Slashdot Mirror
Breaking Down Barriers to Linux Desktop Adoption
Jane Walker writes to tell us that in a recent interview with SearchOpenSource.com Jono Bacon takes a look at why some of the reasons people give for not switching to Linux might not stand up under closer scrutiny. From the article: "For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features."
People reject OpenOffice and reject even Mac, because they don't know any different. They have been "programmed" to use Microsoft Windows, therefore, until they are told different, they will continue to use Microsoft Windows.
We can sit around all we want and say stuff like "when people get tired of (malware|viruses|spyware|whateverelse)" they will switch to (Linux|Mac).
It's just not true. People will switch when they are told to. Nothing else. Until Companies FORCE people to switch, there will be no switching.
when windows 3.1 was new, there was a saying that was going around. What sells windows? Three things; applications, applications, applications.
It's harder to go out on a limb and go open source if you are the person making decisions.
The real reason why the general public isn't moving to Linux is simple: Nobody wants Linux.
Now before you string me up by my pinky toes, listen to me for a moment. Consumers don't purchase something they don't want or need. If you go into the store and see a flashlight, you won't pick it up unless you have no flashlight and absolutely NEED one. And even then you'll probably look for the cheapest one that meets your needs. One of those needs may be familiarity. If Brand Y is cheaper than Brand X, but you can't figure out how to turn it on without a manual, you're going to purchase Brand X.
Now consider for a moment that you're walking by the flashlights and see one that loudly proclaims "No Batteries needed!", "Super Bright Halogen Performance", "Tiny, Palm fitting size!", and "Laser Guided Beam!" Suddenly that flashlight is appealing to your baser instinct of "cool". Even if you don't need a flashlight at the moment, you're going to pick it up, look it over, and perhaps even convince yourself that you need a new flashlight. Then you'll get it home and read the manual to figure out how to turn the blasted thing on. You're then going to share your experience with your friends and family who may catch your enthusiasm and grab one of the new flashlights next time they're in the market. (Consider the fact that ThinkGeek has made an entire market out of "cool" objects that you don't need.)
Linux appeals to techies who want to try a new OS, but it doesn't universally impress people as being "so cool they need it". Ergo, they don't need it, so they don't get it. (It's really a matter of they don't *want* it, but they think in terms of needs.)
The same thing happened to Microsoft when they tried to get people to move to Windows. No one wanted the Microsoft Kool-aid. DOS worked just fine, and no one was going to switch to windows unless they had applications that required it to run. (And they usually grumbled about that.)
Enter Windows 95. Microsoft convinced the public at large that Windows 95 was SO important, that thousands of customers who didn't even have computers lined up to purchase this wonder-product. Sure, they were disappointed when they realized they needed a computer, but the millions of others who already had one, happily installed Windows. (Some even purchased expensive memory or hard drive upgrades just to run Windows 95.) Whether Win95 lived up to the hype or not is a different matter, but consumers were enamored with exploring the new features in this OS. (Almost) All of their old programs ran, and they could run these snazzy new Win95 apps that looked nothing like those ugly old Win3.1 apps. It was a revolution!
So what does Linux give consumers to make them want it? Cool features that Windows doesn't have? Not really. (At least, none that the consumer sees.) Pretty graphics? Nope. Linux lags behind, often showing ugly text screens. How about "killer apps" that exist nowhere else? Nope. Either they're ported to Windows, or they're just a rip-off of something consumers already have. So what does Linux have that makes the average consumer WANT it?
Absolutely nothing.
That's why I suggested technology to take Linux far out into the lead. If Linux can get there before Microsoft and Apple, it might actually have something to offer consumers that would make them want it. Otherwise it will continue to lag behind as the red-haired step child of the Desktop world.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade