Vista equals Edsel? (which just refers to http://www.linuxworld.com/columnists/2007/082307backspin.html)
Ok – here is a thought. If Windows sucks so badly (and not just Vista, because you all bitched about XP before Vista came out, and 2000 before that, and Windows Me, and so on), and I am having one of those weeks that makes me believe Windows does suck, then why hasn’t Linux won? Or OSX?
How badly must you suck if you cannot beat something that sucks as much as Windows???
(and don’t give me the “20xx will be the year of the Linux desktop” crap – you’ve been at this for 15 years – get on with it).
FredSpace 
To a certain extent I agree. There is definitely an aspect of “living with the devil you know”
Perhaps it is not enough to suck less than Windows – perhaps you have to suck ENOUGH less to overcome the inertia. Or, you work to overcome the barriers to conversion, by making it easy – and the Linux community historically has not done a great job at that.
That being said, if Linux were really ready for primetime (and it may be close), I would expect it to have had significantly more adoption than it has had.
LikeLike
I think the reason Linux hasn’t won is the same reason Mac OSX hasn’t won, in terms of just the sheer number of users anyway: Windows PCs are less expensive. I’d hazard a guess that most home users are driven by price, and a $700 HP laptop with Windows beats a $1400 MacBook.
Part of this is probably a) our familiarity with the ubiquity of Windows from having it at work and everywhere else and learning to work with it’s flaws and b) our general inertia to undertake the effort Linux requires.
In other words, Windows probably does suck, but we’ve gotten used to it and have learned to live with it. At the same time this has happened, new businesses have popped up to support the average user (Geek Squad being an example) who does not have the technology education to fix stuff him/herself.
I don’t think it’s a question of how badly do you suck to not be able to beat something else that sucks, it’s more a question of we treat our computing resources as commodities that are disposable, and therefore don’t want to pay the price (in either currency or effort) to get something with better quality.
LikeLike
Good points – thanks.
LikeLike
I think the biggest thing is the software that the OSs can run. I’ve used Windows my whole life, and while I’ve taken a passing interest in Macs and Linux, I’ve never really wanted to use them because I’m good enough with computers to deal with the basic tech problems that come from Windows, and the software (especially games, but others as well) just about always come out on Windows.
It’s not so much of which OS is better. I’ve been told that Macs are better for people who aren’t very good with computers or just want something extremely reliable, because the OS is solid and it does what it needs to do (but it’s not a technical OS, so people with computer experience tend to shy away). Linux, being open source, is great for people who love programming and working with computers, because the OS is made by people like that, and they’re always encouraged to contribute. But you only get what you put in, and many people don’t have the time, or the experience, to get things they need to work on it. Windows is for the middle-ground; people who use massive varieties of software, but can handle (or are willing to be foreced to handle) the basic running of a computer.
I mean, yeah, Windows has it’s problems, and I’ll complain about XP and Vista (I haven’t upgraded to Vista yet, actually, because of the cost and the bad things I’ve heard about it; which I do complain about), but I also have learned the better way to deal with it. Keep an eye out for good software, read up on basic maintenance and do it, and take the time to tweak it so that it works the way I want it to. So I can still play my FPSs and RPGs without Windows sucking too much. That’s why I’ve stuck with it, at least.
LikeLike
Again, the whole point of open source is supposed to be that it natuarlly gets better because the entire community profits from it. Is this theory flawed?
As I have said before, I would dearly love to have a better alternative to Windows. However, even with its flaws, Vista is still more usable than any Linux I have played with (using my own personal definition of usability – basically that it allows me to focus on what I am doing, not how to do it).
LikeLike
Software is better when the development is unfunded.
Marketing, & Distribution is better when funded.
Funding comes from Sales & free software doesn’t sell well at all.
Why hasn’t Linux kicked Microsoft’s butt? Because there’s no single owner of Linux to profit off of it.
LikeLike
But that is the whole point here. The Linux and open source community claims that the open source model of development leads to BETTER products, and that it is dedicate volunteers working on what interests them who can create the best systems, not paid developers working on proprietary systems. That is the fundamental debate about commercial software versus open source.
And my point is – if open source leads to better software, why hasn’t Linux kicked Microsoft’s butt after 15 years?
(btw – Linux has considerable financial backing – look at the contributions of IBM, Red Hat and many others who pay developers to contribute. Just because it is open source does not mean it does not have financial backing)
LikeLike
I think Linux hasn’t won because it’s to complicated for the average Dick or Jane to figure out.
If they simplify the install/setup, and market the heck out of it, then it could stand a fighting chance.
This is coming from someone who has not yet tried Linux but is very interested in Ubuntu but can’t find the free time to sit down and install it.
Free products just don’t have the financial backing that paid products do.
My $0.02
LikeLike