Why Linux Doesn't Spread - the Curse of Being Free

[CM Xtasy]

Curse of being free? Any software is free if you're smart.

[fatality_uk]

Curse of being free? Any software is free if you're smart.

*sigh*

[k2t0f12d]

Don't be discouraged, neither enlightenment nor education occurs overnight.

[juxtaposed]

*sigh*

What, you have something against pirating software?

Anyway, I do disagree with the article. Linux does seem to be spreading - years ago I used Windows. I use Linux for most things now (except typing this, as I am trying to fix my system that I think Windows messed up ).

[Superkoop]

I think the writer of the blog is correct when it comes to some things, and in things that are the same. Like the wine example. When two things that are the same are compared but one is supposedly worth more, you think the more expensive one is the same.
But that is not the case when it comes to Linux and Windows. The two are so different that the wine example is no longer in effect really.

The reason why most people use windows instead of Linux is because so few people know about it, and for that matter, most people don't even realize what an operating system is. (I was like that just a couple years ago)
And so in effect people just get Windows because they think it's what makes the computer a computer.

And when it comes to people thinking that not caring about how a computer works is OK, I totally disagree. Because computers are everywhere today, they are so embedded in our lives that it's impossible to not see them or hear about them. And when so many people don't know anything about a large chunk of their lives, it's just plain bad.
There's the saying ignorance is bliss, and that's true, but too much ignorance is dangerous!

[aysiu]

That blog entry is 100% bull's refuse.

• I have read probably hundreds of "goodbye, I'm going back to Windows" threads here, and not one of these people who has left Linux has complained about it being cost-free. In fact, that was probably the main appeal for them.
• There are Linux distros that charge money, and they are not any more successful than the ones that don't. Xandros and Linspire are not more popular than Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS. I've even seen (on rare occasions) boxed versions of SuSE available in computer stores, and yet people will not buy SuSE en masse.
• Most home computer users prefer free software to pay-for software. Home consumers are on a limited income and anything they can get for free is a good thing, if they perceive it to be a thing of quality. If it's an unknown operating system that appears to be only for programmers, then they won't want it. If they have to install the operating system themselves instead of having it ready to go on the computer they bought, they won't want it. If their ISP and local tech support will not even acknowledge anything beyond Windows or Mac, they won't want Linux. If there is no Tux penguin on the sides of printer or other peripheral boxes to indicate compatibility, they won't want it. It's the obscurity and relative lack of preinstallation of Linux that prevents home users from adopting it, not the fact that it can be cost-free.
• Corporations can and do pay for Linux. That's how businesses like Red Hat and Novell can stay in business. Cooperations and even schools and non-profits (not home consumers) are the entities skeptical of free software. That's why Linux companies charge for support.

If this bullocks about Linux's lack of cost having anything to do with its impeded spread had any validity, Linux wouldn't be as big as it is on the server market. Google would say, "Ha! No way. We're a multi-billion-dollar company. Why would we use a free operating system for our servers and desktops?"

I don't know why this "article" is linked to, Dugg, Slashdotted or whatever. It's simplistic and wrong.

[k2t0f12d]

Linux doesn't spread at room temperature, you have to warm it up first.

[aysiu]

If you want to understand why charging money for free software doesn't work for home consumers, read Linspire CEO Explains OOoFF.

Even if this blog entry were correct, it would make more sense to change people's perceptions that free = bad than to change their perception to free = suddenly costs money. Instead of moving people directly to Linux, try slowly introducing them to the beauty of open source on Windows (Firefox, OpenOffice, GAIM, GIMP, FileZilla). There's a whole slew of open source Windows programs that can get people used to the idea that free and open source = quality:
http://www.opensourcewindows.org/

[gsmanners]

This explains why no one uses IE. Obviously, because Microsoft just gives it away for free. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

[fatality_uk]

That blog entry is 100% bull's refuse.

• I have read probably hundreds of "goodbye, I'm going back to Windows" threads here, and not one of these people who has left Linux has complained about it being cost-free. In fact, that was probably the main appeal for them.
• There are Linux distros that charge money, and they are not any more successful than the ones that don't. Xandros and Linspire are not more popular than Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS. I've even seen (on rare occasions) boxed versions of SuSE available in computer stores, and yet people will not buy SuSE en masse.
• Most home computer users prefer free software to pay-for software. Home consumers are on a limited income and anything they can get for free is a good thing, if they perceive it to be a thing of quality. If it's an unknown operating system that appears to be only for programmers, then they won't want it. If they have to install the operating system themselves instead of having it ready to go on the computer they bought, they won't want it. If their ISP and local tech support will not even acknowledge anything beyond Windows or Mac, they won't want Linux. If there is no Tux penguin on the sides of printer or other peripheral boxes to indicate compatibility, they won't want it. It's the obscurity and relative lack of preinstallation of Linux that prevents home users from adopting it, not the fact that it can be cost-free.
• Corporations can and do pay for Linux. That's how businesses like Red Hat and Novell can stay in business. Cooperations and even schools and non-profits (not home consumers) are the entities skeptical of free software. That's why Linux companies charge for support.

If this bullocks about Linux's lack of cost having anything to do with its impeded spread had any validity, Linux wouldn't be as big as it is on the server market. Google would say, "Ha! No way. We're a multi-billion-dollar company. Why would we use a free operating system for our servers and desktops?"

I don't know why this "article" is linked to, Dugg, Slashdotted or whatever. It's simplistic and wrong.

+++++++1,000,000