Philoking.com

Man am I tired of hearing and reading it. There are so many different flavors of this story. “2009 is the year of Linux”, “Linux ready to take on Windows” or in today’s ZDNet article: “Why Linux is ready for the desktop today.” It seems obvious to me that this is a classic case of the boy who cried wolf. It doesn’t matter who writes this article these days, it is always received with a snicker and an eye roll.

I have probably said this a hundred times, but the reasons that Linux fails to make progress have very little technical base. Of course there are some technical hurdles that are preventing it, but the main reasons are much more subtle.

The Social Impact of being Free

Now before we get into the debate, and you start flaming me saying free has nothing to do with price, let’s take a reality pill. Free has everything to do with price in the Linux world. I guarantee all things even, all the schools in India, all the low cost net books and all of the PC recyclers would not be considering Ubuntu and the like if they could get Windows free. I will hit this topic a few times in this article, but get a grip, 99% of the world does not care if you can look at source code and redistribute it, they care about what it can do, and how much it costs.

So the real free comes with a stigma. The average Joe customer wonders why he doesn’t see Linux computers in Best Buy, he wonders why they aren’t on the front page of Dell.com, he wonders why nobody he knows uses them. That makes Linux an unknown and the general populous already has a computer phobia, they don’t want unknown, they want warm and comfy.

The last reality, is that to the world at large, Windows is not expensive. I am not sure of the exact numbers, but I would guess that the number of Windows licenses sold outside of a new PC purchase is extremely small. That means that to average Joe computer buyer, they are buying a computer and it comes with Windows on it. They don’t see it as a cost. It’s hard to argue the price of Windows to people who feel like they have never paid for it.

Crippled by Innovation

I will bet that headline got your attention. I am reminded of a quote from Jurassic Park. Dr. Malcolm says “we got so caught up in could, that we forgot about should.” When I look at some of the true innovative things about Linux, from a user perspective, I think of projects like Beryl. The intent, which was good, was to come up with a sexy desktop for Linux. The reality was an awkward spinning 3D cube, windows that burn into flames when you close them and rain drops on your desktop. Really guys? Windows that burst into flames?

I will admit to being caught by the Beryl bug and having a burning desktop myself for a little while, but had that same attention to shine and gloss been applied, with a little more sanity of course, to the desktop in general, perhaps KDE and Gnome would not look like the Big Lots version of Windows.

There is talent in the Linux community for sure. The sad part is they just seem to be so far out of touch with who a real computer user is. I am not a real computer user, if you are reading this, you probably aren’t a real computer user either. The users that have to be conquered to make Linux a reality don’t know what TCP/IP is, they don’t know what brand their CPU is, and they get hives when someone mentions Linux because they know that it was used to hack the planet in Live Free or Die Hard with Bruce Willis.

Hopelessly Herdless

Which brings me to my last point. Joe user is a follower. Joe user finds comfort in the herd. Joe user actually WANTS to be like everyone else. When Joe buys his iPod, he wants to use iTunes. When Joe gets his digital camera, he wants to install the Photoshop Elements that came with it. Joe finds comfort in buying software in a box at Best Buy and he sure likes being able to take it to geek squad when it’s broken. This is where the Linux community breaks down.

For the masses, Linux is unsupportable, incompatible and unknown. I don’t want to say it (even though I am thinking it) but, if you want to beat Windows, you better learn to be a lot more like Windows.

I am being honest when I say that I want Ubuntu and the Linux movement to get it. When I read articles like this one posted on CNET.com this week, I kind of chuckle at first, then reality sets in and I feel sorry for them.

Renai LeMay makes some huge claims in the article. Several of them I don’t have any problem with, such as Ubuntu being snappy and performant, it definitely is. He runs it on a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2GB of Ram, a 7200rpm disk and a GeForce 8800GTS video card. I am sure it runs it fantastically well. But I do have a few beefs. First of all, to mock Steve Jobs repurposing of an old Mark Twain quote, “The reports of Vista’s performance problems have been greatly exaggerated.”

I’ll give you that there were some hardware issues and quirks pre Service Pack 1, but after a little bit to settle, it’s just fine now. I helped a friend upgrade a laptop with a 2Ghz AMD processor, 2GB of ram, 7600 series video and a 5400 rpm hard drive, and it ran Vista and Office 2007 just fine.

So taking performance out of the equation for now, and the unrealistic expectations that you should be able to run a next-gen Operating System, the issue is the quote that it’s just as slick as OS X and Windows 7. Of course Windows 7 and OS X Leopard are locked in their own battle for desktop slickness, but seriously, the drab brown Gnome based UI of Ubuntu looks like a JV attempt at UI design or a Sepia copy of a 10 year old Windows desktop.

I don’t mean to be rude, but this desktop looks exactly like it did when I started playing with Ubuntu over three years ago. Sure, the wallpaper is slightly changed, but if I were to grab a screenshot from my blog, dated September 2007, take a look:

Wow, um, I know you tidied a few things up in the package management and stuff, but where is any evolution of the desktop? I am going to clue the Linux community into the worst kept secret in human history… People like shiny glossy things. My previous post about Operating System color theory was just the beginning. Things have to pop, zing, and shine. People expect transparencies, drop shadows, fade in, fade out, shrink, grow, etc. Ubuntu has none of these things out of the box. Sure, you can tweak it to your heart’s content, but let’s get real, this is about first impressions.

I have seen some fantastic Linux desktops, but I have yet to see one in a default install. Why would Ubuntu be so ignorant to this fact? Let’s look at Ubuntu from versions 4 through 8.

That’s 5 years of development and improvements. Now seriously, from  2004 to 2009 what do you see if you don’t count the different wallpaper?

Let’s just make it clear. Ubuntu is not slick. It looks like what it is, essentially freeware, which has the general reputation of being out of date. It’s stable, usable and a legitimate operating system for sure. But it’s stuck in Windows 95 era design.

I hope the figure it out. Brown isn’t trendy and cool. Spartan retro looking operating systems aren’t going to win over users, and the majority of computer sales are made by a showroom impression. If you were to stick a default Ubuntu desktop beside a new Mac and a Windows Vista or 7 computer, you will quickly understand why Linux is not making progress on the desktop.

My buddy Tac from newcommbiz.com called me out today for losing my OS Agnostic roots and not writing much about Linux lately. Of course blamed my employer for an affiliation switch, and that’s not true, but he is definitely on to something. Most of what I have had to say about Linux lately has come in the form of defending Windows or stating the flaws and problems with Linux. I would be a poor advocate of OS Agnosticism if I didn’t stand up and put my words where my mouth is and explain my stance on Linux, where I think it fits in the world and it’s future.

I am writing this post to the crooning sound of Chris Cornell and Soundgarden’s BadMotorFinger album and I think that is very fitting. Linux has had somewhat of a Seattle Grunge experience of late. Of course every year we hear the “year of Linux” talks, but in 2008 I think there was more truth to that possibility than ever. We all know Linux is not only in, but entrenched in the server market. Linux has had quite a different level of success in the desktop department. It’s used heavily by tinkerers, fanboys, academics and researchers, but has never quite gained any steam with the consumer. All of this was set to change with the arrival of netbooks. It’s not very often that a new class of computers hits the scene and are so wildly successful. I am sure the makers of tablet PCs had anticipated the same type of wildfire, but we know how that went down. So here we have this new format, a wild wild west of sorts, a different way for people to work with an incredibly low price point. Linux was and is a great fit. Yet somehow it has been failing. Vendors speak of 4 to 1 returns on Linux netbooks vs. Windows XP netbooks. How can an operating system that’s so advanced, so secure, and works on just about anything you can attempt to run it on, be beaten by a nearly 10 year old operating system that has been riddled with security holes and stability problems over the years.

I am going to draw a strange analogy here, but bear with me. Imagine it’s 2003, and you are Californian. You need a new governor. There are many options, but only one that you have been watching on TV since you were a kid. Only one who has spit out memorable one-liners like “I’ll be back.” I am sure there are some people out there that will cry out a case for his suitability for the position, but let’s get real. If Arnold Swarzenegger wasn’t Arnold Swarzenegger, he wouldn’t be the Governator either. We know who he is. We have an idea of what he is like. We relate to him. Sadly, that’s what it takes sometimes. People’s trust is a weird and fickle thing, and sometimes it can be bought by something as simple as familiarity.

Beat Down Because of Brown?

When I look at how I use my MSI Wind netbook, it’s a perfect storm for a lightweight Linux footprint. I use Gmail, Flickr, browse the web and that’s about it. There is no legitimate reason that Ubuntu wouldn’t be a perfect fit for me. But I am guilty of the same subconscious prejudices that the Californians that voted for Arnie are. My biggest complaint may seem simple, but think of it on these terms. Ubuntu is brown, it’s very brown. It’s brownness is so substantial that it clouds my judgment and turns what could be familiarity into something alien. Could something as simple as the color of the OS hold the key to my first impression? YES!

I would be interested to take a focus group, say fifty people, and give half of them standard Ubuntu installs, and the other half the same install yet themed and set up to mimic a Windows desktop. Go as far as to give them the familiar rolling hills default wallpaper, move the taskbar back to the bottom, and give KDE a very XP like theme. I am willing to make a very large bet that a significantly larger number of users are happy with the XP-like Ubuntu installations than the poop-stain brown ones that come by default. We are talking a drastic change in first impression based on color alone.

There is a lot of theory based on color preference. If you were to consume some of it, you might be led to the conclusion that brown is a brilliant color for your operating system theme. Research shows that brown represents “stability, reliability and approachability. It’s the color of our earth and it’s associated with all things natural or organic. The color brown effects us physically and mentally referencing concepts like the feeling of wholesomeness, stability, connection with the earth and a sense of orderliness.” Great right?

The problem is that Microsoft and Apple, Linux’s main competitors are coming at the public with angles of sexy, new, fresh, high-tech, fancy, stylish, trendy and fast. Not a single one of those words are associated with brown. Let’s look at some of the other colors that are defaults with Microsoft Windows and OS X.

OS X Leopard is primarily purple. “Purple embodies the balance of red stimulation and blue calm. This dichotomy can cause unrest or uneasiness unless the undertone is clearly defined at which point the purple takes on the characteristics of it’s undertone. A sense of mystic and royal qualities, purple is a color often well liked by very creative or eccentric types and is the favorite color of adolescent girls. Purple is perceived to be uplifting, calming to mind and nerves, offers a sense of spirituality and encourages creativity.” Is it me or did that almost exactly describe the demographic of the Mac user. Is it a coincidence?

Purple is perceived to be uplifting, calming to mind and nerves, offers a sense of spirituality and encourages creativity.” Is it me or did that almost exactly describe the demographic of the Mac user?

As far back as I can remember Windows has used Blues and Greens, primarily blues. “Blue is the overwhelming “favorite color.” Blue is seen as trustworthy, dependable and committed. The color of the sky and the ocean, blue is perceived as a constant in our lives. As the collective color of the spirit, it invokes rest and can cause the body to produce chemicals that are calming; however not all blues are serene and sedate. Electric or brilliant blues become dynamic and dramatic, an engaging color that expresses exhilaration. Some shades or the overuse of blue may come across as cold or uncaring. Blue is the least “gender specific” color, having equal appeal to both men and women. Blue is seen as calming and sedate, cooling and aids intuition.”

What does that say to me? Familiar, comfortable and always been around. Kind of like Windows.

By now I am sure you feel like I have gone off the deep end into drugs-era Steve Jobsism, but there is truth in the nonsense. Feel free to read all about the emotions that color create @ www.squidoo.com/colorexpert, you might find some of the information useful when you are designing your blogs, etc. Color says a lot as any user interface expert will quickly tell you.

Internal Competition

If you were to ask an every day Linux user what OS you should use, it would be a slam-dunk. They would tell you to use Linux for a grab bag of different reasons, some more legitimate than others, but at least you would get one answer. Now take a group of Linux users, and ask them which version of Linux to use. All of the sudden you are wishing you only had to pick between Windows, OS X and Linux. A quick look at the Wikipedia page on Linux distributions shows a non-exhaustive list that even in it’s incompleteness tops 160 without even getting into the madness that is the same distributions that are packaged with different window managers, which can add an even more maddening level of complexity to any compatibility matrix that you could cook up. Let’s imagine for a second that you are looking for a productivity suite, for Windows you would have to juggle one variable. Which version of Windows do you have? For OS X, there are two. What version of OS X are you running and are you on intel or PPC? When you break that same type of searching down for Linux it gets much grayer. Of course any Linux user will tell you that you can just use your included package manager, search for the application you want, and it will drive you the right version. That’s absolutely correct in most cases. But there is one flaw in that logic…

Today I was at a demo of a product I can’t really talk about, but I can talk about some concepts that were discussed. Users are creatures of habit. For example, users are trained that when they want to install an application they either insert a CD with said application on it, or they download the application over the internet and install it. There is something psychologically that triggers distrust when it just does it for you. As illogical as that may be, when you are trying to earn market share, sometimes you have to do things illogically to retain familiarity. Users want to download something and install it.

This is the actual table that you select your version to download from on the openoffice.org website. Windows has one column. OS X has two columns. Linux has 5 columns. Now I am betting that many of you reading this are Linux users and you are saying “duh!” The problem is, random computer user that bought an EeePC from Best Buy with Linux on it, has NO CLUE what version they have. None. This is enough to make some users cut and run without ever having a chance to get to know it.

I work in the software business, I have sat in on usability labs, and I have seen mountains of user feedback. I can tell you that users do not like change. I can also tell you that 90% of the computers on this earth use Windows. By sheer obvious logic, you have to assume that your best best to convert a user, is to make him or her have to think as little as possible about the transition. Change is scary and the more different you make it, the less likely an every day user is to tackle the unknown.

Conclusion

So what do I mean by all of this babble? I mean that Linux needs help. Linux needs to assimilate somewhat. Linux has a platform to be successful on. Mobile devices, internet enabled devices, and netbooks are just the stepping stone that Linux needs to build the familiarity that will be required to make an assault on the desktop market. In more interesting terms, this is warfare. If you look at how modern combat works, your best bet is to move into an area, assimilate with the locals, and break it down from within. Come on Linux, right now you haven’t been trying hard enough. We know there are some super smart geeks doing the coding, show us some savvy and street smarts and do something to win the hearts of John every-man instead of trying to please the fanboys who make up such a small part of the market.

I thought I would end my Linux friend bashing session with one more well placed blog post I hope will give some food for thought. While I have had great fun at my new friend Kevin’s expense and do not in any way harbor ill will or think poorly of him or his opinions, I do disagree with some fundamental things that I think set the stage for the over all Linux community’s struggles.

I have said before I think that Linux fails to communicate with the average user. I started doing a little research tonight to try and define the average user and I came across some very interesting things. First, to qualify what appears to define the average user to a Linux user is very telling about why the operating system is in the state it is in today.

When doing research on what an average user is, they went to census statistics to determine what an average user does with his or her computer. While this is quite valuable information, it does nothing to define the skills of the average user. The findings of the census.gov site indicated that the top 3 reasons for using a computer at home were:

• Internet and Email: 89%
• Word Processing: 55.8%
• Games: 49%

And at work:

• Internet and Email: 75.4%
• Word Processing: 67.8%
• Spreadsheets: 64.4%

The all telling conclusion they drew from this research was “With this information we can conclude that the average computer user utilizes his or her computer to surf the web, email, type documents, game and manipulate spreadsheets.”

Ok, fair enough, we know what they do with their computers, but there is one interesting metric that is missing from this type of data. I know for a fact that I do use my computer for internet and email. So does my mother, father, sisters, wife, son, aunts, cousins, friends, coworkers… yada yada yada. But what I also know is from the mentioned associations I can draw a curve of wildly different skill sets.

There seems to be this “I can do it so obviously it’s simple to everyone else” thinking. This is painfully obvious when I read quotes on forums and blogs like: “Linux is way easier, all you have to do is go to a terminal and type sudo apt-get install programname.” Only problem is I have told someone “Go to the start menu, and right click on My Computer.” and that was too complicated. How can you expect that same person to a) know what a terminal is and b) not be completely intimidated when you tell them to sudo to root level permissions and start cranking away commands in a terminal.

Now if you live in the terminal that makes sense and is super easy. Most people live in houses and use computers like they would a blender. I can’t imagine telling my mother “All you have to do to make a smoothie is open a terminal and type ‘sudo apt-get make smoothie’ and you are done.”

Back to the topic, the conclusion drawn from these assumptions of user skills were:

1. Linux can handle all of these tasks with ease. An Office suite, created by Sun Microsystems, OpenOffice, includes much of the same functionality of the most widely used office suite, Microsoft Office including word processing and spreadsheets. It even retains compatibility of document types of different office suites to include MS Office.
2. Internet and Email can be handled in a variety of ways. One can either use online email (using Firefox for example) or use a dedicated application installed on the machine for the task (Mozilla’s Thunderbird for example). Many browsers exist for surfing to include Firefox and Internet Explorer (IE4Linux).
3. Gaming is possible with the vast availability of free, open-source games built for Linux or by using games made for Windows by utilizing Wine or by using virtualization technology to run Windows from within Linux.

Now I have about a dozen ways to shred these theories, but I want to take the “average Joe user approach.”

Let’s talk about OpenOffice first. In candid terms, OpenOffice retains only some compatibility with older versions of Microsoft Office. It does not support the latest version, 2007, without jumping though hoops to convert documents for compatibility. We have already discussed we are speaking about the lowest common denominator of users, and besides being just plain frustrating and a waste of time, it’s a complicated step to some that doesn’t belong in a regular workflow.

The next hit on OpenOffice and StarOffice is this. When you go to apply for a job, they aren’t ever going to ask you “Are you familiar with OpenOffice applications?” Your kids are not going to be trained on using StarOffice in school. As a matter of fact, why aren’t the major PC vendors jumping at the chance to put StarOffice and OpenOffice on computers at ship time, it’s free and just as good right? No.

On to Internet and Email. You can do webmail, I’ll give you that one. I also will hand you POP3 and IMAP support in the box, good job. But you talk about work users. How can you claim to be work friendly without robust Exchange Server support? We won’t mention the nasty part about SharePoint support, I bet Steve Jobs doesn’t want to talk about that either.

Games…oh boy. This can of worms has no end so I will make it short and sweet. I bet if you search the top 100 games right now there isn’t one single free game on it besides possibly America’s Army. The rest are going to be on consoles or PC. Some of the PC ones might be ported to Mac, but except a few failed experiments with some of the Sim City stuff a few years ago, no major studio…I repeat NO MAJOR STUDIO is producing games for Linux. Why? They are not supportable. The video driver landscape is a total mess and it’s not fiscally possible to try to staff a support team for so many different distributions.

What’s that you say? Who needs support? Real users need support. Real users call tech support. Real users actually call Geek Squad, surely you didn’t think they all worked for the possibility that they might get to bone Mariah Carey on a tech call. They get paid.

Wine and Virtualization are not realistic options for real users. I am pretty smart and getting World of Warcraft to install in Wine was not only a pain in the ass but involved breaking countless licenses and laws in reality to get the required components on for it to even update. Again, if it’s screwed, it’s on you. Nobody at Blizzard is going to help you, you might as well have ripped through a “warranty void if removed” sticker.

The problem is most of the tech savvy, and they are tech savvy, Linux users on the internet do not call tech support, they know how to troubleshoot lots of things and can get themselves through most jams with Google, a few forums and an IRC room or two. That is not in any way a workable support solution for the real world.

There are people who call tech support when the computer locks up. There are people that call tech support when their monitor burns out. There are even people who call tech support when they delete a document, empty the trash then realize they still need it.

So what is the point of all of this? The point of all this is “what is a real user?” I hate to tell you guys, but these are real users:

Do you really think Linux is user friendly to senior citizens, kids and Paris Hilton?

Q: Paris, will you please open a Terminal, sudo to root, and type apt-get install littlepinkdoggie3

A: Wal-Mart… do they like make walls there?

That’s right folks, we are writing software for dumb people too.

On that note, I am going to bed.

It turns out that the GNU Org has some recommendations for people who are releasing software using the GPL or General Public License, these terms and reasons were taken directly from their website. I find these suggestions humorous so I am going to add some comical commentary to this page on the GNU Project or Free Software Foundation’s website (Confusing words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding):

“BSD-style”

The expression “BSD-style license” leads to confusion because it lumps together licenses that have important differences. For instance, the original BSD license with the advertising clause is incompatible with the GNU GPL, but the revised BSD license is compatible with the GPL.

To avoid confusion, it is best to name the specific license in question and avoid the vague term “BSD-style.”

GNU is a brand, please don’t confuse people. Even though we want software to be a free for all love fest, we don’t want people to forget that we run this joint.

“Closed”

Describing non-free software as “closed” clearly refers to the term “open source”. In the free software movement, we want to avoid being confused with the more recent open source movement, so we are careful to avoid usage that would encourage people to lump us in with them. Therefore, we avoid describing non-free software as “closed”. We call it “non-free” or “proprietary”.

Again, don’t forget to say GNU, SELL THE BRAND!

“Commercial”

Please don’t use “commercial” as a synonym for “non-free.” That confuses two entirely different issues.

A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A commercial program can be free or non-free, depending on its license. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can be free or non-free, depending on its license. The two questions, what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its users have, are independent.

In the first decade of the free software movement, free software packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in the 90s, free commercial software started to appear.

Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should encourage it. But people who think that “commercial” means “non-free” will tend to think that the “free commercial” combination is self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let’s be careful not to use the word “commercial” in that way.

Even though we firmly believe that people shouldn’t make money for the software they make, we have a bad reputation for shitty software and want people to think that organizations that make quality software can be lumped in with 90% of the other garbage that gets the GPL.

“Compensation”

To speak of “compensation for authors” in connection with copyright carries the assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the sake of authors and (2) whenever we read something, the author is working for us so we owe him money. The first assumption is simply false, and the second is rather outrageous.

I think we have been clear here, if we allow people to sell their software, then we have to acknowledge that we stole it when we make a direct copy of it and call it our own so we can fight the man.

“Consumer”

The term “consumer”, when used to refer to computer users, carries unfortunate assumptions.

Economic theory uses the terms “producer” and “consumer”. In that context these words are appropriate. But describing the users of software as “consumers” presumes a narrow role for them. It treats them like cattle that passively graze on what others make available to them.

This kind of thinking leads to travesties like the CBDTPA “Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act” which would require copying restriction facilities in every digital device. If all the users do is “consume”, then why should they mind?

The narrow economic vision of users as “consumers” tends to go hand in hand with the idea that published works are “content”.

To describe people who are not limited to passive consumption on their computers, we suggest terms such as “individuals” and “citizens”.

Consumer means you paid for something, we all hate money and want to be able to sit on a beach in a 3rd world country trading shells for food. We prefer the entire world pilfer their computers from the garbage dump, so we make software that runs reliably on that hardware.

» Read the rest of this entry «