- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Is Linux Really Outgrowing Its Stereotypes? Does It Matter?
My problem with the premise is in the opening paragraph: I'm occasionally asked "why do you bother with Linux?" by people who haven't used it recently under the assumption that it's difficult to use, counter intuitive, geeky, nerdy and any number of other adjectives.I hear that too. People who tried Linux back in the '90s often came to that conclusion and haven't tried it since. Microsoft, Apple, and their supporters certainly do all they can to maintain that stereotype. >P?Having said that, the question I here far more often from non-technical people is "What's Linux?" Outside technical circles a lot of people have never heard of Linux or if they have heard the name it simply didn't register. Think about the recent Apple commercials. You know, the ones that start with "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC". They make the assumption that PCs all run Windows and that Macs all run Mac OS X. So do most people. In the next sentence the article states its goal: However it is my intention to raise awareness that Linux is remarkably usable these days, so on that note let's start looking at how Linux has outgrown that stereotype.The article then details all the wonderful advances in Linux. It's all accurate and spelled out in clear language. There's only one problem: these points all assume you have Linux installed and running or, at the very least, that Linux installation is a no-brainer. The sad fact is that the average Joe or Jane user has never installed an operating system and probably never will. They use what comes on the computer. Changing operating systems is too much work to even consider. Why should they if they think their computer is working just fine for them? They need a reason to want to learn something new and do extra work that they think, rightly or wrongly, is difficult. What's the incentive for them? The article actually mentions a couple of incentives. The first is cost. Well, Windows comes "free" with most PCs. Yes, you and I know that it's close to $100 of the real cost but to most people who buy at their local retail big box store that's an unavoidable cost. You could mention the cost of office software, for example, but OpenOffice is available for Windows too, isn't it? That cost savings has been around for a number of years and most people still use Microsoft Office because it's what they know. If you mention other free applications you are likely to be asked if they are as good as what's available for Windows. Then there's that nasty requirement to learn something new. Is the cost savings worth more than their time and their frustration? Probably not. The article goes on to talk about frequency of updates. Most average users don't know from security and don't want to know. If it's all automated and they don't have to think about it that's fine. Otherwise don't even try to sell on this point. Even fairly sophisticated users think of security as something that doesn't apply to them. I'm reminded of a time when I supported a lab full of highly educated and competent scientists running SGI workstations with the IRIX operating system. When security issues were raised one answer I received was: "We're in the business of science, not security." This was after a major security incident had bit them you know where and cost the scientist who said this many hours of lost productive time. Security was still simply an inconvenience. The article moves on to the desktop, citing the eye candy of Compiz-Fusion and the choices available to Linux users (KDE, GNOME, Xfce, etc...) Most Joe or Jane users think of their computer like an appliance. Choices? Why bother if what they have works? Eye candy? Nice for nerds and kids, I suppose. All 10 points in the article are valid. None of them, nor any other efforts at Linux evangelism over the last decade, have worked when it comes to moving the masses towards Linux in the home and office on the desktop. Look, I'm not critical of the article. It may even convince a handful or people to give Linux a look. It, and articles like it, won't have a major impact. What will win the day for Linux? The only answer is to get it into people's hands in one of two scenarios: The first scenario is where Linux isn't the selling point. It just happens to be the OS used for the computer that fits the needs of Joe or Jane user best. The Asus EeePC is probably the best example of this to date. Hundreds of thousands were sold before a Windows version was even available and many people tried Linux for the first time and liked the experience. I give tremendous credit to both Asus and the folks at Xandros for a beautiful job of Linux integration onto a low cost platform that was and is compelling. Despite the obvious success Best Buy and other retailers are now selling the same EeePC with Windows XP installed because they assume it will sell better and Windows is what people want. Sadly, despite all the evidence that this isn't necessarily true Asus' commitment to Linux isn't sufficient for them to market against the stereotype even when they have a product with a track record of successfully defying conventional wisdom. Some of Asus competitors have fared poorly. The Everex CloudBook has been dropped by WalMart stores and relegated to their website where Linux PCs have been available for a few years now. The Everex product, despite superior specs, doesn't perform as well as the EeePC and didn't get the gee whiz reaction that the Asus product got. I still remember a Wall Street Journal article panning Linux as not ready for the masses after he tried a newly released Dell laptop with Ubuntu installed but, by Dell's own admission, very poorly configured. None of these failures are the fault of Linux. Linux was and is ready for the masses. It just wasn't ready as sold. This is a perpetual problem Linux faces. It's a non-commercial operating system that desperately needs commercial marketing to succeed on the desktop. We've seen successful commercial marketing by Red Hat, IBM, etc.. in the server room so this isn't an impossible scenario. I'm just not sure how Linux distributors can sell hardware vendors and retailers on the concept. Efforts so far have met with some limited success at best. There is a second scenario that I believe offers the best chance at wider Linux desktop adoption. If Joe or Jane user had to use Linux at work, if they truly didn't have a choice, they'd learn it. Once they learned it they would mostly like it. Once they see it as faster or better or easier than Windows for themselves then they will likely bring it home, too. The problem is that it will have to be force fed to them. How will that happen? Linux distributors and hardware manufacturers will have to make a compelling case for Linux on the corporate desktop. They will have to decide that is their next big chance to make many dollars or euros or dinars or shekels. These are the same companies, for the most part, that successfully made the case for Linux in the server room with a great deal of success. Here is a reality many in the Open Source community don't like to face. A partnership with commercial interests must continue to be expanded and exploited, even with companies that truly aren't sold on Open Source in the first place. That is where an article like the one at distro-review might actually be useful. It's another sales tool. Nothing is wrong with the information in the article. It's just targeted at the wrong audience . Preaching to the proverbial choir is nice and gets you lots of pats on the back. It just doesn't produce a lot of tangible results. |
|
|
Comments (5)
Quoting: I think the near future for Linux is in products like the Asus Eee
That, the Everex gbook, there are several others. I also think Linux has a great chance on the high end in part because it makes such efficient use of the hardware. And if you sell Linux preinstalled, you get a huge potential market. You get those people who want that particular distro preinstalled, people who just want a good product (what da heck's an OS??) and those who want something good to install Distribution X on. System76 and ZaReason sell Ubuntu preinstalled, but I wager that a large percentage wipe that off (I would) and put something else on, be it Mandriva, Mepis, Debian, Slackware, SUSE, etc...if you build a system compatible with Linux X, it should work with Linux Y and Linux Z. Hardware on the higher end (nothing from System76 is cheap...affordable, but not cheap) has a larger profit margin and you can make a bundle if you can start selling numbers in the millions. After watching Apple make a bundle on the Mac (yes, and iPod and iPhone also), how could Dell/HP/IBM/Sun/ETC not want a piece of that pie? I just don't get it.....
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
All instances of the word "user" or "users" in this post carry this meaning.
Now the post: The thing I'm trying to understand, is why "linux (as an OS) desktop penetration" matters?
What matters is sales of devices.
If I'm going to market a device to users, such as a laptop, my natural choice of OS to push with it would be linux. I'm a geek and know what I'm doing. I wouldn't want to pay MS a tithe to sell my hardware. That being said, the word "Linux" wouldn't appear in my ad copy. It doesn't have to.
Evangelizing to users about FOSS and trying to get them to install a new operating system is a bit like talking to your rock garden. Sell them a sweet laptop for $200 less than the nearest competitor, which looks as good as and has the same features as a MacBook Air, which quadruples the functionality of the more expensive laptop with Windows, and they get it.
They don't understand or even care why linux is a better OS. You could explain it to them, talk about FOSS philosophy, security, and all that happy stuff, and they might be able to regurgitate what you said to them, but they won't grok it. To understand it, you need to care enough about it to process the info and come to a conclusion.
What most users do understand and care about is a feature rich device that does everything they want it to, which costs less. That's why they buy it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is what really matters is price, utility, aesthetics, and apparent quality. If your device has superior utility, at a better price, people will buy it, especially if it's slick and well built.
The operating system itself is nearly completely irrelevant to most users. They want a pimping laptop, with a slick interface, and lots of software to do things with it. The fact that Apple sells anything at all is proof of this. Look at the iPod, look at the MacBook Air. They are pimping, slick, easy to use, and you can build home movies with them, get your email, stay in touch with friends, surf the internet, or listen to your music.
Most users aren't going to fundamentally change an existing device. Over time it becomes a trusted friend to them.
They use it for 2-5 years and sell or give it away depending on whether it's still working or not. Why should they mess with something they don't understand, void their warranty and possibly end up with a boat anchor?
In a nutshell, Linux, because it isn't owned by a corporate entity, can only enjoy consumer desktop penetration by extension. What I mean by that is there needs to be more devices like the Acer EEE that people find irresistable and less duds like the beigebox linspire pcs.
The only way it can happen is if the whiteboxers, Dells and HPs of the world offer both, the linux is well done, and is cheaper. The embedded guys have got it right.
Therein lies the rub. To get a linux done well, you need to put some time and effort into the build on your hardware. This extra time and effort costs money and requires personnel, that aren't exactly a dime a dozen, to architect and get it right.
This is what's slowing down linux on the desktop. It's got nothing to do with marketing because users don't go out and buy (or download) an OS then install it, they buy laptops, pcs and devices. The OS is "just there", it's not something they want to deal with. That's the job of the device maker, you know to make the device functional?
This is precisely why MS locked all these VAR's and box makers into exclusivity deals. They know the average user doesn't give a rat's ass about windows, linux, or Microsoft. Users will happily accept anything you put on there, as long as it works and does what they need.
I'm not trying to say that users are mindless zombies with no curiosity, but OS's (and installing them) are something that most have no desire or interest to play around with. Most have memories of Uncle Joe (or whoever) reinstalling windows and botching the job. They just don't want to go there unless the system doesn't work.
When this happens, often it's a 5 year old machine which they relegate to a closet, and they get a new one. Whether or not it's running linux doesn't even matter. What does is what can it do for them, how much does it cost, and how bad ass is it?
-Viz