15 comments

• 

  Dennis Fisher

  10 months ago

  The hardware myth continues to be perceived that way and is still somewhat of a valid problem because NEW hardware will always work with Windows out of the box, whereas although Linux may, for the sake of argument, support every single video card ever created from six months ago on backwards, a video card released since then, bought at the store and brought home may not work at all until some subsequent kernel release, leaving the user with the idea of poor hardware support.
  
  A huge argument in response to this is usually "well they should research the hardware before buying it!" Why? They don't have to when using Windows, and that's what's setting their expectations, typically.
  
  This is improving as hardware makers are becoming more receptive to Linux and ensuring that their devices work in Linux, but is probably a large part of why that myth continues to be propagated.
  reply
• 

  Rishabh Mishra (possible248)

  10 months ago

  Interesting point on the "new hardware" issue. Of course, not all new hardware will work on Microsoft Windows, but you are correct in saying that more newly released hardware will work on Windows compared to Linux.
  reply
• 

  42gems

  10 months ago

  agreed. most hardware companies won't release linux drivers, so new hardware tends to go unsupported under linux for several months before someone manages to knowck together a properly working driver. even intel graphics cards (and intel even releases their own linux drivers) don't have good linux drivers the moment they're released.
  reply
• 

  JohnMc

  10 months ago

  I would emphasize that adoption is not a problem. ASUS will sell 5m units of the eePC most with Linux installed. Motherboards are coming out that can cold boot into mail and a browser using Linux under the hood. The end user is not aware of it but that is what is happening -- even if Windows is whatis loaded on the hard drive.
  reply
• 

  Rishabh Mishra (possible248)

  10 months ago

  Excellent point. Linux is already well onto its way to reaching mainstream desktop users. Also, thanks for pointing out that tidbit involving the motherboards.
  
  Cheers.
  reply
• 

  Jose_X

  10 months ago

  Users don't have to have choices narrowed down. What they need is simplicity in usage. Virtualization, clever multi-boot, and similar approaches offer the potential to try out many distros. Specialty distros should play a very important and large role in the market place of the future. Allowing for many distros to be spun by users is very valuable as well (and should be an attraction to Linux). The main obstacle to this development is that the tools and technology to tie all of that together seamlessly have not yet been developed nearly as much as they could. Standardization will also have to keep advancing. A distro is a presentation. I see a point in time when there will be more unique distros than there will be PCs to host them. How many distros have you made?
  reply
• 

  Rishabh Mishra (possible248)

  10 months ago

  Interesting thoughts, but in the vast majority of cases, it takes more time to test a lot of distros than just to go with one distro. Users also only want to put minimal effort in installing and configuring their operating system. As there is already a lot of work, such as moving files, that need to be done when switching to a new operating system, it is not best for the user to have to do even more work in order to find out which distro is right for him or her.
  
  I agree that specialty distros are important, but I believe mainstream users generally will want a distro with large software repositories, a friendly community to help with issues, and a very user friendly administration interface. Plenty of specialty distros do not have those three things.
  
  Solutions you mentioned, such as virtualization and clever multi-boot are things that would be good for users that are having a problems specific to a certain distribution.
  reply
• 

  Dave Field

  10 months ago

  If could add my 2 pennies worth
  
  Myth1: The issue isn't specifically choice, having 6 Vista versions caused confusion because esentially people couldn't see the differences between what is essentially the same looking thing. With Linux, this is a slightly different ituation, as your getting a lot more choice for your buck. and you are right, some hand holding is required to get the right distro.
  
  However the underlying fact is, Windows doesn't offer you choice, something i don't think the community uses to its advantage. With Windows you get windows, with Linux, you get KDE, Gnome, XCFE etc, there are a multitude of tools to achive the same goal, and as all people work a different way, some will have preferred tools.. how can this be a bad thing?
  
  Myth2: I love this one, people won't use linux because its different.. er Apple? Isn't that different, people use that.. as long as there is a mouse, a web browser, an email client, and an IM, people are in the most happy, hence why these Webbooks are doing so well, its not the OS, its the tools which make the difference.
  
  Myth3, as you pointed out, Novell, Redhat and Sun are HUGE companies. as are Google, amazon, Tivo.. just because you can't see it, doesn't mean its not being used.. people don't actually realise how often they use Linux powered systems..
  
  Myth5: I ask you to install a Logitech Quick cam on windows without an Internet connection or install CD, then on Ubuntu, once you've done that, try an HP PSC.. now tell me that Windows has superior Driver support..
  reply
• 

  Rishabh Mishra (possible248)

  10 months ago

  Excellent response to Myth 1. Some choices can work in the favor of the user, such as choosing Xubuntu or Fluxbuntu for older computers. But there are choices that the user doesn't care about, such as which type of package management system to select. Having multiple package management systems isn't a bad thing, because it allows innovation. But usually, non-technical mainstream users won't feel the need to spend a lot of time thinking about which package management system to use.
  
  In your response to myth 5, you are correct that Windows is more likely to need an Internet connection or driver installation CD for new hardware, due to Linux supporting more hardware out of the box. The problem is hardware manufacturers are more likely to distribute driver install CDs for Windows than release a spec or create a Linux driver. Like another comment author said, this is mostly apparent with the newest hardware on the market that hasn't had the chance to be supported by the community.
  
  Thanks for writing such a detailed comment.
  reply
• 

  Richard Chapman

  10 months ago

  Linux will never succeed like Windows. Linux will succeed like Linux. In my opinion Myth #4 should be recategorized. It's not a myth at all, it's a lie. Nice debunking though, thanks.
  reply
• 

  Rishabh Mishra (possible248)

  10 months ago

  Wise words. Most Linux users don't want Windows-like marketshare because diversity is better for security (although Linux is very secure).
  
  I also know that you were talking about more than just marketshare, and Linux already has had massive success in many areas.
  reply
• 

  Wiggsfly

  4 months ago

  Some very good points. I also believe that Linux is bound to continue to increase it's marketshare in the desktop environment. I doubt it will ever de-throne Mac or Windows, but it will easily become a third mainstream option in the future.
  reply
• 

  Rishabh Mishra (possible248)

  4 months ago

  Thank you.
  
  I think a good portion of the Linux community doesn't want Mac or Windows de-throned, but wants mainstream users to be aware of Free alternatives to proprietary software.
  
  Though, I could see Linux surpassing Mac OS X in marketshare if Apple does not lower the cost of Macs.
  reply
• 

  worldhate

  4 months ago

  These 'myths' had been 'debunked' a millions times already... Same story over and over again for the last 10 years... Same arguments on both sides.
  And what has changed in the mean time? Not much. Has Linux reached the desktop? No, it hasn't. Will it ever? Probably not.
  I like having Linux to mess with, but it seems it just wasn't meant for desktop. Every little thing you want to achieve requires 200 standard actions and a few very esoteric ones, coupled with some deadly pitafalls a new user could never know of... Just google for a tutorial that explains how the same thing is done under Windows and Linux and do the math for yourself. I'm sorry to say, but that's just not the way to reach desktop users.
  reply
• 

  MMike

  1 week ago

  I personally use Ubuntu linux as my choice at home, however my wife does not want to leave windows. While installing the same network printer on both systems, I noticed the windows version took about 10 minutes while the linux version took about 1.5. I also bring documents from home (linux) to work (winblows) and have never had a problem
  reply