Imagine, that people completely switched from normal food to pills.
Imagine, the groceries went out of business, and all you have is Walgreens everywhere.
You can't buy normal food anymore, just pills.

Is this, what hinders, at least partially, the popularity of Linux (Linux being in the position of "normal" food)?

What else is there, that contributes to it?

Also, do you think, that many of computer users can be compared to a bird, that lived in captivity for all its' life, and then someone comes (open source), and tries to free it, and of course the bird doesn't know, what to do with this freedom?

I think the reality is much more prosaic:

1. Most schools use Windows (therefore, that's what kids learn to use and will probably continue using for the rest of their lives)
2. Big companies producing top commercial games and software (Photoshop, etc.) don't offer native linux versions.

No, most computer users are consumers pure and simple. Most computer users are satisfied with what they get at their local electronics emporium because they can do everything they want to do.

Linux isn't "popular", whatever that means, because it doesn't have the marketing juggernaut of some other operating systems behind it. It's really not rocket science.

Here's something related: a youtube video by devo85x:
Microsoft Anti-Linux Training
http://youtu.be/IYT6Xczbs0M

You have to understand the inner workings of a tech person and that of a non-tech person. To a non-technical every bit of technology is difficult to think of and master. To them, even windows is too far out to use but they trudge though it.

Linux is still very difficult, time consuming and can't be used for some basic tasks and many complex tasks. Sure you can compute some university tasks or aerospace deals but many high end software is windows only.

Money still drives the world. I think that is fair and I don't mind paying for software, music and movies as I wish to get paid too for my work.

Most persons who use computers think of them as mysterious magickal boxes activated with secret and obscure incantations.

Persons who buy computers come home with a computer running Windows.

Most computer users have never and will never format a drive and install an OS. They think it is a process requiring obscure and occult knowledge.

Until and unless persons who buy computers can easily bring home a computer running Linux, Linux will remain the OS of geeks and specialists.

End of story.

I will illustrate.

First son is an officer in the US Army who does computer stuff in his job; he's been using computers since he was twelve. Several years ago, I was talking with him, telling him a story about installing some Linux distro or other and he said (I'm paraphrasing), "I draw the line at messing with the operating system." He is hardly a typical computer user (typical computer users don't have $26,000 laptops thrust in their hands and get pushed out of airplanes), but his statement illustrates my point.

I do differ with Jefro on this point: I don't think Linux is particularly difficult, certainly not for stuff that day-to-day computer users do, at least not any more. It's certainly no more difficult that Windows for those tasks.

But it is different from what they are used to, and different=scary.

Linux is popular. Go look at Android sells.

As for the desktop, the general public doesn't care about installing a different OS than the one that came on their PC. Hell, they probably don't know other OS'es exist.

The best shot I think Linux had on the desktop was when the Asus EEEPC first came out. I remember it shipped with a custom desktop and was based on Zandros. It wasn't the best interface, and a custom Xfce desktop configured to be windows-like would have suited better as would a more mainstream distro. Anyway, the fact that it was out there and selling well was enough to cause M$ to shit bricks. They extended the life of XP just because of this, and it's well-known they pretty much give XP away to OEM's.

What's funny about Asus is, later netbooks they released came with the slogan, "Runs better with Windows". I wonder how much M$ gave them for that campaign.

I agree.

Not to mention M$ is making a shit load of money off of android devices too. Due to M$ patent trolling.

Well perhaps you can't do much with linux but I can -- and not just basic stuff either.

Second, Pixer uses linux and custom built software that costs hundredths of thousands for digital visual effects used in many box office hits.

Just a correction. I didn't say:I said: "What hinders the popularity of Linux?". In other words: "what are the variables responsible for Linux not being more popular?".

Linux is exactly as popular as it needs to be (in my opinion). Who am I to disagree with someone else's choice (even if that choice is Windows)?

"Jack of all trades, master of none." You can't make a OS that satisfies everybody (think of the Unity desktop). I don't want Linux to be more popular, if that means designing it for people whose computer use is limited to games, videos, and social networking.

1 members found this post helpful.

I think, that is what Linus said in this video:
"Linus Torvalds: Why Linux Is Not Successful On Dektop"
http://youtu.be/ZPUk1yNVeEI
But I also think, that the problem with Linux is that it exists in an opposition to the current economical system. For example the computer games.

IMHO, I wouldn't mind linux being more popular than it is now. The advantages for all of us would be:

- more hardware manufacturers would release drivers for linux.
- There would be more apps that would be native to linux. I personally would need some good course authoring tool like Articulate Storyline or Raptivity. There's none for linux.
- more online services supporting linux. For example, last week I tried Netflix but couldn't get it running. It doesn't officially support linux.

Last but not least, we'd eventually get some proper viruses

Again I think it is a choice. Who am I to say "I insist your company must fully support Linux" if doing so is not in that company's best financial interest? Surely entrepreneurs have the right to develop for the platform of their choice?

It's not about forcing anyone to do anything. Nobody's insisting that Adobe must support the Windows platform in developing Photoshop. They just find it commercially viable because the windows userbase is huge. If eg. 30% of the desktop users worldwide ran linux, I'm sure Adobe would release Photoshop for linux of their own free will.

If linux was more popular, it'd still be up to companies to support linux or not but with our big userbase (hypothetically), the companies would definitely find it (financially) beneficial not to ignore linux.