Linux Doesn't Cost Anything - But Maybe It Should
Discussions, theses, theories and memes abound around Linux's inability to gain traction in the desktop marketplace. Some think the Linux Desktop is too hard to learn (it's not). Others say Linux Desktop is deficient (it's not). Linux elite (or 1337) say Linux wasn't really meant for the general users anyway (not true). Microsoft says Linux in general is evil (see the Halloween Memo) (oh, and by the way, it's not).
I submit yet another theory: Linux isn't expensive enough!
Free Is Bad? Why?
Why, you wonder, when all along we've sung the FOSS praises of GNU/Linux (hereafter referred to as the more simple "Linux," with all deference to Stallman) and that Linux is free? What could be better than free?
If Linux Desktop is free and can't gain more marketshare (estimates range somewhere around 1 percent Linux Desktop market penetration) then one or a combination of the above reasons must be why Linux fails. If Linux passes all points in the opening paragraph, what gives?