Not enough commercial software

[dacium]

Firstly this isn't a bash topic, I just want to express my opinion on what are some of the wider issues that seem to be effecting the Ubuntu experience. I run Ubuntu heavily, mainly on systems used for general browsing and word processing.

I use GNU and GPL software every day on multiple operating systems and love it. But it seems to me that GNU-Linux/Ubuntu as an operating system, is stuck a in rut that they are not willing to get out of: Software people want to run (even are willing to pay for) is not on linux, so no one runs linux, so no hardware developers support linux, so no software is made for linux.

When good commercial software is written for Windows, there is no push by FSF/GNU/Ubuntu to get that peice of software available commercially on Ubuntu. Infact the opposite is true: most people actively oppose such an idea and will go out of their way to make it so that making a commercial program on GNULinux/Ubuntu is almost impossible, the FSF is probably most responsible for this. There seems to be a mentaility that if a company is selling software on lunix, they are taking advantage of all the free work done and published by the GNU under GPL.

I don't have a problem with opposing pay software, but you cannot at the same time go around preaching that Ubuntu can also be serious replacement of Windows for general users, since uers have demand that cannot often be met via free software.

Today this has become one of the biggest time wasters in my work - users come to me wanting to try Ubuntu and in 99% of cases it just ends up a huge waste of time. Why? Because the good parts of Ubuntu (three software such as openoffice, firefox, pidgon etc. etc. are all GNU/GPL and are all available for windows anyway. If they stick to windows the get all the programs for free and non of the hasles of Ubuntu (drivers that don't work, specialised programs that simply aren't available).

I noticed that people use windows for two reasons. 1: The current software they have works on windows - This is solved by creating free software alternatives (as they don't want to have to pay for the same thing all over again). 2: The programs/games they want to buy are going to come out on windows - This is solved by assisting developers and getting them to release commercial products on GNU-Linux/Ubuntu, it cannot be solved by playing catch-up by making free versions later. For many things no free version will ever occur (games, specialised buisness software etc).

For most users the choice is simple: Things they need and want will be made for windows, but only eventually (if at all) every made on Ubuntu/Linux. This needs to change. Most of the linux community seems very one-eyed against paid software at all - this is fine, but paid software has many advantages that make it far more suitable for general buisness and general users. Paid teams of people can achieve things much faster and develop more specialised programs. We need to embrace them and start building a commercial suite of software available to purchase.

[stinger30au]

true, its sad that so many people want everything for free and sometimes commercial developers dont want to release their code and they dont have to either.
i think you will also find the some developers wont support linux as they think that their software must be open source. but if they keep it closed source and it works better then the free stuff and the developer does support it then i have no doubt you can marry the two together and it will be successful.

there needs to be a huge mind set change on both sides of the camp, the end users and the developers

[steveneddy]

There is actually lots of commercial software available for Linux, it's just very expensive and nothing that we as regular users would choose to use on a regular basis.

[karellen]

from where I come nobody wants to buy commercial software, even if everybody uses it :). guess why

[aysiu]

This is why I don't believe in rushing to convert Windows users to Ubuntu. It's too drastic a shift in lifestyle and mentality.

I say either leave them alone or, if you must "convert" them to anything, get them to use open source Windows applications. If they use enough open source Windows applications (VLC, Firefox, Thunderbird, FileZilla, OpenOffice, GIMP), their transition to Ubuntu later may come naturally for them and be much easier.

In the meantime, if they're having trouble keeping their Windows machines secure, they can use suDown, which gives you a sudo-like behavior for Windows (and it's open source).

[Riffer]

Your premise is that commercial software is by default better or will meet the "needs" better then FOSS. When in reality FOSS based software actually meet the "needs" better. What is needed is actually a Paradigm shift.

Lets take Photo editing software as a for instance. Most would say they need PhotoShop, when in actual fact what they really need is a good simple photo editing program that has all basic tools as well as a few good filters. Of all the photoshop users out there probably less then 5% (I actually think less then 1%) actually need the full power of photoshop.

I believe if you really look at the software you think that you need to have, you would find you are paying top dollar for a program that you may use 10% of its capability.

As for specialized programs, its been my experience that you have a 90% chance of finding Linux replacement that is as good as the Windows version. I have also found that many of these special apps aren't really needed. For instance at in my school district in the "Special Needs" classes they "need" this very particular program which only runs on windows. Well it turns out that they use this program for at most 5 days out of the school year.

I will say that if your business requires very specialized programs such as a full featured CAD/CAM, you are stuck. But for the vast majority the software offered by Linux/Ubuntu is more then adequate.

[Sef]

Moved to Community Cafe.

[techmarks]

There isn't any hope for it.

This self defeating attitude of many in the Linux camp against
proprietary software is useless, illogical, without merit and unproductive.

But I don't expect it to change at all, it's so deeply ingrained for some that proprietary software simply must be evil.

[wersdaluv]

I believe that Ubuntu lacks commercial software. I don't know why many companies are not willing to develop software for Linux. It could be because of the market share. Is it? Could it be that they don't believe that they will earn much money from Linux users?

[Miguel]

This self defeating attitude of many in the Linux camp against proprietary software is useless, illogical, without merit and unproductive.

But I don't expect it to change at all, it's so deeply ingrained for some that proprietary software simply must be evil.

Some people view programming as science, as math. Amongst them is the FSF and the folks at BSD. And let me ask you one thing: if one finds Newton's laws incorrect and needs to improve them, it's fine. If one finds Davidson's diagonalization algorithm to be slow and finds out how to improve it, it's fine. Then, how come am I absolutely forbidden to touch even the slightest data file of a proprietary product? Do you imagine what it would be if repairing your car were illegal?

If you view software as a mere product, fine. But don't call useless, illogical and unproductive to people that think otherwise. Maybe their goals are different. You may be interested to know that some mathematicians are starting to put objections to results obtained with Mathematica because they can't see the source and because that little pet issue of science called reproducibility is compromised.

EDIT: By the way, the reason most people use windows is because it's what their computers had when they bought it. Come on, I have a friend who has an old PIII-800 used merely as an Internet machine and he still has Win98.

[techmarks]

Some people view programming as science, as math. Amongst them is the FSF and the folks at BSD. And let me ask you one thing: if one finds Newton's laws incorrect and needs to improve them, it's fine. If one finds Davidson's diagonalization algorithm to be slow and finds out how to improve it, it's fine. Then, how come am I absolutely forbidden to touch even the slightest data file of a proprietary product? Do you imagine what it would be if repairing your car were illegal?

If you view software as a mere product, fine. But don't call useless, illogical and unproductive to people that think otherwise. Maybe their goals are different. You may be interested to know that some mathematicians are starting to put objections to results obtained with Mathematica because they can't see the source and because that little pet issue of science called reproducibility is compromised.

EDIT: By the way, the reason most people use windows is because it's what their computers had when they bought it. Come on, I have a friend who has an old PIII-800 used merely as an Internet machine and he still has Win98.



I also view programming as science, also very close to artistic endeavour. So no I do not view software a merely a product, not at all.

However I do not equate the two, while programming is indeed very very close to doing mathematics, they are not one and the same, at least now the way I view it.

I also think that for the most part software patents for trivial software innovations are harmful.

Many software algorithms, statements and constructs will indeed appear in many instances exactly the same as the symbolic mathematical formulas and statements.

However if the creator of a piece of computer software has chosen not to make the source to the program available I would not go so far as the FSF does and say this is immoral.

There are many valid reasons why a software developer might decide not to make the source code available, and they might not all be of a purely financial nature.

There is a place in the scheme of things for both the free software as well as for the proprietary software.

[K.Mandla]

Paid teams of people can achieve things much faster and develop more specialised programs. We need to embrace them and start building a commercial suite of software available to purchase.
I'm doubtful. It sounds too much like. ...

The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. ... Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software.
From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_hobbyists).

[steveneddy]

In the meantime, if they're having trouble keeping their Windows machines secure, they can use suDown, which gives you a sudo-like behavior for Windows (and it's open source).

Very interesting. You always have that interesting tidbit.

Thank you.

[coolglobal]

The brightest flames burn the shortest, that's the old saying. When you start appreciating the underlying strength of linux - the community that builds it. You will realise that linux is not in a rut as you propose. Quite the opposite is true, the future is linux, just wait and see.

[lswb]

I recently read that an estimate of OS in use was IIRC about 1/2 % linux, 6% or 7% mac, and the rest windows. Even macs, with 12 times the number of linux users, often don't have mac versions of many windows programs. If a commercial developer was going to port a windows program to another OS, they would likely choose mac first simply because of market share and potential for sales.

[Methuselah]

This is why I don't believe in rushing to convert Windows users to Ubuntu. It's too drastic a shift in lifestyle and mentality.

I say either leave them alone or, if you must "convert" them to anything, get them to use open source Windows applications. If they use enough open source Windows applications (VLC, Firefox, Thunderbird, FileZilla, OpenOffice, GIMP), their transition to Ubuntu later may come naturally for them and be much easier.

In the meantime, if they're having trouble keeping their Windows machines secure, they can use suDown, which gives you a sudo-like behavior for Windows (and it's open source).


I agree 1000% percent.
Let them be or suggest open source alternatives to windows apps.
If they become less dependent on windows apps, switching to linux might make more sense down the road.

Many people sell linux so heavily they make it seem like it's a free Windows.
When users discover it's very different they become disillusioned.
In reality, anyone who switches should be prepared for change.

[ryaxnb]

I'm doubtful. It sounds too much like. ...

From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_hobbyists).

Has anyone ever considered the fact that *gasp* BillG might sometimes be half-right? ;)?
I mean, just cause its from BillG doesn't mean you should do the exact opposite. He's just a guy out to make money, then give some of it away. We all are, aren't we?

[the_darkside_986]

Why not just use Windows XP or Windows Server? Those can be very powerful and secure if setup correctly, and they have all the non-free software a user wants. Even a POSIX layer can be added to Windows via Cygwin. The only issue really is trying to find device drivers for new hardware without an OEM install.

Personally, I have very little interest in any closed platform or software so I use Ubuntu. And I have a real life example to support my point of view. For example, I play Sauerbraten all the time, it is a free multi-platform FPS for GNU/Linux and Windows. But I decided I didn't like the scripting language too much so I modified the source code and added a Lua scripting mod to support a powerful in-game music player. On the other hand, I bought Oblivion for Windows, and it has nice graphics but its scripting language is just awful and obviously written by developers who are unfamiliar with scripting language development. Even the parser fails _sometimes_ when there are not enough spaces between every single token. And the leveling system is messed up as well. I can't properly fix either of those issues because the source code is not available. (I usually play Morrowind much more than Oblivion because it has a proper RPG system IMO.)

Also, GNU/Linux, even the Ubuntu flavor, is not intended to be a free Windows replacement. There is _nothing_ wrong with paying for software services. These days, computer freedom is more threatened than ever, and I would personally like to keep my freedom. I do not object to individuals using non-free software on a free platform, but I do not wish to see the whole platform become flooded with restrictive junk that tries to drown FLOSS from competition.

[leo_rockway]

I only skimmed through the thread so I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but Free Software != software that doesn't cost any money.

There is commercial __free__ software. The free part has nothing to do with money. What you want is privative software, not just commercial software. What you are asking for goes against the whole GNU philosophy and would be considered a step back for all the people in the GNU/FSF community.

Hopefully we will never see privative software becoming big in our community.

[dacium]

FSF are really against paid software fullstop. They can say by freedom they only mean freedom to modify the program you buy, but in reality they mean $$$ free software. They have in no way ever tried to help companies produce 'free' but paid for software for linux. They have never produced a practical way that this can be done (they just continue to spew forth the rediculous idea of selling GPL'd code...), this is why no serious commercial software companies will ever bother with linux.

Being part of the community that works to develop together is one thing, but the majority of computer users have no desire what-so-ever to be 'part' of a developer community - they are end users.

[dacium]

What you are asking for goes against the whole GNU philosophy and would be considered a step back for all the people in the GNU/FSF community.


Actually I wasted asking for that - I was just asking for a may for a company to actually practically sell software on linux 'free' or not makes no difference, at the moment you can't build onto anything GPL, I bet if they really wanted to they could even claim making a program for an OS that contains GPL code could be violating the GPL if you sell that program.

And if the community sees non open source software as a setup back, then obviously their should not be interested in replacing windows, and they should not advertise their OS as serious windows replacements.

[saulgoode]

Being part of the community that works to develop together is one thing, but the majority of computer users have no desire what-so-ever to be 'part' of a developer community - they are end users.
So there is this community where everyone works together to develop software. It is quite necessary that this community not welcome people who don't want to work together, else they would cease to be a community of people who work together.

Now it would seem that any end users who find the software produced by this community useful would be interested in that community continuing to exist so that it could continue developing software. Even if the end user has no desire to be "part" of the developer community, it is in his own best interest to support the very essence of that community which enables it to produce that useful software (i.e., working together).

[daverich]

I agree wholeheartedly,

however,-

I don't think it'll be a problem for long.

With the growing numbers of linux users who are going to want more stable programs then companies will begin porting to linux.

At the moment I have the crazy situation of wanting to buy Main Actor 3 (which is a commercial app and is stable and works brilliantly as a video editor) - yet the authors for some reason have pulled it from the market.

So If I've been looking to pay real money for decent linux software,- there must be others...

There's also quite a bit of hope that Reaper will be ported to linux eventually.

Kind regards

Dave Rich

[silkstone]

I have absolutely no philosophical objection to paying for software if the price is reasonable. I like the idea of OSS but also accept that most people need to earn a living.

Ubuntu is my OS of choice, and 95% of my work is done on it. I use Bibble Pro for processing RAW image files, and that is commercial software available for Windows, Mac and Linux. I'm happy with OOo, FF, TB, GIMP, etc.

The big stumbling block is accounts software that supports European VAT, and so far I've found nothing to replace Quickbooks which is Windows only. If Intuit or anyone else brought out a Linux version or an equivalent, I would happily pay for it.

I don't want to offend anyone, but I believe it is counter-productive to be obsessive about OSS if we want Linux to appeal to a wider audience. Many people need to use specific applications that are unlikely ever to have an open source equivalent. Commercial software is no more 'wrong' than commercial hardware.

[clinux]

There is only one difference between free software (& opensource) and shareware: stability. you'll never see a commercial program being released filled with bugs, things not working, bad sound, bad video, bad documentation etc.if it doesn't work properly they won't release it, because they depend on it, they really care if sales go wrong.

However most free programs come out unstable and filled with bugs (ubuntu, firefox etc.), because no one really cares and nobody depends on it.

[wrtpeeps]

I agree with the op. Should be pushing people to release onto linux. If the FSF guys don't like it, who cares?

[reyfer]

There is only one difference between free software (& opensource) and shareware: stability. you'll never see a commercial program being released filled with bugs, things not working, bad sound, bad video, bad documentation etc.if it doesn't work properly they won't release it, because they depend on it, they really care if sales go wrong.

However most free programs come out unstable and filled with bugs (ubuntu, firefox etc.), because no one really cares and nobody depends on it.

What? Have you ever run any Windows at all? What are the Service Packs for then, if the program was, as you say, released without bugs or things don't working? And Documentation? God, can this post be any more FUD?

[lswb]

.. you'll never see a commercial program being released filled with bugs, things not working, bad sound, bad video, bad documentation etc.if it doesn't work properly they won't release it...


Oh man that's rich!

[the_darkside_986]

If anyone wants a real Windows replacement, in the strictest sense of the word, they should help test and develop ReactOS--a project that does aim to be a Windows replacement. It has a very long way to go but could use more help.

Anyway, the GTK's LGPL license allows non-free software to be developed and linked to it, so it's mainly software developers' responsibility to write restrictive software if they wish, and has nothing to do with FSF, but the whole point of starting the GNU project is to create a system that frees users from enslavement. There's no point in trying to destroy that project because of one's unwillingness to actually PAY for a Windows or Mac OS X license. There is no "free lunch", and all these operating systems have their purpose.

Still, it would make much more sense to wish for open source software to become even more competition to non-free software, instead of flaming FLOSS and wishing for proprietary apps to hi-jack the free software platform. If one really has such little faith in free, open source software then it makes no sense at all to be using a free open source system.

[leo_rockway]

FSF are really against paid software fullstop. They can say by freedom they only mean freedom to modify the program you buy, but in reality they mean $$$ free software. They have in no way ever tried to help companies produce 'free' but paid for software for linux. They have never produced a practical way that this can be done (they just continue to spew forth the rediculous idea of selling GPL'd code...), this is why no serious commercial software companies will ever bother with linux.

"I had no job, and I was looking for ways to make money from free software. So I announced that I would mail a tape to whoever wanted one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free software distribution business, the precursor of the companies that today distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems."[0]
RMS

"The FSF accepts donations, but most of its income has always come from sales—of copies of free software, and of other related services. Today it sells CD-ROMs of source code, CD-ROMs with binaries, nicely printed manuals (all with freedom to redistribute and modify), and Deluxe Distributions (where we build the whole collection of software for your choice of platform)."[0]

Basically, your statements make no sense.


Actually I wasted asking for that - I was just asking for a may for a company to actually practically sell software on linux 'free' or not makes no difference, at the moment you can't build onto anything GPL, I bet if they really wanted to they could even claim making a program for an OS that contains GPL code could be violating the GPL if you sell that program.

The GPL encourages selling copies of your software: "Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." [1]


And if the community sees non open source software as a setup back, then obviously their should not be interested in replacing windows, and they should not advertise their OS as serious windows replacements.

No serious person would advertise GNU as that, the interest of the GNU project is to create a Free OS, not a Windows replacement: "The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system." [2]


I have absolutely no philosophical objection to paying for software if the price is reasonable.

Neither have I, as long as it is Free Software.


it is counter-productive to be obsessive about OSS if we want Linux to appeal to a wider audience

That's exactly the point. The GNU project is not aimed at appealing a wider audience so that "if" makes a lot of sense there. The GNU project's aim is to create a completely free OS.


Commercial software is no more 'wrong' than commercial hardware.

Try duplicating your mother board at zero cost. Try doing the same with Emacs... you see the fallacy now?


There is only one difference between free software (& opensource) and shareware: stability. you'll never see a commercial program being released filled with bugs, things not working, bad sound, bad video, bad documentation etc.if it doesn't work properly they won't release it, because they depend on it, they really care if sales go wrong.

I was going to comment on this but someone else already mentioned service packs and the like so... yeah... I can only laugh at your comment. And so far I have had zero freezes on my GNU/Linux and I have had way more than that in XP.


I agree with the op. Should be pushing people to release onto linux. If the FSF guys don't like it, who cares?

I care and so should you. If you want EULAs and new masters with new chains then why migrate? What made you use GNU/Linux in the first place? What would be the benefit of migrating if everything stays the same? What have you done for free software lately? Did you report bugs? Did you donate money to your favourite projects? Did you write any piece of code? That's the way to help get better programs and not asking the old masters to come enslave us all over again.

[0] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
[2] http://www.gnu.org/

[wrtpeeps]

"I had no job, and I was looking for ways to make money from free software. So I announced that I would mail a tape to whoever wanted one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free software distribution business, the precursor of the companies that today distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems."[0]
RMS

"The FSF accepts donations, but most of its income has always come from sales—of copies of free software, and of other related services. Today it sells CD-ROMs of source code, CD-ROMs with binaries, nicely printed manuals (all with freedom to redistribute and modify), and Deluxe Distributions (where we build the whole collection of software for your choice of platform)."[0]

Basically, your statements make no sense.



The GPL encourages selling copies of your software: "Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." [1]



No serious person would advertise GNU as that, the interest of the GNU project is to create a Free OS, not a Windows replacement: "The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system." [2]



Neither have I, as long as it is Free Software.



That's exactly the point. The GNU project is not aimed at appealing a wider audience so that "if" makes a lot of sense there. The GNU project's aim is to create a completely free OS.



Try duplicating your mother board at zero cost. Try doing the same with Emacs... you see the fallacy now?



I was going to comment on this but someone else already mentioned service packs and the like so... yeah... I can only laugh at your comment. And so far I have had zero freezes on my GNU/Linux and I have had way more than that in XP.



I care and so should you. If you want EULAs and new masters with new chains then why migrate? What made you use GNU/Linux in the first place? What would be the benefit of migrating if everything stays the same? What have you done for free software lately? Did you report bugs? Did you donate money to your favourite projects? Did you write any piece of code? That's the way to help get better programs and not asking the old masters to come enslave us all over again.

[0] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
[2] http://www.gnu.org/

Why should I care about the FSF? Stuff works for me. I don't care how it works. The freedom thing means nothing to me.

[leo_rockway]

The freedom thing means nothing to me.

Oh, great, would you come to my house work as a slave then?

Now, seriously, how do you expect me to react when you say that you don't care about freedom?

EDIT: and let me ask again: why did you migrate in the first place? If you want EULAs, commercial software and something that works why don't you just use OS X?

[Canis familiaris]

Why should I care about the FSF? Stuff works for me. I don't care how it works. The freedom thing means nothing to me.

It matters. With freedom in software, you could pass copies of software to family and friends. You cant do that with EULAized software legally.

[StewartRoonie]

Nice thread,

Commercial software is computer software sold for commercial purposes or that serves commercial purposes. Commercial software is most often proprietary software, but free software is also used as commercial software. All or parts of software packages and services that support commerce are increasingly made available as free software, including products from Red Hat, Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, and Google.

There are numerous advantages of commercial software in your home based business. This is especially true if you experiment with trial ware, demo ware, and even shareware. When you own and operate a home based business, every single minute counts. It is important to find resources that can assist you in time management, preserving energy, and increasing your overall productivity and efficiency. It may take several tries before you are able to find a shareware or other type of software program that you like, but once you find it, you are sure to be glad that you did! Here, you will learn about some of the advantages of commercial software in your home based business.

[RCCBurnout]

I agree 1000% percent.
Let them be or suggest open source alternatives to windows apps.
If they become less dependent on windows apps, switching to linux might make more sense down the road.

Many people sell linux so heavily they make it seem like it's a free Windows.
When users discover it's very different they become disillusioned.
In reality, anyone who switches should be prepared for change.

LOL! A lot of the stuff I was reading a while back made it sound just like that. I downloaded Ubuntu last month and learned otherwise. Good thing I'm using multi-boot, would've had to find the people who wrote the stuff and shove my foot up their @$$.

[LaRoza]

LOL! A lot of the stuff I was reading a while back made it sound just like that. I downloaded Ubuntu last month and learned otherwise. Good thing I'm using multi-boot, would've had to find the people who wrote the stuff and shove my foot up their @$$.
If you gave the average person an install disk of XP or Vista and an install disk of Ubuntu, they'd have much better luck with the Ubuntu disk.

[annatar]

If you gave the average person an install disk of XP or Vista and an install disk of Ubuntu, they'd have much better luck with the Ubuntu disk.Hmm...I agree that Ubuntu does better in the installation part, but whatabout post-installation setup? They will whine about 'How come my wireless doesn't work? Why can't that stupid linux play my mp3s'...etcetc

Indeed ubuntu does more out of the box (so many apps included!), but maybe windows usually does what the (average) users expected it to do?

[aysiu]

Hmm...I agree that Ubuntu does better in the installation part, but whatabout post-installation setup? They will whine about 'How come my wireless doesn't work? Why can't that stupid linux play my mp3s'...etcetc

Indeed ubuntu does more out of the box (so many apps included!), but maybe windows usually does what the (average) users expected it to do?
All they have are the Windows install CDs.

They'll have to track down the drivers themselves.

[clanky]

It is very difficult to compare the experience of installing Windows and installing Ubuntu as most PC's come preloaded with Windows and all the drivers necessary to operate all the hardware, I would guess that if someone bought a PC with Linux pre-installed and then tried to convert it to Windows then they would have a pretty torrid time, but the reality is that most people compare a pre-installed windows system with pre-installed drivers where everything "just works" to their experience installing Linux (or any other OS) from a CD.

As you said if people only had brand new computer with absolutely nothing pre-installed then they might struggle just as badly or worse with Windows as with Linux.

The problem that Linux faces is that most people who try it are trying to convert their computer to Linux and compare this to the process of either switching on a new Windows PC straight from the shop or reinstalling Windows from a system recovery disk where all the correct drivers are included. As "unfair" as this might be, it is the reality that Linux (and any other OS) must face and in my opinion the only way that any OS is going to get any kind of market share is either to somehow convince PC vendors to sell more PC's with Linux pre-installed or to make the "conversion" process as easy as switching on a PC with everything installed.