Published at LXer:

Many FOSS projects are on-par with their closed source counter parts when it comes to the number of features and functionality. Why is it then that FOS softwares are less commonly used by the general public? Simple: User Familiarity

Read More...

Completely agreed with this article. The whole point of Linux is change, which people are phobic of on the computer, thinking that "change" really means "hacking" when it doesn't. They have absolutely no idea that there are other things to browse the Web besides the big 'E' and there are other things to perform office work besides the big 'W' or big 'X'. If there was no change, how could we possibly have gotten into this economic me$$? It's the same thing with Linux: U$er$ are the real idiots, not Microsoft necessarily. That's why we need users educated about Linux.

Which brings me right back to Windows 7 Sin #1.

Actually the point of Linux is freedom...this can mean change or no change. I do agree that most people won't necessarily want to change, though.

I think a better idea might be to have an option to sell computers with no OS pre-installed (no, not even a Linux), so that users might be more inclined to learn on their own so they could make a choice for themselves as to what OS they want to use. I think there are actually some manufacturers that do this, but I'm not sure which ones they are exactly. All I know is that they're not nearly as prominent as ones like Dell, HP, etc. who for the most part sell computers with Windows pre-installed.

Anyway, here's my vision of the future of FOSS:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...neration-3115/

Despite the "user familiarity" argument, Google is working to change people's opinions about FOSS if you consider Chrome OS being out there.

The reason why I'm so excited about Google's entrance into the OS market is that Google is trying to bring FOSS to the masses, which is why they released Android and then Chrome OS.

Far from the truth. They've done it to gain more power and money. Bringing FOSS to the massess is not really something they care about. They used open-source as their base because it didn't cost them money.

That's what Apple is doing! Google is opening up 10x more code as Apple or Microsoft. Here's what I look for in a corporation before I judge it:

• How much code they open up (the more the bettter)
• How much they charge for the FOSS (the less the better)
• What kind of marketing tactics they use:
  • Vendor lock-ins = bad; the less the better
  • Barriers to entry = bad; the less the better
  • Artificial inflation = bad; the less the better

Google:

• does not use vendor lock-ins
• does not hog the market with barriers to entry and does not permit other companies (such as cell phone carriers) to do so
• does not artificially inflate prices; in fact, doesn't inflate prices at all
• opens up almost all its code that isn't part of a Web app
• doesn't charge a penny for Chrome OS or Android to be deployed on computers or smartphones
• uses every effort to push FOSS on computer manufacturers; just take Chrome OS for instance

Get the picture?

I get the picture, the question is whether you get their motives. You seem to believe that Google is a kind of modern world Robin Hood of software, a noble hero with the sole mission of bringing FOSS to the masses.

You mustn't be blind to the reasons why Google does all those positive actions. Definitely not to promote FOSS for the sake of it or because they believe in the ideology. That's probably at the bottom of their priority list. Their reasons are less noble than you'd think. As any company they want to grab a bigger and bigger market share, bring more profits, etc. If/when they reach the position that MS had a few years back, they are quite likely to start playing dirty to eradicate any competitors.

They don't charge money, their currency is your privacy (which can then be turned into money as you can see from their annual income)

I am a big fan of linux and FOSS/FSF

But, I think Google Chrome is not going to be much accepted by the majority of linux users. I've seen many polls on Google Chrome OS and the results were always negative.

If Google wants to win these people over, they have to do alot of work or do something remarkable for the linux community.

The masses do not care about FOSS. The only point that is interesting for the masses in your list is the cost factor, it doesn't cost anything (except your privacy).
The average user doesn't care, if it is FOSS or proprietary stuff, as long as it is cheap.

And free is cheap, isn't it?

Of course, but they see the free as in beer, they don't care about the free as in speech. They would also use any proprietary system, as long as it is free or cheap. Like they use the Windows that comes "for free" (in their mind) with the new computer or the Internet.

By the way, how free or cheap is a system that costs your privacy?

Oh yeah, and Windows Genuine Advantage sure protects your privacy. Not!

About the "free" that's in users' minds: Haven't they already seen the Windows upgrade disks in the store and seen how much they cost? Haven't they seen the full Windows licenses and seen how much more they cost? That should be enough to get the fact that Windows is proprietary, expensive, privacy-compromising, and freedom-compromising through their thick skulls.

It's amazing how you seem to perceive the world as black or white. It is convenient but it's a gross oversimplification. In fact, both companies represent shades of gray with MS being perhaps slightly darker than Google. Both have their own sneaky ways to make profit at our expense. Both companies' ultimate goal is total domination of the market. Both are making s**t loads of money (Google might even be doing better than MS in this respect). Both are notorious for invading our privacy (here again, Google is second to none).
Yet, for some strange reason, MS is the ultimate evil for you, whereas Google, according to you, is a perfect example of a noble organisation. Doesn't that make you think about it just a little bit?

Where did I say something like that? But anyways, the WGA has only the purpose to look if your Windows is an illegal copy. It does not have anything to do with privacy, but Google wants my data on their servers. For me this is a serious privacy issue, and concerns me more than the transmission of a few serial numbers to Microsoft.

It is as simple as this: Microsoft writes proprietary Software. Does that make them evil? I don't think so. Where they become evil is their business practices. Google writes FOSS. Does this make them good, regardless of their business practices? I also don't think so.