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?

 
 
Plato
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2005
kool kat 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.

>
> Not true. Linux won't run many or most of the common WINDOWS
> programs that the common person wants to run.
> This may come as a surprise but neither will OSX or OS/400.


That's pretty much what I said. In all these years of windows hype the
common joe believes he NEEDS windows. However, there are many common
folk who just do internet, type a letter now and then, and send some
email. Those folks do not need a winbox at all. Even so, it'd be hard to
convince a major brand of pc sellers to start selling pcs with linux and
also supporting it.

And.... if you've seen some of the recent small distributions which I'm
sure you have, the simplicity of finding settings easily without having
to jump through 8 windows to checkmark a box SHOULD be selling point to
many folks on the street.

I think if somehow, the general public was exposed to some of the more
simple linux versions, many would be impressed. Heck, the last version I
played with, [forgot the name], found all the cards I had automagically,
and with no tweaking at all, was on the Internet using a browser that
launched faster than ANY full featured windows web browser I ever used.

Windows is becomming like a giant suite of stuff most people never use
or even need. Time to market a pc that is back to basics and simple to
use. What's XP use to install?
1 gig of space? The latest linux version I tried did everything I need
with only a 75 meg install.

The time is right for a Windows "Light" or a standard average persons
home linux pc. I wonder why some Japanese company hasn't done this yet.
Heck, for the last 50 years they've made all electronic appliances
smaller and better, why not PCs?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Plato
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2005
gordon wrote:
>
> I quite agree. Unfortunately because of the aggressive marketing and
> business practices of MS, all the Linux community can do is (in the words
> of Tony Blair) educate, educate, educate. And advocate at all possible
> opportunities. It's a well known fact that 95% of MS Office users only
> actually use 25% or less of the MS Office functionality! So a typical home
> user (not one who is a student or teacher) is probably actually paying 75%
> more than they should be for the same functionality! And if you think that
> a retail version of Office 2003 sells for about 300 in the UK.........


Heck, some years ago when you got accepted to many colleges they'd send
you a free copy of office. So of course the kid is going to use it. Get
hooked. And when they need a new version or lose their CD what do you
think they will buy?

How about many of the large pc makers bundling office with pcs. Same
thing. Next pc they buy that doesn't have office guess what they will
buy.

How about the model used for many websites. Create a good software
product, give it away for free for 2 years, and then start charging for
it. CA associates did this with their anti-virus and that had a huge
following.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Plato
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2005
gordon wrote:
>
> > 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.......


True.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Plato
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2005
Deano wrote:
>
> I do tend to suffer installation problems with Linux. I last tried Ubuntu
> but got that error that seems related to having an old graphics card. I


So what. Thats a common windows problem also.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Newson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2005
Plato wrote:

....
> Windows is becomming like a giant suite of stuff most people never use
> or even need.


The same could be said of Linux: how many of the [app] programs that come
with a Linux distribution are of a similar nature? But then again, Linux
distributions also include stuff that Windows doesn't and would cost extra
there.

> Time to market a pc that is back to basics and simple to
> use. What's XP use to install?
> 1 gig of space? The latest linux version I tried did everything I need
> with only a 75 meg install.


The question is, how much of the stuff you don't need, can you remove from
the "Windows" install (including "bundled software"? Or is that ~1 gig what
was required _after_ you had removed what you could?

> The time is right for a Windows "Light" or a standard average persons
> home linux pc. I wonder why some Japanese company hasn't done this yet.
> Heck, for the last 50 years they've made all electronic appliances
> smaller and better, why not PCs?


I think it may have something to do with an american company starting with
the letter M and ending with the letter T, and numbers on paper with lots of
the number 0 (this is beginning to sound like a children's tv
programme...must go with the XP interface then...^_^)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Deano
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2005
Plato wrote:
> Deano wrote:
>>
>> I do tend to suffer installation problems with Linux. I last tried
>> Ubuntu but got that error that seems related to having an old
>> graphics card. I

>
> So what. Thats a common windows problem also.


In my experience i don't recall having any problems getting Windows loaded
when it comes to graphics cards, or for any other reason. It is the
subsequent issues as it gets slower and slower that wind me up.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2005
In article <GJ%5f.516$(E-Mail Removed)>, Rgdawson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> wd <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > > 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.

> >
> > Linux is growing faster than Windows or Apple.

>
> wrong. according to IDC, Apple is the fastest growing PC vendor in the
> world, average growth in 2005 is 34.4% All other PC vendors, 12-15%.
>
> so OSX is growing faster than any other platform.


But, that's only looking at what OS is on a PC sold, and it's concerned
only with specific vendors, not OS numbers.

In addition, such numbers only have meaning to retailers and developers.

If you wanted to make a relevant statement in this discussion, you need
to get figures on how many machines in operation are using a particular
OS.
You need to know how many boxes sold with Windows are being used with
Linux or Unix or being converted to Linux or Unix.
You need to know only what machines are being used, not how many of
each are currently being sold. In other words, a Mac sold three years
ago is still running OS X, but it won't affect sales percentages for
the last two years.
That's why 'market-share' numbers are really about what is moving in
retail. It doesn't tell you what is good at all. It could be good
hardware, and it could be hardware that just needs a lot of
replacement.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Seatoller
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:41:11 +0000, Mitch wrote:
>
> > In article <IhU5f.476$(E-Mail Removed)>, Rgdawson
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> <cut>
>
> > There is no expectation of fake identity -- the simple fact that you can
> > doesn't mean there is a reason to.

>
> FYI: "Rgdawson" is also "Oxford", a MAC troll.
>
>

Oh, great.
Why do these people think they need to change names so often?
Obviously, plenty of us don't have them filtered yet.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2005
In article <dj93qb$lj$(E-Mail Removed)>, Thomas Wootten
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> no, because the Intel macs will still be macs, just a bit cheaper. And since
> Apple don't want to let OSX run on non Apple hardware (because if they did
> the Apple hw sales would plummet), anyone wanting to use OSX will then as
> now have to buy new hardware.


Actually, Apple's got a tiered plan for upgrading, so that they won't
have to change in that way.
There will be an emulator built-in for PPC-based software to run, and
the OS package will be made for both in the near future. It already
loads for either 64- or 32-bit processors from the same package.

Seems to me people are making too big a deal out of the switch.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2005
In article <XtU5f.16345$(E-Mail Removed)>, kool kate
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Sure it's true -- most people think they want to use the Windows
> > programs. They know the names of Windows programs from rumor, and do
> > NOT know the names of the Linux programs.
> > In other words, it isn't about what the program can do -- it's
> > perceptual. Look at MS Word -- it isn't common because it's better than
> > every word processor out there. Just about every home user could do
> > with a MUCH less complex and expensive program. But how many know that?
> > They insist they need Word not because they know the ins and outs of
> > all of the offerings, but because of the perception that it is better
> > or needed.

>
> Yet these same people have trouble clicking on a blue icon on the kde
> desktop that says "Open-office" ?
> Or going to the start menu, clicking office and then Word Processor?
> I don't buy your argument.


No, no -- I'm not suggesting it's too hard to LAUNCH a program.
I' talking about the PERCEPTION that the user has that they NEED to use
a certain program because they've heard of it or it's common.
Neither one is a reason to use any program.

> >> It's been my experience that Linux can do just about anything
> >> Windows can do, and do it better, faster, cheaper and with higher
> >> security.

> > Right -- you are using EXPERIENCE to judge that. It is what informs
> > you, what makes you sure of your statement.
> > The general populace doesn't have it. The common computer user doesn't
> > have it. It's not an easy thing to get, and it's not easy to learn all
> > the relevant facts.

>
> True in some respects, but the general populace does know that they
> need to stay on top of virus software updates, spy-ware programs and
> so forth so in reality they do know.


They know the problems with THEIR OS -- that doesn't mean they know of
any comparison with other OS types, or that there are any differences
at all.
Knowing that you need anti-virus under Windows doesn't mean they also
know that you don't need it under Mac or Linux or Unix; and it is the
differences that this thread is about.

> > Again, that's why knowledgeable computer users need to help.
> > Show them what else there is, why it's different, and your argument for
> > or against something will be stronger and more useful to everyone.

>
> Agreed, but I have put people in front of Linux computers and within
> minutes they are at home. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to
> click and point and experiment.

Immaterial. Or rather, it shows that users can make do with
alternatives AFTER they have decided to try.
The point is that most don't decide to try, and most users are
maintaining Windows dominance.
Those of us with knowledge of alternatives (like what you were doing
there) can help others just by showing them they have a real choice.
 
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