Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Linux is free. So where is it hiding?

Reply
Thread Tools

Linux is free. So where is it hiding?

 
 
slacker.mcspritzen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
Linux is for the most part considered a free operating system meaning you
don't have to pay money for it. Why then is finding Linux on a desktop
system so unlikely? I don't see Linux used in any of the businesses that I
visit each day and in fact I see many Apple machines along with the
Windows machines. I don't understand why Linux has not gained acceptance
in the desktop market place. Is it because Linux isn't really as good as
it's supporters claim it is? Maybe it's because Linux seems to take a
tremendous amount of the users time to set up and use? Could it be that
Linux's hardware support is terrible? Possibly it is because Windows or
osx is really a far better system and that is why consumers are willing to
pay a lot of money for Windows or Apple oSx rather than use Linux and lose
their time.

It's common sense for something that is free to overtake something that
costs money. However the 2 products have to be of equal capability and
maybe that is why Linux is being ignored and Windows,oSx continue to
prosper and gain market share.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
begin virus.txt.scr slacker.mcspritzen (flatfish) nymshifted:

< snip flatfish droppings >

You lately posted as

Aftab Singh, allison_hunt1969, Anna Banger, anonymous, Archie Watermann,
Baba Booey, Babu Singh, bill.gates.loves.me, bison, Bjarne Jensen,
BklynBoy, Boyce Mabri, Buster, Charles LeGrand, Charlie, Choppers McGee,
Christine Abernathy, Claire Lynn, Collie Entragion, Connie Hines, Corrie
Titlaand, dbx_boy, Deadpenguin, Elliot Zimmermann, Emmanuel Arias, Fawn
Lebowitz, flatfish+++, foamy, gabriele howorth, Gary Stewart, George
Littlefield, Gilbert Hochaim, gilligan, Greg Finnigan, Greg Laplante, Hans
Kimm, Heather, Heather69, Heddy Seafield, hepcat, Ishmeal Hafizi, itchy
balls, Ivan Mctavish, IvanaB, Jeff Szarka, Jorge Jorgensen, Jose Lopez,
juke_joint, kaptain kaput, Karla Snodgress, kathy_krantz, Kendra, Kent
Dorfman, Laura Shillingford, Le Farter, Les Turner, Lilly, Lindy, Lisa
Shavas, Lisa Cottmann, long_tong_ling, Lukumi Babalu Aye, Luna Lane, Major
Mynor, McSwain, Moses, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed), nate_mcspook,
okto_pussy, Paddy McCrockett, Patricia, Peter Gluckman, Phillip Cornwall,
phoung, phoung quoak, pickle_pete, Poopy Pants McGee, Quimby, Richie
O'Toole, Robert Strunk, rothstein_ivan, Sally Vadi, Sammy, Sammy Whalen,
Saul Goldblatt, Schlomo Smykowski, Sharon Cackle, Sharon Hubbasland, Sean,
Sean Fitzhenry, Sean Macpherson, Sewer Rat, sewer_clown, Simon,
slacker.mcspritze, Spammy_Davis, spanny_davis, Stephan Simonsen, Stephanie
Mannerz, Stephen, Stephen Olsen, Stephen Townshend, SuckyB, SunnyB, Susan
Lapinski, Susan Wong, Suzie Wong, Swampee, The Beaver, Thorsten, Toby
Rastus Roosovelt III, Tomas Bicsak, Tori, Tori Wassermann, Tracee, Traci,
trailerpark, Trina Swallows, Vince Fontain, Vladimir Yepifano, Walter
Bubniak, Wang Mycock, Whizzer, Wilbur J, Willy Wong, Winnie Septos,Wobbles
and zyklon_C.
Plus many, many, many more.
--
Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:51:44 -0400, slacker.mcspritzen wrote:

> Linux is for the most part considered a free operating system meaning you
> don't have to pay money for it. Why then is finding Linux on a desktop
> system so unlikely? I don't see Linux used in any of the businesses that I
> visit each day and in fact I see many Apple machines along with the
> Windows machines. I don't understand why Linux has not gained acceptance
> in the desktop market place. Is it because Linux isn't really as good as
> it's supporters claim it is? Maybe it's because Linux seems to take a
> tremendous amount of the users time to set up and use? Could it be that
> Linux's hardware support is terrible? Possibly it is because Windows or
> osx is really a far better system and that is why consumers are willing to
> pay a lot of money for Windows or Apple oSx rather than use Linux and lose
> their time.
>
> It's common sense for something that is free to overtake something that
> costs money. However the 2 products have to be of equal capability and
> maybe that is why Linux is being ignored and Windows,oSx continue to
> prosper and gain market share.


the reason you don't see Linux on the desktop in the workplace is purely
down to the illegal business practices of Microsoft. They have ensured
that the largest of the OEMs cannot ( well up until a year or so ago -
when the damage has been done) sell machines with either no OS or Linux on
because if they did then they would suffer huge financial penalties in the
withdrawal of their "discounts" on their windows licences.

As to ease of use, Ubuntu took me 25 minutes to install, and that included
Open Office 2 which is MORE than adequate for the "average" Office suite
user (and I say that as an Advanced Excel user)and Evolution which does
almost everything Outlook does but without the risk of propagating
viruses, doesn't need AV programs OR spyware and malware programs along
with all their constant updating.

Windows is NOT a better OS, and neither are the applications that come
with Linux inferior to those you have to PAY for to install on Windows.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas Wootten
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
slacker.mcspritzen wrote:

> Linux is for the most part considered a free operating system meaning you
> don't have to pay money for it. Why then is finding Linux on a desktop
> system so unlikely? I don't see Linux used in any of the businesses that I
> visit each day and in fact I see many Apple machines along with the
> Windows machines. I don't understand why Linux has not gained acceptance
> in the desktop market place. Is it because Linux isn't really as good as
> it's supporters claim it is? Maybe it's because Linux seems to take a
> tremendous amount of the users time to set up and use? Could it be that
> Linux's hardware support is terrible? Possibly it is because Windows or
> osx is really a far better system and that is why consumers are willing to
> pay a lot of money for Windows or Apple oSx rather than use Linux and lose
> their time.
>
> It's common sense for something that is free to overtake something that
> costs money. However the 2 products have to be of equal capability and
> maybe that is why Linux is being ignored and Windows,oSx continue to
> prosper and gain market share.


Marketing, marekting and marketing

Consider that most home PCs are sold with Windows. Many people simply can't
be bothered to put Linux on them - even if they've heard of it. I mean
Windows XP is _OK_ and it's got more better games on it than Linux. The
average Joe probably doesn't _percieve_ any reason to switch.

And at the business level - well those in charge of purchasing systems for a
business are probably going to be influenced by the MS marklying spiel. If
indeed _they_ have heard of Linux.

Not to mention your 'common sense' isn't true. Surely you have known people
who will *brag* about paying *more* for something than their
peers/friends/rivals (think teenagers and trainers for one)

After all it can look good:

"Last year, we invested an extra £2million in improving out IT systems,
while our rival has made no such extra investment. This will enable us to
provide an unrivalled level of customer service"

Sounds quite good doesn't it? Well of course the £2million investment is
just MS software and associated hardware upgrades. The rival invests
nothing because they already have a superior system - Linux.
But our annual report won't mention that.

--
Tom Wootten, Trinity Hall.
oof.trinhall.cam.ac.uk
There was only ever one valid use for the notorious <blink> tag:
Schrodinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Easter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
slacker.mcspritzen wrote:

> Linux is for the most part considered a free operating system meaning
> you don't have to pay money for it.


It is about free as in 'information wants to be free', not necessarily
free as in 'free beer'.

> Why then is finding Linux on a
> desktop system so unlikely?


Why ask why?

> I don't see Linux used in any of the
> businesses that I visit each day and in fact I see many Apple
> machines along with the Windows machines.


What you see where you visit is a function of where you visit.

> I don't understand why
> Linux has not gained acceptance in the desktop market place.


There are many discussion of that subject and many different kinds of
answers. Here is the most recent one I read

// John H. Terpstra believes that Microsoft and electronics
manufacturers are working together to hinder the adoption of Linux on
the desktop. In a three part series, he tells a story about how two guys
trying to buy Linux desktops found they were overpriced, and lacked
certain tools. He then describes how Microsoft uses its considerable
resources and the law to create such roadblocks.//

http://searchopensource.techtarget.c...134910,00.html
<makeoneline>

> Is it
> because Linux isn't really as good as it's supporters claim it is?
> Maybe it's because Linux seems to take a tremendous amount of the
> users time to set up and use? Could it be that Linux's hardware
> support is terrible? Possibly it is because Windows or osx is really
> a far better system and that is why consumers are willing to pay a
> lot of money for Windows or Apple oSx rather than use Linux and lose
> their time.


All of that sounds like a troll rather than a qx. Are you a troll?

> It's common sense for something that is free to overtake something
> that costs money. However the 2 products have to be of equal
> capability and maybe that is why Linux is being ignored and
> Windows,oSx continue to prosper and gain market share.


I don't think gain market share is apparent; depending upon how you
choose to measure it.

--
Mike Easter

 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry Crites
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
Lockheed has a couple versions on a couple different systems where I work.
Of course, we're running proprietary applications specific to our uses, they
are not COTS applications or programs.

Larry
Behold Beware Believe

"slacker.mcspritzen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hzS5f.30233$(E-Mail Removed)...
| Linux is for the most part considered a free operating system meaning you
| don't have to pay money for it. Why then is finding Linux on a desktop
| system so unlikely? I don't see Linux used in any of the businesses that I
| visit each day and in fact I see many Apple machines along with the
| Windows machines. I don't understand why Linux has not gained acceptance
| in the desktop market place. Is it because Linux isn't really as good as
| it's supporters claim it is? Maybe it's because Linux seems to take a
| tremendous amount of the users time to set up and use? Could it be that
| Linux's hardware support is terrible? Possibly it is because Windows or
| osx is really a far better system and that is why consumers are willing to
| pay a lot of money for Windows or Apple oSx rather than use Linux and lose
| their time.
|
| It's common sense for something that is free to overtake something that
| costs money. However the 2 products have to be of equal capability and
| maybe that is why Linux is being ignored and Windows,oSx continue to
| prosper and gain market share.


 
Reply With Quote
 
ray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005


Linux is not necessarily free as in beer - it is free as in choice and as
in freedom. If you'd like to see it in action, there are a number of
retailers using it, quite a number of local governments around the world,
and an increasing number of libraries are using it for their internet
access computers.

The reason Linux has not evidences wider acceptance is that is runs on the
same platform as MS, and it is very difficult to find a manufacturer who
will sell you a computer without MS installed - due to the predatory MS
business practices, if you offend them, you risk losing your 'preferred
distributor' price advantage. Joe Sixpack is usually not up to installing
Linux, but he would be high and dry if he had to install MS as well. I've
just been doing an experiment - installing the win 2k3 180 eval from MS on
one computer. It's significantly less bother to install, set up and keep
running a Linux distribution. I have no difficulty with hardware setup -
one example - my Brother HL1440 laser printer - Linux comes with the
drivers installed, and when I click the button to activate it, it
automatically becomes installed on every other Linux computer on the
network. With MS I had to download the driver from the Brother web site (I
don't have a clue where the CD is, because I never needed it with Linux)
and then install. After which it was installed on that one lone computer.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Plato
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
slacker.mcspritzen wrote:
>
> Linux is for the most part considered a free operating system meaning you
> don't have to pay money for it. Why then is finding Linux on a desktop
> system so unlikely? I don't see Linux used in any of the businesses that I


It wont run the many common programs that the common person wants to
run.






--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

 
Reply With Quote
 
George Ellison
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
Plato <|@|.|> writes:

> slacker.mcspritzen wrote:
> >
> > Linux is for the most part considered a free operating system meaning you
> > don't have to pay money for it. Why then is finding Linux on a desktop
> > system so unlikely? I don't see Linux used in any of the businesses that I

>
> It wont run the many common programs that the common person wants to
> run.
>
>

No, it runs better ones that don't **** you out of your hard-earned money.
 
Reply With Quote
 
TheLetterK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
slacker.mcspritzen wrote:
> Linux is for the most part considered a free operating system meaning you
> don't have to pay money for it.

And have free access to the vast majority of source code.

> Why then is finding Linux on a desktop
> system so unlikely?

Market inertia, user stupidity, IT departments liking job security, a
plethora of cheapo Windows admins, Microsoft's marketing campaigns, lack
of inclusion on big-ticket OEM machines due to Microsoft's draconian
pricing structure...

> I don't see Linux used in any of the businesses that I
> visit each day and in fact I see many Apple machines along with the
> Windows machines.

Must be in a pretty specialized area.

> I don't understand why Linux has not gained acceptance
> in the desktop market place.

It's still relatively young, as a desktop operating system.

> Is it because Linux isn't really as good as
> it's supporters claim it is?

Nonsense. It's not technical reasons that halt Linux adoption.

> Maybe it's because Linux seems to take a
> tremendous amount of the users time to set up and use?

45 minutes? You consider that a tremendous amount of time? Windows takes
at least two hours to get the same functionality established.

> Could it be that
> Linux's hardware support is terrible?

Maybe, if Linux had terrible hardware support. Fortunately for GNU/Linux
users, it has perfectly acceptable hardware support.

> Possibly it is because Windows or
> osx is really a far better system and that is why consumers are willing to
> pay a lot of money for Windows or Apple oSx rather than use Linux and lose
> their time.

Why would you make this assumption? The evidence does not lend credence
to the idea. Or perhaps you are simply a troll?

>
> It's common sense for something that is free to overtake something that
> costs money.

No, it's not common sense. There are rather complex calculations and
considerations to review before switching platforms. GNU/Linux became
viable for desktop acceptence about 2 years ago, but not in time to
catch the buy portion of the business acquisition schedule.

> However the 2 products have to be of equal capability and
> maybe that is why Linux is being ignored and Windows,oSx continue to
> prosper and gain market share.

Both OS X and Windows have lost marketshare to GNU/Linux. This decline
has been accelerating every year since 1999.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Is Netscape Leaving Firefox Behind on GNU/Linux? THE LINUX PROPAGANDA MACHINE CONTINUES. FIREFOX IGNORING LINUX............. traci.manicotti@gmail.com Computer Support 2 10-20-2007 02:12 PM
Linux... yeah linux.. Linux Have a nice cup of pee NZ Computing 19 04-17-2006 10:16 AM
Importing TB mail from linux in linux Nick de Graeve Firefox 0 10-04-2004 10:49 AM
Linux and vpnclient-linux-4.0.3.B-k9 install problem JSH Cisco 0 06-07-2004 03:56 AM
Linux-Cisco-ADSL-Cisco-Linux Connection hangs.... Adrian de los Santos Cisco 6 07-22-2003 04:44 AM



Advertisments