Why Free Software is a Hard Sell 757
jeffro writes "Dont know if this has been submitted yet, but the Independent news UK has a rather newbiesh article on the ups and down of Linux software as a free alternative to Windows.
"Perhaps Linux shouldn't be regarded as an operating system at all, but more as a sophisticated multi-player game with a large number of enthusiastic players. You can lose yourself in Linux for hours, tweaking here, updating there. It's great fun if you like that sort of thing. But if you need to produce a document, spreadsheet or presentation, you're still likely to be able to do it faster and better by sticking with the Microsoft devil you know.""
Why doesn't it sell? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why doesn't it sell? (Score:3, Insightful)
The 'commercial face' is important to arriving at success in the marketplace. Let's face it, people are just used to ripping off the shrinkwrap before learing a new software package.
That perception won't change overnight.
Re:Why doesn't it sell? (Score:4, Funny)
It isn't Linux that is a hard sell, it is the idea of using Linux when your client is waiting for a spreadsheet, and doesn't give a shit what OS you use, only that you should have updated the damn spreadsheet an hour ago that is the hard sell.
It is a figure of speach.
Keep in mind that "figure of speech" is just an expression; there is no actual figure involved.
How can you sell something that's free? (Score:5, Funny)
Why did you sell out? (Score:2)
When journalists like you take a shit on a piece of paper that shows up in a magazine, or web forum, or newspaper, people take notice and gobble it up. Take some responsibility for your actions and at least attempt to tell these people the truth.
-The key to successful journalism isn't telling readers the facts. It's about FINDING the RIGHT facts to tell the readers.-
Why it doesn't sell (Score:3, Interesting)
But here is why it does not sell in the corporate desktop environment. I know somebody is going to label this is flamebait but it is the truth-- although Linux works VERY WELL for small desktop installations it is missing one very important thing for the corporate workplace: an enterprise-ready office suite.
The reason why MS Office has been so successful in the corporate world is that it is extremely powerful. Word is not just a word processor but an actual development platform. So is Excel and Outlook, and while Microsoft has not historically done a good job at making this a secure development platform, it has done an outstanding job of making it powerful. Last I checked, KOffice did not support the kinds of macros that MS Office does, and the only office app for Linux that does is Gnumeric (which kicks Excel's butt IMO). The office application is the primary enterprise application for businesses and it is also an important development platform for enterprise applications.
I am not saying that one has to have fully-functional programming languages associated with office applications. That is a way to get all sorts of viruses, etc. but the office applications have to support full automation from outside programs and also powerful internal scripting (though preferably sandboxed).
Do am I a Windows fan? Not at all. In fact, I have seen rapid application development on Linux go from a pipe dream to a reasonable reality in a year and a half, and I think that the office suites will do the same.
Wold domination takes time
Par for the course (Score:5, Funny)
.. well, that certainly puts it on equal terms with Windows.
Re:Par for the course (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Par for the course (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, but the validity of that argument depends entirely on your perspective. I could just as easily say "Linux HAS an OS, but it is packaged with network stacks, file systems, and lots of other software that could be modularized and rewritten."
It all depends on what your exact definition of OS is. Including the window manager in the OS is not more or less "correct" in an absolute sense than including the network stack, for example. Can you tell I'm from the microkernel camp?
Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, I did a presentation at University on Monday. I could have chosen to use Powerpoint, but I chose to use KPresenter, because the only comments I've heard people making about powerpoint were in relation to it being "confusing", not working properly, or crashing. My chosen alternative was intuitive to use and caused no problems.
Having not had much experience of any presentation software up until now, I did give both Powerpoint and KPresenter equal consideration and based my choice purely on efficiency.
Is this a UK thing? Why would you not choose the most efficient way of doing something? Surely any extra learning is not a problem if the result is increased efficiency. And in the case of software, it's something else to add to your resume.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
I think so. I think North American culture is still totally engrossed in the instant gratification of things. I have friends who've dropped 2 thousand dollars on computers for things like video production or music production, and have no clue how to use them. We are sold the image that computers need be no more complex than your microwave, but this is obviously not the case; not even in the wizard-laden windows world.
Everything seems to sell on the basis of accessibility here. I also believe that much of it is connected to where people see their means of livelihood coming from. I believe that NA are far more prone to beliving information if it comes from a wealthy organization as opposed to a poor one. We tend to equate previous success with smarts, for some silly reason.
Based on my knowledge of the history of music over the past 30 years, the UK consistantly turns out what becomes the 'next big thing' in the US (electronica, trip hop, even back to the pop in the 80s as pioneered by bands like Squeeze, Joe Jackson
Those are all SWEEPING generalizations, but I feel comfortable saying that North Americans (disclosure: I'm in NA) generally place ALOT of weight on how 'transparent' a technology is; which isn't really a surprise, as our work hours are among the longest in the world, and we are being pressed to find more time for things like family, managing our mutual funds, and, of course, the commercial-friendly activies that represent attaining your goals, like sky diving or kick boxing.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US, gasoline is cheaper than bottled water or milk. (US$0.95 per US gallon, last time I filled up). In the US, single commuters drive 5000 pound, V8-powered, 4x4 trucks for the 60-mile round trip commute to work, cruising at 80 MPH on the freeway, achieving about 12 MPG. Every day. In the US, if you DON'T drive a humungous off-road vehicle as far as the next time zone at insane speeds every day, you're obviously some kind of tree-hugging-commie-liberal-pussy.
In other words, efficiency is generally not the chief concern here. In fact, advocating an increase in efficiency is seen by some as un-American (for interfering with Our Way Of Life) and anti-business (for God only knows what half-baked reasons), and that's no exaggeration.
Re:SES - Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because she's dragging you to a store for people who want to look like (maybe "feel like" would be more appropriate) they are concerned about the environment, health concious, etc. (Or, if you prefer: "tree-hugging-commie-liberal-pussies")
Look in the phone book under "Food Co-Op's" and you'll find a "natural foods" store where the food is real, where the slick suited marketers fear to venture, where the prices are half, and where the closeest thing to an SUV in the parking lot is the '79 International Harvester Scout which looks like it's been to Peru and back primarily because it has.
What was that? You want I should get back on topic? Well, alright...
So much of the "business world" which Linux is accused of being unable to conquor is focused on selling. But, like in the Co-Op story above, there is much of this world where the act of "selling" is an unwanted intrusion. I'd list things like email (as opposed to SPAM), Christmas (as opposed to Christmas Shopping) as among that set. Linux was released to the free software movement because, acording it Linus, he didn't care about "selling" anyone on Linux.
To anyone trying in the business of selling, the whole concept of trying to sell free software is as much an enigma as trying to conceptualize the "weight" of the color blue.
So much of the world makes it's choice of what to buy based on what it is sold. I'm guilty. Business know this, and focus a great deal of effort on convincing people to buy what they otherwise wouldn't. That's what marketers do.
The fact that Linux isn't marketed, (at least not very well) is one of the reasons I use it. When I'm using my computer, I want to select the tool based on what's going to work best for me, not on what's going to be most profitable for some software development company. In some cases, I'd go so far as to say that the act of marketing a product should be read as an admission that the product is inferior. In any case, it's a sign of a company spending less money on development than they could have (or charging more for the product than they have to) to cover the marketing costs.
<obligatory anti-M$ rant>
It's also why I get concerned about the Microsoft Monopoly. Here we have a case where not only is the company marketing their wares to me, (through all the traditional, and in some cases illegal, marketing techniques) they're using their operating system to market their wares to me (through network effects, proprietary file formats, and bundling).
</obligatory anti-M$ rant>
To anyone who is using Linux because it's "cool", your presence is welcome; feel free to stick around for as long as you remain interested. And when you choose to move on to some other "cool" thing, you'll be missed, but your departure won't be unexpected. There are others of us who use Linux because we can, or maybe because we can't help ourselves. We will still be here using and developing Linux, in spite of what the glossy magazines say. And it's this core which Microsoft (rightly, IMHO) brands as a cancer which will (long term eventually) destroy the software (sales) industry.
Both Steve Balmer and Richard Stallman understand this; they see eye-to-eye from different sides of the window.
Re:SES - Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Informative)
The color blue has a wavelength of approximately 460nm. This gives us a value of 2pi/460nm, or 1.366e7 inverse meters, in k-space. The momentum of the electromagnetic waves is Planck's constant
(6.626e-34Js) over 2pi multiplied by k, which turns out to be 1.422e-26mkg/s. The waves are travelling around the speed of light (3e8m/s), so the mass is the momentum divided by the velocity, or 4.739e-35kg.
Weight is actually mass times gravity. So, the weight would be 9.8m/seconds^2 times 4.739e-35kg, or 4.644e-34newtons.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Well, yeah - how the hell are you supposed to lean into a turn with training wheels on?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats the main barrier for business acceptance of Linux. Why should they have a new learning curve when that costs money, and they've already got a workforce that is used to products that are adequate for the tasks that need to be done?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends what you mean by "us". Folks whose sole skill is rebooting and reinstalling Windows will be redundant. However this is the trend of industrialization - less machine-like jobs, because machines can do them, and more human-like jobs in engineering and supporting the machines. It seems like desktop business computing is not advancing very fast in the benefits it offers the customer. Maybe some of the energy currently being used to reboot, reinstall, uncorrupt and audit licenses could be channeled into building and customizing apps that actually increase productivity or capture currently elusive business opportunity.
It's an unfortunate fact of organization life. If your systems function perfectly and you always catch failures before they impact users, you become invisible and your budget is in danger. But if you have the occasional high-profile failure, you raise your department's visibility and importance, look like heroes, and can show upper management where the 'pain' is, and why you need more money/people.
The quote is a valid quote (Score:2, Informative)
Excel is very efficient compared to Gnumeric. I've looked up the keyboard shortcuts in gnumeric, but Gnumeric and many of the Linux Office/Productivity offerings have more sharp edges than the MS Office/Corel Office alternatives.
As I said, I still try use them if at all possible, but they have a ways to go before they offer the same amount of productivity as the finely honed Windows alternatives.
The products, however, have come a long ways and after a few more versions, I could see them becoming just as efficient for the power-user as the MS offerings. If they go the way that the Web Browsers have, they shall become *more* efficient than the MS offerings.
Re:The quote is a valid quote (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, most of them don't know you call those little boxes CELLS!
It is those users, not us, that Linux WP and SS need to cater more for - because it is those users that make up the majority of users. Offer a business with a hundred terminals a free alternative to Word and Excel (especially over the coming year when the pressure to go XP mounts) and your offering a HUGE saving.
Most users simply use excel as a way to format text. Its amazing. But its true!
Re:The quote is a valid quote (Score:5, Funny)
You knowing how to do that *must* be a drag.
Also, don't start dragging with just JAN in one cell, 'cause it creates a 3x3 grid with the format:
MARCIA | CAROL | GREG
JAN | ALICE | PETER
CINDY | MICHAEL | BOBBY
Then Alice morphs into the PaperClip(TM) and the spreadsheet style switches to something in 70s style avacado green and forest gold. This will cause permanent retinal damage, so do be careful.
They make a good point (Score:5, Insightful)
At the end of the day, it comes down to what you're used to, really. If you've never used any OS before, you could probably learn Mandrake 8.1 just as fast as Windows XP. If you're used to Windows, Linux is obviously going to seem more difficult. And vice versa.
Re:They make a good point (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the little things, really. I use Windows at work and at home (for now, soon to be Debian) but recently set up a Red Hat box so that I could play around with a Linux CounterStrike server. While doing some mundane tasks in KDE, I realized that a lot of the "little things" that I have become accustomed to while running Windows weren't present.
For example, a Yes/No dialog appeared on the screen so I naturally hit "Y" on the keyboard instead of clicking the button. It didn't work. I also found myself trying to hit ALT-F4 to close the current window...it didn't work either.
Another example: I right-clicked on the desktop expecting to be able to change my screen resolution, but couldn't find the tool to do it. Actually, I hunted for about 1/2 hour before deciding I'd just deal with the current resolution.
My point is that Linux is a very strong operating system and far more flexible than any Windows product that I've used. However, minor GUI inconvienences can steer people away who don't want to have to re-learn everything that has been burned into their minds for so many years.
Re:They make a good point (Score:2)
come in terms of usabality in just the past two
years or so! The desktop Linux wave is gathering
momentum. Give it another year or two, and we'll
have it wired.
Re:They make a good point (Score:2)
I find being able to scroll through several resolutions with a keypress more convenient than the right-click-the-desk-top-and-click-and-click... approach. If you have it set up so that the virtual desktop is bigger than the actual at the lower resolutions, then you will especially appreciate being able to switch with a key-chord. It seems that almost every thing is configurable, including what key-chords toggle between windows, desktops, et cetera.
As for the pop-up windows stealing focus, that happens to me all the time under KDE, and I detest it. If I figure out how to turn it off, I'll try to let you know how to turn it on.
Re:They make a good point (Score:2)
You're right that there are a *lot* of small differences between the user interfaces for the operating systems. And there are a *LOT* of consistancy problems within each of the interfaces. But it seems to me that most of what you've brought up are not actually detractions from Linux. But rather detractions from having to learn the quirks of something different than what you're used to.
There are *lots* of similar quirks going from Linux to winders. For example, why can't I set up WinXP so that I hit Ctl-Alt-F8 to switch to my wife's GUI environment, and Ctl-Alt-F7 to switch back to mine? The reality is that the functionality exists in both WinXP and Linux. It should not count as a detraction to WinXP that the method of using the feature is different than my personal preferance. Similarly, it should not count as a detraction to Linux that the way that you change graphics resolution is not what you'd prefer.
Frankly, it should not be surprising that if you go from using an OS intended to serve the lowest common denominator, to an OS intended for flexibility that you'll have to learn some new things. It's akin to the difference between riding an airplane to get where you want to go, and flying your own airplane. The latter is dramatically more flexible, but requires a dramatically larger skill set.
Re:They make a good point (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They make a good point (Score:3, Interesting)
That is part of the problem with trying to use Linux. I get my kernal from one group of individuals, my window manager from another, my drivers from some guy in North Carolina, and all of it bundled by a distribution company.
When common-users (and even tech-minded Windows and Mac users) install Linux, it is *the entire* experience that they are going to judge on, much like the original poster. Linux advocates need to get that into their head.
Your post reminds me of ThankGeeks' T-Shirts: "It is a hardware problem," "It is a software problem."
Add this to your list (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They make a good point (Score:2)
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
It's even worse if one has to go looking for documentation first. Just:
"if you want to change something you right click on it and choose Properties"
you learn once, and then you can work everything.
It's not just being used to it (Score:2)
All that aside, I'd still use linux if it were more supported. For the most part though, nearly ever driver and application has a windows version. Although more and more are supported under linux everyday, or can be emultaed under programs such as wine, its still a long way from being supported even as much as mac's are.
My point, though, is that although it may be just as easy to learn a particular linux bundle as it is to learn windows, until I can do all the things I do under windows, I won't get rid of it, neither will I advise anyone else to.
Re:It's not just being used to it (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd disagree.
On the installation front, remember that most users don't ever install Windows. It's installed for them by the OEM. So they never touch the installer. You and me, on the other hand, have been through the installer a few times, I'm sure.
Ease of installation is a tough concept, because it can mean a lot of things. Windows doesn't care what you have on your disk, whether you're already dual-booting, or whether you really want to install all of the crap they want you to. They simply wipe out the files on your disk (whether you want to or not), overwrite your MBR (again, you have no choice in the matter - it's MS's way or the highway), and fills your disk with bunches of useless tools that you won't ever use, but that MS *wants* you to use (ex: all of the damn MSN adware in XP - ick!)
Mandrake, on the other hand, has a damn-near-perfect installer. It asks you what YOU want to do, while suggesting somewhat reasonable defaults. It doesn't do much without asking first, and never assumes that it knows better than you do.
Debian's installer is a bit old-fashioned, but once you know your way around it, it's not as bad as everyone says it is. There's a lot of room for improvement though.
Now, if you're not actually talking about ease of installation, but about hardware recognition - you're right - linux is a bit behind Windows in that area. BUT it is getting better. RedHat 7.2 is able to correctly identify all the hardware in my VAIO F650 laptop - that's a signifigant improvement! Remember that a lot of manufacturers only release drivers for Windows - so linux users generally have to wait until the hardware is reverse-engineered, or the company gets around to releasing potentially buggy drivers. It's not the fault of the OS, although many people place the blame there.
Maintenance is another issue. I've never seen anything on Windows that can even compete with Debian's apt. Want program X? apt-get install program-x, and you're done!
RedHat and Mandrake have similar (but IMHO lesser) tools to deal with their RPM based setups (and yes, I know that apt has been ported to RPM-based distros - it's not in widespread use over there though).
Windows has "Windows Update" for the OS itself, and then various other update channels for other pieces of software. Of course, the actual information that you get through Windows Update is sketchy at best, and often there are undocumented "updates" to programs you might use all the time, that drastically change functionality.
On the security side of maintenance, MS has long been a firm believer in "Security by Obscurity" - basically they don't want people to tell anyone but them about security issues with their software, believeing that if the knowledge of the hole isn't widespread, that it won't be a problem. Yeah, right. When they do release a public patch for a security hole, it's often because a small hole they figured noone would ever exploit has now been exploited on a grand scale by some new email virus. Let's not get into the auto-execution of attachments or ability to masquerade a VBS as another type of file...
Linux users, by and large, are very open about any security flaws found in their software. When they are found, they are generally patched very quickly - often before an exploit reaches the epic proportions of certain exploits on the Windows side. That's not to say there aren't occurances of widespread worms and viruses on the Linux side of things - but they're fewer and further between than Windows ones. Probably at least partially because Linux users tend to be a bit more security concious than your average Windows user...but I won't get into that
As for usability - it's all about familiarity. Windows *seems* easier, because people have grown accustomed to it - not because it actually *is* any easier. I'd bet that an avid user of both OS's could sit down with a completely new user (who has never operated Windows or *nix before, but is willing to learn) under either OS and make that person equally proficient. Why? Because they have no ingrown habits to unlearn.
Converts from Windows to *nix-based OS's always say at the outset that *nix is "Hard to use" - when really what they mean is that *nix is "different from what they're used to". I bet the same could be said for a long-time *nix user that touches Windows for the first time.
Your second paragraph is all about drivers. You want more hardware supported under linux? Tell that to the manufacturers of the hardware. Don't blame the OS. Tell the GPL zealots to stop minding proprietary kernel modules quite so much - and at least allow hardware manufacturers to distribute a loadable module for their hardware. Tell the hardware companies that you use Linux and that you would *like* to use their hardware, but can't because they only release drivers for MS and Apple OS's. Tell them that you have friends who are in the same situation. You'd like to buy their stuff and give them money - but you don't want to have to also give money to MS for that ability. If enough of us speak, some of them will listen. If some of them embrace the spirit of OSS and opensource their driver modules, even better - but let's at least let them get the support in there.
Your last paragraph is a quandry - you *can* do all the things you can do under Windows - you just have to go about them in different ways. For example, you can't play most Quicktime movies - as the codec (Sorenson) that is used is proprietary, and the company that owns it will not allow linux-based players to use it without cost. Under Windows, Apple eats that cost, and releases a free player. They don't release that player for Linux, so either you have to eat the cost yourself and develop a player, or you have to go to Apple and tell them to release their player for Linux.
There are lots of other examples that work the same way. Some company has a proprietary widget - one that another company uses. The second company eats the cost of the wiget and releases a free player, but charges for the creation software. If they don't release their free player under your OS of choice, you're SOL. That's not the OS's fault - but that's where the blame is being laid.
I think people need ot be better educated about where the real problems lie - rather than just blaming everything on the OS.
Re:They make a good point (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Windows is a hard sell
Windows is an operating system and has plenty of software, but can it really measure up to the power of Linux? Its frequent errors and bugs are enough to annoy anyone, and its GUI doesn't even support virtual desktops. It has some usability advantages, such as a single widget set, but these are outweighed by its tendency to hide the option you're looking for in layers of user obsequiousness.
...
Perhaps Windows shouldn't be regarded as an OS at all, but more of a multiplayer game with a number of naiive players. You can lose yourself for hours, looking for the proper driver configuration for some software it doesn't support. It's great fun if you like that sort of thing. But if you need to produce a good document, you'ss probably be able to do it better and more easily on Linux with a good tool made for the job.
Widgets ? (Score:2)
I want to install Nvidia drivers on a Dual PIII.
Mandrake 8.1
X 4.1 something.
Ok now you go and install just with the Widgets.
Try.
Hard.
Then write me tomorrow and tell me about the exhilirating experience.
I lost a nice 2 hours before getting back to Make.
Yes Mandrake is Way easy to install.
But not yet as polished as windows.
Sometimes it can be complicated to install something on Windows.
Sometimes it's just impossible under X on Linux.
And Johnny Lawnmover WON'T have the same patience as me and will install a Bootleg Windows within 30 minutes.
It's not only a learning curve problem. It's just you cannot yet compete with Windows on "Dummy Mode PC User".
Or have EVERYTHING available through Widgets. Including the Make command, with Make Dep, Make World, every option, but on a nice GUI. Not just "special graphical widgets" that often propose the same configuration options as the one you just tried with different names and colors.
I'm used to Windows (since V2.0 8| at the time I was looking for apps on REM, the concurrent, but didn't find any...)
I'm installing Linux since Redhat 4.x
And it's still not my day to day OS.
I come, install (better and better), play for 3-4 hours, then want to duplicate my favorite app from Windows (Quake 8) and ends up 5 hours with Nvidia drivers / Open GL and others just to hear that "Quake won't install, Open GL not recognized" and other swearwords.
Windows is "Dummy Mode Friendly"
I want Linux to be the same.
Just like MacOSX. 2 modes. 2 worlds. Together. And let the hacker take hane and let the luser use shiny GUI
Now flame me. I want to use Linux. It has come a lloooonnngggg way. But not yet versatile enough ? possibly.
I want an OS where I don't have to engage my brain to work. caus I don't have 5 hours to solve a problem.
The old sayings.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux will appeal to anyone that is well versed in computer OSes for many different reasons.. but then again, they aren't the ones that need Linux -sold- to them.
Depends on your perspective (Score:2, Insightful)
The article looks to be oriented from the desktop user's perspective, where it's the applications that matter, not the OS.
simple answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Couple with this that best-buy employees cant tell you the difference between linux and windows let alone answer a hard question like how to change the background wallpaper on linux. The salespeople are not there to support it (they arent there to support windows, but linux is a magnitude more powerful and therefore scary.)
Gateway wants to be able to tell the user "pop-in the restore cd and reboot, yes all your data is gone now, windows does that."
All the questions asked by users back in 1980-1990 will be asked again with linux and computer sellers dont want to answer them.
Linux looks like it needs more support than windows, in reality it does not, but it's "different" and that scares companies that are used to their current cash cow.
Re:simple answer (Score:4, Funny)
The most influence MS has had on the industry is changing the attitude of users, "If I don't understand this it's YOUR fault, I shouldn't have to learn anything." This is the legacy of bill.
People are completley content to use what they are comfortable with.
Funny anticdote to support my point: I work in a research lab as a sysadmin
"What do people use to read their email?"
"Umm, im not sure I understand the question?"
"You know, what would a CEO use to read his email"
... he then explains to me that for the last 9 years hes been using "tail" to read his mail and he dosen't much like the program
"Hmmm, I've never heard of that email program before"
"no, its the unix command tail"
at this point I realized that he'd been running tail on his mail spool to read it for the last 9 years
A problem I see with free software... (Score:3, Interesting)
is name recognition. Yes, Linux is generally recognized by the public, but that's about as far as it goes. And when people hear Linux, they think "Server operating system that is constantly being worked on." I don't know of one person in my company that would even think to use Linux as a desktop OS. That's not to say there aren't any good applications for Linux for desktop work (StarOffice is great), but none of those applications have the name recognition that competing Microsoft products have.
When it comes to free software, the name recognition it gets is "You get what you pay for." Most people don't understand that "free" refers to the licensing restrictions, not to the monetary cost of acquiring the software.
Free software will eventually become more of an option to business. Microsoft will see to it by shooting itself in the foot with its XP licensing structures. Time is on our side. As more companies suffer under Office and Windows renewal fees, they will begin to explore other options. And as more employees begin to see the advantages of free software, they will begin to use it at home. In this case, Microsoft ends up being our ally. (Strange, huh?)
Re:A problem I see with free software... (Score:2)
In other words, someone out of the IT field.
Anyone would help me out? (Score:3, Funny)
That explain why I'm still stuck at (run)level 2 after years of playing...
Quote from the article (Score:2, Interesting)
[SNIP]
Of course, the development of new versions of Linux follows exactly the same process used by Microsoft
hmm... does this mean Microsoft is opensource? Where can I get the RPM of XP?
Yes and no (Score:3, Interesting)
At the same time, it's come a _long_ way in just a few years. I'd bet my job (well, actually I just about have) that Linux is a better business desktop than Windows. For a business, Linux makes a lot of sense. It gets you off the Microsoft-upgrade-churn cycle, most everything you'd want is freely available, and the simplicity of administration and the excellent security make it a great choice.
Yes, KDE/Koffice, Gnome/'Gnome office', and StarOffice are not MS-Office. So what? As more businesses adopt Linux as their desktop, manufacturers will take note and start offering it, ISVs will take note and start selling more software, and consumers will take note and start buying linux for home since they want to be compatible with what's at the office. Same sort of cycle that made the IBM PC more popular than the Mac back in the late 80's/early 90's.
This might not be the year of linux for the consumer, but it's getting close for linux on corporate desktops.
Better documents? (Score:2)
In the same spirit as touch typing vs. two fingering it, do the windows solutions really produce better output than TeX and your favorite external utils to make figures (gnuplot).
People go on and on about how great Word or it's Linux clones are. They are admitidly as easy to get started on as two fingering it, but I don't think they can touch LaTeX for quality and speed, once you get the hang of it.
Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't need microsoft to get my job done... and never will.
hehehe (Score:2, Interesting)
"For while Linux has a large presence in the server marketplace, it doesn't cut it as a desktop operating system. That's not through any technical shortcomings of the product itself, but rather the technical shortcomings of users"
It's funny because it's true.
It IS hard to explain to people. (Score:5, Interesting)
Recently I convinced a client to use Linux/Apache over Win/IIS. He couldn't believe that you can setup a webserver without paying for the software. He would have spent alot more money on the close source solution.
The only way he would agree to my solution was if I set up both a Lin and Win box, show that the Linux box could do all of the same things as the Windows server. Once I did that then he sprung for the total Linux solution.
Of course, the kicker would be,
"You know, we saved you about $100,000 in software costs, why don't you donate 10% of that cost to Debian and/or Apache."
"Um, no."
Here's the solution (Score:2)
Linux isn't an operating system (Score:2)
Kernel + Userland = Operating system.
Isn't this topic dead yet? (Score:2)
In any case, I think its been fairly well concluded and beaten to death that Linux is unlikely to ever give Microsoft any real competition in desktop business apps, and everyone seems to be at peace with this, so it really is a dead issue.
Glaring factual flaw in article (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel has put software support behind Linux where it counts: device drivers.
For most Linux device drivers, I scour the web or my distribution media for third-party written drivers. When I need Intel networking or graphics drivers for Linux, I go to support.intel.com.
Key phrase ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Key word - "know". I'm sure it would be possible to produce open source versions of stuff like Office which had the same UI etc. so users could pick them up and use them quickly. Possible, yes but you'd be drowned in lawsuits before you could say frost pist.
This is interesting. Imagine if, in the early days of motoring, someone had copyrighted having the gas pedal on the right, the brake in the middle, the clutch on the left, the steering wheel etc. Basically, the user-interface for a car. All the UIs for all the different makes would have to be different. How would that work? Eventually, the car with the most popular UI would become a default monopoly. Either that, or they'd be a lot of wrecks when people changed brands.
People are comfortable with what they know. It's not legally possible to produce something which they can operate in the same way to get the same result - even if, under the hood, it's completely different.
Wow, what wonderful FUD! (Score:2, Insightful)
This article is pretty much a glorified troll, complete with reasonably-stated FUD. You can tell the difference though because you get that weird gut feeling that something is wrong. Let's analyze just the quote:
Wow, this is a good one. Linux isn't really an OS---just a game. Read: it may be good for entertainment value, but is not something a business would use. This sounds like something out of a Microsoft spin factory.
Read: it takes forever to configure the thing, it's not just point and click.
Read: I'm too dumb to figure out StarOffice, because it doesn't say "Microsoft" on the side of the box. (Or one of the countless alternatives. I'm preaching to the choir here, of course, and you know what's out there already.)
Just a product of your typical FUD factory. Some of these might have been valid concerns 5-10 years ago, but come on. Quit trolling. Even the "popular" news rags don't spout this stuff anymore.
But on the other side of the coin, XP.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The article was on MSNBC, but has mysteriously vanished...
It's still too complex (Score:2, Insightful)
I run Linux (Mandrake) and have run RedHat, Slackware and other variants in the past. I also run Windows, Solaris, etc.
This article has a point - my parents can't use Linux. And I don't have the time to support them, even if I wanted to.
It's just like cars- people used to look and be afraid of those "new-fangled" [aaaminneapolis.com] beasts. And at first they were a pain. You had to hand start them with a crank. They didn't have windshields, so you had to wear goggles and get dirty. Then, the innovation started- windshields, steering wheels (instead of yokes), electric starters, automatic transmissions, a/c, power everything. Today, you can buy a car and if it's not a Yugo, it will probably run for a few hundred thousand miles. And it comes loaded with all kinds of neat toys.
Until the system [linux] can run without having to use a shell, manual tweeks, etc. it won't fly in the consumer world. Each release gets better, but it's still not there.
The other problem, as many have mentioned, is the amount of software available for Linux (and the means of installing it) is still a bit clumsy. Most [l]users want a GUI installation that does everything for them. And there isn't anything wrong with that. Does everyone who drives a car know exactly how that internal combustion (or electric) engine works? No...
-My $.02Not a hard sell, just not sold. (Score:2)
Linux has comparable programs and it's free. So why does nobody offer it on PCs?
What the article fails to address is that fact that OEMs CAN'T bundle Linux with Windows, or else it violates their Agreement with Microsoft.
Most OEMs are afraid to even offer anything but Windows, for fear that MS will cut them off, which would immediately cripple their business. It's not that Linux is a hard sell, its that it just isn't sold by OEMs for standard desktops, period.
From the mouths of babes... (Score:2, Interesting)
That said, there is a lot of productivity found for me to use it in server roles where the users could care less how the interactions are performed. I can save the user money and set up a low end box as a file server (compatible with Windows) and never have to worry about needing to reset again until upgrade time. Cost savings in hardware/software and my time.
The realization needs to be that technical people see the merits of Linux (cheap, malliable and crashproof) but those merits mean little to a non technical user, who can barely remember how to cut and paste.
The point (Score:3, Interesting)
To most users, this is how an os should be. A necessary thing which does what is does when it should do it wihtout the user having to wonder how or why.
If you are the type who screws open the vacuum cleaner to find out how it works, then you are likely to install linux and have fun fiddling with it. The hours spend are hobby and learning time. The fact that all the software to play with is free is a nice add-on.
If you are the type who couldn't care less how stuff works, but just wants it to work to play games, to make a presentation or whatever turns you on, then every minute spend learning stuff and fiddling with an os to get things to work feels like eternity. The fact that all the software is free only confirms your feeling that there *has* to be a reason why it is free.
So it isn't that free software is a hard sell, it is hard to sell because a lot of people do not see their time as being free too.
Not quite the full story... (Score:3, Informative)
- Some of the default settings make it all too easy to destroy the existing contents of your hard disk. [?!]
But, I also happened to come across this article at The Register [theregister.co.uk] that actually provides for a more balanced look at the install process:- As for other hardware detection, Mandrake was infallible. The drives; the wheel-mouse, the keyboard, the monitor, the video card (nVidia Ge-Force AGP 64 MB), the sound card (SoundBlaster Live), all of it. All I had to do was confirm its choices every now and then.
So, Mandrake 8.1 looks like a good choice for a beginner, and I definitely look forward to Mandrake 9.xWhy I Push Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
I've sold both Windows and Linux based tools for awhile, after after a lot of soul-searching (and checkbook-balancing), I've decided I prefer selling Windows solutions. Four reasons --
I still prefer Linux for *my* stuff -- I just like Windows for *other people's* stuff.
Can linux ever be the standard? (Score:2, Interesting)
The other issue is whether hackers WANT to make Linux as easy and straightforward as Windows. I think the reality has to be faced that _choice_ means a certain level of complexity, and complexity is a burden to ease-of-use. I would argue that the very advantage Windows has for the common user is diametrically opposed to the goal of Linux hackers everywhere which is to make the system as robust as possible.
That said, I don't think it's impossible for Linux to break into the desktop market. All that is needed is for GUI developers to start emphasizing Windows-like functionality that makes it easy for newbies to pick up the OS. I think that the current problem is that these goals have only come to be emphasized recently.
I think the reason M$ is so scared of Linux recently has to do with the fact that Linux isn't dependent on winning this battle anytime soon. It doesn't have earnings report deadlines or any other interest in profitability. It can simply keep chugging along until one day it is suddenly winning...
Software shouldnt be sold (Score:2)
Not The Users' Fault (Score:2, Interesting)
I take issue with that statement. It is not the users' fault that Linux GUIs use X windows and as a result the GUIs are more slugish in Linux that in Windows. No amount of reasonable configuring by a user can change that.
Thats when he realized... (Score:2, Funny)
Author (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me started.
No one force you to tweak it if you don't want to. There's always stable [debian.org] version of Linux for production use. The fact that people don't like doing document, spreadsheet or presentation in Linux is the reluctance to learn different ways of doing same things. A Mac user wouldn't like do that in Windows, for example. Your arguement is very misleading.
I must admit MS offers best of the line office suite, but it doesn't mean other office suite [koffice.org] is too inferior in comparison.
If you say it's a massive multi-players game, many [internet.com] people [oracle.com] are doing serious game playing here.
Sometime I really feel like there's a need to mod some posters as troll or flamebait.
The problem with windows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux Needs Design (Score:5, Insightful)
And what underlies this is the programmer mentalilty. Most free software is designed by programmers who, on the whole, have little empathy for the average user. They are technology focused. This may be good for the technology, but not good for the user.
The Linux development community should focus on developing and sticking to some technical design standards and working (and innovating) within those contraints. This may provide a platform for someone to fairly easily come up with a really easy to use system.
Same argument, different day (Score:2)
It's the mentality that "I'm lazy... I don't want to learn a different way..." that keeps linux off of business desktops and makes silly software reviewers say that MS has the one and only usable office suite.
Do we really want to be Windows? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Linux I own and use about 15 Linux machines everyday. It is perfect for me in nearly every way. I love the applications, the feel, the price, the stability, the configurability, and the ability to alter the software that runs under it.
However, does that necessary mean that my mom has to like it and use it as well? She doesn't program, in fact she can barely type up an email, much less work some "|grep" magic from the command line. She, and most other people I know could care less about daemons and altering cron jobs. They just want to type up an email, surf the web, and create a document here and there.
The more software the better I guess when it comes to Linux, but if the price of getting more software for our OS is changing and dumbing down it down, then I vote to keep Linux just the way it is: For geeks, by geeks.
You give it away, it is worth nothing... (Score:2)
That is not to say free software is worth nothing. The reverse it true - for my own personal use, I would not ever consider putting a Windows box on the other side of the firewall, even with the software in hand. Linux was an easy choise for my CS server - though I might run Solaris if that were an option.... Double that for even more important things like my development box!
Folks can be dumb, however.... expecially managment. When you shoot for the lowest common denominator, some times you prey on the divide by zero errors...
Uh, they missed the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're somewhat correct... (Score:5, Insightful)
I definately do... I took me three days to figure out that I needed to type "startx" to get the desktop up.....
Hey, it was all new to me, I definately had no clue where to start or what commands to use. Nevermind write and print a text file or spread sheet. And this is what the article refers to.
You initally need to spend time playing with it, and learning the system before you can do what most people naturally do with Windows.
IMHO, I believe that Linux needs high consumer use-ability for it to really get into mainstream.
First off, Linux needs a few windowish things to happen.
One
First boot always goes to the desktop... (allow logging in and command line access to be optional for users concerned about security or command line freaks like me). This will give Windows users a nice warm fuzzy feeling at first.
Second
Allow double clicking to execute files in desktop mode. Therefore the user does not have to open up the command line and type
I feel that by making Linux extrmemly easy for new people, many will flock. By allowing users to take to "newbie" usability features away, people like us will still be happy.
It's about the serverside (Score:2, Insightful)
it is obvious that linux + java is the "tip of the sword" against XP dominance on the server.
You kids still wonder why you are fighting the wrong war ? it's like netscape vs microsoft and all the press was focusing on the *browser*, while apache was taking over the server side. GAME OVER, who gives a flying FUCK that IE owns the desktop, the server side is where the game is at and that is what real-men are fighting on these days.
Focus on the strenght, drop the kiddy idealism, make the vision work on the server and Open Source software will become the defacto monopoly.
marcf
Windows is ``fritterware'' as well (Score:5, Interesting)
I had to laugh when I read the remark:
I see so-o-o many Windows users doing exactly the same thing. Tweaking fonts, adjusting colors, downloading more screensavers than you can shake a stick at. It's not just a Linux phenomena and I see more UNIX users grow out of this more than I see Windows users getting tired of this tweaking. (I wonder why...)
Remember the Apple ad with the two guys futzing with the PC for hours/days on end when the secretary asks when is that thing going to be ready to use. Their response ``We're tweaking it.'' followed by ``To make it easier to use.'' still cracks me up and is as applicable today as it was then.
Logical Leaps (Score:3)
So the marketing manager for Dell says that they have to spend some money to verify that their new system works with Linux. In response, the author of this article decides that the reason Linux hasn't taken off on the desktop is because Dell isn't installing linux anymore. And Dell isn't doing that because Linux is too hard to install?
I think the author forgot that this testing has to take place for Windows, too. The testing has to take place for anything new that gets added to the Dell's systems. They have to test new CDRW drives, DVDRW drives, anything... and the only justification for that testing is if the demand for that thing will increase sales and pay for the cost of the testing. Ease of end user installation is just plain not relavant.
It's awful expensive and difficult for Ford Motor Company to install engines into their cars. But they do it because the demand for their cars would fall to the floor if they didn't. In other words, pre-installing engines increases the demand for Ford vehicles. If the demand for pre-installed linux was there, Dell would pre-install it no matter how hard it was the first time they tried to figure it out.
Selling Linux as an OS = bad idea (Score:2)
Mystery boxes that do mystery thing to packets and nobody looks inside, Linux is perfect..
I view linux like a really cool tool, not a competive product. I don't worry about MS taking over the world, I got my copy of the linux source, I'll be good.. Worse comes to worse I'll add what I need myself..
It's call R&D (Score:3, Insightful)
What about Apple and OS X? (Score:2, Interesting)
So why is Microsoft the only alternative here? What about Mac OS X? Yes I know you have to get a completely different machine to run it, but the upside is that with Mac OS X you can have your cake and eat it too. You can do on Mac OS X just about anything you can on Windows yet you have the power and stability of Linux. It may still not be as fast as it outta be (but it *is* getting better by leaps and bounds) but you can certainly have the fun of Linux with the wide range of software like you would find under windows. And, unlike Linux, you can find *tones* of commercial games for the Mac, many of which either run under classic just fine, or have OS X native updates. Some even ship that way now.
Yes, with Mac OS X you have to bow to some corporate entity, but hey if you have to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven, its better to have Apple as your satan than Microsoft.
Faster and Better in Word? (Score:2)
Its not the OS -- its the application (Score:5, Insightful)
Now when MS-DOS came out with the IBM PC, IBM did not sell MS-DOS nor did MS sell MS-DOS -- instead all that you saw on TV adds was the APPLICATIONS that came with the PC.
So if we want to get Linux on desktop, into corporations and homes, we need to find a "killer-app" and promote THAT and I belive Linus is working on such a project.
I sell Linux - and Love it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a scenario: You are a system integrator. You sell support contracts and are responsible to make sure that your clients' networks are running reliably, day-in and day-out. If something goes seriously wrong, you are there, and much of your labor is delivered at 100% loss.
You want to set something up that just WORKS, day in and day out - 'cause then you get the support checks and no hassles, and pure profit.
You don't sell computers, you don't sell networking, you don't sell software. You sell the whole banana, essentially an out-sourced tech department.
In that environment, are you going to tell me that Windows is your best bet?
Every morning, I get up, and read a few emails that give me a summary of the health and status of my clients' (Linux based) networks.
They work for long periods of time with NO ATTENTION AT ALL from me other than reading these summary emails. Backups are done automatically, off-site. (thank scp!) Their web sites and applications work smoothly (thanks Apache!), they get their email (thanks sendmail!) and they can access their files and applications from any of their Windows-based clients, (thanks samba!) and have clean, secure, reliable access to the Internet. (thanks ipchains!)
By moving all the applications to the server, I don't care if the customer chooses Windows, Mac, Linux, BeOS, whatever clients, nor is it a big thing if it crashes. (Pull out the restore CD, put it in the drive, re-boot the computer..)
The important thing is: They all know that their business runs on Linux, depends on Linux, and they know that they are free to confidently run their business because of me and my good friend, Linux.
And they are happy to cut me that check every month because of it.
Would I want it any other way?
NO WAY!
Knowing your customer (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux is very good in the server and network world because most of the developers of Linux and Linux software are themselves "customers" of that market segment. By simply developing a system to do what they want and need, they have succeeded in meeting the demands of that market.
Linux is very poor in the desktop environment because the vast majority of linux developers have no clue what a "typical user" wants or needs. They cover up this ignorance by belittling the "typical user" as being too "stupid" to really understand that Linux is so much better for them than Windows.
Until Linux developers start taking significant steps to understanding what the desktop users needs really are, Linux will be little more than an "also ran" in that category.
Moreover, until Linux meets the desktop users needs better than MS does, MS will continue to rule the roost in the business world. Cost of doing business is more than simply the cost of supporting the install base of systems. Sure, it costs more to support MS - but guess what? I, as a manager, can use anyone of a thousand local companies to outsource my desktop support to. I can leverage computer sales for breaks on training costs. And I don't have to worry about a new administrative support person not being familiar with the software environment.
I can go to any of a thousand local temp agencies to find people proficient in MS Office. Where can I find the temp staff proficient in KDE Office?
I can't.
But of course, I'm just a typical user, so I'm really just too stupid to understand how much better Linux is than Windows.
That's funny. (Score:2)
If SUSE took 12 hours to install, you are doing something very seriously wrong.
Re:That's funny. (Score:2)
Re:That's funny. (Score:2)
Tom.
Re:It's not a desktop OS (Score:2)
I have a linux box that has been running for over 4 years now without reboots and is lightning fast. XP cannot claim that as it hasnt even been out that long.
you are talking about a configuration and packaging of linux and OSS software. Linux is more stable and faster than XP can ever be. Want to prove me wrong? Play back an MPEG on a Pentium 200 without frame drops. I can do it under linux, XP wont even install on a machine that small.
in your expierience XP was better than that version of SuSE. and that is the extent of it.
using your comparison method, Os/2 is better than XP because windows CE crashes and is slow.
Linux does not equal SusE, Mandrake or Redhat please remember that.
Re:It's not a desktop OS (Score:2, Interesting)
The point is that both systems have their problems sometimes, but one cost much more.
Re:It's not a desktop OS (Score:2)
I do all my writing on Linux in WP. Works just fine.
I don't playu around w/Linux much at all. It isn't a game for me. I have a PS1 and 2 for those... I use it to stay MS and crash free not to play around w/.
I agree that some people would use it for that. I hear a lot of "I would love to install Linux and learn it." But for most Linux users it is for the reasons I listed above.
They are working to make Linux easier, someday it will get to the point where it will be a viable competitor but for now the goal is not to do that.
Re:Redundant information. (Score:2)
Most linux distros sold in stores include a firewall and other apps as part of the distro. MS could do the same thing and include ISA as part of Windows just like they started bundling IE and some other software. Maybe Red Hat is breaking the law by bundling all these apps with their linux distro?
Be realistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Find me three business executives who use nroff to format documents on a regular basis.
And (although they do) no business should EVER be using spreadsheets for day-to-day information gathering, storage, and retrieval
The point of the spreadsheet is data analysis and presentation.
Re:Be realistic (Score:5, Funny)
I met a number of them from the
Re:Be realistic (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Producing documents (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this is the problem with a lot of tech ppl, you don't even *try* to think like a layman. Think, did it take you 20 minutes to set this up? Well that could take a casual user several hours, simple solutions for you are not so simple for the audience you are trying to capture.
Untill hardware is plug 'n play and the software is click 'nstall (I like that one
mkay?
Not true (Score:2)
BZZZT. Dell offered it. Very few people bought it.
Re:Office... who needs it? (Score:2)
You're right, one day people will use something else. And that will be right around the time that MS can no longer differentiate its product from free competitors.
There are costs and benefits to a lot of different software options right now. To deny that Office offers any benefits is ignorant. If you talk to people developing competing products, I'm sure they'll tell you the respect they have for Office - and how much work it is to create such a huge, feature-rich product.
And somehow, millions of people every day manage to somehow produce documents on it. I personally don't like parts of Word, but I respect that it has been built to satisfy a broad spectrum of users, and for the most part does so.
Any OS should be happy to have an app set as strong as Office.
-
Re:whats all this bull about linux being hard (Score:3)
Also anything I wanted to download and use I had to compile first. That meant finding the file libraries, many of which were NOT backward compatable. This was all a hassle and eventually I gave up.