Because you have to understand the context. For nearly everyone one earth, a computer is a physical tool that exists for the sole purpose of helping them accomplish other tasks. In many cases, the most complex tasks people tackle are those they're being paid to work on. Those people just want a tool that works, that works they way the expect, that is supported and supportable by a vendor and internal IT, and is replaceable with something similar enough that things don't break.
Look, I'm a programmer turned engineering manager and I totally get where you're coming from with this comment, but you just don't seem to get how and why things are the way they are.
Speaking personally, I managed a project a few years ago to replace MS Office 2003 with Libre Office 4.0 (we actually started with OpenOffice but when Oracle acquired Sun and The Document Foundation was created to house the OO.o fork, we switched out of antipathy for Oracle). The mission was to remove MSO from as many machines as feasible, and the decision of what was feasible was, for the most part, left to me. We managed to convert about 20% of users, and these were composed of about 75% machines that never executed any Office app anyway and about 20% of machines whose users were just consumers of files other people created. Only about 5% of the machines converted belonged to creators. We found that most macros and custom formatting and blahblahblah were fairly straightforward to convert to work in LibreOffice, but the UI/UX was horrific, sometimes things just didn't work, and productivity was adversely affected far beyond the cost of the licenses.
We migrated to Gmail and Google Apps from Exchange+Outlook at the same time and saw similar adoption issues with Google Drive ("Docs" at that time -- in 2008). We (I) didn't make the mistake of forcing the issue this time and relied on coercion and organic growth to build the foundation for broad support. Today we are seeing about 1500 Sheets and ~500 Docs & Presentations created weekly (~22,000 users). Most of them still have MS Office on their machine, too.
Because, guess what, the right tool for the job is important.
(another commenter noted the haphazard and often ridiculous release schedule and evolution of RedHat / Fedora, BSD and Ubuntu over the past ten years or so. In my company, the Linux guys are mostly on their own to build their own environment because it became too unpleasant for corporate IT to create and maintain a standard image that worked well enough for most people most of the time. The devs these days tend to prefer Arch and Ubuntu and the sysadmins often run Fedora (our prod servers are almost always RHEL ... because guess what -- support is kinda important to most companies, especially big ones that aren't technology companies and where internal support is often understaffed and underequipped to DIY everything.)
This probably comes off rantier than I had hoped, and for that I apologize. Perhaps I'm just getting to CIO'y in my old age. :(
Look, I'm a programmer turned engineering manager and I totally get where you're coming from with this comment, but you just don't seem to get how and why things are the way they are.
Speaking personally, I managed a project a few years ago to replace MS Office 2003 with Libre Office 4.0 (we actually started with OpenOffice but when Oracle acquired Sun and The Document Foundation was created to house the OO.o fork, we switched out of antipathy for Oracle). The mission was to remove MSO from as many machines as feasible, and the decision of what was feasible was, for the most part, left to me. We managed to convert about 20% of users, and these were composed of about 75% machines that never executed any Office app anyway and about 20% of machines whose users were just consumers of files other people created. Only about 5% of the machines converted belonged to creators. We found that most macros and custom formatting and blahblahblah were fairly straightforward to convert to work in LibreOffice, but the UI/UX was horrific, sometimes things just didn't work, and productivity was adversely affected far beyond the cost of the licenses.
We migrated to Gmail and Google Apps from Exchange+Outlook at the same time and saw similar adoption issues with Google Drive ("Docs" at that time -- in 2008). We (I) didn't make the mistake of forcing the issue this time and relied on coercion and organic growth to build the foundation for broad support. Today we are seeing about 1500 Sheets and ~500 Docs & Presentations created weekly (~22,000 users). Most of them still have MS Office on their machine, too.
Because, guess what, the right tool for the job is important.
(another commenter noted the haphazard and often ridiculous release schedule and evolution of RedHat / Fedora, BSD and Ubuntu over the past ten years or so. In my company, the Linux guys are mostly on their own to build their own environment because it became too unpleasant for corporate IT to create and maintain a standard image that worked well enough for most people most of the time. The devs these days tend to prefer Arch and Ubuntu and the sysadmins often run Fedora (our prod servers are almost always RHEL ... because guess what -- support is kinda important to most companies, especially big ones that aren't technology companies and where internal support is often understaffed and underequipped to DIY everything.)
This probably comes off rantier than I had hoped, and for that I apologize. Perhaps I'm just getting to CIO'y in my old age. :(