The main reason most people use Windows is that Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer and Toshiba make it incredibly hard to buy a computer without it. Go to HP's site now and see if you can get a notebook with Linux preinstalled.
Most people would be perfectly happy with a Linux machine (I can tell you my mother is) and had hardware manufacturers given even some slight support (instead of building dozens of models seemingly designed to be Linux-proof) it would be much more popular.
The sad truth is that most people are not even aware their computers run an operating system. They believe Windows is an integral part of the machines.
The problem is that we, Linux enthusiasts, never managed to interest Microsoft's 5 most important clients (the aforementioned PC makers) on the full-featured, rock-solid, fast and stable desktop and server environment we were giving away for free.
> never managed to interest Microsoft's 5 most important clients (the aforementioned PC makers) on the full-featured, rock-solid, fast and stable desktop
Because it is neither rock-solid nor stable. It changes too much, too often, in an irregluar, unpredictable pattern, so major software makers refuse to target it. Without software, you dont get users, and without users, hardware makers wont bother to preinstall, etc.
Linux will be able to win big when they start putting a stronger emphases on backward compatibility and start supporting releases for 10 years, like Microsoft does, so that users dont have to reinstall distros every 6 months just to be able to install a new version of s single app.
I said "stable", not "stale". If you want unchanging, bundle with Debian stable or Ubuntu LTS (or ink a deal with Red Hat).
> Without software, you dont get users, and without users, hardware makers wont bother to preinstall
Apart from games, I don't see this dearth of software. While I agree some users have very specific needs, most users would be perfectly happy with a browser.
> users dont have to reinstall distros every 6 months just to be able to install a new version of s single app.
Unless you live in the dark ages, keeping a Linux machine up to date across major OS releases is, usually, a breeze. I'd not be surprised if, in a couple major kernel revisions, not even a reboot is needed during the process.
> Because it is neither rock-solid nor stable. It changes too much, too often, in an irregluar, unpredictable pattern
Perhaps you are watching Ubuntu, which does do this. Others are rock-solid and super stable. Slackware comes to mind, Debian is another. Lenny only went out of life a couple of months ago.
I see Linux enthusiasts talking about how their parents are happy with their Linux distro all the time -- that's not an argument for desktop Linux though. Nobody's saying Linux isn't good at browsing the web and checking mail and writing the occasional document.
Most people would be perfectly happy with a Linux machine (I can tell you my mother is) and had hardware manufacturers given even some slight support (instead of building dozens of models seemingly designed to be Linux-proof) it would be much more popular.
The sad truth is that most people are not even aware their computers run an operating system. They believe Windows is an integral part of the machines.
The problem is that we, Linux enthusiasts, never managed to interest Microsoft's 5 most important clients (the aforementioned PC makers) on the full-featured, rock-solid, fast and stable desktop and server environment we were giving away for free.