[salvar]

Yes, I really do. Why don't more computers come with Linux pre-installed? If Linux is such a great replacement for Windows, why has it made very little gains in replacing Windows? Is it all somebody else's fault and has nothing to do with the usability of Linux?

[Sir_Cmpwn]

Because money = influence. Linux has none and Microsoft has lots. It's really that simple.

[fokov]

There has got to be more money in Linux than Windows since the majority of servers are running it. The problem is Linux doesn't see user experience as anything that is necessary. When it does (ubuntu, et al) it thrives....but many of us have been waiting since the 90s for everything to "work" on Linux without having to screw around.

People love it when things just work and for many of them Apple and Windows do just that.

[salvar]

I'll have to disagree with that. Linux has significant usability problems, and pretending that it has none is not going to help anyone.

[bmn__]

> Why don't more computers come with Linux pre-installed? […] Is it all somebody else's fault

That coquetry of ignorance wasn't cool on Slashdot twenty years ago, what makes you think it's acceptable here?

Microsoft's actions, for which they have been convicted in courts of law all over the world, have set back desktop computing by two decades. A PC clone with e.g. BeOS on it could not be had for money or good words, and the reason was precisely because they killed off competitors with their anti-capitalist, anti-consumer stranglehold on the vendors and markets before the competitors even had a chance to show their quality or lack thereof.

Linux' boon was that it by-passed that system, thriving from the figurative grass roots. It makes little sense – merely in order to take it seriously – to demand to be able to buy a pre-installed Linux.

[salvar]

I'm sorry if I come across as obtuse, but I just need to understand this clearly. Is it your belief that the low usage of Linux has nothing to do with Linux itself?