A little thinking like a troll, and I see a flaw. A troll company could secretly collude with another shell company to have them request a stupid patent - and then start demanding license fees.
"If it was really as great as you say, then 95% of the world would be using it instead of Windows and OSX, but they aren't."
This is so patently false, I have to chip in. Actually, 95% of the world follows the "good enough" principle. In the tech world, people buy the products that most of the friends use. For the very practical reason that they can ask their friends about any problems they encounter. Because of this, the first product to market that doesn't totally suck, quickly achieves a Microsoft level monopoly. You can see this with all successful tech products, not just Microsoft.
So, first to market is far more important than perfection - as long as it doesn't *totally* suck.
The real marketing problem Linux faces is that user friendly Linux is a *very* far cry from first to market. In fact, that 95% considers Linux and Apple alternate versions of "Windows". Windows is the "kleenex" of the OS world. "Free beer" does not do much to displace the incumbent position.
"Freedom" does more - but it is a hard sell, and not many of that 95% understand or need the advantages. Freedom to change support vendors is not something the average consumer cares about - they ask their friends. (That freedom is *very* important to a business, however. Software freedom allows second sourcing.) Freedom to use the source code - that is for those spooky Jedi people. (Again, very important to a business. You can pay someone in house or out to develop a feature you need.)
Ironically, I noticed that 95% is much happier with OEM Linux - where you pay Apple level prices for hardware with Linux preinstalled and configured and supported. (Is this the viable business model you are looking for, Mr. Shuttleworth? Most of those OEM shops install Ubuntu.) They feel like they are driving a sports car instead of a Buick, and they don't have to maintain it themselves.
Linux is a substantial and growing presence in the embedded market as well. People run Linux in their consumer routers. Because of the Freedom, geeks like me can run alternate distros on their consumer router. Businesses can resell such devices with innovative new software features. Like the OLPC inspired "lily pad" wireless networking that extends broadband into the San Diego mountains where no cell phone or cable company goes (sparse population).
In conclusion, I would say that consumers need an OEM solution, whether Windows, Apple, or Linux. Businesses stand to benefit the most from the freedoms Linux offers, especially for mission critical applications.
Authored Comments
A little thinking like a troll, and I see a flaw. A troll company could secretly collude with another shell company to have them request a stupid patent - and then start demanding license fees.
"If it was really as great as you say, then 95% of the world would be using it instead of Windows and OSX, but they aren't."
This is so patently false, I have to chip in. Actually, 95% of the world follows the "good enough" principle. In the tech world, people buy the products that most of the friends use. For the very practical reason that they can ask their friends about any problems they encounter. Because of this, the first product to market that doesn't totally suck, quickly achieves a Microsoft level monopoly. You can see this with all successful tech products, not just Microsoft.
So, first to market is far more important than perfection - as long as it doesn't *totally* suck.
The real marketing problem Linux faces is that user friendly Linux is a *very* far cry from first to market. In fact, that 95% considers Linux and Apple alternate versions of "Windows". Windows is the "kleenex" of the OS world. "Free beer" does not do much to displace the incumbent position.
"Freedom" does more - but it is a hard sell, and not many of that 95% understand or need the advantages. Freedom to change support vendors is not something the average consumer cares about - they ask their friends. (That freedom is *very* important to a business, however. Software freedom allows second sourcing.) Freedom to use the source code - that is for those spooky Jedi people. (Again, very important to a business. You can pay someone in house or out to develop a feature you need.)
Ironically, I noticed that 95% is much happier with OEM Linux - where you pay Apple level prices for hardware with Linux preinstalled and configured and supported. (Is this the viable business model you are looking for, Mr. Shuttleworth? Most of those OEM shops install Ubuntu.) They feel like they are driving a sports car instead of a Buick, and they don't have to maintain it themselves.
Linux is a substantial and growing presence in the embedded market as well. People run Linux in their consumer routers. Because of the Freedom, geeks like me can run alternate distros on their consumer router. Businesses can resell such devices with innovative new software features. Like the OLPC inspired "lily pad" wireless networking that extends broadband into the San Diego mountains where no cell phone or cable company goes (sparse population).
In conclusion, I would say that consumers need an OEM solution, whether Windows, Apple, or Linux. Businesses stand to benefit the most from the freedoms Linux offers, especially for mission critical applications.