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

[bobbybobington]

This (http://blog.anamazingmind.com/2008/02/why-linux-doesnt-spread-curse-of-being.html) is a very interesting post about perception of value due to linux being free. The experiment he is undertaking certainly looks interesting. I don't know what kind of results his experiment will get, but a more formalized study would could shed some light on this question. I think a lot of it is because people don't really know how computers work, and they think that PC=Windows. Heck, thats what I thought for a long time.

[billgoldberg]

The reason most people don't change is:

1. nobody knows it
2. people don't like change
3. they don't care

[hyper_ch]

People think Windows is also free... and also most of the software for it.

[newbee12345]

I am reminded of my of my wife's ex's new wife. After my wife's divorce her ex inherited 10 million dollars. His new wife is an educated woman that works in a big engineering firm in the PR department. She gave her husband the following input when he was going to purchase a new car, "don't buy anything less than $90,000 because it would be beneath us". I thought this was just because her personality flaws but I recently read this article http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/01/15/2138651.htm?site=science&topic=health
This is based on a study with this statement in the abstract:
"Our results show that increasing the price of a wine increases subjective reports of flavor pleasantness as well as blood-oxygen-level-dependent activity in medial orbitofrontal cortex, an area that is widely thought to encode for experienced pleasantness during experiential tasks."

We live in a world where people have been bred to enjoy spending money and the more they spend the happier they are.

[fatality_uk]

PLEASE LORD SAVE US FROM BLOGGERS WHO TYPE BEFORE THEY THINK

"complete dog's bo****ks" Couldn't agree more.

A self important "student of psychology" who having read 3 chapters in term 1 of his five year course will set out to make Linux (Ubuntu) the most popular OS in the World by claiming he pirated it from some Polish (my Polish wife may take offence at this by the way ;)) guy over the internet!!

The
Compy McNewb stuff cracks me up.

Ignore for a moment all the crap about Windows being pre-installed and such.

I now believe the author to be on drugs!!! That IS the reason 99.999% (recurring) of Compy McNewb don't go hunting for a new OS. They have one, it's there installed!

It's like saying you buy, oh lets say a Jeep Cheroke, because you like the styling and off road capabilities, but then you drive to your local engine dealer and say, excuse me, any chance you can recommend another engine for this car please. Why would you do that??? No one would.

The same for average users. Most will be happy that they have a PC that's running? They don't need a new OS do they? Ok, we ALL know the reasons they SHOULD use Linux, security features, updates etc, but to be honest, even though Compy McNewb's PC just happens to be part of the Storm BOTNET, and that his bank details get hacked once every 6 months, he see's Norton AV icon in the bottom corner and relaxes!!

I will always defend the right of free speech, but I will also always defend my right to call someone a half-brained, ******* ****** * *** *********'er for being completely devoid of any common sense in any way shape or form.

I often get told to get into the "blogosphere" by my friends and often I will point them to sites like this!!!!

*Edited some bad words out. Sorry!!!

While I encourage the posters intentions, his methodology, his reasoning and most of all his delivery method are ALL completely lacking in ANY credibility!

[k2t0f12d]

First mistaken assumption, Linux isn't spreading. After adjusting that, you will find that the veracity or lack thereof in the rest of the vomit of that blog post will become abundantly clear.

[leg]

The major flaw I find in that article is the claim "humans don't value anything that comes to easily". Well I don't know about anyone else around here but learning Linux certainly did not come easily. Weaning myself off Windows and learning more about how my computer operates was not easy and is still, and probably always will be, ongoing. This is the price you have to pay for a Linux system and I myself find the product I bought with that price very satisfying indeed.

[k2t0f12d]

The major flaw I find in that article is the claim "humans don't value anything that comes to easily". Well I don't know about anyone else around here but learning Linux certainly did not come easily. Weaning myself off Windows and learning more about how my computer operates was not easy and is still, and probably always will be, ongoing. This is the price you have to pay for a Linux system and I myself find the product I bought with that price very satisfying indeed.

Good points. Also, Linux did not come easily at all. It has taken the constant development of many free software projects, including the kernel, to arrive in the state that we use it today. Getting involved and using it are more accurately described in your post.

[bobbybobington]

The major flaw I find in that article is the claim "humans don't value anything that comes to easily". Well I don't know about anyone else around here but learning Linux certainly did not come easily. Weaning myself off Windows and learning more about how my computer operates was not easy and is still, and probably always will be, ongoing. This is the price you have to pay for a Linux system and I myself find the product I bought with that price very satisfying indeed.

Very true, but on the other hand ubuntu tries to lower the learning curve. While it is great to learn how computers work, most human beings just want to use the computer with least amount of adjusting. The main problem is that different cultures (or individuals for that matter) have different ways of determining value, and for quite a few that means monetary price. Perhaps if we could approximate the number of man hours put into ubuntu (probably impossible) and figure out the monetary value of that donated time, we could use it to communicate ubuntu's value in terms they might understand.

[Washer]

I find it funny nobody on slashdot gets modded up for calling this retard article what it is. I'm sure Veblen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good) has something to do with it, but it's pretty low on the scale of things.

[v.cube]

This (http://blog.anamazingmind.com/2008/02/why-linux-doesnt-spread-curse-of-being.html) is a very interesting post about perception of value due to linux being free. The experiment he is undertaking certainly looks interesting. I don't know what kind of results his experiment will get, but a more formalized study would could shed some light on this question. I think a lot of it is because people don't really know how computers work, and they think that PC=Windows. Heck, thats what I thought for a long time.

Superb Post...must read

[montres]

So, this guy Compy McNewb has two computer-savvy friends. One suggests linux and the other suggests windows? Wouldn't it be much more probabe that both would recommend linux?

[TBOL3]

Well, he didn't have the Twain completely correct, but the rest of it was good.

[akiratheoni]

Very interesting article however I don't really agree with some of the points there...


Ignore for a moment all the crap about Windows being pre-installed and such. Let's say you have a computer-newbie friend, called Compy McNewb, who's just bought a new computer and is getting ready to install an OS.

facepalm.jpg

Most people don't install an OS...

This I found was more interesting, though:

http://articles.tlug.jp/Windows_Is_Free

[Discov3ry]

Linux dominates in datacenters around the world (maybe except in Redmont, OR).

Compare computers with politics and it's easy to notice that most people will consume what's being spoon fed to them by media in case of politics and by computer/software manufacturers in case of operating systems.

Those who are willing to explore beyond what the corporate machine tells them to do are rare and the rest doesn't care to step out of their personal comfort circles and learn new technologies even if it means saving money in the long run.

[JordanII]

The major flaw I find in that article is the claim "humans don't value anything that comes to easily". Well I don't know about anyone else around here but learning Linux certainly did not come easily. Weaning myself off Windows and learning more about how my computer operates was not easy and is still, and probably always will be, ongoing. This is the price you have to pay for a Linux system and I myself find the product I bought with that price very satisfying indeed.

Yes, but people don't think of learning. When deciding what OS to use they think of the price MONEYWISE. Because, often, something for more money IS better, but not in this case.

[TeaSwigger]

Some excellent, insightful posts in this thread. :)


Ignore for a moment all the crap about Windows being pre-installed and such.

A bit like proposing, "Let's look at our energy situation. Ignore for a moment all the crap about pollution and such."


Linux dominates in datacenters around the world (maybe except in Redmont, OR).

Compare computers with politics and it's easy to notice that most people will consume what's being spoon fed to them by media in case of politics and by computer/software manufacturers in case of operating systems.

Those who are willing to explore beyond what the corporate machine tells them to do are rare and the rest doesn't care to step out of their personal comfort circles and learn new technologies even if it means saving money in the long run.

Wise words on all counts.

[phrostbyte]

First mistaken assumption, Linux isn't spreading. After adjusting that, you will find that the veracity or lack thereof in the rest of the vomit of that blog post will become abundantly clear.

++

[fatality_uk]

The fact is that most of you posting here are computer literate. I URGE you all to go and spend a hour on a Saturday afternoon at a PC World or Currys or whatever passes for a BIG PC/TV/Electrical store near you. Now while your there listen and I mean REALLY listen to what the average user asks for when he/she asks a shop assistant about a PC. You might be surprised at the questions.

We (and by WE I mean the people here in the Cafe and the long termers in these forums who, I have no doubt, have bought and installed hardware and software many times.) often forget what it's like to be a new/standard/home PC user.

Example, I have a friend and she asked me a question today.
Her: "Where can I get RAM?"
Me: "Oh I usually just get it online. What do you need, DDR2 or DDR3?"
Her: "What the hell are you talking about? I want RAM not all that stuff" ;)

She was installing a program and a dialog box popped up and said she didn't have enough RAM. So she knew I'd know :D

Making assumptions that 92% of PC buyers have any kind of choice currently in the operating system they run is facile. Choice is coming, but for the Compy McNewb's of this world, PC = Windows = PC.

We as users of Linux are the people who will install on our families PC's, friends, neighbours, work colleagues, and this is how the Linux desktop will start to make in roads, not by some half-baked scheme for fooling some Windows user into thinking he's getting a pirated OS.

And on that point? How STUPID does he think the people he is giving this ultra secret, VERY expensive OS to are? For someone with "An amazing mind", he certainly hasn't put it into first gear yet

[Linuxratty]

First mistaken assumption, Linux isn't spreading. After adjusting that, you will find that the veracity or lack thereof in the rest of the vomit of that blog post will become abundantly clear.

Very well said..For it is definitely spreading.
Year after year I see these kinds of blogs that preach gloom and doom for Linux..it will never get anywhere,bla,bla,bla...
Which makes me wonder if a lot of this Linux bashing is done by Microsoftires?

[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 :P).

[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 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=138366).

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 :)