Is Linux Out of Touch With the Average User?

MrSmith writes "Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user? ZDNet examines five reasons that could explain why people are still willing to pay for (or pirate) an operating system when free alternatives exist. One of the reasons seems to be that despite what many Linux advocates claim, Windows users aren't on the whole dissatisfied with their OS: 'Despite what you read on websites and blogs, newspapers and magazines, people on the whole aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows. There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty.'"

It sometimes looks that way

[PHAEDRU5 (213667)]

I can't tell you how many times I've see a question like "What's the best linux for a newbie?" or "Will linux run on my laptop?" answered by a fair amount of mockery, and the advice to "Try it, and see what happens."

This is not reassuring to the average user.

Re:It sometimes looks that way

[Overzeetop (214511)]

I recommend buying a kit. Not a complete one - just the chassis, engine and transmission. Once you get that running, there are lots of places to buy a body, wheels, tires, windshield, etc. Oh, and it should be a stick - don't get an automatic 'cause you'll never really learn to "drive" in an automatic.

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. *hangs head in shame*

#6

[grev (974855)]

The average computer user doesn't know what Linux is.

The simple truth

[gosand (234100)]

I think that Windows is good enough. Yes, it can be frustrating at times, but let's not kid ourselves. Linux isn't a walk in the park either. Granted, it has come an *extremely* long way over the years, but there are still things that annoy me about it, and I use Kubuntu. Look, I have been using it on my main PC since Redhat 6.2. I love it, and prefer it. However, my wife doesn't want the hassle, and I don't want the hassle either. We recently got her a new laptop, and it has XP on it. (thank goodness Dell Small Business will install XP, I didn't want to wrestle with Vista). XP is installed, wireless works great, it all just works pretty well. She is already used to it, and we have all of her programs tranferred over. Once of those is Quicken. I know there is GnuCash and others, but when I started using them I found them to be cumbersome, and for some reason it wasn't able to import any of my bank statements. Finally got fed up with it, and turned the finances over to my wife and Quicken. It's been great ever since.

Look, why does Linux have to take over the world? Can't you just use it and enjoy it? I understand being passionate about it, I promote it where it makes sense. But honestly, it isn't a replacement for Windows. And there is no need for it to be.

It's not Linux's fault...

[Eggplant62 (120514)]

...that the majority of people have never heard of Linux before. They've lived in a world where Microsoft software is installed on a new computer by default, and about the only thing they know about this Linux thing is that it is just something their kids told them the kid down the street likes to play with. The bulk of the software on the market that people are exposed to is either Microsoft or created to only run on Microsoft operating systems.

The answer is to just do what we do best. Show people, educate them, and let them see what Linux is. Keep up the grassroots movement. It will take time, but as long as we keep educating people that they have a choice, Linux will catch on. Microsoft started in 1975 with some stolen code on paper tape, and they didn't become a household name overnight, either.

i think they are missing the issues

[noldrin (635339)]

What are the numbers of people who install windows via CD VS people who install Linux via CD?

The main reason is that under Linux your hardware won't work as well, more internet stuff won't work, and you can't play your games like Evercrack and WoW. People who use Linux generally are either really care about freedom, or are computer hobbyists who like messing around with their computer. Average users often just get frustrated and move back to windows if they were curious enough to switch anyways.

I think Linux would be better off targeting the computer hobbyists rather than prematurely going after average users. We are prematurely slapping an easy to use GUI on top of a system that you need to know about in order to maintain, translation: we are giving people enough rope to hang themselves before they know how to use rope safely. Once Linux has most of the computer people using it, the casual user will follow. This is how it worked in the world of DOS vs Mac

Number 3 nailed it

[niloroth (462586)]

Quite frankly, i think the 3rd point was one of the biggest. I am rather good with computers, and networking, but getting my acer laptop to work with the wireless b/g card in it under any distro is more than i am willing to do. I can NDISwrapper the drivers, and have a card that will only work in b mode under linux, if i go in and mess about with the conf files. But even then there are seemingly random times where it will just stop working. And going between multiple networks without stopping and restarting the service is simply an exercise in futility, something windows doesn't have a problem with at all. I realize that without driver support from the manufacturers this will continue to be a problem, but non the less, it is a reason for the lack of market share, because if i don't fell like going through the hassle, i feel most users wouldn't even get far enough along to realize that all this work is far more than should be needed.

The hassel factor

[simm1701 (835424)]

I'm a linux user and admin. By most peoples standards (ie in the developement department of a bank in which I work I'm a linux/unix expert).

My home laptop (which is my main computer) is dual boot XP/ubuntu.

What do I boot to 95% of the time?

XP.

Simply because its less hassel.

I've used wineX, cadega, etc. I've built it from cvs, submitted bugs and the occasional patch to it, I've contacted game devs and worked with them to get new games to run under it (and had screen shots from my PC posted on developement group walls after they were impressed about it running under linux)

I only have 1 game even installed under windows, morrowind, and I know for a fact I could get it running under linux.

Why don't I?

Time.

It would take me an hour or two of messing around to get it working under linux.

It would also take me that time or more to get my wireless networking working how I like it under linux (ie knowing the WPA key for several different areas and using whichever is available at the time).

I'm a very busy person and I just feel no need to do it, when its already working without the hassel on my windows partition. I'm not fond of windows, but cygwin covers me for most things I need to do, if its really desparate I'll boot to linux, but thats a pretty rare occurance.

My home file server runs linux, my firewall runs linux, my personal IMAP server runs linux - I dont have an issue setting these up.

But when someone like me tends to use windows as a desktop it points to the fact that there still needs to be moreease of use put into linux on the desktop.

Users are lazy, until its actually easier to run linux in 99% of cases then its not going to happen. (and I don't mean better, I'd argue in general linux would be better for almost all things I do, but it isn't easier)

They dont want to be like us.

[LibertineR (591918)]

Arrogance personified.

The sheer arrogance displayed by the majority of us who want the world to take a look at Linux is miles beyond what is going on by those pushing Windows or even Macs. To most of the world, we come off as intemperate assholes who hate anyone dumb enough to not agree with us. Never mind that the world has managed to function pretty well in spite of Linux not running everything, we act as though all wisdom and knowledge reside strictly with us.

Hate Microsoft, hate Apple, but those organizations do not treat potential customers as primordial slime until they have evolved into dual booting at the very least. We talk down to our audience, we cringe at the thought of making adoption the slightest bit easier for noobs, and if you are a hardware vendor that balks at creating a driver for our benefit, well, we just might shoot your mama in the head.

Someday, our community may figure out that Marketing wins, period.

Nope, we wont, we have had enough time and evidence to know this, and we have rejected that argument.

Microsoft has another record quarter, while we just stay pissed off.

Take your best shot, I've got karma to burn, bitches.

The reason is user attitude

[Opportunist (166417)]

When someone gets Windows, he installs it, starts it up and starts clicking around. Some things will work, some won't, but those that won't don't discourage him. After all, everyone says Windows is so easy to use, every dumbo can work it out. So they try. I mean, who wants to be dumber than... And they try. And putz around and finally (maybe after reinstalling, when they managed to click somewhere they really, really shouldn't) it works.

When someone gets Linux, he installs is, starts it up and starts clicking around. Some things will work, some won't, but those that won't discourage him. After all, everyone says Linux is a geeks-only system, nobody but a true blooded geek can figure it out. So they don't even try and toss it as "too complicated".

IT's the apps.

[Lumpy (12016)]

I know of several film students at Ferris State university that use or pirate windows simply because all Video editing and DVD authoring apps under linux suck horribly and pirated versions of MAC software are hard to get.. (they prefer final cut)

Cinerella is unstable and not even 1/2 as usable as Adobe Premiere 4.0.. Apps like Sony Vegas, the current Premier, Canopus, and Avid Dv express kick the absolute living crap out of all the linux video eding apps all rolled together hands down.

DVD authoring also stinks under linux. It's not even at the par of the dirt cheap Dvd-Lab product out there without being a comand line expert.

Dont get me started with the effects and composting apps that simply do not exist under linux.

How about Engine tuning software? ALDL or ODB-II scan tool software? Electronics design software (Eagle Cad is the ONLY ONE and it's not that good) how about a Decent CAD package that is even 1/2 as useable as autocad was from 3 years ago?

It's the apps. People cant rip their DVD's easily (no anydvd for linux), they cant sync with their ipod without pulling teeth, they cant sync with their phone's contacts easily, installing non free and not in a RPM repository apps is something that even a seasoned linux user sighs at.

Linux is there, it's a rock solid OS. it just suffers from the same problem that OS2 and BeOS sufferd from. Nobody is making software that people want for it.

Hell I'd buy a decent video editing app for linux. It does not exist. Main Actor is utter crap and is the only commercial offering.

I'd pay for a native photoshop and Dreamweaver+flash suite for linux, and thousands of others would to.

It's the apps, plain and simple.

copy&paste

[multi io (640409)]

Yeah, just convince all UI programmers to put in place a moratorium on new features until copy&paste works between all applications, all the time, with all commonly used kinds of data. Once that's done (2030 or so), world domination will become reality on short notice.

Re:Ignorance?

[sootman (158191)]

"Apart from games, which the clueful use as an excuse to not convert at least one box to Linux..."

The average user only *has* one box.

The fact is, there are a *lot* of computer users out there. Most--I'm not exaggerating when I say it's probably 95%--don't care to know anything about their machine other than which icons to click to launch IE, Word, and Solitaire. Most users don't know what an OS is, or that Windows is one; they certainly don't know that there are options. They don't know the difference between memory and storage, they don't know the difference between the desktop and the hard drive; if you change their wallpaper they freak out that their computer is broken, etc etc etc. Computer runs slow? It's been two years, buy another.

To respond to the question in question, yes, Linux is light-years out of touch--not that it's unusable, but that most users don't know what it is, where to get it, or why they'd want it. The fact that it's bulletproof against malware isn't enough--they fear change more. Don't underestimate the power of inertia.

Re:Yes

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

aligned with the fact that Linux is still quite a bit younger than windows

That argument doesn't hold water anymore. Linux is approximately 16 years old and is based on a design that is ~40 years old. The original Windows codebase would be 22 years old this year if it weren't dead and buried. Windows NT technology replaced the original Windows line in the 90's, making the current Windows platform only 14 years old. So in actuality, it's Windows that is the young'un.

Re:Yes

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

And the fact that it has a reputation as being something only computer geeks "can" use.

Undeservedly. My non-geek wife gets by on Linux just fine without much help from me at all.

And the fact that if you want to use any programs on linux you usually have to compile the source yourself.

Um, no. Not one application program on any of my three Ubuntu boxes at home is compiled from source. Most were either installed from the Ubuntu CD, installed via 'Add/Remove Programs', or installed via Synaptic.

And the fact that there are no human interface designers working on the linux project.

On the kernel? No. Kernels need human interface designers like Alaskan Eskimos need air conditioners. On GNOME and KDE? Yes, there are several professional human interface designers working on GNOME and KDE.

Microsoft may not do function very well, but their form is getting better, and they have a comparatively simple interface for users.

And GNOME and KDE are getting form much, much better, modeling their environments by combining the best features Windows has to offer with the best features Mac OS X has to offer, blending them into unique, consistent, stable GUI environments.

Re:Yes

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

Undeservedly. My non-geek wife gets by on Linux just fine without much help from me at all.

Sure. If someone had gone through all the work of setting up Ubuntu for me, I'd probably be a happy user right now. Unfortunately, I didn't have that luxury. While someone else will be along shortly to link you to my story, here's the car analogy [slashdot.org] of what happened.

And before you say, "but if people had to install Windows ...": well, they don't. You, the geek who doesn't understand why people won't switch to Software Freedom, are asking them to switch FROM Windows TO a Linux distro. So it is entirely understandable to expect that the switchover process be easy, even if the current dominant market participant doesn't make it easy to switch to them.

[interface designers] On the kernel? No. Kernels need human interface designers like Alaskan Eskimos need air conditioners. On GNOME and KDE? Yes, there are several professional human interface designers working on GNOME and KDE.

Unfortunately, there is more to the interface than the OS GUI, and on that, the GP was entirely correct: there is ZERO thought on interface design. On my Ubuntu install, if I -- someone with no professional training in user interfaced design (UID) -- had tested the install process once before release, I would have been able to recommend significant changes. When I tried to install Ubuntu, my first bootup led to a GRUB error that locked me out of all OSes. I know you're going to try to blame that on GRUB, but it was completely avoidable.

First, a UIDer should have thought for ten seconds and said, "wait, if GRUB errors can lock someone out of the OS, how can we mitigate this failure mode?" Since it (based on my experience in the Ubuntu forums) suddenly made the Live CD absolutely necessary, then the website should have been changed to classify the Live CD as being a "necessary download", since you NEED it for troubleshooting if anything goes wrong. Second, a UIDer should have noted that GRUB is not the only way to go, and some users would be okay with loading Ubuntu simply by telling the computer to boot from a CD so at least they can still load Windows. Users should be informed of this at the bootloader setup stage rather than being told, outright, that GRUB is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Third, since my problem (it later turned out) stemmed from using too large a harddrive, and Ubuntu had to know the size of my goddamn harddrive, there should have been some kind of flag -- either tell the user not to install, or use a bootloader that can handle that size. All of those things are under control of the Ubuntu interface designers, so no, you can't just pin this on GRUB.

Remember, being locked out of all OSes is REALLY SERIOUS. It means that the user can't then access the "massive Linux community" or burn new CDs without going far out of his way. The design process reveals an utter failure to recognize failure modes and adequately mitigate them.

And, based on experience, some wiseass is going to pointout how now, finally, they do require Live CD download with the install CD. But the point is that the design process at some point was such that it let such an abysmal failure through. A failure that kept me, a reasonably computer savvy user from switching. Remember, I did my due diligence: I read the download site. I set aside a large block of time for the install. I checked that the CD was burned properly. I evaluated alternate distros. I even bought a third hard drive so the Linux partition could be isolated. And STILL I got ****ed by piss-poor design.

So I tell Linux fans: a) You can put serious effort into making Linux accessible to newbies, and complain when they don't switch, or b) You can resign Linux to being a geek's OS but understand why its market share sucks for home users. But you can't have it both ways

Re:Yes

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

So what you're saying is that you like to nitpick on the difference between the linux kernel and an actual build of linux, without refuting what I said.

I can't refute that 'the linux project' has no human interface designers. Now Linux distros and projects that need human interface designers employ them.

But basically, to sumarize your horribly long, double linebreak argument, linux builds look the same as average windows, almost, but arn't quite as compatable

No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I could go on and on about how modern distros like Ubuntu 'just work.'

When my wife installed our new scanner on her computer, she didn't plug in a scanner, put a CD in and click next, next... She just plugged it in, and *poof* it just worked. All necessary software and drivers were already installed by default. Let me know when Windows can do that, k?

When my wife installed her new digital camera on her computer, she didn't plug install any software, any drivers, nothin'. She just plugged it in and up came the pictures. *poof*. It just worked

My wife wanted Inkscape. She just installed it via 'Add/Remove Programs'. She didn't go to a web site and try to figure out what to do with 'setup.zip'.

What have I done to fix her computer since installing Ubuntu 6.06 about a year ago? Nothing.

Mod parent troll.

Re:Yes

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

This discussion really frustrates me. There is only one reason why most people will still pay for or pirate an operating system rather than use Linux: Applications.

If all the programs I own worked just as well under Linux than they do in WinXP, I'd change immediately. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the interface or anything else. People want an operating system to run applications and that's it. Everything else is far down the list.

I've wanted to use Linux for music and video production for ages. The combination of the emergence of the horrible Windows Vista, combined with the release of Ubuntu Studio have convinced me to give it another try.

But still, I'd much rather not have to learn all new software in order to use Linux. If a well-financed company came out with a commercial operating system that ran Windows programs properly, it would be a huge success, if only because of all the ill-will Microsoft has created for itself over the years. I know that I'd support such a project, and be willing to pay a few hundred for it, too.

Re:Yes

[aussie_a (778472)]

I think it is simpler than this. The "average" user...hell, the average person on the street...is an idiot.

Yes, I imagine its easy to call people idiots when they aren't interested in the same fields you are. I'm sure lots of scientists think I'm an idiot because I don't understand what they take for granted. Or perhaps they're not so elitist.

Re:Yes

[jimstapleton (999106)]

That's still elitism.

Everybody works with things they don't understand, and you cant understand everything (although you can try).

Calling IE the "internet" or even saying it's their "operating system" (or saying "Office 2007" is their operating system for that matter) is ignorant (by the definition of the word - lack of knowledge), yes. It however is not idiotic.

Computers are still not as simple devices as we'd like to believe, and for a casual user, there is a lot to remember. As a similar example showing my ignorance: I you show me a car, I can't tell you the make/model, and if you give me a model, I can't tell use the manufacturer in most cases. I'm ignorant in such matters - everyone has their own ignorances, and just because you know something that someone else doesn't, doesn't make that person an idiot - thinking everyone should know it, however, might make you one.

Re:Yes

[Kenshin (43036)]

Last week I installed Ubuntu on my boss' old laptop, and it installed pretty easily. I was having trouble getting the wireless going, so I looked-around online. I found a 14-step manual process (complete with command lines) to get it going, and thought that was simple enough...

Until one of the steps was a completely vague "now write a shell script to enable all the attributes".

At that point I gave up and walked-away, and remembered WHY I haven't personally used Linux in years.

I'm the go-to guy for computers for most people I know. I have a 4.93 GPA in the IT course I'm taking. But Linux... it's just a pain in the ass.

Re:Yes

[mw13068 (834804)]

If the manufacturers of this wireless device provided specifications for this device to the Free/open-source Software community, a driver would have been written the next day.

This is not a "Linux" problem, per se, it's a problem that most hardware manufacturers don't support Free Software (yet). So, just chill with your current favorite OS for a while. In the coming year, the whole IT industry is going to change. Dell is selling computers with Ubuntu. This will give hardware manufacturers an incentive to release specs, or write "open-source" drivers themselves, and (not soon enough) hardware support under GNU/Linux will be better than any other operating system (considering GNU/Linux runs on so very many platforms).

The other thing to note is that change takes time. The geeks will always be on the front lines of technological progress, and the regular joe sixpack and jane boxwine may follow along sometime later.

Re:Yes

[erroneus (253617)]

Idiocy is a matter of perspective.

Frankly, I can claim you are an idiot for not being able to see things as I see them. I'm an IT manager. People are constantly assuming I think they are idiots (as most IT guys seem to) because they don't know or understand "X." ("X" does not refer to the window environment, it's a variable meaning whatever we're talking about at the time.) Once in a while, I have to break it down the way I'm breaking it down now:

Idiocy is a relatative term and a matter of perspective. I know my areas pretty well though I readily admit there are areas I have yet to study and understand. The people I work with seem to know their own areas pretty well. But since I don't attempt to dabble in their realm quite so much, I don't run afowl of being "an idiot" in their view.

Yes. The average person is "an idiot." Yes. A large group of people's VCRs blick "12:00." But I find that people have been conditioned to believe the knowledge and understanding is a burden and so people go well out of their way to avoid learning or experiencing anything that might lead to learning something. (I think this somehow goes back to our experiences with public education...)

But to include OSX into the discussion as you have, that is precisely why Apple has the reputation it has. "Happy Stupid People" is the image of the Mac user for good reason. "The For Dummies" series of books is so wildly successful because of the same fact. Knowledge is indimidating. If somehow a person can retain his "stupidity" while learning something new, then you have your hook. "Easy" means stupid people can use it.

And it's not so much that Linux doesn't mean easy... there is much distance for Linux to travel before we even get to that point in the discussion. Right now, "MSWindows" and "Computer" are essentially the same thing to people because of the monopoly Microsoft maintains. Once people see alternatives as viable, then we can talk about "Easy to use."

In my mind, the best path for Linux adoption by the masses, you must first promote Apple and Mac OSX. Then, when people see and use a single viable alternative, then they will also be open to recognizing a third. But at the moment, seeing even one alternative is a strain on their feeble minds.

Re:Yes

[by Anonymous Coward]

You mention Ubuntu.

Say my grandmother clicks Applications -> Add/Remove and decides she doesn't want GAIM. It shows up in Add/Remove with a checkbox next to it so she unchecks it. She is greeted with a message that no, GAIM can't be removed from here and she needs to launch Synaptic Package Manager. If it can't be removed from Add/Remove then why is it even there? This is the case for half of the preinstalled packages that show up there.

Next, say she want to listen to an MP3. She fires up Add/Remove again and installs the first one she finds. Audacity I think. She launches Audacity and points it to an MP3 she has in her home directory, but it doesn't play. Of course there are no error messages or anything to alert her as to why it didn't play, it gives her no indication of that anything occurred at all. Looking all over the awful Audacity interface she randonly clicks on icons that look nothing like any other icons she has ever seen before, and certainly aren't accompanied by any text descriptions, she finally locates some kind of error list that succinctly informs her that MP3s can't be played because there is no MP3 plugin. No direction as to how to obtain the plugin, not even a hint.

She wull have exactly the same experience with every single MP3 player in the repo until she gets to XMMS, at the end of the list.

Or maybe she never gets to the end of tyhe list. Maybe she deciedes to play GnomeNetHack instead. She launches it. It asks her her character info. Once that is complete it promptly disappears from her screen with absolutely no explanation of why, or where it has gone, or anything else. Launching it again GnomeNetHack informs her that she has a game on and does she want to quit that game and start a new one. She wonders where this game is on since she certainly isn't playing.

Anyway, the repo idea is great and it might be the path to get Linux software installation to where it needs to be. But pretending that it 'just works' is silly. There is still a load of manual work that has to be done by users to get it there. You don't necessarily have to compile anymore but you might, you certainly need more knowledge than any given Windows user.

Re:Naming

[oneandoneis2 (777721)]

Right. Because "Powerpoint" is exactly what somebody who needs to do a slideshow will look for.

Need a spreadsheet? "Excel" will be the first word that comes to mind!

Want to get your email? "Lotus Notes" or "Outlook Express" - almost the DEFINITION of names that clearly explain what the application does.

Need to view a PDF? Good thing you've got the intuitively-named "Acrobat" available, isn't it?

And "Quicktime" is the first place I'd look when I wanted to watch a movie file. Really.