Why haven't Linux-based systems dominated the market?

Question

I've been putting a lot of thought into it lately, and I just can't figure it out... Linux is free, customizable, versatile, simple, and prettier than Windows, yet Windows still holds a huge share of the OS market.

However, their large share is dropping. I attribute this to the iPod craze, and people becoming more familiar with Apple's products. Their OS market share almost tripled this year alone!

But why is Linux stuck with just a 2% or so share? I think it may be the inability to unite under one name, and that makes it a bit confusing for the computer novice to get started with a distro.

I think Linux is poised to spring now. Wal-Mart has started selling Ubuntu-based computers, and Dell is starting to make them. Do you think this will impact Linux's market share drastically?

Perhaps it's Linux's lack of software- and game-developer backing, or maybe the lack of advertising, but I can't figure out why Linux systems have kept such a small market share all this time...

Answer 1

Windows is easier for the first time and novice user. It is that simple.
Try to explain how to install Sun Java or Adobe Flash on Ubuntu or other linux distros to a windows user. You will have your answer.
Now explain why every 6 months you get a major update to Ubuntu that may or not install properly due to some package you installed.
I could go on but I think you have the picture. Ubuntu Linux is getting closer to Windows ease of use but still have a long way to go.

Answer 2

First Linux is an open sourced project designed by hackers for almost everything. It is not designed for a business model at all it was merely designed for fun. The philosophy behind Linux and the GNU project is freedom not a huge corporate system like Microsoft or Google. Linux is not designed to make money it is designed to be customized to be used to develop off of and to learn from not to horde money.

The reason that Windows dominates the market is because Microsoft designs the OS for a business model not to share and develop. Computer companies that build computers such as Dell and HP buy Windows from Microsoft who is reluctant to sell to them so that they can make big money. So Then computer companies are only putting a very easy to use product out for the average person. Remember average people know nothing in comparison to Hackers and Programmers about computers and how they work. They just want something that fits their needs like a car for transportation, Windows is that easy to use.

The reason Linux doesn't unite under one name is again all about the philosophy of GNU: Linus Torvalds leaves a very advanced kernel free of charge out on the internet and different companies take it and build new stuff off it. That is why you have the debian PM, the red hat PM, the portage package manager, the conary package manager, the pacman package manager, and the slackware package manager they are different technologies made by different companies. It is really all about the philosophy.

Linux is also not as easy as Windows has been for us in the past everything can be intimidating when you use a different OS.

Computer systems like Dell I doubt would change it by putting Ubuntu on it unless people were seriously brave enough to try it.

And about Mac is got a business model that is why they are much higher in market share. Linux, FreeBSD and other underground OS's are for those who want to explore not just have an easy cheese working product.

Answer 3

While linux is great for the uber-geek, it's out of there for the casual user. It's one thing to use a machine that's been built by an expert, but it's entirely another thing to get one up and running yourself in many cases. Although most of the installers are plug and play aware, the OS itself still is not so hardware upgrades are a MAJOR pain. And video upgrades can leave an engineer scratching his or her head. (I know, I'm an engineer!)

Linux has a secure home in the data center. We're running a number of back-end apps and databases on it right now. But as a desktop operating system there is still a long way to go.

One of the problems for the neophyte is the lack of quality support from the Linux community. Many boards dedicated to the *nix operating systems are dismissive of newbies and are often downright rude towards them.

Ubuntu is a step in the right direction but it's not a panacea. One significant issue is that none of the browsers that run on Linux are fully compatible with sites that were designed around IE. And Yahoo is one of those sites! If you don't believe me, go hit Yahoo Personals and try to look at someones pics with any browser but IE. It won't work, you'll get a blank frame with nothing in it. And if you have to look something up on Microsoft's site -- even an issue with Services for Unix -- well, you'd better have a dual boot machine!

In the corporate setting, nobody to date has come up with a Linux based client that will connect with Exchange Server or Lotus Notes natively. If all you're using either for is basic e-mail you can get by but if you're using the full feature set including calendaring and resource scheduling you're just plain SOL.

Merely being free isn't enough. If I have a major outage on a Windows network I can call Microsoft and work directly with the best support staff on the planet who will work ceaselessly until the problem is resolved. I've had programmers write hot fixes while I was on the phone and e-mail them to me to solve sticky problems.

If I have the same issue with a Linux system, who the hell am I going to call? Sure, that Windows support call will cost me $290 if I don't have a support contract (I do) but I may have to take several days to locate a Linux guru with the level of expertise needed AND pay him or her several thousand to get me back up and running. Suddenly that "free" OS is anything BUT free! I've been down this road before.

We only implement Linux solutions once our due dilligence efforts convince us that the vendor has the internal expertise needed AND will likely be around in the future if I need support. If they don't convince of that, we'll go elsewhere.

Answer 4

still to hard to install software but it's gotten a lot better. Also since windows has so much of market it's hard to find everything you might need on linux. Most apps even linux apps run on windows. I tried to switch at work but couldn't find workable solutions to all my requirements. It's still growing in the server market but I think unless your are developing a lot of people will go with windows and apple. Apple is very good with the multi media support and linux is still lacking.

Answer 5

Because Linux is still at the stone age my friend. For example try to install a wireless card using linux. It might take you a full day to accomplish that task while with Windows it is a matter of 3 clicks. Linux is based on Unix the first Operation of all. It is OLD. It is damn complicated and most of your crap that you want to do has to be done in a terminal . The future is CLICKING not typing crap on a terminal. Linux will DIE because of its complexity. the same thing happen with C++ in programming ,damn complicated language VERY popular but too complicated , Microsoft decided to invent a user friendly language called C# to replace C++. Linux is cool but typing on a terminal to get your program poping up is NOT the future sorry.

Answer 6

I have had Linspire 5.0 on one of my desktop's harddrive since Feb 07, with no issues at all..WORKS Perfectly from the get go.
Took abt 13 min to install and, when it was finis..It was sitting there on the internet, ready to go..
Actually quite boring, as it's always worked perfectly. Even while dwnloading updates..YOU NEVER HAVE TO RE-BOOT..~Just keep right on doing what you're doing..Love it..AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A LINUX GENIUS to use it..Trust me..
Linspire and Ubuntu have joined forces, should be great as time goes on..Like you said, it's free..CAN I SAY...P***** ON BILL GATES?? LOL

Answer 7

For the novice user, it is still far too complicated. Plain and simple.