OSNews

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).

I have the same complaint: UAC. Man that is one annoying feature. Otherwise, I could get used to Vista..and I know UAC can be disabled, but I'd prefer it be refined.

I use this free program Tweak-UAC (http://www.tweak-uac.com/) to basically enable or disable UAC on-the-fly. Works GREAT. There are times when I'm working, and I don't want to be disturbed by UAC prompts, but it's nice to be able to turn UAC back on without having to reboot the system. Give it a try. I think you'll like it.

Why in hell has this comment been modded down? It provides useful information for Vista users, and it can't be considered really off-topic since Linus mentioned explicitly Vista and different UIs in the interview.

Can we encourage people to be constructive, whatever their flaming past may be? Whatever helps people in a civil manner can't be bad, let's show civility in this forum.

Rehdon

OK, thanks for the link. Needless to say I don't care for Vista, XP or Microsoft, but it's good to know. It may be very useful when XP is finally EOL'd

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.

Either you must be adding a lot of software to Ubuntu, or changing a lot of system files... or, out and out lying.

There is no way Ubuntu will prompt for the sudo password anywhere near as much as UAC on Vista.

for example.

I set up a friends computer with Ubuntu, installed automatix and updated.

They have been using the machine for four months and have NEVER called asking for the sudo password.

They are a normal Joe and Jolene User family.

On my own Vista, I get prompted by UAC to run a program I downloaded, every single time I try to run it.
I even get prompted for the UAC password when I try to change screen resolution. Retarded.

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.

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

never underestimate the power of "fashion"...

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.

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.

This is a good observation, but I suspect that it is the people who are not very interested in computers, who both have a tendency to run Windows (because it's what they know from the office), and also dislike change.

I am sure that OS enthusiasts who run Windows on their personal systems are interested in seeing new functionality, new features, even something new to look at. When I was a Windows user, I was an early adopter, and while the problems were frustrating as they'd be on any OS, it was worth it for me.

The difference is that every NT based MS OS is probably worse than the previous one. The original excellent design has been ruined by backward compatibility and dumbing down for home users. Apple has only had a decent OS for about 3 years. The Classic OS was absolute junk. The earliest OSX versions were immature so it could only be replaced by something better. Apple also calls the equivalent to each MS service pack or Linux version a new OS and charges for it.

I disagree with that. you have a point, but if you look at the bigger picture, the trends remain the same.

There has been substancial improvements in windows over the years, and the very operating system that is passionately hated when it is new, becomes passionately loved when it is old. The mac attitude goes back to the classic OS, and let me tell you, there was about as much difference between OS8 and OS9 as there was between Windows 2000 and XP. Even though Tiger was perfectly good, there has still been widespread leopard adoption, even with iffy reviews and many user problems.

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.

I agree, but I don't think that was the point that was being made. What was meant, if I read the comment right, was the ability to buy stuff like Photoshop, games, etc. I'm sure no one would object to apt-get Photoshop if Adobe deigned to release a version for Linux (save some trees over the retail package), but the biggest hesitation I have encountered with users fed up with Windows is, "But will I be able to use package X?"

Going on about WINE and Linux equivalents is just not convincing with a lot of the population. WINE to me is a dice throw, and sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. People just aren't into the configuration gymnastics it takes to get some applications running properly. Perhaps virtualization (once it can deal with some beefier video) will improve this situation.

When I began to switch to Linux, I ran Windows side by side, slowly finding equivalents and changing some of my work habits when I finally made the "cut over." Not all people are willing to do that. Personally, I felt like I had nothing to lose but my chains, the sacrifices involved being small in comparison to what I was getting. Not everyone feels so...romantic...about things, however.

What kind of seems a shame to me isn't that the average user doesn't run Linux, but that there are a lot of people who are power users and enthusiasts and really could benefit from switching, but have concluded, in some cases prematurely, that it would be too much of an effort -- that they'd lose too much. I don't include people who have given it a fair try in this, obviously.

These are the users I'm mostly concerned with and would like to win over, to the extent that I am interested at all in being a missionary for an OS.

The fact remains, however, that Linux lacks several things I've not been happy about living without:

(1) Good DVD authoring software. Yes, I have done this by command line and used some scripts, but it's not the same thing. Whereas, many packages are available for Windows. As physical media is dying a slow death anyway, this problem may work itself out.

(2) Good video editing software. Supposedly, Cinelerra can do much of what I want to do but it is horribly unstable on my machine (x86_64), and was on my old machine (i686), which was a whole different architecture. Crashiness is just not tolerable in this kind of application. LIVES for KDE looks promising but it, too, is unstable on my system. Kino, an odd sort of program, *is* fairly stable and does the trick, but its interface is severely limited.

(3) Adobe Photoshop. The GIMP does everything I need it to do for graphics - everything. But convincing the average user of this is a lost cause due to the program's...unconventional...interface. I have no personal need for Photoshop but this is the one people always bring up, and nothing short of a Linux port is going to make people seriously consider switching. It's not even an argument worth having anymore. (Which is a shame because I like the GIMP and can be pretty productive with it for basic web graphics and so on, which is what most people use graphics programs for.)

(4) Games. One of the reasons I had no issues migrating is I'm simply not a gamer. Save the 10 minute break to play bzflag and retrogaming via emulators, I just don't care, but this is a big one with some people.

Lastly, the thing everyone still complains about with Linux is wireless networking on laptops. I haven't had to deal with this as I run all desktops here, but if there was one place that could use a strong focus, it's this because people complain and cuss about it constantly.

As for hardware, it is possible to shop *for* Linux hardware, which is what I do, but then again, I build my own systems like many here, and that is not typical behavior. I think some of the problems with hardware could be ameliorated by having some kind of "works 100% with linux" certification by some kind of standards body, with an attendant stamp that could be placed on hardware boxes. Most of the pages on the net that deal with hardware compatibility are imprecise - a lot of equipment works 80% with Linux, with some functionality missing. This isn't helpful. It would also be nice to have all of this information in one place.

Anyway, there's no easy solution to these problems and gaps - this is a free OS, its biggest strength and its biggest weakness at the same time.

Which is why I don't think Linux is for everyone, though I do feel it is for far more people than currently use it. I'd be more than happy with a diverse OS "ecosystem" (I had to say ecosystem again, I can't get enough of it in this thread. Ecosystem ecosystem ecosystem. Rich, dark, gooey, melty anarchosyndicalist ECOSYSTEM). But in terms of winning people over, I'd like to see more focus on the "low hanging fruit" of computer enthusiasts who run Windows first.

Most of what I just wrote is true for the xBSD communities as well.

Ecosystem. Ecooooooooooooooosystem........Eco...eco...eco...eco... system...system...system...system....ECHOOOOOOSYSTEM

Most apps run just fine with WINE by just associating .exe files with "wine".


I don't think that physical media is dying just like the internet didn't kill newspapers.


First of all, if the "average user" has Photoshop, it's pirated anyway. Adobe won't port software over just to get is pirated. But I think that there's a real market for Photoshop on Linux just as there's a market for Maya on Linux.
Regarding GIMP: GIMP 2.4 saw interface refinements and according to a developer who was interviewed in a CCC podcast, the 2.6 interface will feature an optional single window mode.


Today's top games are released on consoles anyway. Former PC game developers treat consoles at least equal to PCs and release games simultaneously for PC, Xbox 360 and/or PS3. Often console gamers get games earlier than the PC crowd. Even Microsoft -- you know... the developer of Windows -- releases every class A game for Xbox 360 first. PC gamers can be lucky if they get a late port. See Halo or Gears of War. The only PC exclusive MS game released in the last months was Train Simulator.


Nah, not really. At least not users of Intel-based laptops.

Where are the screenshots? Where is the sales clerk? Where is the support line to call if it breaks during install? Where is the package that has everything needed to run the software the user can store on a shelf? Click-N-Run on Lindows is probably the only exception to most of this, but a normal user doesn't want to wade through 80 different burning packages to find the one that is the easiest to use. They don't want to spend time trawling forums or the IRC. K3B is really good and all, but there is as much chance of that ending up on a normal users machine as XCDRoast or something equally as horrible.

Like it or not, apple is pretty much the only one out there with sane package management for end users. Windows is an over-complecated process, but at least they package all nessicary files together.

The linux way of dynamically linking and seperately packaging everything is really kind of dated when it comes to home machines. Static comilation results in faster programs. Static compilation or packaging all dependancies together in your deployment strategy results in package management that is several orders of magnitudes more simple. Sure, you will end up with duplicate libs, but for home users who cares? A few hundred extra k is not the end of the world. I agree that linux shouldn't copy windows, but I don't think they are even remotely near a better solution to package management for home PCs.

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.

Do you have any ideas?

I'm not challenging you. I agree with you that such changes could make the inconveniences compelling and worth it. But just as people keep wanting to ditch the desktop metaphor for GUIs, I haven't seen any practical alternatives. I know that when this *does* happen and someone develops a compelling, productive alternative to the desktop metaphor, we're all going to smack our heads and say, "that is so blindingly obvious, why the hell didn't I think of that?"

And we will be very old and sitting at a bar and boring some young person with the story of, "If only I could have been the guy who thought of that," the same way people say that about the Pet Rock guy.

One thing that is true of Linux is that it has multiple WE/WMs, but most of the screenshots that seem to get linked to are shots of people making their desktops look like...well, let's face it, most of the time, like OS X. One of the cooler things you can do is demonstrate how Linux (or the BSDs) can look like pretty much anything you want them to. Show a prospective user all of the different Windows managers and tell them that they can choose which they like, and if they want to start out with KDE or Gnome because it looks familiar, they can always switch later, or run more than one.

I feel the same sense about desktop GUIs as I do about rock and roll; that the well is dry and it's all about recycling now. I hope to be proven wrong within my lifetime, but as much as I'd like to see the next big thing, I haven't got a clue of what it is.

Mainly because I adapt to machines; I don't expect them to adapt to me. This is atypical and suboptimal, even, if you want to sell computers to the masses, but it's a habit I've adopted, which means I can use and be productive in anything, but also feel no sense of necessity of change, which is, as they say, the mother of invention. So other than irksome "quirks" that unnerve me from time to time, I'm rarely thinking too hard about how computers can evolve to be more useful by people.

Which is why I'm not Steve Jobs and have a mind numbing career and lead a penny-ante life, but hey.

But go ahead and revese my OK/Cancel dialogs. I won't notice. I am sturdy in this way. It has yet to buy me a cup of tea, however.

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.

I fully agree. Most recent mac switchers I know fell for the software solutions Apple provides. Good quality software at fair prices.
They provide solutions for both home and professional use. And they actually do it really well.
And add to that all the excellent third party applications. What more can a user ask for really?

That was Be Incs big mistake in my opinion. They relied on third parties to come up with the solutions when they could have developed them themselves instead.
Had they provided some quality audio and video solutions they would have been heroes.

I don't think that Be ever had the financial resources to employ so many developers to actually build an entire application portfolio.

It may also help to have a fully tested, guaranteed to work set of hardware packages you can buy, which is also one of the reasons Apple succeeds. There are some machines out there now which are known to be 100% Linux compatible because they come *with* Linux installed.

But they always pack some jive-ass turkey distro on these machines. I know I can't be the only one thinking, when I encounter some new cheapo "Linux machine" being sold at Wal-Mart, "Very nice but...ugh, why'd they use THAT distro?" We all have our preferences but I think most people can agree that any of the Distrowatch top 10 are a better choice than what is commonly offered.

What would be nice is an end-to-end Ubuntu solution, laptop and desktop, which Ubuntu could be rigorously tested with, so just like when you buy a Mac with OS X, you know it works, out of the box (this is my impression anyway). Maybe they could even workout a deal to sex-up the machines with a nice Ubuntu tag/logo on it, and make them cool-looking. Yeah, this would be copying Apple but that's hardly ever stopped Linux before.

This would also benefit the rest of us, because enthusiasts know that Linux is Linux, and if Ubuntu can work 100% with something, so can any other Linux distribution.

Anyway...

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.

'Most people are vaguely aware of something called Linux'

Are they? Are they really? Go to a shopping centre near you, go up to someone you don't know and show them the Ubuntu logo. Or just ask them if they know what Ubuntu is. Or what Linux is.

You'll find that hardly anyone is 'aware' of Linux outside of sites like this, and other geeky places.

When I go to the pub and tell people that I work in IT, they usually end up asking me what kind of IT work I do. When I mention Linux, they more often than not have heard of it and sometimes want to know more about it.

Linux is fast gaining 'brand' recognition for people involved in the stock market and bank managers all the way down to home computer systems users. I doubt the Linux adoption wall is in Linux being unheard of.

fair enough, you just re-enforced the point I was trying to make. what i'm saying is Linux is getting more and more coverage in the news but apart from being Somefink to do wiv computers. people don't know much about it.

Most people I know have heard of it but have only a hazy idea of what it is.

Most people only have a hazy idea of what an Operating System is.

Brand recognition in any case, not as high as it could be. I still don't think I'm insane for the idea that a TV spot would do Linux a world of good. A spot which *showed* the desktop - maybe showed several Windows managers and showed that there was a choice, and then throw in the cubey spinny translucent blingy stuff the kids dig nowadays. Generate buzz.

Maybe get Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton and Richard Stallman. Together. Nude in a hot tub. Stallman and Hilton nude will definitely make for water cooler conversations. Maybe slightly stilted, uncomfortable conversation about the meaning of the word "freedom."

Go for the whole angle of money, you know, Linux being free and rich girls liking free stuff so they can hold on to their bling for stuff like ornamental canines.

I like this idea of an uncomfortable conversation between a nude Richard Stallman and Paris Hilton in a soapy hot tub, and then sort of fading out to a black screen as white letters fade in, in silence:

GNU

And then a penguin.

It may not be the Mac 1984 commercial but it will definitely be a WTF moment which will stick in peoples minds. And that's better than "Linux, what, that's like, Lyndon LaRouche and them, right?"

Those who are vaguely aware are the same people who know what UNIX is; a piece of software run on big powerful computers, they assume because they sound they same, they must be alike - hence the question I get asked, "oh, is that the same thing as UNIX?"

People know about Linux, but when they can't get Photoshop Elements for the new gizmo digital camera they bought, or they can't install the latest piece of stationery making software with the easy to use wizards which makes complex layout easy - is there any wonder people aren't moving to Linux?

People want to be able to go, purchase a machine, and then know they can go into any shop around the world and purchase software for it; contra to the BS being spread here, the vast majority still go to shops (shopping is a social experience for most people) and purchase their hardware and software (hence Dell's now presence within retail stores, something they trialed first in NZ (which is the guinea pig market due to our relatively small size and quick adoption of new technology)). They want to know that they can grab a random device off the shelf and know that not only is the hardware supported but there are bundled applications included with the device which makes the device useful. Again, this is where Linux fall flat.

When I moved to Mac OS X - the original move was because I wanted a UNIX operating system with access to mainstream applications like Microosft Office. Here I am in 2008, with my IIRC 4th Mac (MacBook) and what made me stay? iLife and iWorks. Apple is just continuing to expand - their latest offering, Bento, the $50 database for end users.

People here crap on going, "oh, I can do that with this rigged with this, and that glued with that, and blah blah blah" ignoring the fact the end user doesn't care. They don't want to do all that, that is why they purchase software, they push the responsibility for providing what they need on someone else, hence the reason why we have a software industry rather than everyone just sitting around learning how to become programmers and writing their own custom applications.

People here, I think, have lost touch with reality and what end users actually want. They're too concerned with looking down from their ivory towers than accepting that computers to the average user are a means to an end. They want to get in and out as fast as possible. The hours of procrastination which might excite some geeks and boffins on this site might get the heart racing, but for the vast majority of end users, that sort of procrastination is ass paralysingly painful and worthless - they have better things to worry about than doing the job of a software programmer or a systems integrator.

Edited 2008-02-13 20:20 UTC

Lots of people actually heard of something called "Linux". Not so many used it, but they heard of it. It depends, of course, on the age of the persons. A 80yr old granny won't know about Linux, but a 30yr old male from the social middle class will very likely have heard about Linux.

You care to back any of your claims up?



Based on what? Your imagination i guess



And who made that offer?


People like you must be seen as a bigger problem then the guy your replying to.



More of your usual bs and still without anything that actually shows your right.



source for your numbers? And your imagination doesnt count as a source.



Is that so.. Why cant you produce any sources to back your usual claims up then?



You know in the real world your opinion doesnt count as a fact.



But if your supposed to install it on any hardware you want why should you then be careful when you shop for hardware?



Oh you do know the word fact and yet you fail to deliver any to back your claims up.



But if you look at your ealier comment they should be able to install anything they want on their hardware



And how does those years match things in the real world?