The Mass Market Prefers Convenience

If by Linux Reisinger means GNU/Linux based operating system distribution, then yes, Linux does lack mass appeal. The mass market will prefer any convenient software with no regard to the liberties the software may or may not provide. They will see Linux as yet another way to interact with their computer that is also incompatible with their precious proprietary programs. This is the important part to the masses because their programs are probably unable to work on a GNU/Linux environment.

So why the push to "get Linux on the desktop"? I can tell you that free software activists are not pushing such an agenda, it is the Open Source Advocates. Open Source Advocates have a fair burden upon themselves to make computer software systems that will rival the reliability and convenience provided by many proprietary software systems; as the whole point of Open Source was to push the practical benefits of free software without regard to the ethical issues addressed by free software movement.

Free software activists have long been pushing the agenda that proprietary software is unethical and that free software is the ethical solution to the problem. The masses do not understand this and so judge our free systems according to convenience. Some will find our system to be more convenient and will be comfortable to using it or migrating to it. I suspect however, that most of the masses will find our systems to be lacking or otherwise inconvenient and so will disregard our systems as inadequate.

In conclusion, Linux lacks mass market appeal because the masses do not understand how subjugation to the authors of proprietary software harms their lives. These people judge our free systems solely on convenience without regard to the ethical philosophy that our system is intended to bring.