A lot of people. It's called "network effects": if more people use my OS of choice, I get more stuff for it, from support to applications to resources to see it develop faster.
The real question is "who cares what YOU are using?".
Why there always has to be one guy in every discussion of desktop Linux, going "I use it on my desktop just fine"?
We don't care, and it's not what's under discussion. Some people also use QNX or Plan 9 in their desktops just fine. That's not the f*n point.
I care about what I am using, and he cares about what he is using. We don't care what they are using. Any of your arguments as to why we should would apply equally well to cars, but you never see people have that conversation.
The car analogy doesn't work so well here because cars are far more interchangeable, although if you use a less popular type of car perhaps it is more difficult get parts for it for example.
The advantage of using a common OS is that other people have probably had the problems before you have , often on Linux I feel like I may the first person to experience a particular problem. More users = more software generally, cars don't require "extra" stuff that is designed for a specific car in order to do their job.
In the vast majority of cases, computers (software and hardware) are quite generic. It is only the people with exotic cars and computer setups (Linux on the desktop for example) that have a concern.
hardware in many cases yes, software less so.
There are very few cases where one piece of software is a good substitute for another and where they are they are usually trivial pieces of software.
Approximately 80% of the time, the software that works on one computer will work on another. In most of the remaining cases, the software will still work on the other computer, or at least have an acceptable substitute. For example, Microsoft Office works on a high 90's percent of all personal computers.
It is only if you have an exotic car^W computer that you'll have trouble finding parts^W software.
"""I care about what I am using, and he cares about what he is using."""
So, by you own logic, nobody cares to read what you and he are using, except you and him respectively. Which was kind of, my point.
"""We don't care what they are using. """
Good for you. This thread is about adoption, though, and about caring about what they are using --and specifically whether Unity is good for mass Linux adoption.
That is your logic, not my own. I care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to my own. I don't care what operating system he is using.
"""I care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to my own. I don't care what operating system he is using."""
So, you:
(a) "care what he is writing because his perspective is similar to [your] own",
but:
(b) "[you] don't care what operating system he is using.".
I fail to see how (a) can be conciliated with (b), given that he is writing about "what operating system he is using", that is the very thing that you "don't care about".
It's not the only part where you defy logic and embrace contradiction...
Responding to another comment you invoke the car analogy to invalidate my argument, but when someone confronts you you tell him that: "It is only the people with exotic cars and computer setups (Linux on the desktop for example) that have a concern."
Are you not aware that we are talking SPECIFICALLY about the second case here, "Linux on the desktop"? Is there any special logic employed here?
Linux is an exotic car. People trying to push linux on the general population so that they have an "easier time getting parts" are just as annoying as people who drive expensive cars and think that everybody else should too. I don't care if the expensive/exotic car is Linux, Solaris, OpenBSD, Plan 9, BeOS, OSX,... ...It's just fucking annoying.
Interestingly, if you are unable understand that, I don't really give a shit. I believe I have now clearly articulated my position, the rest is on you.
"""Linux is an exotic car. People trying to push linux on the general population so that they have an "easier time getting parts" are just as annoying as people who drive expensive cars and think that everybody else should too."""
One of the worst analogies I've seen in my life. And I've seen lots.
Where to begin?
(a) There are supposed to be people that "drive expensive cars that think that everybody else should too"?
(b) And (those mythical and "annoying" people) do so because that way the would have an easier time "getting parts"?
And all this BS (that doesn't even make sense, anyone here met a Ferrari driver that believed that everyone should drive one so he can get parts easier? WTF?) is supposed to be an analogy to people promoting Linux on the desktop?
This discussion is not about someone saying everybody should run the "exotic" Linux on their desktop, it's all about people making changes to Linux (Unity, etc), in order to make it less exotic and more fit for the desktop.
Except if you think that Linux will forever be exotic. In which case you are mistaken.
"""Interestingly, if you are unable understand that, I don't really give a shit."""
Interestingly? Hardly. You have a tremendous difficulty in expressing yourself coherently.
A lot of people. It's called "network effects": if more people use my OS of choice, I get more stuff for it, from support to applications to resources to see it develop faster.
The real question is "who cares what YOU are using?".
Why there always has to be one guy in every discussion of desktop Linux, going "I use it on my desktop just fine"?
We don't care, and it's not what's under discussion. Some people also use QNX or Plan 9 in their desktops just fine. That's not the f*n point.