Linux isn’t very popular on the desktop. It’s a far third behind OS X, which is a very far second behind Windows. Most people cite pre-installed operating systems as the reason. But as a student of psychology, I see something most people don’t. There’s one big factor in why Linux isn’t popular on the desktop. Linux is free. I know this sounds like complete dog’s bollocks, but hear me out before judging my sanity.
We can all remember the story of Tom Sawyer. At one point, Tom had to whitewash a fence. When one of his friends happened along, Tom tried to persuade and bribe the friend to help him. Needless to say, it didn’t work.
A few moments later, as Tom was unhappily whitewashing the fence, another friend stumbled along to jeer at Tom’s misfortune. This time Tom decided on a cunning plan. He ignored the friend, and seemed very absorbed in the whitewashing. Soon the friend became intrigued, because what could be more interesting than talking to a friend? Shortly thereafter, he started begging Tom to let him whitewash a bit of the fence. Tom wouldn’t give in.
The friend offered Tom some of his most valuable possessions if Tom would just let him whitewash a little bit. Tom reluctantly agreed, secretly jumping with joy on the inside. More friends happened along, coming to laugh at Tom for having to whitewash a fence. Tom simply did his act, and they all stayed to help whitewash, and paid for the privilege!
The above story illustrates a basic human nature. We don’t value things we can get easily. Yet we’d climb mountains, cross rivers and travel across deserts just to reach something we can’t easily get our hands on.
The computer world
The same thing applies in the world of computers. Humans are naturally suspicious of that which comes too easily. Imagine you were promoting an expensive brand of champagne. If you were running around forcing free samples into people’s hands, they would be very wary. But if you set up a stand where you would offer small samples for $10 each (“Special promotional price! Normally costs three times as much!”), people would see your champagne as posh and valuable.
It’s still the same champagne. Yet your presentation radically changes people’s perception of it.
Which brings me to Linux. There’s one problem with Linux getting to new users. It’s free.
That’s right. Linux being free is a problem in reaching new customers.
Why Windows pwnz Linux – an imaginary case study
Let me show you an example where Windows is better than Linux (I don’t mean better as in actually better :p).
Ignore for a moment all the crap about Windows being pre-installed and such. Let’s say you have a computer-newbie friend, called Compy McNewb, who’s just bought a new computer and is getting ready to install an OS.
He’s got two computer-savvy friends. You, who urges him to use Linux. And another friend, who urges him to use Windows.
Which one will Compy pick? Let’s go through the reasoning.
- Linux is being offered for free. Good.
- He can get a pirated copy of Windows from his friend. Also for free. Good.
- But Windows is sold for over three hundred dollars, while Linux is offered for free.
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!
In the 1970′s, a record label in Britain was selling albums containing cover versions of contemporary songs. Although the records sold for less than a pound a copy, hardly anyone bought them and the record company was suffering.
A whizz-kid joined the board and announced he wanted to more than double the price of the records. The other executives were shocked, but eventually agreed to his plan. Within a few weeks, the records were flying off the shelves.
When the records didn’t cost much, people didn’t value them. The record company was saved by redefining people’s perception of their product.
Taking Action
So here I am, wondering how to turn the tables around.
And I’ve got an idea. In the past, I tried to convert people to Linux (specifically Ubuntu). None of them really stuck. Back then I focused on all those great aspects of Linux. Being purely factual and objective.
But I have since learned people don’t act rationally. They act based on irrational emotions – like in the above examples. So here’s the question. Could I turn the perception around? What if I presented Linux in a way that makes people drool? Make it look more expensive than Windows, more cool than a Mac, more posh than a ten-million-dollar villa in the Caribbean?
Here’s my plan:
I’m going to present Ubuntu as a very expensive posh OS. I’ll mention it sells for upward of five hundred dollars in the States. I’ll say I managed to get an illegal copy off a Polish guy I know over the internet.
Only THEN will I mention all the positives. Multiple desktops, bullet-proof security, stunning visual effects. Somehow all of it makes sense in the context of a super-expensive elitist OS. I’ll see how many people I can convert when advertising Linux this way.
I’ll post exactly a week from now, reporting back on how my Linux Preaching v2.0 went. Hi yo, Silver, AWAAAAY!
{ 211 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
RE: “Well, what about the fact that if you try to buy a laptop (which is what most people use these days) that it costs JUST AS MUCH to get it with Linux as with Windows. So, Windows is free too.”
Maybe that’s because the installer person or machine needs to be paid too.
A vast majority of people do not want to learn computing. They want no brain technology. No? Try working in IT support.
A PC, whatever operating system it is running is a tool but a large proportion of people do not want to learn how to use it properly, which includes administration.
Linux has a sociological footprint that it is for geeks. You could argue any operating system is for geeks ie people who know and are willing to learn how to use it properly.
Microsoft has spent a lot of money convincing people windows is for them, it has been ingrained through marketing for sometime. A lot of people go pale at the sight of Linux simply because it’s not windows.
I could sell people Linux at £100 a pop but if the user feels like they aren’t going to get anywhere or they cant be bothered to learn it, they will return to windows and their marketing constructed comfort zone of Microsoft knows your idle and we will look after you.
Besides which, Apple sell their hardware with Leopard generally at a higher price than your average windows machine in which case by your thinking, we would all be buying Mac’s because they have a higher value.
You need to look at far for avenues before you can tackle the subject and make a valid point.
Great thinking! When I am trying to convince someone Linux is better than Windows and say “Linux is free” they almost seem to roll their eyes. It makes complete sense. The same thing happens when I suggest that “maybe you don’t need MSOffice, OpenOffice has many of the same features” and then of course I add “and it’s free.”
It all goes back to “You get what you pay for.” It’s NOT true!!! At least not as far as OSes are concerned.
I have thought this from the time I was introduced LINUX and from the start this was my thinking. Another way to try and prsent it is use the numbers for if you buy the support for the linux your useing(cause even with microsoft you can’t call for support if its not legal copy.)
Switching from free Linux to paid Linux? It would never work. Can anyone imagine e.g. Ubuntu for 100$? The day it would happen, many people would switch to free Ubuntu base cistro. And that’s it.
Are you honestly suggesting this would stop the adoption in ANY other area of technology?
Let’s assume a company with the same marketing budget and prowess as Apple brought out an MP3 player and offered it for free at the same time as Apple produced the iPod. Again, imagine SIMILAR advertising/awareness. I guarantee the FREE alternative would many times out-”sell” the iPod.
Sure there would be a high end “elite” market wanting to buy the iPod as a status symbol (like our BMW/Mercedes/Porche drivers today) but Average Joe would be grabbing the free clone like it was going out of style.
The reason Linux isn’t spreading as quickly can be simply brought down to 1 reason:
Brand (advertising, corporate backing, money, aimed at niche geeks…the lot)
Improve the brand, improve the sales. End of story. Linux has a massive geek stigma attached to it, it “sounds” hard to use. It “feels” nerdy. If it were marketed LONG TERM like Windows is, it would become a major player.
You also have to take into consideration that many hardcore Linux community figures don’t want Linux to appeal to the Average Joe. They like it as a specialist solution and are scared of it being dumbed down.
I applaud you for having a stab at this from a psychological standpoint…but dare I say, you’re really off the mark.
Gimp != Photoshop
Cinelerra != Sony Vegas
etc.
That’s why Linux is useless when it comes down to it.
Cracked WinRar vs. 7Zip.
There might be another reason, which was mentioned here in some comments…
Linux is great, but the User must care about the OS. Most People don’t want to know the OS, they want to get things done… without complications, without learning new things…
Windows may not be the best OS on the market, but the User don’t has to interact much with it. And that’s why they stick with it.
I stopped converting random People to Linux because it gives Linux a bad name. All they could say was “you can’t do shit with it” or “my programs don’t work on it”.
Linux is still an OS for Power Users and People who are not afraid to mess around with the OS. IMHO, Linux is not meant for the masses and it is hard to believe that it will ever be.
@Topic: But I still do believe that this Theory is true, at least for People with absolutely no Experience in Computers
Sorry to say that this article is pretty poor.
Hey, Linux is on the up side of the curve, plus all those great open source applications.
Get some better Site or Blog tools other that Google. I left them a long time ago.
Get with the program.
Regards,
http://www.jjmacey.net/blog
I recently installed Windows Vista and Ubuntu on a dual core 64 bit system (all new hardware).
I installed Vista. The wireless didn’t work. The driver from the manufacturer took forever to install because Vista kept searching the internet for drivers forever. Then I was able to install the manufacturers driver but on reboot Vista replaced the manufacturers driver with the broken one from the internet.
This is easy? It just works?
What do you do when stuff just doesn’t work?
To this day the Vista side has no. This is all brand new “Vista certified” hardware.
One hour after putting in the Ubuntu CD I was at an Ubuntu desktop with wireless and everything essential working out of the box. Absolutely no configuration necessary.
The main reason that Linux hasn’t reached anything near what Linus T. said it would in 2001 is because multimedia SUCKS as applications on linux. You have to do a lot of work to get Java, flash, mp3, forget about encrypted DVD’s. This is the killer – how are you going to get the average user to adopt linux if DVD’s cannot be played back LEGALLY, even with commercial stand-alone players (I understand none exists because of the licensing issue).
I come from having played with PC’s in the IMB PC-XT days and moving over to Macs in ’92 before moving onto linux in 2000 (and using Windows for things I couldn’t and STILL can’t do in linux). I moved onto linux because I couldn’t afford to buy another Mac at the time.
After my Windows box started having hardware problems (I need that machine to play back music and videos that my linux box won’t process properly), I made arrangements to buy a friend’s recent Mac for less than half-price. After I get this Mac in a few weeks and migrate my data back over to Mac, I won’t be looking back, even though I used linux as my main desktop at home for 8 years.
Good luck! One thing geeks have never been really good at is people and skills, that is required when trying to develop an interface that works correctly and programs that ACTUALLY work. Maybe we wouldn’t have these licensing issues if there were people who knew how to sweet-talk the right people into releasing licenses for DVD playback.
“Complete crap. Yeah, the desktops were nice, and.. well nothing else worked. I had to look for a solution to every problem and fix everything myself.”
Yeah, I felt the same way after I installed Vista. Oh, you’re talking about Linux?
“You can’t think of Linux in the sense of a commercial-like product competing against other commercial products because its development isn’t based on financial incentives (…) it will remain in a distant third for the foreseeable future and beyond.”
You seem to be forgetting that Linux/Unix is actually the MAJORITY in the server market, the market that mostly deals with large companies and corporations. Linux got to be the standard in the server market without lots of advertising. We’re talking about the desktop market, which Linux only started to adapt to in the last few years. Of course it isn’t up to par with Windows and Mac OS, which have been dominating the desktop market for decades. Of course Linux desktop distros are still a bit hard to use; they started out basically as a server os (built for use by technical people) dumbed down for use by people like you. Most importantly, it’s absurd to say that a product or idea can’t succeed without advertising.
i read thru this article briefly. there were to many posts to read. however, i do not agree with the logic. the reason linux us so far behind is simple. people generally just want to turn a computer on and everything just works. linux you need some degree of understanding whats up to install things. ie packages from .deb or .tar.gz or whatever. what a pain in the ass. windows – double click installer program, easy, simple, works. linux, unpack, compile, errors, dependances, code, blah blah, pain in the ass. 2, its all gui, very little programming or using code ever needed. linux, no, you need to know certain commands. 3, programs just work when they install. linux, linux based yah, but windows based run thru wine, is hit or miss. my exoperience, all miss. 4, hardware support. windows, everything just works, linux, specific drivers, etc etc. for instance my built in webcam will probably never work, windows, works like a charm. 4, availability. got to campus, school, internet cafe, etc, its windows based. why? because of the reasons above. however, if linux addressed those issues, problem solved, it would destroy windows. so, what needs to be done. installers by simple double click and they install on your system. more gui for what usually needs to be done by code and last, make wine work 100% as if it were actually installing on a windows based machine. this includes games, apps, etc. o, actually last, hardware support. basically, windows equals just works. linux does not. when it does, it will be dominant as its free. no one wants to pay for stuff. ok thats my brief 2 cents. i am a linux user btw. and i hate windows. however, unfortunately i dual boot because i need it for some things that linux just does not make easy.
I’m sure this is a contributing factor sure… but there’s something else about Linux that puts people off… the TYPE of person pushing it. I.e. Linux “fanboys” tend to be fanatical and pushy about it, and carry an aire of superiority. I’ve seen many people turned off Linux, stating that they just didnt want to then have to deal with the “assholes that support it”. No one wants to deal with a bunch of elitist, arrogant, fanatics. What Linux really needs is for all the fanboy-geek-programmer-ImBetterThanYou types to quit being such assholes, and realise their work is nothing if no one adopts it. You can even see it in support forums, where newbies ask questions, and get flamed or ignored because the “question is stoopid, go back to windows”.
You are right to look at human nature, but instead of looking at Windows’ users, look at the psychology of LINUX users.
They don’t *WANT* Linux to become the number 1 OS. Then, what would they point to to demonstrate their superiority over the masses? They would have to find a whole new non-intuitive command-line driven application to evangalise.
People always seem to comment on how ‘hard linux is to learn’. But imagine this for a second. You have someone who -has never used any computer before-. What will be harder to learn? Windows or Ubuntu? (for example)
The answer is neither. For someone who has no frame of reference as to how a computer is supposed to work, and who hasn’t had any experience with them, both will be equally challenging.
But for someone who has had experience with Windows will obviously find Linux more challenging, It’s like learning to drive a manual vehicle after using an automatic for everything previously. There will obviously be a learning curve, but linux sticks the vehicle analogy, in the fact that, like a manual, you have much more control.
There will obviously be a learning curve, but linux sticks the vehicle analogy, in the fact that, like a manual, you have much more control.
That’s true. But some people really don’t care if you have that much control, they just want the car to move. Same Analogy to my previous comment.
And those people are better of with Windows or Mac OS (preferably Mac).
I use Linux as main OS and have Windows as dual boot, just in case. But I’m also planning to buy a MacBook, so I work with all 3 of them.
IMHO someone who has only Linux experience will find Windows very easy and intuitive to use. (Why else would KDE and GNOME try to emulate the Windows desktop?) However I am not sure that the said Linux user will admit this…
This is just way off base. People don’t use *nix on the desktop because it does not fully meet ALL of their needs, including ease of use. It has nothing to do with this theory of perception of the product being free. I’ve used many flavors of *nix, I liked Ubuntu the best, but it STILL was a pain in the keister. It took several attempts just to get a DVD to play, a moronically simply thing to do on a Windows box (or Mac for that matter). Try walking a user through linux command line diagnostics or installations over the phone – nope. I’m sorry folks, Linux is just not doing what you all thought it would, it’s not causing a revolution. I’ll stick with XP until something better comes along.
I run both Linux and dreaded windows. Why do I run windows? Because business runs on windows. MS Office products including MS Project. Then there are several others that only run on Windows and/or Mac. So, it’s not that simple. Also, I have some cool games that run on Windows only. So, to say people choose Windows over Linux because of perception, is inaccurate. It’s about apps and compatibility. Personal, I hate Windows but it’s required for me to run my business. Please don’t tell me to run open office. I like it too but there are always issues that come up that I don’t want to deal with when I’m trying to make money. Also, sure there are some powerful project management software that are also free open source but again, compatibility is a key reason why I keep my windows boxes.
I have
2 Windows Laptops, 1 desktop
1 Linux laptop and three servers.
If all you want to do is read email and browse, a Linux desktop is a great solution for the average joe. I set up systems for older folks with old slow computers all the time. They are all happy Linux users now.
This may sound stupid. But i had a better time when less number of noobies wanted to use GNU/Linux
Hey, fuck that. If people don’t want to use a system thats works better and is free in all the senses of the word, well, that’s too bad for’em. Keep using pirated versions of Windows that’ll crash and burn all your personal data. Keep getting raped by M$, coaxed into buying new software just because you won’t be able to do anything otherwise. I couldn’t care less.
Djo,
Linux user, not propagandist.
Price psychology explains quite a bit. I am sure it is a piece of it.
Another thing to consider – if you are spending $1000-3000 on a computer, an extra $150 to get what it familiar isn’t too much.
I once realized, though, with my Linux laptop (bought preinstalled with Ubuntu) I was saving several thousand dollars on software I would have to buy on Windows that I got the Open Source version gratis. But one could argue I could have got them on Windows as well ….
(we) Humans are stupid. You’ve a lot of reason.
One time, a person told me that windows was better than linux because the former had support (both people and patches), and because there were people that paid for it, and that helped to mantain it.
In the other hand, no one was paying for Linux and that was not a guarantee for Linux to survive in the long term.
An opinion.
In my opinion, Linux will survive windows because simply the former is better, and that’s what counts on the long run.
It’s ignorant to not use the best match for what you need to accomplish.
Lets face it folks, there are going to be apps that you want and need that only run on windows. For me, it’s about choice. I choose which app is best suited for what platform.
I prefer Linux, or UNIX for that matter, but I don’t refuse to use the Windows apps to spite myself. Kind of lame if you want something but deprive or restrict yourself because of your own bias and stubbornness.
This is really a preposterous article.
Linux does not catch on because it’s utterly, utterly incomprehensible for the average user. I’d bet the percent of PC owners who would prefer using a terminal interface to do anything, or would even be /capable/ of it without handholding, is in the loooow single digits. Like say 1 percent.
Not to mention the subsets that require /real/ creativity software – the Gimp is great but it’s not as polished or featureful as Photoshop, for instance – or the gamers who want to play the latest hits at full, native speed.
Simply put, despite improvements and development of better distros like Ubuntu, Linux is still far from ready for the average user, Price be damned.
The problem with the Linux community is that there’s a bunch of arrogant noobs that come from Windows and think they’re the shit in IRC channels because they know a few commands and will literally just give bad support to people in need of support.
Best example: KDE is kind of slow!
Troll’s Answer: Do a memtest, you probably have bad ram!
I think the best way to make Linux better is stop caring who and who doesn’t use Linux, remember why you use Linux. All you guys do is talk about Linux is so much better than Windows! Umm okay, why do you say that? I use Linux but I don’t necessarily believe it’s better than Windows. I don’t tell every Windows user I see to use Linux. Because truth be told, any user who switches from Windows to Linux will have a tough time simply because it’s not Windows and converts expect a better Windows when switching to Linux and I can pretty much guarantee Linux is not a better Windows and is nothing like Windows.
Oh and can you morons stop promoting Ubuntu like it’s the greatest thing out there? It’s really a bad distro. Almost everything in the repository is out of date and it is no where near as secure as other distros such as fedora
I don’t know if anyone else addressed this, but there’s a fatal flaw in the scenario posited by the blog author.
What he fails to mention to his imaginary user is that it is illegal to install a pirated copy of windows on a computer. I don’t want to get into the vagaries of copyright law and intellectual property, but the fact is, Microsoft owns Windows, and if you have a pirated copy installed on your computer, you are a thief.
One of the major distinctions between Linux (and other FOSS operating systems) and Windows is that the FOSS products are…FOSS. One of the key advantages to Linux is that it is “free,” both in the cost and copyright/left sense. You cannot do whatever you want to Windows. You can with Linux. You can’t give Windows away. You can with Linux. To develop applications for Windows, one needs to invest time (and frequently, lots of money) in building for a closed, proprietary system with closed, proprietary tools. Not so with Linux.
I’m not naive enough to think that no one runs bootlegged copies of Windows. I administered Windows networks for years, and was always looking for ways to dance around the high cost of Windows licensing.
But the other thing the blogger doesn’t address is the cost of Windows applications. OK, if the user gets bootlegged copies of the applications to go with his pirate OS, he or she is in even deeper shit.
My personal laptop has two versions of Linux installed, one for production, one for testing. There isn’t a single byte of Microsoft-created code on that system. I can do ANYTHING on that notebook with Linux that I could do with Windows, and I sleep like a rock at night knowing I owe nothing to anyone.
While I think some of your logic is correct when it comes to the Operating System, I believe it is more than just that. In fact, everyone I try to convince to use Ubuntu asks one question predominitately: “Can I run Office?”. See it always comes back to the productivity applications and their inherent uneasiness about changing them to a version that runs on Ubuntu. That is what I have witnessed that is making the adoption slower in my opinion. I will check back though – good article!
Its probably been covered in the above comments, but I covered this in my business studies course.
Price of something is a big deal. Price something too cheap peoples perception is stupid, they think it is typically not of good quality. While price something more expensive (although not stupid expensive) people will percieve it as stylish if appropriate and of high quality.
Humans are daft. We should look at the product and sometimes take more time to judge a product for what it is.
Three reasons Windows dominates the desktop:
1) Ubiquity – Windows comes pre-installed on most of the machines that home users consider for purchase.
2) Productivity – In addition to the fact that most business users need tight integration with Outlook, MS Office is actually better than openoffice for a majority of use cases. Sorry, I use both and it’s true.
3) Ease of use – Linux still has a ways to go – even on Ubuntu which is by far the most approachable distro.
There’s no doubt in my mind that Windows will fall as the leading desktop OS in the next 5 years. But I believe it will be an even more closed OS (Apple) which displaces it.
Your premise is faulty. GNU/Linux is spreading like wildfire, just not in the USA where everything is for sale. Pre-installed GNU/Linux is selling like hotcakes in the eee PC and similar machines. Growth of GNU/Linux installations/sales is double or triple in other parts of the world than the USA. If you look at NetApplications web stats you may be excused for your error. Look at W3Schools.com instead and realize they are biased in favour of M$ with .Net/.asp, etc. GNU/Linux is far ahead of MacOS in all price-sensitive markets which means all the new and growing markets.
Look at Google.com/trends for windows,linux and compare USA with Russia, Brazil, China or India.
I have been told by my customers that “Linspire is better than Freespire, because it costs money.”
They are about the same yet people do think that the free one is junk.
Hi, loved your article, i think your idea is right and with the needed attention it’ll change many of the poor concepts about linux that most people have… but i think its a part of the plan not the whole plan
I have another good question, why does google , being free, is so sucefull, why the psichology don’t work here?
So true! Reminds me of a story my uncle told me. He was raising feeder fish for a while, and eventually he decided to get out of it, so he puts an ad in the classifieds figuring he would just give them away for free since he didnt want them anymore. Well, 2 weeks later he had a total of 0 calls for the fish. The next week he puts the same ad in the paper but only this time he’s asking a minimal amount of money for them. They were gone in days. I still remember that story so clearly.
. The number of flat-out LIARS on this comment threas is AMAXING.
“Windows never crashes, but linux always does.”
“Ubuntu took 2 hours to install.”
“I’m a professional programmer, but I can’t live without Dreamweaver.”
“KDE made it impossible to install my printer!”
“Text is obsolete!!”(ever hear of HyperText Markup Langage?)
Idiots, liars…
There are also many valid points.
The level of choice offered is confusing.
OOo sucks.
GNOME apps are ugly, and often crippled.
Using apps from one DE in another is hideous at times(depending on how well they stuck to standards).
It’s a very different experience.
I generally ask people if they want to be able to set their desktop up the way they want to, or prefer everything to be one way to start and stay that way(KDE or GNOME). Are they fine with changes and rather big upgrades to applications that might change how they look/feel, or do they want them to stay the same forever?(same)
Also, I talk about how much better Linux is, but I no longer even suggest others try it.
“It’s not as easy to do some things, at first, but once you learn all the tricks, you can do alot more. Like a guitar with more switches, or a pedal with more knobs” I know alot of guitarists…
They express interest, but no once’s bit. Wow, it’s only been a year since I switched…
Very good article! Wonderful to see the Linux community busting with ideas.
that makes perfect sense…. problem is that as soon as a person is hearing the word linux…he makes the picture of some dreadfull, hard to use, meant for geeks OS in his mind…but if u make the person use latest fedora and ubuntu like distros without telling him its linux…and telling him its some very expensive new OS and all the benefits…he will surely fall for it…and forget windows!
Frankly I didn’t like this article. It’s just capitalist pop-ideology. Anyway, I think people are starting to understand the economics of free with the network, it’s just a question of phasing out the scarcity.
Hey,
I disagree !
The important area windows outsmarts Linux is its availability of vast majority of softwares run on windows making it popular (vice versa) & Linux is catching up !
regarding psychology stuff:
give the average joe a free software and point out,
how stupid is to pay enormous $$$s
for a crappy software when you get
it for free with freedom & sense of pride!
I bet you can easily see linux fans out of average joes!
I would argue that linux does grow and fast, but maybe not in the mainstream reporting.
What would media sell in terms of bying advice if it was free?
Wake up and smell the coffe of manipulated media and decades of windows corruption. All this takes time to change but the signs are there that the coming two linux years will make an impact way beyound belief!
im not saying it will be good or bad, im saying it will happen.
This Polish guy you’re getting the pirated copy from – is his name Mr. Ubuntu?
Seriously – your post about perceived value is bang on. It’s common business/sales sense but most of us in the tech field aren’t up to speed on those aspects of business.
It’s not an uncommom practice to increase prices and get more business instead of less. I’ve done it myself. And I’ve been beaten by competitors that have inferior products and charge 10 times as much – because they’re seen as the greater value.
Perhaps what could be done (not easily) is have linux installed only by ‘certified professionals’. So someone needs to set up a certification program. Then end users can get linux, but only by paying a pro $500 to wipe MS, install, and give a half hour demo.
I am not so sure… I definitely prefer free (as in beer) sex than to pay 300$ for a gig…
“Did you ever think Linux is unpopular because it’s a second rate imitation operating system? Like thousands of people, I’ve tried Linux and wondered why anyone would want such a complicated, slow operating system when my computer came with the best one on the market.”
Did you ever think to get your Facts Straight? What imitation are you talking about? GUIs WRONG Linux had them fist. What the heck are you talking about with speed, Linux can run faster than any other OS on any configuration. I hate it when people insult the intelligence of the end-user, not everyone is afraid of using a command line and it is not that hard starting out, just ask someone on a forum they will give you what you need then copy and paste the code into the Terminal (Pretend you are writing a term paper) Oh and my 3 year old cam use Linux so it really says something about your intelligence if you can’t. (END FLAME)
The rapidly dwindling selection of PC-only games is slowly eating away at my desire to continue using Windows. The only thing really holding me to Windows right now is World of Warcraft, but if I purchase a 360 or PS3, I will have access to games in HD on a much bigger screen.
DirectX has held back Linux a great deal, I think, because it has always shackled gamers to Windows for their fix. Linux is very usable as a desktop OS, but it has never been an exceptional gaming platform. With PC gaming on the way out, I expect that Linux might start breaking into the mainstream a bit more. I know I will make the switch after I get a modern console.
I guess Polish people will be happy with this
I am very curious !
The entire purpose of an operating system is to run the applications that the end user wants/needs to run. If you convince someone to move to Linux, they almost always will have to adopt an entirely new set of applications which they are most likely unfamiliar with. Those applications may lack features, file type compatibilities or just simply be not as mature as their Windows counterparts, which really upsets Compy McNewb. The old adage “throwing the baby out with the bath water” comes to mind.
And I’m sorry, but OpenOffice, while amazing for a free product, is not MS Office. I could care less about the look and feel, but you can’t track changes, you can’t open large files, it is several times slower to load, etc. The CD burning applications, especially for Gnome, are severely lacking and feel cobbled together and inconsistent and buggy.
And like other people have said before me, the price of Linux is irrelevant. It could be $0 or $1000. To the end user, all operating systems are free and most don’t even know what an operating system is. To them, Windows is the computer, it’s not software.
my reason for switching to linux was simple. i had just built a new box but i was outta windows xp licenses (thanks to the need for constant rebooting) so i tried ubuntu linux and i like. pay 100 dollars for windows xp or 300 for vista was not worth it. you dont see linux on 90% of desktops because people in general arent as tech savvy and want M$ to hold their hand. as for me i also dont wanna deal with content protection and i dont want M$ to see what im doing when im on my computer (lol). i also hate rebooting windows!
Well I hesitate to comment here as I only recently joined the ranks of Linux folks when I installed Ubuntu on four of the PCs that my kids and former wife use for school etc. The 4 PCs had all been rendered useless by the addition of a Vista upgrade on top of the pre-existing XP,this lunacy was performed by a assclown who was boinking my former spouse. I won’t go into that Jerry Springer stuff here though.
Anyhow the PCs with XP had in every case worked fairly well and were a case of “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. AV (After Vista) the PCs eventually would not boot at all due to the Vista being a trial version without licenses.
I am not sure but it seems that the unlicensed installs of Vista began to dismantle the underlying OS and make it impossible (at least for this common newbie) to go back to the good old days. When investigating the options for salvaging thousands of dollars of hardware investment for my 5 kids, I saw that I may be paying a great deal of money to fix the problem by buying new licenses and software.
Anyhow this newbie was able to install Ubuntu at around 20-30 minutes per box. I found drivers online for the printers and other stuff with a click or two on Google. Perhaps if I were experienced I may have been able to exorcise the “FSOS” ie “Foul Spawn Of Satan”, and cast that Vista demon back into the Lake of Fire where Satan and the AntiChrist are.
However in experimenting with Ubuntu it seems that the only problem has been that the Ubuntu will lock up while YouTube is streaming video while a couple other applications are open. I have not tried to fix this as it gives me a chance to notice when my kids are not doing their homework.
Anyhow, why do we care whether other folks use Linux offspring or remain minions of MicroSoft? It works for me, is affordable, looks fairly cool. Also,by reading the book that came with Ubuntu I have figured out every problem worth fixing that has arisen within hundreds of user hours by my high demand kids.
This need for friends and peers to validate our freedom of choice reminds me of my former compulsion that everyone ought to like a movie I liked or a band I liked. I.e. I really like Dave Matthews Band but very few friends and family felt the same way. Finally I grew up and realized it is all part of having a choice and that is what makes OSS so great.
Long Live Liberty!!!
Long Live Freedom!!!
It is funny to see all the people on this post that are afraid to admit that they like Windows for fear of not fitting in with the “geek Linux crowd” or be perceived as “evil MS lovers”…I for one have been dealing with PCs and OSs for 30 years now… Yes…Windows can be buggy at times but talk about a pain? spell Linux… I could not even connect to my wireless network with Ubuntu… have spent literally days troubleshooting to no avail…Windows Vista detected my network right away in seconds…Plus, all the other arguments other people have already made regarding lack of compatibility, standards and convoluted complexities inherent with Linux Distros… Hating Microsoft has become a sport…ridiculous…Get a life.
The use of price to judge the quality of a product (rather than any intrinsic measure of quality) is called a Velben Good. It tends to require certain conditions:
* The majority of buyers are unable to measure any intrinsic quality in the goods.
* The buyers are buying it for status and for show, to prove that they can spend money and not care.
One example is Champagne: Bollinger has successfully managed to put their name about as synonymous with expensive Champagne. However, in a blind test most people couldn’t tell the difference — all you are paying for is a wanky label for snob value.
Same goes for a diamond vs synthetic diamond… only a tiny number of people can tell the difference… people who buy “real” diamonds are paying money for wank value and nothing more.
With a computer, some people (mostly senior management) buy them because they feel they are important status items. Normal people buy them because they actually want to do something. If they can do what they want to do, then they are happy.
Relating this to Linux on the desktop — it takes a long time to change people’s habits. Linux is growing at a steady rate, there’s no doubt that it will “win” in the long run, in as much as it will grab a large chunk of the desktop market. However, by then the concept of a desktop system my be very different to today.
I doubt there will be any sudden “year of desktop linux”, change will come slowly simply because people are reluctant to change, and because Microsoft has a stranglehold on pre-installed OS.
If anything, 2008 is the year the MS stranglehold softened because of the $200 gOS machine and the Asus EEEPC with Linux OS preinstalled. Also, Dell has been offering Linux preinstalled for desktops and laptops so there’s been a few recent firsts in that arena.
Thus, the whole premise of this article is wrong — Linux does spread and has been steadily spreading. It’s just that the desktop area is a cautious and reluctant market that refuses to change quickly.
Hi
I live in Brazil and in my country, cheap PC is equal Linux pre-installed,so qhen some friend by a new computer with Linux and they not have any knowledge, he install windows.SEE the knowledge is the key.
when you dont understand something you change for a simple thing.
There are several reasons. End Users – They can be your family or friends, they are just people who need certain computer functions/programs and do not bother learning more about the rest of the things that make a computer function. They are the vast majority and they define the marketing of a product based on their needs and DEMAND. Linux still requires some KNOWLEDGE to install and operate. You need to learn what “root” is. And not so fast with that music player and Video player. If you would throw in something that is as easy to use as Windows and is FREE, they would be glad to move over. People can be ignorant (in regards to a certain area-object-whatever) but not stupid. I guess many of us are ignorant and do not know how a TV works ! I mean inside!
And yes, you have a valid point of view. That is marketing. Make it a bit shiny, put some glitter on it and put some light on those cheap features and it’ll sell. That is how the (OEMs) Original Equipment Manufacturers work…(HP, Dell,etc.) Simply the fact that you got to this page in the first place makes you a different kind of computer user.(install stumble Upon
).
The Linux users are a what 5 – 10% of the computer users around the world? That is an exaggerated percentage.
Other consideration here would be the limitations in regards to programs… Why don’t the Linux developer give a hand to the Winehq.com guys- the people who are developing the Windows emulator for Linux? This way I guarantee many people would cross over:) .
Imagine this. You are using a very specific APPLICATION and want to move over to Linux but the developer did not release a version for Linux… you are in a dead end one way street. What are you gonna do ? Purchase an Operating System that costs more than your computer maybe….
That is what I have to say… as a mild Linux user with some background in Tech Support.
Quality depends on the context. You may say Linux is better in terms of quality, but end users don’t think so. The perception that mentioned in the article does not as important as the “usability” of the Windows. After all, people won’t care if it’s free or not, they care about quality, which is different from the programmer’s point of view.
I totally agree. I have gotten 5 people to try Linux and each time I offer them three alternatives, Yoper Linux, Ubuntu and Suse Linux 10.3 and each time they go with Suse linux 10.3 because it cost more! They assume cost equals benefits. Today in line at Star bucks and the guy making the drinks made a mistake and set two “mistake” drinks for free and no one reached to get them. Well I got one and offered the other to a guy standing close and he refused. I took one sip and thought it was great! No one ended up taking the second one. Perception Problem!
The other thing is this when people don’t know about something they will always buy the more expensive item then a cheaper one thinking that they are buying quality however most of the time its like saying a peach is better than an apple. Its not a good comparison. I sell equipment for a living and people always make this mistake. It makes me more money but I have to think how ridiculous and stupid people can be. Good article.
If your thesis were correct, Apple would dominate the computer market solely for the fact that their computers cost more.
Most people don’t use Linux because they already know Windows or Mac OS and they don’t want to learn something new, it’s not perceived value, it’s sheer laziness.
Most salient point: “but hear me out before judging my sanity.”
It is true that people do make choices based on irrational emotion. That is the hallmark of stupidity. Ironically, this trait is identified amongst all strata of society–even the highly educated.
So why, then, does *anyone* have linux? Because *some* people still make informed choices. Those of us who know what constitutes a good OS and are willing to do the work of sorting out the details will probably gravitate toward one Linux distro or another. The rest will do as the rest have always done: follow blindly.
“Hey, Compy McNewb here.
I actually tried Linux about a week ago. Complete crap. Yeah, the desktops were nice, and.. well nothing else worked. I had to look for a solution to every problem and fix everything myself. That’s why I like Windows better.”
You actually “tried” Linux? No you didn’t and I am going to not only doubt your word, I am going to call you potty mouth names….no, I’ll just settle for calling you pathetic.
You didn’t try linux any more than I just hit the lottery. You drive cars? There are good and bad cars. You might, if you did indeed try linux, drive a bad car. You couldn’t get things to work because you tried to do things the “Windows Way”. Let me guess.
you are one of the rocket scientists who put in a live cd while in windoze, opened my computer, went to your cd rom drive, clicked a few icons from the cd files and when they didn’t do anything, you pronounced Linux as Pure Crap.
You aren’t capable of producing children are you?
I actually would like you as one of my customers. Anyone who would use a product that demands they purchase two other products in order for the first product to work…they are a business mans dream come true. I can soak and cheat you penniless and you will walk away from the experience smiling because you didn’t have to learn anything during the transaction.
Yeah, pathetic fairly well sums it up.
I own some land in West Texas I think you would be very happy with.
h
Oh my goodness, where to start.
First off, my day job involves supporting, “repairing” and swearing at networking for everyone from Joe End User to large corporations.
That said the hardest OS to actually get working, out of the box, is any version of Windows you can think of. If it doesn’t like what it gets it goes into Zero Config hell and stays there like a sulking child.
And numerous trips to the command line to straighten it all out. For those keeping score getting Vista to perform well has had me resurrecting my DOS and command line skills again for MS operating systems. XP was a whole lot easier.
Linux hard to install?
I can install the entire Mandriva PowerPak in under one hour and have a working system up and running that will run video, already be networked, with OpenOffice or KOffice or both installed and any toys you might care to mention.
A few minutes later I have the “restricted” codecs loaded so I can view wmvs and all of that.
I can, and do, load Cedega for the gamers and so on.
All, as I said, in under an hour.
What I will agree with for some posters is that Ubuntu and SuSE are problematic on install for various reasons but none of them take as long as Vista or XP Pro for that matter.
Oh, I forgot, with Mandriva I spend anywhere from 10 minutes to half an hour installing all the updates required.
So far, I haven’t touched the command line.
And for those who want updates pushed that I’ve installed Linux for I do that too.
Oh yeah, printing works too.
And you have your choice..KDE or GNOME.
If you think the desktop is unimaginative or hostile wait till there’s a real production version of KDE 4.0
Applications:
OK, there is a legitimate complaint there for a number of apps that simply don’t run on Linux and, in the near future anyway, aren’t going to.
GIMP isn’t Photoshop and was never intended to be. If you want more Photoshop like features use Krita.
For all the complaining I’m seeing about OpenOffice.org it fits the bill perfectly for 95% of computer users on the planet.
And. please, leave a discussion about MS Office 2007, its lack of backwards compatibility with other Office versions and the horrendous Ribbon and broken macros for another day.
If you want to do serious video editing there isn’t a Final Cut Pro or Priemier Pro for Linux nor is there one on the horizon, I’m sorry to say. Nor is there an After Effects.
Blender is a lovely piece of 3D software but it can’t replace Poser or other midrange 3D software that runs on Windows or Macs. Maya, however, does run on Linux.
As for other things it’s all a matter of familiarity. In default Windows installs you get some things installed and working. You also can find yourself getting a shit load of crapware.
Need mIRC? Go find it yourself. And so on and so on and so on.
In any computer ecosystem some things are installed by default and others aren’t. For the Windows fanboys to say it just all works out of the box is both disinegenous and dishonest.
As for value for the money, I guess that’s where you expect to find it.
The poster is right in saying that some people will equate a semi high cost with quality. Or, at least, snobbery. If that worked with operating systems then Apple would rule the world.
I’m sure he’ll get takers on what he proposes to do and the people who take him up on it will put in the little time and effort it really does take to get up to speed with a decent distro be it Ubuntu, Fedora, SuSE or Mandriva.
You see that’s the other odd thing about humans. If we get something for free we’ll expect it to be the most wonderful perpetual motion machine ever and if it isn’t it’s in the trash so fast that one will never know it’s there.
Charge $5 for the same thing and people will put in the time and effort to make it work provided, of course, it ever will.
In the case of Linux it will work.
On the Windows side of the world the same dynamic is at work in a rather twisted way with pirated software. People will get it to work without too much complaint because they see themselves saving money by stealing it.
For Linux and OSS it’s hard to steal what is free so that motive is taken away.
(As has been noted nothing at all stops anyone from charging to distribute OSS software so if you want, fill your boots.)
And yes, Linux is somewhat immature in the GUI part. Thought the improvements there have been huge in the last two years.
There we go..said my peace, probably offended everyone and now I can sleep peacefully.
ttfn
John
I think another reason why Linux doesn’t spread is that it suffers an identity problem. There’s only one Windows and only one Mac OS X (although they come in different (but few) versions).
But Linux? There are so many distributions with different levels of attractiveness. The distributions that come close to competing with the Big Two are, expectedly, the ‘big’ distributions such as Ubuntu and Red Hat. Why? Because they’ve managed to come out with some kind of distinct identity, some kind of ‘branding’.
Perhaps when Linux overcomes the problems of perceived lack of value and unconsolidated identity, it can take off like the Big Two. Then again, some people wouldn’t want Linux to start looking like Windows or OS X either.
I don’t want to change the minds of people that don’t want to change or see or being awake.
If people want to use Windows and they don’t realize the great way of living Linux, that is their problem, not mine.
World is not better, becouse people use Linux or something else. I think World would be better if it loves to be free, to learn, to share, to be fair, rightful.
But most people got no balls at all, there are scared. They are lambs. Most people are blind.
Like Matrix movie, they don’t want to wake up, only a few want. They wait to see more people taking the choise
, lambs, just a lot of lambs. I don’þ want to be Tom Sawyer, i just want to enjoy painting the fense, and be happy doing that. if other people want to share that with me, i would be feeling happiness in another good way to be. Just that.
Branding is great until you try to apply it to the individual distros. You have forum moderators who should be wearing jackboots and black armbands, shutting out any attempt to announce projects and ideas that might thrust them forward. A project is forthcoming that will certainly launch awareness of those distros wanting to participate. Unfortunately, we’ve actually disqualified a couple of the big ones because of the attitudes of those who protect the forum gates. That’s too bad…wait until their membership finds out what they’ve disqualified them for.
Branding is great…but you have to physically work for it…some rather wallow in obscurity…I will be glad to be the first to write their obituary.
h
I think the bigger issue is actually Linux’s non-monetary costs. To properly use Linux you need to be at least someone computer literate – sure we can cite examples of Linux being used to teach the non computer literate, or any number of other cases where it’s supposedly easier, but I, (and I consider myself very well integrated into computing and the web) still find working with Linux and its support groups a confusing and tedious process, with no guaranteed results. This ‘knowlege cost’ is much more important than the concept of value – because most everyone who even knows what Linux is knows that the fact that its price does not represent its value.
I think a smart tactic, also honest, is to establish a fair market value, retail value, for Linux distros. That makes a lot of sense imo. Ubuntu would retail for $129.99, yours free…
“Hi
I live in Brazil and in my country, cheap PC is equal Linux pre-installed,so qhen some friend by a new computer with Linux and they not have any knowledge, he install windows.SEE the knowledge is the key.
when you dont understand something you change for a simple thing.”
Hello. I have a Brazilian friend and he told me that the Brazilian government put something called “Computer for all” that sell cheap computers with Linux pre-installed. I saw a information
here (Portuguese) that shows what you have said.
Small free english translation of the main part: The ‘Computer for All’ project fails. It fails because many things. They use a bad Linux distribution with bad programs and a bad desktop environment for users starting to use it (Mainly enlightment). However, the Brazilian Government discovered that from 500 buyers, ONE keeps Linux. Not only this, but the computers are so old that they even don’t run any recent Windows. This make people think, “The computer is bad because this Linux thing that came with it.”. Actually, it is not hard to make people use Linux, is hard to make they keep it.
Hope that it helps.
So tell me. Can i easily play videogames, edit sound and video, interact fileformats between windows, osx and linux etc. To me the reason for not installing Linux is mainly that i’m used to windows (even though it’s kinda crappy) and for my work i edit video’s which is something linux cant do. But I admit linux is great for people who use a computer to do basic things like text editing, chat, email etc.
to blogged 50.000.000 and 1 try out this distro of linux. http://ultimateedition.info/
it’s the best “out of the box” linux I know at the moment. and you can try it before installing it from the disk. it comes with most of the things you ask for, and if you need something else just look in the ubuntu blogs and install the program you need. they will provide you with the instructions to do so. hope you like it it comes with all the goodies you might need. all you have to do is read a bit
let me know if you like it.
Whle I don’t dispute the phsycology you describe as one of the factors in Linux not being adopted my the masses, I hardly think it’s the largest factor.
Linux requires more knowledge.
1. Even with more user friendly distributions like Ubuntu, Linux still requires more knowledge to get programs installed and launched than Windows.
2. Much as consumers were confused by competing High Def video formats (HD-DVD vs. Blue Ray), the average computer user is confused by the countless distributions of Linux. Those who know enough to run Linux usually understand many of the differences, but to the average Joe, it must seem daunting.
3. Very, very few popular games can run on Linux. Sure, WoW can run using Wine, but you better be willing to dual boot for new games.
4. While many Linux apps are more powerful than their Windows based counterpart, Windows programs are usually cleaner and more refined looking. If you don’t meet the 1st point, Im sure this point is another reason many won’t try Linux
5. Finally, the installed base, as mentioned. Do you remember what happened to Netscape Navigator when Microsoft decided they wanted the browser market and installed IE on every Windows machine? Exactly. If it comes on the computer, it will win.
I think “linux doesnt spread” because people are value based. If something is “free”. People dont think it has any value.
I know that as a consultant who deals with startup business that are frequently strapped for cash, I am now ready to mention Ubuntu as a desktop OS. They finally got the desktop right. I’ve been watching redhat/fedora for a number of years and they just werent ready for prime time. Ubuntu definitely is.
Wait, so you’re saying the majority of the population are criminals, and would take an illegal copy of something for free over something that’s legal and free?
Astounding logic…
I do see the ‘more money = better product lolz’ mindset of a lot of people though, yet where’s all the mass support to Vista, which as far as I know still has a lesser number of users than Linux and costs a helluva lot more than anything else? (I can seriously buy a nice PC sans OS for the price of Vista by itself.)
Your idea is funy !!
… but it’s not at all a new idea :
in France, Parmentier introduced potatoes with the same principle
id est : A field of potatoes was protected (very badly) by soldiers of the king … and people did hasten to stole so precious plants !!
so, don’t touch my GAMIN project !
(http://www.gonic.fr/cela_sert_a_quoi.html)
I absolutly agree, this is one of the first thing you learn on marketing. People expect that XX brand of toothpaste or whatever as such being more expensive that YY brand, to be better only by the fact that is more expensive. That ‘s called psicological marketing, I don’t know if it’s completly your field but there are tons and tons of writings. There differents topics in which marketing is classified, by , demopraghics, geographics, by consumer behaviour, etc, etc.
One of them is “psicological marketings”, (BTW it’s a common practice, most comercial nowadays target the psyche)
That’s why I think that some Linux companies, still market their free alternative, (Red hat), at some point it’ s just a necessity, like a point of reference to compare.
The argument fits,
Q: Why is Red Hat better than Fedora ?
A: Because it’s paid, soooooo obvious.-
It’ s how human perceive things, you can’ t change that
I hate OpenOffice, even if it is free and similar in function to Microsoft Office.
Very intelligent and perfectly logical perspective. One question, though: how to «sell» linux as an expensive, elitist OS, when it’s massively marketed as free? I mean, this sort of information is all around, who can miss this and move to linux based on that it’s a really expensive OS?
well to be true your post doesnt make sense at all. linux is being sold all over the world (suse, redhat, ubuntu) .. even preinstalled on computers.
if you think its such a great idea (which it is not), why dont YOU sell linux… right: it wont work.
Only fags use the term “pwnz”. You also neglect the other reasons for not using Linux. The lack of standards, the compatibility problems, and most of all the stupidity. It’s an unpolished joke.
My favorite real life example of this, is using drag and drop to copy a file to a folder which I do not have permission. What happens? Nothing. Nothing happens. The copy does not complete. Why? I have no idea. I am not told, and the miracle OS your stupid ass is in love with tells me nothing.
Not until I travel back in time 10 years and try to the same copy operation through a terminal window do I finally see the message that I do not have permission to write to the directory in question.
That kind of failure is serious. The fact it’s been a problem for so long, shows the problems with Linux. The biggest problem? It’s too old. You should have taken a few history classes, then maybe you’d know computers have always been about making technology better. Nothing better comes about when you cling to the past. Linux is based off UNIX, and old ass operating system that never chagned it’s bad habits. You do a great disservice to people trying to get them to use Linux, and I hope someday you get what you deserve.
I stumbled on this and was happily amazed at the number of comments.. some very hot, on this very interesting idea.
Go Linux.
I wanted to like it, really. I enjoy many free programs and I donate to the cause, but as a user not a programmer, Linux doesn’t work for me. Without a doubt this is why it is not more popular.
I’m a psychologist and a linux user to. An for my point of view linux doesn’t spread not for been free. It’s because it’s diferent. There are no popular, rich or famous people using it. People it’s afraid of been diferent. Of been the only one…
About your idea of paying a little amount like 10 dolars it’s not related with the spirit of linux. In my case I can’t afort it. I can pay it. I’m in another country and the change of my money to dolars it’s realy expensive.
I have a macbook with which i can choose to boot up with either Linux or OS X. Also, i have Virtual PC which means i can use my mac to run Vista. I have spent time using all 3, and cant help but going to OS X to do most things. I now just use the other OS’s to play around with every so often.
Linux has its eye candy, but a lot of it is taken from OS X ideas anyway. Vista is completely useless to me, except for the one or two games I can play using it. OS X has games too though. like Halo. Jeez im addicted to that game. Also, OS X is really user friendly, with not much that can go wrong. Ever seen a OS X computer freeze or crash? I dont think so. It doesnt need virus protection, its fast, it looks good and it has versions of most windows programmes plus its own.
so yeah, i think OS X has most of the best things about linux without most of its bad points. The only thing is it has a bit less ability for customisation. windows is just a virus ridden, bug laden disaster thanks to the introduction of vista.
and finally, yeah, your idea seems kinda right… but there is also the idea that linux is only for computer gods and elite hackers.
tell your friend to shell out some extra $$$ for OS X, cause obviously that means it will have a lot of value to him?
Wait, Windows is NOT free????
Well in my country we just use pirated ones. I’ve seen a real one once though. So that should make a lot of people here use linux since they are both equally free (kind of). Or maybe it’s the fact that windows ain’t free makes us want it since we then know we are using for free something other people pay for.
Um…no.
Linux isn’t popular because no one really
a) Ports or codes good games for it and then markets the poop out of them.
b) It is perceived as a “foreign” OS, out of the mainstream. It’s not status-quo so it doesn’t get the attention it deserves.
c) It’s too diversified. Too many brands/builds of Linux makes it unstable in the minds of many consumers. If there was a unified version (which there hopefully finally is in Ubuntu), then it may become more popular among “regular folks.”
d) It’s “geeky.” Most people don’t want to learn how to tweak their GUI using AfterStep or Gmone, code in Pearl or Python or make a killer server. They want a unit which they can get on the internet with, send e-mail and do menial tasks, and be assured that this will be interchangeable with everyone else’s equipment. People don’t know that the latter is already true (most of the time) so they ignore Linux.
e) On that last point, people see this weird looking thing that doesn’t look like Mac, doesn’t look like Windows and they think “It’s not going to work with everyone else’s stuff. I’m not going to be able to send my Mom or Sister anything or use it for work because we/they have Mac/Windows. Yes, they are uninformed, but THIS IS THE POINT.
Cost doesn’t really factor into any of this. I can say that this is true because people LOVE free. People stand in line and basically pay for free stuff with lost time standing in line for free stuff. People will take more risks for free stuff. People spend money for “free stuff!” “Free” doesn’t necessarily equal “devalued.”
Your logic indeed makes sense in a way. Great writing btw.
But I think the main reason why Linux isn’t a mainstream OS (yet) is the marketing. Microsoft and Apple spent millions of dollars on marketing: commercials, launch events, … People simply don’t know Linux.
Another reason is, as you already mentions above, piracy. Because piracy isn’t only killing the commercial software market but also the open source software market. Most pirates download illegal software because they want their software to be free. That makes them potential open source/free software-users.
u no…
u can get linux on a flash drive
so u can hav ur windows, mac, n linux all in 1…
get a mac(leopard) which has the xp paralel, download vista on it, n hav linux on a flash drive…
prety much 4 os’s on 1 computer…
but ur comp might b slow if it aint good enugh
sadly is true… great post!
This “article” is so daft and misses the point so comprehensively, I had to answer:
http://www.zen159501.zen.co.uk/journal/2008/03/index.html
The only point is because it’s FREE!
You know, as in freedom.
Linux doesn’t spread because Windows got rid of the command line.
And that’s it.
I like Linux but I’m still teaching some users to use the Internets Explorer properly. How will they understand ‘sudo’, ‘apt-get’, etc?
It might not be the cost at all. In short, people could be afraid that if they make a switch to a new OS they could break their computer.
Many people have computers that they have had for several years. People are most likely worried that if they install a new OS, all their favorite programs,games, music, etc. might not work or they can lose files.
People store so much on their computers that they don’t want any perceived risk of losing their files, causing the computer to slow down, or having it stop working completely, and dread the idea of suddenly not understanding their computer.
It’s too bad. i am a sad Windows user, merely because most of the software out there is designed for Windows. so much of me wants to switch, i even have a virtual machine running Ubuntu. It is so much better than windows. what might help, would be having a company such as dell, or compaq or HP distributing their computer with various forms of Linux pre-installed. that would increase its popularity among people, because most Windows-users i know are just to lazy to switch over. i do promote the usage of more efficient/better OS’s, such as using XP over Vista. If only Linux had more outreach.
windows user here..
i use windows coz its free too with piracy but fact is software i use dont work on linux period.
openSUSE, former Ubuntu), former XP, and Vista user here
lol.
Anyway, I agree with your logic but there’s another important factor in this.
Apple PCs are more expensive than those of other manufacturers (HP, Dell, etc.). Take a look at an Apple’s specs, and go on another manufacturer’s website and try to customize one with closely similar specs. You’ll end up with something worth less than the Mac.
Yet, as you said, Mac is way behind Windows. The logic doesn’t work.
Factor in the pre-installed reasoning, and they’re still way behind than where they should be.
The factor I’m talking about is people just don’t care. What they have works, and they haven’t felt the need for anything better. So why go through the hassle? A person has a cellphone. Unless they have a built interest in cellphones, they wont go for the better one – be it more expensive or free.
I do agree that more expensive is usually more attractive.
But also, it depends on the source of information. If a close friend tells you they can give you a discount on something – either cheap or expensive, you go for it. If you get a stranger telling you the same thing, you’ll think: what’s the catch?
Samething with Linux. If someone looking for a switch of OS hears about Linux from a friend, they’ll go for it. That’s why the common convincing of people by Linux Devs like Ubuntu online isn’t working.
Its not because its free, I have heard this so many times its not funny, the reason is that you have to know what your doing to use linux, you cant just download software and install it, you cant just go online and ask for help on a subject as I have done millions of times to only find there are a thousand and one ways to fix a problem that none of the answers actually fix, linux can be extreamly frustrating for the average user and i should know, I work in it support. when linux becomes as user friendly as windows or mac os then people will flock to it in droves
OSX is actually the best debian linux implementation with Ubuntu a good second. Windowzz is out!
I would never use microsoft products to store data or as server if I were to start a company. But I would have windows and microsoft apps at the workstations, as it would require less time to educate the employees.
And an other thing. Most people who use internet also use linux. 90+% of all web servers are linux. And apache(server software) is FOSS. It feels natural to use linux as desktop.
I want to propose a solution to all the ‘hard to use linux bs’; READ THE MANUAL! Almost every FOSS come with a neat README file(that’s READ ME, with big letters so you can find it) which mean you should read that file. It will explain all the ./configure, make install procedure. But I am a nerd and I guess taking instructions are for nerds.
Last of all. Canonical is the last I would contact for help with Ubuntu problems. If you google ubuntu + problem you’ll end up in the amazingly well organized forum which holds the answer for most of the common problems.
Sorry if I didn’t keep a red thread through out my text, but after reading all the entries I couldn’t.
Good experiment!
Desktop tip for gnome users(http://www.gnome-look.org)
GNOME is slow, the fonts suck, and the GUI for changing desktop settings is awful. How hard is it to put in a GUI everything that xorg.conf does?
Two conflicting versions of rpm-libs got installed; that took a while to figure out.
The preinstalled version of Java (in Fedora, at least) SUCKS ASS, and you have to delete it before putting on the real Sun Java for Linux.
If you set your xorg.conf to invalid values, you can get a blank screen that you won’t be able to escape, no matter how many times you reboot and what you try to do on them. (Can’t get to a working terminal in Linux, WTF?!) This abruptly ended my foray into Linux. Maybe I’ll try Ubuntu when I’m feeling masochistic.
Windows has a lot of problems, indeed, and Vista is a hideous abomination that I shall never install. But XP is not nearly as bad as Fedora.
Stop fellating yourselves and make an OS that people can actually use, and people might actually want to use it.
I read through a lot of posts here (but not all of them), so if anyone mentioned this then I agree with you. The MAIN reason for slow adoption of Linux on the desktop is not money. It is this:
CHANGE
Generally, the human race does not like change. People stick with what they are familiar with – and unfortunately, that is Windows.
Other secondary reasons are:
- The lack of support from friends, coworkers, etc… Most people cannot call their neighbor, friend, etc… and say “How do I install this program or that on my Linux box”?
- The corporate world cannot control (at least for now) the core Linux product. Their is a lack of financial incentive. So their is little active promotion from companies to the end-users to “use Linux instead”.
To the average user, Linux is simply “different”.
The good news is this: I believe this will all change. The strides made by the Linux and Open Source communities has been phenomenal. It will only get better. Corporations have adapted for servers, trickled distribution on the desktop, mobile devices, etc… Linux offers something much greater than Windows does that can nudge people to change – FREEDOM.
As Linux continues to progress, I believe that Windows will have a limited role in the future. This will not happen overnight. But I believe Windows will be Open Source within 5 years, and Linux will have 50% of market within 10 years. The Linux “wave” has just begun.
very nice article.
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
{ 1 trackback }