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.""

Comments

Hmmm...

[ivan256]

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...

They make a good point

[Mwongozi]

Linux is difficult to configure, but that's why companies like SuSE and Mandrake produce distributions that are bundled with special graphical widgets to do all that configuration for you. At least with Linux you get the choice.

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.

Re:They make a good point

[don_carnage]

It's the little things, really. I use Windows at work and at home (for now, soon to be Debian) but recently set up a Red Hat box so that I could play around with a Linux CounterStrike server. While doing some mundane tasks in KDE, I realized that a lot of the "little things" that I have become accustomed to while running Windows weren't present.

For example, a Yes/No dialog appeared on the screen so I naturally hit "Y" on the keyboard instead of clicking the button. It didn't work. I also found myself trying to hit ALT-F4 to close the current window...it didn't work either.

Another example: I right-clicked on the desktop expecting to be able to change my screen resolution, but couldn't find the tool to do it. Actually, I hunted for about 1/2 hour before deciding I'd just deal with the current resolution.

My point is that Linux is a very strong operating system and far more flexible than any Windows product that I've used. However, minor GUI inconvienences can steer people away who don't want to have to re-learn everything that has been burned into their minds for so many years.

Re:They make a good point

[sketerpot]

I can imagine what the article would be like if everyone learned Linux and Windows was in the newcomer position.

Why Windows is a hard sell

Windows is an operating system and has plenty of software, but can it really measure up to the power of Linux? Its frequent errors and bugs are enough to annoy anyone, and its GUI doesn't even support virtual desktops. It has some usability advantages, such as a single widget set, but these are outweighed by its tendency to hide the option you're looking for in layers of user obsequiousness.
...
Perhaps Windows shouldn't be regarded as an OS at all, but more of a multiplayer game with a number of naiive players. You can lose yourself for hours, looking for the proper driver configuration for some software it doesn't support. It's great fun if you like that sort of thing. But if you need to produce a good document, you'ss probably be able to do it better and more easily on Linux with a good tool made for the job.

Re:The quote is a valid quote

[squaretorus]

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!

Glaring factual flaw in article

[kraaze2]

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.

Be realistic

[Ars-Fartsica]

Bullshit. Anybody who creates documents/reports for a living wants the computer to do all of the work of formatting/typesetting for them. Unix has ALWAYS shined at this (troff, nroff, LaTeX, etc.)

Find 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.

Why I Push Windows

[Merry_B.Buck]

Good article, especially the comments about the cost of support staff for Linux. I doubt the "core problem with Linux is that you've got to work hard to connect USB drivers", though.

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 --

• It's easier to offload Windows work to others because there are more people capable of doing basic tasks on Windows than can do it in Linux.
• Windows offers better profit margins...It's easier for me to mark up $1000 software by 10% than it is for me to charge a $100 "price" for free software.
• There's more training available for Windows tools than Linux stuff. Linux is mostly learn-as-you-go or learn-from-a-friend. I hate it, but local training companies are bursting with classes, books, and testing for MS stuff.
• It's what my customers ask for. People start conversations with me all the time by asking, "Can you handle this Windows issue..." I almost never hear "Can you help me with this Linux problem..." (possibly because, as the article points out, Linux users aren't as technically challenged as MS users.)

I still prefer Linux for *my* stuff -- I just like Windows for *other people's* stuff.

The problem with windows...

[gillbates]

"The core problem with Linux is that you've got to work hard to connect USB drivers; really hard to find converters and filters to allow you to read and produce files in Microsoft Office format; and you'll struggle to find a Linux office package with anything like the quality of Office XP."

should be rewritten to say:

"The core problem with Windows is that you've got to work hard to find stable USB drivers, you've got to work really hard to save files in a machine and OS independent format, and you'll struggle to find development tools with anything near the quality of the Linux offerings."

Or perhaps even:

"The core problem with Linux is that you've got to work hard to execute viruses; really hard to execute Microsoft Word and Outlook viruses; and you'll struggle to find a Linux security hole as large and far-reaching as the ones installed by Office XP."

Seriously, why even print such nonsense? Does it even matter what this guy thinks of Linux? The reason why Linux doesn't sell well is because the majority of home PC buyers buy computing appliances; they buy a machine for its entertainment value, not because it's reliable or secure. If anything, the PC market and popularity of Windows has shown:

• PC buyers don't care about reliability or security.
• PC buyers are incapable of discerning between a fast machine and merely one that boasts big numbers ("It's got 20 GB! It's gotta be faster than my 10 GB!")
• Functionality is last on the list of features that PC buyers want - they want something that will support the "latest" trends in software and hardware, whatever that may be. PC buyers don't care about the feature set of a PC, so long as it looks "new and exciting."

Linux Needs Design

[darkov]

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.

Uh, they missed the point...

[joebp]

Microsoft is not the only operating system, says Andrew Thomas; Linux has comparable programs and it's free. So why does nobody offer it on PCs?

Uh, because Microsoft has been restricting and punishing OEM's who install or dual-boot it on their retail machines?

They're somewhat correct...

[linuxrunner]

Yes, it's a newbie-ish article concerning Linux, but do you remember the first time you ever ran linux?

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 ./"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 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.

Its not the OS -- its the application

[garoush]

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.