The Linux Foundation has posted the second half of its long and thorough interview with Linux founder Linus Torvalds, part of the Foundation's 'open voices' podcast. While the first part of the interview focused on the Linux development community, this time Torvalds sounds off on everything from patents and innovation to the future of Linux. According to Torvalds the reason Linux hasn't taken off is that most people are happy with the way things are. "If you act differently from Windows, even if you act in some ways better, it doesn't matter; better is worse if it's different." Torvalds also attributes much of the frustration with Windows Vista to this same idea. In other words, it's not that Vista is worse than XP, but it's different and that causes distress among users.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-09-27
I have to admit I'm quite surprised about user reaction to Vista. I thought it was just wishful thinking by FOSS advocates, but I have a few non-technical friends who just can't get used to Vista. Some of them ask about GNU/Linux. The main complaints seem to be UAC ("cancel or allow" all the time) and difficulty in playing some media (DRM, I guess).
Member since:2006-01-31
Member since:2005-07-17
my experience for UAC is that the hype is off the mark. I only seem to get it when I'm doing something that I should get warned about. The full screen blackout is a little annoying, but it gets attention. I get a "sudo" password warning in OSx or Ubuntu about as much as I get UAC in Vista. Windows users aren't used to thinking about what's dangerous, and programmers don't properly limit their program's scope to non-dangerous functions like they do in mac or linux.
Member since:2007-06-20
Alright, I assume most people reading this blog have some sort of nack for modiying or changing OS settings. In vista it’s a piece of cake to disable the UAC. So if you don’t like it don't run it. It’s that simple. Go to the Control Panel! I disabled it from day one.
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2006/09/20/763275.aspx
I have been running Vista since it was RTM'ed and I have had minimal problems. Any problems I have had were due to poor drivers from the vendor side.
The reality is that the fresh install of Vista , Microsoft Drivers worked initially better in then any of the Vendors. This in my opinion says a lot on how Microsoft tried to cover most Drivers. They knew that the Vendors would take time to catch up. Prime Example Sigmatel, now IDT.
If you do have issues make sure you get the very important HotFixes. I dont even need SP1 at this point.
I am now running Vista Ultimate 64 and it screams, also runs all of my games.
Member since:2005-07-06
Pardon, that might be true if the scenario in the marketplace wasn't different. If there was an aversion to it, then how does one explain double digit growth of Apple Mac desktop and laptop shipments?
There isn't an aversion to change, its the Linux distributors not creating a package which customers want, its the distributors doing nothing to improve the ecosystem when it comes to third party commercial software titles from the big names, and out of the box support for hardware with drives ready on the cd/dvd for the customer to install.
Linux right now, in its current form is more than sufficient to take over the operating system market - but it isn't the operating system the consumers buy, they're buying into a whole ecosystem. They're buying into the ability to purchase software off the shelf, hardware off the shelf. Until Linux can achieve the same level of ubiquity, it won't be anywhere beyond some niche scenario's.
Oh, its almost certain that I'll get marked down about this post; why? because this forum is littered with Linux fanboys who jumped on the Linux bandwagon in the last year, and have jumped to the deep end of the zealot pool of stupidity.
I've seen desktop promises come and go, Storm Linux, Corel Linux, TurboLinux (barely surviving), Progeny and numerous other distributions that have come and gone; never making any changes because they lacked the ecosystem which surrounds it.
I know you're saying to yourself, "bloody hell, this guy goes on and on about ecosystems" - well, because it is important. If all you have is an operating system, what is the end user meant to do? stare at the screen all day doing nothing? a computer and an operating system allow people to do things. If the consumer can't get the applications they want, it doesn't support the hardware they want to use - their computer ultimately becomes a giant paper weight of liability which contributes nothing.
Edited 2008-02-12 22:41 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Because Apple is fashionable, and people are prepared to sacrifice comfort if they perceive that changing means presenting a different image to the world: Apple marketing manage to create the perception that buying a Mac is a statement, not just a simple purchase.
This is somewhat true for the people who switch to FOSS software for ideal reasons: they're often inclined to accept minor annoyances and glitches in a positive way.
To the contrary, the majority of Windows users don't have any feeling of "affection" for the OS, they use it but they have no conscious or unconscious reasons to put up with its problems or to tolerate a change who directly impacts on their usage patterns.
Member since:2006-02-05
You are bang on when you talk about mac users, however this is not true when you talk about windows users.
I grew up on the mac, and I have the mac user mentality of waiting in breathless anticipation for the new version of the os to drop so I can play with all the cool new features. When I switched to windows for school, that was the biggest culture shock for me. I don't know why, but mac users all act like true OS enthusiasts, far more then any other userbase I know of. Just think of it, when MS announces dropping win2k, people scream bloody murder. When XP is nearing its EOL, the online equivilent of riots break out. Juxtapose that to apple's ability to only support the current version and the one before.
Bar nothing, the hatred of change is the thing I find the most baffling about the windows user community.
Member since:2005-07-06
Hmmm ...
apt-get install <insert software here>
seems a lot easier to me then buying software off the shelf (or yum, or apt-rpm). If you want to put a GUI on it then go ahead.
Buying software off the shelf is going to be replaced, and when people see that there are alternatives that are easier and better they will like the change.
Is it there yet? For most people probably not.
Do I think it will be in the future yes.
The same goes for hardware. Release your specs to the kernel developers and let them build a driver for you. Then magically you plug in the hardware and it just works. What is the business of sticking in a disk in cdrom and installing drivers?
Why should linux become better at doing things the windows way, when it can do things a new and better way.
Member since:2005-07-13
Pardon, that might be true if the scenario in the marketplace wasn't different. If there was an aversion to it, then how does one explain double digit growth of Apple Mac desktop and laptop shipments?
"
I'd explain it by pointing out the minimal growth of Apple Mac desktop and laptop shipments, all other things considered. Everything is perspective.
If you took the blogosphere and technorati opinions as being absolute, then everybody would be tripping over themselves to by a Mac because of HIG, security and/or coolness.
But Linus' opinion is sound. People are resistant to change. It's a basic paradox for consumer electronics manufacturers, for instance. People desire features, but they don't want complexity, increased cost or a learning curve. If you want people to adopt your product on the basis of features, then you need to make sure they offer enough of an incentive to override any potential complexity, cost or learning curve, otherwise the product is doomed to never achieve mainstream success, if any success at all. That's not necessarily a bad thing, sometimes there's a marketing advantage to that approach, by targeting early-adopters and niche marketing segments with the inherent profitability, without having to base your business plan on assuming mass-market consumer adoption.
So to your example, let's look at Apple. The iPod, for instance, was brilliant. It didn't create a market, since MP3 players existed long before it. But it redefined consumer expectations with the simple and intuitive interface, as well as the ease-of-use from iTunes integration. At the point in time it was released, particularly combined with the consumer-friendly slick styling, it was a winning combination. That's the kind of thing marketers and product planning people dream of.
But then look at the Mac desktops and laptops. Very cool, very slick, and yes, some advantages in usability (though I'd argue against the shameless gushing people do, since it still has faults). Should be a killer product, like the iPod, since there are many of the same desgin objective in place. But they're not as successful, relatively speaking.
Why? Because everybody has a computer, and for >95% of the population, it runs Windows. And Windows is what they know. And Windows functionality is what they expect. And, despite what powerusers and tech-oriented people like to claim, it works well enough for what people need. Windows doesn't BSOD all the time for all people. Windows works well enough on moderate hardware for many people. Users, unfortunately, aren't as concerned with security as we like to think they are. In short, Windows works and does a good enough job. Because of that, the gap between what users have and what Apple thinks users want is large.
Apple is *different*. Apple means learning new things. Apple means buying different software. The list goes on... People on this board may not see that as an issue in comparison to the perceived advantages Apple provides, but that same ROI calculation doesn't provide the same result for Joe Average. Because Apple is different, it has to provide enough of an advantage to justify changing, and for the majority of users, it simply doesn't. But again, that's alright, I don't think Jobs has any intentions of displacing MS. The number two player never generates the same revenue that the number one does, but they can be more profitable because they don't have to achieve the same objectives.
The iPod didn't create a new market, but it succeeded because consumers felt it offered such a better experience than incumbent players at the time, therefore it justified the obstacle of adoption (mostly price), and it did such a good job that it brought new adopters into the market. The iPhone, despite the lavish praise, is struggling against expectations, because despite the gee-whiz interface and functionality, doesn't offer as *big* an advantage over the incumbents, many of whom are much cheaper, particularly when you consider the restricted carrier encumberance. Ditto the Macs. They are good, they are slick, but they aren't necessarily targetting the mass market, but rather a specific segment of the market that values the functionality, capability and/or style of the Macs against the obstacle of adoption, once again price, and maybe availability of software or scalability.
Ditto for Vista. Any perceived advantages seem to have been lost on adopters in comparison to the convenience and cost of the systems they know and are familiar enough with. Vista simply doesn't have a killer feature that is strong enough to lead the mass-market to jump the chasm towards adoption. Though MS has the market strength to eventually make this happen regardless, that doesn't really count, since their market dominance subverts free-market drivers in the long run.
Desktop linux will face the same obstacles. There seems to be this perception in the community that everyone hates Windows and is desperate for an alternative. That's simply not true. The vast majority of the population is "satisfied" with Windows, and any alternative will have to offer a substantial incentive to encourage switching, whether OSX or linux or Haiku or whatever.
As long as desktop linux tries to replace Windows by simply emulating it, then it will never achieve substantial attraction. But if desktop linux can differentiate itself, and find aspects that exceed the capabilities of Window, and market those properly, then desktop linux can stand as a viable "alternative", not replacement, for Windows.
But at the end of the day, it boils down to basic marketing. The consumer is resistant to change, they want to deal with products they know and are comfortable with. That's the entire basis of brand marketing. If you're going to achieve a shift in mass market acceptance, you have to either do something new and creative, or you have to do something far better and far more advantageous than the competition.
From the view of the mass market, neither Linux or OSX is at that point. But again, that's not a bad thing. Apple has proven that you can still achieve a considerable amount of industry and market clout even with a single digit marketshare. Jobs is brilliant in this regard; he's a visionary, I'll certainly give him that much credit, but he also has a brilliant business sense for making products work without requiring market saturation. That's admirable, at least from a business perspective. And that is, surprisingly, along the same lines as Linus' message. OSS and proprietary products still rely on the same common marketing principles for attracting adoption.
The customer is always right, no matter how much you know they are wrong.
I say this, naturally, as a linux user. I prefer linux, I enjoy using linux, I feel akward using Windows. Still, I'm practical enough to know that I can't advocate linux to everyone I know, because for everyone I know, they all have different requirements and expectations, and linux is far from being a one-size-fits-all solution. Most importantly, linux requires a commitment from the user in terms of learning and understanding it, if they are really going to get the best advantage, and many people simply aren't willing to make that commitment.
So we're still far from reaching the Year-of-the-linux-desktop(tm), but that's an artificial target anyways. We need the year-of-the-innovative-does-something-new-desktop if anything is going to change in a substantial way, regardless of who it comes from.
Member since:2005-07-17
excellent point. If "linux" wants to take off, more companies need to develop solutions rather than just desktops. Look at what Apple has had to do... If it wasn't for iLife/iWork/.Mac, mac users would be so cut off from all but the most expensive apps and nobody would like it. I think the linux distros need to take a "whole" approach to their distros. Ubuntu is a start, but it needs the full suite of functions supported well, with books about how to use the programs and online services that are just for ubuntu or at least play very nice.
The other thing I'd add is that while people are "safe" with the current crappy software, it will take something Twice as good, twice as easy, and twice as cheap to break Windows monopoly. It's got to be so much better that the cost (and pain) of switching is better than staying still. Another poster mentioned it needs to be "fashionable" as well, so that "everybody is doing it" applies.
Member since:2006-02-22
Agree with the point about Ecosystem. But to me THE most basic reason as I have stated before is Marketing. Most people are vaguely aware of something called Linux and that's about it. How many sales guys in a computer store will try and sell you a linux box?
Its this that's stopping linux growing.
Member since:
2006-01-23
Most users are very adverse to change. There is one user of a program that I maintain that notices and complains about every adjustment to the UI, even if its for the better.