What would make Linux mainstream?

At a recent event, there was no shortage of ideasÂ…

By David Becker, 26 April 2004 09:05

NEWS Linux backers foresee desktop gains - optimistic Linux will reach mainstream status, typically defined as 10 per cent market share or better, within the next five years.

To get there, analysts say, developers and businesspeople behind Linux will need to make some changes. The user interfaces used by most Linux distributions are a good place to start, independent analyst Amy Wohl said. Some relatively simple cosmetic changes to make Linux look prettier and more similar to dominant Windows conventions would make a big difference, she said.

"It's an issue of how you package things up and present them," she said. "These are issues that are highly fixable. Let's get them fixed."

Open-source marketers also need to change their focus in some areas, Wohl said. Instead of trying to convert Microsoft customers, think about the much bigger potential markets of people who can't afford Microsoft applications, she said, citing the software giant's Office productivity package as an example.

"The fact of the matter is, there are approximately nine workers available as a target market for every one worker using Microsoft Office," she said. "There's a huge market out there without even touching the Microsoft issue."

Linux could also learn a few tricks from Apple, such as harvesting the education market. "Another historically successful way to build a market is to give your stuff away to schools," said John Muster, author of numerous Unix and Linux books. "Kids get used to using it there, and they keep with it."

Muster also noted Apple's success in establishing itself as the preferred creator of platforms for multimedia content. A similar niche for Linux, in which open source products were seen as more advanced and useful than the proprietary alternatives, would do a world of good, he said. "What that ultimately would be for Linux, I'm not sure, but we ought to be working [toward] it," Muster said.

Businesspeople also need to ditch the aura of ethical superiority that often surrounds discussions of open source software, said Louis Nauges of Microcost, a French IT services and hardware company. Nauges said he has convinced numerous companies to make large-scale desktop migrations based solely on practical considerations such as cost and improved manageability.

"Large enterprises don't care about crusades," he said. "They want people to work more efficiently."

Linux also needs a greater variety of applications. While Linux is covered for important categories such as productivity software, many niche areas remain untouched, giving buyers another reason to stay with Windows, Wohl said.

"When we can really build out the ecosystem, then it will be time to get Linux fully alive for mainstream markets," Wohl said.

And don't count on major software makers to deliver those applications, at least not as long as Linux runs a distant third in desktop market share. Instead of waiting for companies such as Adobe Systems and Intuit to produce Linux versions of popular PC applications, Linux backers need to focus on improving the open source alternatives to those applications, said Daniel Glazman, CEO of open source developer Disruptive Innovations.

"If you really want innovation, you have to have new actors," Glazman said, citing GIMP, an evolving open source alternative to Adobe's dominant Photoshop graphics application. "GIMP is a good example," Glazman said. "It's very competitive with Photoshop in terms of features, but the [user interface] is terribly intimidating." Spruce up GIMP so that it's as usable as Photoshop, Glazman said, and you'll have an application that can help build Linux market share on the desktop.

Among the stickiest of those specialty areas is gaming. While games regularly dominate rankings for the best-selling Windows-based software, they've barely made a dent on Linux. Soaring production costs for top-tier games make it futile to try to convince big game developers to produce Linux titles, said Jay Moore, evangelist for GarageGames, which publishes games and game-creation tools.

Real momentum will have to come from independent developers, who can produce reasonably sophisticated games on slim budgets if given the right tools, Moore said. While open source partisans have a reputation as cheapskates when it comes to actually paying for software, Moore said his company has found Linux users increasingly willing to pony up for well-made games. "Having a business model is no longer a religious faux pas in the Linux market," he said.

Game developers are also learning to see past conventional wisdom that Linux titles are difficult to support, given the spotty record for Linux drivers among some major PC hardware manufacturers.

"We've been pleasantly surprised to find that our support costs are lower for Linux than any other platform we produce for," Moore said. "The Linux users tend to fix things themselves, which helps, and the hardware support has gotten a lot better."

Some factors standing in the way of desktop Linux may be beyond the control open-source developers, however. In countries where software piracy is common, it can be hard to get people to accept open source products when slicker proprietary applications are essentially free and offer the added thrill of defying the law, Nauges said.

"That's a key issue for the Spanish people - they like to do unlicensed copying of software," he said. "If you just give it away, where's the pleasure in that?"

David Becker writes for CNET News.com.

Comments

There are 10 comments. Join the discussion

  1. 1. Andy Jewell

    Where's the news in that?

    The same stuff has been bandied about for nearly a decade - does David Becker think the Linux community has stood still all these years? From his comments (and those he quotes too) it's obvious that he hasn't looked at Mandrake, RedHat or SuSE Linux recently.

    Most importantly, however, he misses the real point completely; it's FREEDOM that we value so much:

    Freedom to choose our desktop;
    Freedom to choose our applications;
    Freedom to learn how the system works;
    Freedom from lock-in;
    Freedom from spyware;
    Freedom from endless crashes, slowdowns and reboots;
    Freedom from bastardised standards;
    Freedom from viruses and worms;
    Freedom from the upgrade cycle;
    Freedom from 'unsupported software versions';
    Freedom from draconian EULA's;
    Freedom from "License Management"

    I could go on, but you get the point: Price doesn't even come into it, because it's all about LIBERTY.

    If you look at any of the latest big distributions, you will find that immediately from install, they offer just-about everything an 'ordinary' office or home user might want: Internet Browsers; E-Mail clients; Word-processors; Spreadsheets; Chat/IRC; Multi-media apps; 'Simple' Games... and it all installs in less time than it takes to just get Windows XP on your PC, and it's actually easier.

  2. 2. window_wax

    I can agree with one thing... The GUI's that I have personally worked with over the last few years, seem sort of bulky in their appearances, and not as "pretty" as a Windows XP user interface. I use Linux and Windows both, because I believe in Linux, but need the convenience of being able to use the common Windows applications. I believe so much in the future of Linux however, that I have worked to group together a team of developers to work on releasing our own distribution. The moral here: Don't complain about Linux unless you are willing to get involved in making it better.

  3. 3. Freddie Montana

    It is speculative at best to argue this point but for what it is worth, her is my two cents wort:
    (1): Streamline Distributions. Put one of each program rather that pack all those programs on a CD. Make it CD1 and make sure it can do the basics: internet, write and network. Stuff on CD2 & CD3 can be added later, if desired.
    (2): How about a common installer, very much like windows. Regardless of what M$ program you install, you see the same thing. You click a few buttons and there is an installation dialog box. Of course, make it graphical with root priviledge.
    (3): How about providing a channel for common people to offer feedback. I have an idea that I would like to talk to the Open Office team but apart from an email address to their site's webmasters, there is no mailing address. I could address a letter to Mr. Bill Gates @ Microsoft, Redmond, WA and he, or his staff would surely get it. The guys at Fedora & Open Office needs to make themselves accessible to the users of their product; maybe they have something valuable to say.
    (4): It is good that companies like IBM and Sun are getting into Open Source but their motive is and always will be profit. That is very appreciative and understandable but it would help a little if I can type IBM.com, or any company involved with Linus for that matter, and go big blue website and look for technical help on linux, very much like M$ website. The first hardware vendor that does this will make money on their product in the open community because people like me will know where official support is.
    Finally, the Open Source community need to understand that people do not really care where their OS comes from. All they care about a flipping a switch and doing their buisness. They will take that opportunity with who-so-ever is going to give it to them whether that be M$ or GNU-Linux. The challenge to the open community is make it more worthwile than the Redmond giant: I believe it can be done!

  4. 4. David Wright

    One of the big advantages of Linux is that it doesn't look like Windows - at least not the Lego-construction-set look of XP. There is a skin for classic Windows, but I prefer Keramic personally, it looks much better.

    I think Linux is almost there. As a server platform, it has obvious advantages over the Microsoft equivalents in many areas.

    The big problem at the moment, in terms of a desktop OS is configurability - it is too flexible in some ways, and much of the configuration still needs to be done by editing text files. For users coming from a Windows environment, that is unacceptable.

    For a big corporate entity with good a good IT department, it is no problem to configure and lock down a desktop environment for their users, and for the technical end-user it provides great flexibility. For the smaller businesses and your average Joe Public, it requires too much technical knowledge to easily configure and secure and installing applications should just be an icon click, they should need to unzip and untar applications into the right directory hierarchy, or in worst case scenarios re-compile it (thankfully getting rarer and rarer, I think I only found one package I needed that wasn't pre-compiled last year).

    The other major stumbling block at the moment is the differences in the distributions. If you get certified as an administrator, it is as an administrator of SuSE or Red Hat etc., not Linux. Until the OS is truly standard between the different distributions, there are going to be problems getting Linux accepted as a standard.

    In my home office, I have a mixed network of SuSE Linux and Windows machines. I use whichever provices the most benefit and whichever has the tools I need for a certain task (although usually it is Windows at the moment because my clients still mainly use Windows on their desktops.)

    In reply to Andy's comments:

    Freedom to choose our desktop;
    Yes, agree, and some of the skins are superior to MS

    Freedom to choose our applications;
    Yes, but so are Windows users, they don't have to use MS apps. And many of the applications are available on both platforms.

    Freedom to learn how the system works;
    To what level? You can manually configure Windows with Registry hacking and there are plenty of Win API guides out there...

    Freedom from lock-in;
    Yes, to a degree. You are still locked in to endless security and bug fixes, but at least you are not forced to pay for upgrades.

    Freedom from spyware;
    Freedom from viruses and worms;
    Only because Linux hasn't reached critical mass. It has a limited and mainly technically aware user base. Throw in a couple of million Windoze users and the landscape will change.

    Freedom from endless crashes, slowdowns and reboots;
    Agree, my Linux firewall only goes down when I am away for prolonged periods of time, and my workstation/server is stable. X-apps can be slow to load (E.g. Mozilla Firefox takes much longer to load under Linux than Windows, but once loaded provides good performance)

    Freedom from bastardised standards;
    Yes and no. If you are having to deal with business partners still locked into MS, then you still need to follow those standards when dealing with them.

    Freedom from the upgrade cycle;
    Freedom from 'unsupported software versions';
    Erm, new Kernel, new KDE, new Samba (among others)? And support for older versions does trail off eventually. Community support is better for older versions than Windows, but there are still users out there with Windows 3.11, Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000, not everybody has upgraded to XP yet; same for Office and development tools...

    Freedom from draconian EULA's;
    Yes, in the main.

    Freedom from "License Management"
    Yes, but for how long? For program licence management, I don't see much of a future with the current model, but if Linux is to become popular, it will have to cope effortlessly with copy-protected streaming and downloaded media as well.

    I think

  5. 5. Hid Sugiura

    I read with interest Andy Jewell's comments regarding his crusade for freedom and his tirade against XP.

    I'm not quite sure who he is aiming those freedom points at.

    "Freedom to choose our desktop
    Freedom to choose our applications
    Freedom to learn how the system works"

    U do realise that 99.9% of people who use PCs don't give a MONKEYS about this kind of thing? And moreover, why should they care? They wanna sit down, work at their PC and go home. They REALLY don't care what OS they are using or how the OS works. Do u work with non-tech people? Do they say to you, oh, I wish I had Linux on this desktop instead of XP???

    "Freedom from endless crashes, slowdowns and reboots"

    What on earth are u doing at your company?!?!?!?! I think you are doing something fundamentally wrong in your IT dept if u suffer like that. I am in charge of 60 or so XP machines here and XP hardly EVER shows those symptoms. Yeah sure, apps like CorelDraw go mad sometimes but XP itself runs fine (this is based PURELY on my own experience btw.)

    "Freedom from 'unsupported software versions'"

    What, u think that once Linux becomes mainstream, you think that the software vendor will support your 10 year old Linux OS for free or something? Naive?

    "and it all installs in less time than it takes to just get Windows XP on your PC, and it's actually easier."

    Hmm, odd.. so the common or garden user goes out, spends £600 on an XP machine. It already has XP pre-installed, IE pre-installed, Word/Spreadsheet pre-installed, Outlook Express pre-installed, WinMedia Player pre-installed. Granted, they may not be best at what they do (that's another matter) but again, your average user really doesn't give a damn! All he wants is to stick a CD in and it just starts playing!

    It's basically to do with this:

    "We've been pleasantly surprised to find that our support costs are lower for Linux than any other platform we produce for," Moore said. "The Linux users tend to fix things themselves.."

    Well, duh? Maybe that's cos Linux users aren't your average PC user. It's like coming up with the brilliant insight that premiership football players can play football a bit better than your average guy in the street.

    The whole Linux/OS thing makes me laugh cos it's a bunch of techies talking about how wonderful *insert OS here* is compared to XP.

    Don't they realise that your average user doesn't care?

    As an IT manager, I really don't want loads of OSes floating around. I don't want one of my home users ringing me up asking, Oh, I've got this problem on Linux... or I've got this problem on OSX.

  6. 6. Keith Williamson

    How did we arrive at this situation where the only serious operating system for desktop systems is Windows? OK, Macs exist, but the last stat I saw on their market penetration had them down to a measly 3%!

    What would make Linux mainstream? Make it like Windows. The average punter doesn't want source code and has no idea how to compile the stuff.

    Linux will never be mainstream until somebody puts it in a box and uses some serious marketing muscle to convince vendors to (at least) put it on their shelves. Open source is a wonderful idea, but mainstream users need everything done for them.

    An aside on applications, Corel Corp did a Linux version of Corel DRAW, and in my my opinion CorelDRAW and Corel PhotoPaint beats the undergarments off their Adobe counterparts.

  7. 7. anonymous

    Linux needs games. If all the top games were on Linux I'd be the first to get it.

  8. 8. anonymous

    So what we want is a Linux copy of Windows then? How can we ever catch up if we're always waiting for Microsoft to set the pace. Anonymous is right, we need games, because to get games we need up to date hardware drivers. Once we can go out and get the latest hardware and set it up without problem then perhaps Linux will be able to prove itself. Ease of use does not necessarily mean aping Windows appalling Teletubbies interface.

  9. 9. Bob Robinson

    Not Like windows! If Linux is to become mainstream it must be inovative. It must loose its image of an OS for geeks. As Amy Whol said it can be fixed. I think Andy shows himself to be a good example of the current users of Linux, competent computer user, Hid Sugiura gets the point, the user does not and should not care about the OS, they care only about using the applications. IT depts in large companies can cope with whatever system if the applications are available but 50% of the users are in small to medium sized businesses and have better things to do with their time.

    My considered opinion is:
    Make the user level standard across the various distributions.
    Make the tools usable by non-IT people.
    Make the product install out of the box for the small business.
    Make user applications available for 90% of them. (nearly there)
    Market the product to SME's.

  10. 10. anonymous

    Windows DRM will be what does it.
    Not because users want to cheat, but because it is becoming just too much trouble not to.
    Windows DRM is more about locking people into Microsoft products than protecting IP.
    If choice is restricted, product becomes poorer, and innovation is stifled.

Post your comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

Log in or create your silicon.com account below

Will not be displayed with your comment

By signing up for this service, you indicate that you agree to our Terms and Conditions and have read and understood our Privacy Policy.

Questions about membership? Find the answers in the Membership FAQ