PDA

View Full Version : What's the single biggest barrier to Ubuntu and Linux adoption?



Pages : [1] 2

Mazza558
May 14th, 2007, 08:42 PM
If you had to choose the biggest barrier to Linux / Ubuntu adoption, what would you choose?

compmodder26
May 14th, 2007, 08:45 PM
Hardware drivers. It's a double edged sword. Adoption will continue to be slow as long as users' hardware is difficult to set up and find drivers for. Hardware manufacturers won't waste their time on creating hardware drivers for Linux as long as its installed footprint is still small.

aysiu
May 14th, 2007, 08:48 PM
If you want to see previous discussions on this topic, read In your opinion what is the biggest setback that is preventing Linux to widespread? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=88023)

Mazza558
May 14th, 2007, 08:54 PM
If you want to see previous discussions on this topic, read In your opinion what is the biggest setback that is preventing Linux to widespread? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=88023)

Yeah. I remember that thread, it's huge. I thought we needed a more up-to-date version to see what people think nowadays, especially considering the Ubuntu-Dell announcement.

Iceni
May 14th, 2007, 09:04 PM
People are afraid to use unknown software, and the fact that the things they already know won't run on linux.

smoker
May 14th, 2007, 09:07 PM
if people can see and try linux in a pc store, preinstalled and next to the apple and windows stalls, then i think linux would really start to make inroads. the deal with dell, if followed by other pc makers could be a turning point. the more linux computers sold, the more likely others will see them in action and maybe decide that is the next pc for them.

gnomeuser
May 14th, 2007, 09:14 PM
We already support more hardware out of the box than anyone else, we are closing the gap quickly on the remaining areas. I think the biggest problem currently is that when people buy a machine it comes with Windows, 99% of people won't switch unless there's a really good reason. We don't currently provide a truly better desktop, it's a Windows that doesn't crash not a better alternative. So long as the things we highlight are that we suck less than Windows, why would people go for a Linux desktop?

We have the chance to really do something innovative and do it quickly, we just need the will to do so. Take technology like Tracker or Beagle, with a bit of investment we could have that integrated so deeply in all of the desktop that nobody could compare.

Offer people something truly better at zero cost and they will switch.

I'd say investments are needed to give us the final few drivers (Intel are onboard, ATI are joining up reportedly and we are doing nvidia ourselves. that leaves wifi which is also being worked on) and we need to work on not being merely onpar. Finally we need to really take security seriously, not doing so has caused many issues for Windows (and it will for Apple) we have the chance to do it right from the word go and we can fix everything up faster since we have the freedom of access to the source.

We also need to calm the waters we aren't going to beat Windows just yet, we simply can't - I know we'd all like to but it will take years and we need to not push an inferior solution on people or they won't believe us when it no longer is the case. I've been a fulltime Linux user going on 9 years now, I'm accustomed to waiting, what I have seen is that every year we do better and better, eventually we will win - no doubt about it. Open technology has to much going for it to lose the battle for technological domination as a whole, the desktop usecase is just a very hard one to hit, I suspect it will be the last bastilion to fall - Servers, workstations, embedded devices, applicances, all have switched to our technology, the desktop will come in it's own sweet time.

aysiu
May 14th, 2007, 09:18 PM
The biggest barrier varies from person to person or from organization to organization (business, school, government, non-profit).

It's also kind of hard to say what barrier is "biggest," because there's no measuring stick for size when it comes to barriers, and a lot of the barriers are related to each other. If more people hear of Linux, more people will try it, meaning more users, meaning more non-geek users, meaning more commercial and hardware support and better advertising, which will, in turn, bring more users... and so on.

I'll use some examples from real life.

The maid of honor and best man at my wedding are both Windows-entrenched and won't even consider getting a Mac. Linux is totally out of the question for them. It's not that they necessarily need Windows-only software. They just don't want to switch. They're comfortable with Windows and "like" it (even though they constantly complain to me about the problems they experience while using it). For those two, I'd say the biggest barrier is fear of change.

Our office uses a lot of Windows-only software, and we just went through a huge database migration over the past two and a half years (the migration was a nightmare for everyone involved). I'd say for our office, the biggest barriers would be the need for Windows-only commercial software and fear of another migration.

My wife is a graphic designer (just finished her degree, actually) and was required to get a Mac for school and lots of appropriate software--no, not GIMP, Scribus, Inkscape, and F4L. She had to use Adobe CS2 and Flash for school assignments. Linux would have been out of the question. That dependence on commercial software is the biggest barrier for her... apart from her love of Apple products.

But most people I know (my co-workers, my friends, my extended family) have never even heard of Linux, so clearly that's the biggest barrier. You certainly can't adopt something if you don't even know it exists.

The best we can do is try to make an effort on all fronts:
* pressure hardware manufacturers to open their drivers by supporting their competition that does open drivers or at least port them to Linux
* market desktop Linux
* seem happy while using Linux but also be honest about the problems we face
* improve open source alternatives to commercial applications

If all those things keep happening, desktop Linux will keep getting adopted by more and more people, schools, governments, and businesses.

You cannot "attack" on only one front.

moffatt666
May 14th, 2007, 09:18 PM
I think if we could promote how easy to use and fast it is for everyday applications then uptake would increase dramatically.

aysiu
May 14th, 2007, 09:21 PM
I think if we could promote how easy to use and fast it is for everyday applications then uptake would increase dramatically.
I think if news articles stopped making it sound like a free version of Windows that has no problems whatsoever, then our retention from the uptake would increase dramatically.

mech7
May 14th, 2007, 09:22 PM
Think it's a combo of hardware support and available software (games/apps)

UI-Freak
May 14th, 2007, 09:27 PM
People are afraid to use unknown software, and the fact that the things they already know won't run on linux.

Rubbish. I tried it all on Linux, and the software is far from the commercial software on Windows and Mac. After trying it for years, I would know. I was never scared, but disappointed. You just cannot compare Scribus (only early beta) with commercial DTP programs, InkScape with CorelDraw etc. etc.

Without lots of hardcore professional software - and CHOICE - Linux is not a great alternative desktop OS. Great themes, wallpapers, stability, no viruses... there is no real value without great software. And before you answer... I TRIED IT! Compared it.

A lot of people doesn't need more that Linux apps can deliever, but for mass adoption a huge selection of commercial software is mandatory.

Linux is not the hidden treasure that people avoid or never discovered. It is just not there, yet. Don't blame people for Linux shortcomings.

aysiu
May 14th, 2007, 09:32 PM
Linux is not the hidden treasure that people avoid or never discovered. It is just not there, yet. Sure it is, just not for you or people with your software needs. Linux can't meet everyone's needs yet, but undoubtedly there are millions of people whose software needs could be met by Linux right now but who aren't using Linux because of their ignorance of its existence or abilities.

axel-vpk
May 14th, 2007, 09:38 PM
It is all about the :!: GAMES :!: .

The lack of games is what is preventing linux adoption.

Since most people will want to keep a dual boot simply to boot into XP to play their games, they dont find it worth the hassle to learn linux to do their desktop stuff.

Since the programmers at wine and cedega work hard to run windows games in Linux the game developers are hardly motivated to make linux ports either.

However, should linux be adopted by the Non-3d-gamer crowd, the rising percentage of Linux OS share might attract game developers' attention to start porting games for linux, which would increase linux market share exponentionally there after, as developers and companies would port their software for linux to get their share of the cake.

Furthermore, since FOSS people are considered freeloaders that won't pay for any software they are thusly a very unattractive target for developers, worsening lookout yet besides their negligible size of the OS share.


People want to play game on their cool graphics cards, and since they wont run on linux, they use Windows.


Note: Linux is actually better than windows at running most *old* computer games.

forrestcupp
May 14th, 2007, 09:38 PM
I think it's a mix of everything.

People don't know about it. Then when they find out, they don't feel a need to change. Then when something happens and they feel like they need to change, they feel like you have to be a major geek just to set it up, and you have to use words like distro and repo. Then when they find distros like Ubuntu that make it easy, they find out a lot of the software they already have most likely won't work. Then when they find the free alternatives, they find out their ATI all-in-wonder won't work properly. If they can jump all of those hurdles, they end up being good Linux folks.

You forgot one step, though. Some people think that anything that is totally free is too good to be true.

hardyn
May 14th, 2007, 09:49 PM
I believe that aysui touched on it the best...

it the institutional and corporate environments... these types of organizations cant simply drop all the old and bring in the new, they are tied to the software that they are currently using; which grandfathers' in a whole bunch of defacto standards.

one example on the contrary: i was forwarded an email from one of the larger architectural firms in California, basically stating to their CAD vendor; if they do not wake-up (the code) and port their obsolete Solaris version to Linux, as they refuse to upgrade to Vista (great cost for little benefit) they will be seeking alternative CAD software. but you have to have an account of this size or larger for a software company to do something about it's windows momentum. (no word if this demand was acknowledged)

hsweet
May 14th, 2007, 09:52 PM
One other (small) issue is that when most folks purchase a computer the only choices they have at your local best?buy is (ready for) windows. And they heard of macs but they're harder to find and more $.
I've installed lots of os's in my time, but that's unusual. Most folks just want to buy a box for not too much money to do whatever they want to do (surf for porn for example:) ) and don't want to think too much about all the other issues(DRM comes to mind).
If the Dell thing is sucessful that will be a huge boost, (but Wallmart was there first with Linspire and it's not taken over the world).
Dell's entry will probably (hopefully) be a stepping stone. Folks who want Linux but are not confident enough in their computer skills to install an OS can come aboard with a major company behind them for hand-holding.
There is no single biggest barrier. It's like getting a cgi script to work. Just get a dozen or so simple things to work and you're done.

hardyn
May 14th, 2007, 09:56 PM
The best think that MAY come from the dell arrangement, is hardware vendors might finally realize that linux is a player, and they better be making drivers.

gnomeuser
May 14th, 2007, 10:01 PM
I believe that aysui touched on it the best...

it the institutional and corporate environments... these types of organizations cant simply drop all the old and bring in the new, they are tied to the software that they are currently using; which grandfathers' in a whole bunch of defacto standards.

one example on the contrary: i was forwarded an email from one of the larger architectural firms in California, basically stating to their CAD vendor; if they do not wake-up (the code) and port their obsolete Solaris version to Linux, as they refuse to upgrade to Vista (great cost for little benefit) they will be seeking alternative CAD software. but you have to have an account of this size or larger for a software company to do something about it's windows momentum. (no word if this demand was acknowledged)

I say the biggesr issue is the lack of an open standard for CAD software, what happens if said company goes under. You are then stuck on a platform which will be EOL'ed at some point, security becomes an issue. Simply requiring updating and porting isn't going to cut in long term. I think this would be an excellent place for us Free Software people to start create and certify an openCAD standard with a reference implementation then start convincing large companies to lean on the CAD software vendors to include support.

adamklempner
May 14th, 2007, 10:18 PM
Rubbish. I tried it all on Linux, and the software is far from the commercial software on Windows and Mac. After trying it for years, I would know. I was never scared, but disappointed. You just cannot compare Scribus (only early beta) with commercial DTP programs, InkScape with CorelDraw etc. etc.

Without lots of hardcore professional software - and CHOICE - Linux is not a great alternative desktop OS. Great themes, wallpapers, stability, no viruses... there is no real value without great software. And before you answer... I TRIED IT! Compared it.

A lot of people doesn't need more that Linux apps can deliever, but for mass adoption a huge selection of commercial software is mandatory.

Linux is not the hidden treasure that people avoid or never discovered. It is just not there, yet. Don't blame people for Linux shortcomings.

I agree mostly with this as the largest barrier for Linux adoption. I wouldn't call is a "Linux shortcoming" though. The fact that commercial software isn't readily available for Linux isn't really the fault of Linux. It is kind of a catch-22. Commercial software won't be readily available for Linux until Linux's market share increases, but it is difficult to increase the market share of Linux without the popular commercial applications.

Or at least that is my opinion that I have formed based on my limited experience. I would really need Autocad, SolidWorks, and Photoshop to have native Linux versions, before I could recommend a Linux only PC to most of the people I know (I am an Engineer and artist, hence those are the key programs for my general social group). Also, common games really need native versions for the younger crowd I know. Linux would work for my Mom, and I plan on getting her a Dell Ubuntu box in a while. But she is really the only one I know that can get away with having their primary computer be a Linux only (no dual boot) system.

Unfortunately this tends to attach a stigma to Linux because people tend to think that Linux isn't as capable as Windows/Mac because these programs don't work. IMO, Linux is not less capable, it just lacks the backing of the big commercial programs. There is a fine difference.

[For what it is worth, I did get a couple friends/colleagues to set up a dual boot system. Like me, most of their time is indeed spent on Linux, but there still is the occasional need for Windows.]

juxtaposed
May 14th, 2007, 10:37 PM
The biggest barrier is people don't know about it, and if they did, they don't care.

Adamant1988
May 14th, 2007, 11:29 PM
I think the biggest obstacle is.. uhm, adoption. The technology is ready, and rapidly improving, the trick is to just get the software out there. Getting the word out, and getting information on who wants it and how to get it to them is what's important, at this point.

jrusso2
May 15th, 2007, 12:05 AM
1. Lack of OEM's offering preinstalled Ubuntu
2. Lack of legal DVD and Codecs
3. Slow gui performance of the x windows system
4. Lack of commercial applications like photoshop and MS Office and Dreamweaver.
5. Poor wireless support
6. Poor Video card support.
7. Arcane command line syntax



Did I miss any?

kragen
May 15th, 2007, 12:19 AM
I went for the mindset of people option - I mean all the reasons there are pretty even except for "Linux? Never heard of it!" and "People generally feel no need to switch" (In my experience pretty much everyone has heard of linux, but won't consider it for themselves because "linux is for geeks", and as for not being bothered about switching - who wouldn't be bothered about being able to save themselves 300 odd!!!)

Driver support and software quality will get better over time, but at the moment both are plenty good enough for a lot of people, yet they still don't use linux despite the fact that it saves them having to fork out extra for windows. Compared to changing the image of linux, writing drivers is fair easy - companies spend billions on advertising trying to change their image, the fact that Ubuntu is free might make it easier to convert people, but it also makes people instantly think "its free, therefore its not going to be as good as something I have to pay for"

hardyn
May 15th, 2007, 12:28 AM
I say the biggesr issue is the lack of an open standard for CAD software, what happens if said company goes under. You are then stuck on a platform which will be EOL'ed at some point, security becomes an issue. Simply requiring updating and porting isn't going to cut in long term. I think this would be an excellent place for us Free Software people to start create and certify an openCAD standard with a reference implementation then start convincing large companies to lean on the CAD software vendors to include support.

My argument was not specifically for CAD; but your point is well stated.

maynoth
May 15th, 2007, 01:05 AM
Please don't flame me. The question is what is the single biggest barrier to linux adoption... the answer is lack of support for windows software via wine. (PLEASE UNDERSTAND I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS A FLAW)


What I am saying is there are literally tons of windows only programs which people need to run which aren't available for linux. Most people play solitaire or a few other 2d games, browse the web, download music, burn cd's, print, and do financial work on their home computers. People would switch in the droves if programs like quickbooks and turbotax ran under wine. I don't think its a realistic answer for the linux community to offer open source programs for everyones needs, maybe sometime in the future, after linux wins the OS wars, but not now.


if more effort were poured into the wine project to get necessary financial and office applications working then more users would switch. gnucash just isn't useful yet, compared to quicken, quickbooks or turbotax etc.

I could have had over 20 converts to ubuntu if I could have gotten quickbooks running under wine...

maynoth
May 15th, 2007, 01:11 AM
There needs to be some sort of viral marketing campaign... Something which plays on peoples (legitimately founded) fears of big brother style invasions of privacy and DRM... etc.... in windows


anyone remember that story where the NSA has a backdoor key into every windows box...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/15/131222


also more work needs to be done on a peerguardian/moblock gui and easy one click .deb installation for it..

kragen
May 15th, 2007, 02:08 AM
Please don't flame me. The question is what is the single biggest barrier to linux adoption... the answer is lack of support for windows software via wine. (PLEASE UNDERSTAND I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS A FLAW)


What I am saying is there are literally tons of windows only programs which people need to run which aren't available for linux. Most people play solitaire or a few other 2d games, browse the web, download music, burn cd's, print, and do financial work on their home computers. People would switch in the droves if programs like quickbooks and turbotax ran under wine. I don't think its a realistic answer for the linux community to offer open source programs for everyones needs, maybe sometime in the future, after linux wins the OS wars, but not now.

if more effort were poured into the wine project to get necessary financial and office applications working then more users would switch. gnucash just isn't useful yet, compared to quicken, quickbooks or turbotax etc.

I could have had over 20 converts to ubuntu if I could have gotten quickbooks running under wine...

I don't think linux is ever going to get to the point where enough windows app's run for people to switch, It's far more likely that development for linux will increase to the point where most programs are written to work natively on both windows and linux, or there exist suitable alternatives, not that thats going to happen particulary soon, it's just that getting enough wine compatability is going to take even longer.

EDIT: Just to confirm - not a flame :) I just don't think that wine is a solution, although I hear what you're saying. My mum is the IT coordinator for a primary school near me, I would suggest she converts all her computers to linux, but I know its completely unfesable because they have so many windows only programs. Wine is probably the best short-term solution for many users who depend on maybe one or two windows app's, but I don't think it would attract users in large numbers, partially because they all depend on different app's, and partially because even at its best wine emulation isn't anwhere near as good as native app's

zhkent
May 15th, 2007, 07:43 PM
I needed a computer and bought a system 76, Ubuntu.
I need to do 2 things, edit video's off of camcorder to put on a web site, and quickbooks.
As a noob it has been very time consuming. Right now transcode program is running to convert the .mod files the camcorder makes to dv files, so hopefully I can get them to work. It's been running 25 minutes, don't know if it will work. Have given up on quickbooks pretty much.
I like the system. I keep thinking I'll get things to work, running out of time though. I may give up for a while.
NVU and filezilla were the two programs that brought me to linux, great programs.
Kent

Eddie Wilson
May 15th, 2007, 08:04 PM
Rubbish. I tried it all on Linux, and the software is far from the commercial software on Windows and Mac. After trying it for years, I would know. I was never scared, but disappointed. You just cannot compare Scribus (only early beta) with commercial DTP programs, InkScape with CorelDraw etc. etc.

Without lots of hardcore professional software - and CHOICE - Linux is not a great alternative desktop OS. Great themes, wallpapers, stability, no viruses... there is no real value without great software. And before you answer... I TRIED IT! Compared it.

A lot of people doesn't need more that Linux apps can deliever, but for mass adoption a huge selection of commercial software is mandatory.

Linux is not the hidden treasure that people avoid or never discovered. It is just not there, yet. Don't blame people for Linux shortcomings.

I really can't see you trying out all the software and then comparing it. You haven't had the time to do so. A lot of windows software is not worth the money you pay for it. I know because I've been buying that crap ever since windows was born. Most people don't need the professional software that runs on windows. Of course you didn't name any professional software. People learning how to use a linux computer is the largest barrie.
Eddie

dan171717
May 15th, 2007, 08:10 PM
2 things

first is drivers companys wont makelinux drivers if nobody will use them so the comunity stays small (i prise companys like hp and ati who do make linux drivers)also it is pepole who only use the internet and nothing else my mum refuses to use linux not even try it because she doesnt belive me that the can be run of a cd without tuching the hdd. she only uses the internet. she has tried firefox but prefers ie7 becasue shay says the text is clearer. she must have caught microsoft dieseze i cant tell the differnce

dca
May 15th, 2007, 08:18 PM
Too vague... Which barrier? Enterprise or Personal? Enterprise, it's there! Red Hat & Novell proved they could take something that's free and make a s**t-load of money on it for providing support. Mainframes once designed to only run AIX, now are certified SLES & RedHat and yadda yadda yadda. We're there. Virtualization added to that and blew it over the moon. Now the Ubuntu barrier? Well, I guess they need to add more high-profile large enterprises to their portfolio.

On the personal front (or barrier), well I'll let you guys argue that one... More drivers, better device support, games, whatever.

prizrak
May 15th, 2007, 09:20 PM
The only barrier to Ubuntu, Linux and ANY other product adoption are market forces.

timpino
May 15th, 2007, 09:30 PM
Games.

bigdavesr
May 16th, 2007, 05:22 AM
ubuntu has been good to me.The problem is microsoft.:lolflag:

BLTicklemonster
May 16th, 2007, 05:31 AM
I don't mean to sound anti-American, but My God, we're breeding a bunch of morons over here. I swear, someetimes I wonder if it's something in the water...

lyceum
May 16th, 2007, 07:35 PM
I don't mean to sound anti-American, but My God, we're breeding a bunch of morons over here. I swear, someetimes I wonder if it's something in the water...

How anti-American! (kidding!)

Seriously though, I had to talk to a classroom full of people of mixed ages, all over 18, and when I asked them what OS they used they looked at me like I had 3 heads. One person spoke out and said, "There's a choise?" Then some one else piped in with "well I guess Apple is still there, if you have the money for it!" Once I wip out my laptop and show people Ubuntu (customized with beryl, of course) they want it, but when I first talk about it they act like it is an illness I guess because it is not on TV?

mgmiller
May 16th, 2007, 10:15 PM
I have been building my own computers for 15 + years now. I built the entire network at my office (I own the company) and at my house. I love Ubuntu and most of my home machines run it exclusively. I would like nothing better than to convert my office to Ubuntu, but I am locked into 2 commercial applications that are windows only. One is sybase sql based and the other is ms sql. These 2 apps are the very core of my business and after much research are the best that I could find. I have spoken with some knowledgeable people about porting them to linux, but it would be very difficult and expensive and every time there was an upgrade to the software which happens several times a year, I would have a problem. I have managed to get my appointment book running very well in wine and I can use "most" of quicken in wine as well, but these 2 apps are show stoppers. My office network has a 30/15 MB broadband connection and all machines are internet enabled. I run Windows XP SP2 and of course, anti virus and anti spyware and have defragging utilities running and do lots of other weekly/monthly chores to keep them all healthy. I don't install anything that isn't absolutely necessary for each machine. They have been very reliable, but require a lot of baby sitting to keep them that way. My Ubuntu machines? I just turn them on and use them. No problems, no administration, no wasted time. I want Ubuntu in my office, damnit! It's very frustrating. ](*,)
The only thing I do on 1 windows machine at home is video editing from my cam corder for home movies. I just haven't found anything with the ease of use and abilities of simple windows movie maker 2 combined with Roxio for creating the menus and burning the final product to a DVD that will play on a set top player. All the linux apps I tried for this are either too cryptic or slow or too limiting. Cinellera, yeah, right. Lives has a horrible interface and is slug slow. There is 1 app out there that looks promising, Diva, but is not ready yet. I've been watching it for a while, but it seems to be dead. This is really sad, when an application bundled with windows not only doesn't have a linux analogue in the base install, but is better than anything I can find in the linux world. Don't get me wrong, I love Ubuntu and when I get home from work, I really don't want to look at a windows machine. I'm on Ubuntu almost full time at home.
My 30 year old son & daughter in law manage to blow up their windows machine about every 6-9 months and I have to rescue them with a repair install. I am now in the process of building a new dual core AMD with 2 gigs of ram as a replacement, but this time I am putting Ubuntu on it. He will still need a windows partition though, to be able to update his ipods, (they have 2 or 3), firmware from time to time. I know amarok does a great job with ipods for play lists and moving and managing music, but once it has written to his ipods, itunes won't work any more, effectively making them stuck at the current firmware version. So his Ubuntu will be strictly playback only for the ipod. All his music stuff will have to be done from windows. It's a start any way.

lepz
May 16th, 2007, 10:54 PM
People are just bone-idle ;)

aryah
May 25th, 2007, 01:37 PM
I voted hardware, though not seeing any need to switch is certainly very important. But I didnt wote for this for its not specific enough IMO.
Whats really missing is a Desktop killer app. GNU/Linux doesnt have that currently, and thats how its adoption was spurred in server segment.
Thats only logical, computing in general has a very high network effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

daverich
May 25th, 2007, 01:51 PM
we really could do with a flash editor.

I've emailed coffeecup about porting theirs - the said they'd look into it.

Kind regards

Dave Rich

JAPrufrock
May 25th, 2007, 03:58 PM
The biggest problem is software compatibility and usability. Most people I know would not be willing to use Gimp instead of Photoshop, Qcad instead of Autodad, Gnucash instead of Quickboods, Evince instead of Acrobat, etc., etc. Setting up virtual boxes is not the answer. GO WINE!!

Adamant1988
May 25th, 2007, 04:08 PM
I'm going to suggest that a problem lies with the images that Linux has been given overall, and this is the fault of a lot of 'evangelists' out there:

We live in the shadow of Windows...

Uh... What? Linux is Linux, yet on digg and anywhere else it's being marketed as "The Better Windows", our user interfaces are getting closer to windows in terms of design and functionality, and the Linux community is really just... well, copying Windows... When you're telling people that Linux == Windows w/ less software and no viruses then no one is going to bother switching.

All of the truly innovative stuff is really under the hood, but joe-sixpack isn't anymore interested in knowing about the kernel than Jane sixpack is interested in knowing what makes her car run. As long as the mantra of GNOME and KDE is "Copy and refine what ever Windows does" then no Linux company is going to get the kind of attention that even Apple gets. Let alone market share...

aysiu
May 25th, 2007, 04:08 PM
The biggest problem is software compatibility and usability. Most people I know would not be willing to use Gimp instead of Photoshop, Actually, most people are not graphic designers or illustrators, so I think they'd be more than happy to save hundreds of dollars and use GIMP instead... or Kolourpaint or Krita.
Qcad instead of Autodad, Again, most people are not architects or 3-D designers, so this is not the biggest barrier.
Gnucash instead of Quickboods, Evince instead of Acrobat Why not? Seriously. I see nothing wrong with Gnucash and Evince. When I first started using Ubuntu, one of the first things I did was enable the Multiverse repository (acroread used to live there back then) and install Adobe Acrobat Reader... just for familiarity's sake. Then, after a while, I realized there was no reason I needed Acrobat. It's gotten to the point now where, when I'm using Windows at work, I miss Evince's quick loading times.

You are pointing to a larger issue, though, which affects both Apple and Linux computers: when you don't have a majority desktop market share, you don't have software developers bending over backwards to make versions for your OS. Since Windows is the dominant platform, you'd be a fool not to have a Windows port of your commercial software.

It is not a technical limitation of either Mac OS X or Linux not to run AutoCAD (at least as far as I know). They just don't make AutoCAD for Mac and Linux, just as they don't port a lot of PC games (which aren't even as big a deal as some people on these forums make them out to be) to Mac OS X and Linux.

So you're basically saying, "The biggest barrier is the fact that there is a barrier at all." If most people used Linux, do you really think AutoCAD would still be Windows-only software?

On a tangential note, I saw a friend of ours (who uses only Windows and won't go to Linux or Mac, even though she has loads of problems with her computer) using MS Office 2007. I asked her how she liked it. She said it's good overall, but it's disorienting because the menus are completely different from previous versions. She also added in that it has new features like the ability to export to PDF. I withheld a smarmy remark about OpenOffice having that for ages... and being free.

aysiu
May 25th, 2007, 04:17 PM
I'm going to suggest that a problem lies with the images that Linux has been given overall, and this is the fault of a lot of 'evangelists' out there:

We live in the shadow of Windows...

Uh... What? Linux is Linux, yet on digg and anywhere else it's being marketed as "The Better Windows", our user interfaces are getting closer to windows in terms of design and functionality, and the Linux community is really just... well, copying Windows... When you're telling people that Linux == Windows w/ less software and no viruses then no one is going to bother switching. Agreed.


All of the truly innovative stuff is really under the hood That's where I have to disagree with you.

As a new user two years ago, I was extremely impressed with the Linux features that Windows did not have. I thought they were innovative and were definitely not under the hood:
* the ability to run a live CD and test-drive the OS without installing it
* the ability to search for, install, and remove a wealth of software all integrated into the OS
* the ability to easily create a keyboard shortcut for just about any command
* the ability to easily change themes or icon sets (very difficult for me to do in Windows and Mac)

Besides, originality and innovation is highly overrated, in my book. I just want functionality, which is why I use Linux. We all know Apple and Microsoft copy each other (and Apple stole from Xerox and whatnot). What does it matter? If Microsoft suddenly makes Vista a live CD, are people (Windows users) going to care if Linux did it first? No, because they haven't even heard of Linux. If Apple implements some kind of Synaptic Package Manager (not Fink--an easy point and click one), do you think Mac users are going to say, "Oh, too bad Linux implemented that first! We're not innovative..."

Hell, no!

If Apple implemented Synaptic Package Manager (iApplications or whatever), Mac fans would go crazy talking about how brilliant Steve Jobs is.

lyceum
May 25th, 2007, 04:23 PM
As for the product reasons, these boil down to what people know. "I have alwaysed used X, so I want X". My mom got rid of XP for Windows 98 because that is what she knew. Once she HAD to use XP (at work and at school) she switched her home box. It became better because she used it. I talked to her about Ubuntu and she said no, as it was not XP, so it was not good. She saw me use it and now wants to try it. It is all perspective. If you are willing to try FOSS, you will find that is works. But, there is no real marketing. No one pushing FOSS to the common user. When it is word of mouth it just takes longer.

My 2 cents.

Adamant1988
May 25th, 2007, 04:24 PM
Agreed.

That's where I have to disagree with you.

As a new user two years ago, I was extremely impressed with the Linux features that Windows did not have. I thought they were innovative and were definitely not under the hood:
* the ability to run a live CD and test-drive the OS without installing it
* the ability to search for, install, and remove a wealth of software all integrated into the OS
* the ability to easily create a keyboard shortcut for just about any command
* the ability to easily change themes or icon sets (very difficult for me to do in Windows and Mac)

Besides, originality and innovation is highly overrated, in my book. I just want functionality, which is why I use Linux. We all know Apple and Microsoft copy each other (and Apple stole from Xerox and whatnot). What does it matter? If Microsoft suddenly makes Vista a live CD, are people (Windows users) going to care if Linux did it first? No, because they haven't even heard of Linux. If Apple implements some kind of Synaptic Package Manager (not Fink--an easy point and click one), do you think Mac users are going to say, "Oh, too bad Linux implemented that first! We're not innovative..."

Hell, no!

If Apple implemented Synaptic Package Manager (iApplications or whatever), Mac fans would go crazy talking about how brilliant Steve Jobs is.

I agree that the Live CD bit is incredibly innovative, and allows for good marketing possibilities particularly with free software. Yes, I agree at some basic level all software is a copy of other software, but speaking aesthetically for a moment, people want something different for their switch.

My theory on why we get so much "Why can't this be like Windows" flak from people is because designs are moving closer to Windows not further away. I hope that KDE 4 will change this, though. The problem is that we're providing familiarity to a system that is nothing like ours... So, it looks a lot like Windows, and the taskbar looks kind of like Windows... why doesn't it act like Windows? Apple was absolutely right on it's "Think Different" campaign.

aysiu
May 25th, 2007, 04:27 PM
Application familiarity is a huge reason people (the ones who've heard of Linux as a desktop option) have trouble switching.

That's why I think the best way to get people in the right mindset is to introduce them to open source Windows applications instead of just switching them outright to Linux:
http://www.opensourcewindows.org/

I have to say that using Firefox, FileZilla, Thunderbird, and Audacity in Windows definitely eased my transition and made me less wary of open source in general. In fact, it's gotten to the point where I look for open source as a sign of trustworthiness (not spyware, 30-day trials, and nagware).

aysiu
May 25th, 2007, 04:30 PM
My theory on why we get so much "Why can't this be like Windows" flak from people is because designs are moving closer to Windows not further away. I hope that KDE 4 will change this, though. The problem is that we're providing familiarity to a system that is nothing like ours... So, it looks a lot like Windows, and the taskbar looks kind of like Windows... why doesn't it act like Windows? Apple was absolutely right on it's "Think Different" campaign. I agree partly with that. I do think we need a "Think differently" campaign for Ubuntu and Linux in general.

But I don't think it's the designs so much as the marketing that have made people expect Windows. Most of the articles about Linux (the ones that aren't just FUD about how you have to be a geek or programmer to use it on the desktop) tend to tout it as a Windows replacement--some spiel along the lines of "Tired of viruses and spyware? Want a free OS? Try a version of Linux." That's pretty much the same as saying, "Linux is exactly like Windows, but with no problems." Very few articles say, "Want something completely different from Windows? Try Linux."

BLTicklemonster
May 25th, 2007, 04:34 PM
Once again, let me state emphatically that the lack of simple networking in Linux is appalling. I've been using Ubuntu for a year and a half and have yet to be able to get on a windows machine in the house and bring up the contents of a folder that is shared from this computer.

aysiu
May 25th, 2007, 04:37 PM
Once again, let me state emphatically that the lack of simple networking in Linux is appalling. I've been using Ubuntu for a year and a half and have yet to be able to get on a windows machine in the house and bring up the contents of a folder that is shared from this computer.
While I think Samba could be improved, it's not that bad. What's really appalling is Linux-to-Linux networking. I feel it's easier to do file sharing between Ubuntu and Windows than it is to do between Ubuntu and Ubuntu.

aysiu
May 25th, 2007, 04:38 PM
By the way, citing problems with Linux or ways in which Linux could improve is not the same as answering the question What's the single biggest barrier to Ubuntu and Linux adoption?

Enverex
May 25th, 2007, 05:17 PM
It's a three-way tie for me.

Lack of games, lack of better software, lack of (working/any) drivers.

Bachstelze
May 25th, 2007, 05:21 PM
The mindset of people.

dodgePT
May 25th, 2007, 05:38 PM
State of the art device drivers, mainly for graphic adapters.

Everything else works as it should, i only boot windowsxp to watch some movies in my lcd TV because i never got the same playback quality with ubuntu (xvid decoding mainly), which is due to the ****** device drivers.
It's an essential problem, since many people use their pcs for multimedia.

Not having top notch games doesn't bother me at all, since i only played a RTS once in a while in windows.

BLTicklemonster
May 25th, 2007, 05:54 PM
Originally Posted by Adamant1988 View Post
My theory on why we get so much "Why can't this be like Windows" flak from people is because designs are moving closer to Windows not further away. I hope that KDE 4 will change this, though. The problem is that we're providing familiarity to a system that is nothing like ours... So, it looks a lot like Windows, and the taskbar looks kind of like Windows... why doesn't it act like Windows? Apple was absolutely right on it's "Think Different" campaign.

For most people Windows is what a computer is. Face it. Familiarity with this fact would be -shall we say "useful".

hessiess
May 25th, 2007, 05:58 PM
its a combination of bad driver support, lack of awereness and linux is for geecs.

this should be a multy choice poll

aysiu
May 25th, 2007, 06:03 PM
its a combination of bad driver support, Hasn't stopped Windows from proliferating. Windows' built-in hardware detection is much worse than Ubuntu's. Thanks to Windows' market share, though, hardware manufacturers are more than happy to save Microsoft some work by packaging their own Windows drivers.
lack of awereness That I'll buy.
and linux is for geecs. Not sure about this one. Yes, a lot of Linux development (particularly non-desktop-oriented development) is targeted at geeks. Yes, many geeks use Linux. Yes, early development and use of Linux was almost exclusively the realm of geeks.

But you don't have to be a geek to use desktop Linux once it's preinstalled. The perception that you do have to be one is certainly a major barrier, but I'd put that a subcategory of lack of awareness.

mech7
May 25th, 2007, 06:16 PM
it's the software i hear it from everyone i tell about linux.." ah but it sucks cause i can't install my software" ;)

Adamant1988
May 25th, 2007, 06:43 PM
For most people Windows is what a computer is. Face it. Familiarity with this fact would be -shall we say "useful".

So? Apple's Mac OS X is (in the user interface) almost nothing like Windows, yet that's what a lot of people WANT to use, they just can't afford it. I'm suggesting that KDE and GNOME start doing something new, rather than refining the things we see in Windows... differences are a selling point, not similarities.

KManZ
May 25th, 2007, 07:02 PM
The lack of user friendliness. Period.

The community is outstanding though ;)

aysiu
May 25th, 2007, 07:04 PM
The lack of user friendliness. Period. It seems pretty user-friendly to me. What problems did you personally encounter?

lyceum
May 25th, 2007, 07:04 PM
Application familiarity is a huge reason people (the ones who've heard of Linux as a desktop option) have trouble switching.

That's why I think the best way to get people in the right mindset is to introduce them to open source Windows applications instead of just switching them outright to Linux:
http://www.opensourcewindows.org/

I have to say that using Firefox, FileZilla, Thunderbird, and Audacity in Windows definitely eased my transition and made me less wary of open source in general. In fact, it's gotten to the point where I look for open source as a sign of trustworthiness (not spyware, 30-day trials, and nagware).

I agree. Start with Firefox or OpenOffice, when they like them get in deaper until they are hooked ;)
It starts off with Free (no $) is better, but once they get into it they can see why free as in Open Source is better. Firefox did a lot for getting me into FOSS.

jgrabham
May 26th, 2007, 12:44 PM
That its hard to connect to the internet and its nearly impossible to install apps. (Ive been using linux for bout a year and still never installed an app.)

aysiu
May 26th, 2007, 03:55 PM
That its hard to connect to the internet and its nearly impossible to install apps. (Ive been using linux for bout a year and still never installed an app.)
I've had the exact opposite experience--internet connection detected automatically and Synaptic Package Manager allows me to easily install all the software I need.

Maybe you have dial-up or a troublesome wireless card? Or you have very specialized software needs?

maynoth
May 26th, 2007, 05:19 PM
while ubuntu does make it virutally painless to install apps via add-remove applet... installing third party debs can still be a headache if dependencies cannot be met. Compiling from source still requires the command line :C
not one "regular" person will use the command line (EVER)

I agree if you have a brain it is as simple as cut and pasting commands into the command line, but most people are not going to go that route (EVER) if it cannot be done via gui it doesn't get done... GIT-R-DONE!

Bachstelze
May 26th, 2007, 05:25 PM
not one "regular" person will use the command line (EVER)

I'm happy to learn I'm some kind of alien...

mech7
May 26th, 2007, 06:49 PM
I'm happy to learn I'm some kind of alien...

Not an alien just a geek :) it's true though the 'average user' does not like CLI as an interface ;)

aysiu
May 26th, 2007, 06:56 PM
Not an alien just a geek :) it's true though the 'average user' does not like CLI as an interface ;)
Good thing the average user doesn't install and configure operating systems. Phew!

lazyart
May 26th, 2007, 07:19 PM
It's funny how often "user-friendly" means "just like Windows does it".

The GUI generation is here. All they've done is point and click their way to productivity. One one hand people say that typing commands is archaic and slow, but when you open your word processor, what do you do? You type. I'm part of the support team at my place of employment and it's just funny to see who the real power users are. I get frustrated when I watch people log into their computers. Move the mouse to the user name field and type their name. Then they move their hand from the keyboard to the mouse to reposition the cursor to the next field.

HELLO!?! TAB Key!!!

Take away a person's mouse and they can't operate. Point and click makes sense in some places, but other times the command line and keyboard shortcuts rule.

Go to a windows box and add a user to the administrators group via point and click.
Then do it by command line. Guaranteed you can do it 1/4th the time. There is a point where user friendly becomes an encumberance.

The stigma of "geek OS" is the biggest barrier.

This reminds me of the Imperial vs Metric system conversations of the 80s. When will the US adopt it?

hessiess
May 28th, 2007, 11:03 AM
This reminds me of the Imperial vs Metric system conversations of the 80s. When will the US adopt it?

i lernt metric furst, then lernt inperial to be able to reed modal engenering drawings. inpirial is better! espesaly for engenering

ivesjd
May 31st, 2007, 07:58 PM
I think its the steep learning curve that linux presents.

hummingbird59
May 31st, 2007, 08:07 PM
For me, it is printer issues. Other than that, Ubuntu 7.04 is GREAT!:D

soulfly7x
May 31st, 2007, 08:11 PM
Same as it's always been. Lack of GUI for everything. Command line needs to be an option and not at all a necessity. I've learned to like command line, and use it more and more, but new users will abandon Linux like it's a sinking ship the first time they need to use command line to do something, and that could very well be the first day.

Get over the dislike for GUI. It's not like Slackware or Gentoo will fall off the face of the Earth if that were to happen.

EDIT: I'd like to add that computer gaming will most likely be outdated in the next few years. Consoles are advancing rapidly. Soon, there will b consoles for gaming and computers for computing. Computers will need to be VERY expensive to keep up with the consoles in terms of graphics and speed, and this won't take much longer. Soon, no respectable gamer would even consider shelling out 3k for a computer that barely has the speed and graphics of a $250 console.

aysiu
May 31st, 2007, 08:19 PM
There's a lack of GUI for everything? That's news to me. I see a GUI for most things, actually.

hummingbird59
May 31st, 2007, 08:31 PM
I personally like the command line for "easy" stuff. But, having to compile my own drivers to make my printers behave, scan and print good photos is way beyond my skills! Still, that is my fault for discovering Ubuntu only after I had just purchased a Canon printer which only "mostly" works. :(

BLTicklemonster
June 1st, 2007, 06:02 AM
Losing X when you do an upgrade.

You want to run people off in droves, keep that an integral part of linux.

Yeah, I dummied out and upgraded, and ubuntu is useless to me right now. I'm tired of messing with it, to be honest with you. I'm in XP right now, darnit, and really don't see myself actually WANTING to take the time to being my nvidia drivers back again. Installing the driver doesn't work, running envy doesn't work, dpkg-reconfigure doesn't work, the list goes on. I'm telling you, people, this is getting old really fast. I don't care how good ubuntu is. It's not worth the hassle. Plain and simple. Bam. Not worth it every time there's a kernel upgrade, I have to go redoing my nvidia driver, and vmware, and suddenly my mouse buttons for some retarded reason. I love Ubuntu, really, but for the past year and a half or however long it's been, every time there's a kernel upgrade, I have to do something to make my machine usable. That's just not acceptable. Yes, I know, I don't have to do upgrades, but I keep getting snookered into it when I try to install something and I'm told to update, then upgrade, and like an idiot, I do it every freaking time, then suddenly remember, oh, right about the time I see that x won't start, that I screwed up. I have two drives with ubuntu on them, both have no nvidia drivers working on them, due to this. Yeah, the run with nv, but I play UT, and with out 3d, ubuntu is useless to me.

BoyOfDestiny
June 1st, 2007, 06:23 AM
Losing X when you do an upgrade.

You want to run people off in droves, keep that an integral part of linux.

Yeah, I dummied out and upgraded, and ubuntu is useless to me right now. I'm tired of messing with it, to be honest with you. I'm in XP right now, darnit, and really don't see myself actually WANTING to take the time to being my nvidia drivers back again. Installing the driver doesn't work, running envy doesn't work, dpkg-reconfigure doesn't work, the list goes on. I'm telling you, people, this is getting old really fast. I don't care how good ubuntu is. It's not worth the hassle. Plain and simple. Bam. Not worth it every time there's a kernel upgrade, I have to go redoing my nvidia driver, and vmware, and suddenly my mouse buttons for some retarded reason. I love Ubuntu, really, but for the past year and a half or however long it's been, every time there's a kernel upgrade, I have to do something to make my machine usable. That's just not acceptable. Yes, I know, I don't have to do upgrades, but I keep getting snookered into it when I try to install something and I'm told to update, then upgrade, and like an idiot, I do it every freaking time, then suddenly remember, oh, right about the time I see that x won't start, that I screwed up. I have two drives with ubuntu on them, both have no nvidia drivers working on them, due to this. Yeah, the run with nv, but I play UT, and with out 3d, ubuntu is useless to me.


I know you're right, and this may not make much of a difference in making it easy. It's the drivers. I've used Ubuntu on old ati cards with the free ati driver, and now on intels with laptops. Not counting when I alpha/beta tested breezy 64... I've seen X break once since 2004 (it was actually that "bad" update canonical did, you guys/gals remember that?) And only occured on 1 of 5 Ubuntu machines I maintain.
So I would only hope with more support from hardware vendors, open specs and open drivers would make this problem vanish. Or I suppose not updating the kernel... but I'd rather have kernel updates...

VorDesigns
June 1st, 2007, 07:39 AM
I think that the biggest barrier to non-MS adoption is complacency. I came to windows kicking and screaming back in the eighties and I hated it. Add to that the fact that Windows would hang on me when I ran my programs. This was back when MS actually supported its customers and I worked with MS and we diagnosed a hardware issue but, by that time, I had developed an intimate knowledge of the registry. I took that knowledge and made a good living off of Windows 95 when it came out. The devil I know.
At this point, even though most people hate MS, they don't want to start all over again although, I think that Vista has given both Mac and Linux the biggest boost I've seen in the last several years.
My observation is that even though there are really compelling Open source applications available for almost everything, except games. Most people don't want to pay the cost in time and frustration learning a whole new slew of applications that they already have paid dues to in time and learning in the MSOS.
I'm tired from having just spent several hours tweaking a server configuration on Feisty, so this is rambling a bit. I like learning this but, I could have done everything I was learning in Linux quickly in Windows but, that's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm willing to learn and contribute and commit to expanding my opportunities and the options available to community I live in and contribute to.

Cyvros
June 1st, 2007, 09:25 AM
It is all about the :!: GAMES :!: .

The lack of games is what is preventing linux adoption.

Since most people will want to keep a dual boot simply to boot into XP to play their games, they dont find it worth the hassle to learn linux to do their desktop stuff.

Since the programmers at wine and cedega work hard to run windows games in Linux the game developers are hardly motivated to make linux ports either.

However, should linux be adopted by the Non-3d-gamer crowd, the rising percentage of Linux OS share might attract game developers' attention to start porting games for linux, which would increase linux market share exponentionally there after, as developers and companies would port their software for linux to get their share of the cake.

Furthermore, since FOSS people are considered freeloaders that won't pay for any software they are thusly a very unattractive target for developers, worsening lookout yet besides their negligible size of the OS share.


People want to play game on their cool graphics cards, and since they wont run on linux, they use Windows.


Note: Linux is actually better than windows at running most *old* computer games.

Games aren't the only reason. I know that, comparatively, music sequencing/notation apps aren't used by the majority of users, but look at the most common example of crapping up - MIDI. This is the thing I probably whinge about the most, but, apart from typesetting, actually creating scores (that you can listen to) is damned-near impossible.

But, yes, games are a large reason, particularly amongst the tech-savvy crowd.


And then there's the Windows Scale of User-Friendliness. Not even Ubuntu is easy enough to use for some people. Think about it this way - what average Windows user knows what a "partition" is? In fact, what Windows user has had to install Windows?

Of course, I find the Ubuntu installer far easier than the pre-Vista installers (although Vista's installer is even more of a no-brainer than Ubuntu's).

And what's this? Text? My mouse doesn't work! What kind of primitive thing is this if you can't use your mouse?

Oh, there we go. It's got Office, right? No? Something similar? I love Office - best interf... what the hell's this? This looks like it came from the 1990s.

You know what? Forget this, I'm going to use Windows - who'd want to use such a crap system?

So... I've forgotten if I had a point or not apart from the fact that not even Ubuntu is n00b-friendly and -proof.

Uhh... so it's really a combination of factors, but possibly the largest is that people don't like change.

An OS is somewhat like a religion - it's generally passed between generations.

Then there are OEMs.

So I think it might be more of a 'human nature' thing than anything like hardware, because I don't know of anyone who has actually had any driver problems. But, then again, I don't have a webcam. ;)

azdragon
June 3rd, 2007, 05:29 PM
I own a computer store and we have never put linux on our products, I am deciding this week if I will change that. Our customers like XP but we are having major problems with vista.

For me the biggest barrier is that I need to chat with people using Yahoo Video chat because that is what they use.

For my company it is that we can can not run Quickbooks.

For most main stream application developers, they see linux as a 100 different versions that they would have to write code for. The best thing the linux community can do is make one major release that is great with no future releases for at least a year so that developers can write code for it. This is simply a pipe dream. Even ubuntu users can't agree on KDE or GNOME. This static code base for a period of a few year is the real key to the success that windows has, it allowed people to write software easily.

For my customers, the price of Ubuntu is much nicer, and we have no driver issues with any of the products that we sell, most of them have not heard of it but if we make it the default OS we may have great success.

Mazza558
June 3rd, 2007, 05:43 PM
I'm glad Ubuntu has kinda moved from utter "geekdom" and has managed to appear on less geeky things like blogs from average users or just curious people. Plus, I predict that the world of mainstream and geekdom will collide very soon with Digg. Digg is becoming more and more mainstream by the day, and I predict that Ubuntu will start to get major exposure as stories about Ubuntu 7.1 will appear alongside the latest news story on the front page.

kamaboko
June 3rd, 2007, 06:24 PM
I own a computer store and we have never put linux on our products, I am deciding this week if I will change that. Our customers like XP but we are having major problems with vista.

For my company it is that we can can not run Quickbooks.

For most main stream application developers, they see linux as a 100 different versions that they would have to write code for.


You've hit the nail on the head: business applications and the vast landscape of Linux based flavors. When I've mentioned writing (enterprise level) business apps for Linux to my friends, they just laugh. First, they're not about to work for free, which is what most, if not all, Linux users expect. Don't deny it. How many of you have actually paid for a Linux app? Second, because Linux represents such a small segment (less than 1%) of the computer users, the chances of even recouping one's expenses, should they charge, are next to nil.

The only way Linux will go mainstream is for ALL the distributions to come together and decide on ONE. Until that day comes, Linux will remain a hobby OS living on the fringe.

Adamant1988
June 3rd, 2007, 06:45 PM
You've hit the nail on the head: business applications and the vast landscape of Linux based flavors. When I've mentioned writing (enterprise level) business apps for Linux to my friends, they just laugh. First, they're not about to work for free, which is what most, if not all, Linux users expect. Don't deny it. How many of you have actually paid for a Linux app? Second, because Linux represents such a small segment (less than 1%) of the computer users, the chances of even recouping one's expenses, should they charge, are next to nil.

The only way Linux will go mainstream is for ALL the distributions to come together and decide on ONE. Until that day comes, Linux will remain a hobby OS living on the fringe.

I disagree with the entirety of this post. Firstly, strong adoption does not require all Linux distributions act as one, it merely requires a bigger, stronger branch. I constantly find myself using the Tree analogy to represent open source, and Linux in general; Yes, Linux has MANY branches, but all of those branches serve a greater purpose, to feed the trunk, the starting point for the whole thing. In much the same way as a tree needs it's branches to feed itself, Linux needs it's distributions. If a tree only has one big branch, it will die, Linux is no different.

So, what you're really waiting for is a bigger, stronger, branch to grow. Which is entirely possible, much like what happened with BSD and Mac OS X.

I think that we need to put aside the thought that Linux as we know it will ever be adopted outside of the server. Instead, some company will take it upon itself to build a new operating system, and the Linux kernel and the gnu tools will probably supply the base of that. When this product comes to light, they may or may not market it as a 'Linux-based' operating system (probably if they're looking at servers) and you will find that this operating system will probably have very few major similarities to Linux as we know it. But then people will be upset because Linux didn't really get adopted, despite the fact that it's kernel is the driving force behind the new OS.

cantormath
June 3rd, 2007, 06:46 PM
HARDWARE period.

kamaboko
June 3rd, 2007, 07:52 PM
I disagree with the entirety of this post. Firstly, strong adoption does not require all Linux distributions act as one, it merely requires a bigger, stronger branch. I constantly find myself using the Tree analogy to represent open source, and Linux in general; Yes, Linux has MANY branches, but all of those branches serve a greater purpose, to feed the trunk, the starting point for the whole thing. In much the same way as a tree needs it's branches to feed itself, Linux needs it's distributions. If a tree only has one big branch, it will die, Linux is no different.

So, what you're really waiting for is a bigger, stronger, branch to grow. Which is entirely possible, much like what happened with BSD and Mac OS X.

I think that we need to put aside the thought that Linux as we know it will ever be adopted outside of the server. Instead, some company will take it upon itself to build a new operating system, and the Linux kernel and the gnu tools will probably supply the base of that. When this product comes to light, they may or may not market it as a 'Linux-based' operating system (probably if they're looking at servers) and you will find that this operating system will probably have very few major similarities to Linux as we know it. But then people will be upset because Linux didn't really get adopted, despite the fact that it's kernel is the driving force behind the new OS.

I have to ask, have you ever worked in IT as part of a large enterprise system? I'm talking at least more than 1,000 users? I suspect not. When huge money is on the line, there's no time for screwing around with fringe OS's. It always comes down to the same question: does this OS support ALL OF OUR software/hardware needs? Linux can't do it. Why? Because there are too many distributions. Developers will write for ONE or TWO if they see money in it. They're not going to have a BSD version, an Ubuntu version, a Red Hat version, etc. An OS is only as strong as the software/hardware availability to support it.

Your tree analogy is flawed. Tell me, what does the trunk represent? Linux? And what's that? Your tree analogy would work if you applied it to MS: each branch represents an OS (e.g., Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, etc.), which has its roots based in one identifiable business, in this case MS. Linux more closely represents a sparkler: each sparkle shoots off into its own direction, never returning home to the core. Each Linux distro is vying for position number one. That is where it will fail in terms of global business integration.

Adamant1988
June 3rd, 2007, 08:06 PM
I have to ask, have you ever worked in IT as part of a large enterprise system? I'm talking at least more than 1,000 users? I suspect not. When huge money is on the line, there's no time for screwing around with fringe OS's. It always comes down to the same question: does this OS support ALL OF OUR software/hardware needs? Linux can't do it. Why? Because there are too many distributions. Developers will write for ONE or TWO if they see money in it. They're not going to have a BSD version, an Ubuntu version, a Red Hat version, etc. An OS is only as strong as the software/hardware availability to support it.

Your tree analogy is flawed. Tell me, what does the trunk represent? Linux? And what's that? Your tree analogy would work if you applied it to MS: each branch represents an OS (e.g., Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, etc.), which has its roots based in one identifiable business, in this case MS. Linux more closely represents a sparkler: each sparkle shoots off into it's own direction, never returning home to the core. Each Linux distro is vying for position number one. That is where it will fail in terms of global business integration.

I don't have to work in an IT industry to understand how simple this is. For a need, there is a distribution. If you're on the server, Red Hat and SuSE are VERY attractive options, particularly with what SuSE is doing concerning interoperability with Microsoft. Also, I don't see what you're trying to get at here. If Red Hat succeeds and becomes 'the' Linux distribution of choice for the server, then more power too them. Applications will be written for Red Hat's Linux distribution, the same goes for any other distribution that gains significant mind-share.

Like I said, one branch will have to become stronger and larger than the others to gain acceptance like you want to see. It is absolutely unreasonable, and absolutely stupid to suggest that linux be consolidated under a single roof. The tree analogy also works fine, if you can actually see Linux for what it is (which you can't)

Linux as you know it is a collection of parts. It is not a single product, but a series of programs brought together to make everything work (hence it being called a system). Ubuntu, Novell, Red Hat, Mandriva, etc. All of these branches DO in fact contribute to the the whole collection. All of these distributions hack-on, and modifty, the kernel, so the kernel grows stronger and better for their work, etc. The same continues for each and every piece of 'Linux' which together make up the 'system'. Those branches are responsible for feeding the base, and they do their job very well.

You asked what the trunk represents, the trunk represents the system, all of the pieces that are put together to make the system work. So, I'll repeat, if you force all of the distributions under one name, one roof, you'll Kill Linux as we know it today. The innovations and improvements we see today are only possible because the code is open and new branches can be born at any moment.

So, again, acceptance will come in time, as one branch grows stronger. A big corporate distribution, with a corporation that's working hard with hardware and software vendors will excel.

Tundro Walker
June 4th, 2007, 03:48 AM
I voted "Other"...here's why...

People don't want to switch if:

1) they're going to lose the work they've done on their old OS
2) if, after they switch, they have no easy way to switch back if they're not satisfied.

In other words, you must make the gateway INTO and OUT OF the situation very accessible. A lot of programs make the gateway INTO their product easy, by offering file converters and such. But once you convert, you're stuck. Most business folks would think you're mad if you actively offer a way for folks to LEAVE your <whatever>.

But, that's exactly how MS Excel first made grounds into the Spreadsheet market. They made it compatible with Lotus spreadsheets (and macros!), AND, they let you save your Excel work in Lotus format! Folks could easily come and go between the two formats. What shot Lotus in the foot was them spending so much time screwing with a new version under 640k memory limits while the Excel team (knowing Windows was going to handle extended memory), focused on making a more robust GUI spreadsheet program.

Anyways, for Linux, OpenOffice.org has focused on these 2 aspects, (easy in...easy out), and it's been a catapult for Linux exposure. Ubuntu has taken a tip from this, and is doing the same; they're trying to make it easy to migrate all your Windows settings and such over to Ubuntu. However, due to incompatibilities, not all of it will work. Nor will all of it be able to go back.

Microsoft is making this harder by constantly changing their darn formats. MS Office now uses an XML file format, so MS Office 2007 files won't be compatible with OpenOffice.

When I look at the other factors, Linux and Windows are pretty even...

1) They both offer a lot of GUI interface (although Windows focuses on everything through GUI)

2) They both (Ubuntu vs. Windows in this case) focus on usability for non-computer-savvy folks.

3) They both offer a command-line interface for power-users (Linux gains the upper-hand in this one, since the CLI is also scriptable...DOS and WinScript are not that hot)

4) They both offer programming languages and IDE's for developers, but I'd say Linux has the upper-hand in this, because it's really easy to dig one up on Linux.


I think the last 2 bullets (Linux being pretty powerful for power-users and developers) is why folks still have this stigma of it being a programmer / hobbyist OS. (Well, that, and that folks who use Windows probably have never use Linux, and thus only repeat what they hear others say ... "Linux sucks"..."uh...yeah...Linux sucks! down with Linux")

But, Ubuntu and other distros are making good headway on the first 2 bullets, which will make it more accessible to the masses (which, honestly, don't even want to change the oil on their own car, so you can't expect them to use the CLI. I don't care how powerful a vacuum is...sometimes your grandmother just wants to use a broom because that's what she knows and she doens't want to learn anything new. So, you have to make the computer work like "a broom", even if it's a vacuum in disguise.)

runningwithscissors
June 4th, 2007, 12:27 PM
I have to ask, have you ever worked in IT as part of a large enterprise system? I'm talking at least more than 1,000 users? I suspect not. When huge money is on the line, there's no time for screwing around with fringe OS's. It always comes down to the same question: does this OS support ALL OF OUR software/hardware needs? Linux can't do it. Why? Because there are too many distributions. Developers will write for ONE or TWO if they see money in it. They're not going to have a BSD version, an Ubuntu version, a Red Hat version, etc. An OS is only as strong as the software/hardware availability to support it. Uh... I haven't worked in IT as part of a "large enterprise system", but it is quite evident that you haven't either, or rather you don't know anything about how programs work, what Linux is and how large scale deployment of larger technologies occur.
For example, it doesn't matter what distribution you are running. If the software is packaged properly, it will work on all of them.
It is not that difficult to interoperate between Unix and Windows machines, provided you use them according to their capabilities. For example, using desktop Linux for work terminals at the moment, really is asking for pain. On the other hand Linux boxes can serve perfectly well as routing machines/storage or backup machines and deployment of commonly used server software.

Tux Aubrey
June 4th, 2007, 12:42 PM
As runningwithscissors said - apps are not generally written for distributions - Just look at the Gimp, Open Office, Abiword, evolution - they are the same on every distro I ever tried. They just get packaged for each distro. I think the "too many distros" line is a perception problem (but obviously powerful).

The "trunk" is something like debian or gentoo and the branches are the distros based on them.

With the emergence of web apps I don't think the OS matters at all to most people - why should they care? Linux or windows preinstalled with the necessary drivers and apps would be indistinguishable for 80% of desktop computer users. Most people I know are quite content with windows and just don't understand why anyone would want something else. Vista's price and hardware requirements and DRM will cause a few to question.

kamaboko
June 4th, 2007, 03:02 PM
I don't have to work in an IT industry to understand how simple this is.


LOL. Enough said. To suggest you can speak authoritatively on something you know nothing about. You gave me a good laugh this morning. Thanks.

JulianRoot
June 4th, 2007, 03:19 PM
The problem: Many computers are shiped with Microsoft Windows. And many people don't know much about free software, so they don't try it.
The solution: Do it like Dell...

init1
June 4th, 2007, 04:52 PM
A lot of the people I know have never heard of Linux, and are probably too content with windows to switch. Most of them wouldn't want it if they knew about it, or would struggle if they tried.

Adamant1988
June 4th, 2007, 05:04 PM
LOL. Enough said. To suggest you can speak authoritatively on something you know nothing about. You gave me a good laugh this morning. Thanks.

There is more out there than the IT industry, and if you can't see past that enough to understand how simple this is, then you're really not worth the time I took responding to you. Great, now I'll never be able to get those precious minutes back.

frodon
June 4th, 2007, 05:08 PM
What it miss ?

For me just pre-installed computers with hardware choosen to work natively on linux in each store.

Some have serious hardware problems but often they use computers designed for windows, when you use a computer designed to work with linux you don't have all these problems.
Since i use linux i always bought hardware which work natively on linux and never got hardware problems.

DalekClock
June 5th, 2007, 05:38 PM
For me, it's moving all my files over. As I have no removable storage(or anywhere to plug it into), I can't dump all my files onto, say, a USB stick and dump them into my Home folder, meaning I'll lose them all if I remove my Windows partition.

aysiu
June 5th, 2007, 05:46 PM
Moving them over from where to where?

kprowell
June 5th, 2007, 05:47 PM
For me, it's hardware. Don't get me wrong, I love Ubuntu / Linux, but I don't feel that I should have to use only a small sub-set of the latest hardware. I know it isn't Linux's fault but the average person is going to want to go to BestBuy/CircuitCity/CompUsa and buy the latest "wiz-bang" gadget for their PC and bring it home and it most likely will not work. Until that gets resolved, it's going to be a tough sell for the average user.

w3bu53r
June 5th, 2007, 05:56 PM
IMO, it's both the lack of hardware's compatibility (you need to know your system & what you're doing in order to get it done) and the mindset (afraid to try new stuff, software's dependency, etc.)

Everything might work out of the box, except printer & wireless for example, and it's sorta tedious if you are not familiar with Linux in the past (online forums help a lot.) Some folks are also quite stubborn (& stupid); they refuse to use the equivalent free softwares counterpart & insist sticking with the programs that they consider de facto standard (one of my friend refused to switch because he said he couldn't live w/o MS Office.)

aysiu
June 5th, 2007, 05:58 PM
For me, it's hardware. Don't get me wrong, I love Ubuntu / Linux, but I don't feel that I should have to use only a small sub-set of the latest hardware. I know it isn't Linux's fault but the average person is going to want to go to BestBuy/CircuitCity/CompUsa and buy the latest "wiz-bang" gadget for their PC and bring it home and it most likely will not work. Until that gets resolved, it's going to be a tough sell for the average user.
And when my wife looks for peripherals for her Mac, she has to be careful, too, at Best Buy. She had to do a lot of research to find a good printer and scanner for her Powerbook. And when she was thinking of switching from iPod to something else, the stupid people at Best Buy (I'm sure there are some smart people there, too, but we didn't run into the smart ones) couldn't tell her which non-iPod MP3 players worked with Mac. So she ended up getting another iPod.

If you're a non-Windows user, you always have to worry about hardware support (and software support). Windows-only hardware and Windows-only software exist, since Windows is the dominant desktop OS.

laxmanb
June 5th, 2007, 06:05 PM
It's a little bit of everything I guess... lots of distros don't ship with codecs like MP3, etc. Playing encrypted DVDs in illegal in most cases (TurboLinux came with a DVD player, i think...), driver support is sorta OK but lags Windows, the killer apps (OpenOffice.org, Eclipse, etc. etc.) are all cross-platform.

And did anyone notice when you compare Dell's linux/windows laptops, it's almost like they're giving away Vista Home Basic for free?? Plus, you get OS support from Dell with Vista!

azdragon
June 5th, 2007, 09:14 PM
if more effort were poured into the wine project to get necessary financial and office applications working then more users would switch. gnucash just isn't useful yet, compared to quicken, quickbooks or turbotax etc.

So basically we just need to get Intuit to write all their software with a linux version and we would have a ton of new users. Maybe we should work on talking to them.

angryhomer17
June 10th, 2007, 03:15 AM
Change. Most people hate change, they avoid it at all costs. People don't want to change their habits. Even if something is better, people won't take to it readily. You have to give people a very good reason to change. And then you have to make that reason 10 times better. You can make linux easy enough for a caveman, free of bugs, self-correct any errors, install itself, tuck its users into bed, but that still won't be enough to convert people.

It used to be a huge deal when people said they liked windows, when they used it, when it was mentioned. Now I can bear it, but that doesn't make me want to use it anymore. Suppose windows was better (i didn't just say that), it would probably still take me a while to adopt to it. For example, I just installed Thunderbird 2.0 today. I could've done it a while ago. Why didn't I? Because I'm lazy and I had no real good reason to.

The one thing I do have a problem with is not being given the choice to use what I want. If I want to boot linux on a computer running windows, the sys admin shouldn't disallow it. If I need to look at a set of data, I wan't it in an open format that I can view on any device/OS. Don't infringe on my right to use what I want when I want. You can use whatever the hell you want, but let me do the same.

Ok, I'm done. ;)

univremonster
July 17th, 2007, 09:28 PM
A couple things:

(1) Everybody here realizes that one of the biggest incentives is that Linux is free. But if you're average Joe going out to buy a computer, they all have Windows on them already. So as far as you're concerned, Windows is 'free' simply because it is already included in the price of practically every computer everywhere. That's why the recent events at Dell have been so huge.

(2) Anybody read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? Phaedrus' friends weren't incapable of fixing motorcycles, just as people aren't incapable of using command line. But so long as it's so rugged and technical and, honestly, nerve-wracking knowing you're messing with parts of the computer (for me today: fstab and xorg) most Windows users never even knew existed, it will freak them out.

Solutions: (1) Get Linux on more over-the-counter, not-build-it-yourself computers from the day they're sold. The price difference would be large enough to make people think about it and (2) make a Linux distro that doesn't require command-line, even if it means jamming more stuff into Synaptec or, even better, Add/Remove Program. Everybody understands Add/Remove Program.

hessiess
July 19th, 2007, 11:43 PM
(2) make a Linux distro that doesn't require command-line, even if it means jamming more stuff into Synaptec or, even better, Add/Remove Program. Everybody understands Add/Remove Program.

but dont remove the option, some people like using a cli

amrclutch1
August 10th, 2007, 08:00 AM
Why is windows the mainstream OS? Why is everyone using it, why is it chosen for desktops and laptops? Why is it that people think linux is bad even though its much better?

Dark Star
August 10th, 2007, 08:02 AM
Why is windows the mainstream OS? Why is everyone using it, why is it chosen for desktops and laptops? Why is it that people think linux is bad even though its much better?
Cause most of the user did not wanna try other things .. Some like spoon feeding.. some are fearing that they will loose their comp.. Those use WIndows for Games.. All in one all are n00bs .. They did not know the power of Linux :) I am on Dual Boot :) But none is WIndows Ubuntu Feisty :) + open Suse 10.2 :)

amrclutch1
August 10th, 2007, 08:06 AM
I am trying to convince my brother to use linux on his laptop, yet he cries that photoshop on wine runs too slow, I even told him about gimp, he doesn't like it, also about VMWare and he says that linux is "gay" now, I am thinking he just is too lazy to learn? If windows came out later than unix why is microsoft still on top?

AlexenderReez
August 10th, 2007, 08:11 AM
hm...i guess so....linux need our effort to learn...but by the way,i guess this post more suite to be in community discussion :)....

amrclutch1
August 10th, 2007, 08:25 AM
It just angers me, why were games made for windows when linux is superior? If unix was made before windows why did companies choose it? Bribes? Affiliation?

houstonbofh
August 10th, 2007, 08:44 AM
I am trying to convince my brother to use linux on his laptop, yet he cries that photoshop on wine runs too slow, I even told him about gimp, he doesn't like it, also about VMWare and he says that linux is "gay" now, I am thinking he just is too lazy to learn? If windows came out later than unix why is microsoft still on top?
Your problem is a common one. You are not listening to your brother... His need is to run photo shop. His operating system is just the way to run photo shop. Windows is the best way to run photo shop. Remember that this is about tools, not religion. Linux is not for everyone. Neither is windows.

iota
August 10th, 2007, 09:01 AM
he cries that photoshop on wine runs too slow, I even told him about gimp

Gimp, good as it may be for adjusting contrast/brightness or whatever you may want to do, it cannot compare to photoshop. Layers, filters, the tools and integration of the brushes. I've made a lot of images in photoshop that I couldn't even begin to create in gimp.

Having said that, gimp is cheaper :P

Anyway, unix is less popular than windows because it was an operating system originally designed for programmers. Your average user just wants to turn the os on, and go, no linux distros really manage that yet.

Sure, they run, but how much hassle did you guys have to go through to get your grub set up the way you like it? Or to get beryl/compiz set up an running with the new nvidia drivers? It's customisable, that's why people like us have linux. It's better, for us, but for them?

As for games companies, probably because linux has sweet fa of the market share. But ut2007 will run on linux :D Cannot wait for that game! Not to mention how easy it is to mount isos on linux, who needs daemon tools, eh? :P

bluenova
August 10th, 2007, 09:17 AM
Because hardware has to work with software, and back in the day the only true home user OS was MS Windows, everything else was designed for mainframes. People don't like change so Windows stuck.

avik
August 10th, 2007, 09:36 AM
I'd say the real reason is the "deals" Microsoft struck with vendors, basically forcing them to preinstall only Windows on their computers. Now just about every PC you get from most vendors will already have Windows on them, and users just don't want to switch.

Now if Unix hadn't fragmented so horribly when it did, then maybe it would have gained more power before Windows came onto the scene. Who knows?

RomeReactor
August 10th, 2007, 09:47 AM
Hmmmm... I was going to post a long diatribe about this issue, but I guess it would be best if you check out Pirates Of Silicon Valley (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122/), if you haven't already. If nothing else, it's a fun look into the early period of microsoft's (and apple's) rise.

skymera
August 10th, 2007, 10:05 AM
Why is windows the mainstream OS? Why is everyone using it, why is it chosen for desktops and laptops? Why is it that people think linux is bad even though its much better?

well, when computers were first hear dof.
what else was there?

we had Windoze infecting our computers.

thwere was no Unix.

so no Mac, Solaris, Linux.

and todasy for some odd reason its still Default, yet IMHO its crap.

iota
August 10th, 2007, 10:17 AM
Unix was around before windows.

Besides, windows beats unix/linux on a lot of points. I prefer linux, but if I wanted to just surf the web every now and then, maybe play a few games, I'd never have switched.

However Microsoft's business practices are underhand, trapping users into their software by compatibility. The three e's strategy and all that, anyone remember the leaked memo?

But apple are doing the same with itunes. So I suppose linux is the moral choice :P Plus it's more customisable.

ukripper
August 10th, 2007, 10:33 AM
Why is windows the mainstream OS? Why is everyone using it, why is it chosen for desktops and laptops? Why is it that people think linux is bad even though its much better?

Because Linux is free and majority of people like to pay for stress free life and also being lazy!

if you really want to dive in deep check this thread out - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=450676 contains 8340 posts total until now

skymera
August 10th, 2007, 10:34 AM
windows isnt FREE!!!!

you pay for it when you buy a computer.
itas abdly written
vista is horrid
IE7 is dangerous

MS are just a bunch of wan...s

ukripper
August 10th, 2007, 10:37 AM
windows isnt FREE!!!!

you pay for it when you buy a computer.
itas abdly written
vista is horrid
IE7 is dangerous

MS are just a bunch of wan...s

I think we all know Windows aint free

ZipoTe
August 10th, 2007, 11:00 AM
Because bill gates signed a pact with satan: everyone will have a PC with windows!! muahahaha:twisted: but he didn't sign anythig about dual bootig..\\:D/

ukripper
August 10th, 2007, 11:32 AM
billie boy love playing games

mikewhatever
August 10th, 2007, 12:35 PM
Why is windows the mainstream OS? Why is everyone using it,
In the 90s there was not much serious competition to MS. Apple was in trouble then, and linux was for geeks and nerds.


why is it chosen for desktops and laptops?
It is not! There are companies that sell PCs with linux preinstalled.

Why is it that people think linux is bad even though its much better?
How can you speak on behalf of the people?

R_U_Q_R_U
August 10th, 2007, 12:55 PM
This discussion, reminds me of the old Mac / DOS wars of the early 80's. I used a Mac from 1984 through 1998. In the early days Mac had a clean and simple GUI compared to the plain command line world of DOS. Mac was easy and DOS was hard. But for some reason the Mac was considered a toy and PC's were considered "business machines." Also the Mac was VERY proprietary while PC's were considered the OPEN system of the day with all kinds of third party parts and software. So even though MS DOS was not free, it was considered the open system of the day and that attracted lots of developers. There were always tons more programs running on a PC compared to the Mac.

Then came Windows. All of a sudden the GUI was cool. Mac was still better, but by then MS had captured a large market share. Now, even today, the Mac is way cooler than XP/Vista, but the PC Windows world has massive market share. Would the world look different had Steve Jobs allowed the Mac OS to run on non-Mac machines? We will never know.

But one thing is certain, the Mac catered to those who did not want to hassle with the OS and the hardware. They wanted something to work "out of the box." MS kind of stole that concept with Windows and that is why the majority still do not use Ubuntu or any other Linux -- that is, even if they ever heard of Linux.

Rotaj
August 10th, 2007, 01:42 PM
A while ago I read an article comparing linux to alternative fuel vehicles.
Alternative fuel vehicles have been around for a while now. Why aren't there more on the road? Why aren't they readily commercially available? The short answer is infrastructure. It is not in place, for non gasoline vehicles.
For the large part, the same can be said about Linux.

ukripper
August 10th, 2007, 01:45 PM
All comes down to Marketing. If your sales are strong you can even sell junk! And you could even overlook Diamond if it lying right under your feet thinking it to be the fake one. Same applies to Linux - ignorance is the cause

iota
August 10th, 2007, 08:05 PM
Ok, seriously, everyone here thinks linux is better than windows for you average computer user?

I mean someone that just wants to check their mail, maybe play a few games, surf the web watch some DVDs etc.

Fine, I'll give you that they can do most of that, except the games with any real ease, but what happens when something goes wrong? Or they need something from Windows?

Your average user is not going to know how to fix it, or how to use wine or a virtual xp install, and they aren't going to want to learn how to.

amrclutch1
August 10th, 2007, 09:50 PM
I hope ubuntu become as user friendly as windows but stays as secure as it already is. I just wish that linux would be on top, when I said people think linux is bad, the word "bad" is referring to "too hard", "for nerds", "bad pc's". I had counterstrike running on linux and I told someone in a server I had it running on linux, then all of the immature kiddies said... "LOL BAD", "roflewllll" and "is your pc really that bad?", in fact, without linux I believe that everything would be unstable. Without unix/linux servers would always be down. I think it is just one of those things some people don't think about. I also read and don't know if it's true but there is supposedly a backdoor in windows so that the government can access your pc anytime they want? Isn't that a little invading? When I read that I was shocked, I never knew that if it's true.

http://cityblogger.com/archives/2007/01/24/101-reasons-why-linux-is-better-than-windows

Above is the article I read about the backdoor in windows. It is #16 in the list.

yanqui
August 10th, 2007, 10:18 PM
"better" has to mean "better for what I use it for." Can you name two enterprise finance packages for the Linux platform? I can't name one. I know there's at least one personal finance package, but that won't work for a company with 20 million in revenue. That's probably the biggest holdback for wider adoption of Linux. As for being a "better" operating system, I can't make that argument either. I like Ubuntu, but it's every bit as high-maintenance as WinXP, if not more so. That means that if a company is going to try to migrate to Linux, they're going to have to invest in a lot of training for their techs. We have a lot of people working at our company whose only contact with computers is at work. They really don't want to worry about what operating system they're using. So really, all they know is what is provided for them. That is true for a WHOLE LOT of people. And for a whole lot of other people, the first time they touched a computer was at a job, later they got their own machine, and they pretty much went with what they knew. Not everyone will agree that Linux is better. It's good, it has many advantages over a badly-maintained Windows box. But if it won't run what I want it to run, what I NEED to run, it's worthless to me. We have graphics designers who will work ONLY on macs. So that's what we provide them. And Photo shop and other adobe products for mac are what they use. There is NO LINUX MACHINE that can equal a high-end Mac for outputting fabulous graphics. But there is a finance app gui for the Mac; there's not one for Linux, not yet. (I could be behind on that--is there an SAP front end for Linux?) Oh, and our Groupwise email system; now THAT has a linux client, I think, but the mac version is java-based, it works differently, so when things go wrong with the gui, we have to open the account on a PC and fix it.

I got a Citrix client installed on my Ubuntu box; but it was a pain in the butt. It was a lot simpler in Windows. And whether you want to admit it or not, Windows XP has become a remarkably stable operating system. And it only took them --what--six years--to get there?

Emceay
August 10th, 2007, 10:23 PM
Because simple things like networking can get really complex, and when you need help, you'd expect a forum full of gurus to lend a hand only to have it fall on deaf ears for two months straight!!
It's really no surprise to me. Sure, Linux has a lot of potential, but until things just work without me having to punch code into the terminal, it's not working well enough to be the mainstream OS. People chalk it up to folks not wanting something new, but it's really just that I don't like wasting entire days trying to figure out how to configure something in terminal or gedit. Also, I don't like losing my entire music collection to lost+found by one command.
Seriously.. losing years of mp3s to linux sucks. That coupled with my perpetually broken network connection trapping all of my media files on an ubuntu box without speakers really makes me wish I had just stayed on Windows and never ventured into this.

aysiu
August 10th, 2007, 10:30 PM
I've merged this with the other thread on a similar topic.

iota
August 10th, 2007, 10:32 PM
Come on, admit it though. Most of us enjoy messing about in the terminal and customising system files ;)

Windows users may not like or need it, but I think Linux is better for customising. And I know this sounds dumb, even selfish, but I hope Linux doesn't get too much simpler. I like the point Ubuntu has reached, it's simple, but you are allowed access to the entire system.

Windows takes too much power, or choice or whatever you want to call it away from the user. It actually hides, and locks away, settings from the end user.

Plus command prompt in windows sucks *** compared to bash, which is a much faster way of doing quite a few things.

Jimmyfj
August 10th, 2007, 10:37 PM
Way to many people still believe that Linux is for geeks only - In Denmark, which is where I live we are planning on recording a video of some elder people running Ubuntu 7.04 as their every day system. We plan to give that video to anyone who wants it just to show that Linux really IS for everybody and that even elder people in their 60's and 70's are able to run it.

jingo811
August 10th, 2007, 10:40 PM
I think it's the information overload Linux brings on newbies. There's too many balls to juggle in the air to successfully install it on the first try.

iota
August 10th, 2007, 10:58 PM
Heh I think too many people on this forum think Linux is 'simple'. I mean, sure, it's easy for us to use/customise. But just out of interest how many people here have ever written a computer program? Anyone know multiple programming languages?

Imagine asking those questions on a windows-only forum, you'd be lucky for maybe one or two positive replies.

Hell, I know people who have got confused during a windows install! Never underestimate how down right stupid some end-users can be. If Linux was designed with them in mind, I wouldn't use it.

smoker
August 10th, 2007, 11:13 PM
Hell, I know people who have got confused during a windows install! Never underestimate how down right stupid some end-users can be. If Linux was designed with them in mind, I wouldn't use it.

so this is how intelligence is gauged now, by how competent people are at installing windows?

olejorgen
August 10th, 2007, 11:33 PM
For laptops, one of the biggest, is definitive buggy/non working* suspend. (buggy on buggy hardware, I guess) This is a deal breaker.

*I know it works perfectly for many people

epimeteo
August 10th, 2007, 11:42 PM
I think it's the information overload Linux brings on newbies. There's too many balls to juggle in the air to successfully install it on the first try.
Yes, I do believe that is the major barrier. Many people are used to 20 years of Microsoft products and their problems and weakness.

It's a great deal to them to just give up of all that "knowledge" and learn a new O.S. that involves some learning (in the positive way).

BTW, many IT workers too don't like that too.

Depressed Man
August 11th, 2007, 12:28 AM
The single most barrier? Getting it preinstalled on almost all hardware relating to PCs being sold.

If you get the manufacturers to install Ubuntu on each system then there isn't a hardware problem (heck Windows has hardware problems) but the only reason why that doesn't remain a problem (as much as people like to bash Vista for it) is it's going be dominant because it's sold with every computer.

People will learn to use whatever OS comes preinstalled on their system. Heck most people don't deviate much from the basics of what's installed on there. Or they''ll never learn (which in that case they'll rely on the people they've always relied on. The people who know computers).

JAPrufrock
August 11th, 2007, 01:20 AM
printer drivers

iota
August 11th, 2007, 01:21 AM
so this is how intelligence is gauged now, by how competent people are at installing windows?

Well, it doesn't exactly take a genius does it?

aysiu
August 11th, 2007, 01:24 AM
Well, it doesn't exactly take a genius does it?
Actually, I know quite a number of people who are not able to install Windows. You don't have to be a genius, but you do have to have a bit of tech savvy.

iota
August 11th, 2007, 01:25 AM
Actually, I know quite a number of people who are not able to install Windows. You don't have to be a genius, but you do have to have a bit of tech savvy.

Are these people likely to try installing linux any time soon? :P But yeah, I suppose I get what you mean, especially if Windows messes up. Maybe I've just been lucky in the past :)

Dimitriid
August 11th, 2007, 01:27 AM
Well none really applies fully imho but the closes would be the reference to Hardware manufacturers: I just dont think ANY of the "features" Microsoft offers has had any saying on their adoption rate and has everything to do with their ruthless illegal business practices.

All the other options are direct consequence of kidnapping almost every single hardware developer and the entire i386 platform.

Benjcrowe
August 11th, 2007, 01:40 AM
Getting the x-system to configure correctly.

I have spent days on various machines trying to install 7.04 and the majority of efforts fail when the system reboots and "X server failure" is reported.

From someone who really wants to expose our high school students to Linux/Ubuntu this is a total bummer. You can not expect "ordinary" users to go through the CLI-GRUB nonsense that I have spent (wasted) days on.

Ubuntu has to get the install to correctly identify the graphics system and make sure the GUI will work without a hitch.

Microsoft has perfected this task so that no matter what machine I throw at it the GUI will work correctly. This is not (yet) the case with Ubuntu.

Dimitriid
August 11th, 2007, 01:46 AM
Getting the x-system to configure correctly.

I have spent days on various machines trying to install 7.04 and the majority of efforts fail when the system reboots and "X server failure" is reported.

From someone who really wants to expose our high school students to Linux/Ubuntu this is a total bummer. You can not expect "ordinary" users to go through the CLI-GRUB nonsense that I have spent (wasted) days on.

Ubuntu has to get the install to correctly identify the graphics system and make sure the GUI will work without a hitch.

Microsoft has perfected this task so that no matter what machine I throw at it the GUI will work correctly. This is not (yet) the case with Ubuntu.

I bet 99% of those x problems are a direct fault of Nvidia, ATI and Intel for not properly supporting their hardware and refusing to give out specifications.

Dr. C
August 11th, 2007, 02:39 AM
I voted "other".

The single biggest barrier to Ubuntu and Linux adoption is piracy of Microsoft Windows.

seshomaru samma
August 11th, 2007, 04:30 AM
I know about 5 people who heard of Linux , out of them two use Debian and 3 are not interested (I don`t count my mom and my wife whose computers I set up )
I think most people never heard of it , or never heard of it as a viable alternative. I see all these people on the net complaining about monopolies and big business , telling you to buy your veggies from the local farmers and avoid wal-mart. These people are all Windows users , many of them never heard of Firefox.
I think that if Linux was more famous it would attract a certain percentage of the population ,mostly the anti-monopoly ,anti-globalisation type.
Linux is only famous in the geek/IT scene , if you read slashdot or digg you would think half the world is using Ubuntu. Once you leave these circles , Linux is hardly present

popch
August 11th, 2007, 10:40 AM
I see a common theme ('misconception'?) in quite a few posts here, and i think it comes from people taking their own experiences as representative.

They roughly run along the line

I am/am not an experienced computer user and ...
OS brand A/B ...
wil/will not ...
install/run ....
on my old/new box. ...
thus the source of the OS is arrogant/tech oriented/naive/maliciious


In fact, we are comparing spheroids with ovoids, as is often the case.
Consider the following simple case list:

OS is preloaded
OS preconfigured for the particular system (containing drivers)
Using stock OS with proprietary, separately downloaded drivers
Using stock OS with generic drivers, to be configured
Writing/modding/heavy configuration needed


Add a second dimension:

Works out of the box
Works if set up according to instructions
Works after some research
Works after much building/modding
Doesn't


It would be very enlightening to compare the experiences of users trying to install OSs on boxes using such a grid, I think.

rlozano
August 11th, 2007, 10:48 AM
I think if news articles stopped making it sound like a free version of Windows that has no problems whatsoever, then our retention from the uptake would increase dramatically.

In my part here of the world, as my personal and organizational contribution to Ubuntu, we are continually educating the IT people by making an every other month session on how to go linux and what alternative Ubuntu is giving the users, both advance and novice.

Two cents.. :)

cobrn1
August 11th, 2007, 01:54 PM
I think there are a few key areas here:

1) Hardware compatability - to be honest, we're pretty damned good at that now, and the situation is getting better all the time, but it's still annoying when you're device works flawlessly with windows and refuses to cooperate with linux. Also, it can be a pain to get things working (compiling drivers, while not desperately difficult, is rather offputting).

2) Gaming is a major issue. Many of the people who would gladly drop windows like a rock are shackled to is because of its monopoly in gaming. hopefully with UT3 and quake wars more time will be invested in getting games to linux, and less on DX only titles.

3) Non-tech press coverage. I know about linux, anyone technically inclined know about it, but my best friend was like 'what's linux?' He bought a mac... People need to know that there is an alternative, viable option. Dell selling the pc's preloaded is a good start, but a little advertising, with the benefits of linux might help...

4) Difficulties in setting up - sort of like point 1, but I think that when you're installing and just want to do the everyday things, you shouldn't be forced to use the terminal. Things like envy, etc are a major help with this, and agin, this is improving. BTW, don't get me wrong - the terminal is a great and powerful tool - but so are GUIs, and in many cases the GUI is more suitable. Getting the resolution right, adding software, backingup, etc, are all cases where the GUI is better. Mass renaming, compiling and automation are areas where CLI comed out supreme. So more GUI's are needed.

5) I think the ubuntu disc should come with a (resonably) short manual with up-to-date guide on how to do a few basic things... Sort of like a primer. Windows has the 'welcome to windows tour'. Something similar (but not as annoying) would be nice, with a few simple tips (primers on .hidder_folders, what the CLI is, file permissions) and how to make ubuntu look pretty (how to turn on compositing, how to get a dock, etc). I love the ability to customise to my imagination, but some people just need a little nudge to see that they can do it too, ie, while I don't particularly like apple or OSX, it's undeniable that many love the style. Ubuntu doesn't have that style - it's functional and customisable, which _is_ better, but people need to know how to spice things up, and that they can.

The good news is that major improvements are being made in pretty much all the above areas, and hopefully gaming on linux will take a turn for the better.

Samhain13
August 11th, 2007, 02:17 PM
In my part here of the world, as my personal and organizational contribution to Ubuntu, we are continually educating the IT people by making an every other month session on how to go linux and what alternative Ubuntu is giving the users, both advance and novice.

In my part of your part of the world, I learned that in the school my nephew (he's in 5th grade) goes to, they use Fedora and Ubuntu in their computer classes. Their teacher tells them that they'd probably learn to use Windows and Macintosh through their home computers anyway, so it's best if they learned how to use Linux and FOSS from school. :)

I haven't met that teacher though, or anyone from their department, but I'd surely love to shake their hands.

Midwest-Linux
August 11th, 2007, 02:37 PM
We need change of what Linux is and isn't. I mentioned linux in some other non computer forums, the comments were "good luck making it work" "I hope you enjoy compiling code" "why bother ... I already have a machine that works fine".

Ubuntu has redefined Linux of what we can do. Some suggested a manual, we already have one...its this forum. But a ubuntu install video would certaintly be a fine idea, just put it on "You Tube"...unless of course someone has done that already...

Why would someone switch from Windows to Linux? I think the number one reason that the average computer user would pick would be the virus ,adware and spyware problem that seems to plague windows systems.

If one can surf without worrying about infecting their computer and spending $ Hundreds of dollars on anti spyware in the life of the computer...that would and should be the major selling point. The money they would have spent on spyware for five years could have bought them a fairly decent running computer with Linux.

Another would be is to be able to take that old win 98 computer and bring it up to modern standards with just a fresh install of ubuntu and some inexpensive ram. Just tell someone that they need not spend $ 800 on a new computer, but rather maybe $200 or less and you get people interested and excited...after all who is against saving money??

If Ubuntu worked out of the box with seamless video, audio, wireless, internet, complete USB connectivity, Bluetooth...and the operating system costs 0 cents ...then why would someone buy a windows machine for? Those things that I just mentioned is what most people buy a computer for....to do stuff....seamlessly...

Lastly...does anyone see financial opportunity here? One could start selling older (win 98 type) computers with 80 gig hard drives and 512 ram with Ubuntu all tweaked out and ready to go. I see on E-Bay that some sellers are starting to sell older computers with Linux/Ubuntu already installed.

Go ahead and brag to everyone that you have a computer that does all the important functions that one could ever need and no viruses and no expensive antispyware either!

aysiu
August 11th, 2007, 06:29 PM
If Ubuntu worked out of the box with seamless video, audio, wireless, internet, complete USB connectivity, Bluetooth...and the operating system costs 0 cents ...then why would someone buy a windows machine for? Those things that I just mentioned is what most people buy a computer for....to do stuff....seamlessly... Well, there are quite a few reasons that have been gone over already, but I'll sum them up for you. Even with a seamlessly working Ubuntu "out of the box," a lot of people will stick with Windows because...

* They use and/or need for productivity Windows-only software
* They fear change
* They don't want to be the only ones using some "strange" operating system
* They don't know who to contact for help if something should go wrong
* They won't know, without doing considerable internet research, whether a peripheral (printer, Wacom, webcam) will work with Ubuntu
* There is a learning curve, so that's time spent learning something new
* Some interface functionality will not be there (dual monitor GUI configuration, previewing image files when uploading through Firefox)

popch
August 11th, 2007, 10:45 PM
a lot of people will stick with Windows because...

* They want to use at home and at work the same software

orangebase
August 12th, 2007, 05:51 AM
I think there are a few key areas here:

1) Hardware compatability - to be honest, we're pretty damned good at that now, and the situation is getting better all the time, but it's still annoying when you're device works flawlessly with windows and refuses to cooperate with linux. Also, it can be a pain to get things working (compiling drivers, while not desperately difficult, is rather offputting).

2) Gaming is a major issue. Many of the people who would gladly drop windows like a rock are shackled to is because of its monopoly in gaming. hopefully with UT3 and quake wars more time will be invested in getting games to linux, and less on DX only titles.

3) Non-tech press coverage. I know about linux, anyone technically inclined know about it, but my best friend was like 'what's linux?' He bought a mac... People need to know that there is an alternative, viable option. Dell selling the pc's preloaded is a good start, but a little advertising, with the benefits of linux might help...

4) Difficulties in setting up - sort of like point 1, but I think that when you're installing and just want to do the everyday things, you shouldn't be forced to use the terminal. Things like envy, etc are a major help with this, and agin, this is improving. BTW, don't get me wrong - the terminal is a great and powerful tool - but so are GUIs, and in many cases the GUI is more suitable. Getting the resolution right, adding software, backingup, etc, are all cases where the GUI is better. Mass renaming, compiling and automation are areas where CLI comed out supreme. So more GUI's are needed.

5) I think the ubuntu disc should come with a (resonably) short manual with up-to-date guide on how to do a few basic things... Sort of like a primer. Windows has the 'welcome to windows tour'. Something similar (but not as annoying) would be nice, with a few simple tips (primers on .hidder_folders, what the CLI is, file permissions) and how to make ubuntu look pretty (how to turn on compositing, how to get a dock, etc). I love the ability to customise to my imagination, but some people just need a little nudge to see that they can do it too, ie, while I don't particularly like apple or OSX, it's undeniable that many love the style. Ubuntu doesn't have that style - it's functional and customisable, which _is_ better, but people need to know how to spice things up, and that they can.

The good news is that major improvements are being made in pretty much all the above areas, and hopefully gaming on linux will take a turn for the better.

Points 1, 2, and 4 are very strong. I've just recently ventured into Ubuntu & Linux, but I've found it very difficult to manage. With everything I do, I get an associated problem, especially in the hardware area (ATI just doesn't like us). Using the command-line isn't so bad, but it's daunting for many other potential users. Gaming is incredibly difficult and requires a lot of work to set up. It just doesn't seem to work as well for me than when I'm on my XP partition.

Eye candy was a good lure for me, but setting it up ticked me off a bit. Now that everything's running, it's very satisfying, but looking back, many of my friends wouldn't go through all that work. I think point 1 is the most accurate. Hardware compatibility and the workarounds which require a ton of research (especially if one fix doesn't work for you) and work. I'm not saying this is a fault of Linux or Ubuntu, but it sure does feel that way when you first switch.

brokenstrides
August 12th, 2007, 07:06 AM
For this vote, I'd say that installing hardware is a pain in the butt. I'm one of those people who can use computers very well, but not familiar with working with MAKING drivers and forcing things to work, etc... And a lot of people are the same way.

And there are a few things like major games, and Photoshop that keep people from switching. I think if Photoshop was released for Ubuntu, a LOT of windows users would make the switch. I definitely would. Dual-booting is makin' me sad! I use my desktop computer for photoshop and WoW, and my laptop I use Feisty. I love feisty, but I don't want to give up PS or WoW... I am working on setting up my desktop to dual-boot once I get a new hard drive (it's to unstable to mess around with right now... My hdd is getting kind of old?)

triptoe
August 13th, 2007, 06:31 AM
#1. Software - this includes gaming, photoshop etc...

#2. Hardware - this includes main components but more often than not 3rd party devices like printers and others that need drivers

#3 Proprietary - this includes proprietary formats, such as .mp3... watching dvd's, microsoft office formats

#4 Piracy

Brightbelt
August 13th, 2007, 07:16 AM
I think that basically, Linux needs to be "caught up" with everyone else on the latest hardware technology and the related drivers.

Because of driver issues (which are not necessarily Linux's fault), Linux users have gotten way too used to waiting. I mean, when you wait 9 months for a driver, there's already newer technology available by then.

I just bought a driver for my Epson RX 580 (all-in-one with scanning and on-CD printing) from Turboprint and while it does include an on-CD Printing driver, there's nothing available for the scanner. So it's like having half a product.

One could probably come up with some legitimate excuses, but both Mac and Windows have had this model completely covered for a while now. So why can't Linux get it going a little faster?

There are so many things that are covered part of the way. I know there are work-arounds in some cases, but I'm getting tired of configuring just to create a level playing field. I'm tired of jumping through hoops.

I've had a dual boot with Ubuntu/Vista for a while and all I can to it seems is "chip away" at my Linux Project bit by painful bit. I'm a very patient person and I've come to believe that only patient people could ever dig into Linux.

Thanks, Frank B.

aysiu
August 13th, 2007, 07:27 AM
One could probably come up with some legitimate excuses, but both Mac and Windows have had this model completely covered for a while now. So why can't Linux get it going a little faster? I'm not convinced that Mac has had this completely covered for a while. My wife and I, just two months ago, had quite an ordeal switching her parents over to Mac, because their Canon printer would not work with CUPS. Mac suffers from many of the hardware compatibility issues Linux does. Fortunately, though, it has better documentation on what's compatible (you can see it on the side of the box for the peripheral, and Mac drivers are sometimes included with driver CDs).

vexorian
August 13th, 2007, 07:32 AM
What's the single biggest barrier to Ubuntu and Linux adoption?
Time.

For example:

- Hardware problems in comparison to other OSs. : Chicken-egg paradox, only solution is time.
-The mindset of people - "Linux is for geeks!" : Is that true that people really think so?, AFAIK most people don't really know what Linux is.
- Lack of awareness - "Linux? Never heard of it!" : And this is fixed with "time"
- People generally feel no need to switch/aren't bothered by the OpenSource philosophy: Again, time, the current bussiness model for software and many other things is set to end.

- The software doesn't live up to commerical applications : This is more of "no good commercial applications for Linux" which is identical to the hardware problem which is the chicken-egg paradox that only "time" will fix.

So there you go, the winner is "time"

MetalMusicAddict
August 13th, 2007, 07:40 AM
"What's the single biggest barrier to Ubuntu and Linux adoption?"

Choice.

cainmark
August 25th, 2007, 06:02 AM
If you had to choose the biggest barrier to Linux / Ubuntu adoption, what would you choose?

Simple multitrack VIDEO editor with chromakey with easy installation and usage.

You can do each of it, but none of it easily, and that multi-tack mixing with effect is essential. Cinellera's still too damn difficult to install and use. All these Hollywood studios are using linux clusters with their own proprietary software inhouse so it's got to be able to be done-somehow. I personall don't have a clue how, but it is a gigantic barrier in this day and age.

LookTJ
August 25th, 2007, 06:36 AM
Software Piracy.

triptoe
August 25th, 2007, 09:37 AM
Microsoft development API's

If people used standardized open source free API's then porting software would be more seamless... there wouldn't be a lack of software available (photoshop for instance) . since i think software is the biggest barrier, i think the root of the problem itself is The API's

iota
August 25th, 2007, 02:09 PM
Software Piracy.

surely that's helping linux? Sort of... I mean, linux is free, so it turning up on piratebay isn't a big deal.

Microsoft however must have been pretty peeved at finding vista on there several months before it was released.

aysiu
August 25th, 2007, 06:37 PM
surely that's helping linux? Sort of... I mean, linux is free, so it turning up on piratebay isn't a big deal.

Microsoft however must have been pretty peeved at finding vista on there several months before it was released.
I think Taylor means that people don't "have to" pay for Windows, so they use pirated versions of Windows instead of looking for legitimate cost-free alternatives.

popch
August 25th, 2007, 06:42 PM
I think Taylor means that people don't "have to" pay for Windows, so they use pirated versions of Windows instead of looking for legitimate cost-free alternatives.

I don't know how large the contribution is, but the existence of a black market for (fake) Windows licenses obviously helps spread Windows as well.

I can not really imagine there being a black market for Ubuntu.

aysiu
August 25th, 2007, 06:44 PM
I don't know how large the contribution is, but the existence of a black market for (fake) Windows licenses obviously helps spread Windows as well.

I can not really imagine there being a black market for Ubuntu.
Well, considering you can obtain free copies of Ubuntu legally (in every country), there would be no need for a "black market" for Ubuntu. And, yes, Bill Gates himself has said he'd rather people pirate Windows than use something else.

glotz
August 25th, 2007, 07:01 PM
I think that hardware problems are not a big cause no longer. Some people certainly think that Linux is somewhat geeky but this is changing rapidly. Most people have by now learned about Linux.

I think there are two bigger problems. People don't fully understand the advantages and think it's too difficult even if they wanted to.

halfmanhalfbug
September 7th, 2007, 02:22 AM
I voted "hardware problems". The lack of drivers for newly released hardware is a killer., making linux lag behind Windows and MacOS by several months to a year (you need to by last year's model in order to use linux). The answer? Dunno...more use of native Windows drivers (e.g. ndiswrapper system) in the interim? A new repository for such wrapper/driver combinations? An easy way for hardware vendors to port Windows code to linux and retain closed source?

climatewarrior
November 19th, 2007, 06:11 AM
I think the number one barrier is hardware plain an easy. And the inly way that is going to be solved is to get more users and the only way to get more user is... well thats a good one

But I truly believe that the lack of commercial apps is not holding us back (eg. Photoshop), Because 90% of the people just use their computers for the web checking email and writing and printing docs. And Linux can already do that as well or better than windows.

Besides Linux is free, nobody cant beat that price or feature. And that is our killer app freedom and price. Neither Windows or Mac can offer a library of thousands of apps for free.

TeaSwigger
November 19th, 2007, 10:32 AM
Money. The engine behind the MS world.

Or a mindset insufficiently aware of commercialism, if one looks at it that way.

I doubt it's the software in and of itself, being as a windows vs ubuntu comparison often comes down to a matter of choosing trade-offs, and being as any "lack of support" in ubuntu is rooted in lacking code, which takes us back to that little matter of money.

coolglobal
November 19th, 2007, 01:33 PM
Ignorance.

The next generation of developers will take Linux to heights undreamed of.

so7777777os
November 19th, 2007, 01:59 PM
We already support more hardware out of the box than anyone else, we are closing the gap quickly on the remaining areas. I think the biggest problem currently is that when people buy a machine it comes with Windows, 99% of people won't switch unless there's a really good reason. We don't currently provide a truly better desktop, it's a Windows that doesn't crash not a better alternative. So long as the things we highlight are that we suck less than Windows, why would people go for a Linux desktop?

We have the chance to really do something innovative and do it quickly, we just need the will to do so. Take technology like Tracker or Beagle, with a bit of investment we could have that integrated so deeply in all of the desktop that nobody could compare.

Offer people something truly better at zero cost and they will switch.

I'd say investments are needed to give us the final few drivers (Intel are onboard, ATI are joining up reportedly and we are doing nvidia ourselves. that leaves wifi which is also being worked on) and we need to work on not being merely onpar. Finally we need to really take security seriously, not doing so has caused many issues for Windows (and it will for Apple) we have the chance to do it right from the word go and we can fix everything up faster since we have the freedom of access to the source.

We also need to calm the waters we aren't going to beat Windows just yet, we simply can't - I know we'd all like to but it will take years and we need to not push an inferior solution on people or they won't believe us when it no longer is the case. I've been a fulltime Linux user going on 9 years now, I'm accustomed to waiting, what I have seen is that every year we do better and better, eventually we will win - no doubt about it. Open technology has to much going for it to lose the battle for technological domination as a whole, the desktop usecase is just a very hard one to hit, I suspect it will be the last bastilion to fall - Servers, workstations, embedded devices, applicances, all have switched to our technology, the desktop will come in it's own sweet time.

I'm newbie,i like linux ,though it isn't so perfectly ......... I think linux must be more and more good in few years

svtfmook
November 19th, 2007, 02:25 PM
support, compatibility

Cannaregio
November 19th, 2007, 02:40 PM
I voted"other", and "other" is imho the dire lack of GAMES for GNU/Linux (and also for Macs, btw).
Until wine will run any new game, and/or we'll have such a critical mass that games will come out in linux flavour as well, not only for windows, I think we can forget any significant "widespread Linux adoption".

For godzilla's sake: Microsoft produces games on its own (well, buys and then markets), and they even produce directly joysticks, pedals, game pads, you name it.

Where's a Linux equivalent of -say- Age of empires or Flight simulator? (Note the "equivalent").
Where's a -say- "Ubuntu ThrustMaster Top Gun Fox 2 Pro Shock Force Feedback Joystick"

Even now, end 2007, the few games worth playing in GNU/Linux are mostly windows games that we manage to run under wine.

This is the biggest barrier.

This is th reason developers and users should help/test/try wine much more.

so7777777os
November 19th, 2007, 02:49 PM
We need change of what Linux is and isn't. I mentioned linux in some other non computer forums, the comments were "good luck making it work" "I hope you enjoy compiling code" "why bother ... I already have a machine that works fine".

Ubuntu has redefined Linux of what we can do. Some suggested a manual, we already have one...its this forum. But a ubuntu install video would certaintly be a fine idea, just put it on "You Tube"...unless of course someone has done that already...

Why would someone switch from Windows to Linux? I think the number one reason that the average computer user would pick would be the virus ,adware and spyware problem that seems to plague windows systems.

If one can surf without worrying about infecting their computer and spending $ Hundreds of dollars on anti spyware in the life of the computer...that would and should be the major selling point. The money they would have spent on spyware for five years could have bought them a fairly decent running computer with Linux.

Another would be is to be able to take that old win 98 computer and bring it up to modern standards with just a fresh install of ubuntu and some inexpensive ram. Just tell someone that they need not spend $ 800 on a new computer, but rather maybe $200 or less and you get people interested and excited...after all who is against saving money??

If Ubuntu worked out of the box with seamless video, audio, wireless, internet, complete USB connectivity, Bluetooth...and the operating system costs 0 cents ...then why would someone buy a windows machine for? Those things that I just mentioned is what most people buy a computer for....to do stuff....seamlessly...

Lastly...does anyone see financial opportunity here? One could start selling older (win 98 type) computers with 80 gig hard drives and 512 ram with Ubuntu all tweaked out and ready to go. I see on E-Bay that some sellers are starting to sell older computers with Linux/Ubuntu already installed.

Go ahead and brag to everyone that you have a computer that does all the important functions that one could ever need and no viruses and no expensive antispyware either!

If linux can resolve these problems,i will change close relatives computer into linux from windows......

BigSilly
November 19th, 2007, 03:27 PM
It's not the games that are the issue for Linux. It's pre-installing it on new PC's. That's the big issue, and the one thing that stands in the way of Linux uptake. It doesn't help that companies like Dell charge more for their PC's with Linux than they do for a Vista machine. How many people in the world are honest-to-God hardcore games players that their numbers could make a big difference to the uptake of Linux? It's not like the biggest PC games sell that well anyway, especially up against the all-conquering Wii. I too would love to see some big games on Ubuntu, but let's be real, gaming certainly isn't something standing in the way of people choosing it for the desktop etc.

Hopefully places like Wal-Mart and Tesco will see some success with pre-installed Linux on cheap PC's, and the revolution can begin in earnest!

MRiGnS
November 19th, 2007, 03:29 PM
It's the games.

aysiu
November 19th, 2007, 03:36 PM
To those who think the lack of PC gaming on Linux is the single biggest barrier to widespread Linux adoption, I suggest you read this:
Gaining Perspective on PC Gaming (http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2006/11/03/gaining-perspective-on-pc-gaming/)

PmDematagoda
November 19th, 2007, 03:44 PM
I have faced a lot of questions from people who want to switch to Linux, but they all stop at one question, "Will Linux support games?". And they all forget about Linux after the response I give them, "Linux can support games through emulators such as Wine and Cedega, but all of them don't......" and that's where I lose them:(. Personally I don't need games since Linux is interesting enough without them, but sadly, a lot of other people who used Windows and love to play games do.

popch
November 19th, 2007, 04:32 PM
If you want to transport goods, buy a lorry. If you want to race cars, buy a racing car. If you want to cruise in splendor to church, buy a limo. If you want to dispose of gas without actually going any place, buy a SUV. If you want to just tinker with a car without driving it, buy a Jaguar.

And so on.

00ber n00b
November 19th, 2007, 04:56 PM
It is all about the :!: GAMES :!: .

The lack of games is what is preventing linux adoption.

Since most people will want to keep a dual boot simply to boot into XP to play their games, they dont find it worth the hassle to learn linux to do their desktop stuff.

Since the programmers at wine and cedega work hard to run windows games in Linux the game developers are hardly motivated to make linux ports either.

However, should linux be adopted by the Non-3d-gamer crowd, the rising percentage of Linux OS share might attract game developers' attention to start porting games for linux, which would increase linux market share exponentionally there after, as developers and companies would port their software for linux to get their share of the cake.

Furthermore, since FOSS people are considered freeloaders that won't pay for any software they are thusly a very unattractive target for developers, worsening lookout yet besides their negligible size of the OS share.


People want to play game on their cool graphics cards, and since they wont run on linux, they use Windows.


Note: Linux is actually better than windows at running most *old* computer games.

only a small percentage of people play games on their pc, I have had a couple of family members and friends complain about windows. I have asked them if they have tried any linux distro's like ubuntu. Time after time, they say what is that. They have no idea what an OS is. Thats the biggest barrier. Ignorance. But now that I helped one of my cousins install ubuntu, its spreading like wildfire through out my family:lolflag: People just don't know. Most of them just want a computer that they can surf the net with and use for multimedia.

houstonbofh
November 19th, 2007, 05:11 PM
I have faced a lot of questions from people who want to switch to Linux, but they all stop at one question, "Will Linux support games?"
Consider your audience. I am pushing linux in the business world. So I get "Will Linux work with MLS?" (Multiple Listing Service for US Realtors) Since MLS is a web app, it should work... Wrong. It is IE only... So ies4linux, right? But then you can't print... And I can go into many other venues with one application that just can't work on Linux. Small, old, niche, and absolutely business critical. And many cases they don't need a computer, they need a platform for delivering "Visual Matrix." (A hotel management system)

In cases like this, we need to go to these software companies and say "How would you like to lower your customer implementation cost by %10 while raising your profit by %20?" These are the people to market to. The end user doesn't care what is under the hood as long as they see the screen they want.

pmgr33r
December 14th, 2007, 05:44 AM
For most, its way to much work to switch on OS if what you have works "well enough"

inversekinetix
December 14th, 2007, 06:46 AM
Games
Familiarity
'Standards'
No benefits to everyday user.


There are so many barriers. How can linux/ubuntu move forward and address such problems when people can't even agree on the problems themselves. Is there any 'real' market research data available regarding this subject or is it always based on personal opinion? Seems to me that there are way too many cooks. Lots of people, lots of distros, all off doing what they think is the 'right/best' thing for their cause. It might be great to be a part of that, looking from the inside, but to people on the outside I think it looks a little hodge-podge and unorganised. There doesn't seem to be a direction as such, windows offered a direction, ac is offering a direction, linux is offering too much uncertainty and choice. Just my 2 cents.

faim2600
March 31st, 2008, 04:23 AM
I think the biggest barrier is the ease of use. Most people are stuck on the Windows interface and find the manual aspect of Linux discouraging. The lack of support for Windows to Linux conversion also deters newbies.

days_of_ruin
March 31st, 2008, 04:32 AM
I know people who use windows just because they paid for it.
Which is the lamest reason ever>.>

aysiu
March 31st, 2008, 04:37 AM
I think the biggest barrier is the ease of use. Most people are stuck on the Windows interface and find the manual aspect of Linux discouraging. The lack of support for Windows to Linux conversion also deters newbies.
I would suggest you read reviews of the Eee PC. They contradict just about everything you just said.

SomeGuyDude
March 31st, 2008, 04:58 AM
I would suggest you read reviews of the Eee PC. They contradict just about everything you just said.

Perhaps, but at the same time MOST Linux distros require the user to get in there and do a little work. It's only been in the last generation or so that someone could just install and get rolling.

Linux is still stuck with its stigma of the late 1990s where you had to configure and compile a codec yourself just to listen to your MP3s, lord help you if you wanted to do anything elaborate.

Even Feisty didn't want to work with my laptop display OR my wireless without what 99% of casual users would call "advanced fiddling", it was only Gutsy that I could get fully rolling.

Yeah there's the Eee PC, the OLPC, Ubuntu's MOSTLY simple, Mint, Mandriva, and PCLinuxOS amongst other beginner-friendly distros, but the vast majority still think of how hard it used to be, and the idea of trying to make Linux work is as attractive as trying to rebuild their car engine.

In a big way, Linux has to shed its own intimidating image. The way I keep saying it, if my dumb *** can use Linux, anyone can. It's not that I got better or smarter, it just got easier.

days_of_ruin
March 31st, 2008, 05:04 AM
It's the games.

ETQW runs on linux w/o wine.

vexorian
March 31st, 2008, 05:32 AM
Even Feisty didn't want to work with my laptop display OR my wireless .

It's a matter of perspective I guess, the way I see it, even your laptop display or wireless didn't want to work with Feisty.

vexorian
March 31st, 2008, 05:33 AM
It's the games.
Nah.

Majority of gamers use consoles.

Majority of PC gamers are just casual gamers, and there are plenty of options for them.

The rest is a bunch of teenage geeks that are perfectly able to tweak WINE. (Saying this by self experience)

SomeGuyDude
March 31st, 2008, 06:21 AM
It's a matter of perspective I guess, the way I see it, even your laptop display or wireless didn't want to work with Feisty.

Right, but that's not how your average computer user will see things. They'll try and install an OS and, if they can't hook up to the internet and get their right resolution immediately (or, at MOST, a few easy to find GUI settings), they'll give up because it "doesn't work with my computer".

That's what I'm getting at. In the past you had to make Linux work, which drove almost everyone away and toward Windows or OS. It took more "idiot-proof" distros before casual computer users will approach it.

Realize that, to a great extent, Linux is just not made for most people. There's an attitude in most Linux users I've found, kind of an adventurous spirit with their computer. They like to toy with stuff, tweak this, customize that, make this stuff look a little better and those things run faster.

Just to see what would happen, I put up a "show your desktop" thread on another board I visit. NO one had anything different except the wallpaper on their Windows computers. Most of them didn't even move the icons that came default. They aren't dumb, they just have no interest in their computer as anything but a vehicle to get stuff done.

They want an OS that they can install and just never touch again. Codecs? Dependencies? Command-line? They don't want to hear them because their computer usage is pretty limited or casual to the point that they'll see it as not worth their time to get it running.

Takmadeus
March 31st, 2008, 07:21 AM
Well... before it was because people dididn't knew about it

other thought is because they thought that as they were not backed by big companies, it was not so good

Lately I've heard this: "if linux was so good everyone would be using it right now" (is this a catch 22?)

Which makes me think that they are not aware of the monopoly from THAT company}

Recently some skeptic (hates linux for no logical reason) told me that perhaps as vista sucks so much, this would be a good chance for people to invest on linux, so it would become more popular (he is partly right)

The fact that big companies are chosing linux for mobile / ultramobile appliances and for social interest computers help peop'le to rise awareness on the quality of linux based products

So I would say it is all resumed to FUD, yet this is progressively changing (wait until >I get an EeePCand you'll see how all my friends suddenly turn to linux ;))

houstonbofh
April 2nd, 2008, 07:52 PM
Right, but that's not how your average computer user will see things. They'll try and install an OS and, if they can't hook up to the internet and get their right resolution immediately (or, at MOST, a few easy to find GUI settings), they'll give up because it "doesn't work with my computer".
Check out the flack of Creative Soundblaster drivers and Vista right now. This is not a Linux problem, it is a driver problem. Comparing a preinstalled system to a system you have to install just ain't fair. Of course that doesn't stop the comparison... :)

aysiu
April 2nd, 2008, 07:55 PM
I would never recommend installing an OS to an average computer user.

Preinstalled, all the way.

As a matter of fact, even for some Windows power users, I'd recommend preinstalled Linux over install-it-yourself Linux.

Shakey_Jake33
April 2nd, 2008, 08:00 PM
Biggest barrier? Simply getting people to understand and/or appreciate the advantages of FOSS. It's all very well for people like us who might take such issues seriously, but the average person will struggle to see it, as long as their PC does what they bought it for. It's hard to get someone to appreciate the community contribution aspect of open source when they just wanna write word documents and get their photos off their camera. And quite frankly, if a person doesn't really understand the advantage of FOSS, is there really a point?

I see that as the basic fundamental issue, well before we can start talking about driver compatibility - people understanding why they'd want to use it in the first place.

rune0077
April 2nd, 2008, 08:14 PM
Check out the flack of Creative Soundblaster drivers and Vista right now. This is not a Linux problem, it is a driver problem. Comparing a preinstalled system to a system you have to install just ain't fair. Of course that doesn't stop the comparison... :)

But it really doesn't have to be preinstalled. I have never in my life bought a computer with anything preinstalled on it, ever. Yet, I have neither had any issues or troubles installing any of the windows systems, and I've never experienced any hardware that didn't work (if not out of the box, then as soon as the driver was installed) - nor have I had any family members or friends who had any issues (though to be fair, many of them did get it preinstalled).

Ubuntu wasn't impossible to install at all, but it was definitely harder, and I still haven't figured out how to get my WiFi card to work.

So I'm voting hardware issues. We should probably also have included ourselves, the community, in the poll. I know we all like to think we have a great community (and mostly we do), but I've heard more than one person tell me that this is exactly what keeps him away from Linux - there is an impression, that we are mostly a group of zealot fanboys who worship our OS like others do their deity :).

aysiu
April 2nd, 2008, 08:19 PM
But, rune0077, your'e a power user. The very fact that you never buy preinstalled makes you an atypical Windows user.

So, yes, hardware support would be the #1 barrier for Windows users who build their own computers and do not select Linux-compatible hardware.

The single biggest barrier for average users, however, would be a combination ignorance/fear of the unknown.

smartboyathome
April 2nd, 2008, 08:20 PM
Biggest barrier? Simply getting people to understand and/or appreciate the advantages of FOSS. It's all very well for people like us who might take such issues seriously, but the average person will struggle to see it, as long as their PC does what they bought it for. It's hard to get someone to appreciate the community contribution aspect of open source when they just wanna write word documents and get their photos off their camera. And quite frankly, if a person doesn't really understand the advantage of FOSS, is there really a point?

I see that as the basic fundamental issue, well before we can start talking about driver compatibility - people understanding why they'd want to use it in the first place.

That is similar to Firefox. Early, people didn't understand the advantages, but now it has got a huge chunk of the market share.

I think there is no one "biggest factor" when it comes to this situation. Some people may be ignorant and just not want to learn. They may not have time to learn, or they may not have a compatible computer. They may not have everything they would need on it, or the open source alternatives may not be feature rich or as easy to use as their software. They might not even be knowledgeable enough to install it. All these can affect the people in different ways, and can make them not want to use it in different amounts.

rune0077
April 2nd, 2008, 08:27 PM
But, rune0077, your'e a power user. The very fact that you never buy preinstalled makes you an atypical Windows user.

So, yes, hardware support would be the #1 barrier for Windows users who build their own computers and do not select Linux-compatible hardware.

The single biggest barrier for average users, however, would be a combination ignorance/fear of the unknown.

I'm not entirely convinced about that argument (not entirely dismissive about it either). I don't think people are really that afraid to try something new, at least not as long as the "basics" are still there: you still double-click to open a file (at least if you're using Gnome), you still right-click a file to bring up the file menu, etc, etc. I mean, people don't always buy the same brand of car over and over, because, as long as the wheel and the brakes are in the same place they can still figure out how to operate it. If someone shows them that they can still open their Word-documents, play their DVD's and MP3-files and such, I don't think we should underestimate people's willingness to try something new. Now, on the other hand, if it turns out that their DVD-drive doesn't work, that may scare them.

aysiu
April 2nd, 2008, 08:29 PM
People aren't afraid to buy a new car if they know others who have bought the car and they see ads for it on TV and in magazines.

If it's something new that's virtually unheard of, isn't in advertisements, and isn't used by any one of their friends, then they'll be skeptical of it.

Shakey_Jake33
April 2nd, 2008, 08:32 PM
Hardware is definitely a factor, but mainly for people who know computers anyway I reckon. Ubuntu was a painless install, and I've no problem dealing with CLI or scripts, but I'm not sure I'd be able to install the newest NVIDIA drivers without Envy. And I'm still waiting for some decent drivers for my X-fi, having to use my onboard instead. Most of my friends use computers for games and keep up to date with the latest drivers for their GPU etc, but they're still going to be expecting to be able to double-click the file, click next a few times and let it install. Compiling is another world to them.

As for the mass mainstream, maybe I'm focusing too much on the lowest common denominator, but these are people who often call their a 'CPU', and consider the monitor to be a direct part of their computer. They're not going to know about the bits in their machine, let alone about drivers... so it really is going to have to work out of the box for them.

rune0077
April 2nd, 2008, 08:35 PM
People aren't afraid to buy a new car if they know others who have bought the car and they see ads for it on TV and in magazines.

If it's something new that's virtually unheard of, isn't in advertisements, and isn't used by any one of their friends, then they'll be skeptical of it.

Hey, you probably got a point there: in which case, the biggest barrier would actually be a complete lack of advertisement- and PR funding. Perhaps, if people saw Linux adds on TV, side by side with ads for Windows and Macs, and saw various super-sexy celebrities telling them what a wonderful product it is and how it has saved their lives, they would be less skeptical of it.

anantshri
April 2nd, 2008, 08:35 PM
a few points you can find being discussed here also

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=728163

aysiu
April 2nd, 2008, 08:45 PM
Hey, you probably got a point there: in which case, the biggest barrier would actually be a complete lack of advertisement- and PR funding. Perhaps, if people saw Linux adds on TV, side by side with ads for Windows and Macs, and saw various super-sexy celebrities telling them what a wonderful product it is and how it has saved their lives, they would be less skeptical of it.
I'd hesitate to advertise it at this point, since preinstalled Linux is still relatively obscure, and I don't want to advertise that people should be downloading, burning, boot, partitioning with, installing, and configuring a new operating system.

Right now the advertise-able options in my mind now are Dell's Ubuntu offerings (which still have some suspend/hibernate issues, as far as I can tell), the Eee PC (which has some minor kinks to work out as well--longer battery life, bigger screen, spacebar sensitivity), and the Cloudbook (which has gotten almost universally bad reviews).

Frankly, I think the success of the Eee PC has been that it doesn't advertise (or hide, for that matter) the fact that it uses Linux. It advertises itself as an easy-to-learn, easy-to-use ultra mobile PC.

chaime
April 15th, 2008, 03:31 AM
Hey.

So I'm a pretty experienced computer user, I've been building them since I was a kid. My biggest problems with ubuntu have been:

- The suspend issue. I can't tell what it is, but my machine still won't suspend or hibernate right with ACPI under Gutsy.

- The software. There are a lot of things I still can't do very easily, even though I've searched, such as playing DVD files on the hard drive; it would be nice to have a do-it-all media player. Kaffeine supposedly is, but I can't figure out the menus. Also, it was hard to get used to setting permissions, etc.

NOTE: There are a lot of things that are easier to do with ubuntu, too. MS Office doesn't create PDF files, that's for sure.

- The learning curve. I eventually found a book to help with this, "non-geek-guide" but it advertises restricted and multiverse stuff a lot. It would be nice to be able to switch to open source completely, lickety-split, and to have literature out there to walk people through the basics.

- Also, I'll be honest, the reason I switched was to have complete control over my network card, 'nuff said. The wide variety of drivers, deprecated drivers, transitional drivers, etc., out there, are a headache and many of them don't mesh well with high-powered networking tools.

Combined with the suspend issue (which I'm pretty sure is NOT JUST a Dell or JUST an nVidia or JUST an ATI/AMD 64 problem), and given the fact I had to buy a new printer, I think there are still a lot of hardware issues to work out.

Unfortunately, software developing isn't my forte.

Anyways there's my $0.02

nairatinu
May 8th, 2008, 07:09 PM
My company (a small engineering firm) would probably use Linux exclusively except that Solidworks does not port to Linux. Another problem might be relearning/rewriting macros in spreadsheet programs. I am an avid Ubuntu Studio user at home, I don't even use Windows. We are all dreading the day we are "forced" to go to Vista here at work...
So I would summarize that it's a catch 22, Linux doesn't have enough market penetration to attract "high end" products like Solidworks to port to it (they might also have a problem with the "free" aspect which would be required of their software, although I think there are many ways around that, like a simple monthly "update" service fee which would probably make them more money in the long run). And of course because it doesn't port to "high end" software such as Solidworks, Linux will lag in market penetration.
In reality of course, there is a lot of "high end" software already available in Linux, but people are just not aware of it. We would also have a problem at work because we like to play the old Unreal Tournament during break...

kasilas
May 11th, 2008, 07:37 PM
I feel the Ubuntu / Linux spread is limited because it's not sold like a commercial product. Don't get me wrong, I approve of this. However it means there is precious little thought given to the economics. I mean imagine MS had it 5 years ago.

Lets consider these facts:

1/ There are alot of very similar linux products (distros).
2/ Linux is free and at length stresses it will be always.
3/ There is not a highly advertised expensive top model. (Contrast this to Vista adverts)
4/ People, even on Linux forums, often stress that windows is the popular option.
5/ Many Linux users (by no means all) take delight in stressing the "huge" difference between windows and Linux.


Points 1, 2 and 3 are very strong economic factors that limit product appeal. I know this sounds strange but a good deal of research has shown this time and time again. (Either trust me or find the book on persuasion called "Yes" for all the references).

Points 4 and 5 annoy me. Simple psychology shows these to be very self defeating (if you are actually trying to spread Linux). Simply promoting "that most people already do [insert the thing you want done]" works amazingly well. This has previously worked with recycling, eating habits even crime. Anything can be improved provided people don't have personal experience to the contrary. (check out how many adverts you notice doing this) However the opposite also works. Reckon a school teacher would say "most of you will try drugs in your time here. But ... ". Im not advocating lying. But its not smart, to harp on and on that the vast majority of users are windows users. Or that the product they often have a brand history with is rubbish.

People like the easy well trodden path.

Try this experiment. Take two, equally computer savy, windows users and tell one:
"Windows is only for the mainstream it has lots of problems like [choose your favourite problems]. Linux is a totally different system, much more stable and flexible. For example there are so many choices you can definitely find one that is perfect for you. Plus because it's open source it's always totally free to try."

tell the other
"Windows was a good choice for what you were doing. Actually Linux is quite similar to windows but it's more stable and easier to maintain. And because, so many people are switching over it's really easy to get help for any problems for free, for now anyway."

On average the second statement gets much more uptake than the first. Anyway thats my two cents.

cardinals_fan
May 11th, 2008, 08:39 PM
Try this experiment. Take two, equally computer savy, windows users and tell one:
"Windows is only for the mainstream it has lots of problems like [choose your favourite problems]. Linux is a totally different system, much more stable and flexible. For example there are so many choices you can definitely find one that is perfect for you. Plus because it's open source it's always totally free to try."

tell the other
"Windows was a good choice for what you were doing. Actually Linux is quite similar to windows but it's more stable and easier to maintain. And because, so many people are switching over it's really easy to get help for any problems for free, for now anyway."

On average the second statement gets much more uptake than the first. Anyway thats my two cents.
If someone had asked me the second question, I would have ignored them and wondered who was paying them to act in a drooling infomercial. The first question is much more convincing.

karellen
May 11th, 2008, 11:22 PM
in this matter I agree with Kasilas

houstonbofh
May 12th, 2008, 07:43 PM
In this case, it really depends on your market. My partner is a marketing guy, and am am a tech guy. We constantly but heads on company brand marketing. What I like and responmd well to turns him away. When he like and responds well to pushes me on to the next website. In the experement Kasilas postes above, method 1 would work for me, and method 2 for my partner. However the reverse for us both would be less than effective. :)

Barrucadu
May 13th, 2008, 10:25 PM
If someone had asked me the second question, I would have ignored them and wondered who was paying them to act in a drooling infomercial. The first question is much more convincing.
+1

The second message just isn't convincing at all, whereas the first one presents Linux in a much more positive light.

lswest
May 13th, 2008, 10:28 PM
i chose "other" because in my opinion the biggest barrier is the lack of Manufacturer support with regards to drivers, and that leads to the hardware issues as such. Even if just a few more companies offered linux drivers for their product chances are other companies will do the same to keep sales up, and we'd be better off.

mike941
May 13th, 2008, 10:39 PM
Well i've been using ubuntu for 2 distors now and i still can't use suspend or hibernate on my laptop, get the laptop to recognize when the battery's being used, I don't have any sound, get ubuntu to use my wifi card, i haven't even dared to hookup a printer yet and there's no linux driver out for my ati graphics card so i can't use compiz. If i hadn't bought this laptop specifically to learn how to use linux i'd have given up on it right when i found out 8.04 didn't fix any of the problems Ubuntu has. I also think the whole manually having to configure dvd playback and flash thing is just dumb. There should be an option to have dvd's and other "non-free" software configured automatically with your DL and give people that don't want it their own separate Distro DL. Honestly i've had much more success with the gnome edition of PClinuxos but then it stopped working because i converted it to KDE(long story). My only successes with Ubuntu have been fixing my comp's ridiculous load times(because of improper screen resolution) and enabling flash, which 8.04 un-enabled TY very much ubuntu.

kasilas
May 13th, 2008, 10:47 PM
Most comments are right in your criticisms. It's horses for courses. And yes (2) does sound like an drooling infomercial.

I don't speak like (2) and, to be honest, I wouldn't expect this language to appeal to a Ubuntu forum user. However most people in the world are not Ubuntu forum users. Thus, logic dictates, to target the majority of people you use language aimed at the masses.

Setting the tone is, as the last comment said, the difficult bit. For pure uptake it's definitely towards (1) but for the tech savy more like (2) . Basically we can not have it all. It's a trade of between "alienating the literate" and attracting the average joe.

Maybe it was meant as an insult (thou I don't sell anything I just like economics), but your infomercial comment is quite insightful. A lot of the psychology of sales is tested in infomercials.

wozzinator
June 4th, 2008, 12:16 AM
I'm a computer engineer and i'd have to say that, at least in industry, not having the ability to use many serious applications like AutoCAD, SolidWorks, and Matlab is a serious hinder that prevents many engineers from fully switching to Ubuntu. Granted some older versions of these programs work with Wine, but not nearly as well as in WinXP. If the manufacturer's decided to write ports for Unix-based OSes however, I think in regards to engineering, linux would take the cake.

StumpyMcDonut
June 4th, 2008, 02:22 AM
Hardware support - namely wireless. I know loads of people that use truly awful wireless usb cards that they bought for a fiver, and the simple fact is that unless Linux starts supporting this sort of hardware, it isn't going to make a difference about what other hardware they support. Fix up the wireless department so it works without hours of work for someone who has no idea what they are doing, and we will have made a massive step in the right direction.

Another thing is the insistence by a lot of Linux users to do absolutely everything via the command-line. Its fine for someone to see a tutorial with a step or two in the terminal (you get that with Windows) but seemingly doing everything via that method is really off-putting. Honestly, start using the available GUI options for your tutorials guys, even if its only for unzipping a tarball, and even if its slightly slower because it will seem easier that way. We love it, but sadly the terminal way has to go :( GUI is the way 95% of the population will want to do things, and that is what should be concentrated on.

And childish terms like winblows, windoze, M$ etc really ruins the image of users - its downright immature, and while it may sound funny, all it's doing is putting us further and further up our own asses to the point that we will soon be rivalling Mac fanboys.

And importantly: gimmicks like compiz-fusion for the desktop editions! Screw a little bit of stability (people switching from Windows will be used to that anyway - believe me when I first switched I didn't notice that it wasn't crashing until I switched back and forth a few times) and throw stuff like this in. Do you honestly think that telling an average computer user who only needs msn/aim etc and web browsing that your server has been up for 2 years without a crash is going to impress them? Being able to tell them "I can make cool fire writing on the screen and turn my desktops like a cube or have matrix writing on my background" does, and even my friend who uses a Mac was pretty impressed by compiz. More of that and you'll have people switching over simply for the cool things they can do.

Unfortunately, I genuinely believe that the only way Linux can move forward truly is by creating a unified set of distros that have the same package/software management, same desktop environment manager (or at least the same for any bought through an OEM) and that run the same software. I know a lot of you will probably argue this, but its true - think about it. Windows users can all use an .exe file to install, Mac users get .dmg files that are ridiculously foolproof, and what do Linux users get to install files? .deb, .rpm etc, many types of binary, source code and more, most of which will only run on a specific OS or require command-line work to install.

God that was longer than I thought :s

cardinals_fan
June 4th, 2008, 02:28 AM
Hardware support - namely wireless. I know loads of people that use truly awful wireless usb cards that they bought for a fiver, and the simple fact is that unless Linux starts supporting this sort of hardware, it isn't going to make a difference about what other hardware they support. Fix up the wireless department so it works without hours of work for someone who has no idea what they are doing, and we will have made a massive step in the right direction.

Another thing is the insistence by a lot of Linux users to do absolutely everything via the command-line. Its fine for someone to see a tutorial with a step or two in the terminal (you get that with Windows) but seemingly doing everything via that method is really off-putting. Honestly, start using the available GUI options for your tutorials guys, even if its only for unzipping a tarball, and even if its slightly slower because it will seem easier that way. We love it, but sadly the terminal way has to go :( GUI is the way 95% of the population will want to do things, and that is what should be concentrated on.

And childish terms like winblows, windoze, M$ etc really ruins the image of users - its downright immature, and while it may sound funny, all it's doing is putting us further and further up our own asses to the point that we will soon be rivalling Mac fanboys.

And importantly: gimmicks like compiz-fusion for the desktop editions! Screw a little bit of stability (people switching from Windows will be used to that anyway - believe me when I first switched I didn't notice that it wasn't crashing until I switched back and forth a few times) and throw stuff like this in. Do you honestly think that telling an average computer user who only needs msn/aim etc and web browsing that your server has been up for 2 years without a crash is going to impress them? Being able to tell them "I can make cool fire writing on the screen and turn my desktops like a cube or have matrix writing on my background" does, and even my friend who uses a Mac was pretty impressed by compiz. More of that and you'll have people switching over simply for the cool things they can do.

Unfortunately, I genuinely believe that the only way Linux can move forward truly is by creating a unified set of distros that have the same package/software management, same desktop environment manager (or at least the same for any bought through an OEM) and that run the same software. I know a lot of you will probably argue this, but its true - think about it. Windows users can all use an .exe file to install, Mac users get .dmg files that are ridiculously foolproof, and what do Linux users get to install files? .deb, .rpm etc, many types of binary, source code and more, most of which will only run on a specific OS or require command-line work to install.

God that was longer than I thought :s
1. Absolutely right

2. If I provide support for someone on any forum, I will generally provide solutions the same way I would solve the problem myself. This makes me more accurate and it makes writing the post easier. My way of doing things usually involves the terminal, and I usually won't try to figure out a different way of doing things when the person with difficulties just needs an answer.

3. I agree that Compiz and friends are good at converting new users. This is why I support the inclusion of Compiz in Ubuntu even though I will personally not use any distro that has that stuff by default. Ubuntu may not be right for me, but its great for the larger market (which likes the shiny effects).

4. Dead on.

5. I don't think that a unified distro would be good, but package management could use some unification.

sunskr
June 4th, 2008, 03:30 AM
My biggest problem has to do with Adobe products. I have to deal with to many people that use them and it becomes a problem so I have Linux and MS. I can work around office programs, but not the things I have to do in Adobe.

Skorzen
June 4th, 2008, 09:31 AM
The first option given is the highest barrier to pass through in the GNU/Linux adoption by the general public.

StumpyMcDonut
June 4th, 2008, 09:28 PM
2. If I provide support for someone on any forum, I will generally provide solutions the same way I would solve the problem myself. This makes me more accurate and it makes writing the post easier. My way of doing things usually involves the terminal, and I usually won't try to figure out a different way of doing things when the person with difficulties just needs an answer.

I meant more in general all-purpose tutorials rather than individual support, because they're the first place that most people will turn to. Its fine if its the way you do it, but finding the simplest (by which I mean least daunting-sounding) option is better if you can. Obviously its hard, but there really needs to be more gui-driven stuff for operations such as installing software - a lot of friends I know get... scared isn't the word for it but its along those lines... when I try and get them to try Ubuntu by a lot of the stuff they see me doing in the terminal (they don't want to learn it). I don't know how to explain it better than that and I know it hasn't come out how I wanted it to, but I hope someone can get the general gist of what I mean :)

A good idea that just popped into my head actually xD (Yeah, random). A script that is available if you right-click a binary file in your file manager and makes it executable (chmod a+x) then executes it? Would that be possible?

aysiu
June 4th, 2008, 09:33 PM
I try to make my Psychocats tutorials pretty screenshot-heavy.

I do think it's a good idea to use the terminal for troubleshooting, though.

General instructions: screenshots and point-and-click if possible

Diagnosing and fixing problems: terminal

Takmadeus
June 5th, 2008, 05:59 PM
Hardware support - namely wireless. I know loads of people that use truly awful wireless usb cards that they bought for a fiver, and the simple fact is that unless Linux starts supporting this sort of hardware, it isn't going to make a difference about what other hardware they support. Fix up the wireless department so it works without hours of work for someone who has no idea what they are doing, and we will have made a massive step in the right direction.

I agree... mobility is a very important thing, and I have seen many people (including myself) suffering from wireless related pain.


Another thing is the insistence by a lot of Linux users to do absolutely everything via the command-line. Its fine for someone to see a tutorial with a step or two in the terminal (you get that with Windows) but seemingly doing everything via that method is really off-putting. Honestly, start using the available GUI options for your tutorials guys, even if its only for unzipping a tarball, and even if its slightly slower because it will seem easier that way. We love it, but sadly the terminal way has to go :( GUI is the way 95% of the population will want to do things, and that is what should be concentrated on.

Well, this is a problem because unfortunately linux is not windows and it depends heavily on command line, it has nice frontends but even with the best one, the flexibility and power of the cli is unrivalled and is one of the reasons linux is so powerful, for example... suse has YAST, the best frontend for config related stuff period, but then even with that, you will still need cli for some stuff, even that kind of stuff that does not respond giving the case you use a frontend (again, yast)... like video cards and the like.

Plus, I am sure even average joe or grandma can copy and paste. I think though that it could be better if the people explaining or solving stuff could give a brief explanation of what they are doing.


And childish terms like winblows, windoze, M$ etc really ruins the image of users - its downright immature, and while it may sound funny, all it's doing is putting us further and further up our own asses to the point that we will soon be rivalling Mac fanboys.
I agree.... unfortunately linux zealots exist, but also windows zealots (another reason linux is not fully adopted, the closed mindness of the average user). This phenomenon tends to happen in communities rep`resenting the user base of the more classic distros which happen to be less user friendly than for example ubuntu (fedora, gentoo and slackware are a good example, there are internal exceptions though.) Fortunately ubuntu user base although not inmune to this, I can safely say that has very few zealots.

And importantly: gimmicks like compiz-fusion for the desktop editions! Screw a little bit of stability (people switching from Windows will be used to that anyway - believe me when I first switched I didn't notice that it wasn't crashing until I switched back and forth a few times) and throw stuff like this in. Do you honestly think that telling an average computer user who only needs msn/aim etc and web browsing that your server has been up for 2 years without a crash is going to impress them? Being able to tell them "I can make cool fire writing on the screen and turn my desktops like a cube or have matrix writing on my background" does, and even my friend who uses a Mac was pretty impressed by compiz. More of that and you'll have people switching over simply for the cool things they can do.[/QUOTE]

Yes and no, we cannot just attract users the sake of it, but people who really need what ubuntu can offer, trust me, if it is just for the eye candy, then what linux offers to them is no different from what windows will offer, and perhaps they will be needing windows more (people like gamers or who need to use windows only apps that are not fully compatile with wine, etc.)


Unfortunately, I genuinely believe that the only way Linux can move forward truly is by creating a unified set of distros that have the same package/software management, same desktop environment manager (or at least the same for any bought through an OEM) and that run the same software. I know a lot of you will probably argue this, but its true - think about it. Windows users can all use an .exe file to install, Mac users get .dmg files that are ridiculously foolproof, and what do Linux users get to install files? .deb, .rpm etc, many types of binary, source code and more, most of which will only run on a specific OS or require command-line work to install.

One of the beautiful things OSS has is variety, and by locking for example.... desktop enviroment we're are limiting the very freedom linux enjoys.... as for the package management...... well, we have a more powerful option... the add/remove software entry in the apps menu.... you have a well organized and descriptive selection of software, if you want to be more technical, well, a person can just download a package (www.getdeb.com), doubleclick it and install it. it is not so different. deb and rpm are very common and acknowledged package formats in the oss world.

I notice you would like to turn linux in some sort of windows cousin, but unfortunately, that is not the intention overall..... you could always try to implement such a thing (its oss after all). But for that matter you could always install windows, there is nothing wrong with that, it is a operating system after all, just like ubuntu, and could fulfill some specific needs for you.

StumpyMcDonut
June 5th, 2008, 10:21 PM
I notice you would like to turn linux in some sort of windows cousin, but unfortunately, that is not the intention overall..... you could always try to implement such a thing (its oss after all). But for that matter you could always install windows, there is nothing wrong with that, it is a operating system after all, just like ubuntu, and could fulfill some specific needs for you.

That's not what I mean at all :( and there is a plethora of reasons I don't like using Windows :/

Both major OS's are more popular than Linux for the simple reason that they are easy to use for the average user, and while variety is good, there needs to be "standard" Linux software (Such as GIMP for image editing, Amarok for music or something like that) that are guaranteed to come with a major distro - this way potential users can be sure that another distro doesn't come with "better" software or have the capability to install it. By unifying I mean keep the choice, just allow cross-desktop (EG getting GNOME apps to work in KDE and vice-versa like they were native) and cross-distro compatibility.
I know, from first hand experience of trying to get people to try Linux, is that one of their main fears is that if they pick a distro they will be missing out on some software, or they get confused about what guides will work and what won't ("This guide is for Linux, why doesn't it work?")

I hate to be blunt, but you are either going to get the general PC user population if you aren't, and in general they:
1) Don't want to use a command-line outside of getting support
2) Don't want to download software only to find that it doesn't work
3) Want an OS that can do everything it claims that it can do out of the box or easily.

I don't want to sound like I want a clone of Windows/OSX (I honestly don't), but you have a choice if you want more users:
Convert 90% of the population to the "Linux" way of doing things.
Or, cater for those people and let them do it their way if they want to.

I know which one I'd be more happy to support. You can't complain about getting more users and not be willing to cater for them, that's my point here. Keep the variety and simply add another way of doing things that can help people adjust to the Linux way as they get used to it, rather than force it on them and expect them to like it because you do.

aysiu
June 5th, 2008, 10:26 PM
I think you're way off base. The other OSes are more popular than Linux, because they are easier to buy preinstalled. Want a preinstalled Windows system? Look anywhere. Want a preinstalled Mac OS X system? Go to an Apple store.

Want a preinstalled Linux system? Well, maybe Dell has it if you find it buried in their site, but then they'll tell you you really want Windows Vista. Oh, and they may not offer it in your country. And there are only certain models that carry Ubuntu.

I don't think it matters what software a distro comes with, since package management makes it dead-easy to install most software, and Windows comes with almost nothing (no advanced image editor, no office suite) anyway.

People don't want to troubleshoot. They don't want to install an OS. They want a computer preinstalled and preconfigured and ready to go. When they have problems, they expect their tech-savvy friends and family to fix those problems, or they pay someone like the Geek Squad to fix those problems.

Preinstalled is the only way to go.

Takmadeus
June 6th, 2008, 07:38 AM
good point :p

madjr
June 6th, 2008, 11:29 AM
Preinstalled is the only way to go.

+1

but i see some issues.

i told my sister (who lives far away from me) to get a dell with ubuntu festy 7.04
and being pre-installed it seemed perfect (at first, anyway)

everything cool, she liked ubuntu.

well, a year later she wants to update much of the software she uses or "wants to use".

in windows she would grab the latest binaries off a website, but in linux is not that easy.

not much is available for her to do but try to install hardy... and months later probably intrepid or jinx jackal.

so in order to get updated software users HAVE to know how to install and probably configure a Distro...

in the end we are back to problem A... i guess.

same thing happen with users who purchased an eeePC, everything great at first, but the xandros repos are kinda slim and outdated. Then some suggest to use "another" linux version or install windows on it.

then they may end up recommending the eeePC but with windows..

dupersuper
June 6th, 2008, 01:11 PM
+1

but i see some issues.

i told my sister (who lives far away from me) to get a dell with ubuntu festy 7.04
and being pre-installed it seemed perfect (at first, anyway)

everything cool, she liked ubuntu.

well, a year later she wants to update much of the software she uses or "wants to use".

in windows she would grab the latest binaries off a website, but in linux is not that easy.

not much is available for her to do but try to install hardy... and months later probably intrepid or jinx jackal.

so in order to get updated software users HAVE to know how to install and probably configure a Distro...

in the end we are back to problem A... i guess.

same thing happen with users who purchased an eeePC, everything great at first, but the xandros repos are kinda slim and outdated. Then some suggest to use "another" linux version or install windows on it.

then they may end up recommending the eeePC but with windows..

exactly!
the current situation is if linux installs perfectly for you, and you don't require additional s/w, it works perfectly and maybe even better than osx or vista.
but if u need to install drivers, add new hardware or try out new s/w, god help u.
"rpm? deb? compile from source? what?"

Barrucadu
June 6th, 2008, 03:12 PM
in windows she would grab the latest binaries off a website, but in linux is not that easy.

No, it is not that easy. It is even easier (In Ubuntu at least), you go to the update manager click a button, and enter your password. On Windows you have to find each individual program update separately and install it yourself - which is a stupidly ineffective and more difficult method.

haggus71
June 6th, 2008, 04:06 PM
The day....the hour...someone can log onto Linux and play a real game as well as they could on a windows system, without jumping through the hoops of wine or paying for cedega, they will dominate. You cannot ignore the top money-earning entertainment industry and consider yourselves a success.

Every time I talk up Ubuntu to a friend, they will ask how certain games run on it. When I tell them about installing wine, and am honest about the graphics compared to a fresh windows install, they glaze over. Why go through all the crap for inferior performance, when you can install Bioshock on Windows and have it running in an instant?

We have all these people working on Linux, some great minds out there, yet this key to a huge market has been ignored. Maybe we need fewer techs and more people with a business degree in the pipeline.

vexingmodstwo
June 6th, 2008, 04:10 PM
OT: I was vote number 666 :shock:

Takmadeus
June 6th, 2008, 04:40 PM
same thing happen with users who purchased an eeePC, everything great at first, but the xandros repos are kinda slim and outdated. Then some suggest to use "another" linux version or install windows on it.

then they may end up recommending the eeePC but with windows..

Hmmm I have a similar problem with my 701 :( but installing any other distro is unnecesarily difficult....

aysiu
June 6th, 2008, 05:26 PM
PC gaming is a niche market.

It makes gaming companies a lot of money, but console gaming brings in more than five times as much.

StumpyMcDonut
June 7th, 2008, 05:16 PM
I agree with getting more pre-built systems, and that's exactly why it needs to be more user-friendly to people who can't use a terminal - they aren't going to bother with it (considering most people have a windows disc lying about somewhere) if as soon as they try their brand new dell Ubuntu box, they search for a guide to install some software, and get it from source even though its in the repositories (a lot of people don't distinguish between installing from source and installing a precompiled binary, but there is an epic difference with difficulty. MythTV anyone?)

Although one thing I do hate is that Windows and OSX users get their own installers for some software, yet Linux most of the time get some source code in a tarball and no help, and that's branded as a "Linux Installer", showing the misconception Linux users are all geeks >.>


the fact that only 40% or so of people that bought an eeepc installed windows shows that when Linux works, it can work beautifully and without hassle, and considering some of those people didn't even know what Linux was until they got their eee, yet kept it, shows that it can easily compete, we should just push for getting wireless support, and then push hardware manufacturers to stock Linux. The day when you can pick up an Ubuntu disc at PCworld would be a golden era :D

aysiu
June 7th, 2008, 07:00 PM
the fact that only 40% or so of people that bought an eeepc installed windows shows that when Linux works, it can work beautifully and without hassle, and considering some of those people didn't even know what Linux was until they got their eee, yet kept it, shows that it can easily compete I love my Eee PC. The only times it hasn't worked are when I've decided to tinker with it.

Takmadeus
June 10th, 2008, 07:23 PM
I agree.... happened exacvtly the same to me :)

I think that MS needs to be more strict about erradicating pirated copies of their OS, including home users..... I can bet that 98% of the winXP installs in my town (talking about home users) are pirated....

If people were forced to buy a legit copy of the software, then I am sure they would have to think twice before automatically choosing MS products

aysiu
June 10th, 2008, 07:38 PM
I think that MS needs to be more strict about erradicating pirated copies of their OS, including home users..... I can bet that 98% of the winXP installs in my town (talking about home users) are pirated....

If people were forced to buy a legit copy of the software, then I am sure they would have to think twice before automatically choosing MS products That's precisely why Microsoft doesn't crack down that harshly on piracy:
http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/the-truth-about-open-source-and-piracy/

Canis familiaris
June 10th, 2008, 08:07 PM
If there was no piracy I am sure Linux would have been the most dominant OS.
http://dogbuntu.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/how-piracy-hurts-open-source/

vprasaj
June 10th, 2008, 11:57 PM
All of those mentioned plus some more.

But there will be change in a few years.

Takmadeus
June 11th, 2008, 04:46 AM
Wow, who could have thought that Bill himself would admit piracy is good for his busniess...

We need to make our governments focus more on cracking software piracy then :p

querent
June 11th, 2008, 10:02 PM
the little bit of effort that's needed to deal with proprietary formats was an issue for naive (not meant derogatory) users, but that's been better lately with the "what you need may be illegal. continue?" response you get from movie player and such now. I guess exposure (and the geek taboo). i teach math (a little) and it's kinda like "math phobia". BUT! It is true that we have a disproportionate number of the best in our ranks. I know it's not enough to defeat ms, but it's definitely more than a good sign. and some say the means dictate the ends.

q

houstonbofh
June 12th, 2008, 04:28 PM
People don't want to troubleshoot. They don't want to install an OS. They want a computer preinstalled and preconfigured and ready to go. When they have problems, they expect their tech-savvy friends and family to fix those problems, or they pay someone like the Geek Squad to fix those problems.
I agree. And this is why I have done so well SELLING Ubuntu systems to businesses. What I deliver works, and I can support it remotely. I also sell remote support contracts cheap, so they get low cost, and I get money for very little work. Everyone is happy. After they try the first one, they want more, and give referrals to other businesses. Truly happy customers.


i told my sister (who lives far away from me) to get a dell with ubuntu festy 7.04
and being pre-installed it seemed perfect (at first, anyway)

everything cool, she liked ubuntu.

well, a year later she wants to update much of the software she uses or "wants to use".

in windows she would grab the latest binaries off a website, but in linux is not that easy.

not much is available for her to do but try to install hardy... and months later probably intrepid or jinx jackal.

so in order to get updated software users HAVE to know how to install and probably configure a Distro...

I am confused... You see I still have a few clients on Feisty. Not intentionally, but since they have had no problems, I have had no reason to look, so they never got a dist-upgrade. But when I notice, a dist-upgrade goes fine. And from the actual system, it is only 1 button. How is this hard? Click the button and go to gutsy. If there are issues with the custom Dell stuff, there will be patches. You know, like the ones for XP post SP2, and now for post SP3 and Vista? If she has to install a distro, something went horribly wrong. But still, the Dell restore CD makes that Dell customer (better than brain dead, but not much) simple. :)

Hedley
June 12th, 2008, 06:18 PM
I switched to Linux from Windows (first to Fedora, later to Ubuntu) several years ago, and though there was the obvious learning curve, I have not regretted it. Generally, I find that installing Ubuntu on a machine works quite well by default, and requires little more configuration than Windows, if any.

However, there is one area that Linux suffers, in my opinion, that will prevent it from being adopted on a large scale at the corporate organisation level. That is the lack of an integrated e-mail/calendar/contact program that is reliable enough to replace Microsoft Outlook.

Now, when I used Outlook, I thought it was a piece of crap, but I thought that because it was ridiculously written. It may have been crappy, but it was reliably and consistently crappy. Now that I am using Linux, however, I actually wish I could install Outlook (directly) under Linux. Not because I miss it, per se, but because despite all of its flaws, it is still preferable to that bug-ridden and amateurish dog known as Evolution.

Perhaps there is something out there that I haven't yet tried (Thunderbird is bearable, but the calendar is unacceptable). I hope so, as then I have some hope. But for now, I suffer with the substandard in order to use a superior operating system.

aysiu
June 12th, 2008, 06:47 PM
Evolution is supposed to replace Outlook, but I hate both Evolution and Outlook. I use Thunderbird with IMAP and am quite happy with it. Most non-tech-savvy users I know don't even like email clients and don't understand what they are anyway. They just check Hotmail or GMail through their web browsers.

LaRoza
June 12th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Most non-tech-savvy users I know don't even like email clients and don't understand what they are anyway. They just check Hotmail or GMail through their web browsers.

I do that, and I am using not considered non-tech-savy.

I do it mainly because I like to use one app, Opera, and it has a built in client. I have 10 email accounts, and the password manager of Opera makes checking them all very simple.

aysiu
June 12th, 2008, 07:08 PM
I didn't say only non-tech-savvy users. I said most non-tech-savvy users.

jasontu
June 12th, 2008, 07:17 PM
Firstly, I'm very new to this OS, but I am VERY excited with results I'm getting.

Now that I know about it I am finding avenues to recommend it to others, but I still see obstacles to migrating.

Right now, I use a 100% Ubuntu machine at home, and I have little reason to ever use my wife's Windows machine, but there are a few reasons to do so.

Reason 1: It's easier, duh.
If you have a working Windows machine and are good about being safe with it, there is little reason to undo all of that to install an OS that may take some fancy-dancin' to get running. Not that it hasn't taken me days to get something working with Windows. It just happens that most things work pretty much out of the box with Windows. With Linux you have to be choosy about your hardware and hope for the best.

Reason 2: Availability of expertise.
With a ho-zillion Windows users out there using, chances are someone out there has the exact some problem you have had. Alternatively, you are most likely to find some friend who is a Windows expert than some friend who is a Linux expert.
This was a problem I found more with my earlier attempts to use Linux 2-3 years ago. Ubuntu has a more active, albeit smaller, pool of expertise for me to tap for my problems. Nevertheless, many people see Linux as something they will have to slog through basically by themselves. Companies feel that they need available cheap access to tech support all the time. Finding a techie who will theoretically fix all your Windows problem is easy because you can throw a rock in any direction and hit someone who supposedly knows how to fix everything Windows-related. Finding a techie who will even bother with your Apple is more difficult let alone bother with your Linux install.

Reason 3: Recognizability and Cost
Windows users are used to things being set up a specific way, and many people think of the commercially backed Windows as the real OS. It's basically just a misinformed mindset, but it's very understandable. If you told me you would sell me a Ford car for $10,000, or I could have this one that some guys you know built themselves for free... I would still probably go with the Ford, because who would give away something good for free? I know the Ford will die on me after a set number of miles, but who know what your friends made?

Reason 4: People know less about PCs than you think
Keep in mind that most people using PCs are those same people who don't understand how downloading these 50 trojans onto their machines could affect the machine's performance. Most people know more about their cell phones than about their PCs. Windows does a good job "just working" from an initial viewpoint even though down the road Linux is a safer bet.

Reason 5: Linux just isn't for everyone
3%-5% should be this OS's target market share. Linux wants to stay on the edge while hoping to gain more support from hardware providers to achieve what it can full achieve. Enough users to force most hardware providers to write drivers is good, but with few enough users to still be able to be experimental without ticking off a large part of the user-base would be ideal.

My $0.02 anyway.