Wanting your machine to work is also caring what your machine is doing.
I'm sure the IRS is kicking themselves for running XP for over a decade, building up such an extreme dependency on it that they are now paying huge sums of money for Microsoft to continue to support them.
The black box is only great so long as it actually works, and when it breaks you are completely screwed. It is in Microsofts business interests to make sure it works, but they also want you paying them money while maintaining control of your computer.
But when it does break, your only option is the true owner of your computer, who will milk you for all you are worth, because you are now trapped. You don't know you are in a cage until you want out.
>The black box is only great so long as it actually works, and when it breaks you are completely screwed.
To most users Linux is just as much of a black box as Windows is.
Even among Linux fans, the number of people who actually need to customize the kernel is tiny. The number of people who can customize the kernel is even smaller.
So where's the freedom? At the OS level, all that's happened is that the lockdown has moved from corporations to a subset of the developer community.
Most end users aren't any more empowered than they used to be.
Now - it's different in the web and language spaces, where there's a steady simmer of framework development, and many popular web projects/products wouldn't have been possible without framework sharing.
But there's still plenty of proprietary content there. Just try to get Google or Facebook to share their data collections with you and see how politically relevant open source 'freedom' is then.
If that seems like a tangent, it's missing the point that the value of a system doesn't come from the source code - it comes from the system as a whole, and includes usability, community reach, innovation, invention, and data.
Open source pretends to be a huge lever for freedom, but it's more like a battered fork caught in an avalanche.
In computing, the world-changing leverage is elsewhere, and always has been.
Comments in this thread keep mentioning "most users" or "the average user". But they're not supposed to be the direct beneficiaries of Free Software. We are, and in line with the rule that 80% of users use 20% of features but never the same 20%, it's perfectly reasonable for us developers to expect a feature (open source code) that nobody else will use.
The endlessly apathetic hypothetical "average" user can't see past next week's paycheck, let alone their long-term best software interests. We are the ones who have to look to the future and prepare for it now. Wanting access to source code of core infrastructure is part of that preparation, and "average" users will be indirect beneficiaries via our improved ability to write reliable software.
To add another perspective, constantly targeting "average" is a great way to stay mediocre (see regression to the mean).
Finally, "average" users will benefit immensely from those who are inspired by the ability to tinker at a young age.
The user of open source, in the absence of the skills necessary to change code themselves, can easily pay any other developer on the free market to do it for them.
You can never do that with proprietary software. If you want something changed or fixed, you must appeal to the singular entity with monopoly access to the source.
My mum and dad both uses their computers on a daily basis and yes on occasions things don't always work as expected.
When that happens they ask me to fix it and if it wasn't me, then yes they would take it to a computer technician.
Just like they take their car to the mechanic.
Guess what. Not everyone is or wants to be a computer programmer and that group makes up the majority of all Windows users.
And why Windows has been so successful is you can get away with knowing very little about computers (like my mum and dad) yet still find Windows easy to use.
The number floated around for XP continued support is $200 per machine per year. Redhat, which is one of the few companies that supports a Linux distro for as long as Microsoft supports their products, charges $49/year for the equivalent of Windows Update, and doesn't have any information whatsoever on extended support. So, for the average customer which wants their desktops to have the same lifespan as XP in order to minimize training and other associated costs, ending up with a year or two of Extended Support while you finish your transition is still cheaper than any of the Linux providers.
I'm pretty sure Dell and HP provide support on all their Ubuntu machines, as do System76 et al. And they have extended support offerings all the same. Not sure on pricing, though.
Software support, not hardware. Patches, etc. RedHat is pretty much the only distro maker that will provide software support for the same timeframe as Windows releases are supported. Ubuntu, you'd have gone through the compatibility testing, upgrade testing, migration, etc cycle at least once more often than Windows, and deployments for anyone with custom software get expensive fast.
Besides RHEL there is also SuSE SLES / SLED with apparently 7 years of "general support" + 3 more of "self support" (guess that means you just get serious security fixes).
In addition to the shorter support time, with Ubuntu LTS it's a bit too easy to install packages from "universe" that aren't actually supported for more than 18 months...
That black box model has been with Windows from day one and it hasn't stopped Windows owning 90% of the PC market.