Linux is Not Windows

1. The milestone-release system in most big distros. For Ubuntu, the biggest and supposedly most user-friendly distro, I'm expected to upgrade every 6 months. One could argue that if your system is working OK, then you can stick with one release forever--imagine still using 8.04 in 2011. But what if I want Firefox 4, or a new version of a single program? In Windows, you just go to the website and install, or sometimes the program auto-updates itself. On Ubuntu, I must update the entire system, even if I want just one program to update. That means when I update to Firefox 4, there's a chance my wifi will no longer work (happened to me in 9.04), or that hibernate won't work (happened to me in 11.04) or that my desktop environment will be shockingly different for no reason. All I wanted was Firefox--but to get it, I've got to swallow Unity and any other half-baked software the distro throws at me.

My mom ranted at me for 15 minutes because I installed FF4 on her Windows machine and now her "Home" button was on the other side of the address bar and her address bar wasn't on top anymore. Can you imagine if she had been using Ubuntu, clicked "yes" to the upgrade prompt just to get it out of the way, and had been presented with Unity? She would have had a stroke.

Yes, you can install PPA's and through various console voodoo upgrade only certain parts of the system, but not every program has a PPA and installing them is beyond a mere mortal's grasp.

And, even if you decide to skip a 6-month upgrade, at some point you won't have a choice--security updates will stop coming. Good luck upgrading an Ubuntu system with 2 years of upgrades in a row--you're going to have to flatten and reinstall, again something beyond mere mortals.

2. Quality control--and this is tied in with #1. Again going with Ubuntu (but I think this applies to most other distros as well): every time I upgrade, I'm presented with a literal swamp of fresh bugs and regressions for things that used to work. I've been using the same laptop since 8.04, and with each upgrade something that used to work breaks, something that was broken before gets fixed, and I get new bugs to deal with. Sometimes hibernate doesn't work; sometimes wifi; sometimes the boot splash is corrupt; sometimes this, sometimes that. I know quality control is a hard thing to do considering it's all volunteer-powered and we're fighting against propriety lock-in; but there's just no excuse if you're trying to put Linux on the desktop.

If Linux is to beat Windows, it has to be easy to update specific software without updating every damn thing and without regressions. Windows has, more or less, managed to do this. So far Linux hasn't, for whatever reason. Until they do, it'll be relegated to being an enthusiast's OS (and there's nothing wrong with that either).

If you tally up a list of possible problems someone might encounter in their entire computing use Linux will definitely solve far more intuitively than Windows, however, when tally up a list of possible problems someone might have and multiply it by the frequency in which they have them the polishes on Windows and OS X to solve those problems are far better.

Lets take for example what happens when I plug my projector into my laptop using Windows vs. Ubuntu, on Ubuntu nothing happens, on Windows it starts showing stuff on my projector (once in a while it doesn't and have I have to press Windows+P and move to the projector option, or unplug it and plug it back in again).

By any standardized method of testing Linux will excel, when you put people in front of it it's obvious that it's inferior. Hell, my friend happens to have a Sony Xperia, I ask him why the GUI is so sluggish and get some answer about Sony charging his provider for updates, and them not having updates, and not wanting to root his phone, apparently the issue is fixed in some version of Android that he can't update to. When I hear this I think, that sounds like too much of a pain in the ass, I'll stick with my iPhone, when normal people hear this they think, Sony Xperias / Android are broken.

a) Never heard of G/L

b) Don't know how to install it; don't care; 'Windows/Mac is good enough for me'

c) Have had compatibility problems with it when they tried

Of course, the idea of general population depends on who you interact with the most, but let's assume general means people who go to Best Buy/Costco/Walmart for computers. These people would probably be willing to try G/L if it came by default. Yet the moment some weird error came up that involved anything more than a simple Google search, back to the store the computer goes. This is not only a loss of money for sellers and manufacturers, but also ends up being really bad PR.

G/L distros like gNewsense or Trisquel (both of which run Linux-libre) would run and sell really well at Best Buy if the video cards, wifi adapters, etc. they would come with worked out of the box. Yet God forbid you use some other [wifi adapter, insert other unsupported device] that doesn't have the right firmware! (Of course, this also applies to regular G/L albeit much less so.) Most 'average Joes' don't care about things like FLOSS unless it works and doesn't require a lot of work to setup and use constantly.

That's not to mention running Windows programs that don't have a FLOSS alternative.

My point is this: G/L won't become immensely popular without the major compatibility issues being fixed and it becoming a default install on a whole major line of computers. Compatibility won't be fixed until the vendors of the devices or programs see a significant profit intake from releasing the firmware/whatever and do so. Default installation won't happen until some major hardware company comes along and sells G/L only.

TL;DR: G/L needs major support to become commercially popular.

Ubuntu's 11.04 compiz is unstable, don't let me deceive you. BUT, it is far superior to plain old metacity with nvidia. Ugh, that shit tears and is awful.