OSNews

So what you're saying is that in order for Linux to succeed on the home pc, Microsoft has to produce something worse than Vista? I'd much rather see software succeed, or not, upon its own design and concepts, not because some other company screwed up, and it's the lesser of two evils. I'm not saying Vista was great by any means, but seriously, how many more Linux adoptions did we see? Most of those who either hated Vista or had serious problems with it either stayed with XP or went over to the Mac.

Yeah, I agree completely, thats what I'd like to see too. The point is, thanks to Microsoft's monopoly and business practices, thats NOT whats happening currently. I don't really think you can argue that Window's (Vista especially, but even XP) 'design & concepts' warrant the success (measured in install base) that it sees.

The point is even WITH Microsoft releasing a dud like Vista, its really hard for an operating like Linux, with plenty of technical merits, to make any inroads. This is thanks to the huge momentum Windows has, and Microsoft leverages at every chance they get to keep users unfairly locked in.

If you're only counting direct association "Vista is too heavy --> I'll use Linux" very few did this, it's true.

Now if you think about the EEE PC, you may ask yourself *why* is-it coming with Linux in the first place?
The most likely answer is: Vista is too heavy for this PC and Microsoft is trying to kill XP: so Asus chose to use Linux.. So yes, Vista heavy resource usage, did increase Linux adoption (*).

*: well at least temporarily: as usual Microsoft reacted swiftly to anything which can damage their monopoly so they now say "use XP for low performance computer, it's ok!".

So what you're saying is that in order for Linux to succeed on the home pc, Microsoft has to produce something worse than Vista? I'd much rather see software succeed, or not, upon its own design and concepts, not because some other company screwed up, and it's the lesser of two evils. I'm not saying Vista was great by any means, but seriously, how many more Linux adoptions did we see? Most of those who either hated Vista or had serious problems with it either stayed with XP or went over to the Mac. "

With some users having 15+ years of how they're used to using desktops, there's going to have to be a huge motivating factor to get people to change. It's going to take more than linux to be good for people to forgo their resistance to change. It's going to take a colossal screw-up by Microsoft. Despite peoples frustrations with Vista, it's not exactly like OSX is enjoying even double digit market share at this point.

"I wouldn't count Linux out yet. All it takes is a little help from Microsoft (another Vista-like or worse-than-Vista "success" with their next Windows release)."

To be fair though, all that does is promotes XP.

It doesn't even need another marketing fiasco by MS. Take MS out of the picture entirely if you like even.

All it takes is for companies to continue developing and refining there distributions. The average home user gets Windows or osX preinstalled when they buy a new machine; I see no reason why a preinstalled and preconfigured OS based on the Linux kernel should be different.

The cases where a function is only supported by Windows are becoming very limited. These days it's industrial software (CAD), specialty needs (Gaming) or interaction with existing Windows (Windows only network protocols). The last is probably the most valid need but is not likely to effect many home users unless they run an MS ADS.

Continue to refine the "issues" that people have with a preinstalled Ubuntu, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, Suse and you'll quickly see that home users don't care about branding provided what's in the box does all the bullet points listed outside the box.

The biggest challenge is really a political one in getting people to see a reason to try alternatives or think outside the marketing hype they are already saturated with.