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!"
because it is relatively difficult to buy as a pre-installed system.
Nothing new, and basic psychology. This has been proposed before, even on Slashdot many times in many posts.
It is also the explanation behind fraternity rites / hazing and various initiation procedures to clubs. No pain == no value in many people's eyes.
You could almost look at defense of Microsoft as a form of the Stockholm syndrome.
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
This is just another story about perceived value vs. actual value ... whoop-de-do. It's funny too, because the music industry would take the exact opposite position: people see "free" as being more "valuable".
Gagh. The human psyche is fundamentally twisted.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
A computer nowadays is an appliance, that plays games, downloads porn, and gets you onto Myspace. Whether its a Mac or PC is based on what other s/w you can steal from your friends, or whether you're rich and/or trendy. You have to buy a computer, and it "comes with" the OS - why would you even waste your time farking around with something else?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Who wants to use Linux when there always seems to be one damn thing that doesn't work? How many of the cheap Walmart cd's will run on a linux box? The killer still seems to be accounting programs. When Quicken, Quick Books and Simply Accounting work, then there will be real in-roads to business.
Home users may never sign on. Shit far too many home users already shouldn't have a computer. You want Linux to work and be accepted by the masses? Make it look and work like windows. Any learning curve is too large. We've had the same basic windows functions and menus (until Vista) since 95. How the hell are we going to train legions of AOL users to use Ubuntu? Good luck with that.
I hate Microsoft as a company. Their business practices have been highly suspect, but their software (XP Pro anyway) does work and lets me do stuff without having to read man pages, or tweak files or find special drivers or find a replacement program, or run in a sandbox. After 8 years, countless distros, way too much time and actually failed hardware (how does ubuntu kill a previously working drive), I personally have jumped off the linux soapbox for the last time. Linux is awesome on servers but I don't think it will ever even challange even Apple for desktop market share.
/rant
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
One can come up with all sorts of complicated theories on why linux hasn't gained significant ground on windows, but it's very simple. Applications, applications, applications. If linux was running word, photoshop, quickbooks, and a host of other business software (not to mention games), we wouldn't be reading these endless pontifications about why linux hasn't been overtaken windows on the desktop.
I don't think the n00b sees it this way at all. To them, the OS/window manager is part of the computer. That's what they see when they turn it on, and that's all that matters. As they don't see Windows as separate from the computer, they won't see it as extra value. Linux may be ready for the masses at last, but until it's marketed as such in the stores they visit, they'll never know. I was at Harvey Norman the other day buying a new Wacom tablet. There was not one Linux PC in the building. Same goes for just about any other computer store. If your lucky, there might be one or two in a corner. Linux is a build-to-order option from Dell, but Joe n00b won't choose that - he'll just take what's recommended. Right now, you have to actively seek out Linux if you want it; that's perfect for techs, but no use for n00bs.
I've tried to setup several small offices with OpenOffice. Within a week or two, they are screaming for their Excel and Word. It's not that they hate free, they hate change! If it doesn't look and behave exactly like they are used to, they won't invest the time to learn a new product.
It's not because Linux is free, it's because businesses don't put Linux on their desktops.
For a really large number of people, their main experience with computers is at work--that's what they learn on, that's what they come to understand. Deviation from what they know is a barrier to entry.
Couple that with virtually no vendors selling computers with Linux pre-installed, and you have a huge barrier to entry. The vast majority of users use what's put in front of them, either by their employer or Dell or Walmart, and see little to no incentive to switch.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Thanks for the profound knowledge, Einstein.
I noticed this a long time ago, when I first started my business. According to economics, there is more demand if you lower your price. But in reality, this is not always the case. In fact, I would go so far as to say that almost as often as it does, price does not affect demand at all.
I've been saying for a long time that someone should package a Linux distro in a box, and sell it for $100. People will buy it. Anybody could do it, developer or not. It is perfectly legal, as long as you follow the license for all of the programs, which can usually be done by including a source CD along with the package. I haven't done it myself because I'm not familiar with retail setup, and would probably just end up spending my money on a business venture that I can't complete.
Red Hat does something similar. They sell their package for $15. They should increase the price.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
The author is off base, Linux isnt free when presented with the same features as Windows ie codecs. Thats why we have $$$ distributions that sort all that out for the consumer. What is an issue are people downloading free versions of Linux then being stupidly surprised that the $$$ bits are missing.
How many people pay for Windows? These scenarios are common:
"When I need Windows, I just grab my friend's Windows disc with a volume license."
"When I need Windows, I just buy it for $5 with my University ID."
"When I need Windows, I just borrow my friend's bootleg copy that he got in Asia."
"When I need Windows, I get the pre-cracked version from The Pirate Bay."
How many people really know the real cost of a full license of the various versions of Windows Vista?
This was news years ago but this view is slowly changing.
1) Open Source is gaining more and more penetration in the workplace. It starts out small with free stuff like wiki's, gimp, open office, etc. Eventually the ethos will spread to the OS as well. OSS isn't just abstract theory anymore, there are real apps that non-geeks can appreciate.
2) There's more and more frustration with Microsoft.
I'm hearing people in userland start to talk about going open source. Case in point, a parent I know found out the cheap computer they got did not come with Office. They need it for school. Well, you can fork over $125 for Office or $0 for Open Office. Assuming they just need basic word processing, free is fine. Said parent was highly receptive to the idea. Five years ago, I can just about guarantee the answer would have been "Open what? No, no, I want the Microsoft brand, what everybody's using."
More than "free must = crap," I think the dominant corporate meme is still "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." If Microsoft drops a steamer in your lap, you just shrug and look at the boss like "Hey, what can I do, the market leader is dropping steamers on everyone." You go with a product no one has ever heard of and it fails, the boss looks at you like "We're the only outfit in the industry with a steamer in our laps and gee, we're also the only one using that Foosoft app. Got any excuses, flitboy?"
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
...for what it's worth, as to the reasons Linux isn't spreading as quickly as was hoped:
(1) Crap-all marketing. Windows has posters, flyers, tv spots, and general awareness by most computers users. Apple has poster, tv spots, attractive retail stores, and in most cases a general awareness by most computer users. What does Linux have? At best, word of mouth.
(2) Lack of commercial apps. Don't give me crap about being able to use GIMP for free - armature and profession photographers want professional-level tools like Photoshop. They WILL pirate the damn thing if necessary.
(3) Path of least resistance. Moving from one operating system to another is generally an exercise in trading one set of hassles for another. It's not often that it's a painless experience. Moving to a Mac though is much more realistic for someone fed-up with Windows than moving to Linux however, due to points (1) and (2).
Finally, the biggest reason of all - why change? Windows just isn't that bad if you know how to use a computer. Most people have more important things to do in life than worry about operating systems, or at least they do once they get to a certain age when priorities become clearer.
I'm not bashing Linux or open source software in general, but the simple fact is that Windows is Just Fine for most people. Add to that fact that people don't see the hidden cost of Windows, and you have the current situations.
... and then they'd ask me how much it was... and when I told them it was free, they'd be disappointed!
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid
Then tell them it's $250 with a years support package, but because you're a licenced distributor, you can install it for nothing, just for them. Then it has percieved value, it's a good deal and they're getting it because they know an insider! While people don't want to get something of no value, they love getting something of value for nothing and they love "knowing the right person". Either that or tell them the price of a Dell with Ubuntu preinstalled, which is not nothing and definitely has credibility as "value".
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
It's got NOTHING to do with Linux being free and EVERYTHING to do with inertia. Linux is used by jillions of companies every day for all kinds of shit BESIDES desktop apps, so it's not like there's widespread distrust of Linux, and certainly not due to its price tag. The reason it hasn't reached that tipping point is circular: nobody is using Linux on the desktop because nobody is using Linux on the desktop.
Windows is well-known and it's Good Enough for the masses, so they have no reason to go through the unknowns of switching. That the "something else" is Linux has nothing to do with it.
Yo mama so fake, she failed the Turing Test.
The real problem is that it is a hassle to get any operating system up and running on a machine. Microsoft solved this problem by working with manufacturers
to make sure the windows runs on their product. Apple solved this problem by only allowing their operating system to be used on machines that they sell.
Until recently there had been no solution of this sort for Linux, so people who ran linux had to be brave enough souls to fuss with the machine
so that it acts right after the operating system has been installed. Part of the reason that linux is starting to be used more on the desktop is
because manufacturers are selling the machines with linux preinstalled. I am not so sure its about perceived value, its more likely about convenience.
I can't tell you how many IT people claim to have "tried linux and it is too experimental/incomplete/unstable/whatever". Then, I ask them a little more about their experience and find that they tried the wrong distro, three versions ago. In the OSS world, 6 months is a long time. If you haven't tried the recommended beginner linux distro at the version that has been released within the last 6 months, you shouldn't be asserting that modern linux distros are not mature. That would be like me taking a copy of windows 98, trying to install it on my 3 month old computer, and then calling Windows a bad OS because it didn't work. You wouldn't give an assessment of Vista based on your experiences with Windows 2000 would you? Then why does it make sense to say that current linux distros can be evaluated based on your experience with older versions.
I highly recommend you take that computer and try it again with Ubuntu linux 7.10. Your nVidia card will almost certainly work. Installing software is really easy and the number of packages in the repositories is massive. NTFS just works. The sound should just work. Finally, are you really complaining about having to choose between desktop managers???? Give me a break. Use whatever you like. Stop spreading ignorant assessments of linux. If you don't know the current state of linux, don't say anything. Better yet, learn the current state of linux. From what I hear, it is pretty cheap to try it out.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
You most likely know the type.
Enters a friend of mine. New to Linux. Reasonably clever, manages to install, then wants to run Windows games under Linux. He learns about wine and wants to know if it will do what he wants it to do.
"No problem," he thinks, "there is this thing called the community and I will go and ask!"
And he did. In polite words. Telling people about his system setup, about his idea to change to Linux, then asking a number of questions about distributions (which one?), wine and performance.
Answers included things like:
- "Go away, windows boy!" (no further comments)
- "RTFM!" (no further comments)
- "Use Google." (including the common "Oh no, another Windows user..." quote)
It was made very clear to him, in all but two answers, that he was not welcome, the wrong kind of user, morally inferior for wanting to play non-free games.
Two people actually jumped in and told him that, yes, Windows was actually better in supporting Windows games and wine wouldn't really help there. Linux would not make sense here. Heresy takes courage. :)
I am a bit of a late starter, installed my first SLS when kernel versions were around 0.98, the file system was minix and you had to hex-edit sectors to set your boot device. If you haven't been there, you don't want to know what you had to do to make X run. I remember a different kind of Linux crowd from that time. "Snotty" was not part of that.
Nowadays, my t-shirt would probably read: "I was root. It becomes boring. Now I just fired root for beeing cheeky and hired Admin because he is polite, solves my problems and will not risk my business on alpha code."
Linux is a great OS - and my friend is now learning how to use a Linux server as a game server (for windows games), web server and FTP server. He is doing fine, even with bash, as he is not stupid - just untrained. His web interface for game servers is not looking too bad...
But like would be easier if the "WHOOOA! I am root!" kids (on a single user system, probably running a boot-from-DVD Knoppix or a SuSE Live DVD) learned to shut up unless they had something helpful to say. They are not doing Linux any good.
Oh, if just Linux had been proprietary like the other Unix lookalikes of the time, it might today have enjoyed the same propagation on the desktop as, say, Coherent or Xinu.
BTW: Linux does ship today with more computer based products than MS Windows, just not on the most visible platform of them all, the PC desktop.
Some may be old enough to remember Turbo Pascal. Back when Microsoft and Digital Research were selling Pascal compilers for DOS for a few hundred dollars or more -- in the days before C took off on that platorm -- fast Turbo Pascal hit the market for $39.95. They sold bunches. I sure fewer people would have acquired Turbo Pascal if it had been released for no cost with a free license of some sort.
Linux is not held back as much by the "it's free" factor as it is by its unavailability in places where many people look for software. I know that sounds incongruous to everyone here, but the world is full of people who expect software to come in a shiny box sold by a store in the mall.
That, of course, is marketing, something that Turbo Pascal had and Linux has never had. More precisely, it's something no single commercial Linux distribution has ever taken seriously: market Linux to a mainstream audience. (Plenty of distributions have decalred they were targeting the mainstream audience, but they never bothered to tell the mainstream.)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
So, let's see:
1/ No Photoshop
Sure, if a company needs Photoshop, Linux is out. But how many PS installations does a regular company needs, unless it is a graphics shop? One, maybe two.
2/ No GAMES
Companies don't want people to play games.
3/ No MS Office
So you simply use OpenOffice. And it doesn't take "an hour to load". On my desktop (a simple AMD 3200) it takes 12 seconds to load the first time, the second time 2 seconds.
No package dependency hell
Yes, and 1999 wants it's fud back.
no half-baked "will finish between my studies and my first job" software
You can find that kind of software for any os, also for Macs.
no "we don't ship the settings for the mobos sensors even though we do have them"
What!? Ship settings?
"these drivers support half a thousand obsolete webcams that no one makes anymore"
What's wrong with that? It's very much better than not having the drivers. And how are the obsolete webcam drivers for Mac doing?
"this has been compiled with GCC2.95 and an alternative libc"
That is why one uses the packages for _one_ distribution. And don't try too install binaries from unknown sources, please.
"recompile your kernel without support for your TV tuner if you want to ever use the controller card that interfaces to the HDs you bought to record TV"
Did this happen to you, or did you just try to think of something weird?
"When Linux is INTEGRATED and works RIGHT, NOW, as in OUT-OF-THE-FUCKING-BOX, then I'll use it again."
You wanted a pre-installed box? No problem, you even have choice these days.
"If it has the software I need to GET WORK DONE : Adobe Suite and MS Office."
Oh, ok. Goodbye.
No OS does 100% of what you want though unless you only want to play games, or only want to email or only want to use Photoshop or only need to administer remote servers... etc.
I've bought several computers over the years and even though they keep getting cheaper they still seem expensive to me. As their prices go down my expenses go up so I am just keeping pace by using computers that see at least 5 years before I start looking around for a new one.
Right now Vista doesn't do it for me because I don't have a computer that runs it. OSX doesn't do it for me because I don't want to run their software on my hardware if they don't want me to. And I'm not sure it would anyway. Linux does it for me because it runs on my hardware, well. Not Damn Small Linux, not some floppy install from hell, Ubuntu or Etch, I like them both. Modern, graphics for when I need them, a powerful shell, office apps, web apps, etc. I don't need Photoshop and anyone who says OO.org takes an hour is talking about their experience with StarOffice in the 90's.
But guess what, I do also use XP. Age of Empires II is a favorite of my son and playing over the LAN with him is about the most fun I ever have with a computer... (he's ten).
So, I use one OS to get work done and one to play. And I do it because my primary job is monitoring Linux servers, writing scripts for said servers and basically I need something stable and flexible. All the Firefox, Cygwin, WinSCP, Putty, Open Office, etc in the world doesn't make me feel as productive on Windows as I do on Linux.
Is one better then the other? IMHO, yes. Does that mean sh*t to the next guy? No, choose what works for you. And if it stops working because MS or Apple changed the rules again and you either need to upgrade or do without? Thin about switching to Linux. IN the beginning you'll at least save some cash and in the end you may find you have all the tools you need after all.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Heh you just made his point. If I have to know all that just to use the damn thing then I'm not going to use it. :)