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?

 
 
John Bailo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
slacker.mcspritzen wrote:

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


Yum, Hershey's chocolate bar right after sushi at lunch...

M....
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rgdawson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
"slacker.mcspritzen" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


I've studied Linux behavior for about a decade, and it basically boils
down to this. Linux isn't polished, it lacks consistency both in
baseline hardware requirements and throughout the UI. The "linux
community" if you can call it that, is basically leaderless and "brain
dead".

They want to have all these lofty commune style goals, but forget they
are competing for mindshare with well funded companies purely focused on
building the best OS. At this point in the game, Linux is about 55% what
OSX is for example, so unless you are truly poor, and don't understand
Bit Torrent, OSX will win every time. Windows is a bit different in that
is doesn't have much more quality than Linux, but through illegal
bundling, it can be forced onto shipping machines by default, thus Linux
can't gain traction.

If the Linux community was smart, it would band together, then agree
(for example) that starting Jan 1, 2006, they would charge $100 per
distro (including updates) throughout that year. That would finally give
them some resources to fix what is broken, bring Linux up to speed with
the rest of the OS developers, get the sad state of documentation up to
OSX standards, and finally be able to Advertise. Sadly, they are mired
in discontent, thus OSX will likely win over the long term as the
primary Unix based OS.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
In article <hzS5f.30233$(E-Mail Removed)>, slacker.mcspritzen
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


A consumer expects to find a working operating system on any machine.
The general consumer has been _told_ Windows is the only practical
choice they have, even that it is the best available.
It is much too complex for a general consumer to go out and learn all
the technical and practical issues about choosing a processor or model,
let alone OS.
Therefore, retailers feel obliged to sell a machine with Windows.
Microsoft knows this and bullies manufacturers into contracts assuring
them of huge fees whether or not Windows is installed.

After the sale, it is a significant extra effort to get and install a
new operating system.
Users generally assume, because of rumors and what they hear about
other users, that all the problems in Windows are common to all
operating systems and users.
It is further unencouraging that they aren't quite sure what they will
get.
Therefore, few try it.

All we have to do as a community of helpful users is inform others that:
there are real differences in operating systems
there are real differences in the risks and benefits of an OS
you aren't giving up everything by trying one
 
Reply With Quote
 
gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:33:03 -0500, Plato wrote:

> 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 won't run the programs that Microsoft has brainwashed the general
public into THINKING that they need - even when it's a known fact that 95%
of Office users only use 25% or less of its functions.......

--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.10
gbplinuxATgmailDOTcom
to email me remove the obvious!

 
Reply With Quote
 
George Ellison
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
Rgdawson <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> "slacker.mcspritzen" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

>
> I've studied Linux behavior for about a decade, and it basically boils
> down to this. Linux isn't polished, it lacks consistency both in
> baseline hardware requirements and throughout the UI. The "linux
> community" if you can call it that, is basically leaderless and "brain
> dead".
>
> They want to have all these lofty commune style goals, but forget they
> are competing for mindshare with well funded companies purely focused on
> building the best OS. At this point in the game, Linux is about 55% what
> OSX is for example, so unless you are truly poor, and don't understand
> Bit Torrent, OSX will win every time. Windows is a bit different in that
> is doesn't have much more quality than Linux, but through illegal
> bundling, it can be forced onto shipping machines by default, thus Linux
> can't gain traction.
>
> If the Linux community was smart, it would band together, then agree
> (for example) that starting Jan 1, 2006, they would charge $100 per
> distro (including updates) throughout that year. That would finally give
> them some resources to fix what is broken, bring Linux up to speed with
> the rest of the OS developers, get the sad state of documentation up to
> OSX standards, and finally be able to Advertise. Sadly, they are mired
> in discontent, thus OSX will likely win over the long term as the
> primary Unix based OS.


And the money goes to whom? This is anarchy, dude. Nobody says who can and
can't run Linux or distribute it. It's guerilla software, and that's just the
way we want it. The lack of drool-proofed docs and idiotic ads just keeps the
stupids mired in WinXP or OSX where they can't contaminate us.

Btw, this is the third nymshift you've done in ~8 hrs. What gives?
 
Reply With Quote
 
gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:56:14 +0000, Mitch wrote:


> Therefore, retailers feel obliged to sell a machine with Windows.
> Microsoft knows this and bullies manufacturers into contracts assuring
> them of huge fees whether or not Windows is installed.


And even worse, removing all their discounts if they DARE to sell a
machine with another OS on it......

--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.10
gbplinuxATgmailDOTcom
to email me remove the obvious!

 
Reply With Quote
 
TheLetterK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
Rgdawson wrote:
> "slacker.mcspritzen" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

>
>
> I've studied Linux behavior for about a decade,

Using the same version of the distribution you downloaded 10 years ago.

> and it basically boils
> down to this. Linux isn't polished,

Because your still using Debian .93R6.

> it lacks consistency both in
> baseline hardware requirements and throughout the UI. The "linux
> community" if you can call it that, is basically leaderless and "brain
> dead".

Again reflecting the impression you would get from Debian .93R6, not
Ubuntu Breezy.

>
> They have all these goals of having usable software at reasonable cost, but forget
> they are competing for mindshare with well funded companies purely focused on
> building the most profitable OS. Back in 1995, Linux was about 55% what
> OSX is today. It is now the most effective operating system in the world. So, unless
> you are truly rich, and don't understand the concept of value, OSX will lose every
> time. Windows is a bit different in that is doesn't have any redeeming social qualities,
> but through illegal bundling, it can be forced onto shipping machines by default,
> thus neither Linux nor OS X can gain traction.

Corrected.


>


> If the Linux community was smart, it would keep doing what they are doing.hen agree
> (for example) that starting Jan 1, 2006, they would charge $100 per
> distro (including updates) throughout that year. That would finally give
> them some resources to fix what is broken, bring Linux up to speed with
> the rest of the OS developers, get the sad state of documentation up to
> OSX standards, and finally be able to Advertise. Sadly, they are mired
> in discontent, thus OSX will likely win over the long term as the
> primary Unix based OS.

Pssh, in your dreams.
 
Reply With Quote
 
George Ellison
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
gordon <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:56:14 +0000, Mitch wrote:
>
>
> > Therefore, retailers feel obliged to sell a machine with Windows.
> > Microsoft knows this and bullies manufacturers into contracts assuring
> > them of huge fees whether or not Windows is installed.

>
> And even worse, removing all their discounts if they DARE to sell a
> machine with another OS on it......
>

I just took the high road and started building/upgrading on my own. It's not
that much more pricey (especially frankenputering a machine in stages), and
no Microsoft tax, real or implied, to boot.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas Wootten
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
Rgdawson wrote:


> I've studied Linux behavior for about a decade, and it basically boils
> down to this. Linux isn't polished, it lacks consistency both in
> baseline hardware requirements and throughout the UI. The "linux
> community" if you can call it that


What linux community indeed? In terms of the developers, well 'Linux' either
refers to the kernel, which certainly has a development community; or to
the broader OS, made up of MANY projects, each with their own 'community'.

> , is basically leaderless and "brain
> dead".


http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/ca...hedral-bazaar/

> They want to have all these lofty commune style goals, but forget they
> are competing for mindshare with well funded companies purely focused on
> building the best OS.


No, the companies are focussed on selling their OS. selling involves
marketing. technical excellence is secondary.

> At this point in the game, Linux is about 55% what
> OSX is for example,


funny, i wasn't aware OSX made a good server. or a good OS for beowulf
clusters. or was used on any PDAs. or will even run on any one of my three
oldish Intel machines (one has no HDD and will run DSL just fine)

> so unless you are truly poor, and don't understand
> Bit Torrent,


what the heck has BitTorrent got to do with anything?

> OSX will win every time. Windows is a bit different in that
> is doesn't have much more quality than Linux,


How anyone can suggest Windows has _any_ more quality than Linux is beyond
me. Yeah OSX will maybe win...on a PowerPC. On an x86, well I think it has
a slight problem.

> but through illegal
> bundling, it can be forced onto shipping machines by default, thus Linux
> can't gain traction.


true

>
> If the Linux community was smart, it would band together, then agree
> (for example) that starting Jan 1, 2006, they would charge $100 per
> distro (including updates) throughout that year.


no that would just be stupid.

> That would finally give
> them some resources to fix what is broken,


the only thing that's broken is some hardware support, and that's the hw
manufacturers fault

and a universal gui config tool would be nice for novices. maybe there is
one, if so tell me about it please.

> bring Linux up to speed with
> the rest of the OS developers,


a = acceleration of Linux development

your statement implies

|a| = -a

> get the sad state of documentation up to
> OSX standards,


the only thing that Linux needs to work on

> and finally be able to Advertise.


distributors do that

> Sadly, they are mired
> in discontent,


discontent with MS

> thus OSX will likely win over the long term as the
> primary Unix based OS.


and all the x86 not to mention any other non PowerPC architectures will just
evaporate will they?

and don't give me the switch to Intel chips bull, Apple whave said they
don't want OSX running on non Apple hardware even when the CPU is the same.

--
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
 
Rick
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.


Uh, no. It --IS-- Free Software, which has nothing to do with cost.

> 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.


Yeah. Sure.

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


Network effects and an illegally maintained monopoly.

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


No, it really is a as good as supporters say it is.

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


No, it doesn't.

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


No.. it isn't.

> 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.


There are too many flaws in the above statement to waste my 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.


Possibly... since Linux based distros have much more value than window$.

--
Rick

 
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