Slashdot Mirror
Why Linux Doesn't Spread - the Curse of Being Free
Vlad Dolezal tips us to a philosophical take on why Linux hasn't grown to challenge Windows as the most popular operating system. According to the author, the reason is simple; Linux is free, and humans tend not to equate free things with being valuable.
"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!"
There's a big gap in lifestyle apps. I'm talking things like photo, movie, and music managers. They either don't exist, or are much harder to use, or lack the features that really matter people. (FYI: No one gives a shit about Ogg-Vorbis support, because there's nothing out there in that format. They DO care about WindowsMedia 10 though. Stop making excuses and fix that problem.)
So in summary, if you don't have the apps I need, you're worthless to me, and Linux doesn't have the apps many people need. Also, if you require me to do any sysadmining whatsoever you've epicly failed. The total cost of ownership has just 1000%. Sucks, I know, but that's just how the world works.
You want linux to really be valuable to people, then get your fat ass of the damn blog patting yourself on the back and get to work!
Zealots twist the world to fit their beliefs and are often bemused when that world doesn't seem to fit the evidence. Here is a prime example. People acting confused wondering why it is that Linux doesn't spread faster. If you didn't live in a fantasy world it'd be so obvious why Linux didn't spread that you wouldn't need to even ask the question. But I'll just get modded down because anyone who actually points out the emperor has no clothes just ends being part of the world that gets twisted out. Linux is a piece of shit.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Windows is about clicking your mouse. Linux is more about choosing from 17 different programs that seem to do the same, bot don't really, so I have to check them all out, only to find that another program has a feature that I might need in the future, and having to live with the burden of choice, having to make that choice 37 times at least in the first few days/hours/weeks, searching for days for answers to questions such as 'how do I automatically open a file of a certain type with a certain program', writing scripts, command prompts, /dev/null/, /root, /bin, /home, /user, /sbin, /var, /user/bin, /user/home/bin, compiling your own software, package conflicts, unsupported hardware, unsupported software, and on... and on... and on...
I don't want a fully customizable desktop! I don't want to create my own computing experience! I don't want to made constantly aware that I might not be using the optimal configuration for my machine! I'm though reading crappy man-pages, going though 289 command line options, only to find out the princess is in another castle (while actually she isn't in a castle at all, and only the old village idiot on a web page far far away knows where she is, maybe)!
A should I have the time to figure all of this out, where does it get me? Absolutely f***ing nowhere!
Problem is the arrogance of the Linux fanboys, wanting to do everying NOT like Microsoft, because 'Micro$oft is bad, we are 1337', hence adding another year or two to the already formidable Linux learning curve. And let me remind you of the fact that a computer is a tool. Having managed to use the tool, after about a couple of years IS NOT A GOAL, it's a waste of my valuable time. Do you see screwdrivers with 15 dials and switches just so that it can be regular and philips at the same time, while being able to use it around a corner, displaying time in unicode, singing a tune for my entertainment, asking me about what color it has to be as I take it out of the box (I DON'T CARE, JUST PICK ONE!!!!), usable as a lighter, and possibly as a magic wand somewhere in the future, which, however, would require me to contact the manufacturer a number of times and reading up on how to get it done, not with any guarantee of succes ('but hey, isn't this fun, spending hours and hours, days and weeks learning how to use me?')
Go look up 'usability' in the dictionary.
And do not try to disprove any of my claims by coming up with statistically irrelevant counterexamples. This is what Linux is about, and will continue to be so.
-1 flamebait? Sure. If you cover your ears, your eyes, and scream you will change reality.
The Linux community has been promoting Linux for the desktop for years now, and the name Linux has gained wide recognition. However, instead of actually focusing on making Linux ready for the desktop, they implemented all kinds of fancy new features (a new scheduler, wow!) and left the home user to his own devices forcing him to compile software, read man-pages on playing mp3 files, use a command prompt, deal with package dependencies, etc. etc. etc. And now the name Linux has become a synonym with 'difficult', 'lot of work' 'can't do what I want', 'for experts' and things like that. A lot of people have tried it, only to be disappointed time and again. They have lost faith, And nothing is going to change that!
So, that's that for Linux on the desktop. Now, supposedly, there are a lot of other areas where Linux is successful. I'm venturing in unfamiliar territory here, but how long will that last? It's only a matter of time before Microsoft create decent OS rivaling Linux in these areas. And as soon as that moment arrives, the large group of Linux users that were forced to use it, only because Windows couldn't handle the job, will start to migrate backwards. Sure, Linux will undoubtedly be able to do it faster or more secure, and for a while, that will convince some people to stick to Linux, but Microsoft will catch up.
In conclusion, Linux is dead, and has only itself to blame. It has always, and continues to do so even now, disregarded usability and user friendliness. So, my dear Linux community, please stop whining about your product's supposed superiority. Technically, I'm sure your right, but practically, you're very far from it.
If you knew nothing about Linux, which one would you buy?
Put that in the same context of a new user. One that knows Windows because they use it at work.
This great cacophony of distros and variants is so overwhelming that in the end, the regular Joe E Consumer just says. "I'll have what he's having"
You want Linux to be adopted make Red Hat, Debian, Slackware, SUSE and all the others make one definitive version. Take the guessing out of the equation.
Look at Vista. They have an even smaller number of versions and people have no idea. It was an awful move by Microsoft, you think it;s a better move for Linux?
1 home, 1 pro and 1 enterprise. That;s it that's all and that's that.