Why Linux Doesn’t Spread - the Curse of Being Free
February 16th, 2008
Linux isn’t very popular on the desktop. It’s a far third behind OS X, which is a very far second behind Windows. Most people cite pre-installed operating systems as the reason. But as a student of psychology, I see something most people don’t. There’s one big factor in why Linux isn’t popular on the desktop. Linux is free. I know this sounds like complete dog’s bollocks, but hear me out before judging my sanity.
We can all remember the story of Tom Sawyer. At one point, Tom had to whitewash a fence. When one of his friends happened along, Tom tried to persuade and bribe the friend to help him. Needless to say, it didn’t work.
A few moments later, as Tom was unhappily whitewashing the fence, another friend stumbled along to jeer at Tom’s misfortune. This time Tom decided on a cunning plan. He ignored the friend, and seemed very absorbed in the whitewashing. Soon the friend became intrigued, because what could be more interesting than talking to a friend? Shortly thereafter, he started begging Tom to let him whitewash a bit of the fence. Tom wouldn’t give in.
The friend offered Tom some of his most valuable possessions if Tom would just let him whitewash a little bit. Tom reluctantly agreed, secretly jumping with joy on the inside. More friends happened along, coming to laugh at Tom for having to whitewash a fence. Tom simply did his act, and they all stayed to help whitewash, and paid for the privilege!
The above story illustrates a basic human nature. We don’t value things we can get easily. Yet we’d climb mountains, cross rivers and travel across deserts just to reach something we can’t easily get our hands on.
The computer world
The same thing applies in the world of computers. Humans are naturally suspicious of that which comes too easily. Imagine you were promoting an expensive brand of champagne. If you were running around forcing free samples into people’s hands, they would be very wary. But if you set up a stand where you would offer small samples for $10 each (”Special promotional price! Normally costs three times as much!”), people would see your champagne as posh and valuable.
It’s still the same champagne. Yet your presentation radically changes people’s perception of it.
Which brings me to Linux. There’s one problem with Linux getting to new users. It’s free.
That’s right. Linux being free is a problem in reaching new customers.
Why Windows pwnz Linux - an imaginary case study
Let me show you an example where Windows is better than Linux (I don’t mean better as in actually better :p).
Ignore for a moment all the crap about Windows being pre-installed and such. Let’s say you have a computer-newbie friend, called Compy McNewb, who’s just bought a new computer and is getting ready to install an OS.
He’s got two computer-savvy friends. You, who urges him to use Linux. And another friend, who urges him to use Windows.
Which one will Compy pick? Let’s go through the reasoning.
- Linux is being offered for free. Good.
- He can get a pirated copy of Windows from his friend. Also for free. Good.
- But Windows is sold for over three hundred dollars, while Linux is offered for free.
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!
In the 1970’s, a record label in Britain was selling albums containing cover versions of contemporary songs. Although the records sold for less than a pound a copy, hardly anyone bought them and the record company was suffering.
A whizz-kid joined the board and announced he wanted to more than double the price of the records. The other executives were shocked, but eventually agreed to his plan. Within a few weeks, the records were flying off the shelves.
When the records didn’t cost much, people didn’t value them. The record company was saved by redefining people’s perception of their product.
Taking Action
So here I am, wondering how to turn the tables around.
And I’ve got an idea. In the past, I tried to convert people to Linux (specifically Ubuntu). None of them really stuck. Back then I focused on all those great aspects of Linux. Being purely factual and objective.
But I have since learned people don’t act rationally. They act based on irrational emotions - like in the above examples. So here’s the question. Could I turn the perception around? What if I presented Linux in a way that makes people drool? Make it look more expensive than Windows, more cool than a Mac, more posh than a ten-million-dollar villa in the Caribbean?
Here’s my plan:
I’m going to present Ubuntu as a very expensive posh OS. I’ll mention it sells for upward of five hundred dollars in the States. I’ll say I managed to get an illegal copy off a Polish guy I know over the internet.
Only THEN will I mention all the positives. Multiple desktops, bullet-proof security, stunning visual effects. Somehow all of it makes sense in the context of a super-expensive elitist OS. I’ll see how many people I can convert when advertising Linux this way.
I’ll post exactly a week from now, reporting back on how my Linux Preaching v2.0 went. Hi yo, Silver, AWAAAAY!
February 16th, 2008 at 23:45
For some odd reason, your logic makes sense… After all, we all know that more expensive *must* mean more quality! Let us know how that goes!
February 17th, 2008 at 0:37
It would be very interesting to see how this works out.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:51
Please, please post how will it go! Very interesting idea!
February 17th, 2008 at 6:36
Wow awesome idea, I stumbled upon this, and bookmarked it so I can come back in a week to see how it went….
February 17th, 2008 at 9:52
But won’t they then ask to have their windows back as soon as they discover you lied about the price?
“OK, it has had no problems so far, but since it’s free, it surely can’t be any good. I’d rather have my blue screens than who knows what way this thing is going to blow up”
February 17th, 2008 at 12:28
It’s the chronically broken multimedia support and the fact that some pages which render properly in IE fail in Linux browsers.
Simple really, once the user hits one of these “unsolvable problems”, they harrumph twice and go back to windows.
I use Ubuntu and just learned to live with both.
February 17th, 2008 at 14:26
That all makes sense, perfect sense. BUT Linux is for the beginner much harder to use, to get anywhere you need to actually do stuff and find things on the internet, Windows however you can buy an off the shelf and it installs everything for you. I do think Linux is 100 times better but harder to use as a newcomer.
February 17th, 2008 at 14:40
very impressive, just stumbled upon it and Im bookmarking it to come back after a week to see how it goes.!
certainly, if I’m told “hey you can get a 300$ program for free, or a free program for free” I would say the 300$… it’s just more logical…
February 17th, 2008 at 14:55
Sounds cool,and strangely your reasoning seems to make sense…. You cold sell them red hat or some other “pay for support” distro…..anyway,let us know how it went!
Cheers,
maarten
February 17th, 2008 at 15:35
wait… i switched. becasue it was free and better and all the computer gods i know use it…
soooo what gives? am i not human?
we need to change the perception that money, not knowledge is important.
learing linux is learning how to use a computer.
learing windows is learing how to navigate cryptic menus.
nuff said.
February 17th, 2008 at 15:40
“…chronically broken multimedia support and the fact that some pages which render properly in IE fail in Linux browsers..”
wtf are you smoking??????? multimedia is wayyyyy better on linux. after 7.10 anyways, eaisier too. .. way better… way eaisier, Ever download the mega codec pack for windows? shit is hella cryptic!
or did you jsut use vlc?
linux browsers are you reffering to mozilla? being worse that IE??!?
you sir are and idiot.
February 17th, 2008 at 16:03
Instead of assuming I don’t act rationally, why not just ask me why I run Windows instead of Linux?
February 17th, 2008 at 16:05
It’s already being done…
http://www.fixedbylinux.com
If people want to pay for it. we’re giving them every opportunity. I fear as much as most people would want to disagree with you, our sales numbers bear out your theory.
The Geek Squad modeled their service after ours which I thought was a riot…
We’re installing systems as fast as we can answer our phones
helios
February 17th, 2008 at 16:11
oh…and one more thing if I could…
“BUT Linux is for the beginner much harder to use, to get anywhere you need to actually do stuff and find things on the internet,”
I really don’t know which “Linux” you are using but the one WE use is being mastered by 12 year olds in less than an hour. Adults, ad 30 minutes for our “Windoze Indoctrination Erase” to kick in.
Linux, as much as many of you want to fail, is the NEXT BIG THING…
People think the live cd technology is wizardry to the nth degree and are stunned by our silly little cube that rotates and serves no real purpose.
If people want to use a system that demands they purchase/use at least two other applications so the one they already purchased (stole) will work, I say let them. Fools will be fools. What I find most silly is that the “protection” they purchase so Windows will work is what eventually slows their computers down to the functionality of a door stop.
My only question is why people are not in jail for this. (it’s a rhetorical question…it’s a matter of capital punishment. If you have the capital, you don’t get punished).
Now go hug a penguin.
h
February 17th, 2008 at 17:29
You’ll need to enable all the desktop effects as Ubuntu doesn’t usually set it up as standard. I have used an installation of Ubuntu and have installed kde4 and kdm - it works wonders on my laptops ancient Radeon 7500!!
February 17th, 2008 at 19:03
oh, it’s ok with the psychology !
I’m from a India n people here don’t
use high-end h/w, they are neither geeks nor want to leave Windope ( ya that shit has doped peoples minds).
They just get a machine which can do daily works.
So, what are their daily works??
They GOT TO do -
1. Play games ( huhh)
2. watch pirated movies ( divx, avi, dvd and cd contents)
3. listen to mp3 which are obviously not sorted.
4. like jazzy screen-savers, themes 4 UI, wallpapers etc.
5. work on internet n use a little office apps.
THAT’S IT !!
———————-
So, I target such masses and convince them to use Linux,
1.since they already have VIRUS N WORM infected boxes, of which they are pretty tired ! They like SECURITY feature.
2.Some nice community games can quench their thirst.
3. They like the easy installation wizard ( unlike the DOS of Windope ), the need-less-ness of repetitive formatting ! Also, I tell them, how to install binaries through synaptic, so they need not to download again.
4. Openoffice.org n Firefox rule, u know that !
5. codecs, multimedia apps. make the content playable.
6. Ubuntu or Mint distros are eyecandy already.
————————-
After giving this much stuff, DEMOing things, I ask’em ” Now, what do you like ? ” they answer “Linux”
then I state that ” you are getting all this FREE, LICENCED, NON-PIRATED, SECURE “
AND BELIEVE ME, they get astonished n never quit Linux again !
February 17th, 2008 at 19:12
I think this is an interesting experiment but a bad idea.
It’s dishonest and it completely misses the most valuable part of GNU/Linux, the other sense of the word free.
The main benefit of GNU/Linux is that it’s free as in freedom, not just free as in price. To pretend that you “pirated” completely disvalues that real freedom. Also, it’s unnecessary, because you can sell free software (e.g. Red Hat Enterprise Linux).
Software freedom is most fully used by developers, but it also has many positive benefits for users. Why has free software proven to be better over time? “With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.” The open source development method tends to produce better software over time. Why do users have more control and freedom to configure software or switch to other applications? Because the developers value their freedom. With FLOSS, you’re much more likely to have a variety of plug-ins available, to be saving your documents in standard file formats, etc.
Anyways. Though you have a point about the stigma of the software being available at no cost, I think that can be overcome with a focus on the other sense of the word free and the community (and companies) that rally around free software, the fact that it’s impossible to pirate because you’re allowed to share it with your friends. That will get you a lot farther than an experiment in dishonesty and missing the point.
February 17th, 2008 at 20:30
I think this is only part of the issue. This logic may apply more to businesses who run expensive programs like Photoshop and have employees trained in those traditional applications. Part of the home users’ problem with Linux may have more to do with the difficulty in supporting PC games. I know I’d swap to Ubuntu in a heartbeat if it ran WoW without needing a degree in programming.
February 17th, 2008 at 20:32
You know that you can sell a copy of it legally.
February 17th, 2008 at 20:37
yeah, this works.
I usually “sell” Linux by saying over and over againt that “Linux is great, it’s simple to use, the Beryl 3D desktop graphics is stunning, it’s stable, it never crashes, you never have to reinstall it.
But see, you can’t have it - you simply don’t have enough skill. Not that it’s difficult to install or use, anyone can do that. But I don’t think you can handle it.
You can’t have it, I’m sorry,”
Strangely, this turns them on, and they soooo want to try out Linux. And when they do install it, I never get any complaints about it being to difficult to install or use =)
February 17th, 2008 at 20:44
You don’t have to be so elaborate in the sell. You can just point to say Redhat at a starting price of in effect $349 and say it contains or can be configured to use almost all the same technology! And then for Open Office point at however much Star Office costs saying “it’s an unbranded version with a few features missing, nothing important for the price!”
The general line of your argument is so true with management in most companies I’ve ever worked for over 15 years.
February 17th, 2008 at 21:34
Funny, and true - human nature. I’m a Lxer & f/oss advocate. A funny point made by the anti-Lxers is: Linux/f/oss must suck, since it’s free and nobody uses it!
February 17th, 2008 at 22:23
I don’t buy this theory. Not because it doesn’t make sense. It does, a lot of people think that way about things. I don’t like it because I don’t think it applies here. To the average computer user, all OS’s are free. They come with the computers. The reason people don’t switch to Linux is because Windows has come with computers for so long, and everyone fears change.
Switching to Linux is actual work while just using what the PC came with doesn’t take anything.
Of course this may change as everyone gets frustrated with Vista.e
February 17th, 2008 at 22:52
I agree with Matt the only reason people are so anti linux is because they are partly afraid of it, and they don’t like change. This is in some ways similar to the Qwerty vs. Dvorak keyboards. Even though one actually had some thought put into it they choose the other one because they are more used to it.
February 17th, 2008 at 23:14
Did you ever think Linux is unpopular because it’s a second rate imitation operating system? Like thousands of people, I’ve tried Linux and wondered why anyone would want such a complicated, slow operating system when my computer came with the best one on the market.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:40
In response to l!ve who said
“That all makes sense, perfect sense. BUT Linux is for the beginner much harder to use, to get anywhere you need to actually do stuff and find things on the internet, Windows however you can buy an off the shelf and it installs everything for you. I do think Linux is 100 times better but harder to use as a newcomer.”
Actually, the more “experienced” users who have been using windows forever have much harder times learning linux than complete computer newbies. They get too set in their ways. Do a test between two completely new computer users and linux would beat winblows pants off!
Also, with windows, 50% of the time you have to install drivers, it doesn’t come with full featured office suites, and you have to click start to turn it of LOL!
and in response to anon 18 February 2008 00:14
SLOW!? What are you high on!!!
There are linux distros that can boot faster FROM THE LIVE CD than winblows can from a 7200 RPM HDD!!! Really, you need to stop spreading lies about Linux!
February 18th, 2008 at 3:45
You could bother to make a post which actually provided evidence instead of rhetoric. As a student of psychology you might want to venture into philosophy so that you can actually argue your point without looking like a doofus.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:57
Sounds like a good experiment, but like any experiment you need a control group. And take some kind in consideration some kind of normalization. Your results couldnott be validated.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:08
What a great idea.
Actually I’ve run across thi problem myself.
I’ve suspected it for some time but didn’t want to say anything.
I’ve seen it in my family’s eyes.
My father is very well to do. He has a house filled with expensive, nice things.
So when I mentioned ot him I was working on a project for linux, a free operationg sytem, and encouraged him to use it, I could see the schepticism light up in his eyes right away.
The only way I’be been able to explain the “free” aspect and get it to work is to say it as “scientific” that some people belive computer science is science, and thus, scientific knowledge should be shared.
They seem to understand this.
But if I just say its “free” they completely get turned off.
That’s my thoughts.
Sara
February 18th, 2008 at 4:10
Hey, Compy McNewb here.
I actually tried Linux about a week ago. Complete crap. Yeah, the desktops were nice, and.. well nothing else worked. I had to look for a solution to every problem and fix everything myself. That’s why I like Windows better.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:15
@James
I’m not sure I agree with your line of reasoning. You’re argument would merely make me think Redhat and Star Office are overpriced garbage, not lend credibility to OpenOffice and Ubuntu.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:17
So, in order to get people to switch to Linux, all we need is for the government to have death squads to arrest anyone who is a pirate? Then, they won’t be able to steal Windows, and you’re saying they will use Linux?
Well, what about the fact that if you try to buy a laptop (which is what most people use these days) that it costs JUST AS MUCH to get it with Linux as with Windows. So, Windows is free too.
I’ll tell you why people don’t switch. Many people don’t switch because Linux can’t easily play most commercial video games. The other reason is because they already know how to use Windows, and since Windows is free (effectively), why learn something new?
There is a good reason to learn Linux though, it makes your computer twice as fast because you don’t have to have antivirus.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:18
You should charge for the thoughts posted on this blog lest people not value them.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:21
You ignore famliarity as the dominant reason why people choose Windows. 90+% of the people most anyone knows has Windows on at least one of their machines. Most people who use computers at work use Windows. Linux is a stranger to the vast majority of computer owners and users, and the difference in price isn’t nearly enough to bridge that chasm.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:22
Very true,
People determine value upon pre-defined values in the going market.
Women are the same way in valuing men, if a man is wanted by other women then the man has a high-social value to them. However, if a man is desperately looking for women they assume the man is worthless or of no value. Thus, they will often go for a taken man (ie proprietary) then a free man (foss). lol
February 18th, 2008 at 4:23
“Dog’s bollocks” means “a very good thing”. “Bollocks”, by itself, is a synonym for “bullshit”, which in context, seems more like the expression you were after. eg. downloading free MP3s using P2P is the dog’s bollocks, but paying for CDs is just bollocks!
February 18th, 2008 at 4:52
I used to be an extremely vocal supporter of Unix (and Linux) as a student. After 4 years as a software developer I now support Windows. I don’t believe Linux is here yet and here are examples of where it fails:
- Try editing a 50 page document in OpenOffice
- The Linux world is chaotic. There are too many ways to do the simplest of things. This is fun for us geeks. Not for others.
- X Windows sucks.
- Linux users tend to be too much like evangelists/hippees. They go on to preach on all those features which most people don’t care about. They help alienate Linux.
- Clipboard does not work as well as on Windows.
- Gotchas…like when I hit the maximum file size limit on a 32-bit Linux box.
However its nice to see all those Linux apps being ported to Windows. On my Windows XP machine you can find: Python, Lua, Qt, Eclipse, SciTE, TortoiseSVN, Cygwin, gvim, Abiword, Inkscape, GIMP (briefly), PostgresQL, sqlite, Seamonkey, Firefox…
Atleast now people will really appreciate and use these apps.
We need a central body to manage Linux. If we can have one Firefox (Yes I’ve heard of songbird, iceweasel, seamonkey…now shut up), why can’t we have one Linux. Joe User does not care a hoot about what a ‘distro’ is. Just get the bloody box to work…and work well.
I’ll be waiting.
Finally, Linus Torvalds is NOT God. He is a coder. A good one. But when you folks get all religious about things, Joe User and I are gonna walk away and play Dink Smallwood on a machine running Windows XP, because all those KDE games are rather lame.
February 18th, 2008 at 5:28
know I won’t make myself popular here, but nevertheless. I think it has to be said.
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
- 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/ [fixounet.free.fr]). 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.
Anyone who has read so far will probably recognise my low tolerance for anything in a GUI that isn’t as I have come to expect it. This is the norm in consumer land. The car industry knows that: try to launch a car that’s too “different” and you take a big risk. The snacks industry knows it: try to introduce a soda or a pretzel with a taste that’s too radically different and chances are that you won’t reach the mainstream.
You can think it’s sad, degenerate, or whatever. What matters is that consumers (end-users) have their preferences. You’re free to ignore those and try to educate them, but the price will be that your product will have a hard time gaining mainstream acceptance. No matter how good it is. If you want to be mass-market (as Linux should) then you have to cater for mass-market tastes.
That means standardised and familiar GUI’s throughout, standardised ways of maintaining the OS and GUI-driven software installers, having the option of letting 99.9% of system maintenance happen “on automatic”, and no drivel about the virtues of “commandline interfaces”. Until that’s in place, I believe that Linux will look in vain for desktop dominance.
The danger I see is that consumers generally do not go out and shout for certain functionality if they have an alternative. But they will silently reject any offering that doesn’t give them what they want. And right now the “alternative” is MS Windows. Which is a shame because the current “window of opportunity” with the Vista debacle won’t last forever.
All is not lost however, Qt4 for example seems to offer a very good way for cross-platform standardised GUIs that look pretty too. So why not use it throughout?
February 18th, 2008 at 5:34
I’m sorry to say, but Linux sucks on desktop and that is why it hasn’t spread. Thinking that it’s too good to be true and therefore people don’t want it is just plain funny. It has a long, long way to go before I could recommend it to my friends. To be sure: I’ve been a full-time Linux user for 10 years now, both at work and at home, so one can say I do have some experience with it.
February 18th, 2008 at 5:35
True. I used to work at a Pizza shop in town where I live, they would raise the price of a ham and swiss on rye by a dollar and they would sell at least 30 more a week. This was consistent every time they hiked up the prices, watched it happen over and over. People are just way too into “the value of a dollar” that they don’t see that there is value in a thing with or without the dollar.
February 18th, 2008 at 5:53
Its basic, supply and demand. you’re descibing economics.
I’ve done this before and it does work. But I felt bad (why! do not know!). So far everyone around me is changing to Linux. What did it do you ask? I displayed it.
Not patronizingly. I don’t advertise that I use Linux, but when people turn thier heads to look at this clean, end-user “product” and are curious.
Second, people are switching because of your exact reason, but not such an obvious manner. To them Vista was “free.” Of course, it wasn’t free, but it was included in the price of the computer, which is as good as free, psychologically.
Two out of three of my roommates use linux now.
Testament to the old adage: “Actions speak louder then words.”
February 18th, 2008 at 5:58
Sorry, I think the better experiment is try to live 3 months with each OS and see the one you prefer.
And the answer is: most of the time, it depends on what you do.
If you just want to browse the web watch a few movies and play a few songs. You are alright with any of them.
But start installing anything that’s not in a packet manager, upgrading your 3d drivers, try to play to one of the latest game, watch a live streaming movie from a website and you are in for a big sweat under Linux… In the end, windows is easier for most people, that’s it.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:13
Well, your post left me with 2 major impressions. 1st, I am happy to see that there is at least one person - I mean you, Vlad, who thinks the same way I do. Yes, I do agree (well, I *know* it) that most of the choices we do are irrational.
Second - it makes me sad to see that people do not see, and do not want to see, what it obvious.
There are lots of reasons why Linux has performed so poorly on the desktop market, but all those reasons boil dow to one - nobody does it right. It’s professionals who write the code, etc.; if Linux wants a larger market share, it is professionals who must do it.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:43
I don’t think you are going to find any kid today who will fall for the whole whitewashing bit. The world is just a little smarter.
It is true that humans perceive cost is directly related to quality. There isn’t any doubt in my mind that this is a hindrance.
As for “Why Windows pwnz Linux”; I have some points that you may wish to consider. Windows doesn’t have a price tag; well it does but the consumer never sees it. Hence they see Windows as free. That is one reason why people pirate the software; well the price is another but I digress. So, Windows has no value to the consumer.
As for selling Ubuntu as a posh OS; it won’t work. Because people are entrenched in what they know; which is Windows. The will ask; does it run Word, Excel, WMP, etc? If not then your posh OS goes flush down the toilet.
“In the past, I tried to convert people to Linux (specifically Ubuntu). None of them really stuck.” Why try and convert people? This isn’t the “Inquisition” after all.
Here are a few thoughts and suggestions:
1) Don’t convert people to Linux.
2) Price has meaning to most people. However you must get them use to the idea of Free (beer, speech) without the spyware aspect. Yes, it does exist and you might want think about pointing people in that direction. Start with the items that people will use in their day to day activities. Simple applications are a HUGE plus; Web Browsers (Firefox), Emails clients (Thunderbird), pidgin, VLC. Don’t forget to explain why these applications are great; as well as what is Open Source. What makes them great; their functionality, no license keys, install it on as many machines as you want. Don’t mention it up front.
3) As people grow comfortable with the concept of Open Source they will be more receptive to other OSS applications. Next time someone needs an app; hey, I know of this OSS app that would fit the bill. Sure enough they will try it. This comes from personal experience. Introduction to Open Office and GIMP come next; due to the size and slightly larger learning curve.
I will be blunt: I tried a long time ago to have people try Linux, BSD’s with no luck. Now the above illustrates the steps that I have made over time. I have built up trust with various OSS applications and people are willing to try more as their needs grow. To this day I have had created:
1) Several Dozen of Firefox users.
2) Several Dozen of Thunderbird users.
3) Several Dozen Pidgin (GAIM) users.
4) 5 Open Office users.
5) 3 Gimp users.
The number of users listed above doesn’t take into account that these users have introduced the same applications to their friends and family. The best sales person isn’t the technical one; it is a family member or friend with average abilities. These average users have no trouble selling OSS applications to their friends and families.
Show people Free isn’t worthless! Once they are accepting of Open Source Applications; they will be more trusting and will to try more. Who knows; I may one day show people the *nix universe. You would (or not) be surprised on how much people complain about doing maintenance on their PC’s or paying someone to fix them all the time.
To sum it up:
1) Start small; introduce simple, FOSS applications that people can use. Build trust.
2) Once trust is built; introduce more complex applications.
4) Who knows… You may have a future Linux user.
You have to get people use to the fact that OSS has benefits.
PS: One of my family members has introduced more people to Firefox, OpenOffice, Thunderbird and the GIMP that I have in the last 8 - 9 years. She has friends, family and small business using the software. Her boss’ at work are now interested in OO.o.
Just something to ponder.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:47
If I were you i wouldn’t say it is from Polish guy. Maybe German or English? Poland isn’t perceived as a source of top quality software… unfortunatelly, for I’m Pole using Linux…
February 18th, 2008 at 8:18
I have to agree with the comments about pricing. I have a friend who only uses Windows, when his AV subscription ran out, I spent some time, an convinced him to use AVG(free). After a few weeks,he went out and BOUGHT a copy of Norton. His reason - “This AVG can’t be as good as Norton if they’re just giving it away!”
This despite me showing him comparisons of all the major AV products, which showed AVG to be as good, if not a better product than Norton.
As far as ‘learning Linux’ I do not think it really would take any longer for a beginner to learn, than it would to learn Vista. My mother has had a computer with Vista for nearly a year, and still doesn’t know how to use it (apart from ’surfing’ the net). Yes Linux sometimes is difficult, but I think most of the difficulties come from Windows users expecting it to work in exactly the same way as Windows.
Take language as an example, I am English, and I expect all other English speaking people to understand me, but if I go to America, and ask for a bag of chips, I won’t get potatoes fried in oil (french fries), I’ll get crisps! I might have my money in a ‘bum bag’ Americans would call it a ‘fanny pack’ in (UK)English, fanny is female genitalia (slang), and bum is your ‘ass’ not a down and out!
As I say, I think it all comes down to expectations, and experience.
If new pc’s were sol without an OS, ad you ad to choose (and pay) at the time of purchase, what would happen - which brings us back to the original post!
February 18th, 2008 at 8:22
I didn’t want to make a long unformatted comment so I just did a blogpost http://blog.hopelesscom.de/?p=216
February 18th, 2008 at 8:38
You are right about being free as the problem, but not about the reason.
Because it’s free, it generates no income for the developers of Linux. So they can’t afford a marketing department, or advertising.
So there are no brains formulating a marketing and advertising plan for Linux. There is no budget for expensive mass-media television and print commercials.
Result?
No sales.
Don’t underestimate the power of advertising.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:50
excuse me i tried to install linux and it crashes everytime i try windows doesent crash. Would you please take this argument for once ?
February 18th, 2008 at 8:50
Linux on the desktop is not going to challenge Windows in the near future. Before you flame me, listen to what I have to say.
I used Linux (Red Hat and then Fedora) for two straight years. Before that I used Mandrake in college for a good amount of time. The problems with Linux on the desktop are (as others have also pointed out above):
- It is not user friendly. It is very difficult to configure, and continues to be difficult to do a lot of simple things. I remember when I got a 64 bit system and the first 64 bit version of Fedora, for the life of me I couldn’t get flash to work on Firefox. Believe me I tried everything.
- The applications available suck. OpenOffice.org is not a patch on MS Office. I agree that is very very good considering it is free software, but when it comes to critical things like working with large documents, working with lots of tables, lots of images, OpenOffice’s word processor just goes haywire. The interface (which is a poor copy of pre 2007 MS Word - yes i know that it’s a copy of wordperfect etc., - is left even farther behind by OFfice 2007). I dare the most deluded Linux advocates to tell me that OpenOffice can hold a candle to MS Office 2007.
I believe in the power of open source and I apprecaite the fact that Linux is a free, infinitely configurable, stable, and powerful operating system. I see a great future for it in servers, in Mobile Phones, Set top boxes, and other consumer appliances, but I don’t see a future for it on the desktop personal computer.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:07
The point of having a general-purpose computer workstation is to be able to run not only the software you need today, but new software you might need tomorrow.
A lot of people who could switch to Linux today and be happy with it might end up screwed in the future when some Windows-only program appears that they want to run.
The point of having a computer is not fancy desktops or clever operating systems, the point of having a computer is to run software. And if you choose Linux, you’re choosing to cripple your software choices.
In any case, I don’t see why people always frame this as an either-or proposition. Computers are cheap; get an extra one if you want to try Linux. Or set up a dual-boot system or a virtual machine.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:09
I think you are right. Like a friend told me: “It’s not fun to download something that is free”
February 18th, 2008 at 9:20
In addition to a ‘price tag’, Linux needs one more thing to make it really go ‘flying off the shelves’ - a big (brand) name associated with it [as in Microsoft(Windows)/Apple(MacOSX)]
February 18th, 2008 at 9:24
Well, it makes a bit of sense…but i think all comes down to applications.
For newbies might work. For existing users im not sure.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:26
WRONG!
You are right, that people are more interested in things they can not get, but human beings also want to be safety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
People are afraid of changes and this is the problem. If you give your friends a computer with ubuntu and let them work on it for one week, they will see that ubuntu can do everything better then microsoft.
E.g. a lot of my friends said: “No I can not buy an apple computer, because there I can not open my word documents.” And the mac os is not free.
The people are afraid of something they don’t know (like the dark dark forest). If you want your friends to use Linux you have to take their hands an show them that they don’t have to be afraid.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:26
Nothing is free. Look at all the “free” Unix/Linux products that are quickly evolving into commerical, for profit, products.
Sure, I’ll give you the product, but you must purchase our support (Redhat).
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Some of us have already figured it out. The rest of you are just living a big lie about the word “free”.
Lastly, us programmers need to eat too. How long did you think we would do all this work before we needed to get paid?
I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today….
February 18th, 2008 at 9:42
I would really like to know how your experiment went through. If it works we could easily make the falsehood true by selling Ubuntu from our site(www.zyxware.com) for 1000$ :). We have been finding it very hard to promote Ubuntu among our users. Some people start with it and change to Windows. Others wouldn’t have anything to do with it because they ‘know that it is tough’. It is just a horrible market perception that is floating around because of what Linux used to be - not what it is now. A small percentage use Ubuntu and what is interesting is that these are people who have not used Windows. They continue to use and we provide them basic training to use it. We charge for the training though.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:02
I sell software for a living. I would recommend not to lie about prices. Just refer to Redhat en Novells’ Suse distributions that are available at a price.
Ubuntu is also supported in the same way these distro’s are, but more successful, because they provide the operating system for free and make money trough their services.
Computer newbies are unexperienced, but not dense. Lying usually doesn’t work in your advantage.
Michael
February 18th, 2008 at 10:13
Want to know what the core problem of Linux is?
Geeks, and techie’s that are trying to sell something.
I am in the market and let me tell you people think different. This has absolutely nothing to with free and not free. This has to do with ROI and money.
1) People can’t make money with Linux. Redhat is a company that after 10 years still pales in comparison to any closed source company.
2) Linux users are cheap skates, and thus does not attract money. I mean why in the heck would I write anything on Linux when the first question is, “do you have a free version.” This results in low quality desktop software. I say desktop because on the server there are many heavyweights making money on selling Open Source alongside their services.
To solve the Linux problem there is a REALLY simple solution. BUY Linux software! Look at companies like Redhat and Suse. Corporations BUY something. Until people buy desktop software for Linux, Linux will remain a maybe ran on the desktop.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:15
I will say, that for what my girlfriend needs as far as computer use is concerned for her, she is much “happier” with the Ubuntu I installed on her machine this past October. Her previous roommates had access to her computer and perfectly fucked it up with so many cpu sucking tendrils of death, that I myself couldn’t sort it out.
She only slightly scoffs now, when a friend of hers’ needs computer help — meaning she asks me what said friend should do. It’s always, ALWAYS because of the ease at which windows allows such utter trash to be installed as though it will not leech from the overall performance of the machine.
Bottom line: her windows partition is essentially unusable. Now that she has ubuntu, she perceives that she can use her computer again. And no, as much as I have explained what was done to her machine by installing linux beside windows, she still doesn’t understand. All she knows now, is that it works and doesn’t have to call the weird “computer repair guy” anymore.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:04
If you want, You can ask them the real price of the linux kernel before install… 612 millions dollars!!!
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/linux_will_be_w.html
February 18th, 2008 at 11:16
I think besides the perceived value there’s another problem and that is that people are afraid of switching and are complacent using Windows. Look at the trouble MS is having people switching over to Vista. It looks completly different than XP.
Macs aren’t free and it has about 3 to 5% marketshare which is still peanuts. So if your statement is right why aren’t more people buying a Mac? It’s not like Mac is an unknown brand and is percieved as worse as windows.
Most people do not like change. Thats why Macs and Linux will never get a major marketshare. Moving to a new system is a pain. It’s easier to upgrade to a newer version than to change to something new.
They know how to work with Windows XP or even an older version of Windows.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:23
‘I know this sounds like complete dog’s bollocks, but hear me out before judging my sanity.’
Whenever I’ve heard this expression in Britain somebody wanted to imply that something is excellent, the very best!
Clearly the opposite meaning is attached to ‘the dog’s bollocks’ in the US. Just thought I’d mention it.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:47
You do not have to lie.
Just inseted of Ubuntu get a copy of Whitebox Linux and tell them that you have obtained through a torrent a hacker modidied (Wink, Wink
) version of RedHat Enterprise Desktop that costs up to 1000 bucks.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:03
Well, HP-UX costs a bundle. Why isn’t it more popular?
February 18th, 2008 at 12:12
Back in the days of “Linux advocacy HOWTO”, the reasoniing was more consistant. After 10+ years of warming up to/with Linux, I see this need remaining only for odd supported server. XP is fine system to get things done with less overhead and incompatibility, and OS/X is what I am typing it at in the end. While linux is something, that sits in my routers, but I am not able (nor is there need) to get to the system. Not lying - one always had to put effort of making it fit given new hardware. No good for occasional user.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:29
Amazing Mind, amazingly stupid mind…
February 18th, 2008 at 12:38
I’m offering Ubuntu+Crack for $99. You get Open Office FREE!!! Anyone intrested?
Polish guy
February 18th, 2008 at 12:51
last pont. Linux is not easy.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:56
You don’t need to lie about a price. Just inform them the actual price, for there is one. Or, actually, four, ranging from $287.51 (minimum) to $3,716.00. Per year!!!
Only take care to explain it this way:
When you purchase Windows for $300 or so on a store, what you’re actually purchasing is support from Microsoft: a phone number where to call when there are problems, optional updates, these things. These features are absent when you use a pirated copy.
With Ubuntu it’s the same: if you want support, you must pay Canonical. The base price is roughly the same of Windows, and you get a very similar package of services. If you don’t pay, and prefer using the unsupported version, you are on your own.
Then complement by saying that, other than this, the difference between both is that through it’s “anti-piracy” campaign Microsoft attempts to force users to pay, even those who aren’t interested in support, while Canonical just doesn’t care and will itself sell you an unsupported version for a low price if you also don’t care for the full package of services. That contrary to Microsoft, Canonical just isn’t in the business of forcing users to pay for something they don’t want, need, care or will ever use.
Of course, this last bit isn’t that accurate, as due to the GPL Canonical really wouldn’t have a right to call free users pirates. But if it wished, it could only maintain source repositories open, not binary ones. In any case, we don’t need to dwell into this level of detail when talking to newbies. At the generic level, this explanation is as much accurate as one might wish.
The important point, though, is that Ubuntu in fact has a price point, and if you were to purchase it boxed from a store shelve, that’s what it would cost. The “free” Ubuntu we can download from an official Canonical web site is just like the “free” Windows we can download from a pirate website, but with one positive side aspect: it isn’t actually illegal to use it.
February 18th, 2008 at 13:25
I agree completely and gave a talk on this very matter back in my university days. I found many cases where people believed that free meant in some way defective. Just as a store will pass out free posters or juice when it begins to reach a date of expiration.
February 18th, 2008 at 13:35
In the beginning your windows virus was not easy either.
February 18th, 2008 at 13:49
I concur, this is very, very true… looking forward to seeing how that goes!
(although, will people go back after the deception?)
February 18th, 2008 at 14:00
Linux has huge usability problems. That’s why the common people don’t use it. It’s overcomplicated.
For example, most GUI apps don’t provide a useful GUI, instead they provide an interface to send text commands to a commandline app (i.e. KPrinter).
Other apps doesn’t have proper documentation. That’s the case of MPlayer/MEncoder, which are multimedia apps but surprisingly they use the obsolete text-only manual app “man”. So no images, no videos, and thus, no examples.
Other apps lack modern features that the users are demanding (i.e. wget is not suitable to download from rapidshare/megaupload/etc, despiting the fact that these are common de facto standards today).
And yes, Linux is ugly and slow. Even apps running in Wine (or VMWare!) are faster than Linux native apps.
And there is another problem: the Linux people are blind, and instead of improve Linux they use all of their energy to reply comments such this one.
February 18th, 2008 at 14:51
Windows beats Linux on the desktop due to software selection and overall ease of use.
Go into your average store selling computer software, and you have shelves of software that are Windows only. Maybe a few Mac titles or hybrid discs.
Buy a piece of hardware? How likely is it that it’ll come with Linux drivers?
The vast majority of the time, any install on Windows is buying/downloading a piece of software and double clicking the installer. You know, without needing to run something in sudo, finding that you also need to dig up some other library file to install. Which in turn needs another library file. Which needs to be compiled, etc.
Even Windows installs tend to be a far cry from the “drag the icon into Applications” complexity of many OS X installs.
Linux is great if everything you need got installed off the bat or is available from a package management system. Anything past that, and it sucks for usability next to Windows.
Most users already equate an OS as being free because it just comes with the computer. I’ve never seen perceived value as a rationale in not using Linux. Always lack of familiar/desired software and ease of use.
February 18th, 2008 at 15:23
I strongly disagree from your opinion. Linux is not popular because it is designed by nerds for nerd-use-only. The Average Joe Computer Newbie has never been the intended public for Linux. Linux is hard to use because it requires advanced knowledge from the user or the constant presence of the figure of the system manager. So far Microsoft has been very successful in making several OSs that require practically no administration but that can’t be tweaked a lot, and the tweaking part is pretty much the only thing that nerds care about.
February 18th, 2008 at 15:29
This is really more aimed at 10ksnooker.
Pages that render in IE but not “Linux” browsers are pages that were broken intentionally for the purpose of working in IE. It isn’t just Linux browsers that these pages don’t work on, it is any browser that doesn’t use a set of proprietary HTML definitions to render.
February 18th, 2008 at 15:51
I think, all people have Windows because there is allways a friend, a cousin, a friend of friend who is a geek and always get managed to solve all Windows shit like Virus, Trojans, Malware, ….
If this geek doesn’t wanted to solve all those troubles, most people would change to a more stable OS like Linux.
February 18th, 2008 at 15:51
Bullshit.
I your fucking life only spins around consumerism I’d understand. But we’re talking about something that is communitarian, something that has a lot of work behind, that’s why it’s priceless, it’s not expensive, it’s priceless.
February 18th, 2008 at 16:40
It is not easy to battle a monopoly…
http://www.spymac.com/details/?2146727
February 18th, 2008 at 16:41
Hi,
I don’t know people in your country. But here people love to try the free stuff first. Friends (only male ones) asked me if they can use linux. But they use software which wouldn’t work on linux and they don’t want to use a dual boot or virtual stuff. I’m going to fix a computer for a female friend and she will get linux on her machine (I don’t care if she wants it or not).
Greetings
February 18th, 2008 at 17:08
You’re at least part right. For a lot of people the “free” thing is a problem. They see Windows as having value because of the “sticker price” just as you suggest. But actually there is more at work here.
Windows is what **everyone** uses, Compy McNewb wonders why the whole world **chooses** Windows, especially when Linux is “free”.
Compy probably worries about support issues - he’s seen all the Windows “self-help” books, and the Windows “mags” and knows lots of people who all run Windows.
Related to this, the guy pushing Linux tends to be a little “too clever” - he knows computers “inside out” he doesn’t understand most people can only just find the power button. Just because he runs Linux doesn’t make it the right choice for Compy.
You also forget - Compy’s computer probably came with Windows pre-installed - Linux is something that needs doing (to a system that works).
Computer “stuff” says for Windows on it - nothing says “For Linux”.
Really, running Linux looks like a huge hassle. Windows seems easy (and probably, it is). Compy will take some convincing about security risks (and is bound to ask: “Why doesn’t Linux catch viruses”). He’ll probably not understand why he wants something that’s harder to set up, but then doesn’t need so much “looking after”.
Linux is a hard sell, and not just because it’s free. It’s hard to convince someone to fix a problem they don’t know they have (or indeed understand).
February 18th, 2008 at 17:16
Had this same issue with OpenOffice.org, all the converts I told the URL to so they could download it has bought Microsoft Office within 2 weeks because they “didn’t like OOo”.
So, I instead started selling OOo (as is the right with the GPL from what I understand) as half the cost of MS Office, burnt onto nice shiny CD-Roms with glossy inlays and well presented. ALL people who have currently bought it are still using it, this has been going on for 7 months now
February 18th, 2008 at 17:20
My only statement is going to be this:
Linux has the promise in the core structure to be better than Windows in every way. The problem is that it just simply isn’t there yet. Even at a hardware level, manufacturers cater to Windows environments more than Linux. In order for Linux to actually take a foothold in the consumer world, it needs to be done right by someone… actually taken through a full development cycle and released as a real product. A complete product. With an install process that will leave the user sitting at the desktop with everything they need to “setup” already completed. No additional core packages, no GUI packs to install, no strange drivers to install (think small things like USB drivers as strange), etc.
I think price may have something to do with why people don’t TRY Linux. But I know of many who have tried it and stopped before it was done installing.
In my opinion, the following are the biggest hurtles for successful Linux market breakthrough:
1. Need to support software already owned by the consumer
that includes a good number of Video Games (could translate DX support into OGL support, or just include OGL support and have it actually function on normal games), all of the MS suite applications (just need to be able to mimic the file system of windows for certain apps), financial software applications (like quickbooks) etc.
I think an idea like the file system mimic is a good idea that few have attempted to play with. If there was a distro that had the core file system unchanged, but the ability to mimic the MS file system structures for Windows apps (mimicked so that the application doesn’t know it isn’t on a Windows machine), it might be a lot easier to see some more adoption.
2. Easier install process
I’m a QA manager with former experience in development and hardware engineering. I recently had to test on 18 distros of Linux. We tested all of the major Linux distros and some that I’ve never heard of. After overseeing those installs and some of the testing, I then went and trained someone on setting up a PC box with windows. this was the comparison:
Ubuntu: image download was confusing and the install took 2 hours when it worked which was 1/3 times (failed twice due to CPU timing issues…). total time: 3 hours after drivers
RedHat: disc was easy to use and install, but didn’t install any drivers… including optical drive which meant that we could setup the OS with a cd, but had to use a floppy disc to install the optical drive and USB drivers (this would have been impossible on a laptop mind you…). total time: 1.5 hours
OpenSuse: after failing to install 15 times due to memory timing issues (with 10 different types of ram used throughout until we finally got it to work with Patriot RAM of all things… didn’t like Corsair XMS no… it needed Patriot RAM), install finally took and at least allowed optical drive functionality so we could install the remaining drivers (just about everything else) total time: 2.5 hours
Windows Vista: The install prompts were easy, the disc was easy, the entire procedure took 1 hour to install then 10 minutes to update drivers. Total time: 1hour 10 minutes.
All of these machine had 2GB of RAM or more and in the end, I would have to say that Windows (even Vista) is by far the easiest OS of the bunch to install to a new drive.
(all of this would obviously be circumvented by a pre-installed distro)
3. Some f’n error handling
In none of my workings with Linux (even at my home machines) have I felt like the coders of a distro have cared about the consumer enough to give simple error handling. In RedHat I’ve received no less than 20 different major issues that return an error box that just says OK. No mention of what the issue which occurred was. In Ubuntu (currently installed on one home machine) I have experienced 12 such issues in less than a year. For an open source OS, I would at least expect to be given a debug thread dump for the failed process. Give me a memory address or SOMETHING. Don’t just give me an f’n OK box. It’s like working in php… and it makes it far more difficult than it needs to be to fix issues when you don’t know if the issue is minor, major, hardware based, software based, driver based, etc. I’m a relative expert when it comes to computers and general use/troubleshooting general issues… I can’t fix half of my issues in Linux because there’s no error handling.
If all 3 of those items are including in a single distro of Linux, then we can talk about upping public image to get some adoption rate increase. Until then, I frankly don’t think there’s anything of value for consumers to have in a Linux OS. It does exactly what they currently do, but without some feature support, and it’s more cumbersome to use. I don’t understand why you would ever expect someone to care enough to switch. perceived value or no.
February 18th, 2008 at 17:46
Interesting theory, but in this case I don’t think it is correct. After all, IE took off because it was free (as in beer), while Netscape cost money. Also, Firefox and apache have both taken off with the same price tag. I think it boils down to usability. I can’t give grandma the keys to a linux box without an awful lot of support.
February 18th, 2008 at 17:46
A cuple of things. First, Linux y not free. You can buy linux if you want it.
Second, i think the people dosen´t care. I mean… IE it´s free, and for Netscape you have to pay. Following the reasoning, people should have bought (or even pirated) Netscape, simply because “cost”. However, the exact opposite happened.
I do not think there is a difference between free I do not. But when a system comes preloaded. Failure to do so, people will start viewing other options. But (and I think this is what they really think a common user): why try other OS (even those free) if you already have one that paid when bought your PC and almost works well?
Anyway … We will see what happens with the experiment:)
February 18th, 2008 at 17:47
Really you MUST learn very much about Linux…
The question is “Why people don’t want to know about informatics”…
the most people only want use “things known”…
Don’t want to learn anything new…
This is THE PROBLEM!!!…
February 18th, 2008 at 18:00
First, you realize Tom Sawyer was fiction right?
No one really asks why informed people use Windows. The assumption from most is that Windows users (the 95% of desktop users) are all newbies who had to read a manual just to figure out how to turn the computer on.
I`ve been using computers for 25 years. I used DOS before there was a Windows. My first job was a programmer for TANDEM mainframe. I`ve programmed for OS/2. Programmed C on HP-UX, and even QIX. I’ve installed a few distros in my time. And I use Windows at home and at work.
The OS Itself: put a Linux machine and a Windows machine side by side. What can you do in Linux that I can’t do in Windows (and that I would ever need to do)? Nothing.
Applications: Every application that runs in Linux is a poor man’s version of a decent commercial application. MS Outlook is an amazing application. Don’t tell me to try thunderbird - I might as well use Gmail instead. Star Office is 1/100th the application that MS Office is, maybe even less.
Other than those, I use Picasa, iTunes, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, IE, and games. GIMP is a passable alternative to Photoshop, but its not as powerful.
Viruses: I don’t get them. I use AVG free, and I have a NAT router. Thats it.
I think the free/not free discussion is interesting, particularly in the corporate environment. But I think that for the home user, the point is largely moot. Computers come with OS’s. Windows is free. No one pays the retail price.
It’s more to do with the benefits of switching - none. And the cost of switching - high. Period.
February 18th, 2008 at 18:24
Don’t just make up some price, but show them real prices. For example show them, how much the Free Software Foundation charges for their own Software.
February 18th, 2008 at 18:28
The fact that there is not one single voice behind Linux (as opposed to Microsoft and Apple) means Linux comes across as messy. The people getting the most press leading Linux, FSF, OSS - are the controversial ones.
In fact, what ends up happening is fights break out among Linux advocates. I once heard Linux described as a political movement - and the description is apt. Linux users divide themselves into groups, and there are open fights and rifts between them.
Most people don’t want to be recruited into a cult. Thats one reason Apple Macs aren’t more popular.
Everytime someone says “M$” or “Windoze” or “Microsucks”… they are reinforcing the stereotype that Linux users are better than everyone else.
February 18th, 2008 at 18:38
I have to disagree with your assumptions. The reason Linux has not made it the desktop world is not even Linux, its applications. You can’t just go to your local store and purchase a game or productivity application. That is the real issue. People love free, really they do, but if free comes at a loss of functionality then most people will not use it. There are other things as well. Off the top of my head is, what desktop environment to use? Or do I need KDE libs to run an app, even though I prefer GNOME? I guess what I am saying is that there a any number of reasons that Linux has failed in the desktop arena, but being free would not be one of them.
February 18th, 2008 at 18:42
Or it could be the reason people don’t stick is after you’re done administering the initial install, they face the problem so very common to linux users: There’s very little support for it. What incentive is there to switch when your choice is “download (almost) any program, double click the exe and have it work natively” and “download (almost) any program, emulate (while not technically emulation) it through wine, and cross your fingers that it works…if not, tough luck”
I’m not saying there aren’t good linux alternatives to windows apps, but most home users want it to “just work” and won’t go through the trouble of finding a linux solution, or be as forgiving if there isn’t one. In this sense, the value of linux is much lower to the average user.
Maybe if there were more software support, more people would adopt linux. Then again, if more people adopted linux, there would be more software support. It’s a chicken/egg situation.
February 18th, 2008 at 19:09
I already did it some time ago. I have a cousin and three friends who don’t know almost anything about technology. They use their PCs to check their emails, download mp3, make documents in office and play games. That’s all they know about their system. So I showed each of them (at different times) my “original” Ubuntu CD (the one that they send you for free) and told them that it costs about 250 dollars because it includes a lot of software and doesn’t have viruses (they all use Windows XP, which is far less expensive). I offered to burn them a “pirated” copy and they all agreed. I know them very well and I am almost sure that if I had told them that it was free (as in free beer) at least one of them wouldn’t have been interested. Of course, neither of them speak English, so they had no way of knowing that Ubuntu doesn’t cost anything.
Anyway, a few days later I offered them my help to install Ubuntu. Only one of them wasn’t very interested for the moment, but I installed it on the other 3 PCs. Of course, the moment it was installed they started asking “where is Office? and what about messenger? where are the emoticons?” and other similar questions.
Well, as far as I know neither of them found out it was free; nevertheless, a couple of weeks later I found out that neither of them were using Ubuntu on a regular basis. The reason: thy missed their games, they didn’t like openoffice, and they are far too used to MSN messenger with all it’s bells and whistles.
So, unfortunately, while I am convinced that the this-is-really-expensive strategy can be very useful for attracting more people to Linux, it doesn’t mean they’ll “stay” once they find out that most of their favourite software won’t work in Linux :(. But this is just MY experience, maybe you have better luck.
February 18th, 2008 at 19:24
Windows is better than Linux and so is Mac OS X.
So, irrational people believe that a free good isn’t as good as a product you pay for? Tell it to the file sharers. Tell it to the Second and Third worlds who pirate millions of copies of Windows every year. So much for zeroing in on consumer sentiment.
So what do you get in return for all that phat cash you lay down for Windows and Mac OS X? For one thing, you get a product that has undergone significant usability testing. If I want to change the order in which my operating systems load under Windows or OS X and alter my start-up options, it isn’t hard to figure out. GRUB, on the other hand, is a joke. If you want to increase a product’s marketshare, you have to listen to the consumer. Period. Where is the incentive for Linux developers to conduct serious usability tests when there is no financial reward for their efforts based on the number of distributions they move off the shelf? Money matters. Capitalism matters. Do you seriously want to make people more aware of Linux’s benefits? Instead of using some backward logic like the author of this blog has done, you could engage in a little practice called advertising. But you know what? Advertising costs money, especially if it is up to Microsoft’s and Apple’s standards. And who is going to pay for that campaign? Not the Linux developers. They have enough to do. You can’t think of Linux in the sense of a commercial-like product competing against other commercial products because its development isn’t based on financial incentives. It wasn’t intended to be a desktop replacement and it shows. The developers want a product that suits them more and everyone else less. Engineers don’t make a good usability experts whether the product is free or not. For-profit companies suffer a serious backlash when they don’t make something easy. Linux developers? They couldn’t care more, and why should they? It’s their baby. They aren’t reaping the financial rewards or suffering losses connected with the mass distribution of their “product.”
The ironic thing is that Linux would be better for the desktop if it wasn’t free. The money from sales could be poured into the things I mentioned above. Developers would get paid more for their efforts. Economic realities dictate that Linux would cost as least as much as Windows or Mac OS X. Do you seriously want to run with the big dogs? Then it’s time to give up this notion that some die-hard Linux users have that their free OS is somehow better for everyone and start treating Linux more like a commercial product. Listen to your customers. Conduct usability testing on a large scale. Advertise. The trouble is that Linux has users and not customers. Until it does have customers, it will remain in a distant third for the foreseeable future and beyond.
February 18th, 2008 at 20:30
Maybe a this is a strange way of interpreting this thing.
You have a cheap version breaks fast (windows)
You have the nice stable version which doesn’t break fast but is from an expensive brand (mac os X)
And there is the middleman. It delivers quality but isn’t expensive (ubuntu for example)
Only problem here is that ubuntu is free. And therefore not logically the middleman. If people understand linux could deliver quality for free maybe more people start using it ?
Some people would choose for the middleman because it’s good but isn’t expensive. Just as with clothing or a car maybe…
It works for me like that at least.
I’m still using windows because I need some software that’s only made for windows….
February 18th, 2008 at 20:43
@VARGUX
“Really you MUST learn very much about Linux…
[...]
the most people only want use “things known”… Don’t want to learn anything new… This is THE PROBLEM!!!… “
No, it is not.
We are talking about end-users here, not people who take an interest in how their box works. Such users quite legitimately take the view that they don’t want to spend time learning anything about the OS and as little as possible about the apps. They use their computers to accomplish something else instead of finding out how it all works. Proper GUIs allow them to do that.
It shouldn’t even matter to them whether their box runs Windows or Linux as far as user-interface and comfort are concerned.
If Linux afficionados insist that people learn to edit control files VI or Emacs, and e.g. learn to use commandline ftp transfers, then, like it or not, that’s a major impediment on the road towards acceptance. Much larger than any perception of “it’s free so it can’t be much”.
February 18th, 2008 at 20:46
Thats the biggest crock of crap I’ve ever heard. I’m a long term windoz user who hates windows so I installed Ubuntu on a clean disk 6 months ago. Well after six months its gone because the “simple” things are NOT simple in linux. I never got Flash player to work in Firefox and Firefox would “freeze my entire system” on a daily basis as well. Lastly, I never got the printer to work. The driver was NEVER right and no easy way to fix. You linux guys think its easy because you use it. A newbie is toast with no one handy with linux experience to lean on. You say the 12 year old has it mastered in 30 minutes. I’m positive there was “someone there to ask” when they got stuck. The average home user has no such assistance handy. Guess what, I’m running Vista now and it runs circles around Ubuntu.
And don’t forget,I hate Microsoft….
February 18th, 2008 at 21:10
I think you underestimate the ineptitude of the masses.
Remember that most people have trouble hooking up their PCs. I mean the act of connecting the 4-5 cables a modern PC comes with (that are usually color-coded and pictured on a big easy-to-read poster). Installing a custom OS, no matter how easy it seems to a techie, is way way way out of the league of almost every casual PC user out there. We techies get insulated from the usual user that defines the mass market and the market share numbers you mention..
And don’t forget… “Why can’t I run Internet Explorer”? “How come Halo doesn’t work”. Yes, yes, there are windows emulators and whatnot, but whatever — you want to tell Joe PC User who has trouble with his monitor cable how to get that working and troubleshoot it??
I think it’s much more these two factors, than how much it (doesn’t) cost.
February 18th, 2008 at 21:23
well it is reasoned that a basic heuristic people use accounts for all the reasons people use windows for.
try this
you are given 2 OS’s
one is, say, 200$. It is well documented and an it is compatible with an overwhemingly large percentage of the well documented software currently existing in the universe. It occasionally hickups but overall, it works.
and the other one is free, and setup is relatively easy. however, most of the compatible software is not even barely documented, not very well supported, and it’s not guaranteed that you can even get something to work if you are a noob since you may have to go into this endless chain of package downloading (you know, these things you don’t understand unless you figure out what do these 456 abbrevations stand for) in order to use a basic application. oh and by the way, it doesn’t support mp3 out of the box. though luck
yeah totally, I’d go for linux. cos it’s free and paying for something is the only reason people choose that option among the alternatives
February 18th, 2008 at 21:32
that is totally true and very unfortunate for linux but I guess it’s just not cut up for the average joe.
February 18th, 2008 at 22:07
RE: “Well, what about the fact that if you try to buy a laptop (which is what most people use these days) that it costs JUST AS MUCH to get it with Linux as with Windows. So, Windows is free too.”
Maybe that’s because the installer person or machine needs to be paid too.
February 18th, 2008 at 22:16
A vast majority of people do not want to learn computing. They want no brain technology. No? Try working in IT support.
A PC, whatever operating system it is running is a tool but a large proportion of people do not want to learn how to use it properly, which includes administration.
Linux has a sociological footprint that it is for geeks. You could argue any operating system is for geeks ie people who know and are willing to learn how to use it properly.
Microsoft has spent a lot of money convincing people windows is for them, it has been ingrained through marketing for sometime. A lot of people go pale at the sight of Linux simply because it’s not windows.
I could sell people Linux at £100 a pop but if the user feels like they aren’t going to get anywhere or they cant be bothered to learn it, they will return to windows and their marketing constructed comfort zone of Microsoft knows your idle and we will look after you.
Besides which, Apple sell their hardware with Leopard generally at a higher price than your average windows machine in which case by your thinking, we would all be buying Mac’s because they have a higher value.
You need to look at far for avenues before you can tackle the subject and make a valid point.
February 18th, 2008 at 22:30
Great thinking! When I am trying to convince someone Linux is better than Windows and say “Linux is free” they almost seem to roll their eyes. It makes complete sense. The same thing happens when I suggest that “maybe you don’t need MSOffice, OpenOffice has many of the same features” and then of course I add “and it’s free.”
It all goes back to “You get what you pay for.” It’s NOT true!!! At least not as far as OSes are concerned.
February 18th, 2008 at 22:43
I have thought this from the time I was introduced LINUX and from the start this was my thinking. Another way to try and prsent it is use the numbers for if you buy the support for the linux your useing(cause even with microsoft you can’t call for support if its not legal copy.)
February 18th, 2008 at 23:58
Switching from free Linux to paid Linux? It would never work. Can anyone imagine e.g. Ubuntu for 100$? The day it would happen, many people would switch to free Ubuntu base cistro. And that’s it.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:04
Are you honestly suggesting this would stop the adoption in ANY other area of technology?
Let’s assume a company with the same marketing budget and prowess as Apple brought out an MP3 player and offered it for free at the same time as Apple produced the iPod. Again, imagine SIMILAR advertising/awareness. I guarantee the FREE alternative would many times out-”sell” the iPod.
Sure there would be a high end “elite” market wanting to buy the iPod as a status symbol (like our BMW/Mercedes/Porche drivers today) but Average Joe would be grabbing the free clone like it was going out of style.
The reason Linux isn’t spreading as quickly can be simply brought down to 1 reason:
Brand (advertising, corporate backing, money, aimed at niche geeks…the lot)
Improve the brand, improve the sales. End of story. Linux has a massive geek stigma attached to it, it “sounds” hard to use. It “feels” nerdy. If it were marketed LONG TERM like Windows is, it would become a major player.
You also have to take into consideration that many hardcore Linux community figures don’t want Linux to appeal to the Average Joe. They like it as a specialist solution and are scared of it being dumbed down.
I applaud you for having a stab at this from a psychological standpoint…but dare I say, you’re really off the mark.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:15
Gimp != Photoshop
Cinelerra != Sony Vegas
etc.
That’s why Linux is useless when it comes down to it.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:48
Cracked WinRar vs. 7Zip.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:19
There might be another reason, which was mentioned here in some comments…
Linux is great, but the User must care about the OS. Most People don’t want to know the OS, they want to get things done… without complications, without learning new things…
Windows may not be the best OS on the market, but the User don’t has to interact much with it. And that’s why they stick with it.
I stopped converting random People to Linux because it gives Linux a bad name. All they could say was “you can’t do shit with it” or “my programs don’t work on it”.
Linux is still an OS for Power Users and People who are not afraid to mess around with the OS. IMHO, Linux is not meant for the masses and it is hard to believe that it will ever be.
@Topic: But I still do believe that this Theory is true, at least for People with absolutely no Experience in Computers
February 19th, 2008 at 3:32
Sorry to say that this article is pretty poor.
Hey, Linux is on the up side of the curve, plus all those great open source applications.
Get some better Site or Blog tools other that Google. I left them a long time ago.
Get with the program.
Regards,
http://www.jjmacey.net/blog
February 19th, 2008 at 4:17
I recently installed Windows Vista and Ubuntu on a dual core 64 bit system (all new hardware).
I installed Vista. The wireless didn’t work. The driver from the manufacturer took forever to install because Vista kept searching the internet for drivers forever. Then I was able to install the manufacturers driver but on reboot Vista replaced the manufacturers driver with the broken one from the internet.
This is easy? It just works?
What do you do when stuff just doesn’t work?
To this day the Vista side has no. This is all brand new “Vista certified” hardware.
One hour after putting in the Ubuntu CD I was at an Ubuntu desktop with wireless and everything essential working out of the box. Absolutely no configuration necessary.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:00
The main reason that Linux hasn’t reached anything near what Linus T. said it would in 2001 is because multimedia SUCKS as applications on linux. You have to do a lot of work to get Java, flash, mp3, forget about encrypted DVD’s. This is the killer - how are you going to get the average user to adopt linux if DVD’s cannot be played back LEGALLY, even with commercial stand-alone players (I understand none exists because of the licensing issue).
I come from having played with PC’s in the IMB PC-XT days and moving over to Macs in ‘92 before moving onto linux in 2000 (and using Windows for things I couldn’t and STILL can’t do in linux). I moved onto linux because I couldn’t afford to buy another Mac at the time.
After my Windows box started having hardware problems (I need that machine to play back music and videos that my linux box won’t process properly), I made arrangements to buy a friend’s recent Mac for less than half-price. After I get this Mac in a few weeks and migrate my data back over to Mac, I won’t be looking back, even though I used linux as my main desktop at home for 8 years.
Good luck! One thing geeks have never been really good at is people and skills, that is required when trying to develop an interface that works correctly and programs that ACTUALLY work. Maybe we wouldn’t have these licensing issues if there were people who knew how to sweet-talk the right people into releasing licenses for DVD playback.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:09
“Complete crap. Yeah, the desktops were nice, and.. well nothing else worked. I had to look for a solution to every problem and fix everything myself.”
Yeah, I felt the same way after I installed Vista. Oh, you’re talking about Linux?
“You can’t think of Linux in the sense of a commercial-like product competing against other commercial products because its development isn’t based on financial incentives (…) it will remain in a distant third for the foreseeable future and beyond.”
You seem to be forgetting that Linux/Unix is actually the MAJORITY in the server market, the market that mostly deals with large companies and corporations. Linux got to be the standard in the server market without lots of advertising. We’re talking about the desktop market, which Linux only started to adapt to in the last few years. Of course it isn’t up to par with Windows and Mac OS, which have been dominating the desktop market for decades. Of course Linux desktop distros are still a bit hard to use; they started out basically as a server os (built for use by technical people) dumbed down for use by people like you. Most importantly, it’s absurd to say that a product or idea can’t succeed without advertising.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:26
i read thru this article briefly. there were to many posts to read. however, i do not agree with the logic. the reason linux us so far behind is simple. people generally just want to turn a computer on and everything just works. linux you need some degree of understanding whats up to install things. ie packages from .deb or .tar.gz or whatever. what a pain in the ass. windows - double click installer program, easy, simple, works. linux, unpack, compile, errors, dependances, code, blah blah, pain in the ass. 2, its all gui, very little programming or using code ever needed. linux, no, you need to know certain commands. 3, programs just work when they install. linux, linux based yah, but windows based run thru wine, is hit or miss. my exoperience, all miss. 4, hardware support. windows, everything just works, linux, specific drivers, etc etc. for instance my built in webcam will probably never work, windows, works like a charm. 4, availability. got to campus, school, internet cafe, etc, its windows based. why? because of the reasons above. however, if linux addressed those issues, problem solved, it would destroy windows. so, what needs to be done. installers by simple double click and they install on your system. more gui for what usually needs to be done by code and last, make wine work 100% as if it were actually installing on a windows based machine. this includes games, apps, etc. o, actually last, hardware support. basically, windows equals just works. linux does not. when it does, it will be dominant as its free. no one wants to pay for stuff. ok thats my brief 2 cents. i am a linux user btw. and i hate windows. however, unfortunately i dual boot because i need it for some things that linux just does not make easy.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:33
I’m sure this is a contributing factor sure… but there’s something else about Linux that puts people off… the TYPE of person pushing it. I.e. Linux “fanboys” tend to be fanatical and pushy about it, and carry an aire of superiority. I’ve seen many people turned off Linux, stating that they just didnt want to then have to deal with the “assholes that support it”. No one wants to deal with a bunch of elitist, arrogant, fanatics. What Linux really needs is for all the fanboy-geek-programmer-ImBetterThanYou types to quit being such assholes, and realise their work is nothing if no one adopts it. You can even see it in support forums, where newbies ask questions, and get flamed or ignored because the “question is stoopid, go back to windows”.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:12
You are right to look at human nature, but instead of looking at Windows’ users, look at the psychology of LINUX users.
They don’t *WANT* Linux to become the number 1 OS. Then, what would they point to to demonstrate their superiority over the masses? They would have to find a whole new non-intuitive command-line driven application to evangalise.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:42
People always seem to comment on how ‘hard linux is to learn’. But imagine this for a second. You have someone who -has never used any computer before-. What will be harder to learn? Windows or Ubuntu? (for example)
The answer is neither. For someone who has no frame of reference as to how a computer is supposed to work, and who hasn’t had any experience with them, both will be equally challenging.
But for someone who has had experience with Windows will obviously find Linux more challenging, It’s like learning to drive a manual vehicle after using an automatic for everything previously. There will obviously be a learning curve, but linux sticks the vehicle analogy, in the fact that, like a manual, you have much more control.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:25
There will obviously be a learning curve, but linux sticks the vehicle analogy, in the fact that, like a manual, you have much more control.
That’s true. But some people really don’t care if you have that much control, they just want the car to move. Same Analogy to my previous comment.
And those people are better of with Windows or Mac OS (preferably Mac).
I use Linux as main OS and have Windows as dual boot, just in case. But I’m also planning to buy a MacBook, so I work with all 3 of them.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:00
IMHO someone who has only Linux experience will find Windows very easy and intuitive to use. (Why else would KDE and GNOME try to emulate the Windows desktop?) However I am not sure that the said Linux user will admit this…
February 19th, 2008 at