Linux is still very much in the hobbyist stage of social acceptance. The computer industry has been somewhat slow to acknowledge Linux as a competitive computer platform, despite its wide use. Companies are reluctant to create Linux versions of their programs for the same reason no one wanted to invest in radio broadcasting in the early 1920's : they couldn't see how to make money from it. A few commercial corporations have embraced Linux by selling computer servers, operating system packages, and user support focused on it. However, the majority of information technology companies choose not to use Linux or make Linux versions of their programs available, citing such reasons as a lack of demand, no central marketing drive, and no official product support. These conceptions of Linux mostly arise from miscommunication to or misunderstanding by corporate management, who unfortunately have the power to make technical decisions for companies.
One of the problems with the Linux distribution system is that it is virtually impossible to keep accurate records of how many people are using it. Many individuals register with various ``Linux counters'' on the internet, which puts the user base at about 6 million. However, many institutions do not openly admit to using Linux. This usually comes about because a corporation's management decides to pay for and install a commercial computer server at the suggestion of a marketing salesperson disguised as an information technology consultant. The regular computer staff at the company then secretly replaces the commercial operating system with Linux, since it tends to work better and is thus easier to maintain. This happens at surprisingly many companies, even large ones like Boeing. The generally accepted number of Linux computers in the world is 10 million, partially based on computer programs that poll the internet. Due to the wide uncertainty, computer companies tend to neglect the the demand for Linux software and hardware support.
Even though Linux manages to grow by virtue and by word-of-mouth without relying on expensive marketing campaigns, many commercial companies deny the viability of a product without a brand name behind it. This is not so much an issue in Europe and Japan, where merchandise is rated more on quality and not on advertisement, but is central to the American concept of the market economy and mass distribution systems. Only a handful of U.S. enterprises have started to market and sell Linux software packages - complete automated systems that are ready to perform diverse tasks - but names like Caldera, Red Hat, and SUSE possibly have not rung as big as a single unified corporation selling Linux would. Many endeavors are turned away by the mention of ``free software,'' thinking that money cannot be made. However, the word ``free'' refers to freedom of the source code and not to price. The free software community recently began referring to their wares as ``open source software'' in an effort to encourage more companies to develop under this model.
Ironically, the lack of a centralized marketing department is one of the Linux development model's greatest advantages. Linux is a technological system at heart, and benefits from not having close ties with a marketing group to put impositions on or try to control the kernel development. When Torvalds graduated and took a job in the U.S., he purposefully avoided working with a company that had a strong commercial interest in Linux. Doing so might have allowed the company, such as Red Hat, to influence kernel development to favor their particular Linux package. Keeping separate ties with commercial marketing systems has allowed Linux development to remain entrenched in technological and not economic issues.
The last reservation that commercial industry has against adapting to Linux is the lack of a centralized support structure. Companies want an organization to go to for technical support or to take responsibility for a problem. Linux mostly has relied on the USENET internet newsgroups for questions and answers since its inception. Most companies don't realize the effectiveness of these newsgroups for providing detailed troubleshooting instructions. People can post questions about problems they are having with Linux, and usually receive about half a dozen replies from others who have successfully dealt with those problems within 24 hours of posting. The newsgroups are also frequented by the developers of the Linux kernel themselves, which means that real problems with the kernel will usually go on to get fixed. All of these people put an unaccountable amount of work into providing these solutions on essentially a volunteer basis. Companies don't expect such high reliability and responsibility from volunteers, but that is how things have been in practice. Most corporations, on the other hand, have comparatively poorer quality and slower technical support in practice. Also, many companies specifically disclaim any responsibility to fix their products. Linux will be at a disadvantage as long as people fail to realize these benefits over commercial products.
These limitations are beginning to be lifted as Linux is mentioned in the mainstream media more and more often. Since Linux doesn't have any significant advertising campaigns, it must rely on public press to provide exposure. Acknowledgements such as InfoWorld's ``1997 Best Technical Support'' award or coverage by National Public Radio put Linux in a positive light as a viable alternative operating system. The mass media is a double-edged, sword, though. For every positive article, there are equally as many articles from magazines serving special commercial interests, such as MSNBC and ZDNet. Even though these attempt to downplay Linux's advantages, they nevertheless help spread the word about its very existence.