![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The trouble with Linux
Nov. 20th, 2003 03:15 pmThe open-source community behind Linux is quite determined to see Linux become the dominant operating system on the desktop, displacing Microsoft Windows, which currently commands a market share upwards of 90%.
They try to convince everyone by emphasizing how much more stable, secure, versatile, and powerful Linux is. They talk about how much they like it, how its code is so much better due to being peer-reviewed by so many programmers, and how much control over the system it offers. On top of all this, it's cheaper (free). In addition, it's not bloated with unnecessary automation and features like MS software is. Sure, there's a bit of a learning curve to figure it all out -- it's quite different from Windows, and takes a bit of work to configure, but it's well worth the effort.
However, they're missing the point. Linux users don't like Microsoft software because it's insufficiently stable, secure, versatile, powerful, or cheap. But that's not what most Microsoft customers complain about.
You know what the most common complaint Microsoft gets is? It's too hard to use; you need to make it easier. I shouldn't have to know about all this stuff, the system should just do it for me.
People want their software to be easier and more automatic. You know what happens when you make software easier and more automatic? It gets less flexible, stable, secure, versatile, powerful, and customizeable, while getting more bloated. Also, you have to do actual market research and studies to make software easier, as well as provide documentation and support and consulting services, and that costs money.
Now, it is possible to make a usable UNIX-kernel OS. Mac OS X demonstrates this. Not coincidentally, Mac OS X costs money. But the open-source community will never produce an operating system like Windows or Mac OS X.
Because they'd hate it. They love Linux for precisely the reasons everyone else doesn't. They're geeks, and what geeks want out of their OS is very different from what your average, everyday computer user wants out of their OS.
They try to convince everyone by emphasizing how much more stable, secure, versatile, and powerful Linux is. They talk about how much they like it, how its code is so much better due to being peer-reviewed by so many programmers, and how much control over the system it offers. On top of all this, it's cheaper (free). In addition, it's not bloated with unnecessary automation and features like MS software is. Sure, there's a bit of a learning curve to figure it all out -- it's quite different from Windows, and takes a bit of work to configure, but it's well worth the effort.
However, they're missing the point. Linux users don't like Microsoft software because it's insufficiently stable, secure, versatile, powerful, or cheap. But that's not what most Microsoft customers complain about.
You know what the most common complaint Microsoft gets is? It's too hard to use; you need to make it easier. I shouldn't have to know about all this stuff, the system should just do it for me.
People want their software to be easier and more automatic. You know what happens when you make software easier and more automatic? It gets less flexible, stable, secure, versatile, powerful, and customizeable, while getting more bloated. Also, you have to do actual market research and studies to make software easier, as well as provide documentation and support and consulting services, and that costs money.
Now, it is possible to make a usable UNIX-kernel OS. Mac OS X demonstrates this. Not coincidentally, Mac OS X costs money. But the open-source community will never produce an operating system like Windows or Mac OS X.
Because they'd hate it. They love Linux for precisely the reasons everyone else doesn't. They're geeks, and what geeks want out of their OS is very different from what your average, everyday computer user wants out of their OS.
