The actual Linux desktop is piss easy for even a Windows user to grasp, but it’s different; and Windows users generally seem to be afraid of anything that’s different.

Also, many of your comments could be given about why Mac OS X isn’t more popular. You can’t go to Walmart and buy software for a Macintosh. Certain programs for the Macintosh that are also available on Windows (MS Office especially) have rather large changes from the Windows version.

The user is subject to a software proprietor’s whims when they choose to accept proprietary software. In this case, by choosing to accept commercial proprietary software, the user is subject to the proprietor’s decision to not support your requirement of running on a Linux system.

Thus it is the proprietor’s fault for not supporting the user and the user’s fault for choosing to be subject to the proprietor. Subjugation does not happen when you choose commercial free software.

But there are too many computer users out there who are unwilling to learn about computers. They have a hard time understanding how a file system structure is layed out. They don’t understand what a web browser is, or that it can be changed. Or they have no interest, and just want to click the five buttons that they click every time. How do we explain the difference in window managers to them??

I moved to Linux to get away from the constant crashes i had with my 98 and XP setups, but I’ve always been interested in exploring new apps. The move fit me. How many computer users install an application and start out using it by opening the Preferences dialog? *That* is a Linux user — one who wants to understand what can be done.

The friends and family which I’ve switched to Linux see it as an OS, but never as an *opportunity* like I do. They see its lack of commercial apps as a limit, whereas i see it as a blessing. Free software is meant to free its users from commercial restraints. The moment that I can buy boxed applications at the store designed to be installed on “LSB 3.2+ Compatable systems” is the moment we’ve become no better than any other closed computing ecosystem. We subjugate ourselves to their limitations once again.

Any user who is unwilling to learn about the Gimp, Thunderbird, KMail, OpenOffice.org, or any other high-quality native application shouldn’t be using Linux. Yes, these apps have room for improvement, but they also have dedicated fans who will help new users to learn them. If a computer user’s muscle memory or lack of comprehension requires that they use a single, specific product rather than adjust to the new environment, let them use what they’re comfortable with. But please, don’t ruin my ecosystem while you’re at it. I don’t want to troubleshoot Outlook issues on Linux any more than i want to do so on a Windows machine.

1. I have 5 PCs at my home at my disposal. And finding a single distro that works on all 5 PCs proves to be almost impossible. Distro X might work one PC, but not the other. Then some software packages might behave differently in Distro X vs Distro Y. On the other hand my XP (not Vista - don’t have yet) is transparent. Other than one PC works faster than the other, there’s no visible difference. Linux desktop needs that kind of transparency for mass adoption.

2. I work at one of many companies that use MS products. And even it is quite clear to me and some other employees (not all) that we could use Linux for our work duties, still MS documents are used to exchange data with clients and partners. And Open Office is not that compatible for the task. So there you have it: I am more likely to buy a PC with Windows because I use it at work and because it is a part of job requirements with many other employers.

Also if you look under the preferences in openoffice, you can change the default format to save in…

Also linux will become more widely adopted when more than 1 or 2 major game companies support it, not software vendors, as more home users would rather have the latest game than the latest version of photoshop or office…