You are laboring under poor reading comprehension. I didn't say it
Windows or Mac wouldn't require free tech support. I said that it would
be nearly impossible to do without opening a command prompt.
Windows and Mac OS X can handle all of the issues a non-power user
would encounter with GUI interface alone. Power users will have to resort
to command line options in all three OSs and I don't begrudge those
people their options. What I am saying is that Linux is still primarily
for the power user and tinkerers. I believe that De Icaza is correct to
say that Linux on the desktop has failed. But let me lengthen that
sentence so that people don't flame me to death.
Linux on the desktop has failed to gain traction with the mass market
and will continue to fail unless some entity comes along and unifies the
Linux desktop experience into something that is A) consistent and B)
adopted as the default experience on all or a majority of Linux
distributions. Linux lovers are always crying, "But there are CHOICES
for what you want! Just install XYZ and it will be everything you always
wanted!" This is, at best, misguided.
If we restrain the discussion to focus only on getting Linux in the
hands of the common user, then De Icaza is quite correct. The problem
lies in the very culture he is lamenting. The very first post in this
discussion starts with, "It works for me!" Which is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Of course it works for that person. Of course there are people posting
here how they run all Linux machines at home and their wife and kids
don't mind. This happened because the those posters learned all they
needed to know in order to make it seem easy to them.
People are also saying, "But Windows is hard too!" Yes, yes it is.
But that ignores the fact that there are millions of people who have
been trained, one way or the other, to use Windows already. You mom
learned how to make Windows and Office do her bidding at work and oh
yeah, learned where Solitaire is. So when she comes home and your dad
wants to distract himself, you mother shows him solitaire and the
Internet Explorer. In the same way, anyone who is not already familiar
with Windows has a ready pool of instructors to teach them the ropes.
Linux does not have this vast army of people who want to show off. Linux
has a much smaller army, it is just more devout.
Mac OS also has a smaller install base but either markets its stuff
so well that everyone gets it, or actually makes a good product. People
here will tell you Apple's success is purely a marketing success and
that they make crap products. I like their products personally, but it
doesn't take me long to see that the way I use a Mac is not intuitive
and would require quite a bit of me training new users. The difference
is that I can point those new users at shiny widgets that they can
remember and the settings are always(or for at least that last decade)
in the same place.
So, Windows has a huge install base, Max OS has either good marketing
or good design, take you pick. and Linux has what? Too many choices?
(Mostly) Un-friendly user base? Windows has ubiquity, Apple has money to
throw at problems and Linux has people like Linus Torvalds who is
certainly smart and a good engineer but a terrible leader. Linus calls
people morons constantly which is the opposite of good for the
community, even is he is right every time.
There are a ton more issues with the community and I'm sure that
someone will point them out if they see this response. I could write for
hours about what is keeping Linux from the mainstream but there is
really no point because eventually someone will tell me to write a patch
if I am so smart and just do me the favor of driving my points home.
Linux has the technical part down. Linux needs the guiding hand of
someone who can cultivate a personality cult until Linux has its own
place among the other major operating systems.