Linux isn't very popular on the desktop. It's a far third behind OS X, which is a very far second behind Windows. Most people cite pre-installed operating systems as the reason. But as a student of psychology, I see something most people don't. There's one big factor in why Linux isn't popular on the desktop. Linux is free. I know this sounds like complete dog's bollocks, but hear me out before judging my sanity.
We can all remember the story of Tom Sawyer. At one point, Tom had to whitewash a fence. When one of his friends happened along, Tom tried to persuade and bribe the friend to help him. Needless to say, it didn't work.
A few moments later, as Tom was unhappily whitewashing the fence, another friend stumbled along to jeer at Tom's misfortune. This time Tom decided on a cunning plan. He ignored the friend, and seemed very absorbed in the whitewashing. Soon the friend became intrigued, because what could be more interesting than talking to a friend? Shortly thereafter, he started begging Tom to let him whitewash a bit of the fence. Tom wouldn't give in.
The friend offered Tom some of his most valuable possessions if Tom would just let him whitewash a little bit. Tom reluctantly agreed, secretly jumping with joy on the inside. More friends happened along, coming to laugh at Tom for having to whitewash a fence. Tom simply did his act, and they all stayed to help whitewash, and paid for the privilege!
The above story illustrates a basic human nature. We don't value things we can get easily. Yet we'd climb mountains, cross rivers and travel across deserts just to reach something we can't easily get our hands on.
The computer world
The same thing applies in the world of computers. Humans are naturally suspicious of that which comes too easily. Imagine you were promoting an expensive brand of champagne. If you were running around forcing free samples into people's hands, they would be very wary. But if you set up a stand where you would offer small samples for $10 each ("Special promotional price! Normally costs three times as much!"), people would see your champagne as posh and valuable.
It's still the same champagne. Yet your presentation radically changes people's perception of it.
Which brings me to Linux. There's one problem with Linux getting to new users. It's free.
That's right. Linux being free is a problem in reaching new customers.
Why Windows pwnz Linux - an imaginary case study
Let me show you an example where Windows is better than Linux (I don't mean better as in actually better :p).
Ignore for a moment all the crap about Windows being pre-installed and such. Let's say you have a computer-newbie friend, called Compy McNewb, who's just bought a new computer and is getting ready to install an OS.
He's got two computer-savvy friends. You, who urges him to use Linux. And another friend, who urges him to use Windows.
Which one will Compy pick? Let's go through the reasoning.
- Linux is being offered for free. Good.
- He can get a pirated copy of Windows from his friend. Also for free. Good.
- But Windows is sold for over three hundred dollars, while Linux is offered for free.
Here's what Compy McNewb sees. He can get both OS's for free. But one of them is worth over three hundred dollars, while the other one is worth nothing.
"That's not true!" I hear you scream. "Linux is worth a lot! It's just being offered for free!" I know it's not true that Linux is worth less than Windows. It's far more valuable to the end user in terms of getting things done.
But that's not what Average Joe Computer Newbie sees. He sees a free product versus a three-hundred-dollar product he can get free. It's all about the perception!
In the 1970's, a record label in Britain was selling albums containing cover versions of contemporary songs. Although the records sold for less than a pound a copy, hardly anyone bought them and the record company was suffering.
A whizz-kid joined the board and announced he wanted to more than double the price of the records. The other executives were shocked, but eventually agreed to his plan. Within a few weeks, the records were flying off the shelves.
When the records didn't cost much, people didn't value them. The record company was saved by redefining people's perception of their product.
Taking Action
So here I am, wondering how to turn the tables around.
And I've got an idea. In the past, I tried to convert people to Linux (specifically Ubuntu). None of them really stuck. Back then I focused on all those great aspects of Linux. Being purely factual and objective.
But I have since learned people don't act rationally. They act based on irrational emotions - like in the above examples. So here's the question. Could I turn the perception around? What if I presented Linux in a way that makes people drool? Make it look more expensive than Windows, more cool than a Mac, more posh than a ten-million-dollar villa in the Caribbean?
Here's my plan:
I'm going to present Ubuntu as a very expensive posh OS. I'll mention it sells for upward of five hundred dollars in the States. I'll say I managed to get an illegal copy off a Polish guy I know over the internet.
Only THEN will I mention all the positives. Multiple desktops, bullet-proof security, stunning visual effects. Somehow all of it makes sense in the context of a super-expensive elitist OS. I'll see how many people I can convert when advertising Linux this way.
I'll post exactly a week from now, reporting back on how my Linux Preaching v2.0 went. Hi yo, Silver, AWAAAAY!
198 comments:
For some odd reason, your logic makes sense... After all, we all know that more expensive *must* mean more quality! Let us know how that goes!
It would be very interesting to see how this works out.
Please, please post how will it go! Very interesting idea!
Wow awesome idea, I stumbled upon this, and bookmarked it so I can come back in a week to see how it went....
But won't they then ask to have their windows back as soon as they discover you lied about the price?
"OK, it has had no problems so far, but since it's free, it surely can't be any good. I'd rather have my blue screens than who knows what way this thing is going to blow up"
It's the chronically broken multimedia support and the fact that some pages which render properly in IE fail in Linux browsers.
Simple really, once the user hits one of these "unsolvable problems", they harrumph twice and go back to windows.
I use Ubuntu and just learned to live with both.
That all makes sense, perfect sense. BUT Linux is for the beginner much harder to use, to get anywhere you need to actually do stuff and find things on the internet, Windows however you can buy an off the shelf and it installs everything for you. I do think Linux is 100 times better but harder to use as a newcomer.
very impressive, just stumbled upon it and Im bookmarking it to come back after a week to see how it goes.!
certainly, if I'm told "hey you can get a 300$ program for free, or a free program for free" I would say the 300$... it's just more logical...
Sounds cool,and strangely your reasoning seems to make sense.... You cold sell them red hat or some other "pay for support" distro.....anyway,let us know how it went!
Cheers,
maarten
wait... i switched. becasue it was free and better and all the computer gods i know use it...
soooo what gives? am i not human?
we need to change the perception that money, not knowledge is important.
learing linux is learning how to use a computer.
learing windows is learing how to navigate cryptic menus.
nuff said.
"...chronically broken multimedia support and the fact that some pages which render properly in IE fail in Linux browsers.."
wtf are you smoking??????? multimedia is wayyyyy better on linux. after 7.10 anyways, eaisier too. .. way better... way eaisier, Ever download the mega codec pack for windows? shit is hella cryptic!
or did you jsut use vlc?
linux browsers are you reffering to mozilla? being worse that IE??!?
you sir are and idiot.
Instead of assuming I don't act rationally, why not just ask me why I run Windows instead of Linux?
It's already being done...
www.fixedbylinux.com
If people want to pay for it. we're giving them every opportunity. I fear as much as most people would want to disagree with you, our sales numbers bear out your theory.
The Geek Squad modeled their service after ours which I thought was a riot...
We're installing systems as fast as we can answer our phones
helios
oh...and one more thing if I could...
"BUT Linux is for the beginner much harder to use, to get anywhere you need to actually do stuff and find things on the internet,"
I really don't know which "Linux" you are using but the one WE use is being mastered by 12 year olds in less than an hour. Adults, ad 30 minutes for our "Windoze Indoctrination Erase" to kick in.
Linux, as much as many of you want to fail, is the NEXT BIG THING...
People think the live cd technology is wizardry to the nth degree and are stunned by our silly little cube that rotates and serves no real purpose.
If people want to use a system that demands they purchase/use at least two other applications so the one they already purchased (stole) will work, I say let them. Fools will be fools. What I find most silly is that the "protection" they purchase so Windows will work is what eventually slows their computers down to the functionality of a door stop.
My only question is why people are not in jail for this. (it's a rhetorical question...it's a matter of capital punishment. If you have the capital, you don't get punished).
Now go hug a penguin.
h
You'll need to enable all the desktop effects as Ubuntu doesn't usually set it up as standard. I have used an installation of Ubuntu and have installed kde4 and kdm - it works wonders on my laptops ancient Radeon 7500!! :)
oh, it's ok with the psychology !
I'm from a India n people here don't
use high-end h/w, they are neither geeks nor want to leave Windope ( ya that shit has doped peoples minds).
They just get a machine which can do daily works.
So, what are their daily works??
They GOT TO do -
1. Play games ( huhh)
2. watch pirated movies ( divx, avi, dvd and cd contents)
3. listen to mp3 which are obviously not sorted.
4. like jazzy screen-savers, themes 4 UI, wallpapers etc.
5. work on internet n use a little office apps.
THAT'S IT !!
----------------------
So, I target such masses and convince them to use Linux,
1.since they already have VIRUS N WORM infected boxes, of which they are pretty tired ! They like SECURITY feature.
2.Some nice community games can quench their thirst.
3. They like the easy installation wizard ( unlike the DOS of Windope ), the need-less-ness of repetitive formatting ! Also, I tell them, how to install binaries through synaptic, so they need not to download again.
4. Openoffice.org n Firefox rule, u know that !
5. codecs, multimedia apps. make the content playable.
6. Ubuntu or Mint distros are eyecandy already.
-------------------------
After giving this much stuff, DEMOing things, I ask'em " Now, what do you like ? " they answer "Linux"
then I state that " you are getting all this FREE, LICENCED, NON-PIRATED, SECURE "
AND BELIEVE ME, they get astonished n never quit Linux again !
I think this is an interesting experiment but a bad idea.
It's dishonest and it completely misses the most valuable part of GNU/Linux, the other sense of the word free.
The main benefit of GNU/Linux is that it's free as in freedom, not just free as in price. To pretend that you "pirated" completely disvalues that real freedom. Also, it's unnecessary, because you can sell free software (e.g. Red Hat Enterprise Linux).
Software freedom is most fully used by developers, but it also has many positive benefits for users. Why has free software proven to be better over time? "With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow." The open source development method tends to produce better software over time. Why do users have more control and freedom to configure software or switch to other applications? Because the developers value their freedom. With FLOSS, you're much more likely to have a variety of plug-ins available, to be saving your documents in standard file formats, etc.
Anyways. Though you have a point about the stigma of the software being available at no cost, I think that can be overcome with a focus on the other sense of the word free and the community (and companies) that rally around free software, the fact that it's impossible to pirate because you're allowed to share it with your friends. That will get you a lot farther than an experiment in dishonesty and missing the point.
I think this is only part of the issue. This logic may apply more to businesses who run expensive programs like Photoshop and have employees trained in those traditional applications. Part of the home users' problem with Linux may have more to do with the difficulty in supporting PC games. I know I'd swap to Ubuntu in a heartbeat if it ran WoW without needing a degree in programming.
You know that you can sell a copy of it legally.
yeah, this works.
I usually "sell" Linux by saying over and over againt that "Linux is great, it's simple to use, the Beryl 3D desktop graphics is stunning, it's stable, it never crashes, you never have to reinstall it.
But see, you can't have it - you simply don't have enough skill. Not that it's difficult to install or use, anyone can do that. But I don't think you can handle it.
You can't have it, I'm sorry,"
Strangely, this turns them on, and they soooo want to try out Linux. And when they do install it, I never get any complaints about it being to difficult to install or use =)
You don't have to be so elaborate in the sell. You can just point to say Redhat at a starting price of in effect $349 and say it contains or can be configured to use almost all the same technology! And then for Open Office point at however much Star Office costs saying "it's an unbranded version with a few features missing, nothing important for the price!"
The general line of your argument is so true with management in most companies I've ever worked for over 15 years.
Funny, and true - human nature. I'm a Lxer & f/oss advocate. A funny point made by the anti-Lxers is: Linux/f/oss must suck, since it's free and nobody uses it!
I don't buy this theory. Not because it doesn't make sense. It does, a lot of people think that way about things. I don't like it because I don't think it applies here. To the average computer user, all OS's are free. They come with the computers. The reason people don't switch to Linux is because Windows has come with computers for so long, and everyone fears change.
Switching to Linux is actual work while just using what the PC came with doesn't take anything.
Of course this may change as everyone gets frustrated with Vista.e
I agree with Matt the only reason people are so anti linux is because they are partly afraid of it, and they don't like change. This is in some ways similar to the Qwerty vs. Dvorak keyboards. Even though one actually had some thought put into it they choose the other one because they are more used to it.
Did you ever think Linux is unpopular because it's a second rate imitation operating system? Like thousands of people, I've tried Linux and wondered why anyone would want such a complicated, slow operating system when my computer came with the best one on the market.
In response to l!ve who said
"That all makes sense, perfect sense. BUT Linux is for the beginner much harder to use, to get anywhere you need to actually do stuff and find things on the internet, Windows however you can buy an off the shelf and it installs everything for you. I do think Linux is 100 times better but harder to use as a newcomer."
Actually, the more "experienced" users who have been using windows forever have much harder times learning linux than complete computer newbies. They get too set in their ways. Do a test between two completely new computer users and linux would beat winblows pants off!
Also, with windows, 50% of the time you have to install drivers, it doesn't come with full featured office suites, and you have to click start to turn it of LOL!
and in response to anon 18 February 2008 00:14
SLOW!? What are you high on!!!
There are linux distros that can boot faster FROM THE LIVE CD than winblows can from a 7200 RPM HDD!!! Really, you need to stop spreading lies about Linux!
You could bother to make a post which actually provided evidence instead of rhetoric. As a student of psychology you might want to venture into philosophy so that you can actually argue your point without looking like a doofus.
Sounds like an interesting experiment. There's just one thing I'd change - don't specifically tell anyone that your copy of Linux illegal. Go ahead and say that you got a copy from your Polish friend; let them believe that it's an illegal copy. But don't explicitly lie to them about the legality of what they're doing. You don't need to, and it could come back to bite you on the butt later.
Sounds like a good experiment, but like any experiment you need a control group. And take some kind in consideration some kind of normalization. Your results couldnott be validated.
What a great idea.
Actually I've run across thi problem myself.
I've suspected it for some time but didn't want to say anything.
I've seen it in my family's eyes.
My father is very well to do. He has a house filled with expensive, nice things.
So when I mentioned ot him I was working on a project for linux, a free operationg sytem, and encouraged him to use it, I could see the schepticism light up in his eyes right away.
The only way I'be been able to explain the "free" aspect and get it to work is to say it as "scientific" that some people belive computer science is science, and thus, scientific knowledge should be shared.
They seem to understand this.
But if I just say its "free" they completely get turned off.
That's my thoughts.
Sara
Hey, Compy McNewb here.
I actually tried Linux about a week ago. Complete crap. Yeah, the desktops were nice, and.. well nothing else worked. I had to look for a solution to every problem and fix everything myself. That's why I like Windows better.
@James
I'm not sure I agree with your line of reasoning. You're argument would merely make me think Redhat and Star Office are overpriced garbage, not lend credibility to OpenOffice and Ubuntu.
So, in order to get people to switch to Linux, all we need is for the government to have death squads to arrest anyone who is a pirate? Then, they won't be able to steal Windows, and you're saying they will use Linux?
Well, what about the fact that if you try to buy a laptop (which is what most people use these days) that it costs JUST AS MUCH to get it with Linux as with Windows. So, Windows is free too.
I'll tell you why people don't switch. Many people don't switch because Linux can't easily play most commercial video games. The other reason is because they already know how to use Windows, and since Windows is free (effectively), why learn something new?
There is a good reason to learn Linux though, it makes your computer twice as fast because you don't have to have antivirus.
You should charge for the thoughts posted on this blog lest people not value them. ;)
You ignore famliarity as the dominant reason why people choose Windows. 90+% of the people most anyone knows has Windows on at least one of their machines. Most people who use computers at work use Windows. Linux is a stranger to the vast majority of computer owners and users, and the difference in price isn't nearly enough to bridge that chasm.
Very true,
People determine value upon pre-defined values in the going market.
Women are the same way in valuing men, if a man is wanted by other women then the man has a high-social value to them. However, if a man is desperately looking for women they assume the man is worthless or of no value. Thus, they will often go for a taken man (ie proprietary) then a free man (foss). lol
"Dog's bollocks" means "a very good thing". "Bollocks", by itself, is a synonym for "bullshit", which in context, seems more like the expression you were after. eg. downloading free MP3s using P2P is the dog's bollocks, but paying for CDs is just bollocks!
I used to be an extremely vocal supporter of Unix (and Linux) as a student. After 4 years as a software developer I now support Windows. I don't believe Linux is here yet and here are examples of where it fails:
- Try editing a 50 page document in OpenOffice
- The Linux world is chaotic. There are too many ways to do the simplest of things. This is fun for us geeks. Not for others.
- X Windows sucks.
- Linux users tend to be too much like evangelists/hippees. They go on to preach on all those features which most people don't care about. They help alienate Linux.
- Clipboard does not work as well as on Windows.
- Gotchas...like when I hit the maximum file size limit on a 32-bit Linux box.
However its nice to see all those Linux apps being ported to Windows. On my Windows XP machine you can find: Python, Lua, Qt, Eclipse, SciTE, TortoiseSVN, Cygwin, gvim, Abiword, Inkscape, GIMP (briefly), PostgresQL, sqlite, Seamonkey, Firefox...
Atleast now people will really appreciate and use these apps.
We need a central body to manage Linux. If we can have one Firefox (Yes I've heard of songbird, iceweasel, seamonkey...now shut up), why can't we have one Linux. Joe User does not care a hoot about what a 'distro' is. Just get the bloody box to work...and work well.
I'll be waiting.
Finally, Linus Torvalds is NOT God. He is a coder. A good one. But when you folks get all religious about things, Joe User and I are gonna walk away and play Dink Smallwood on a machine running Windows XP, because all those KDE games are rather lame.
know I won't make myself popular here, but nevertheless. I think it has to be said.
I believe that Linux being free has nothing whatsoever to do with its value perception.
Instead I believe that people, and to some extent correctly, still equate Linux with "something for geeks, not end-users" because of the generally:
- poor standard of GUI's on Linux itself and Linux software
- dismissive attitude of Linux users / software developers for a nice polished GUI with all the details taken care of.
There ... I've said it. So flame me.
Ordinary users simply do _not_ want something that forces them to go to the command line for system maintenance. Neither do they want to have to edit configuration files, let alone scripts. It has taken Linux distributions years to come up with something as sophisticated as YAST (for SuSE Linux) and KDE Control center, and especially KDE still doesn't provide a reliable one-stop solution to detect and install my inkjet printer. I have to go to CUPS for that. In a word ... it's less simple than MS Windows (unless you already know what you should be doing because you did it before and kept notes).
I have seen threads with expostulations about how great command line oriented programs are, and I agree ... for some programs that are oriented towards batch processing, for repetitive jobs, and for software that I write myself for my own use. (When I write software for my own personal use, I never write GUIs. Command-line, control files, and file in, file out. If a GUI is needed, someone else can do that.)
But for other people's programs, and for programs I don't use every day I want to be prompted and guided ... by a GUI ... with tooltips and a smoothly functioning and fairly complete Help function. The very last think I want is to be obliged to read a manual and remember commands for some fink of a program before I use it. I believe I have a typical end-user mentality in this respect.
And did I mention that as an end-user I really do _not_ want to see every program sporting its own GUI layout either? I don't care a fig about what some programmer thinks is good way to organise his GUI. I want my GUI to be *standardised* (at least the toolbar) so that it's somewhat familiar as soon as the application starts. Copy-paste should of course be supported, and don't you dare to let it default to any other key combination than C for copy and V for paste, and a print option (if applicable at all) right where I expect it ... under the menu (which has to be the leftmost menu) somewhere 3/4 down the list.). Well ... I might be able to cope with a standard GUI layout under Linux that's different from Windows, but no more than one.
And then the graphics itself ... ouch. I really *hate* GTK-based programs. They look somewhat like the Windows programs I'm used to, but the widgets work differently. I find them clunky. Ugly and clunky. Again, I couldn't care less what some programming community thinks of them. I don't want them. Take the typical GTK file menu for one thing. An abortion! And what's more, I won't have them unless there is no alternative.
As an illustration, take for example AviDemux (see here: http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/ [fixounet.free.fr]). It comes in two flavours: with a GTK+ interface and with a QT4 interface. I tried the GTK+ flavour first and disliked it. The QT4 version on the other hand was acceptable. It didn't irritate.
The good news is that this nicely illustrates the difference between what in the context of "Git" (the version control software) is called: the plumbing (the guts) and the porcelain (the superficial layer that comprises the GUI). A well-designed GUI can be rendered in either GTK+ or QT4, and it should have absolutely no impact on the plumbing.
Anyone who has read so far will probably recognise my low tolerance for anything in a GUI that isn't as I have come to expect it. This is the norm in consumer land. The car industry knows that: try to launch a car that's too "different" and you take a big risk. The snacks industry knows it: try to introduce a soda or a pretzel with a taste that's too radically different and chances are that you won't reach the mainstream.
You can think it's sad, degenerate, or whatever. What matters is that consumers (end-users) have their preferences. You're free to ignore those and try to educate them, but the price will be that your product will have a hard time gaining mainstream acceptance. No matter how good it is. If you want to be mass-market (as Linux should) then you have to cater for mass-market tastes.
That means standardised and familiar GUI's throughout, standardised ways of maintaining the OS and GUI-driven software installers, having the option of letting 99.9% of system maintenance happen "on automatic", and no drivel about the virtues of "commandline interfaces". Until that's in place, I believe that Linux will look in vain for desktop dominance.
The danger I see is that consumers generally do not go out and shout for certain functionality if they have an alternative. But they will silently reject any offering that doesn't give them what they want. And right now the "alternative" is MS Windows. Which is a shame because the current "window of opportunity" with the Vista debacle won't last forever.
All is not lost however, Qt4 for example seems to offer a very good way for cross-platform standardised GUIs that look pretty too. So why not use it throughout?
I'm sorry to say, but Linux sucks on desktop and that is why it hasn't spread. Thinking that it's too good to be true and therefore people don't want it is just plain funny. It has a long, long way to go before I could recommend it to my friends. To be sure: I've been a full-time Linux user for 10 years now, both at work and at home, so one can say I do have some experience with it. :)
True. I used to work at a Pizza shop in town where I live, they would raise the price of a ham and swiss on rye by a dollar and they would sell at least 30 more a week. This was consistent every time they hiked up the prices, watched it happen over and over. People are just way too into "the value of a dollar" that they don't see that there is value in a thing with or without the dollar.
Its basic, supply and demand. you're descibing economics.
I've done this before and it does work. But I felt bad (why! do not know!). So far everyone around me is changing to Linux. What did it do you ask? I displayed it.
Not patronizingly. I don't advertise that I use Linux, but when people turn thier heads to look at this clean, end-user "product" and are curious.
Second, people are switching because of your exact reason, but not such an obvious manner. To them Vista was "free." Of course, it wasn't free, but it was included in the price of the computer, which is as good as free, psychologically.
Two out of three of my roommates use linux now.
Testament to the old adage: "Actions speak louder then words."
Sorry, I think the better experiment is try to live 3 months with each OS and see the one you prefer.
And the answer is: most of the time, it depends on what you do.
If you just want to browse the web watch a few movies and play a few songs. You are alright with any of them.
But start installing anything that's not in a packet manager, upgrading your 3d drivers, try to play to one of the latest game, watch a live streaming movie from a website and you are in for a big sweat under Linux... In the end, windows is easier for most people, that's it.
Well, your post left me with 2 major impressions. 1st, I am happy to see that there is at least one person - I mean you, Vlad, who thinks the same way I do. Yes, I do agree (well, I *know* it) that most of the choices we do are irrational.
Second - it makes me sad to see that people do not see, and do not want to see, what it obvious.
There are lots of reasons why Linux has performed so poorly on the desktop market, but all those reasons boil dow to one - nobody does it right. It's professionals who write the code, etc.; if Linux wants a larger market share, it is professionals who must do it.
I don't think you are going to find any kid today who will fall for the whole whitewashing bit. The world is just a little smarter.
It is true that humans perceive cost is directly related to quality. There isn't any doubt in my mind that this is a hindrance.
As for "Why Windows pwnz Linux"; I have some points that you may wish to consider. Windows doesn't have a price tag; well it does but the consumer never sees it. Hence they see Windows as free. That is one reason why people pirate the software; well the price is another but I digress. So, Windows has no value to the consumer.
As for selling Ubuntu as a posh OS; it won't work. Because people are entrenched in what they know; which is Windows. The will ask; does it run Word, Excel, WMP, etc? If not then your posh OS goes flush down the toilet.
"In the past, I tried to convert people to Linux (specifically Ubuntu). None of them really stuck." Why try and convert people? This isn't the "Inquisition" after all.
Here are a few thoughts and suggestions:
1) Don't convert people to Linux.
2) Price has meaning to most people. However you must get them use to the idea of Free (beer, speech) without the spyware aspect. Yes, it does exist and you might want think about pointing people in that direction. Start with the items that people will use in their day to day activities. Simple applications are a HUGE plus; Web Browsers (Firefox), Emails clients (Thunderbird), pidgin, VLC. Don't forget to explain why these applications are great; as well as what is Open Source. What makes them great; their functionality, no license keys, install it on as many machines as you want. Don't mention it up front.
3) As people grow comfortable with the concept of Open Source they will be more receptive to other OSS applications. Next time someone needs an app; hey, I know of this OSS app that would fit the bill. Sure enough they will try it. This comes from personal experience. Introduction to Open Office and GIMP come next; due to the size and slightly larger learning curve.
I will be blunt: I tried a long time ago to have people try Linux, BSD's with no luck. Now the above illustrates the steps that I have made over time. I have built up trust with various OSS applications and people are willing to try more as their needs grow. To this day I have had created:
1) Several Dozen of Firefox users.
2) Several Dozen of Thunderbird users.
3) Several Dozen Pidgin (GAIM) users.
4) 5 Open Office users.
5) 3 Gimp users.
The number of users listed above doesn't take into account that these users have introduced the same applications to their friends and family. The best sales person isn't the technical one; it is a family member or friend with average abilities. These average users have no trouble selling OSS applications to their friends and families.
Show people Free isn't worthless! Once they are accepting of Open Source Applications; they will be more trusting and will to try more. Who knows; I may one day show people the *nix universe. You would (or not) be surprised on how much people complain about doing maintenance on their PC's or paying someone to fix them all the time.
To sum it up:
1) Start small; introduce simple, FOSS applications that people can use. Build trust.
2) Once trust is built; introduce more complex applications.
4) Who knows... You may have a future Linux user.
You have to get people use to the fact that OSS has benefits.
PS: One of my family members has introduced more people to Firefox, OpenOffice, Thunderbird and the GIMP that I have in the last 8 - 9 years. She has friends, family and small business using the software. Her boss' at work are now interested in OO.o.
Just something to ponder.
If I were you i wouldn't say it is from Polish guy. Maybe German or English? Poland isn't perceived as a source of top quality software... unfortunatelly, for I'm Pole using Linux...
I have to agree with the comments about pricing. I have a friend who only uses Windows, when his AV subscription ran out, I spent some time, an convinced him to use AVG(free). After a few weeks,he went out and BOUGHT a copy of Norton. His reason - "This AVG can't be as good as Norton if they're just giving it away!"
This despite me showing him comparisons of all the major AV products, which showed AVG to be as good, if not a better product than Norton.
As far as 'learning Linux' I do not think it really would take any longer for a beginner to learn, than it would to learn Vista. My mother has had a computer with Vista for nearly a year, and still doesn't know how to use it (apart from 'surfing' the net). Yes Linux sometimes is difficult, but I think most of the difficulties come from Windows users expecting it to work in exactly the same way as Windows.
Take language as an example, I am English, and I expect all other English speaking people to understand me, but if I go to America, and ask for a bag of chips, I won't get potatoes fried in oil (french fries), I'll get crisps! I might have my money in a 'bum bag' Americans would call it a 'fanny pack' in (UK)English, fanny is female genitalia (slang), and bum is your 'ass' not a down and out!
As I say, I think it all comes down to expectations, and experience.
If new pc's were sol without an OS, ad you ad to choose (and pay) at the time of purchase, what would happen - which brings us back to the original post!
I didn't want to make a long unformatted comment so I just did a blogpost http://blog.hopelesscom.de/?p=216
You are right about being free as the problem, but not about the reason.
Because it's free, it generates no income for the developers of Linux. So they can't afford a marketing department, or advertising.
So there are no brains formulating a marketing and advertising plan for Linux. There is no budget for expensive mass-media television and print commercials.
Result?
No sales.
Don't underestimate the power of advertising.
excuse me i tried to install linux and it crashes everytime i try windows doesent crash. Would you please take this argument for once ?
Linux on the desktop is not going to challenge Windows in the near future. Before you flame me, listen to what I have to say.
I used Linux (Red Hat and then Fedora) for two straight years. Before that I used Mandrake in college for a good amount of time. The problems with Linux on the desktop are (as others have also pointed out above):
- It is not user friendly. It is very difficult to configure, and continues to be difficult to do a lot of simple things. I remember when I got a 64 bit system and the first 64 bit version of Fedora, for the life of me I couldn't get flash to work on Firefox. Believe me I tried everything.
- The applications available suck. OpenOffice.org is not a patch on MS Office. I agree that is very very good considering it is free software, but when it comes to critical things like working with large documents, working with lots of tables, lots of images, OpenOffice's word processor just goes haywire. The interface (which is a poor copy of pre 2007 MS Word - yes i know that it's a copy of wordperfect etc., - is left even farther behind by OFfice 2007). I dare the most deluded Linux advocates to tell me that OpenOffice can hold a candle to MS Office 2007.
I believe in the power of open source and I apprecaite the fact that Linux is a free, infinitely configurable, stable, and powerful operating system. I see a great future for it in servers, in Mobile Phones, Set top boxes, and other consumer appliances, but I don't see a future for it on the desktop personal computer.
The point of having a general-purpose computer workstation is to be able to run not only the software you need today, but new software you might need tomorrow.
A lot of people who could switch to Linux today and be happy with it might end up screwed in the future when some Windows-only program appears that they want to run.
The point of having a computer is not fancy desktops or clever operating systems, the point of having a computer is to run software. And if you choose Linux, you're choosing to cripple your software choices.
In any case, I don't see why people always frame this as an either-or proposition. Computers are cheap; get an extra one if you want to try Linux. Or set up a dual-boot system or a virtual machine.
I think you are right. Like a friend told me: "It's not fun to download something that is free"
In addition to a 'price tag', Linux needs one more thing to make it really go 'flying off the shelves' - a big (brand) name associated with it [as in Microsoft(Windows)/Apple(MacOSX)]
Well, it makes a bit of sense...but i think all comes down to applications.
For newbies might work. For existing users im not sure.
WRONG!
You are right, that people are more interested in things they can not get, but human beings also want to be safety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
People are afraid of changes and this is the problem. If you give your friends a computer with ubuntu and let them work on it for one week, they will see that ubuntu can do everything better then microsoft.
E.g. a lot of my friends said: "No I can not buy an apple computer, because there I can not open my word documents." And the mac os is not free.
The people are afraid of something they don't know (like the dark dark forest). If you want your friends to use Linux you have to take their hands an show them that they don't have to be afraid.
Nothing is free. Look at all the "free" Unix/Linux products that are quickly evolving into commerical, for profit, products.
Sure, I'll give you the product, but you must purchase our support (Redhat).
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Some of us have already figured it out. The rest of you are just living a big lie about the word "free".
Lastly, us programmers need to eat too. How long did you think we would do all this work before we needed to get paid?
I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today....
I would really like to know how your experiment went through. If it works we could easily make the falsehood true by selling Ubuntu from our site(www.zyxware.com) for 1000$ :). We have been finding it very hard to promote Ubuntu among our users. Some people start with it and change to Windows. Others wouldn't have anything to do with it because they 'know that it is tough'. It is just a horrible market perception that is floating around because of what Linux used to be - not what it is now. A small percentage use Ubuntu and what is interesting is that these are people who have not used Windows. They continue to use and we provide them basic training to use it. We charge for the training though.
I sell software for a living. I would recommend not to lie about prices. Just refer to Redhat en Novells' Suse distributions that are available at a price.
Ubuntu is also supported in the same way these distro's are, but more successful, because they provide the operating system for free and make money trough their services.
Computer newbies are unexperienced, but not dense. Lying usually doesn't work in your advantage.
Michael
Want to know what the core problem of Linux is?
Geeks, and techie's that are trying to sell something.
I am in the market and let me tell you people think different. This has absolutely nothing to with free and not free. This has to do with ROI and money.
1) People can't make money with Linux. Redhat is a company that after 10 years still pales in comparison to any closed source company.
2) Linux users are cheap skates, and thus does not attract money. I mean why in the heck would I write anything on Linux when the first question is, "do you have a free version." This results in low quality desktop software. I say desktop because on the server there are many heavyweights making money on selling Open Source alongside their services.
To solve the Linux problem there is a REALLY simple solution. BUY Linux software! Look at companies like Redhat and Suse. Corporations BUY something. Until people buy desktop software for Linux, Linux will remain a maybe ran on the desktop.
I will say, that for what my girlfriend needs as far as computer use is concerned for her, she is much "happier" with the Ubuntu I installed on her machine this past October. Her previous roommates had access to her computer and perfectly fucked it up with so many cpu sucking tendrils of death, that I myself couldn't sort it out.
She only slightly scoffs now, when a friend of hers' needs computer help -- meaning she asks me what said friend should do. It's always, ALWAYS because of the ease at which windows allows such utter trash to be installed as though it will not leech from the overall performance of the machine.
Bottom line: her windows partition is essentially unusable. Now that she has ubuntu, she perceives that she can use her computer again. And no, as much as I have explained what was done to her machine by installing linux beside windows, she still doesn't understand. All she knows now, is that it works and doesn't have to call the weird "computer repair guy" anymore.
If you want, You can ask them the real price of the linux kernel before install... 612 millions dollars!!!
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/linux_will_be_w.html
I think besides the perceived value there's another problem and that is that people are afraid of switching and are complacent using Windows. Look at the trouble MS is having people switching over to Vista. It looks completly different than XP.
Macs aren't free and it has about 3 to 5% marketshare which is still peanuts. So if your statement is right why aren't more people buying a Mac? It's not like Mac is an unknown brand and is percieved as worse as windows.
Most people do not like change. Thats why Macs and Linux will never get a major marketshare. Moving to a new system is a pain. It's easier to upgrade to a newer version than to change to something new.
They know how to work with Windows XP or even an older version of Windows.
'I know this sounds like complete dog's bollocks, but hear me out before judging my sanity.'
Whenever I've heard this expression in Britain somebody wanted to imply that something is excellent, the very best!
Clearly the opposite meaning is attached to 'the dog's bollocks' in the US. Just thought I'd mention it.
You do not have to lie.
Just inseted of Ubuntu get a copy of Whitebox Linux and tell them that you have obtained through a torrent a hacker modidied (Wink, Wink ;) ) version of RedHat Enterprise Desktop that costs up to 1000 bucks.
Well, HP-UX costs a bundle. Why isn't it more popular?
Back in the days of "Linux advocacy HOWTO", the reasoniing was more consistant. After 10+ years of warming up to/with Linux, I see this need remaining only for odd supported server. XP is fine system to get things done with less overhead and incompatibility, and OS/X is what I am typing it at in the end. While linux is something, that sits in my routers, but I am not able (nor is there need) to get to the system. Not lying - one always had to put effort of making it fit given new hardware. No good for occasional user.
Amazing Mind, amazingly stupid mind...
I'm offering Ubuntu+Crack for $99. You get Open Office FREE!!! Anyone intrested?
Polish guy
last pont. Linux is not easy.
You don't need to lie about a price. Just inform them the actual price, for there is one. Or, actually, four, ranging from $287.51 (minimum) to $3,716.00. Per year!!!
Only take care to explain it this way:
When you purchase Windows for $300 or so on a store, what you're actually purchasing is support from Microsoft: a phone number where to call when there are problems, optional updates, these things. These features are absent when you use a pirated copy.
With Ubuntu it's the same: if you want support, you must pay Canonical. The base price is roughly the same of Windows, and you get a very similar package of services. If you don't pay, and prefer using the unsupported version, you are on your own.
Then complement by saying that, other than this, the difference between both is that through it's "anti-piracy" campaign Microsoft attempts to force users to pay, even those who aren't interested in support, while Canonical just doesn't care and will itself sell you an unsupported version for a low price if you also don't care for the full package of services. That contrary to Microsoft, Canonical just isn't in the business of forcing users to pay for something they don't want, need, care or will ever use.
Of course, this last bit isn't that accurate, as due to the GPL Canonical really wouldn't have a right to call free users pirates. But if it wished, it could only maintain source repositories open, not binary ones. In any case, we don't need to dwell into this level of detail when talking to newbies. At the generic level, this explanation is as much accurate as one might wish.
The important point, though, is that Ubuntu in fact has a price point, and if you were to purchase it boxed from a store shelve, that's what it would cost. The "free" Ubuntu we can download from an official Canonical web site is just like the "free" Windows we can download from a pirate website, but with one positive side aspect: it isn't actually illegal to use it.
I agree completely and gave a talk on this very matter back in my university days. I found many cases where people believed that free meant in some way defective. Just as a store will pass out free posters or juice when it begins to reach a date of expiration.
In the beginning your windows virus was not easy either.
I concur, this is very, very true... looking forward to seeing how that goes!
(although, will people go back after the deception?)
Linux has huge usability problems. That's why the common people don't use it. It's overcomplicated.
For example, most GUI apps don't provide a useful GUI, instead they provide an interface to send text commands to a commandline app (i.e. KPrinter).
Other apps doesn't have proper documentation. That's the case of MPlayer/MEncoder, which are multimedia apps but surprisingly they use the obsolete text-only manual app "man". So no images, no videos, and thus, no examples.
Other apps lack modern features that the users are demanding (i.e. wget is not suitable to download from rapidshare/megaupload/etc, despiting the fact that these are common de facto standards today).
And yes, Linux is ugly and slow. Even apps running in Wine (or VMWare!) are faster than Linux native apps.
And there is another problem: the Linux people are blind, and instead of improve Linux they use all of their energy to reply comments such this one.
Windows beats Linux on the desktop due to software selection and overall ease of use.
Go into your average store selling computer software, and you have shelves of software that are Windows only. Maybe a few Mac titles or hybrid discs.
Buy a piece of hardware? How likely is it that it'll come with Linux drivers?
The vast majority of the time, any install on Windows is buying/downloading a piece of software and double clicking the installer. You know, without needing to run something in sudo, finding that you also need to dig up some other library file to install. Which in turn needs another library file. Which needs to be compiled, etc.
Even Windows installs tend to be a far cry from the "drag the icon into Applications" complexity of many OS X installs.
Linux is great if everything you need got installed off the bat or is available from a package management system. Anything past that, and it sucks for usability next to Windows.
Most users already equate an OS as being free because it just comes with the computer. I've never seen perceived value as a rationale in not using Linux. Always lack of familiar/desired software and ease of use.
I strongly disagree from your opinion. Linux is not popular because it is designed by nerds for nerd-use-only. The Average Joe Computer Newbie has never been the intended public for Linux. Linux is hard to use because it requires advanced knowledge from the user or the constant presence of the figure of the system manager. So far Microsoft has been very successful in making several OSs that require practically no administration but that can't be tweaked a lot, and the tweaking part is pretty much the only thing that nerds care about.
This is really more aimed at 10ksnooker.
Pages that render in IE but not "Linux" browsers are pages that were broken intentionally for the purpose of working in IE. It isn't just Linux browsers that these pages don't work on, it is any browser that doesn't use a set of proprietary HTML definitions to render.
I think, all people have Windows because there is allways a friend, a cousin, a friend of friend who is a geek and always get managed to solve all Windows shit like Virus, Trojans, Malware, ....
If this geek doesn't wanted to solve all those troubles, most people would change to a more stable OS like Linux.
Bullshit.
I your fucking life only spins around consumerism I'd understand. But we're talking about something that is communitarian, something that has a lot of work behind, that's why it's priceless, it's not expensive, it's priceless.
It is not easy to battle a monopoly...
http://www.spymac.com/details/?2146727
Hi,
I don't know people in your country. But here people love to try the free stuff first. Friends (only male ones) asked me if they can use linux. But they use software which wouldn't work on linux and they don't want to use a dual boot or virtual stuff. I'm going to fix a computer for a female friend and she will get linux on her machine (I don't care if she wants it or not).
Greetings
You're at least part right. For a lot of people the "free" thing is a problem. They see Windows as having value because of the "sticker price" just as you suggest. But actually there is more at work here.
Windows is what **everyone** uses, Compy McNewb wonders why the whole world **chooses** Windows, especially when Linux is "free".
Compy probably worries about support issues - he's seen all the Windows "self-help" books, and the Windows "mags" and knows lots of people who all run Windows.
Related to this, the guy pushing Linux tends to be a little "too clever" - he knows computers "inside out" he doesn't understand most people can only just find the power button. Just because he runs Linux doesn't make it the right choice for Compy.
You also forget - Compy's computer probably came with Windows pre-installed - Linux is something that needs doing (to a system that works).
Computer "stuff" says for Windows on it - nothing says "For Linux".
Really, running Linux looks like a huge hassle. Windows seems easy (and probably, it is). Compy will take some convincing about security risks (and is bound to ask: "Why doesn't Linux catch viruses"). He'll probably not understand why he wants something that's harder to set up, but then doesn't need so much "looking after".
Linux is a hard sell, and not just because it's free. It's hard to convince someone to fix a problem they don't know they have (or indeed understand).