Yes, I kind of saw that coming.
Let me just post what started this yet again.
xterm wroteEvery single Linux flavor is cheap compared to Windows and OS X.
Before I get to the main reason as to why I posted the above comment, I'd like to mention for those that do not know, that I've sampled almost every operating system on different platforms and architectures and most of you already know that I'm not biased and don't throw silly comments around just because i hate something more than the other.
Back to the main subject, I'm well aware of Linux's power in terms of computing, stability,
security (emphasized for a reason we could cover later) and it's recent changes in terms of front-end.
I'm not going to argue with anyone that most crucial computing problems, rendering power, or simply rudimentary tasks can be accomplished on Linux faster than OS X and Windows. However, the point as I so simply put it in the other post, is that Linux UI/UX is
CHEAP compared to OS X and Windows. Who in their right mind would prefer to pay for something if a more suitable, free and similar alternative is available?
Yes, you can do simple wizard installs for Linux OSes, yes you get some nice candies with compiz, unity, gnome3, E17 but all of those candies are just flashy features that have yet to be established within the hearts of the end users.
1) The Windows and OS X's UI/UX is appealing to end users. It simply works. Most arguments I've seen bashing Windows refer to the dead horse "I don't like to click". Obviously, this horse has been beaten too long and it's simply a myth by those that are unaware of anything above "simple" accessibility features available in Windows.
2) The Windows and OS X's front end is being maintained by one respective company. There's no flavor of windows or flavors of OS X and that's a good thing. It's
standard. People keep dissing browsers and other issues because of standards but they refuse to accept that all this diversity in Linux front end flavors is not helping the growth of Linux. Just look at the recent issues between Gnome 3 and Unity, between gnome team and canonical. They're diverging from each others in terms of advancement. I don't really give a rats ass about Stallman's thoughts on Gnome 3, or Torvalds thoughts on Unity, those people are extremists and the number of similar people you can count them with your fingers. The Desktop is mostly end users, not extreme hardcore kernel developers, OSS evangelists and promoters, biased *nix lovers or the lot.
3) "I use OpenBox, FluxBox, Terminals and that's all I need". It's all YOU need, pick 100 random users and ask them what they need, how many will answer the same thing you do? Users want to something they're used to, not something that needs configuration, looks ugly, has its own accessibility system and hardly any support for common applications.
4) Applications - There are 20 applications on Linux that do the job of 1 application on Windows or OS X but how established are they? Yes you can point me to 10 companies that use The Gimp, or 20 companies that use Open Office, or 30 companies that use Evolution successfully but are these applications established for end users? Do they look, work and act the same for users that are already familiar/intermediate/experts with Microsoft Outlook, Office, Adobe Suite? Additionally, why is every other screenshot you see, contains a "Docking" component, why is the most searched on query for linux UI "mac dock for linux". I really don't care if apple stole this from some random developer in the 80s that did it on some random linux installation, what I care about is who made those millions and millions of users enjoy it.
5) Overall L&F - I'll challenge anyone who can give me the crispness of OSX/Windows on Linux. You simply can't and this is not something that is so bizarre. X is bad, Linux driver support is bad. The driver evolution on linux isn't as fast as those on Linux. If your (chip vendors) target is 80% windows 10% OS X and 1% Linux, your resource allocation and emphasis will be proportional to those numbers.
6) BSOD/Crashes/Viruses/Spyware - It takes a decent intermediate user to stabilize his Linux installation. I myself have witnessed "1" yes "1" BSOD in 6 years and that's because of faulty hardware. I know how to take care of my system just like any other intermediate linux user knows how to take care of his. More on this, people think just because they have access to "ps" and "kill -9", that they're free to bash windows as they please. Well I've got news for these users, "tasklist" and "taskkill" has been there for ages on Windows and so did the task manager. I've had more linux apps crash on me than I've had windows apps crash. Perhaps I'm a better windows user than I am a Linux user but that just proves my point. Think about this for a moment, are you a better linux user than you are a windows user, food for thought.
Finally, keep in mind that I almost never miss a Ubuntu release and Ubuntu is the established and most popular "End user desktop" so I'm well aware of where we are at and I'm anxiously awaiting 3 days from now, to see what Ubuntu has in stock for us.
If you like linux and it "just works for you" then by all means use it on a daily basis, hug it and kiss it. I myself, will just simply agree with the 80% of the world users, that windows is far more user friendly that any other operating system ever created.
Heck even electoral votes just need 51%.