The article 'Understanding the Common User' points that "everything should be as simple as it is... Or even simpler" and warns that converting a common user to Linux without giving him enough protection leads to a imminent failure. A rebuttal, 'Get Real or How Not To Convert Your Grandma to Linux' stresses that dumbing down is not the key to success, understanding is.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-05
First off, thank you for the informed post. I don't agree with you on all your points, but they are intelligent and well thought out, which is rare in places like these.
I disagree with this for one reason, Windows is the most expensive OS out there for home use, and Linux is the cheapest. If it is just a matter of a being different then b, especially since we are talking simple tasks, then that would be enough motivation for many people. I can't count how many people I know who drive all over the city when they shop looking for the best deals, and actually end up spending more on gas then the 10c they save on lettuce.
IMHO there are two factors in play.
1) People are more or less satisfied with windows. It does what they want it to do. If they want software, they go to BestBuy and browse. If they need their computer fixed, they just have to open the phone book. This is more or less the point you made, but I think it is more then they see no reason to change, but that they are actually happy with the product.
2) What you and I view as complex is a world of difference from what they view as complex. Gui configs are for "power users", opening a well commented config file to change a line is something that will never happen, even with you on the phone. It isnt that they wont switch to linux because of market inertia or oem deals or what not, they wont switch to linux because it simply isnt better for them, even with the vastly reduced cost and equivilent functionality. What they should be doing is switching to Macs, but hey, its more expensive.
I disagree here too. Linux is made for geeks, and there is no reason for geeks not to use it, unless they depend professionally on windows. This is where you will see the marketshare shift.
I am a big believer in a diverse ecosystem, and I don't want to see Linux as a monopoly any more then have windows as a monopoly. Instead of a one size fits all approach, it would be better for everyone if we ended up with specialized operating systems targeting specific market segments. This would force interoperability, and create a situation where one OS flaw doesnt bring down 90% of the worlds computers.
IMHO, the perfect world would be Macs as home desktops, windows as business desktops, and Linux in the server room. This would force MS to develop more software on other platforms, and rely on quality rather then platform integration. It would also make life easier for the thousands of home users who would be using an OS more suited to their needs. I doubt it would happen, but that is what I see as ideal.
Only a very small percentage of that corporate work is aimed at desktop workstations. The vast majority of the work being done is aimed at making linux something that can stand up to Solaris in the server room, at a zero cost. 16 way SMP, or CPU hotswapping are not things that benefit home users.
You are bang on in the first part. MS got to where it is by undercutting the competition, and being extremely developer friendly.
The big problem with getting mindshare in linux nowadays is that there is little to no support for modern languages. The younguns arent even taught C++ in school anymore, let alone c. This creates a huge barrier of entry for swarms of young geeks who would love to contribute, because as you said, the platform is very developer friendly. The move nowadays is to managed code. The enterprise has done it, and java has become an industry standard. The other desktops have done it, both with Obj-C on OSX and .net on windows. When linux desktops begin adopting modern languages, and some decent RAD tools (like VB), you will see a mass exodus of the guys currently doing all those freeware and shareware apps on windows.
Member since:2006-03-12
I do find it kind of amusing that you talk about windows cost, when Microsoft's strategy, is to sell Microsoft via OEM and are have tied the OS to one computer. People artificially believe that Windows is *free*, and to some extent it is discounted, both to OEM suppliers and through adware, and the price drop in hardware has only helped this situation.
I have never met a user *happy* with windows. Otherwise I wouldn't be asked to fix; maintain etc etc their machines. They may be familiar with windows, power users(sic) may have learned to maintain windows, and by overcoming the limitations of a Microsoft platform are given a sense of control, but happy.
I cannot remember the last time I changed a config file in GNU, the only config files I actively remember changing is xorg.conf and that was a *long* time ago, and has been a disgrace of GNU for forever, and times are changing on that. Settings regardless of platform once set up *never* change, on any platform. The only thing I *ever* see changed is the Desktop background on Windows. To do any real work on windows you need msconfig, or regedit, tweakui or whatever the equivalents are called, but most don't.
GNU is not for geeks, although I object to the term. GNU is for everybody, because the tools they need and want are available to them, applications arguably better than their counterparts OpenOffice and Firefox, and thats basically it. The only tricky part of GNU is downloading; burning; installing an iso which is beyond the reach of the vast number of users it would immediately benefit.
Whats strange is the fact that you say you promote diverse ecosystem(sic) and then promote a split between OS for usage, between home; office; serverspace. What I promote is Open Standards and interoperability. Why shouldn't GNU fit in any of these environments the framework is already it up for everything, all but niche monopolistic applications are covered, and commercial gaming went to consoles a long time ago, and the framework for both of these is already in place.
The interesting thing about your comments on GNU not getting developers when survey after survey points out GNU being targeted mode for development. I believe the current figure is at 34%.
BTW Apple offer a cheap MAC
Obj-C is on GNU
Java is on GNU
VB is on GNU
RAD tools are on GNU
Hows Vista going for you?
Edited 2007-07-06 23:12
Member since:2005-11-02
People won't switch because it's better than Windows. People will switch because it's cooler than Windows. They won't switch because of the superior development frameworks. They'll switch because of the nifty features and tight integration they allow. They won't switch because they care about computer technology. They'll switch because people who do have done cool things with it.
And there is nothing cooler than the Compiz/Beryl 3D desktop.
Member since:
2005-07-08
People are different only to a certain extent. I find that people are astonishingly similar. They make a conscious effort to adapt to social norms. Being different requires defending your reasoning to the rest of the crowd, which makes people uncomfortable. People do crave a sense of individuality, but often they express it by being different in exactly the same way as other people they know.
In the context of operating systems, Windows is the social norm, while Mac and Linux are the chic alternatives. People don't switch to Linux to be different; if their motivation is social rather than technical, then their reason is to fit in with the Linux crowd. The people who really want to be different are choosing more obscure systems. Linux hasn't been a bold statement of individuality since the turn of the century. People use it today either because of technical reasons or because it's trendy (or a combination of these).
If you really explore how people use their home PCs, you'll realize how similar people's needs are. This doesn't bode well for alternative operating systems. It's not that you can't "dumb down" an alternative OS like Linux enough for your mother, it's that there's no compelling reason for her to stop using Windows. Linux didn't invent some new way of using her computer. It's just a different way of doing the same sorts of tasks. What's the point?
There is no killer new functionality that can cause a large marketshare shift from Windows to any other system. Linux is pretty much proof of that. An appropriately configured, preinstalled Linux OS offers ease of use and frustration in about the same ratio as does Windows (albeit in different areas) but without any licensing fees. However, not that many people are willing to switch to a similarly effective solution even given the significant price difference. Windows is familiar, and it's the social norm. These reasons alone are worth the $50-200 cost of Windows for most people.
My approach to Linux advocacy is simple: Linux, or a very similar free software system, is eventually going to become the predominant OS. Maybe it will happen in 10 years. Maybe it will take 15 years. It has nothing to do with Linux being "ready for the desktop." Windows is "ready" as well. The rate of change will have more to do with how Microsoft responds when marketshare begins to slip away in measurable quantities.
Microsoft is extraordinarily inefficient at developing software compared to the greater free software community. Rapid improvement of free software combined with pricing pressures, the gradual flight of OEMs, government initiatives, and globalization will challenge Microsoft's revenue streams and eat into their margins. As the public becomes more exposed to Linux, it will become much more socially acceptable, especially in the developing world. Linux is currently breaking Microsoft's monopoly, and it will gradually take marketshare.
Linux is the future of computing: switch at your own pace. It's still a little rough in spots, but it's way better than it was two years ago and a completely different animal than it was five years ago. Volunteers did 80% of the work on the Linux kernel two years ago, whereas today 70% is corporate contribution. Imagine what it will be like two years, or five years, from now.
People won't switch because it's better than Windows. People will switch because it's cooler than Windows. They won't switch because of the superior development frameworks. They'll switch because of the nifty features and tight integration they allow. They won't switch because they care about computer technology. They'll switch because people who do have done cool things with it.
Microsoft succeeded in large part because they provided excellent development tools and won developer mindshare. Linux is succeeding by providing the code along with the development tools, and it's taking developer mindshare away from Microsoft. The users will go where the developers go... eventually. It might take 15 years. So what?
Edited 2007-07-06 15:53