PDA

View Full Version : Compete! Gain some market share!



Shibblet
September 2nd, 2009, 10:43 PM
Windows 7 is going to be released in October. So is 9.10 Karmic.

Wouldn't you love to see Karmic on the store shelves for $20-$50 USD price range?

With the crappy release of Vista, and everybody holding up to how flippin' great Windows 7 is "gonna-be", and we all know it's not... Wouldn't this would be the best time for Ubuntu to make a move into a larger market?

Having Karmic on the shelves for a price (albeit a small price) at your local retailer allows the retailer to make money on sales and support, and thus worth their time. It also allows retailers to have something to compete with Windows 7. And I mean true competition, not OSX... 90% don't want a Mac. And the price difference would be dramatic. Especially considering that Karmic comes with a complete office suite, games, web-browser, access to all sorts of free software, and community support.

Windows 7 comes with Wordpad, Solitaire, and Aero...

I've also noticed that products in general are taken more seriously when the outward appearance of the package is professional. It doesn't have to be all packed in a goofy fold-down giant plastic container. But a fold-over cardboard cover sleeve that is professionally printed, and a nice printed CD inside. Or even a cost-effective DVD Clamshell.

Advertise to Ubuntu's best strengths.
Live CD - Try without any change to your system.
Community Support - Add a link on the desktop or menu to the Ubuntu Forums.
Speed, Stability, Security

If price is a concern, make the price of the purchase worth something like 30 days of tech support.

It's time Ubuntu!

dragos240
September 2nd, 2009, 10:52 PM
Windows 7 is going to be released in October. So is 9.10 Karmic.

Wouldn't you love to see Karmic on the store shelves for $20-$50 USD price range?

With the crappy release of Vista, and everybody holding up to how flippin' great Windows 7 is "gonna-be", and we all know it's not... Wouldn't this would be the best time for Ubuntu to make a move into a larger market?

Having Karmic on the shelves for a price (albeit a small price) at your local retailer allows the retailer to make money on sales and support, and thus worth their time. It also allows retailers to have something to compete with Windows 7. And I mean true competition, not OSX... 90% don't want a Mac. And the price difference would be dramatic. Especially considering that Karmic comes with a complete office suite, games, web-browser, access to all sorts of free software, and community support.

Windows 7 comes with Wordpad, Solitaire, and Aero...

I've also noticed that products in general are taken more seriously when the outward appearance of the package is professional. It doesn't have to be all packed in a goofy fold-down giant plastic container. But a fold-over cardboard cover sleeve that is professionally printed, and a nice printed CD inside. Or even a cost-effective DVD Clamshell.

Advertise to Ubuntu's best strengths.
Live CD - Try without any change to your system.
Community Support - Add a link on the desktop or menu to the Ubuntu Forums.
Speed, Stability, Security

If price is a concern, make the price of the purchase worth something like 30 days of tech support.

It's time Ubuntu!

No. I like my ubuntu free.

Tibuda
September 2nd, 2009, 11:00 PM
No. I like my ubuntu free.

It can still be sold, even if you got yours for free.

akiratheoni
September 2nd, 2009, 11:02 PM
I believe that Ubuntu is already sold at retailers like Best Buy for $20 and it comes with six months of support. Of course that was like last year so I don't know if they're selling the latest version.

Namtabmai
September 2nd, 2009, 11:07 PM
Wouldn't you love to see Karmic on the store shelves for $20-$50 USD price range?

No, at best I'd like to see it sold at cost, somewhere in the <5 range.
Even better do what so others seem to do after release burn off some copies and go hand them out for free.

Shibblet
September 2nd, 2009, 11:11 PM
No. I like my ubuntu free.

I didn't say charge for it entirely, keep downloading for free, of course. But a professional copy on store shelves would be nice.

And realistically Ubuntu users are going to keep coming back for free, this would be to get new users.

PurposeOfReason
September 2nd, 2009, 11:14 PM
Windows 7 is going to be released in October. So is 9.10 Karmic.

Wouldn't you love to see Karmic on the store shelves for $20-$50 USD price range?

With the crappy release of Vista, and everybody holding up to how flippin' great Windows 7 is "gonna-be", and we all know it's not... Wouldn't this would be the best time for Ubuntu to make a move into a larger market?

Having Karmic on the shelves for a price (albeit a small price) at your local retailer allows the retailer to make money on sales and support, and thus worth their time. It also allows retailers to have something to compete with Windows 7. And I mean true competition, not OSX... 90% don't want a Mac. And the price difference would be dramatic. Especially considering that Karmic comes with a complete office suite, games, web-browser, access to all sorts of free software, and community support.

Windows 7 comes with Wordpad, Solitaire, and Aero...

I've also noticed that products in general are taken more seriously when the outward appearance of the package is professional. It doesn't have to be all packed in a goofy fold-down giant plastic container. But a fold-over cardboard cover sleeve that is professionally printed, and a nice printed CD inside. Or even a cost-effective DVD Clamshell.

Advertise to Ubuntu's best strengths.
Live CD - Try without any change to your system.
Community Support - Add a link on the desktop or menu to the Ubuntu Forums.
Speed, Stability, Security

If price is a concern, make the price of the purchase worth something like 30 days of tech support.

It's time Ubuntu!
Since W7 has already been released to the torrenting community and students and all of them seem to like it. I'm curious to know how you know that it won't be that great.

Whiffle
September 2nd, 2009, 11:15 PM
There is some argument to be made that people may decide that because ubuntu is free as in cost to the user, then its probably inferior to Windows. I think a nice professional looking package with maybe a good user manual included in a box and a support package for $50 or so would be an excellent way to get new users.

Dharmachakra
September 2nd, 2009, 11:24 PM
I don't know what Windows 7 is going to be. I was impressed with the RC so I'm sure I'll be impressed with the release.

This type of thing already exists in Best Buy... though not at the level you're talking about. It could be improved upon but I don't think you'd find more sales as a result.

No matter what you did, the release of 7 would completely overshadow Ubuntu.

coldReactive
September 2nd, 2009, 11:25 PM
I believe that Ubuntu is already sold at retailers like Best Buy for $20 and it comes with six months of support. Of course that was like last year so I don't know if they're selling the latest version.

Nope, no version is being sold at best buy here in Madison, WI. In fact, no OS but Windows is being sold anywhere in this City.

t0p
September 2nd, 2009, 11:27 PM
There is some argument to be made that people may decide that because ubuntu is free as in cost to the user, then its probably inferior to Windows. I think a nice professional looking package with maybe a good user manual included in a box and a support package for $50 or so would be an excellent way to get new users.

If you want to sell ubuntu, then sell ubuntu. No one's gonna stop you.

Me, I prefer to give ubuntu away. But that's me. Don't let me get in the way of your great commercial ubuntu scheme.

Shibblet
September 2nd, 2009, 11:29 PM
Since W7 has already been released to the torrenting community and students and all of them seem to like it. I'm curious to know how you know that it won't be that great.

#1. Cost $200 Full Version, $130 Upgrade.
#2. It is a Vista Remix
(Even the "community" says so. I've test-driven it too.)
#3. NTFS and Windows Search
(Make your HD work doubletime!)
#4. Install, Boot, and Shutdown Time

And #5. Your momma! ;) J/K

ibutho
September 2nd, 2009, 11:33 PM
I didn't say charge for it entirely, keep downloading for free, of course. But a professional copy on store shelves would be nice.

And realistically Ubuntu users are going to keep coming back for free, this would be to get new users.
Most of the major distros (except Debian) used to do this i.e. sell copies in the shops and also allow users to download it free if they want. I don't see anything wrong with this approach but most distros have stopped selling boxed sets in shops because they don't make much money from it.

Shibblet
September 3rd, 2009, 12:01 AM
Well, Ubuntu is definitely the most popular distribution, and arguably the most user friendly. And I can't think of anyone who would tell a newbie to Linux to use any other distribution.

Heck, I've even given Mandriva a whirl, and came right back to Ubuntu.

I've even tried my hand at more complicated distributions, like Sabayon, and Suse. They don't offer me anything more than Ubuntu does.

But my reasoning is that most people don't have any idea that there is any other OS than Windows for their PC. Especially a "free" or retail "low cost" version available that will work with WAY less system requirements, and does all the same stuff they will use Windows for.

Windows 7 Upgrade + MS Office = $260.00 Minimum

Ubuntu & Open Office = FREE (or $20-$50 retail)

Now, if we can just get the US to do what Europe has, and give people a choice of what OS comes with their machine pre-installed instead...

Skripka
September 3rd, 2009, 12:04 AM
#1. Cost $200 Full Version, $130 Upgrade.
#2. It is a Vista Remix
(Even the "community" says so. I've test-driven it too.)
#3. NTFS and Windows Search
(Make your HD work doubletime!)
#4. Install, Boot, and Shutdown Time

And #5. Your momma! ;) J/K

#1 I'm a student, so I can get it for $15 through my Uni

#2 It may be in some ways, but the RC has been far better than Vista, even post SP

#3 Meh big deal-a reasonabley current machine shouldn't have issues.

#4 Install takes about 30 minutes, boot time from POST-desktop is 15 seconds here


Admit it, you got nothing and want to make noise.

HappyFeet
September 3rd, 2009, 12:06 AM
No matter what you did, the release of 7 would completely overshadow Ubuntu.
Overshadow does not equal better though. ;)

HappyFeet
September 3rd, 2009, 12:12 AM
#4 Install takes about 30 minutes, boot time from POST-desktop is 15 seconds here

Really? What about all the updates, drivers, codecs, apps, configuring, etc.? All that is NOT 30 min. my friend. I would know, seeing how I have my own PC repair business. I'm all too aware of what is involved with windows.

I can install ubuntu in 7 min. (I timed it) and be 100% done in less than 40min.

coldReactive
September 3rd, 2009, 12:12 AM
#1 I'm a student, so I can get it for $15 through my Uni

And for those who aren't in a University? Like me?

HappyFeet
September 3rd, 2009, 12:15 AM
And for those who aren't in a University? Like me?

Open your wallet wide my friend.

aysiu
September 3rd, 2009, 12:17 AM
Windows 7 is going to be released in October. So is 9.10 Karmic.

Wouldn't you love to see Karmic on the store shelves for $20-$50 USD price range? I wouldn't, I'm afraid. While there's nothing wrong with charging for support or for nice-looking packaging, one of the great things about Ubuntu is its being cost-free. In fact, if you want a nicely packaged Ubuntu, you can still get that shipped to you for free (including free postage).


With the crappy release of Vista, and everybody holding up to how flippin' great Windows 7 is "gonna-be", and we all know it's not... Wouldn't this would be the best time for Ubuntu to make a move into a larger market? I've tried out Windows 7. It's actually pretty good. I'm not going to use it, because I still prefer Ubuntu (and non-Microsoft software in general). It does live up to the hype, though. I think Windows 7 is terrific.


Having Karmic on the shelves for a price (albeit a small price) at your local retailer allows the retailer to make money on sales and support, and thus worth their time. Sounds good in theory but what will really happen is this: The vast majority of consumers will see some strange software on the shelf and just avoid it and go for names they recognize (Adobe, Microsoft, Norton). Salespeople at places like Best Buy will not really know what Ubuntu is, so when customers ask about Ubuntu 9.10, nothing the salespeople say will convince the customers to buy it. Savvy Linux users know better than to pay $20-50 for a Linux distribution. They'll just download the .iso for free and burn it themselves... or order a free CD via ShipIt (https://shipit.ubuntu.com/).
It also allows retailers to have something to compete with Windows 7. Retailers don't need something to compete with Windows 7. Retailers just want to sell computers. As long as they're making a profit, they don't care.
And I mean true competition, not OSX... 90% don't want a Mac. Yes, and that 90% will buy a Windows 7 laptop, desktop, or netbook.
And the price difference would be dramatic. Especially considering that Karmic comes with a complete office suite, games, web-browser, access to all sorts of free software, and community support. We have actually seen the mere pittance of preinstalled Linux options to be either only slightly cheaper than equivalent Windows options, exactly the same as equivalent Windows options, or actually even more expensive than equivalent Windows options. Kickbacks, promotions, shady deals, bulk licensing all play a part in pricing. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=462784)


Windows 7 comes with Wordpad, Solitaire, and Aero... People don't care. Windows power users know how to install software themselves. Windows average users ask their power user friends or relatives to install stuff... or they pay the Geek Squad to do it for them.


I've also noticed that products in general are taken more seriously when the outward appearance of the package is professional. It doesn't have to be all packed in a goofy fold-down giant plastic container. But a fold-over cardboard cover sleeve that is professionally printed, and a nice printed CD inside. Or even a cost-effective DVD Clamshell.

Advertise to Ubuntu's best strengths.
Live CD - Try without any change to your system.
Community Support - Add a link on the desktop or menu to the Ubuntu Forums.
Speed, Stability, Security

If price is a concern, make the price of the purchase worth something like 30 days of tech support.

It's time Ubuntu! Best Buy did something like this a while ago (http://digg.com/linux_unix/Best_Buy_selling_Ubuntu_linux_for_20). Then they pulled Ubuntu off the shelves (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8888563&type=product&tab=1&id=1211587312374#productdetail). My guess is that Ubuntu boxed did not sell well, for the reasons stated above.

coldReactive
September 3rd, 2009, 12:18 AM
Open your wallet wide my friend.

I'd rather not. Now that my Flash CS3 no longer activates, I have no need to go back to Windows, unless I want to play MMORPGs such as Runes of Magic, or play RPG Maker games. But those are usually weak at best.

Shibblet
September 3rd, 2009, 12:20 AM
#1 I'm a student, so I can get it for $15 through my Uni

Good for you. Most people can't.


#2 It may be in some ways, but the RC has been far better than Vista, even post SP

In which ways? No one really seems to know?


#3 Meh big deal-a reasonabley current machine shouldn't have issues.

But Windows 7 is advertising as working great on older machines and netbooks. Ubuntu outperforms on either.


#4 Install takes about 30 minutes, boot time from POST-desktop is 15 seconds here

And suspend is even faster. But Ubuntu is faster overall.


Admit it, you got nothing and want to make noise.

Yes and No. Not really wanting to make noise about Windows 7. More wanting to make Ubuntu heard! In a "shout it from the rooftops" kind of way.

ibutho
September 3rd, 2009, 12:26 AM
Well, Ubuntu is definitely the most popular distribution, and arguably the most user friendly. And I can't think of anyone who would tell a newbie to Linux to use any other distribution.

Heck, I've even given Mandriva a whirl, and came right back to Ubuntu.

I've even tried my hand at more complicated distributions, like Sabayon, and Suse. They don't offer me anything more than Ubuntu does.



Popular on the desktop right? Red Hat, SUSE and Debian are more popular than Ubuntu on servers. I use Ubuntu, but I am very careful about what distro I recommend to newbies. Ubuntu is not always ideal because it lacks many graphical config tools that are in other distros. This can be an issue for those newbies that easily get spooked by the CLI.


But my reasoning is that most people don't have any idea that there is any other OS than Windows for their PC. Especially a "free" or retail "low cost" version available that will work with WAY less system requirements, and does all the same stuff they will use Windows for.

Windows 7 Upgrade + MS Office = $260.00 Minimum

Ubuntu & Open Office = FREE (or $20-$50 retail)

Now, if we can just get the US to do what Europe has, and give people a choice of what OS comes with their machine pre-installed instead...

I agree, most people do not know there are alternatives. Those that do know that there are alternatives may not look at alternatives for several reasons e.g.

They are happy with their current OS
They don't have the technical expertise to run an alternative OS
The software they need for work etc, only works on Windows
They don't have the time or motivation to learn something new

Tibuda
September 3rd, 2009, 12:30 AM
I use Ubuntu, but I am very careful about what distro I recommend to newbies. Ubuntu is not always ideal because it lacks many graphical config tools that are in other distros. This can be an issue for those newbies that easily get spooked by the CLI.
What GUI config tools are missing in Ubuntu?

Shibblet
September 3rd, 2009, 12:36 AM
Popular on the desktop right? Red Hat, SUSE and Debian are more popular than Ubuntu on servers. I use Ubuntu, but I am very careful about what distro I recommend to newbies. Ubuntu is not always ideal because it lacks many graphical config tools that are in other distros. This can be an issue for those newbies that easily get spooked by the CLI.

Agreed, but this is Ubuntu competing with Windows 7, which are both desktop environments. Not Windows Server.



I agree, most people do not know there are alternatives. Those that do know that there are alternatives may not look at alternatives for several reasons e.g.

They are happy with their current OS
They don't have the technical expertise to run an alternative OS
The software they need for work etc, only works on Windows
They don't have the time or motivation to learn something new


Exactly why you need competition.

Current OS is irrelevant, we're talking about a customer going to buy Windows 7, upgrade or not.
You don't need technical expertise to run Ubuntu.
90% of the software out there has an open source alternative, and 90% is enough to swing a lot of people toward Ubuntu.
I like the phrase "Genius has it's limitations, but stupidity knows no boundaries." So I would have to say, "There is no competition for laziness and disinterest."

Shibblet
September 3rd, 2009, 12:38 AM
What GUI config tools are missing in Ubuntu?

No tools, just support. A lot of the people in the forums will give command line operations to solve problems that CAN be solved with tools. It's a Linux user thing, and it really is quicker.

I would agree that most people get spooked by the Terminal, and think that they are playing Tron or something at that point. Ubuntu's documentation could use a little fine tuning in the Terminal end of things.... i.e. Medibuntu.

Regardless of any of that, people are still willing to help, and that's what makes Ubuntu great.

aysiu
September 3rd, 2009, 12:58 AM
No tools, just support. A lot of the people in the forums will give command line operations to solve problems that CAN be solved with tools. It's a Linux user thing, and it really is quicker.

I would agree that most people get spooked by the Terminal, and think that they are playing Tron or something at that point. Ubuntu's documentation could use a little fine tuning in the Terminal end of things.... i.e. Medibuntu.

Regardless of any of that, people are still willing to help, and that's what makes Ubuntu great.
These are my general guidelines

GUI
If someone asks how to do a common task, I will give GUI instructions and sometimes even screenshots.

CLI
If someone asks for a fix for something or needs help diagnosing a problem, I will give a command to be copied and pasted (can be done with a mouse--no retyping necessary).

schauerlich
September 3rd, 2009, 01:12 AM
Yes and No. Not really wanting to make noise about Windows 7. More wanting to make Ubuntu heard! In a "shout it from the rooftops" kind of way.

Generally when you shout from rooftops, most people assume you're mentally unstable and try to avoid you.

That, or you're in the climax of a romantic comedy.

.Maleficus.
September 3rd, 2009, 01:14 AM
1. Ubuntu is already sold retail. It's been at the Best Buy I work at for ages. Guess what? Nobody buys it. Guess why? Anybody who knows what it is knows they can get it for free on the internet, or shipped to their house for free.

2. Piggy-backing from #1, guess why else nobody buys it? The average user doesn't care about free, open, or what an operating system actually is. For most people, the power button on "the CPU" sends electricity to a mystical box that then shows the logo of whichever company they bought the computer from and then gives you a mouse 20 seconds later.

3. Windows 7 is living up to the hype. You'll see people rave about it here even. At least once a day somebody comes and asks me about how to upgrade their computer to "the new 7 thing" when they buy a new computer. Even people buying their first computer (who have also just signed up for dial-up!) are asking.

Shibblet
September 3rd, 2009, 01:27 AM
Generally when you shout from rooftops, most people assume you're mentally unstable and try to avoid you.

That, or you're in the climax of a romantic comedy.

Mentally Unstable? You should see my shoes.

ibutho
September 3rd, 2009, 01:35 AM
What GUI config tools are missing in Ubuntu?
I was mainly referring to graphical sysadmin and config tools. If you use for example Mandriva, openSUSE and Fedora, there have nice control centers/panels or GUI apps (sort of like the control panel in Windows) where all aspects of sysadmin and system configuration tasks can be performed without having to drop to the cli (the same tasks can be done in the cli as well if you wish). Its nice to have an option to do things using a GUI or the CLI. Ubuntu mainly relies on graphical tools shipped with GNOME and for some problems the only way to resolve them is to drop into the CLI e.g. the good old run "dpkg --configure -a" issue when there is a problem with the package manager.

Skripka
September 3rd, 2009, 01:41 AM
I would agree that most people get spooked by the Terminal, and think that they are playing Tron or something at that point. Ubuntu's documentation could use a little fine tuning


Actually, Ubuntu could use a rethink on their entire support system.

There is the Wiki document which is either out-of-date, dreadfully incomplete, or both...and these forums where trying to find something-if you don't know exactly what you want can be a nightmare, due to the sheer number of hits (related, noise or otherwise) that any query returns.

BuffaloX
September 3rd, 2009, 05:50 PM
1:
Wouldn't you love to see Karmic on the store shelves for $20-$50 USD price range?

2:
With the crappy release of Vista, and everybody holding up to how flippin' great Windows 7 is "gonna-be", and we all know it's not... Wouldn't this would be the best time for Ubuntu to make a move into a larger market?


1:
Yes if people would actually buy it, which I doubt they would.
It takes more than a pretty box and low price to move software.
It's been tried before, but when the Internet became fast enough to download any distro you want, they all quickly disappeared from the shelves.

2:
Windows is Windows, if you like it, chances seem to be pretty good you'll love Windows 7. It sucks much less than Vista, it's even almost as good as XP. :P
When people buy a new computer it will typically be at least twice as fast as the old one, this will make people perceive Windows 7 as a really fast OS.

Tibuda
September 3rd, 2009, 06:41 PM
I was mainly referring to graphical sysadmin and config tools. If you use for example Mandriva, openSUSE and Fedora, there have nice control centers/panels or GUI apps (sort of like the control panel in Windows) where all aspects of sysadmin and system configuration tasks can be performed without having to drop to the cli (the same tasks can be done in the cli as well if you wish). Its nice to have an option to do things using a GUI or the CLI. Ubuntu mainly relies on graphical tools shipped with GNOME and for some problems the only way to resolve them is to drop into the CLI e.g. the good old run "dpkg --configure -a" issue when there is a problem with the package manager.

You mean Gnome Control Center? It is installed by default in Ubuntu, but it is hidden. You can unhide if you right-click the applications menu and choose "edit menu". There are nothing available in the control center that is not already available in the system menu.

"dpkg --configure -a" is a real issue, which could be handled by the package manager that instructed the user to run it. It is not Ubuntu specific. There are bugs reported to fix it, but they are rewriting the package manager from scratch with this new software store.

Shibblet
September 3rd, 2009, 07:14 PM
2:
Windows is Windows, if you like it, chances seem to be pretty good you'll love Windows 7. It sucks much less than Vista, it's even almost as good as XP. :P

Why does it suck much less than Vista? Why can no one tell me any reasons why?!?!

aysiu
September 3rd, 2009, 07:19 PM
Why does it suck much less than Vista? Why can no one tell me any reasons why?!?!
I don't know Vista that well, but I have heard that it is quite demanding in terms of system specs.

I recently installed the test version of Windows 7 in a virtual machine, and it runs quite snappily on 512 MB of RAM.

Roasted
September 3rd, 2009, 07:29 PM
I found Vista to be relatively nice to use for a home user. Granted, I'm running a quad core with 4gb of RAM, so I have some horsepower to push the OS, whereas many people are running significantly less as far as system specifications go, which means problems with Vista.

I did however try to implement Vista at work, which is a school district with 2,000 computers. If anybody here works in IT in a Windows network is thinking about doing that - DON'T. It was the absolute biggest headache ever. It must have been so embarrassing for Microsoft to have changed so much from XP to Vista and in a lot of cases, took out a lot of functionality and uniformity that places like school districts need. Example - default profiles. So far I've heard that they don't exist in Windows 7. I hate to say it, but if default profiles don't exist in Windows 7, I can count on 1 hand how many school districts in the United States would upgrade.

That being said, Vista and 7 RC has been great for a home user. For business, though... Vista at least was a total disaster.

Shibblet
September 3rd, 2009, 10:12 PM
I don't know. I just think that if it was advertised the right way, Ubuntu would be moving up the food-chain a bit. But Microsoft has dominated the industry, making Windows an almost necessity.

I don't want to get into the "I don't need Windows" argument, so please don't go there. But there has got to be something that can be done to increase awareness, and for Ubuntu to gain market share.

If stores were to carry it, and educate their employees about it... i.e. Dual Booting, LiveCD, Free Software, Security, Stability, and Community Support... I truly think more people would give it a shot. Especially against a $199.00 competition.

LowSky
September 3rd, 2009, 10:25 PM
Think of it this way. People assume that is if something cost less than the average of the market, than it is probably crap.

So selling ubuntu next to windows for almost nothing compared to windows7 home premium at $120, well people will assume Ubuntu is garbage.


the only way to win the minds of users is the business community. people want to use what they are comfortable with. if they need to use it at work they will want it for home, simple as that. So basicall Canicla needs to start marketing Business version Ubuntu and the Server edition to companies looking for a Cheaper solution to Microsoft OEM leases.

Dharmachakra
September 3rd, 2009, 11:05 PM
Why does it suck much less than Vista? Why can no one tell me any reasons why?!?!

If I told you that it just ran better on my machine, with less quirks and more speed than even XP... would that be a good enough reason?

BuffaloX
September 4th, 2009, 12:08 AM
Why does it suck much less than Vista? Why can no one tell me any reasons why?!?!

Actually I haven't tried either personally, but all reviews I have seen says so, and it doesn't really matter if it's fact or just perception.

All reviews claim Win 7 is faster and less resource hungry than Vista, this is a first for a Microsoft product AFAIK.

But it remains to be seen how the actual release behaves and is received.
Things like copy protection, DRM, call home, security, forced upgrades, lock in and the usual MS nastiness may still turn some people away from it.

Frak
September 4th, 2009, 12:17 AM
Things like copy protection, DRM, call home, security, forced upgrades, lock in and the usual MS nastiness may still turn some people away from it.

Nope. Nobody cares really.

Shibblet
September 4th, 2009, 12:40 AM
If I told you that it just ran better on my machine, with less quirks and more speed than even XP... would that be a good enough reason?

Yeah, I suppose that's good reason why it doesn't suck as much as Vista. But still doesn't tell me why this whole Windows 7 is SOOOOO much better than Vista.

It's funny, I've read crap all over the net about how people think it's amazingly better. I've seen benchmark tests, I've seen Boot-Up and shutdown time tests, copying file size test, and they're all very "similar" to Vista.

Besides just the interface, I'm talking under the hood, what makes 7 so much better than Vista SP2? Memory optimizations? Did they create a new kernel? Did they rewrite code? Did they change any of the ins and outs? Is Aero more efficient? Is it more optimized for web-browsing? Etc. Etc. Etc. Technical details that NO ONE seems to know.

And for a $199.00 price tag, I want to know that I am going to gain something better than Vista, instead of just interface.

Interface is why I prefer Gnome to KDE, but not the reason I prefer Ubuntu to OpenSuSE.

Mateo
September 4th, 2009, 02:08 AM
Yeah, I suppose that's good reason why it doesn't suck as much as Vista. But still doesn't tell me why this whole Windows 7 is SOOOOO much better than Vista.

It's funny, I've read crap all over the net about how people think it's amazingly better. I've seen benchmark tests, I've seen Boot-Up and shutdown time tests, copying file size test, and they're all very "similar" to Vista.

Besides just the interface, I'm talking under the hood, what makes 7 so much better than Vista SP2? Memory optimizations? Did they create a new kernel? Did they rewrite code? Did they change any of the ins and outs? Is Aero more efficient? Is it more optimized for web-browsing? Etc. Etc. Etc. Technical details that NO ONE seems to know.

And for a $199.00 price tag, I want to know that I am going to gain something better than Vista, instead of just interface.

Interface is why I prefer Gnome to KDE, but not the reason I prefer Ubuntu to OpenSuSE.

You're not the typical user. Study after study has shown that interface is the #3 reason (after familiarity and compatibility) that people chose certain software.

Mateo
September 4th, 2009, 02:12 AM
I don't know Vista that well, but I have heard that it is quite demanding in terms of system specs.

I recently installed the test version of Windows 7 in a virtual machine, and it runs quite snappily on 512 MB of RAM.

That was a common criticism of Vista 2 years ago... but hardware has advanced a lot like it always does. So 2 gig of ram is no longer considered demanding by many.

Shibblet
September 4th, 2009, 02:38 AM
That was a common criticism of Vista 2 years ago... but hardware has advanced a lot like it always does. So 2 gig of ram is no longer considered demanding by many.

True.

95, 98, Me, XP, and Vista all had ascending hardware requirements, but 7 is on the same level with Vista.

Also, the computer industry hasn't changed as dramatically as it did when XP came out, than the last few years between the Vista and 7 launch.

Maybe Microsoft does drive the Hardware industry...

aysiu
September 4th, 2009, 04:45 AM
That was a common criticism of Vista 2 years ago... but hardware has advanced a lot like it always does. So 2 gig of ram is no longer considered demanding by many.
Nevertheless, 2 GB is still more than 512 MB, and my point is that Windows 7 runs snappily on 512 MB of RAM. The same cannot be said for Vista.

Eviltechie
September 4th, 2009, 05:41 AM
Nevertheless, 2 GB is still more than 512 MB, and my point is that Windows 7 runs snappily on 512 MB of RAM. The same cannot be said for Vista.

I can barely get vista to run on 4 gb with a decent quad core.

Shibblet
September 4th, 2009, 09:29 AM
I can barely get vista to run on 4 gb with a decent quad core.

It's true, I can't get Vista to run "snappy" at all. My desktop is a Athlon XP x2 with 4 Gigs of Ram, and Nvidia 8600GT.

I want to know if 7 does the same stupid Vista things like taking 10 minutes to empty the recycle bin when you only have a couple of small items in it to be deleted. Or taking a long time to switch between tasks, eating up all the virtual memory and such.

KiwiNZ
September 4th, 2009, 09:41 AM
It's true, I can't get Vista to run "snappy" at all. My desktop is a Athlon XP x2 with 4 Gigs of Ram, and Nvidia 8600GT.

I want to know if 7 does the same stupid Vista things like taking 10 minutes to empty the recycle bin when you only have a couple of small items in it to be deleted. Or taking a long time to switch between tasks, eating up all the virtual memory and such.

Absolutely not
But neither did Vista

Grenage
September 4th, 2009, 09:54 AM
I don't use MS OSs at home any more, but I found Vista x64 to be an excellent OS; I find 7 even better. Regardless of whether you like them or not, MS make very decent and stable operating systems.

kirsis
September 4th, 2009, 11:55 AM
With the crappy release of Vista, and everybody holding up to how flippin' great Windows 7 is "gonna-be", and we all know it's not...

Speak for yourself

Shibblet
September 4th, 2009, 09:04 PM
Speak for yourself

Fine, then I'll ask some questions.

What about Windows 7 is going to be "better" than Vista?
What is going to be "better" than Ubuntu?
Do those "features" justify the $129.95 (Home Premium Upgrade) - $329.95 (Full Version Ultimate) price tag?

coldReactive
September 4th, 2009, 09:13 PM
Fine, then I'll ask some questions.

What about Windows 7 is going to be "better" than Vista?
What is going to be "better" than Ubuntu?
Do those "features" justify the $129.95 (Home Premium Upgrade) - $329.95 (Full Version Ultimate) price tag?


You also forgot to mention the long list of removed features:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_removed_from_Windows_7

aysiu
September 4th, 2009, 09:36 PM
What about Windows 7 is going to be "better" than Vista? I thought I already answered this. Not as RAM-intensive. So better for older computers and netbooks.
What is going to be "better" than Ubuntu? Same thing Windows always has - more third-party support (drivers for peripherals, commercial software).
Do those "features" justify the $129.95 (Home Premium Upgrade) - $329.95 (Full Version Ultimate) price tag? They don't need to. Most people who use Windows 7 will simply buy new computers that come with Windows 7 already installed. There won't be an additional $329.95 cost, and there won't actually seem to be a cost at all.

MikeTheC
September 4th, 2009, 09:52 PM
How can Ubuntu gain market share when Linux, which is a community effort and not that of a company, is not a commercial product?

It's all in how you look at it, but you need to understand what is actually going on. These "fuzzy logic" bits don't really help anyone.

What you actually are seeking is an expansion in the adoption rate of Linux as opposed to some other operating system platform. Given the nature of the F/OSS community which collectively "owns" GPL'd items such as Linux, we will only gain eyeballs through continued outreach and the de-programming and de-perceptual-induction which Microsoft has engaged in all these years.

You'd be truly amazed who out there is actually willing to give Linux a shot. Putting it on the shelf is not a viable means because, without community outreach and education, the Linux box sitting on the shelf is not considered a viable option. But with the right approach, outreach and education of the community, all sorts of non-traditional folk have tried Linux, and many have latched onto it.

I will dance for joy the day Microsoft goes out of business, but the thing to remember is that eventual demise is less likely to be abrupt or come out of left field, and far more likely to be "a death of a thousand cuts".

aysiu
September 4th, 2009, 09:55 PM
How can Ubuntu gain market share when Linux, which is a community effort and not that of a company, is not a commercial product? Considering how large a marketshare Linux has in the server arena (think Red Hat), I don't think that argument holds water.

You do need a business infrastructure, but not everyone involved in contributing to Linux has to be directly part of that infrastructure.

MikeTheC
September 4th, 2009, 10:07 PM
Considering how large a marketshare Linux has in the server arena (think Red Hat), I don't think that argument holds water.

You do need a business infrastructure, but not everyone involved in contributing to Linux has to be directly part of that infrastructure.

Yes, but even people who push a broom on the company clock are employees of the company. F/OSS is largely a community volunteer phenomenon. And Red Hat is just one distro.

And in any event I still stand by my comment that merely putting some distro (Ubuntu, for instance) on the shelves at the local store is not going to prove effective in increasing quantities of eyeballs.

Frak
September 4th, 2009, 10:51 PM
I can barely get vista to run on 4 gb with a decent quad core.

Did you plug it in? I have a computer with 1GB and an AMD Athlon X2 2.4GHz w/ATi Radeon X1600 (512MB) and it runs FINE.


It's true, I can't get Vista to run "snappy" at all. My desktop is a Athlon XP x2 with 4 Gigs of Ram, and Nvidia 8600GT.

I want to know if 7 does the same stupid Vista things like taking 10 minutes to empty the recycle bin when you only have a couple of small items in it to be deleted. Or taking a long time to switch between tasks, eating up all the virtual memory and such.

Well, I've never had the recycle bin problem. Deleting a 3GB file takes a couple of seconds. Task switching is incredibly fast unless I happen to be running a combo of Adobe apps running, which is understandable. The gobbled up RAM is from Windows caching resources. Ubuntu does the same thing.


Fine, then I'll ask some questions.

What about Windows 7 is going to be "better" than Vista?
What is going to be "better" than Ubuntu?
Do those "features" justify the $129.95 (Home Premium Upgrade) - $329.95 (Full Version Ultimate) price tag?



Microsoft has made it less of a resource hog, and it improves on some features of the system, just like every release.
100% subjective. No concrete answer.
Microsoft even states that Ultimate is only for hardcore users or businesses.


Apps in Ultimate/Enterprise that aren't in Home Premium:

Enterprise features (Unix subsystem, etc.)
Backup-to-Network
EFS
BitLocker
BitLocker-to-Go
Remote Desktop Host
Offline Files

aysiu
September 4th, 2009, 11:01 PM
Yes, but even people who push a broom on the company clock are employees of the company. F/OSS is largely a community volunteer phenomenon. And Red Hat is just one distro. Red Hat is also a company that has employees, as is Canonical, as is Novell. There are a whole bunch of corporations that have their hands in F/OSS (Google, IBM). It isn't entirely a community volunteer phenomenon.

And, as I said, corporate and government servers often run on Linux, and they pay big money for support contracts. Linux on servers is a profitable enterprise.

There is nothing inherent in Linux that prevents it from working in the business world, except lack of inertia and brand name recognition.


And in any event I still stand by my comment that merely putting some distro (Ubuntu, for instance) on the shelves at the local store is not going to prove effective in increasing quantities of eyeballs. I stand by it too. I made a similar comment earlier in the thread.

Shibblet
September 5th, 2009, 12:17 AM
I know we've talked about this before, but the Linux industry is readily exploited by the commercial software industry.

And it will be great if Microsoft does put out a product that truly feels like a good upgrade.

And here is something I have wondered about. There is company called Grisoft, that produces a Virus scanner for Windows called AVG, I'm sure a lot of you have heard of it.

Now, the neat thing about Grisoft, is that they give their Virus scanner out for free, for personal home use. But for commercial use, customers have to pay for use of the software.

Most Linux distributions are available online for free download, including servers. And companies, like Canonical or Novell, make their money on support instead of software sales.

So why couldn't a company like Canonical charge for a "Professional" version of Ubuntu for commercial use? They wouldn't have to charge much. And a lot of places might just switch by making a slow transition.

I agree with Aisyu that most home based users are going to just get their copy of 7 when they buy a new PC, but commercially, people are going to buy it outright.

Frak
September 5th, 2009, 12:20 AM
So why couldn't a company like Canonical charge for a "Professional" version of Ubuntu for commercial use?

You aren't allowed to charge for the software. You can charge for the support, or proprietary applications within the bundle, but you may not charge for the software. I think you can charge for the effort it took to put it all together, but that's a big legal iffy.

aysiu
September 5th, 2009, 12:40 AM
You aren't allowed to charge for the software. You can charge for the support, or proprietary applications within the bundle, but you may not charge for the software. I think you can charge for the effort it took to put it all together, but that's a big legal iffy.
Sure you can charge for the software.

Ubuntu has promised that it wouldn't. But it can, legally.

More details here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Mateo
September 5th, 2009, 12:55 AM
I know we've talked about this before, but the Linux industry is readily exploited by the commercial software industry.

And it will be great if Microsoft does put out a product that truly feels like a good upgrade.

And here is something I have wondered about. There is company called Grisoft, that produces a Virus scanner for Windows called AVG, I'm sure a lot of you have heard of it.

Now, the neat thing about Grisoft, is that they give their Virus scanner out for free, for personal home use. But for commercial use, customers have to pay for use of the software.

Most Linux distributions are available online for free download, including servers. And companies, like Canonical or Novell, make their money on support instead of software sales.

So why couldn't a company like Canonical charge for a "Professional" version of Ubuntu for commercial use? They wouldn't have to charge much. And a lot of places might just switch by making a slow transition.

I agree with Aisyu that most home based users are going to just get their copy of 7 when they buy a new PC, but commercially, people are going to buy it outright.

Care to explain why you think a pay-version would be more successful than a free-version?

Shibblet
September 5th, 2009, 01:12 AM
Care to explain why you think a pay-version would be more successful than a free-version?

Customer perception. Why does Norton Anti-Virus still sell more than AVG, when AVG is free?

The appearance of professionalism. And there is nothing about Ubuntu that isn't professional, even the packaging from the Canonical store. They just need proper placement.

Frak
September 5th, 2009, 01:14 AM
Sure you can charge for the software.

Ubuntu has promised that it wouldn't. But it can, legally.

More details here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
That must be new. Last I saw, the FSF was forbidding selling software if it didn't have support or another application that permitted selling for a profit.

Anyways, it wouldn't matter. If Ubuntu sold a professional version, it would probably be scuffed off for something like Suse or RedHat. If they really wanted a stable debian based system, no reason not to use Debian.

RH and Novell have much more street cred than Canonical does. Ubuntu certifications are few and far between, and I just got mine. Though, I haven't met an employer yet where they have started respecting them yet.

ibutho
September 6th, 2009, 11:05 AM
You mean Gnome Control Center? It is installed by default in Ubuntu, but it is hidden. You can unhide if you right-click the applications menu and choose "edit menu". There are nothing available in the control center that is not already available in the system menu.

"dpkg --configure -a" is a real issue, which could be handled by the package manager that instructed the user to run it. It is not Ubuntu specific. There are bugs reported to fix it, but they are rewriting the package manager from scratch with this new software store.

No, I wasn't referring to GNOME Control Center. I meant something like Control Panel in Windows, YaST in openSUSE and Mandriva Control Center. Gnome Control Center is available on all distros that use GNOME, but what you can actually do with it is limited to certain tasks.

.Maleficus.
September 6th, 2009, 01:55 PM
Customer perception. Why does Norton Anti-Virus still sell more than AVG, when AVG is free?
Because AVG is terrible and Norton isn't?

RabbitWho
September 6th, 2009, 02:16 PM
It would be great to get it in the shops for 1 dollar. 20 cent for the CD, 20 sent for shipping to the shop, everything else to pay the shop for their shelf space.


But the thing is, when you make something cheap, they assume it's crap, when you make it free they assume it's a gift.

geekygirl
September 6th, 2009, 02:57 PM
Because AVG is terrible and Norton isn't?

Er until the 2009 release of Norton's, Norton's was one product you steered well clear of on a Windows box...bloat anyone? A piece of software that installs itself into your operating system not akin to that of a virus itself with multiple processes running is *not* a good product - you can one click uninstall AVG/Avast/Anti Vir/NOD32/Kapersky yet you need to run *another* application from Symatec to uninstall Norton's...go figure....

Its the same argument when it comes to custom built PC's vs a store bought model off the shelf - a LOT of non-geek consumers out there are dead set convinced that a Dell or HP or another off the shelf machine is far superior to that of a custom built rig which costs half the price yet has far better hardware in it...I used to build gaming PC's in a business I used to have and some of the questions from the 'Joe Bloggs' customer with regards to "Is this computer actually going to be faster or more up to date than some multi thousand dollar HP from the local electrical retailer" are just dumbfounding...

Simple fact is that your 'Joe Bloggs' consumer does have the belief that if comes in a shiny box and costs a lot of money it must be good. "Oohhh shiny"

If you think otherwise you must have been living under a rock for the last several years...

Trouble is in places like this where nearly all of us in here are geeks and tech/computer savvy people we forget what its like to use a PC or operating system as an 'appliance' or 'tool' and what its like to not really care about how something works or the politics behind it...I think *we* lose sight of that little reality...

Put any *nix distro in some fancy packaging (think Apple and its use of professional designers, not some home brewed Gimp job either), charge $100.00 for it and more people would be tempted by it...it costs money, its got to be good....

MikeTheC
September 6th, 2009, 03:12 PM
Er until the 2009 release of Norton's, Norton's was one product you steered well clear of on a Windows box...bloat anyone? A piece of software that installs itself into your operating system not akin to that of a virus itself with multiple processes running is *not* a good product - you can one click uninstall AVG/Avast/Anti Vir/NOD32/Kapersky yet you need to run *another* application from Symatec to uninstall Norton's...go figure....

Its the same argument when it comes to custom built PC's vs a store bought model off the shelf - a LOT of non-geek consumers out there are dead set convinced that a Dell or HP or another off the shelf machine is far superior to that of a custom built rig which costs half the price yet has far better hardware in it...I used to build gaming PC's in a business I used to have and some of the questions from the 'Joe Bloggs' customer with regards to "Is this computer actually going to be faster or more up to date than some multi thousand dollar HP from the local electrical retailer" are just dumbfounding...

Simple fact is that your 'Joe Bloggs' consumer does have the belief that if comes in a shiny box and costs a lot of money it must be good. "Oohhh shiny"

If you think otherwise you must have been living under a rock for the last several years...

Trouble is in places like this where nearly all of us in here are geeks and tech/computer savvy people we forget what its like to use a PC or operating system as an 'appliance' or 'tool' and what its like to not really care about how something works or the politics behind it...I think *we* lose sight of that little reality...

Put any *nix distro in some fancy packaging (think Apple and its use of professional designers, not some home brewed Gimp job either), charge $100.00 for it and more people would be tempted by it...it costs money, its got to be good....
+1... What she said.

coldReactive
September 6th, 2009, 03:14 PM
And it doesn't help that Windows is giving incentives to workers of big box stores:

http://quaoar.ww7.be/ms_fud_of_the_year/569458-microsoft-attack-linux-retail-level-probably.html

.Maleficus.
September 6th, 2009, 03:17 PM
Er until the 2009 release of Norton's, Norton's was one product you steered well clear of on a Windows box...bloat anyone? A piece of software that installs itself into your operating system not akin to that of a virus itself with multiple processes running is *not* a good product - you can one click uninstall AVG/Avast/Anti Vir/NOD32/Kapersky yet you need to run *another* application from Symatec to uninstall Norton's...go figure....
Guess what? We're in 2009, where Norton is the better product ;). Anybody who still thinks that AVG is better is either very confused or living in sweet ignorance. I have worked at Geek Squad for the past year and a half, and you know what? The only time I see a Norton computer come in with viruses is when the person who had it forgot to renew their subscription. 90% of computers that come in with viruses have either no antivirus or a combination of AVG/Avast/Spybot. Antivirus is one case where free does not always = better.

Its the same argument when it comes to custom built PC's vs a store bought model off the shelf - a LOT of non-geek consumers out there are dead set convinced that a Dell or HP or another off the shelf machine is far superior to that of a custom built rig which costs half the price yet has far better hardware in it...I used to build gaming PC's in a business I used to have and some of the questions from the 'Joe Bloggs' customer with regards to "Is this computer actually going to be faster or more up to date than some multi thousand dollar HP from the local electrical retailer" are just dumbfounding...
This argument is only valid for gaming computers. Go to Newegg and spec out a "consumer grade" computer like your average HP or Dell, and I guarentee the HP or Dell will be cheaper. They mass order parts and get discounted prices. They mass license Windows and save a few hundred dollars per computer. *This of course doesn't apply if you plan on using Linux anyways.

Put any *nix distro in some fancy packaging (think Apple and its use of professional designers, not some home brewed Gimp job either), charge $100.00 for it and more people would be tempted by it...it costs money, its got to be good....
I'll believe it when I see it ;). For now though, Ubuntu hasn't sold 1 of the 3 boxes that where on the shelf at my local Best Buy. And they've been there forever.

.Maleficus.
September 6th, 2009, 03:20 PM
And it doesn't help that Windows is giving incentives to workers of big box stores:

http://quaoar.ww7.be/ms_fud_of_the_year/569458-microsoft-attack-linux-retail-level-probably.html
I just took that exact same training 5 minutes ago from my Arch install. Do you know how many other companies do this as well? I got my QX6850 from Intel for $240 - when it retailed at $1100 still. All I had to do was a couple of 5 minute "why Intel is better than AMD" quizes. Wacom does this, Symantic does this, AMD does it.

geekygirl
September 6th, 2009, 03:23 PM
Guess what? We're in 2009, where Norton is the better product ;). Anybody who still thinks that AVG is better is either very confused or living in sweet ignorance.

I agree AVG is bloated and a piece of poo now, but the same can be said for products like Trend Micro. NOD32 has gone downhill a little yet its still a lot lighter on resources than Nortons. Norton still has that 'stigma' attached to it after many years of a rubbish product unfortunately.


This argument is only valid for gaming computers. Go to Newegg and spec out a "consumer grade" computer like your average HP or Dell, and I guarentee the HP or Dell will be cheaper. They mass order parts and get discounted prices. They mass license Windows and save a few hundred dollars per computer. *This of course doesn't apply if you plan on using Linux anyways.

Depends on the country you live in ;)


I'll believe it when I see it ;). For now though, Ubuntu hasn't sold 1 of the 3 boxes that where on the shelf at my local Best Buy. And they've been there forever.

Marketing anyone?

Skripka
September 6th, 2009, 03:32 PM
Norton still has that 'stigma' attached to it after many years of a rubbish product unfortunately.


Especially on Mac, where last I knew, installing Norton was a GREAT way to kill your OS install. That was a while ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was still the same.

hellmet
September 6th, 2009, 03:56 PM
Really? What about all the updates, drivers, codecs, apps, configuring, etc.? All that is NOT 30 min. my friend. I would know, seeing how I have my own PC repair business. I'm all too aware of what is involved with windows.

I can install ubuntu in 7 min. (I timed it) and be 100% done in less than 40min.
True. I had to install Windows 7 (evaluation) yesterday and it took me nearly 3 hours to fetch updates, drivers, install Office and(edit: Anti-virus and DVD burner) more. The entire evening, wasted.

Back to topic, I think it would a very good idea to sell copies at a price with support included. Might really help the new user to get accustomed to the OS. I also like Jaunty's CD packaging. Neat.

MikeTheC
September 6th, 2009, 04:09 PM
Guess what? We're in 2009, where Norton is the better product ;). Anybody who still thinks that AVG is better is either very confused or living in sweet ignorance.

I'm laughing as I read these comments posted on a Linux distro message board. Now, vis a vis anti-malware software, I don't have a dog in that fight as I don't use any, and haven't in many, many years. Heck, I don't even have any on my Windows install on my PC! Then again, I practice safe usage behavior there and really only use it for doing school work where using Orifice 2007 is required.

geekygirl
September 6th, 2009, 04:11 PM
Heck, I don't even have any on my Windows install on my PC! Then again, I practice safe usage behavior

so no pr0n for you then

.Maleficus.
September 6th, 2009, 04:32 PM
I'm laughing as I read these comments posted on a Linux distro message board. Now, vis a vis anti-malware software, I don't have a dog in that fight as I don't use any, and haven't in many, many years. Heck, I don't even have any on my Windows install on my PC! Then again, I practice safe usage behavior there and really only use it for doing school work where using Orifice 2007 is required.
Yet you don't find the other 590,000 Windows posts on UF funny? Wierd.

spoons
September 6th, 2009, 07:36 PM
Because AVG is terrible and Norton isn't?

You've got it the wrong way round there. ;)

aysiu
September 6th, 2009, 07:55 PM
Antivirus is useless. It isn't real protection on any OS.

Mateo
September 6th, 2009, 08:15 PM
exactly, antiviruses are more trouble than they're worth. make an antivirus that never prompts me for anything, that doesn't ask my permission to update itself, that runs 100% in the background but is smart enough to not slow down the computer if I'm using it. Then i'd consider using one. otherwise, i'll take the 0.1% risk of something bad happening.

Shibblet
September 7th, 2009, 12:30 AM
Antivirus is useless. It isn't real protection on any OS.

But it beats having nothing.

The way I look at it, is most people are going to fart-around on the internet, clicking here and clicking there. My girlfriend actually clicked on that link that says "Your computer is infected, download our virus scanner." I spent the next two days trying to get rid of it.

That program wouldn't have even installed on Ubuntu, but it took out her Windows machine really fast. Fortunately I setup a program called Macrium Drive Image to do backups once a week, at night. Formatted the HD, and restored the image.

But, to get back on topic, Viruses and Malware just like the one I just described, CAN'T install themselves in Linux... It's a great way to improve market-share.

Don't worry, just browse.

aysiu
September 7th, 2009, 01:26 AM
But it beats having nothing. If by "nothing," you mean "no antivirus," I disagree.

If by "nothing," you mean "no security" then I agree only a little bit.

If Windows users want security, I have some tips for them, and absolutely 0 of them involve antivirus:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/windowssecurity

Frak
September 7th, 2009, 01:45 AM
If by "nothing," you mean "no antivirus," I disagree.

If by "nothing," you mean "no security" then I agree only a little bit.

If Windows users want security, I have some tips for them, and absolutely 0 of them involve antivirus:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/windowssecurity
Common sense: the #1 anti-virus recommended by leading support forum users.

Skripka
September 7th, 2009, 01:47 AM
If by "nothing," you mean "no antivirus," I disagree.

If by "nothing," you mean "no security" then I agree only a little bit.

If Windows users want security, I have some tips for them, and absolutely 0 of them involve antivirus:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/windowssecurity


Bingo.

Antivirus only cleans things up AFTER you were monumentally dumb. It will NOT stop you from doing something monumentally dumb, most of the time.


I run all my personal machines without antivirus. None of them get taken out by viruses, malware, etc. How? I know how NOT to walk around the internet with "Victim" written on my forehead.

Skripka
September 7th, 2009, 01:48 AM
Common sense: the #1 anti-virus recommended by leading support forum users.

If only we could come up with a better name for it. If people constantly need reminded to use their "Common Sense", then is "Common Sense" still "common"?

xuCGC002
September 7th, 2009, 02:44 AM
#3 Meh big deal-a reasonabley current machine shouldn't have issues.

Yeah, but you'd never know that machine could run a lot faster without paying anything for newer hardware.

Frak
September 7th, 2009, 03:17 AM
If only we could come up with a better name for it. If people constantly need reminded to use their "Common Sense", then is "Common Sense" still "common"?
Apathy or Ignorance; I don't know nor do I care.

falconindy
September 7th, 2009, 03:36 AM
Since W7 has already been released to the torrenting community and students and all of them seem to like it. I'm curious to know how you know that it won't be that great.
There's people who like Vista too. And there's others who like to configure their software with magnetized needles and a steady hand rather than an installer.

Just sayin'... there's some strange people out there.

Shibblet
September 7th, 2009, 03:40 AM
Common sense: the #1 anti-virus recommended by leading support forum users.

I have to disagree again. The malware my girlfriend picked up looked almost identical to AVG, which is the virus scanner she has on her XP machine. It might have even fooled me for a second.

Another time she got an email from a "myspace friend" that said. "Why would you say that about me?" So she clicked on the link, and it took her to what looked IDENTICAL to the MySpace login page. But it wasn't.

These malware wet-ones are getting trickier and trickier.

Common sense has nothing to do with being tricked.

Frak
September 7th, 2009, 03:51 AM
Common sense has nothing to do with being tricked.

This

marchwarden
September 7th, 2009, 11:39 AM
But Microsoft has dominated the industry, making Windows an almost necessity.

In my opinion, it is this perception that is the biggest hurdle for anyone trying to compete with Microsoft. It is an extremely difficult barrier to break.

Roasted
September 7th, 2009, 05:24 PM
In my opinion, it is this perception that is the biggest hurdle for anyone trying to compete with Microsoft. It is an extremely difficult barrier to break.

Agreed. A million times over with. AGREED.

Windows is not always the answer. Mac and Windows are not the only two operating systems that exist.

I think it's amazing what you can do with Linux. It's still jaw dropping to me and I've used Linux for the last 3-4 years. Anything from it being a regular OS just to web browse to having the craziest eye candy to show off to people, while still managing to run your Samba file server and FTP server right off of the same box.

I can honestly say with 100% certainty that if Linux didn't exist I don't believe my interest in computers and technology would be as in depth as it is. Sure, I work on Windows at work all day, but I do that knowing that there's something better out there. And it's such a treat utilizing Linux for troubleshooting at work. It's like a constant reaffirming at who the top dog OS in my book is whenever I have to bust out the LiveCD or Ubuntu on my laptop to troubleshoot something on a computer or the network.

toupeiro
September 7th, 2009, 06:17 PM
I'll be happy to admit I paid money for linux distro's on the shelf. Here's one of a few reasons why:

toupeiro
September 7th, 2009, 06:33 PM
If by "nothing," you mean "no antivirus," I disagree.

If by "nothing," you mean "no security" then I agree only a little bit.

If Windows users want security, I have some tips for them, and absolutely 0 of them involve antivirus:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/windowssecurity

I have to strongly disagree here. I've seen viruses written which literally broadcast themselves using specific ports outlined in Microsoft KB, or share common ports with other windows services more often used in windows networks and less often used in home use but are enabled by default. Only updated malware and virus definitions would protect against vulnerabilities like this because MS hasn't released a patch yet. I've experienced this first hand both in the workplace and at peoples homes. Do they catch everything? no, they don't. If you really believe anti-virus is useless, to me this means you've only had to clean up after users, and never had to really clean up after microsoft yet, even when those best practices without anti-virus documents you wrote are followed exactly. Either way, I don't think it's the best message to be pushing. It's almost the technical equivalent to saying condom's don't work, and you don't need them if you follow these steps exactly... No, they don't work every time, and they're not going to protect you from EVERYTHING, but if you're surfin' around its a whole lot better than having nothing at all.


just my .02

Frak
September 7th, 2009, 08:24 PM
It's almost the technical equivalent to saying condom's don't work, and you don't need them if you follow these steps exactly... No, they don't work every time, and they're not going to protect you from EVERYTHING, but if you're surfin' around its a whole lot better than having nothing at all.

Browsing safe is like a condom. An anti-virus is birth control medication. Some work, some are just placebos.

Shibblet
September 7th, 2009, 08:56 PM
Browsing safe is like a condom. An anti-virus is birth control medication. Some work, some are just placebos.

The funny part is that Linux in general doesn't have these issues. Use this to gain some market share!!!

Frak
September 7th, 2009, 09:17 PM
The funny part is that Linux in general doesn't have these issues. Use this to gain some market share!!!
In this case, Linux would be a eunuch. It doesn't have the vulnerabilities, because it doesn't have compatible hardware/software (bodily sense/tech sense).

Mateo
September 7th, 2009, 09:45 PM
I have to strongly disagree here. I've seen viruses written which literally broadcast themselves using specific ports outlined in Microsoft KB, or share common ports with other windows services more often used in windows networks and less often used in home use but are enabled by default. Only updated malware and virus definitions would protect against vulnerabilities like this because MS hasn't released a patch yet. I've experienced this first hand both in the workplace and at peoples homes. Do they catch everything? no, they don't. If you really believe anti-virus is useless, to me this means you've only had to clean up after users, and never had to really clean up after microsoft yet, even when those best practices without anti-virus documents you wrote are followed exactly. Either way, I don't think it's the best message to be pushing. It's almost the technical equivalent to saying condom's don't work, and you don't need them if you follow these steps exactly... No, they don't work every time, and they're not going to protect you from EVERYTHING, but if you're surfin' around its a whole lot better than having nothing at all.


just my .02

It's all depends on what matters most to you. As an anecdote, I've been using computers for 20 years and can count the number of viruses I've had on one hand. And the number of viruses that did serious, unrecoverable damage... I don't think that's ever happened. And I lived through Windows ME. So, to me, the "risk" of having an occasional inconvenience and having to download some spyware remover programs or antivirus programs to clean things out, is more desirable than having an invasive antivirus program that launches an update on EVERY boot, and sets up scanning times without my permission, and slows down my computer. I'll live with the risk.

toupeiro
September 7th, 2009, 10:47 PM
It's all depends on what matters most to you. As an anecdote, I've been using computers for 20 years and can count the number of viruses I've had on one hand. And the number of viruses that did serious, unrecoverable damage... I don't think that's ever happened. And I lived through Windows ME. So, to me, the "risk" of having an occasional inconvenience and having to download some spyware remover programs or antivirus programs to clean things out, is more desirable than having an invasive antivirus program that launches an update on EVERY boot, and sets up scanning times without my permission, and slows down my computer. I'll live with the risk.

1) I've used all the major virus scanners out there, none of them setup scanning times without telling you about them, and giving you the option to change the default scan time. Most people just blow by it without paying any attention to what they are blowing by...

2) I've been supporting computers in enterprise environments for 11 years, and using them quite a bit longer. If you're someone, for example, who works from home and uses VPN or some sort of portal to work from home, do you really want to run the risk of some worm otherwise benign to you potentially putting your company at risk through your home connection?? Find me one company who actually believes in your philosophy, and actively practices it on their machines, and I'll eat my hat.

3) What I setup for myself and what I will setup for someone else isn't always the same. At the risk of sounding conceited, the average web surfer isn't as tech savvy as I am, or you are. If you don't want to use it, don't, but stop spreading the ridiculous message that they do NOBODY any good.

Roasted
September 8th, 2009, 03:04 PM
It's all depends on what matters most to you. As an anecdote, I've been using computers for 20 years and can count the number of viruses I've had on one hand. And the number of viruses that did serious, unrecoverable damage... I don't think that's ever happened. And I lived through Windows ME. So, to me, the "risk" of having an occasional inconvenience and having to download some spyware remover programs or antivirus programs to clean things out, is more desirable than having an invasive antivirus program that launches an update on EVERY boot, and sets up scanning times without my permission, and slows down my computer. I'll live with the risk.

I agree with you 100% and I'm in the exact same boat as you.

However - On my Windows machines, I have antivirus applications installed and you wouldn't know it if you used my computer, simply because I take advantage of their customizable settings of updating at a certain time of day (3 am) and scanning at a certain time of day (4 am) and DO NOT SCAN upon system startp if the 4 am scan was missed.

If you take advantage of the features given to you, you never have to be bothered by an anti virus application again.

Shibblet
September 8th, 2009, 07:51 PM
Public Service Annoucement:

Won't you please help fund the Human Digression Virus Vaccine.
It is a horrible malady that effects the central nervous system in forum posters across the country.

You could enter a thread regarding how a Linux based operating system can gain market share, and the next thing you know, you are talking about how virus scanners can or can not be effective in Windows.

The Human Digression Virus can strike without warning, and is usually suspect in conversations that cannot flow from one topic seamlessly. Here is our spokesperson Bob Sagat.

Bob: I've been a victim of HDV since I started comedy. I never understood how graham crackers are made. Once I knew how to drive, I never looked back. And finally made my mark in the snow by spelling my name with Mountain Dew to fool my friends. Thank you.

This is a horrible disease that can effect everybody. Please help support HDV today. Otherwise we'll sick Sally Struthers on you.