Slashdot Mirror
Why Free Software is a Hard Sell
jeffro writes "Dont know if this has been submitted yet, but the Independent news UK has a rather newbiesh article on the ups and down of Linux software as a free alternative to Windows.
"Perhaps Linux shouldn't be regarded as an operating system at all, but more as a sophisticated multi-player game with a large number of enthusiastic players. You can lose yourself in Linux for hours, tweaking here, updating there. It's great fun if you like that sort of thing. But if you need to produce a document, spreadsheet or presentation, you're still likely to be able to do it faster and better by sticking with the Microsoft devil you know.""
A prime ingredient of "selling" software is the price. How can you sell something that's free?
And if you've never touched a computer before, you can probably write that document faster on a piece of paper. Same old story about people not wanting a new learning curve, just written with different words...
At the end of the day, it comes down to what you're used to, really. If you've never used any OS before, you could probably learn Mandrake 8.1 just as fast as Windows XP. If you're used to Windows, Linux is obviously going to seem more difficult. And vice versa.
While Linux is gradually making in-roads on the desktop, that is not were the present strength lies. It is best suited in the server arena, where spiffy user interfaces and good spreadsheet programs mean much less than stability, speed and ease of remote administration.
The article looks to be oriented from the desktop user's perspective, where it's the applications that matter, not the OS.
If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
99% of people using Excel don't kow that if you type jan in one cell, and feb in the next, you can drag out the rest of the year.
In fact, most of them don't know you call those little boxes CELLS!
It is those users, not us, that Linux WP and SS need to cater more for - because it is those users that make up the majority of users. Offer a business with a hundred terminals a free alternative to Word and Excel (especially over the coming year when the pressure to go XP mounts) and your offering a HUGE saving.
Most users simply use excel as a way to format text. Its amazing. But its true!
One flaw in that article that jumped right out at me is the claim that Intel has shown no software support for Linux.
Intel has put software support behind Linux where it counts: device drivers.
For most Linux device drivers, I scour the web or my distribution media for third-party written drivers. When I need Intel networking or graphics drivers for Linux, I go to support.intel.com.
What's with the Mods? Windows HAS an OS, but it packaged with a window manager, a browser, and about a million other software tools that other people /could/ be writing better versions of for a living. So I don't think it's quite trollish (although off-topic, I'll admit ;) to suggest that Windows isn't really an OS, if the authors of the article are so keen on suggesting (somewhat ironically) that Linux shouldn't be considered an OS.
"Old man yells at systemd"
This article is pretty much a glorified troll, complete with reasonably-stated FUD. You can tell the difference though because you get that weird gut feeling that something is wrong. Let's analyze just the quote:
Wow, this is a good one. Linux isn't really an OS---just a game. Read: it may be good for entertainment value, but is not something a business would use. This sounds like something out of a Microsoft spin factory.
Read: it takes forever to configure the thing, it's not just point and click.
Read: I'm too dumb to figure out StarOffice, because it doesn't say "Microsoft" on the side of the box. (Or one of the countless alternatives. I'm preaching to the choir here, of course, and you know what's out there already.)
Just a product of your typical FUD factory. Some of these might have been valid concerns 5-10 years ago, but come on. Quit trolling. Even the "popular" news rags don't spout this stuff anymore.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
...isnt selling as well as expected either. Average users, unlike corporations arent as willing or likely to change ANYTHING, be it over to Linux, or "up" to XP.
The article was on MSNBC, but has mysteriously vanished...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I run Linux (Mandrake) and have run RedHat, Slackware and other variants in the past. I also run Windows, Solaris, etc.
This article has a point - my parents can't use Linux. And I don't have the time to support them, even if I wanted to.
It's just like cars- people used to look and be afraid of those "new-fangled" beasts. And at first they were a pain. You had to hand start them with a crank. They didn't have windshields, so you had to wear goggles and get dirty. Then, the innovation started- windshields, steering wheels (instead of yokes), electric starters, automatic transmissions, a/c, power everything. Today, you can buy a car and if it's not a Yugo, it will probably run for a few hundred thousand miles. And it comes loaded with all kinds of neat toys.
Until the system [linux] can run without having to use a shell, manual tweeks, etc. it won't fly in the consumer world. Each release gets better, but it's still not there.
The other problem, as many have mentioned, is the amount of software available for Linux (and the means of installing it) is still a bit clumsy. Most [l]users want a GUI installation that does everything for them. And there isn't anything wrong with that. Does everyone who drives a car know exactly how that internal combustion (or electric) engine works? No...
-My $.02Find me three business executives who use nroff to format documents on a regular basis.
And (although they do) no business should EVER be using spreadsheets for day-to-day information gathering, storage, and retrieval
The point of the spreadsheet is data analysis and presentation.
I've sold both Windows and Linux based tools for awhile, after after a lot of soul-searching (and checkbook-balancing), I've decided I prefer selling Windows solutions. Four reasons --
I still prefer Linux for *my* stuff -- I just like Windows for *other people's* stuff.
Oh ya, that sounds great, spoken like a true techie and linux lover. However, your average person just wants to run excel, they don't want to deal with setting up all this stuff. Granted, getting star office to run isn't that bad, but if it isn't as easy as an office install then most ppl aren't willing to deal with it.
:) you *can't* have the market, it's a simple truth. Once you accept that things get much more clear.
I think this is the problem with a lot of tech ppl, you don't even *try* to think like a layman. Think, did it take you 20 minutes to set this up? Well that could take a casual user several hours, simple solutions for you are not so simple for the audience you are trying to capture.
Untill hardware is plug 'n play and the software is click 'nstall (I like that one
mkay?
http://monkeyserver.com --- weeeeee
You can lose yourself in Linux for hours, tweaking here, updating there. It's great fun if you like that sort of thing. But if you need to produce a document, spreadsheet or presentation
Don't get me started.
No one force you to tweak it if you don't want to. There's always stable version of Linux for production use. The fact that people don't like doing document, spreadsheet or presentation in Linux is the reluctance to learn different ways of doing same things. A Mac user wouldn't like do that in Windows, for example. Your arguement is very misleading.
I must admit MS offers best of the line office suite, but it doesn't mean other office suite is too inferior in comparison.
If you say it's a massive multi-players game, many people are doing serious game playing here.
Sometime I really feel like there's a need to mod some posters as troll or flamebait.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Linux is missing an important element compared to other OSes: Design. It hasn't got a coherent set of features that are based on a sober evulation of the average user's needs. It has various packages that do this very well for specific solutions, but if you're going to write a user OS, you need careful design. And this is a big task, mainly becuase it requires standardisation of (programming, user) interfaces and behaviour across all aspects of the OS. Users need consistancy and predictability and Linux just dosn't have it. It does have an enormous, possibly endless, feature set, but many of those features are inaccessible to anyone who isn't interested in fiddling endlessly.
And what underlies this is the programmer mentalilty. Most free software is designed by programmers who, on the whole, have little empathy for the average user. They are technology focused. This may be good for the technology, but not good for the user.
The Linux development community should focus on developing and sticking to some technical design standards and working (and innovating) within those contraints. This may provide a platform for someone to fairly easily come up with a really easy to use system.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
Yes, it's a newbie-ish article concerning Linux, but do you remember the first time you ever ran linux?
./"file" everytime to get it running. yes I know this does work, but very few default this way without having to change them. Again, we want to make it easy for newbies.....
I definately do... I took me three days to figure out that I needed to type "startx" to get the desktop up.....
Hey, it was all new to me, I definately had no clue where to start or what commands to use. Nevermind write and print a text file or spread sheet. And this is what the article refers to.
You initally need to spend time playing with it, and learning the system before you can do what most people naturally do with Windows.
IMHO, I believe that Linux needs high consumer use-ability for it to really get into mainstream.
First off, Linux needs a few windowish things to happen.
One
First boot always goes to the desktop... (allow logging in and command line access to be optional for users concerned about security or command line freaks like me). This will give Windows users a nice warm fuzzy feeling at first.
Second
Allow double clicking to execute files in desktop mode. Therefore the user does not have to open up the command line and type
I feel that by making Linux extrmemly easy for new people, many will flock. By allowing users to take to "newbie" usability features away, people like us will still be happy.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
When I went from MAC to PC about 100 years ago the one thing I miss most was the close all windows keystroke. IIRC crtl-shift-w ? Anyway MS bugging me when I delete a file is about as annoying as...well its all offtopic anyway. This story wsa just another blood boiler for linux preachers/users/wanna-be-users-stuck-in-a-MS-only- shop
"Get them before they get....
as a java professional i chuckle when I read that kind of story...
it is obvious that linux + java is the "tip of the sword" against XP dominance on the server.
You kids still wonder why you are fighting the wrong war ? it's like netscape vs microsoft and all the press was focusing on the *browser*, while apache was taking over the server side. GAME OVER, who gives a flying FUCK that IE owns the desktop, the server side is where the game is at and that is what real-men are fighting on these days.
Focus on the strenght, drop the kiddy idealism, make the vision work on the server and Open Source software will become the defacto monopoly.
marcf
The real mnf999 always posts as anonymous coward
Ah, but the validity of that argument depends entirely on your perspective. I could just as easily say "Linux HAS an OS, but it is packaged with network stacks, file systems, and lots of other software that could be modularized and rewritten."
It all depends on what your exact definition of OS is. Including the window manager in the OS is not more or less "correct" in an absolute sense than including the network stack, for example. Can you tell I'm from the microkernel camp?
The is one of the big holes in OSS or community based development. Apple, IBM, MS have spent billions on human Interface research to make computers easier to use. The don't let engineers alone design products because they don't understand was users really want and need. They require input and review by Marketing and users testing. Apple and MS both have lab testing users on interfaces, documentation, and anything else the typical user has to react with. This research is not cheap or even easy to do. You can't just look at Mac or Window interface similate it and say you're as easy to use. Plus IBM, Apple, and MS all have published Human Interface standards developers follow. Why because consistency makes using the platform and all the app's easy to learn and use. This doesn't fly in the OSS world everyone has a different idea of how things should be done, in this case that is a bad thing. This is why you need a central body setting requiements. this is why even if Linix is technically better, users continue to use Mac and Windows, because its easier to use in the long run. This is why Mac OS X is the best thing to happen in years. They taken as great OSS OS and put a well know interface on it. They have made Unix useable to the typical user.
During the last year or so there's been alot of focus on Linux making it as a desktop OS. I use Linux, and nothing but Linux, on all my desktop machines, both at home and at work, and have had no larger problems doing so.
;)) knows just what a beautiful ballet of smaller programs Linux actully is. And each of these small programs has a vast range of configuration options, enabling a skilled user to tweak the system into working excactly as he/she wants. This is why I love Linux, and this is also why i hate Windows.
The only big problem with using Linux on the desktop is the inability to handle Microsoft Office files 100% correctly. But what people seem to forget is that this is not a shortcoming of any of the Linux office suites, the problem lies with Microsoft's closed file formats. If Microsoft had released the specs to their file formats we would have Linux support for them in no time.
This, however, is not the issue I'm concerned with. See, I like Linux - in fact, I absolutely love it. And the reason for this is that it's not dumbed-down so that even the most ignorant user can use it. This is because Linux is an OS for computers, not people. Most software is created so that programs can easily exchange data and communicate effortlessly - and to do this the software has to play by computer rules. This is also what makes Linux so powerful and beautiful. Anyone who has set up a linux system from scratch (for example by checking out www.linuxfromscratch.org
The problem with turning Linux is a desktop OS is that for it to be successful the system has to be dumbed down so even my grandma can use it without any problems. And when doing this I fear that Linux will no longer be Linux - when normal users start migrating to Linux, they will increasingly request features which will make data formats and communication protocols much more complex, and thereby also more messy (see my comment on html for examples of this). This will, in turn, mean that when writing desktop-software for Linux one will need to support these bloated standards, and your software will in turn get bloated. And when the standards get bloated enough, they will mean that only large development teams have the resources to develop new applications - which means that corporations will take over the desktop, further enhancing it's "user-friendliness" with even more complex standards. In the end, the Linux desktop OS will become one huge, monolithic system just as Windows is today, and not leave any room for newcomers.
Long before this has happened I'll probably have left Linux behind, focusing on some other operating system which has the flexibility I seek. Then this will probably happen again, and again, and again.
Why do Linux have to become more user-friendly? Why do we have to have a Linux-box in every office, and even have our moms running it? I like Linux just the way it is; a powerful and flexible OS for users who actually knows what they're doing, and desire more from a computer than a spreadsheet editor and word-processor. I agree fully that we should get more people running Linux, because it is a truly great OS, but I don't think we should transform it into what Windows is today. Instead of bringing Linux to the normal lusers, we should focus our efforts on having fairly computer literate people give Linux a try.
Those who remember the early days of DOS will recall Lotus 123.
Now when MS-DOS came out with the IBM PC, IBM did not sell MS-DOS nor did MS sell MS-DOS -- instead all that you saw on TV adds was the APPLICATIONS that came with the PC.
So if we want to get Linux on desktop, into corporations and homes, we need to find a "killer-app" and promote THAT and I belive Linus is working on such a project.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
Despite all the linux hype, it is still harder to install, maintain, and use than windows is.
;)
I'd disagree.
On the installation front, remember that most users don't ever install Windows. It's installed for them by the OEM. So they never touch the installer. You and me, on the other hand, have been through the installer a few times, I'm sure.
Ease of installation is a tough concept, because it can mean a lot of things. Windows doesn't care what you have on your disk, whether you're already dual-booting, or whether you really want to install all of the crap they want you to. They simply wipe out the files on your disk (whether you want to or not), overwrite your MBR (again, you have no choice in the matter - it's MS's way or the highway), and fills your disk with bunches of useless tools that you won't ever use, but that MS *wants* you to use (ex: all of the damn MSN adware in XP - ick!)
Mandrake, on the other hand, has a damn-near-perfect installer. It asks you what YOU want to do, while suggesting somewhat reasonable defaults. It doesn't do much without asking first, and never assumes that it knows better than you do.
Debian's installer is a bit old-fashioned, but once you know your way around it, it's not as bad as everyone says it is. There's a lot of room for improvement though.
Now, if you're not actually talking about ease of installation, but about hardware recognition - you're right - linux is a bit behind Windows in that area. BUT it is getting better. RedHat 7.2 is able to correctly identify all the hardware in my VAIO F650 laptop - that's a signifigant improvement! Remember that a lot of manufacturers only release drivers for Windows - so linux users generally have to wait until the hardware is reverse-engineered, or the company gets around to releasing potentially buggy drivers. It's not the fault of the OS, although many people place the blame there.
Maintenance is another issue. I've never seen anything on Windows that can even compete with Debian's apt. Want program X? apt-get install program-x, and you're done!
RedHat and Mandrake have similar (but IMHO lesser) tools to deal with their RPM based setups (and yes, I know that apt has been ported to RPM-based distros - it's not in widespread use over there though).
Windows has "Windows Update" for the OS itself, and then various other update channels for other pieces of software. Of course, the actual information that you get through Windows Update is sketchy at best, and often there are undocumented "updates" to programs you might use all the time, that drastically change functionality.
On the security side of maintenance, MS has long been a firm believer in "Security by Obscurity" - basically they don't want people to tell anyone but them about security issues with their software, believeing that if the knowledge of the hole isn't widespread, that it won't be a problem. Yeah, right. When they do release a public patch for a security hole, it's often because a small hole they figured noone would ever exploit has now been exploited on a grand scale by some new email virus. Let's not get into the auto-execution of attachments or ability to masquerade a VBS as another type of file...
Linux users, by and large, are very open about any security flaws found in their software. When they are found, they are generally patched very quickly - often before an exploit reaches the epic proportions of certain exploits on the Windows side. That's not to say there aren't occurances of widespread worms and viruses on the Linux side of things - but they're fewer and further between than Windows ones. Probably at least partially because Linux users tend to be a bit more security concious than your average Windows user...but I won't get into that
As for usability - it's all about familiarity. Windows *seems* easier, because people have grown accustomed to it - not because it actually *is* any easier. I'd bet that an avid user of both OS's could sit down with a completely new user (who has never operated Windows or *nix before, but is willing to learn) under either OS and make that person equally proficient. Why? Because they have no ingrown habits to unlearn.
Converts from Windows to *nix-based OS's always say at the outset that *nix is "Hard to use" - when really what they mean is that *nix is "different from what they're used to". I bet the same could be said for a long-time *nix user that touches Windows for the first time.
Your second paragraph is all about drivers. You want more hardware supported under linux? Tell that to the manufacturers of the hardware. Don't blame the OS. Tell the GPL zealots to stop minding proprietary kernel modules quite so much - and at least allow hardware manufacturers to distribute a loadable module for their hardware. Tell the hardware companies that you use Linux and that you would *like* to use their hardware, but can't because they only release drivers for MS and Apple OS's. Tell them that you have friends who are in the same situation. You'd like to buy their stuff and give them money - but you don't want to have to also give money to MS for that ability. If enough of us speak, some of them will listen. If some of them embrace the spirit of OSS and opensource their driver modules, even better - but let's at least let them get the support in there.
Your last paragraph is a quandry - you *can* do all the things you can do under Windows - you just have to go about them in different ways. For example, you can't play most Quicktime movies - as the codec (Sorenson) that is used is proprietary, and the company that owns it will not allow linux-based players to use it without cost. Under Windows, Apple eats that cost, and releases a free player. They don't release that player for Linux, so either you have to eat the cost yourself and develop a player, or you have to go to Apple and tell them to release their player for Linux.
There are lots of other examples that work the same way. Some company has a proprietary widget - one that another company uses. The second company eats the cost of the wiget and releases a free player, but charges for the creation software. If they don't release their free player under your OS of choice, you're SOL. That's not the OS's fault - but that's where the blame is being laid.
I think people need ot be better educated about where the real problems lie - rather than just blaming everything on the OS.
No, I'm telling you that it's easier to learn and remember that to change anything you right click on it and choose Properties than it is to discover, learn and remember that to change one thing is CTRL-ALT-BACKSLASH whereas to change another thing is ESC ESC ] and to change another ...
It's even worse if one has to go looking for documentation first. Just:
"if you want to change something you right click on it and choose Properties"
you learn once, and then you can work everything.
Here's a scenario: You are a system integrator. You sell support contracts and are responsible to make sure that your clients' networks are running reliably, day-in and day-out. If something goes seriously wrong, you are there, and much of your labor is delivered at 100% loss.
You want to set something up that just WORKS, day in and day out - 'cause then you get the support checks and no hassles, and pure profit.
You don't sell computers, you don't sell networking, you don't sell software. You sell the whole banana, essentially an out-sourced tech department.
In that environment, are you going to tell me that Windows is your best bet?
Every morning, I get up, and read a few emails that give me a summary of the health and status of my clients' (Linux based) networks.
They work for long periods of time with NO ATTENTION AT ALL from me other than reading these summary emails. Backups are done automatically, off-site. (thank scp!) Their web sites and applications work smoothly (thanks Apache!), they get their email (thanks sendmail!) and they can access their files and applications from any of their Windows-based clients, (thanks samba!) and have clean, secure, reliable access to the Internet. (thanks ipchains!)
By moving all the applications to the server, I don't care if the customer chooses Windows, Mac, Linux, BeOS, whatever clients, nor is it a big thing if it crashes. (Pull out the restore CD, put it in the drive, re-boot the computer..)
The important thing is: They all know that their business runs on Linux, depends on Linux, and they know that they are free to confidently run their business because of me and my good friend, Linux.
And they are happy to cut me that check every month because of it.
Would I want it any other way?
NO WAY!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
True enough! Neither is a CD with a distribution on it. Neither is a broadband connection to download a distro without giving the developers a little something for their trouble.
It's all Hood
That's because she's dragging you to a store for people who want to look like (maybe "feel like" would be more appropriate) they are concerned about the environment, health concious, etc. (Or, if you prefer: "tree-hugging-commie-liberal-pussies")
Look in the phone book under "Food Co-Op's" and you'll find a "natural foods" store where the food is real, where the slick suited marketers fear to venture, where the prices are half, and where the closeest thing to an SUV in the parking lot is the '79 International Harvester Scout which looks like it's been to Peru and back primarily because it has.
What was that? You want I should get back on topic? Well, alright...
So much of the "business world" which Linux is accused of being unable to conquor is focused on selling. But, like in the Co-Op story above, there is much of this world where the act of "selling" is an unwanted intrusion. I'd list things like email (as opposed to SPAM), Christmas (as opposed to Christmas Shopping) as among that set. Linux was released to the free software movement because, acording it Linus, he didn't care about "selling" anyone on Linux.
To anyone trying in the business of selling, the whole concept of trying to sell free software is as much an enigma as trying to conceptualize the "weight" of the color blue.
So much of the world makes it's choice of what to buy based on what it is sold. I'm guilty. Business know this, and focus a great deal of effort on convincing people to buy what they otherwise wouldn't. That's what marketers do.
The fact that Linux isn't marketed, (at least not very well) is one of the reasons I use it. When I'm using my computer, I want to select the tool based on what's going to work best for me, not on what's going to be most profitable for some software development company. In some cases, I'd go so far as to say that the act of marketing a product should be read as an admission that the product is inferior. In any case, it's a sign of a company spending less money on development than they could have (or charging more for the product than they have to) to cover the marketing costs.
<obligatory anti-M$ rant>
It's also why I get concerned about the Microsoft Monopoly. Here we have a case where not only is the company marketing their wares to me, (through all the traditional, and in some cases illegal, marketing techniques) they're using their operating system to market their wares to me (through network effects, proprietary file formats, and bundling).
</obligatory anti-M$ rant>
To anyone who is using Linux because it's "cool", your presence is welcome; feel free to stick around for as long as you remain interested. And when you choose to move on to some other "cool" thing, you'll be missed, but your departure won't be unexpected. There are others of us who use Linux because we can, or maybe because we can't help ourselves. We will still be here using and developing Linux, in spite of what the glossy magazines say. And it's this core which Microsoft (rightly, IMHO) brands as a cancer which will (long term eventually) destroy the software (sales) industry.
Both Steve Balmer and Richard Stallman understand this; they see eye-to-eye from different sides of the window.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Something that Linux developers, like most developers, are very bad at is understanding a customer base.
Linux is very good in the server and network world because most of the developers of Linux and Linux software are themselves "customers" of that market segment. By simply developing a system to do what they want and need, they have succeeded in meeting the demands of that market.
Linux is very poor in the desktop environment because the vast majority of linux developers have no clue what a "typical user" wants or needs. They cover up this ignorance by belittling the "typical user" as being too "stupid" to really understand that Linux is so much better for them than Windows.
Until Linux developers start taking significant steps to understanding what the desktop users needs really are, Linux will be little more than an "also ran" in that category.
Moreover, until Linux meets the desktop users needs better than MS does, MS will continue to rule the roost in the business world. Cost of doing business is more than simply the cost of supporting the install base of systems. Sure, it costs more to support MS - but guess what? I, as a manager, can use anyone of a thousand local companies to outsource my desktop support to. I can leverage computer sales for breaks on training costs. And I don't have to worry about a new administrative support person not being familiar with the software environment.
I can go to any of a thousand local temp agencies to find people proficient in MS Office. Where can I find the temp staff proficient in KDE Office?
I can't.
But of course, I'm just a typical user, so I'm really just too stupid to understand how much better Linux is than Windows.
"the *USER* himself dosen't want to be responsible for learning anything"
... and in this case I completely agree with the user. Computers need to accommodate the human being, not the other way around. Sure, you and I both have learned the ins and outs of operating in a CLI environment, setting up/maintaining *nix boxes, etc., but it's ludicrous to tell a user that they must read through tons of documentation just to figure out how to get something done in Linux when they know that the same action can be accomplished in 2-3 mouse clicks under windoze, and then somehow call this "the better way?"
Yeah, you and I both understand how powerful, flexible, and useful *nix is compared to windoze, and it seems easy enough to us to administer it, but the average Joe wants nothing more than to get the job done quickly, doesn't want to have to expend a lot of mental energy on the PROCESS of getting the work done (which might be fun or interesting to some of us), but on the actual WORK.
I had the task of bringing my largely computer-illiterate father up-to-speed on both Windows and Linux at the same time. His comment to me was that it seemed that Linux (Mandrake distribution, if it matters) had a ways to go to make the user feel comfortable that they could move around and get things done in the environment, using intuition (his comment was that it seemed that most Windows applications seemed to have the same shortcuts and command accessibility, and general behavior that seemed intuitive to him). And that to do many things in Linux vs. Windows required reading through 5x the amount of documentation.
*nix zealots need to remember that to most individuals, computers are a necessary evil and NOT a lifelong interest/hobby/passion. Some people view the task of learning a new computer interface as quite daunting. The current collection of distros does very little to soften the blow, IMO. Sorry, the HOWTOs and manpages don't cut it.
It's very common for people to use the heuistic "price = value". For this and many other interesting such issues see "Influence : The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert B. Cialdini.
It is often a useful short cut. In the case of linux it doesn't work. It may be better to add a few semi-useful things and services and charge a lot of money for Linux. That way people may perceive value.