Linux is easy to learn, highly capable of fulfilling a typical computer user’s needs, and 100 percent free. So why is it that Linux still has such a miniscule share of the overall desktop market? Maybe its gratis nature has been keeping it down. It seems that when consumers don’t know enough about a product, they judge it by its cost — and “free,” at least on a subconscious level, translates to “not as good.” Free Is Bad? Why? Regards Angy Original Blog Link: http://blog.ephlux.com/index.php/2010/07/linux-doesnt-cost-anything-but-should-it/
Who cares? Linux works just fine for me, there are plenty of developers and their numbers aren't shrinking. Momentum is building, I say let it grow naturally. Maybe we just need less martyrs and zealots trying to ram it down people's throats? I suspect that it isn't the free software that is the problem, it is the free labour salesforce (ie, the wankers who feel it is their responsibility to convert heathens to the "GNU/Linux" and FOSS principles at all costs) that sours people's opinions of it.
Windows is more comercialy focused, most if not all of popular programs run on windows or mac, so commercial support is clearly an advantage. How are people suppost to know about Linux or any of its benefits if they don't have the coomercial support these companies have? This is why Linux is mostly used and known by people with computer knwoledge.
