Because early-2000s Linux was made by techies and geeks for techies and geeks. Windows and Mac succeeded because they had a GUI for nontechnical users and didn't require an inordinate amount of futzing in the terminal to use.
Even discounting Android, Linux is much better nowadays, but in the early 21st Century, it was temperamental and finicky enough to install and use that it scared away nontechnical users.
The big problem with 90s/early 2000s Linux was drivers. Which is still a problem with 2020s Linux, but significantly less of a problem than it once was. However, if a hardware manufacturer wanted to support Linux, they could develop/test the required drivers, and install them preconfigured. The real issue was they didn’t perceive there being sufficient market demand to make it worth their while investing in that
It has gotten better-I remember having to muck around with modelines in X11 (not sure if this was 1990s or early 2000s-you get to a certain age and the decades start to blend together in your memory)-but who has to do that nowadays? Still, a HW manufacturer preinstalling Linux could have done that for you
Modelines weren't that complicated, just rather technical. Also there was a tool helping with that. Still is, but another, called 'cvt', which today still can be useful with strange setups, or to shift frequencies just a little bit, so you don't have coil whine anymore :-)
> Because early-2000s Linux was made by techies and geeks for techies and geeks. Windows and Mac succeeded because they had a GUI for nontechnical users and didn't require an inordinate amount of futzing in the terminal to use.
Are you trying to tell us that a dos operating system was better because it didn't involve using a command line to use?
OpenSuse and Mandrake were already a thing in early 2000's and they were pretty much targetting any user, offering YAST and drakconf that were extensive gui tools to configure pretty much everything on a linux system. You had little to do on a terminal already if you chose your distro correctly. Also if you bought the box version it came with a book guiding you through pretty much everything. [1]
Arguably the biggest hurdle/struggle on linux at the time was getting internet connection through a winmodem but it was a struggle that wasn't better solved with a DOS operating system.
[1] My theory is a lot of people have struggled with linux in the early years because they just got the CDs from magazines, then later downloaded the ISO versions, instead of purchasing the complete box versions with full documentation. How do you consult online documentation if you only had one computer, smartphones weren't a thing yet and you couldn't get the damn modem or gui working? Dual booting was the only way but this is the kind of experience that makes you soon grow tired of rebooting and give up if you don't get stuff corrected quickly.
Debian Sarge had offline docs of everything. The 3 DVD version I bought had a small book and apt and synaptic were already there, along mentions to the handbook and dhelp/dwww.
While mandrake and suse where expensive, some editors released compkete dvd sets for 20 eur, around $15 or 20 for its day.
We knew this was a problem which spawned lindows in the early 2000s (now known as linspire). I was lucky enough to see some stores carry desktops with it preloaded.
Yeah, Linux was horrible compared to the brilliant n00b-friendly user experience DR-DOS. Tons of non-tec and non-geek people just loved the DR-DOS experience.
Even discounting Android, Linux is much better nowadays, but in the early 21st Century, it was temperamental and finicky enough to install and use that it scared away nontechnical users.