No; OSS coders would rather they stay with Microsoft.

The benefits:

• Not having to worry about making things nice for them
• Not having to hear them whine in spite of your efforts to make it nice
• Having a continual source of rage on tap in Microsoft's domination
  (Note: serious coding requires at least two of the following elements as fuel: rage, caffeine, junk food)

Those ppl would fork over their cash for a solution before forking off your project.

But that's where the strawman is.. IMO anyway. The goal for Linux is not to replace Windows, because to do that it would have to be just like Windows only much better. The reason I and lots of other Linux followers (not to mention developers) moved to Linux was because we don't _want_ to use Windows, we don't like it, for different reasons - or some may like it, but still feel limited by it.

For example, MS Windows is a lot about uniformity: There's just about one single way of using the graphical interface, you're supposed to accept and like the 'click to focus' paradigm, the 'the window you enter text in will be on top' paradigm, and so on. And it's understandable, from MS' point of view - you avoid a lot of coding that way, because there are way less cases to handle.

When I first came in touch with a Unix/X-Windows (X11) system (which was a Sun system back then), I spent the first few days trying out all possible window managers, shells and configurations, until I found one I liked (virtual desktops, focus-follows-mouse, etc. etc.) Later I started to look for Unix-like systems for PCs, and then Linux came around and I moved over.

Developers move to Linux because they want to be able to do what they want to do, basically. And if enough other people want to do something similar you have a collaboration that keeps the thing alive (e.g. the gtk+ developers, people writing window managers, lots of other applications).

There are also of course some people who think that Linux should replace Windows, I think they are mistaken because it won't ever work - as I said, it would have to basically _be_ Windows then, and the effort would be better spent in lobbying groups pestering Mr. Gates & co. to fix whatever problems you see in Windows.

That doesn't mean that there isn't room for Linux, because there are lots of people out there who either want something different, or something free, or any other reason really.

Finally, as for problems with Flash and other proprietary software, there's really not much the Linux developers and distros can do - they don't have access to the code so they can't fix it. Adobe must fix, nobody else can fix Flash. The users would do better lobbying directly at Adobe instead of Unbuntu (or other distros).

This whole thread feels wrong somehow.

There's this underlying assumption that success in terms of gaining market shares is something that "Linux" (who-/whatever that is) certainly wants and that there's some details that prevents it from happening. (Again, I read between the lines: If only we could iron out those details, then...)

The assumption as such is wrong. There's a fight for market shares among commercial products, and ATM it's MS and Apple who are the main players.

The reason why GNU/Linux is there in the first place is not to conquer the world and beat MS once and for all. (Who would benefit from this, anyway?)
GNU/Linux is there for those who need/want it the way it is: free, open, a playground for experiments, a great learning aid and the unique chance to individually put together your components (from all the diversity out there) in a way so that they best suit your needs.

This is a niche thing and always will be. 97,962% of the computer users don't want to learn about their systems or customize their boxes the way they could with GNU/Linux. They are far better off with Windows or OSX. And there's nothing wrong with that. There's no reason to convert them to GNU/Linux.

It's a bit like healthy food:
You could argue that people would eat a lot more vegetable and less burgers and french fries if it only carrots tasted a bit more like fries and broccoli didn't look and taste like broccoli. Then you could suggest they'd sell vegetable with artificial colors&taste and prepare them with a lot of fat so that the new taste really is strong. What do we have then? Artificial carrots without vitamins but with hundreds of calories and ominous chemical ingredients instead. - Would those who wanted more healthy food be happy now that people eat those carrots? No.

So, could we streamline GNU/Linux to make it mass market compatible?
Yes. But we'd take away everything it's there for. The diversity, the experiments, the learning (and failing), the openness. And in the end we'd have a system that maybe could compete with windows, but... I would choose Windows then. It's the original, and the castrated mainstream-GNU/Linux would be a copy.

(And before somebody says so: Of course the existing diversity lets you put together individual systems that come very close to a mainstream, consumer-friendly OS. Ubuntu does a good job here, and, yes, ITOS isn't all that bad, either. But still they heavily rely on core components not under their control, so I guess it will never be 100%.)

I agree with benny1967, and I guess I tried to say the same thing in a slightly different way in my previous post.

I agree with both of you, and just forget what I said.

which part of what you said? the "I agree with both of you"?

I could never forget anything you say. You're the reason of my virtual existence in this forum.

No, I meant my pontification on tribalism vs capitalism.

And I refuse to take the blame for your presence here.

yes, this linux marketshare thing may well be a press created issue, as its simpler to grasp then (it fits better into the existing pattern of things).

Very true. The linux market does not seem all that interested in making it very consumer friendly. Besides Ubuntu and openSUSE, and maybe a few others, the community seems very content being a niche market.