a playground for different companies to run their buggy software on. Every little piece of hardware comes with a stupid tray icon to manage something useless. Every program wants to nag me about something, or install their own updater service and then bitch at me about letting it install some update or other. The start menu is full of entries corresponding to names of companies that I couldn't give a flying fig about. Windows update will randomly decide that it will restart the system that I've left running overnight to finish a compile. The whole system is just very inefficient and frustrating.

That kind of thing just doesn't happen on Linux. Everything is integrated into one updating service. Everything shares the same libraries as much as possible. "Start" menu entries are organized by function, not by who wrote the program. I realize no non-geek would give a crap about any of this, but I really don't like it when software does its own thing and presumes to know better.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745)]

You make a hell of a point and i agree with you completely on what you're saying. I too can not stand that ATI has to brand my right click menu with their nonsense, and the endless tray icons and how each company seems to have its own download/updater application. I agree completely with that. Its a waste of resources, and a bothersome mess.

I agree with you on that. No way i could possibly disagree with you. BUT... Google wants their name on all desktops. Microsoft wants everyone using live... Yahoo wants everyone using Yahoo... Even the linux folks too. It's a mentality these companies have where they want to brand our desktops.

Hell look what aol did for years. They still do it, with their own anti spyware programs and stuff like that. It's just disgusting and insulting.

Thus is the nature of these big companies though. They want to brand us. I dont think there is much we can do about it as long as we use applications and services from these big companies. I have google talk on my desktop... i use windows vista's search though. I dont use google's desktop.

I install the ati driver, without the ati control panel so i dont get that lame ATI right click menu...

Logitech, Adobe etc.. all have their own updating services running. I could turn them off though.

It's not that bad if you can control it, but yeah i agree often these companies over step the line of decency and i'm all for giving them the finger.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[ozamosi (615254)]

Agree.

I usually say that it is a Good Thing that hardware usually doesn't support Linux. Hardware supports Windows, Linux supports hardware. This means that I can plug in a new wifi dongle, and not having to install this brand new networking management software, which comes on the driver disk, and happens to also include a driver somewhere that you can't really get without that whole new disgusting application.

After having to touch my mothers new Vaio laptop with Vista for a while, I realized that the biggest problem with Windows isn't Windows, it's that every application in the world that isn't a part of the original installation is fucking annoying. There were about a gazillion applications labeled Vaio, mostly duplicating already existing functionality (you know how every newly installed Windows OS has a pop up that welcomes you, and offers to show you some documentation? Her laptop had two - one from Windows, and one from Sony, with at least 50% the same content, and the other 50% being lot's of annoying "we have a Club Vaio we want you to be in - it doesn't do anything, but it at least has a cheesy name!" buttons). However, if you remove the annoying Vaio apps, suddenly the Fn+F#-keys stop working (you know, to change volume, brightness, monitor, etc), because that driver was apparently part of one of the most annoying applications. Which, of course, can't be downloaded and reinstalled from Sonys website, because the binary they have is broken.

You know when you come home to someone because "their computer is a bit slow", and you realize it's because it has Bonzai Buddy, Gator, 1 000 hits in Ad-Aware, and 50 or so viruses? You know the feeling? That's what I was feeling as I was booting the computer. For the first time.

So please, computer vendors: don't ever, ever sell computers with preinstalled Linux. I'll do it myself, thankyouverymuch, so that I will not have to be exposed to your "user friendlyness". Give me an plain, unmodified Ubuntu CD or something if you want, and a clean hard drive.

Hardware vendors: don't ever, ever release Linux drivers - I don't want to install a pop up blocker for my web browser to be able to change resolution on my monitor. Give me the specs and/or source code, and I'll let someone who's not an idiot write drivers.

Software vendors: don't ever, ever release fancy one-click Linux binaries - I don't want to get a million fancy, themed (not system themed - your own theme engine you developed, just to annoy me) pop ups and toolbar icons, just because I was stupid enough to actually wanting to use your product - I'm sorry, I will never do it again, now leave me alone! Give me the source code, and I'll let someone who isn't an idiot create a deb package that can actually be removed, and/or fork your product and make it non-horrible.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[clang_jangle (975789)]

I wish I had mod points for you, you deserve a +5 insightful for that one. So many linux users just want *everyone* to use it, but if that ever happens we will see pre-installed linux dumbed-down and tarted-up just like windows is now. We'd have thousands of pointless, idiotic programs available from third parties in binary only form causing innumerable security and performance issues, plus of course all the pre-installed crapware that is now on most new windows computers.

Sure, it's a bit of a PITA dealing with the occasional compatibility problems which arise from using linux and BSD in a windows world, but darn it I like the fact that my OSs of choice are not the prime targets for every sleazy company trying to get rich off the stupidity of end users.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[ozmanjusri (601766)]

If everyone were installing the kitchen sink on Linux, it too, would have a dozen programs trying to run updates.

You should actually try using Linux.

You'll be amazed how trouble free updating ALL of your installed software is.

It'd give you a bit more credibility here as well.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[bhtooefr (649901)]

Actually, both KDE and GNOME have systrays... I forget whether it's that KDE and GNOME use different protocols, but one understands the other's, or whether they're compatible protocols, but for all intents and purposes, they're common.

And, install stuff on WINE that dumps stuff in the systray, and... you guessed it, WINE puts it in the KDE or GNOME systray.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[DigitAl56K (805623)]

I'm not so sure. By now there ought to be a whole generation of tech-savvy people in their 20s-30s who grew up "doing the things with computers" that their parents just couldn't fathom. That group of people ought to be a big market, and I fall into the category. I've also installed a few different distros of Linux over the years, played with them for a bit, and then went back to using Windows.

I know that many of the following points will be disputed, but here are some of the reasons I personally have stuck with Windows:

* It's what I'm used to.
* I have a lot invested in Windows software that isn't available natively on Linux. (Yes, some of it could run under Wine)
* Graphics drivers. I installed Fedora about a year ago and installing their graphics drivers felt like I was hacking my own computer. Maybe that's part of the fun of Linux (heck, of course it is!), but for a wide base of consumers it's also part of the fear.
* Installing software. There's so many distro's of linux and seemingly packages built for individual flavors, installing new software "feels" risky, and running into package conflicts is a bit nasty. Do I trust the people who seem to build and redistribute packages on random websites? I don't know. There's a bit of a difference between commercial vendors and some guy with a popular FTP repository. I also downloaded and compiled some apps myself because I couldn't find packages for certain things for the version of Fedora I was using. Are regular consumers expected to do this?
* Accessing my Windows files was a bit of a PITA. I had to install an NTFS driver manually, which meant editing some conf files to auto-mount partitions. Again, that ought to have been automatic to make switching OS's easier. Maybe it's included in more recent distros?
* Back to the nVidia graphics drivers: I quickly discovered that something like gEdit was very simple to use, much like Notepad. Then I tried editing some conf files from the shell. With vi. Enough said.
* I had a nice soundcard (Creative Audigy 2), and when I installed Linux some of it's advanced features were not working (e.g. CMSS), and the mixer application showed dozens of sliders to set the volume, some of which I couldn't even identify. Then there is the whole issue of using two separate sound architectures.
* Which desktop environment do I want to use? I have no clue. Am I supposed to get familiar with one for a while, then try the other, then finally decide?

I think the problem is this: Linux can be made to vastly lessen the learning curve for new users, and at it's heart it's a very powerful and flexible OS. You can tweak it to work any way you want it to work. But that's part of the problem - eventually (and usually for me, not too long after installing it) you run into situations where to make your Linux system do what you want/need it to do you have to delve a little into the "customization" piece. Sometimes that means editing some conf files. Sometimes that means running commands that you found on some website that look like they might do what you want, according to the comments posted by others. It's a different experience to Windows, where most people will never have much cause to turn to the command prompt, for example - or at least it will be to fix a problem after it occurs, not to make something work in the first place. Of course, you get out of the OS what you put in, but there are still far too many people in the world who wouldn't even try editing their registry on Windows with a graphical utility.

Why did I give up on Fedora (for now)? Because I have a full time job and as much as I would love to spend time learning Linux, I just don't have the time to. I have an unreasonable expectation that I should just be able to use a new OS without much effort. But it's the same unreasonable expectation that consumers have in general. It's also one that Linux can fulfill so long as newer distros keep doing more and more out-of-the-box, and at some point having to run a few commands in the shel

Re:Or it is not spreading

[webmaster404 (1148909)]

Thats mostly because it is Fedora, and therefore fully free. Have you tried Ubuntu? Things nearly always seem to work better from and end-user's standpoint. Fedora is one of the few big distros that is fully free and therefore requires more work to get simple things done such as install graphics drivers. Fedora is miles behind Ubuntu in terms in usability in my opinion.

Re:Stop spreading this crap!

[fahrvergnugen (228539)]

So because someone tried a distro in Fall 2007 that wasn't the "right" distro and gave up, that's the end-user's fault, and not the distro's / linux community at large's fault?

• There's no clear signpost as to what's the "right" distro for beginners(UBUNTU UBUNTU UBUNTU, but newbies won't know that, go google "which linux distro should I choose?" and get back to me when the top result isn't a TEN QUESTION QUIZ.
• 6 months ago was Fall 2007. Windows '98 shipped in 1998, and was deprecated partially in 2000 and fully in 2002. You can't compare a 10-year-old OS to a 6-month-old linux distro. Well, I guess you can, you just did, but you can't do it without looking like a total asshole.

XP was the standard for Windows for 5 or 6 years, and it went through 2 major revisions in that time. OS X revs approximately every 18 months, and is on the fifth version to ship since 2000. You're not treated like you're stupid by the community for getting frustrated with the shortcomings of OS X 10.2.

Look: UI engineering is all about balancing exposing essential functionality vs. overwhelming your end user with choice. Here's an example: Near as I can figure, my TV remote needs about 18 buttons, max (including the 12-digit number pad). Yet it shipped with more than 70, and each of those buttons is there because the engineers at Sony thought I'd want them. I ignore the extra features on my remote, and resent their presence, because they're a constant reminder that I'm not using the television to its fullest abilities. That I don't WANT to use it to those abilities is irrelevant, those 50 buttons there remind me every time that I pick it up that I'm just not smart enough to get the most out of this machine. They have a negative effect on my perception of the value in this television. I dislike it because of the complex user interface (and I plan to get around it by getting another, simpler universal remote, at which time I will credit the remote for simplicity, and not the television for functionality).

Similarly, the barrage of choice that assaults users of linux systems is a detriment to the newbie. Having to pick window managers in 2008 is a disgrace. The decision should be out of the end user's hands until he wants to make the choice, at which time it should be available to him. You don't just ram it down his throat the first time he powers up the system.

You yelling at him for not wanting to make that choice, or necessarily understanding it, is shameful and proof that you're unable to see the forest for the trees. Stop being so damn myopic. Of course you and I want all the functionality we can get out of linux, but we're not typical. Ubuntu understands this, which is why it's been such a phenomenal success, but godDAMN man. Stop driving away the people we need to convert with this shitty attitude of yours.

Re:Stop spreading this crap!

[DigitAl56K (805623)]

Unless you tried Fedora 8, you haven't tried the current offerings, so you can't have an informed opinion about linux.

Isn't that a bit like saying unless I've used Windows Vista, I can't have an opinion about Windows?

I tried Fedora 7. But you are right, I can't have an informed opinion about Linux - I didn't use it nearly long enough. I also wasn't aiming to post an opinion, but elements of my experience that lead me away from Linux, and that probably will lead others away also.

And yes, you shouldn't be STARTING with Fedora. It isn't meant to be a beginner distro for several reasons.

That's nice to know, now :) But there isn't a banner on Fedora's home page that says "Hey, are you a beginner? If so, you might want to try Ubuntu instead"? Nor on the Debian page, and probably not on many other distro sites one might happen to land on while searching for popular distributions. One answer to "Why Linux Doesn't Spread" is that there are many options out there, and you can easily end up at one that isn't really suited to you.

Free open source software is not like commercial software. In some projects, 3 month old code is practically ancient.

While that may be true, I'm going to bet that most people aren't going to try switching OS's every 3 months. Therefore I don't see why posting about an experience I had 12 months ago is such a terrible concept. When we're talking about "Why Linux doesn't spread" it does not help to get angry at people because they didn't try the particular distribution you think they ought to have, or because they didn't try the absolute latest version, or because they're wrong and you know better.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could simply tell all those people who have tried Linux and walked away in the last couple of years that you know better and so they should change back immediately? :)

I'll give Ubuntu a shot ;)

Re:vignette

[Migraineman (632203)]

In this vignette, Luke has been caught running Free Software.

Luke is sitting alone at his computer. He nervously inserts a linux Live CD into the disk drive and reboots. His roommate, Chad, enters from the kitchen.

Chad: Whatcha doin', Luke?
Luke: [nervous] Nothing!
Chad: Looks like you're installing linux.
Luke: It's just a Live CD.
Chad: You know, I've been into linux for years now.
Luke: Really? I'm just ...
Chad: Yes?
Luke: God, I can't believe I'm saying this ... I'm ... I'm a little dual-boot curious.
Chad: Oh. Let me show you how to properly set the boot parameters on that Live CD you've got
[cue the "bow-chicka" music ...]

No investment != no reward?

[neapolitan (1100101)]

Nothing new, and basic psychology. This has been proposed before, even on Slashdot many times in many posts.

It is also the explanation behind fraternity rites / hazing and various initiation procedures to clubs. No pain == no value in many people's eyes.

You could almost look at defense of Microsoft as a form of the Stockholm syndrome. [wikipedia.org]

Re:No investment != no reward?

[plierhead (570797)]

Most people don't like free for many reasons. People need to know how you're making a buck before they want to deal with you. After all, "there's no such thing as a free lunch".

If you come around and offer to clean my windows for free, I naturally assume its some kind of scam. Perhaps my windows are coated with a rare gold dust which you intend to scrape off and re-sell? Who knows?

If you offer - nay, push on me - a free piece of computer system, I have to wonder why. Especially if you have the appearance and demeanour of some kind of zealot, with an almost religious fervor in trying to push me to use this software.

At least with MS I know they have a naked interest in gouging me for money via unnecessary upgrades and vendor lock-in. I can almost put a number on it - something in the mid-100s perhaps over the next few years. Something I guess I can grudgingly live with.

Big deal.

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

This is just another story about perceived value vs. actual value ... whoop-de-do. It's funny too, because the music industry would take the exact opposite position: people see "free" as being more "valuable".

Gagh. The human psyche is fundamentally twisted.

Average Joe user is unqualified

[Gothmolly (148874)]

A computer nowadays is an appliance, that plays games, downloads porn, and gets you onto Myspace. Whether its a Mac or PC is based on what other s/w you can steal from your friends, or whether you're rich and/or trendy. You have to buy a computer, and it "comes with" the OS - why would you even waste your time farking around with something else?

I call BS

[mrbcs (737902)]

But that's not what Average Joe Computer Newbie sees. He sees a free product versus a three-hundred-dollar product he can get free. It's all about the perception!"

It's not perception. Windows is already "free". It either comes with your computer or you borrow a disc from a friend and install it. How many of Microsoft sales depend on users buying a copy in the store?

Who wants to use Linux when there always seems to be one damn thing that doesn't work? How many of the cheap Walmart cd's will run on a linux box? The killer still seems to be accounting programs. When Quicken, Quick Books and Simply Accounting work, then there will be real in-roads to business.

Home users may never sign on. Shit far too many home users already shouldn't have a computer. You want Linux to work and be accepted by the masses? Make it look and work like windows. Any learning curve is too large. We've had the same basic windows functions and menus (until Vista) since 95. How the hell are we going to train legions of AOL users to use Ubuntu? Good luck with that.

I hate Microsoft as a company. Their business practices have been highly suspect, but their software (XP Pro anyway) does work and lets me do stuff without having to read man pages, or tweak files or find special drivers or find a replacement program, or run in a sandbox. After 8 years, countless distros, way too much time and actually failed hardware (how does ubuntu kill a previously working drive), I personally have jumped off the linux soapbox for the last time. Linux is awesome on servers but I don't think it will ever even challange even Apple for desktop market share.

/rant

It's the applications, stupid!

[QCompson (675963)]

One can come up with all sorts of complicated theories on why linux hasn't gained significant ground on windows, but it's very simple. Applications, applications, applications. If linux was running word, photoshop, quickbooks, and a host of other business software (not to mention games), we wouldn't be reading these endless pontifications about why linux hasn't been overtaken windows on the desktop.

I don't buy it

[_merlin (160982)]

I don't think the n00b sees it this way at all. To them, the OS/window manager is part of the computer. That's what they see when they turn it on, and that's all that matters. As they don't see Windows as separate from the computer, they won't see it as extra value. Linux may be ready for the masses at last, but until it's marketed as such in the stores they visit, they'll never know. I was at Harvey Norman the other day buying a new Wacom tablet. There was not one Linux PC in the building. Same goes for just about any other computer store. If your lucky, there might be one or two in a corner. Linux is a build-to-order option from Dell, but Joe n00b won't choose that - he'll just take what's recommended. Right now, you have to actively seek out Linux if you want it; that's perfect for techs, but no use for n00bs.

OP is wrong

[jjohnson (62583)]

It's not because Linux is free, it's because businesses don't put Linux on their desktops.

For a really large number of people, their main experience with computers is at work--that's what they learn on, that's what they come to understand. Deviation from what they know is a barrier to entry.

Couple that with virtually no vendors selling computers with Linux pre-installed, and you have a huge barrier to entry. The vast majority of users use what's put in front of them, either by their employer or Dell or Walmart, and see little to no incentive to switch.

Duh.

[WK2 (1072560)]

Thanks for the profound knowledge, Einstein.

I noticed this a long time ago, when I first started my business. According to economics, there is more demand if you lower your price. But in reality, this is not always the case. In fact, I would go so far as to say that almost as often as it does, price does not affect demand at all.

I've been saying for a long time that someone should package a Linux distro in a box, and sell it for $100. People will buy it. Anybody could do it, developer or not. It is perfectly legal, as long as you follow the license for all of the programs, which can usually be done by including a source CD along with the package. I haven't done it myself because I'm not familiar with retail setup, and would probably just end up spending my money on a business venture that I can't complete.

Red Hat does something similar. They sell their package for $15. They should increase the price.

Simple marketing! why make it more complicated?

[schnikies79 (788746)]

I have a minor in marketing and economics, woohoo. Anyway...

This is the best example I can think of. There was a small watch company (can't think of the name off my head without getting out a textbook) who sold fairly high-end watches for about $500-$800 and sales were poor to flat. The company raised the price to around $1500 and sales went crazy. The higher price has a perceived higher quality, even if it doesn't.

Cars work that way, computers work that way. Of course price doesn't always equal quality, but it can and that is a that point is stronger in peoples minds.

Here's why..

[Computershack (1143409)]

I've just installed Ubuntu on my laptop. Installing it was the easy part. I then had to go off and search how to add MP3 support, multimedia streaming and DVD playback. 3/4 hour later of enable this repository, apt-get this and a fair bit of sudo this and that and it's all done. OK, got MP3 support in Rythmbox and VLC is doing a tremendous job of playing DVDs. Firefox seems to be OK although Realplayer streaming on the BBC News website only works in standalone player.
Fonts look crap so lets see how to install some decent ones..a quick google and after reading several different ways to do it, I'm copying them over from my Windows installation - another 20 minutes. Now, lets set up a shared folder so I can access it from my Vista desktop. Right click on folder, select Share Folder. Goes off and gets another raft of files. Refresh Windows and my laptop shows..all good. Click on the icon for the laptop, user/pass prompt. Try several including guest and the logon for ubuntu and no go. Off we go to Google again and there's a Howto. Only problem is it misses out a few IMPORTANT steps (like saying I have to add a SMB user WTF???) In the end, a post directs me to a Youtube link which shows exactly how to do it. Try to let it share without user/pass and in the end I give up. There's another 45 minutes wasted.

So it's taken me 2 hours just to install BASIC multimedia functionality, some decent fonts and figure out how to share files over a windows network. What makes it worse is there's not just one way to do something but several ranging from completely ridiculous strings of CLI commands to a simple solution but you can bet which one tops the search results. OK, I know how to do it for next time but do you honestly think Average Joe on their first venture into Linux is going to persist as much as I did? Not a chance. Windows "Just works" so that's what they'll go back to. It'll be "Yeah I tried it once but it was just too damned complicated to do anything so I gave up."

And that's why Linux isn't cutting it on the desktop.

My unbiased opinion...

[FoolsGold (1139759)]

...for what it's worth, as to the reasons Linux isn't spreading as quickly as was hoped:

(1) Crap-all marketing. Windows has posters, flyers, tv spots, and general awareness by most computers users. Apple has poster, tv spots, attractive retail stores, and in most cases a general awareness by most computer users. What does Linux have? At best, word of mouth.

(2) Lack of commercial apps. Don't give me crap about being able to use GIMP for free - armature and profession photographers want professional-level tools like Photoshop. They WILL pirate the damn thing if necessary.

(3) Path of least resistance. Moving from one operating system to another is generally an exercise in trading one set of hassles for another. It's not often that it's a painless experience. Moving to a Mac though is much more realistic for someone fed-up with Windows than moving to Linux however, due to points (1) and (2).

Finally, the biggest reason of all - why change? Windows just isn't that bad if you know how to use a computer. Most people have more important things to do in life than worry about operating systems, or at least they do once they get to a certain age when priorities become clearer.

Wrong

[kmac06 (608921)]

It's far more valuable to the end user in terms of getting things done.

That's wrong. For the vast majority of users, it doesn't matter much what OS they use. Inasmuch as it does matter for those users, "getting things done" is tipped in Windows favor just because of compatibility issues such as Word vs OpenOffice. Many users (such as myself) use specialized software that only works under Windows, or simply play games. I know you can do some virtual environment or dual boot, but neither of those is better "in terms of getting things done". There is of course a small base of users than can get more done with Linux, but they are a small minority.

I'm not bashing Linux or open source software in general, but the simple fact is that Windows is Just Fine for most people. Add to that fact that people don't see the hidden cost of Windows, and you have the current situations.

Linux also does some things that are scary

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

A good example would be the whole source code thing. This is scary to a non-technical user. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. While it is possible to run Linux and never run in to any code, it isn't that hard to find something you want to do that needs source code. Maybe it is a driver or an app that is distributed only in source form. Well, compiling that scares people. You have to drop to a command line and you are going to get a shitload of text dumped at you that makes no sense. Even though the end result might be just as easy as running a visual installer in Windows, it doesn't FEEL as easy, it feels scary.

I could go on with a whole list of design choices Linux has made that are like this. Basically what it comes down to is that it doesn't seem as easy to a non-technical user. Even if the process is just as easy (and there are times when it certainly isn't) the fact that it involves something that looks highly technical makes it very intimidating. This is going to hinder adoption, of course. If people feel it is harder, they aren't going to want to use it or learn it.

Call the emperor

[Progman3K (515744)]

Tell him his new clothes are ready!

As far as I am considered, I hope Linux NEVER becomes mainstream.
I've been using Linux exclusively for 4 years and I love it, especially when all the freeloaders ask me
"You're in computers; my computer is acting up, can you take a look?"
"What operating system are you running?" I ask.
"Windows."

"Sorry, I can't help, I run Linux"
Ahh... Sweet peace and quiet, not only in my computer, but in my life also.
Fuck being an evangelist, it has caused nothing but pain for me and now I just want to be left alone.

good

[anonypus_user (1236548)]

If everyone else used it i wouldn't feel cool anymore.

stress the freedom part, it works in the movies !

[erlehmann (1045500)]

MORPHEUS: At last. Welcome, Neo. As you no doubt have guessed, I am Morpheus.

THOMAS: It's an honor.

MORPHEUS: No, the honor is mine. Please. Come. Sit. [Pause] I imagine, right now, you're feeling a bit like Alice, tumbling down the rabbit hole?

THOMAS: You could say that.

MORPHEUS: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up. Ironically, this is not far from the truth. Do you use closed source software, Neo?

THOMAS: No.

MORPHEUS: Why not?

THOMAS: Because I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my computer.

MORPHEUS: I know exactly what you mean. [Pause] Let me tell you why you are here. You have come because you know something. What you know you can't explain but you feel it. You've felt it your whole life, felt that something is wrong with the world. You don't know what, but it's there like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?

THOMAS: Windows?

MORPHEUS: Do you want to know what it is? Don't we all feel that there is more to life...that there is something missing? [Pause] Windows is everywhere, it's all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your - ahem - window [short pause] or when you turn on your media center. You can feel it when you login at work, when you surf to slashdot, when you pay your taxes online. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

THOMAS: What truth?

MORPHEUS: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what Windows is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the recovery disc, the story ends. You wake in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the Ubuntu disc, you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember, all I am offering is the truth. Nothing more.

(Thomas takes the Ubuntu disc and some cookies.)

Linux vs OS X vs Windows

[moss1956 (246946)]

The real problem is that it is a hassle to get any operating system up and running on a machine. Microsoft solved this problem by working with manufacturers
to make sure the windows runs on their product. Apple solved this problem by only allowing their operating system to be used on machines that they sell.
Until recently there had been no solution of this sort for Linux, so people who ran linux had to be brave enough souls to fuss with the machine
so that it acts right after the operating system has been installed. Part of the reason that linux is starting to be used more on the desktop is
because manufacturers are selling the machines with linux preinstalled. I am not so sure its about perceived value, its more likely about convenience.

What kills Linux? 15-year-olds with an attitude...

[McSnarf (676600)]

You know whho I mean. Teen wearing "I am root, bow before me" t-shirts and who hang around in Linux support forums because Linux installed automatically on their PC. Never compiled a kernel, never seen a kernel being compiled - and wouldn't know bash from COMMAND.COM.

You most likely know the type.

Enters a friend of mine. New to Linux. Reasonably clever, manages to install, then wants to run Windows games under Linux. He learns about wine and wants to know if it will do what he wants it to do.
"No problem," he thinks, "there is this thing called the community and I will go and ask!"

And he did. In polite words. Telling people about his system setup, about his idea to change to Linux, then asking a number of questions about distributions (which one?), wine and performance.

Answers included things like:

- "Go away, windows boy!" (no further comments)
- "RTFM!" (no further comments)
- "Use Google." (including the common "Oh no, another Windows user..." quote)

It was made very clear to him, in all but two answers, that he was not welcome, the wrong kind of user, morally inferior for wanting to play non-free games.

Two people actually jumped in and told him that, yes, Windows was actually better in supporting Windows games and wine wouldn't really help there. Linux would not make sense here. Heresy takes courage. :)

I am a bit of a late starter, installed my first SLS when kernel versions were around 0.98, the file system was minix and you had to hex-edit sectors to set your boot device. If you haven't been there, you don't want to know what you had to do to make X run. I remember a different kind of Linux crowd from that time. "Snotty" was not part of that.
Nowadays, my t-shirt would probably read: "I was root. It becomes boring. Now I just fired root for beeing cheeky and hired Admin because he is polite, solves my problems and will not risk my business on alpha code."

Linux is a great OS - and my friend is now learning how to use a Linux server as a game server (for windows games), web server and FTP server. He is doing fine, even with bash, as he is not stupid - just untrained. His web interface for game servers is not looking too bad...

But like would be easier if the "WHOOOA! I am root!" kids (on a single user system, probably running a boot-from-DVD Knoppix or a SuSE Live DVD) learned to shut up unless they had something helpful to say. They are not doing Linux any good.

Re:Consumers Hate Change

[JoshHeitzman (1122379)]

Why should anyone invest the time to learn a new product that doesn't do more for them then the product they are currently using? Personally, I'm still using Office 2000. I've used both Office XP and Office 2003 extensively at my prior job, but I really didn't notice the difference between 2000, XP, and 2003. I've also given OpenOffice a try. The thing that really annoyed me to no end with OpenOffice was that I could not grab the edge of my current selection in it's Excel equivalent and drag it in order do the equivalent of a cut and paste of the selection (i.e. move the selection to a new location on the spreadsheet). Apparently I do this a lot, but hadn't really noticed how frequently until I tried OpenOffice and couldn't do it. I use FireFox and Thunderbird for web and mail there so no problem there.

Re:King's New Robes Effect

[rohan972 (880586)]

... and then they'd ask me how much it was... and when I told them it was free, they'd be disappointed!

http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid [ubuntu.com]
Then tell them it's $250 with a years support package, but because you're a licenced distributor, you can install it for nothing, just for them. Then it has percieved value, it's a good deal and they're getting it because they know an insider! While people don't want to get something of no value, they love getting something of value for nothing and they love "knowing the right person". Either that or tell them the price of a Dell with Ubuntu preinstalled [dell.com], which is not nothing and definitely has credibility as "value".