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!"

Comments

Or it is not spreading

[zonky]

because it is relatively difficult to buy as a pre-installed system.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[ushering05401]

Yeah, that has to be reason #1. Outside my professional acquaintances I know very few people who would ever attempt re-installing Windows without a pro technician, much less the great unknown Linux.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[DigitAl56K]

I'm not so sure. By now there ought to be a whole generation of tech-savvy people in their 20s-30s who grew up "doing the things with computers" that their parents just couldn't fathom. That group of people ought to be a big market, and I fall into the category. I've also installed a few different distros of Linux over the years, played with them for a bit, and then went back to using Windows.

I know that many of the following points will be disputed, but here are some of the reasons I personally have stuck with Windows:

* It's what I'm used to.
* I have a lot invested in Windows software that isn't available natively on Linux. (Yes, some of it could run under Wine)
* Graphics drivers. I installed Fedora about a year ago and installing their graphics drivers felt like I was hacking my own computer. Maybe that's part of the fun of Linux (heck, of course it is!), but for a wide base of consumers it's also part of the fear.
* Installing software. There's so many distro's of linux and seemingly packages built for individual flavors, installing new software "feels" risky, and running into package conflicts is a bit nasty. Do I trust the people who seem to build and redistribute packages on random websites? I don't know. There's a bit of a difference between commercial vendors and some guy with a popular FTP repository. I also downloaded and compiled some apps myself because I couldn't find packages for certain things for the version of Fedora I was using. Are regular consumers expected to do this?
* Accessing my Windows files was a bit of a PITA. I had to install an NTFS driver manually, which meant editing some conf files to auto-mount partitions. Again, that ought to have been automatic to make switching OS's easier. Maybe it's included in more recent distros?
* Back to the nVidia graphics drivers: I quickly discovered that something like gEdit was very simple to use, much like Notepad. Then I tried editing some conf files from the shell. With vi. Enough said.
* I had a nice soundcard (Creative Audigy 2), and when I installed Linux some of it's advanced features were not working (e.g. CMSS), and the mixer application showed dozens of sliders to set the volume, some of which I couldn't even identify. Then there is the whole issue of using two separate sound architectures.
* Which desktop environment do I want to use? I have no clue. Am I supposed to get familiar with one for a while, then try the other, then finally decide?

I think the problem is this: Linux can be made to vastly lessen the learning curve for new users, and at it's heart it's a very powerful and flexible OS. You can tweak it to work any way you want it to work. But that's part of the problem - eventually (and usually for me, not too long after installing it) you run into situations where to make your Linux system do what you want/need it to do you have to delve a little into the "customization" piece. Sometimes that means editing some conf files. Sometimes that means running commands that you found on some website that look like they might do what you want, according to the comments posted by others. It's a different experience to Windows, where most people will never have much cause to turn to the command prompt, for example - or at least it will be to fix a problem after it occurs, not to make something work in the first place. Of course, you get out of the OS what you put in, but there are still far too many people in the world who wouldn't even try editing their registry on Windows with a graphical utility.

Why did I give up on Fedora (for now)? Because I have a full time job and as much as I would love to spend time learning Linux, I just don't have the time to. I have an unreasonable expectation that I should just be able to use a new OS without much effort. But it's the same unreasonable expectation that consumers have in general. It's also one that Linux can fulfill so long as newer distros keep doing more and more out-of-the-box, and at some point having to run a few commands in the shel

Re:Or it is not spreading

[Average]

This is one of modern Linux's greatest assets. When I re-install a box for Windows I have to:

Find the right OEM disc.
Step through the install.
Deal with activation headaches.
Uninstall a dozen OEM programs I don't want.
Run through several reboot cycles of upgrades.
Download drivers, antivirus, utilities from a dozen sites.
Download the free (beer and speech) apps I need and use from more than a dozen sites. Go back and get Windows add-ons I needed for things like Paint.NET.
Round up 7 or 8 CDs worth of software. Many of them needing codes and activation (or cracks). Install these one by one.

A full day shot.

Needless to say, Ubuntu Gutsy is much faster to get going. I've used Unixes for 13 years now. But, I use synaptic because I don't want to have to care any more. If I worked with 200 Windows machines, I'd create a images and force matching computers. But, I (like many small business types) am dealing with only 15 or 20 computers, every single one of which is unique.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[pherthyl]

The thing is though, it's not even the viruses for me. I have been running XP and previous versions of Windows for years and years, and I haven't had a virus since Blaster. Most of the time I don't even bother running an antivirus program or a firewall and my system is still clean. If you have a little bit of common sense your chance of being infected is very low.

But I still get the same feeling that my computer is just a playground for different companies to run their buggy software on. Every little piece of hardware comes with a stupid tray icon to manage something useless. Every program wants to nag me about something, or install their own updater service and then bitch at me about letting it install some update or other. The start menu is full of entries corresponding to names of companies that I couldn't give a flying fig about. Windows update will randomly decide that it will restart the system that I've left running overnight to finish a compile. The whole system is just very inefficient and frustrating.

That kind of thing just doesn't happen on Linux. Everything is integrated into one updating service. Everything shares the same libraries as much as possible. "Start" menu entries are organized by function, not by who wrote the program. I realize no non-geek would give a crap about any of this, but I really don't like it when software does its own thing and presumes to know better.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

You make a hell of a point and i agree with you completely on what you're saying. I too can not stand that ATI has to brand my right click menu with their nonsense, and the endless tray icons and how each company seems to have its own download/updater application. I agree completely with that. Its a waste of resources, and a bothersome mess.

I agree with you on that. No way i could possibly disagree with you. BUT... Google wants their name on all desktops. Microsoft wants everyone using live... Yahoo wants everyone using Yahoo... Even the linux folks too. It's a mentality these companies have where they want to brand our desktops.

Hell look what aol did for years. They still do it, with their own anti spyware programs and stuff like that. It's just disgusting and insulting.

Thus is the nature of these big companies though. They want to brand us. I dont think there is much we can do about it as long as we use applications and services from these big companies. I have google talk on my desktop... i use windows vista's search though. I dont use google's desktop.

I install the ati driver, without the ati control panel so i dont get that lame ATI right click menu...

Logitech, Adobe etc.. all have their own updating services running. I could turn them off though.

It's not that bad if you can control it, but yeah i agree often these companies over step the line of decency and i'm all for giving them the finger.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[2short]

I'm a Linux user and fan, but if we're going to discuss why Linux hasn't spread faster than it has, let's not be disingenuous:

You double-click the icon, you get music or you don't; If you didn't, it failed. You can research why it failed, it might even be easy to research, but it already failed.

As for the wireless, what would you do if you had a wireless card that couldn't work under Windows? Send it back as a hardware failure; There aren't any wireless cards that don't support Windows.

Re:Or it is not spreading

[Fafnir43]

I'm doing a Computer Science degree in Cambridge (world ranking university, partnered with MIT). I'm getting top grades. That didn't mean terribly much to me, either - I understood the second sentence, but not the first. Granted I'm only in my first year, but the point here is that "Computer Science" != "Training to become a Linux sysadmin", and expertise in the former does not somehow confer expertise in the latter (although it makes it much easier to acquire).

Understanding the concepts behind algorithmic complexity and programming in general won't tell you anything about the specifics of shell scripting, any more than a deep understanding of C will give you the ability to code in FORTRAN without having some idea of the syntax.

Average Joe user is unqualified

[Gothmolly]

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 call BS

[mrbcs]

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!" It's not perception. Windows is already "free". It either comes with your computer or you borrow a disc from a friend and install it. How many of Microsoft sales depend on users buying a copy in the store?

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

It's the applications, stupid!

[QCompson]

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.

My unbiased opinion...

[FoolsGold]

...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.

Re:King's New Robes Effect

[rohan972]

... 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".

Re:No investment != no reward?

[plierhead]

Most people don't like free for many reasons. People need to know how you're making a buck before they want to deal with you. After all, "there's no such thing as a free lunch".

If you come around and offer to clean my windows for free, I naturally assume its some kind of scam. Perhaps my windows are coated with a rare gold dust which you intend to scrape off and re-sell? Who knows?

If you offer - nay, push on me - a free piece of computer system, I have to wonder why. Especially if you have the appearance and demeanour of some kind of zealot, with an almost religious fervor in trying to push me to use this software.

At least with MS I know they have a naked interest in gouging me for money via unnecessary upgrades and vendor lock-in. I can almost put a number on it - something in the mid-100s perhaps over the next few years. Something I guess I can grudgingly live with.

Linux vs OS X vs Windows

[moss1956]

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.

Re:Stop spreading this crap!

[DigitAl56K]

Unless you tried Fedora 8, you haven't tried the current offerings, so you can't have an informed opinion about linux. Isn't that a bit like saying unless I've used Windows Vista, I can't have an opinion about Windows?

I tried Fedora 7. But you are right, I can't have an informed opinion about Linux - I didn't use it nearly long enough. I also wasn't aiming to post an opinion, but elements of my experience that lead me away from Linux, and that probably will lead others away also.

And yes, you shouldn't be STARTING with Fedora. It isn't meant to be a beginner distro for several reasons. That's nice to know, now :) But there isn't a banner on Fedora's home page that says "Hey, are you a beginner? If so, you might want to try Ubuntu instead"? Nor on the Debian page, and probably not on many other distro sites one might happen to land on while searching for popular distributions. One answer to "Why Linux Doesn't Spread" is that there are many options out there, and you can easily end up at one that isn't really suited to you.

Free open source software is not like commercial software. In some projects, 3 month old code is practically ancient. While that may be true, I'm going to bet that most people aren't going to try switching OS's every 3 months. Therefore I don't see why posting about an experience I had 12 months ago is such a terrible concept. When we're talking about "Why Linux doesn't spread" it does not help to get angry at people because they didn't try the particular distribution you think they ought to have, or because they didn't try the absolute latest version, or because they're wrong and you know better.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could simply tell all those people who have tried Linux and walked away in the last couple of years that you know better and so they should change back immediately? :)

I'll give Ubuntu a shot ;)