You can't be serious. There is ONE reason. JUST one.
It's because you can't walk into a store and see or buy a machine running ANY flavor of Linux.

The year that changes, Linux will do a hockey-stick climb in market share. Until then, it will continue to gain, but slowly.
Unless Windows 7 (or wtf-ever it will be called) is even worse than Vista, in which case Mac will go past 50% marketshare, and Linux will go to about 30%, with windows in third place, where it belongs.

bunch of bull.

You forgot to mention that windows and apple have had a major headstart in the personal computing world. And it is due to that headstart that most of your arguments fall into line. Let's not forget that Microsoft and Apple were niches to begin with as well and then grew into the want/need that they are today. It's only a matter of time (before it catches on...?).

Furthermore, I think Microsoft is interested in creating needs and wants in the consumer (not to say that they're not good and interesting) whereas linux distros tend to mold to the users and the personal whims of developers. I think it's more like: practical quality (linux), mainstream (windows) and elegance of design (apple). They're all in different worlds. Not to say that there isn't any cross over.

But time and again in the technology (especially software) world we've seen new models usurping old models in new ways we never expected. Innovation, after all, occurs faster than light speed. (i.e. Google, iphone, the PC, Gutenberg, etc.)

So as Linux slowly prowls its way forward and gathers steam from new and old users, there's no telling what will happen next.

Thanks for your post.

I had to stop reading after you mentioned Adrian Kingsley-Hughes as an authoritative source. AKH is a known Linux basher. Any valid criticism he might have against Linux gets lost in the swill of his willful ignorance regarding it.

I agree with the assessments. As a matter of fact, I think the number of distributions and the stupid command line arguments are almost a hindrance to Linux.

The distributions boil down to the same linux packaged in different ways. Most Windows users don't want choice, they want what works. They trust few, so my opinion to someone that doesn't know me is not worth much. If they were handed one package that was THE package, you might see adoption begin.

The command line thing - that shows how much geek is still in Linux. When I support a Windows user, and need them to go to a DOS prompt, it is always met with silence and fear. They are typically going - what in the heck is the DOS prompt. MAC OS got rid of the command window long ago. It's just not needed or welcomed by your average user.

But Linux is catching on!
But it's not a revolution, rather an evolution.

Linux users like to boast about the fact that with Linux you can dispense with the GUI and rely on the command line, but these people are a (geeky) minority. What average user is interested in, or capable of, going back to the DOS days?

What's with the command line? When we what to write documents we have to use the keyboard to type words, don't we all? When we what to talk to some friend via irc or messenger we need to use the keyboard (most of times, at least). When we what to write letters we have to use a pen do write words. So why no use the keyboard to talk with the computer?

Lets make a simple test: change the DNS server of your connection using Windows XP (via GUI) and Linux (via console). What is faster?

- On XP you need make a serie of point and click's just to get the DNS dialog box to appear (Network connection, propriaties, select "TCP/IP protocol", select propriaties, .... )

- On Linux (in the console):
kwrite /etc/resolv.conf
(then add/change the DNS ip and you are done)

"The command line is outdated; get over it!"

Duh! The command line is for people who advance beyond being a point and click moron, but that's not the average "consumer."

People pay for bottled water that is more poisonous than their tap water. That's how Windows continues (plus their convicted illegal pre-installed monopoly position).

Choice is good - you keep giving your hard earned money to Rupert and Penelope and their Daddy if you so wish. Idiots.

I like it when Linux fanboiz open their mouth and yup about how much Windows suck, how users suck because they don't want to switch or even try, and how all the vendors suck because they don't want to make Linux compatible hardware or sell/promote Linux. May be it's time to look into the mirror and find the root of the problem there???

It reminds me when my soccer team would lose a game and blame the ref, the other team, the wind for blowing wrong way, the soccer ball for not being round... you get the picture. Instead of just looking at yourselves and ask: may be we just don't play that good. You can do many things better than the other team, and still it is not enough.

Most of those arguments are not the real issue why people stay away from Linux.
The two major reasons I would say are; 1. still many multimedia web pages are not yet viewable in Linux, like some streaming media content requiring Windows Media Player, 2. They cant use their already learned software, it takes time to learn new stuff. Most of people I know who tried Linux and reverted to Windows did it because those to reasons. And then what about games?

Two reasons. First, people are scared of change. Most negative reactions to Linux are due to fear of something different. Your comment about command lines is a perfect example. For many tasks there is simply no better way to accomplish things, but a fear of learning a command (rather than learning what complex sequence of buttons to press to accomplish the equivalent in a GUI) scares people. Second, people need a brand to be loyal to, everyone wants to own a product by a company that when other people see you using it, they think you are "cool". 15 years ago, it used to be Sony but today it is Apple. Without the right logo and the right marketing behind that logo, you simply cannot sell a product to most consumers.

Reason #1: Microsoft and Apple have had a huge head start. Linux will need some time to catch up to the mindset they've instilled.

Reason # 2: Linux doesn't have major ad campaigns. When was the last time you saw a commercial promoting Linux on the home desktop during the Super Bowl? Now, how about Microsoft Windows or the Mac? I thought so...

Reason #3: Most normal, everyday users have never even heard of Linux, or the few that have, have heard the same old misconceptions of it.

Reason #4: You can't go in and buy a name brand Linux computer right off the shelf. This is starting to change with gadgets like the EeePC, but it's a limited Linux and it's not a normal laptop or desktop.

Reason #5: Many people associate quality with price. This is why people pay so much to drive a Mercedes, when every yardstick for measuring quality has it listed as mediocre in reliability. Linux is free, therefore it can't be as good, right?

Reason #6: Too many choices. Where does one start? With Windows or Mac, you have basically one choice. You can have 5 different versions of Vista, but it's still Vista and still looks like it. With Linux, you have tons of distros, and several desktops, and multitudes of software... Where does one start?

As for the command line comment, the Mac was touted to be the death of the command line back in 1984. Now that they use the Unix based Mac OS X, Mac users now have a command line, and they actually use it! Many even like it!!! FWIW, I use PCLinuxOS, and I'll bet you can configure most hardware without ever using a command line at all. I can't tell you the last time I actually opened a terminal session...

I have read a few of the articles written here, and they all sound like good arguments. Especially the one about linux being too geeky for the average user. I first saw alot of the distro's on Youtube.com, and was very impressed by some of the things you could do. But when it comes down to it, if/when you decide convert from windows to linux, are you able to bring your windows files into linux, or will you have to start from scratch? Another good point is that there are not enough vendors so support the software crave. If someone could enlighten me on those subjects, It would definitely push me in the direction of going to complete switch to linux.

I can't believe I've just read this load of outdated tripe.

1. Windows users ARE dissatisfied. Very much so. It's merely fear of having to learn something new that has kept them with Windows for such a long time.

2. Too many distributions/too much choice is a ridiculous reason. Nobody I know has ever been put of Linux because of that. Quite simply, if someone wants to install Linux, they either look at some articles or buy a copy of Linux Format and install whatever's on the coverdisc. There are only a handful of major distributions: Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Fedora, OpenSUSE occupy the main part of the mindset.

3. People who want to know if their hardware will work download a live disc. All the distributions I mentioned above have live discs so they can try it out. Most people starting out with Linux will dual-boot or keep another computer with Windows, so they can migrate slowly. People who look into Linux instantly find out that you can do this sort of thing, so your argument falls down there too.

4. Command-line usage has not been necessary on Linux for a fair while. It is only necessary for compiling software from source and fixing self-inflicted borkage. Compiling from source is not something I recommend newbies to do. But guess what? If you break a Windows system and go to the Microsoft Knowledgebase to find a solution, the Knowledgebase article will immediately tell you to go either to the Registry or type a long command into the DOS prompt!

Back in the days of MS-DOS and early Windows, the Macintosh didn't have a command prompt and the PC had tremendous reliance on it. More people used MS-DOS than the Macintosh. The command-line obviously wasn't a barrier to PC adoption, so what makes you think it would be a barrier to Linux adoption? (even though the myth about Linux needing the CLI is a couple of years old, and is no longer relevent)

5. This argument is like saying "Linux is geeky, because!".

Here's a tip for you: Why not actually try Linux? The above distributions I mentioned have live discs which you can boot from to test out the system before installing. Oh, I forgot. You're too scared to choose one out of 4 major distributions. Well, try them all, numbnuts! They're free!

After reading the article and the feedbacks, I can honestly say that most of the arguments have valid points, but the writer in this case is correct because it's being seen from a users perspective, not us (geeks). This being said sure we love Linux which ever flavor that maybe; I for one do think there are too many but that is my personal opinion.

When it comes down to your average users they just don't want to deal with it, also you have to think about the fact that most users have been drilled with the notion that you need a GUI for your OS. To some degree I agree since I can't say I love the command line, I only use it when it is absolutely necessary other than that point and click is just fine for me, which is exactly my point.

I too was once a Windows user and I made the switch but that is because I have some what of a technical background and the average user does not, still I say this to anyone reading this article dump windows and make the switch is worth it www.ubuntu.com would be a good place to start! Or any other (lost count on distros) that you can think of.

dude... I honestly have to say... your article is whats wrong with people nowadays, honestly who cares about the fact that the CLI is old or people are so use to windows, pfft if they were meant to go there then they went there or will go there... else they wont. BTW as you can see your not very liked by the community... why don't you and your pro-M$ propaganda go play Fuc-tionary with the rest of the M$ users.

The reason why Linux is not "catching on" in the desktop/laptop market, I believe, is because you cannot just walk into a name brand consumer electronics shop like Best Buy and get a Linux-preinstalled computer. Like the buyers of Ford's Model T can have whatever colour of car they want, as long as it's black, buyers of computers can have whatever operating system they want on their computers, as long as it is Microsoft Windows - most that sell MSWin-preinstalled computers don't sell Macs. Even if you turn around and wipe the OS, replacing it with Linux, it still counts as a Windows sale.

Until the day that you can walk into a Best Buy and get either a "naked" computer or a Linux-preinstalled one, there will be no measurable uptake of Linux, because hobbyists overwriting Windows on friends and relatives' computers with Linux cannot be reliably counted.

Oy vey... OK, let's see -

1: "On the grand scale, Microsoft users are not as dissatisfied with Windows as you think"

David, I'm not sure how you can think this. OK, it's still true that a lot of low-tech PC users still does not know about the fact that there are other OS options out there that include Linux and the various BSD flavours. However, with Dell, Lonovo/IBM and HP making all kinds of noises about pre-installed units this is set to change. There are also retailers (see Tesco's in the UK, Wal-mart et al) that are pusing the envelope with Linux preloaded machines. In the latter cases one could argue that they are simply "testing the waters", but even so, it does draw some serious attention. People are now more aware of Linux and Open Source alternatives than ever before, a situation that is really changing rapidly. It doesn't take much Googling/Yahoo'ing/Whatever'ing to see that this is a fact.

2: "There are too many freaking distributions!"

This might be so, but that's your opinion. I say that there still aren't enough freaking distributions, the more the merrier! Heck, there are at least two "distributions" based on the newly Open Sourced Solaris kernel! Is this bad? Hell no! If you want to stay on the beaten path, everybody knows at least about Red Hat, SuSE and now Ubuntu. What's so confusing about it? People weren't confused in the old days of DOS when you had a choice between MS DOS, IBM PC Dos, Novell DOS (and a few others I cannot remember now), and I don't see them being confused now. What does confuse the hell out of people now is the zillion different versions of Vista! Sheesh, what a mess!

3: "People want to know that their hardware and software will work"

This is a true point. Especially if you want to run Vista. Chances are your specialised, ulta-expensive CAD plotter/printer still doesn't work in Vista, and it never will. And then again, chances are a little bit better that somebody have written a CUPS (Common Unix Printing Services) PPD file that can work with it, which enables every Unix-like OS that makes use of CUPS to be able to access that printer. Other things like laptop modems are a bit more obscure, but with things like WiFi and Bluetooth, specifically Linux users are spoilt for choice. Again, if you want to walk the beaten path, get a laptop from Dell, HP, Lenovo or Emperor that comes preloaded with Linux. Same goes for desktops, where you can buy Dell et al. Even Tesco's in the UK sells desktops preloaded with Ubuntu.

4: " The command line is outdated; get over it!"

If this is so, then why is Microsoft (of all companies...) going full-steam ahead back to it? The new Exchange 2007 mail server is almost exclusively c-l based, with the pointy-clicky bits merely being graphical wrappers that runs scripts in the background. Do your research and you'll see that this is so. Also do your research and you'll see that the next generations of Microsoft's Server products will be also almost exclusively c-l based, with graphical installs and desktop being optional items. Hmmm, wonder where they got this from...

5: " Linux is still too geeky for the average user"

Tell that to the kids in Nigeria using the OLPC units, and they'll most probably look at you very strangely. My dad (died last year aged 86) were a happy Ubuntu user, and could help himself with no interference from me. My father-in-law (still alive and going strong aged 68) installed Fedora Core 6 himself, because he got fed up with paying Symantec and still getting infected with malware. I've had to help him a bit here and there, but support calls from him is almost non-existent from when he had to endure Windows.

David, I would say that this article is a bit trollish, don't you think? There are more constructive ways of getting people to comment positively to articles. For one, it's perfectly OK to have an opinion, everybody has at least one. Lastly, base an article on facts, not conjecture and biased sources. You are making yourself look incredibly dumb by writing stuff based on a lack of proper info, especially since we now have Google et al which can enable critics to access facts that pulls your story apart.

Bad show, dude! Hope next one is better.

I am a bit surprised by this article - not very well researched. The comments above cover any arguments I would put forth, but I just wanted to also add that my grandmother runs ubuntu and she's no geek and loves it.

Linux is an OS anyone can use.

There are a lot of satisfied Windows users and programmers, but there are also people who are dissatisfied with Windows who feel that they are stuck with it. Dissatisfaction with an OS does not imply switching away from that OS. Neither does not having switched imply satisfaction. External circumstances often prevent people from moving toward their ideals. Macs may be outside of their financial reach. Linux may not address the problems they perceive in their current OS. They may have invested too much in their current OS to switch.

I appreciate the feedback on this article, and many of the points I'm seeing here are certainly valid. Just a reminder that the points in this article are merely my interpretation of another author's idea, as mentioned at the beginning of the article. Nevertheless, thanks for all the input!

There are 3 reasons that Linux is not much more popular with end users: marketing, marketing and marketing. Linux people are excellent at technical things, but horrible at PR and marketing. Many of them simply don't get it: they just harp on techie details which have no bearing on how people choose a PC. MS/Apple also have $multi-billion budgets. It matters a lot.

It is not a coincidence that the recent rise of Linux on the desktop happened when a slick marketer (Mark Shuttleworth) pushed a nicely branded version of Linux (Ubuntu) and brought the media on board (huge exposure in the mainstream press) as well as coopting Dell for the Linux team.

Despite complaints from the geeks that 'Ubuntu is not the best distro', what Linux needs is the continued de facto dominance of Ubuntu as THE desktop Linux. In 6-12 months, with Ubuntu gaining brand awareness among PC buyers, we may see the start of the hockey stick...

These are all good points. I don't think people are willing to leave something that works for something different that may just work and is cheaper. Why stress. Linux will have to do something far more compelling than just say hey, I have an operating system that works just as good as windows and it is cheaper.

Linux has to have a higher purpose and function than its nemesis. Besides just mimicking the capabilities of windows there has to be away to demonstrate the power of Linux or it will always be just another op system trying to gain market share against windows

I’m not a Microsoft basher at all. It is a good company but we have outgrown the software model that it has put in place along with a lot of the software that they make. Linux has to stop trying to play in Microsoft’s playground and build its own. You may be saying easier said than done. I will get to that later.

Of course you know that Linux is more than just open source, it is a community and the community is looking for leadership with a clear vision to rally around. This is the same for the internet community. The 2 communities are hungry for leadership and a new direction. The richness and diversity of the Linux community is something that could never be matched by Microsoft. The problem of the community is that it has no focus or direction. So the power of the community and its diversity is diminished.

So what is it that the Linux community can do that Microsoft could never do. Because Linux is open it will always be far more powerful than Microsoft could ever dream. Linux has to create its own domain that is predicated on its own strengths and not the strengths of Microsoft. Linux is the only operating system capable of building a more advanced online world of computing. We call it “The Cyber World”. The desktop is old news. By the time Linux gets firmly establish in the desktop it will finally realize that the desktop is no where as important to what is right in front of its face. Pretty much what happened to Microsoft in the browser war. Microsoft fought like hell to be a dominant player in the browser arena only to find out there was no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The Cyber World will change the game. Only then will Linux have something to offer far more important to the public then just another Op System. The Linux community only needs a catalyst and the name of that Catalyst is called V2(webkiller.net) …

I think he hit the nail on the head. I run one xp machine and one ubuntu (Pentium II 300MHz). I have been using computers since 1964, and still know nothing about them. There are a lot of applications in linux, but most have some problems that a non technical person cannot fix. When I was working in IT, my sole job function was to provide information on what the end user wanted and needed in an application. I did not write the programs, but I do know enough to tell you what I want, what I expect from it, and to what degree of simplicity it must have. Now, you can look at linux (any distribution) and be objective if you know someone who cannot sit down and work with a computer installed with the latest and greatest linux OS. My wife will never use linux unless it is simpler than XP. Her computer crashed (XP) and I had to reload it. I loaded open office instead of Office 2007. She still hasn't forgave me because it is different and she can't use it as well as she did Office. Until Linux is as intuitive as XP (due to years of use), she will not change, and I would expect many are in the same boat. For Linux to be accepted, it must have a GUI for everything, well written documentation, some kind of help desk capability, and come pre-installed on the computer. Mostly, there will have to be an effort to educate the general populace that it is there and easy to use. Look at the advertising that Apple is doing on the television. Without this kind of exposure, linux is for geeks.

When Linux comes pre-installed, it sells; look at the Asus EEE or the gOS box that Wal-Mart(?) sold; both sold out pretty damned quick. Dell are reporting good figures from their Ubuntu sales, too. Rather than saying most users aren't dissatisfied with Windows, I'd say most users don't care what OS they use; they want a computer, internet, office tools. Platform is mostly irrelevant.

How many of you are actually an IT Manager, Network or Systems Administrator who have worked at both the desktop and Server level?

How many of you actually think that there is a viable alternative to Active Directory, Windows Domains, Exchange and Outlook?

How many of you have found a suitable replacement for DFS?

How many of you have ever thought about the fact that Windows must work on nearly every platform built and must be compatible with nearly any piece of hardware made in the last eight years?

How many of you have ever considered that you can take the same OS on almost any x86 (and newer) system and load it up and use it from home to the office to a laptop and even beyond?

Mac is stuck on proprietary hardware so you must pay more and you will have fewer options as a consumer (both home users and corporate users are stuck with what Apple permits in their closed architecture business model).

Linux is stuck on being compatible with vintage hardware for those on the cheap or with low funds. Linux becomes bloated as it tries to grow, and grow it does with hundreds of distros that REQUIRE command line programming. Yeah, you want your mom and dad to use Linux command line? LOL.

So it seems that those that think that the author of this article is off are just seeing the story from their own limited perspective. The fact is Linux is FREE and still I choose to use Windows because from the desktop at home to the server room environment I have a common and easy to use platform and interface. Between XP and 2003 I can do absolutely anything I want or need at home or in the office.

For all the rips and snorts against MS, they provide the most universally compatible and useful OS and array of developer tools out there. From the corporate angle MS NOS's are absolutely top shelf. I would compare MS SQL to MySQL or any of the freebies any day of the week. There is a very good reason that companies buy MS SQL, it is simply the most reliable option for the dollar out there.

Have fun with your limited and narrow minded perspective but it is the lack of acceptance of the truths that were pointed out here as well as others that will keep Linux forever in the dark, where it belongs as far as I am concerned.

Good Luck Linux Fanboys.