Comment He's right, just for the wrong reason (Score 1) 1054
I don't think Linux is un-brandable, un-sellable. The real reason that Linux (or sadly OS X) will never beat Windows lies in the reality that the best technology doesn't always win.
Linux (and to a much lesser extent, the Macintosh) are populist movements which have produced deliverables which are at worst on par with and at best far exceeding the quality of Microsoft's products. The problem is that Microsoft a) doesn't need to rely on populism since it has a monopoly, b) doesn't need to innovate because it has a stranglehold on the market and c) doesn't have to worry about looking over its shoulder for competitors because it knows that the vast majority of computer users just don't care.
That is the thing that really sticks in all of our craws, since we all care so deeply about our destkop environments, our platforms, our shells and the like. But Joe Blow doesn't giving a flying flounder about open standards or browser vulnerabilities or even clunky GUI metaphors. They're used to it, it (generally) does what they want it to. They have no reason to change.
There's always going to be a (thankfully growing) minority of users who are heavily invested in using OS's and environments that are more well-rounded, more secure, more stable than Windows, and thank heavens for that. But the truth is that the "who's going to beat Windows" ship sailed a long time ago, and the geek community would be much better-served to accept that and move on. It doesn't mean that innovation in the OS space needs to die, but it does mean that we need to be realistic about why we want to innovate. Because if we're in it to change the world and take Windows out of the equation, we're setting ourselves up for bitter failure.
Linux (and to a much lesser extent, the Macintosh) are populist movements which have produced deliverables which are at worst on par with and at best far exceeding the quality of Microsoft's products. The problem is that Microsoft a) doesn't need to rely on populism since it has a monopoly, b) doesn't need to innovate because it has a stranglehold on the market and c) doesn't have to worry about looking over its shoulder for competitors because it knows that the vast majority of computer users just don't care.
That is the thing that really sticks in all of our craws, since we all care so deeply about our destkop environments, our platforms, our shells and the like. But Joe Blow doesn't giving a flying flounder about open standards or browser vulnerabilities or even clunky GUI metaphors. They're used to it, it (generally) does what they want it to. They have no reason to change.
There's always going to be a (thankfully growing) minority of users who are heavily invested in using OS's and environments that are more well-rounded, more secure, more stable than Windows, and thank heavens for that. But the truth is that the "who's going to beat Windows" ship sailed a long time ago, and the geek community would be much better-served to accept that and move on. It doesn't mean that innovation in the OS space needs to die, but it does mean that we need to be realistic about why we want to innovate. Because if we're in it to change the world and take Windows out of the equation, we're setting ourselves up for bitter failure.
