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!"
I call this the "King's New Robes" effect, which is the same logic by which "boutique" products are sold - you can take the same crap, repackage it in a pretty way, and charge 10X as much, and people will flock to buy it by the hundred.
In the past year I've had a lot of success converting frustrated Windows users into Linux people... and simply convincing both Windows and Mac users that Linux was a legitimate operating system. However, I've also frequently run into a scenario where I would be showing somebody my Dell laptop running Ubuntu, and they'd be REALLY excited about the features, the intuitive UI, the eye candy... and then they'd ask me how much it was... and when I told them it was free, they'd be disappointed!
I have a minor in marketing and economics, woohoo. Anyway...
This is the best example I can think of. There was a small watch company (can't think of the name off my head without getting out a textbook) who sold fairly high-end watches for about $500-$800 and sales were poor to flat. The company raised the price to around $1500 and sales went crazy. The higher price has a perceived higher quality, even if it doesn't.
Cars work that way, computers work that way. Of course price doesn't always equal quality, but it can and that is a that point is stronger in peoples minds.
Gone!
People associate more expensive products with being superior. Stupid, I know. But it's true.
In a consumer-based society products are propagated by sellers.(Computer stores in this case.)
When a product/service is good, the penetration of a product/service is directly proportional to number of sellers.(Think iPods)
The number of sellers is maximised and thus achieved by the ease of profitability of the good/service sold.
Items which can be sold as-is attract both small and large resellers who market and profit from the good/service directly.(It's easier to sell something as-is, then have to think of something to bundle it with to make it profitable.)
Remove the sale price and the result is instead of being the sold item, it merely becomes a tool to sell another kind of product/service.(Usually as a value themed bundle - such as services or hardware, think IBM or Walmart.)
Additionally, selling it cheaply doesn't solve the problem either, as there needs to be significant profit for sellers to be bothered.(Why you will find windows and not linux in the local computer store.)
Free items are rarely marketed to consumers for these reasons, marketing costs money, marketing is mostly to generate sales uplift. Marketing is paid for by revenue. The end result is that there is limited mass-market penetration, and it's propagated almost entirely by skilled persons or word of mouth.
Tell him his new clothes are ready!
As far as I am considered, I hope Linux NEVER becomes mainstream.
I've been using Linux exclusively for 4 years and I love it, especially when all the freeloaders ask me
"You're in computers; my computer is acting up, can you take a look?"
"What operating system are you running?" I ask.
"Windows."
"Sorry, I can't help, I run Linux"
Ahh... Sweet peace and quiet, not only in my computer, but in my life also.
Fuck being an evangelist, it has caused nothing but pain for me and now I just want to be left alone.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Dell though seems to be hiding Linux, even though they offer it they never mention it in any ads, or on the main page. If you search for Linux you will find it with the heading "Not sure Open Source is for you?" under the computers. Honestly, even though Dell does offer Linux which can't be said about other vendors, they sure seem to hide it well.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
Tell that to my nice flatbed scanner, which hasn't worked with a Windows version since 98. Or my printer, same boat.
Windows doesn't work better. It works better when it's preinstalled with hardware that it's designed for. Same with Apple, same with Linux. Get yourself some quality hardware, and Linux starts working much better than Windows.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
when i present ubuntu, i highlight the integration:
;)
- synaptic is a killer application, the dumbed down version is literally idiot proof
- when i click on a file, if a suitable program isn't installed, i get a prompt if i want it
- when i input a command and a suitable program isn't installed, i get instructions to install it
combined with my subtle RDF, it works quite nicely
Oh yes, because we know Windows costs less. Lets take first the OS, ranging from $50-$300, even if you buy it OEM you will still pay the approximately $50 it costs for the OEM Windows, not to mention all the time taking off all the crapware they install on new PCs. Now, because we don't want your Windows box to become part of a botnet, you install an antivirus/anti-spyware that costs around $40. Of course while your at it you need to install MS Office, around $150. So thats just $240 in software alone. Now assuming you need a dual-core PC with 2 gigs of RAM to run Vista properly, that costs around $450 without monitor and such. A far cry from the $200 gPC, so with your $300 of time and effort spent learning Linux you have spent $500 compared to the $690 with the MS solution.
And honestly, how much money do you think it would cost to learn Office 2007/Vista? I would expect a lot more and it comes without the assurance that it won't get discontinued and you have to learn Office 2009/Windows 7 within 3 years and of course pay more. Learning Linux is an investment, and not a hard one at that. And honestly, Linux would "cost" the average person more than $300 to start using in terms of time and effort. It's cost me way more than that, and I have some idea of what I'm doing.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
I don't know that Ubuntu GNU/Linux isn't spreading.
//have// to. The thing installs itself; I just get a postcard every so often.
//precisely// because of the lack of restrictions on what it lets them do, instead of trying to sell and advertise a bunch of crap they don't want, or have to pay more to get if they do want it.
//taken away// instead of given to them, they find ways to make the switch.
I've long since given up trying to advocate a new OS to people who aren't fed up with the one they have. But last week, I heard from a friend of mine who told me his roommate installed it after seeing it on his PC. He installed it after seeing it on his girlfriend's computer. She happens to be my roommate, and she asked me to install it without prompting from me.
I didn't even install two of these systems. I didn't
Aside from that, freedom is worth more than free. I am worth more than beer. Thank you very much.
So he may be right, in the sense that Windows users basically hate freedom (like terrorists! er, no wait...), so they put a low price tag on it. But everyone I know who's installed Gutsy since it's been out has been pretty pleased with it
Perhaps freedom won't sell. But that's because it can only be given away. And as people realize that they're paying to have their freedoms
And again, why is it so important that GNU/Linux "spread"? Just keep it^H^H me free.
The funny thing is, after you push the software on somebody and allow them to reap the rewards, they are incredulous. It undermines the concept of "fairness" that they have learned as you state above.
.doc format, and she was astounded. She is converted, and introduced 4 of her friends, all students, to openoffice.
My girlfriend was about to shell out several hundred dollars for Word on her new Mac. I introduced her to openoffice, but she couldn't figure out how to save files, and said "it uses incompatible format, I have to buy the Word."
I showed her how to save in
Viral marketing can work, and old learned prejudices can be overcome...
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
A good example would be the whole source code thing. This is scary to a non-technical user. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. While it is possible to run Linux and never run in to any code, it isn't that hard to find something you want to do that needs source code. Maybe it is a driver or an app that is distributed only in source form. Well, compiling that scares people. You have to drop to a command line and you are going to get a shitload of text dumped at you that makes no sense. Even though the end result might be just as easy as running a visual installer in Windows, it doesn't FEEL as easy, it feels scary.
I could go on with a whole list of design choices Linux has made that are like this. Basically what it comes down to is that it doesn't seem as easy to a non-technical user. Even if the process is just as easy (and there are times when it certainly isn't) the fact that it involves something that looks highly technical makes it very intimidating. This is going to hinder adoption, of course. If people feel it is harder, they aren't going to want to use it or learn it.
I believe that Linux being free has nothing whatsoever to do with its value perception.
Instead I believe that people, and to some extent correctly, still equate Linux with "something for geeks, not end-users" because of:
- the generally poor standard of GUI's on Linux itself and Linux software
- the generally dismissive attitude of Linux users / software developers for a nice polished GUI with all the details taken care of.
There ... I've said it. So flame me.
Ordinary users simply do _not_ want something that forces them to go to the command line for system maintenance. Neither do they want to have to edit configuration files, let alone scripts. It has taken Linux distributions years to come up with something as sophisticated as YAST (for SuSE Linux) and KDE Control center, and especially KDE still doesn't provide a reliable one-stop solution to detect and install my inkjet printer. I have to go to CUPS for that. In a word ... it's less simple than MS Windows (unless you already know what you should be doing because you did it before and kept notes).
I have seen threads with expostulations about how great command line oriented programs are, and I agree ... for some programs that are oriented towards batch processing, for repetitive jobs, and for software that I write myself for my own use. (When I write software for my own personal use, I never write GUIs. Command-line, control files, and file in, file out. If a GUI is needed, someone else can do that.)
But for other people's programs, and for programs I don't use every day I want to be prompted and guided ... by a GUI ... with tooltips and a smoothly functioning and fairly complete Help function. The very last think I want is to be obliged to read a manual and remember commands for some fink of a program before I use it. I believe I have a typical end-user mentality in this respect.
And did I mention that as an end-user I really do _not_ want to see every program sporting its own GUI layout either? I don't care a fig about what some programmer thinks is good way to organise his GUI. I want my GUI to be *standardised* (at least the toolbar) so that it's somewhat familiar as soon as the application starts. Copy-paste should of course be supported, and don't you dare to let it default to any other key combination than C for copy and V for paste, and a print option (if applicable at all) right where I expect it ... under the menu (which has to be the leftmost menu) somewhere 3/4 down the list.). Well ... I might be able to cope with a standard GUI layout under Linux that's different from Windows, but no more than one.
And then the graphics itself ... ouch. I really *hate* GTK-based programs. They look somewhat like the Windows programs I'm used to, but the widgets work differently. I find them clunky. Ugly and clunky. Again, I couldn't care less what some programming community thinks of them. I don't want them. Take the typical GTK file menu for one thing. An abortion! And what's more, I won't have them unless there is no alternative.
As an illustration, take for example AviDemux (see here: http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/). It comes in two flavours: with a GTK+ interface and with a QT4 interface. I tried the GTK+ flavour first and disliked it. The QT4 version on the other hand was acceptable. It didn't irritate.
The good news is that this nicely illustrates the difference between what in the context of "Git" (the version control software) is called: the plumbing (the guts) and the porcelain (the superficial layer that comprises the GUI). A well-designed GUI can be rendered in either GTK+ or QT4, and it should have absolutely no impact on the plumbing.
No. No it's not. OpenOffice sucks. It's usability is worse than MS Office
Oddly enough, I've been using OpenOffice since its early StarOffice days (before it was bought out by Sun). Its kept its UI generally stable and I've never had to waste my time learning new menu layouts at each new version release. It's available where ever I might need it.
Personally, I always remove Microsoft Office and replace it with OpenOffice. OO's the known quantity. MSO is the one with the dodgy shifting target document formats.
it's compatibility filters regularly screw up simple files
If Microsoft doesn't care if its own Office app is compatible with older copies of Office, why should I? Need to transfer a document to someone else? Use PDF, RTF or TXT.
They DO care about WindowsMedia 10
Sucks to be them. Everyone else has heard of Videolan's VLC.
Also, if you require me to do any sysadmining whatsoever you've epicly failed
Ah, so you're the one who doesn't use Windows Update, clean the viruses from your PC or run defrag every once in a while.
You want linux to really be valuable to people
Nope. Personally, I want Microsoft to buy out the QNX folks and impliment Windows 7 as its GUI. Then create a nice sandboxed emulator to handle all the old Win32 app cruft.
A nit:
-OEM copies don't require activation
-OEM copies come with all the drivers slipstreamed
So take out about 1/2 of your steps.
If you're really installing windows a lot you'd also have a rollup CD, so just 1 reboot.
Compare that to 300 megs (183 updates already!!!) of downloads for an ubuntu 7.10 install I did on Sunday, and there's no way to slipstream or download those for the other 3 computers I'm installing later...
I love ubuntu, and will continue to use it, but monthly updates to their installer CD images would be KILLER. So yes it's 7.10, but if I download it today I am current through Jan 31. If I download it in March I'm current through Feb 29. And so on.
I've had quite a bit of problem with this under Vista. Which actually is a good example of why it's important to have drivers. One of the reasons I didn't want to move to Vista, and still use XP, even though I got a free Vista license, was that it didn't just run out of the box with all I had. The same thing, applied to Linux, is even more of a problem, since moving to Linux will mean having to do a lot more work to get comfortable.
I run a Live CD occasionally (usually Knoppix), and IMO things are better than they used to be. But last time I used one I still needed to call a Linux-using friend to get some things working.
On the original subject, I think there's something to that. Getting something for free which costs money feels more valuable (for example, the Vista I got vs. Linux). On the other hand, I also have a Microsoft Office license, but I still have Open Office installed instead, and frankly (especially when I wrote a lot) I preferred Wordpad over both. So I'd say that it's more a matter of supplying the needs of the user than the matter of cost.
Agree.
I usually say that it is a Good Thing that hardware usually doesn't support Linux. Hardware supports Windows, Linux supports hardware. This means that I can plug in a new wifi dongle, and not having to install this brand new networking management software, which comes on the driver disk, and happens to also include a driver somewhere that you can't really get without that whole new disgusting application.
After having to touch my mothers new Vaio laptop with Vista for a while, I realized that the biggest problem with Windows isn't Windows, it's that every application in the world that isn't a part of the original installation is fucking annoying. There were about a gazillion applications labeled Vaio, mostly duplicating already existing functionality (you know how every newly installed Windows OS has a pop up that welcomes you, and offers to show you some documentation? Her laptop had two - one from Windows, and one from Sony, with at least 50% the same content, and the other 50% being lot's of annoying "we have a Club Vaio we want you to be in - it doesn't do anything, but it at least has a cheesy name!" buttons). However, if you remove the annoying Vaio apps, suddenly the Fn+F#-keys stop working (you know, to change volume, brightness, monitor, etc), because that driver was apparently part of one of the most annoying applications. Which, of course, can't be downloaded and reinstalled from Sonys website, because the binary they have is broken.
You know when you come home to someone because "their computer is a bit slow", and you realize it's because it has Bonzai Buddy, Gator, 1 000 hits in Ad-Aware, and 50 or so viruses? You know the feeling? That's what I was feeling as I was booting the computer. For the first time.
So please, computer vendors: don't ever, ever sell computers with preinstalled Linux. I'll do it myself, thankyouverymuch, so that I will not have to be exposed to your "user friendlyness". Give me an plain, unmodified Ubuntu CD or something if you want, and a clean hard drive.
Hardware vendors: don't ever, ever release Linux drivers - I don't want to install a pop up blocker for my web browser to be able to change resolution on my monitor. Give me the specs and/or source code, and I'll let someone who's not an idiot write drivers.
Software vendors: don't ever, ever release fancy one-click Linux binaries - I don't want to get a million fancy, themed (not system themed - your own theme engine you developed, just to annoy me) pop ups and toolbar icons, just because I was stupid enough to actually wanting to use your product - I'm sorry, I will never do it again, now leave me alone! Give me the source code, and I'll let someone who isn't an idiot create a deb package that can actually be removed, and/or fork your product and make it non-horrible.