Does Linux lack mass-market appeal?
Doesn't that headline state the obvious? Doesn't the entire world know that Linux simply doesn't offer the kind of mass-market appeal Windows and Mac OS X do? I guess not.
According to the company, Wal-Mart has pulled all Linux-equipped computers off its shelves because it "didn't attract as much customer attention as Windows machines."
"This really wasn't what our customers were looking for," said Wal-Mart Stores spokeswoman Melissa O'Brien.
Gee, really? To see if its customers wanted Linux, the company stocked the $199 Green gPC in about 600 stores to see if people really wanted to try out a new, far more advanced, operating system. And although the company won't announce sales figures, it looks like its decision to sell Linux-based machines was doomed from the start--in stores.
Ironically, the gPC has performed much better online and Wal-Mart will continue to sell it on its e-commerce page.
Wow. What exactly did Wal-Mart expect? Did its buyers truly believe that a Linux-based machine would do well in a store where the majority of its clientele have never heard of someone named Linus Torvalds?
Suffice it to say, Linux lacks mass-market appeal. And although some Linux apologists may attempt to tell me it doesn't, how can any other argument be proven?
Most surveys put Linux market share at or around one percent and Wal-Mart--the retailer that exemplifies mass-market--won't even consider selling another Linux-based machine in stores to save its life.
Doesn't a "mass-market" product have "mass-market" control over the industry? Wouldn't the masses know more about it? Wouldn't the average person put it up there with the rest of the operating systems when they need to buy their next computer?
The fact of the matter is Linux is a great operating system for those who know what they're doing and want the greatest level of adaptability. But for the average person, who many in the Linux community are simply out of touch with, they don't want anything of the sort. Instead of discussions on GNU, the average person wants to know why they can't use Internet Explorer. Instead of talking about Linus Torvalds, the average person wants to discuss Bill Gates and how he made his fortune. Instead of command line, the average person wants a mouse and keyboard.
And it's that average person who frequents Wal-Mart and is more than willing to buy a computer that offers an operating system they know--Windows. Linux folks can talk until they're blue in the face saying that Linux is safer than Windows and people can do more, but until it's as easy to use as Microsoft's OS, it's in as many offices as Windows and it's on the nightly news, the chances of people switching are nil.
Linux must stay true to its roots and remain the bastion of hope for all the people in the world who want an advanced operating system and the option to modify it as they see fit.
Linux will never be a mass-market product, so why push it?
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
OSX doesn't have mass market appeal, Apple hardware has mass market appeal (sort of - excluding the iPod, I'd say they have a large niche market rather than a mass market). Desirable "Linux native" hardware (like Asus's eee pc) is going to be much the same - a broad but comparatively small market. And in both cases you'll find people who will still want to run Windows on that hardware.
"but until it's as easy to use as Microsoft's OS"
So, you want to make Linux harder to use? Seriously, I run Ubuntu side by side with XP at work and Ubuntu is easier to use. I bought a PC at christmas to turn into a media centre and it came with Vista Home Basic, so I thought I'd see what Vista was like - within an hour I got fed up with it and installed Ubuntu. I find Windows wants to get in your face ("you have unused icons", "you don't want to see the contents of this directory", "I'm going to update whether you like it or not") while Ubuntu gets out of the way.
Let's face it, desktop Linux is just for geeks, and/or people who are obsessed with hating Microsoft. The latter group can buy a Mac.
You mean the Linux Standards Base? http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB
Linux has standard file locations for years.
Personally, I don't think anybody really knows how many machines are running what, but if people admitted that then there be fewer things to write about.
Let's face it, desktop Linux is just for geeks, and/or people who are obsessed with hating Microsoft. The latter group can buy a Mac.
------------------------
Truer words have never been spoken on this issue. The world uses Windows because it gets the job done. If it were as bad as Linux or OSX people say, people would abandon Windows en masse for a better desktop OS... but there isn't one.
Linux and OSX are just there to appease the contrarians. Regular people use Windows and the vast amount of software written for it. Linux and OSX are not even contenders, except in the minds of Geeks, or zealots in the case of OSX.
The Asus Eee PCs sold around 400,000 units over the Christmas holidays so I don't really think it's Linux that was the problem here. Try putting Linux on something besides garbage hardware and then see what happens.
Comparing the gPC to anything Apple makes hardware wise...??? It's not even comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended)
Well, let's see, Linux has about 1% if the market with OSX about 10% and growing..
------
10%? In your dreams. Closer to 5%. Keep in mind that the recent growth in Mac sales is because it now runs Windows.
Unfortunately, an Open source OS causes problems with UI because standards are hard to lock down (does every program use tabs, and does each tab have an X to close 'em? Where is the "close this window" X located? What color is the chrome?). The next release of Ubuntu Hardy Heron is focusing on honing it's UI/Chrome/Theming, and I'm really lookin' forward to that (Ubuntu is my primary OS, these days), but it's much easier to get a comprehensive and wholistic "look and feel" when you're building a more monolithic, non-mix-and-match OS (Windows, MacOSX).
And the King of UI is now Apple. They've led the field in things that an OS's UI can do (Expose [!!!], it's AQUA interface, it's Dock, Widgets) and other OSes are copying them (Window's scroll wheel window display, Linux's Kompose), which I'm thankful for, because these are things that people should have had access to all along.
Which is why these days, I recommend getting a mac to my friends and family, when they ask me. Because you've got the command line, you've got the strong unix core, and it could potentially allow you to break into linux, if it becomes necessary in the future (if Apple falls behind in their persuit of good software, or gets too expensive, or a weak hardware computer comes preloaded with Vista's devastating resource-eating), but there's no doubt in my mind that Linux IS going to be the future, because Apple is the king of UI, and Windows is the king of business software, but Linux is the king of meeting a need for software when you need it (well, speakin' for Ubuntu with synaptics/apt-get and it's gross library of applications, at least), and that's a big part of where the future lies, specificity and meeting needs as people come up with them, instead of when the chokepoint of the company can deal with it.
Anyway, I've digressed, but I guess the moral is, yes, adoption and commercialization and being the default install matters some, but the long-term growth and stability that Linux provides matters more.
Funny how M$ is the same way - you don't own your computer, they do. Enjoy your servitude morons.
My computer is mine and it works great. Guess what - it's running Ubuntu.
We created that Linux for common persons: "IPBrick easy Linux". Now we have customers that never heard about the famous Linux packages for server systems like: Qmail, Samba, Apache, Squid, Asterisk, etc, and can use our IPBrick Linux. These people know what they want in terms of services and they just want a Linux that can be easily installed and configured.
We just solved the main Linux problems with our distribution : installation, configuration and recovery in case of hardware faillure. IPBrick, it is a Linux Debian with: automatic installation (5 min), functional configuration, and disaster recovery (10 min). We make possible that a person that knows the name of its company, and the name of the people working in the company can install and configure a server for them with the above functions and much more.
And with the IPBrick solution we kept the operating system open, if someone wants to dig inside and see what we are doing. So now even Linux people are starting to use IPBrick because the solution reduces enourmously the amount of time dedicated to configure basic things like (DNS, DHCP, LDAP, etc).
To Answer your Silly Question.
As it (the Desktop) still has not been presented with any parity if at all. Yet it runs your Tivo/DVR, TomTom/GPS, MediaPlayers, More phones than MS, Routers/Network Appliances & the majority of the Web/Internet. Still even more "people" are becoming aware of, interested in, & using Linux everyday, on the desktop & everywhere else.
Why there is so much ignorance on the part of those who should know better, You, the tech press. It makes some, wonder. Yet I don't have to.
Your motivations are clear. AoL (Afraid of Linux)
Please commercial advertisers.
Sell Product?
You seem far behind, rather than on top of the curve.
Is there anyone who really knows/uses & writes about GNU/Linux & GPL at News.com.com (Cnet, ZDnet etc).... you guys are really behind the times.
Is that the new line?
I remember when it was, "they run other businesses out of the area". That's been proven false, so now we're on to something else, eh?
Anyways, I'm using Windows Vista right now. My browser is FF 3 beta 4, my photo editing is Gimp, my word processor is OOo. These, and everything else I use with this OS, work perfectly, and the one time I downloaded a program that caused me problems - SR had me up and running in 5 minutes.
Why would I switch, when I have nothing to complain about?
And oh please give me a break with "i hate microsoft too".... no... it really doesnt look very kool n geekish to say that unless you have a very solid reason for it. If you think microsoft products are overprices, dont buy it. If you think microsoft is evil, dont use its products? Its like a fashion now of some sort to say "i hate microsoft" and saying that makes one very geekish and a PhD in computer science or something....????....
How many people actually need the source code for the keyboard driver?...or your display device...and on this Fedora Core 6 while trying to comment on this blog my firefox crashed and closed all my work....how kool. How is that any "ok" than that happening on windows (which by far happens less for me atleast...).... and yes i program device drivers for windows..i know what im talking about.
Mac OS X - Obviously doesn't, as it doesn't have the majority of the market.
Linux - Same as above
Windows - Millions of people struggle with it every day. Computer magazines are full of letters about how much people want to ditch Windows, or how they think Microsoft's programs stink. A friend of mine, who knows nothing about computers, is begging me to reinstall Ubuntu on her computer.
Linux isn't difficult to use, it's just DIFFERENT. When people tell me how they think Linux is difficult because they couldn't work out how to do xyz, I can relate. But I can only relate because of my own troubles trying to get various things on Windows to work, on other peoples' computers. The most complex thing I can do on Windows without help is opening up Firefox and the POS screen at the place I work.
Setting up an internet connection? Takes me hours on Windows. If I can complete the task at all. I never managed to install a graphics driver for a customer who bought an LCD TV to hook up to his computer. I could tell that it needed a driver, but there's no such thing as Restricted Drivers Manager or Synaptic on Windows, and in the end the installers I was downloading weren't appropriate. I couldn't even find out the exact model of the card, because there's no lspci and I couldn't find the Hardware Information panel.
I'm sure Windows is easy in its own way, but I find Linux much easier.
If the trolls here just accepted that Linux is a different operating system, and took some time to learn it, I'm sure they'd work out fine. I would take some time to learn Windows, except that I don't have a copy of it, I'd rather spend my money on something else, and I refuse to install pirated software.
Trying very hard to do with Linux, what I do with Windoze XP, but I will keep trying, because after buying Windows Vista, and spending 2 days installing it and talking to Indians in India.
I want to completely go with Linux, and throw Microsoft in the trash.
- by TiddlyPom March 17, 2008 7:11 AM PDT
- As 3rdalbum says - there is absolutely nothing wrong with Linux except that it isn't Windows!
- Reply to this comment
-
(23 Comments)The same goes for OpenOffice vs Microsoft Office and (think-of-any-proprietry-application) vs (open-source-equivilent). I have heard this argument so many times from so many people who have never actually used free/open source applications and those who have usually have their eyes opened.
I use Linux all the time as my main operating system (primarily 32 bit Ubuntu but also 64 bit Red Hat Enterprise 5.1) and can do virtually anything that anyone can do under Windows to the extent that I don't even think about it anymore.
My home PCs are fast, stable, virus free and easy to use and "just work". My wife and two primary (elementory) age children all use Linux at home and have no problems moving between these machines and PCs running Windows at work/school.
I have not paid anything for the operating systems and applications on my PCs and they are all highly functional and perfectly legal (although I have donated money to a couple of F/OSS projects). If I was to replace my Linux applications with proprietry operating systems and software then I would probably have to spend $10,000+ in licences to get the equivilent functionality.
The common fallacy that you cannot play any decent games under Linux is also utter garbage. There are plenty of excellent free games available (see http://www.happypenguin.org for examples) but also many proprietry games now run under Linux (especially ID Software's Quake/Doom series and Unreal Tournament). For those that don't there is a Windows emulation system called Cedega (http://www.transgaming.com) which allows many of these games to run as well. Yes there are also plenty of Windows games that won't run under Linux as well but lets get things into perspective.
What Linux needs is a good advertising campaign perferably by a well known household name such as IBM, HP, Dell or other large company that uses Linux to show Joe Public once and for all how fantastic Linux and F/OSS software is and that you do not *need* to run Windows on a PC to do everything that you would want to do with it.