Linux is free. So where is it hiding?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by slacker.mcspritzen, Oct 20, 2005.

  1. 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.
     
    slacker.mcspritzen, Oct 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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, , 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
     
    Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=, Oct 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. slacker.mcspritzen

    gordon Guest

    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.
     
    gordon, Oct 20, 2005
    #3
  4. 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.
     
    Thomas Wootten, Oct 20, 2005
    #4
  5. slacker.mcspritzen

    Mike Easter Guest

    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.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1134910,00.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
     
    Mike Easter, Oct 20, 2005
    #5
  6. slacker.mcspritzen

    Larry Crites Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:hzS5f.30233$...
    | 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.
     
    Larry Crites, Oct 20, 2005
    #6
  7. slacker.mcspritzen

    ray Guest

    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.
     
    ray, Oct 20, 2005
    #7
  8. slacker.mcspritzen

    Plato Guest

    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/
     
    Plato, Oct 20, 2005
    #8
  9. 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.
     
    George Ellison, Oct 20, 2005
    #9
  10. slacker.mcspritzen

    TheLetterK Guest

    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.
     
    TheLetterK, Oct 20, 2005
    #10
  11. slacker.mcspritzen

    John Bailo Guest

    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....
     
    John Bailo, Oct 20, 2005
    #11
  12. slacker.mcspritzen

    Rgdawson Guest

    "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.


    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.
     
    Rgdawson, Oct 20, 2005
    #12
  13. slacker.mcspritzen

    Mitch Guest

    In article <hzS5f.30233$>, 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.


    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
     
    Mitch, Oct 20, 2005
    #13
  14. slacker.mcspritzen

    gordon Guest

    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!
     
    gordon, Oct 20, 2005
    #14
  15. Rgdawson <> 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
    > > 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?
     
    George Ellison, Oct 20, 2005
    #15
  16. slacker.mcspritzen

    gordon Guest

    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!
     
    gordon, Oct 20, 2005
    #16
  17. slacker.mcspritzen

    TheLetterK Guest

    Rgdawson 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
    >>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.
     
    TheLetterK, Oct 20, 2005
    #17
  18. gordon <> 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.
     
    George Ellison, Oct 20, 2005
    #18
  19. 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/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-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.
     
    Thomas Wootten, Oct 20, 2005
    #19
  20. slacker.mcspritzen

    Rick Guest

    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
     
    Rick, Oct 20, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    34
    Views:
    1,186
    Plato
    Oct 7, 2007
  2. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    574
    Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=
    Sep 27, 2007
  3. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    699
    thanatoid
    Oct 21, 2007
  4. Have a nice cup of pee

    Linux... yeah linux.. Linux

    Have a nice cup of pee, Apr 12, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    715
    Bette Noir
    Apr 17, 2006
  5. Luca

    Free IP hiding software

    Luca, Mar 19, 2010, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,236
    Frank Merlott
    Mar 21, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page