Acceptance of Ubuntu by the average user

[rmeske]

Hi All,

After recently installing Ubuntu desktop and finding out how far the installation and user interface has come since I last tried linux, I have to say I am extremely impressed. So much so I looked into what it would take for family, friends, and employees to be able to use it instead of Windows.

I am interested if anyone else has thought of this and what they have found.

Leaving games out of it for now, there are a few applications that if they were natively on linux, then more users would be willing to make the switch from Windows to linux instead of Mac. The ones that I see as most important are:


Adobe products - Especially Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, InDesign
Intuit products - Quicken, Quickbooks, TurboTax
Apple itunes

I know most of these have some open source equivelent, but they just aren't quite there yet, unlike Open Office, which is a great replacement for Microsoft Office. I also know there are a couple of options for running Windows based programs under linux, but from what I have read thus far, they are not perfect yet and not seemless for the average user.

So, if most application designed for linux can be run under Mac OS X, what is preventing applications that run natively under OS X from running under linux? In my opinion, it is that there is not one dominant linux desktop version for the commercial software companies to target.

What do you think would happen if the Ubuntu community at large would start contacting Adobe and asking for the ability to run a licensed version of their products under ubuntu? I am not saying make it free, there is some software that is worth paying for.

[mysoogal]

" contacting Adobe and asking for the ability to run a licensed version of their products under ubuntu? "

just reading that i wanna puke again all over my screen :lolflag: if Canonical would do such a thing, they would break the whole idea of free software and after time they will endup just as redhat.

i wouldn't dream of installing adobes licensed software if i didnt have to.

[JigglyWiggly_]

I would like adobe programs I have cs2 installed photoshop, from crossover. It would be nice for native Adobe programs... I want to use adobe after effects on Ubuntu.

[steveneddy]

" contacting Adobe and asking for the ability to run a licensed version of their products under ubuntu? "

just reading that i wanna puke again all over my screen :lolflag: if Canonical would do such a thing, they would break the whole idea of free software and after time they will endup just as redhat.

i wouldn't dream of installing adobes licensed software if i didnt have to.

Kinda dramatic there.

Nvidia drivers aren't free drivers.

Adobe reader isn't free software.

Java, msttcorefonts, some themes and icon packs aren't "free" software, yet are available and used on Ubuntu daily,

There are many other "non-free" software apps in Linux that are great apps.

Check you system for free or non-free software

Install vrms (virtual Richard M. Stallman)

sudo apt-get install vrms

In Terminal run

vrms

[blur xc]

" contacting Adobe and asking for the ability to run a licensed version of their products under ubuntu? "

just reading that i wanna puke again all over my screen :lolflag: if Canonical would do such a thing, they would break the whole idea of free software and after time they will endup just as redhat.

i wouldn't dream of installing adobes licensed software if i didnt have to.

I would argue that the average user isn't a free software zealot and wouldn't care what package was free and what was proprietary, as long as they could do what they wanted to w/o jumping through IT hoops.

I too and awaiting your output after running vrms.

BM

[rmeske]

" contacting Adobe and asking for the ability to run a licensed version of their products under ubuntu? "

just reading that i wanna puke again all over my screen :lolflag: if Canonical would do such a thing, they would break the whole idea of free software and after time they will endup just as redhat.

i wouldn't dream of installing adobes licensed software if i didnt have to.

I don't see how this is breaking the whole idea of free software. I use a mix of freeware, shareware and purchased applications to do what I want to do. There is some software that is just worth purchasing. I just would like the freedom of choosing the OS I want to run it on.

[P4man]

Hi All,

Adobe products - Especially Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash,


Dreamweaver is good for like.. 0,05% of the overall market? Im probably optmistic

Photshop has a decent equivalent in gimp. People not having enough with gimp and needing (and willing to pay for) PS instead, is maybe another 0,2%?


Flash obviously exists for linux, though it would be nice if it worked a bit better.

Illustrator, InDesign

No idea what indesign is, but as with PS, Inkscape comes pretty close to illustrator, and for the money, its probably enough for the latge majority of the minority doing vector graphics. Ill be generous, another 0,1% :)


Intuit products - Quicken, Quickbooks, TurboTax

? really ?

Apple itunes

Thats a biggie indeed. Still to put things in perspective, there have been 2M or so iphone sales to date, and about 10-20x that many ipods. Those are huge absolute numbers, but compared to PC shipments, its kinda small.

So I guess the real question is: how do you convert the 80-90% users out there that do not have an iphone or ipod, and don't really need and want to pay for photoshop or dreamweaver?

[JigglyWiggly_]

There is no equivelent for adobe after effects on Linux... :(

[speedwell68]

I for one am not jaded enough to only use free software, my computer wouldn't work in the real world without proprietary software. The only application I really miss in Linux is Photoshop or Paintshop Pro, GIMP is good but not that good. Other than those two the FOSS community have pretty much all the bases covered.

[winotree]

Hmm. ;) I didn't have anything better to do this afternoon so I took up the vrms challenge

user@PasturePrime:~$ vrms
Non-free packages installed on PasturePrime

linux-generic Complete Generic Linux kernel
linux-restricted-modules- Non-free Linux 2.6.28 modules helper script
linux-restricted-modules- Restricted Linux modules for generic kernels
sun-java6-bin Sun Java(TM) Runtime Environment (JRE) 6 (architecture
sun-java6-jre Sun Java(TM) Runtime Environment (JRE) 6 (architecture
sun-java6-plugin The Java(TM) Plug-in, Java SE 6

6 non-free packages, 0.6% of 969 installed packages.

[DeMus]

Hi All,

After recently installing Ubuntu desktop and finding out how far the installation and user interface has come since I last tried linux, I have to say I am extremely impressed. So much so I looked into what it would take for family, friends, and employees to be able to use it instead of Windows.

I am interested if anyone else has thought of this and what they have found.

Leaving games out of it for now, there are a few applications that if they were natively on linux, then more users would be willing to make the switch from Windows to linux instead of Mac. The ones that I see as most important are:


Adobe products - Especially Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, InDesign
Intuit products - Quicken, Quickbooks, TurboTax
Apple itunes

I know most of these have some open source equivelent, but they just aren't quite there yet, unlike Open Office, which is a great replacement for Microsoft Office. I also know there are a couple of options for running Windows based programs under linux, but from what I have read thus far, they are not perfect yet and not seemless for the average user.

So, if most application designed for linux can be run under Mac OS X, what is preventing applications that run natively under OS X from running under linux? In my opinion, it is that there is not one dominant linux desktop version for the commercial software companies to target.

What do you think would happen if the Ubuntu community at large would start contacting Adobe and asking for the ability to run a licensed version of their products under ubuntu? I am not saying make it free, there is some software that is worth paying for.

Well, Adobe is the last software I would miss. I am glad to be without. It's just a shame they bought Macromedia and therefore own Flash so you can't do without it completely. Adobe (synonym for horse-****) is as slow as thick ****, as we say in Holland. The software is so extremely big in size and so small in capacity that I do not want to have it at all.
Please, ubuntu, never make a deal with Adobe.
The next one you use is something I have never heard about. I have no idea what kind of software it is, so I don't miss it.
The last one is a commercial version of so many free mediaplayers Ubuntu has already. So why make the switch?
No, let Ubuntu stay Ubuntu, use whatever alternative Ubuntu has for commercial software and be happy with it.

[sopadeajo]

I don't see how this is breaking the whole idea of free software. I use a mix of freeware, shareware and purchased applications to do what I want to do. There is some software that is just worth purchasing. I just would like the freedom of choosing the OS I want to run it on.

Your affirmation that there is some software that is just worth purchasing implies that the non bought software is not worth, which is obviously not true.
window$ is not worth to buy even if its price was a fourth . And its price should be at most a fourth of what it is.

[jzacsh]

Hi All,

After recently installing Ubuntu desktop and finding out how far the installation and user interface has come since I last tried linux, I have to say I am extremely impressed. So much so I looked into what it would take for family, friends, and employees to be able to use it instead of Windows.

I am interested if anyone else has thought of this and what they have found.

Leaving games out of it for now, there are a few applications that if they were natively on linux, then more users would be willing to make the switch from Windows to linux instead of Mac. The ones that I see as most important are:


Adobe products - Especially Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, InDesign
Intuit products - Quicken, Quickbooks, TurboTax
Apple itunes

I know most of these have some open source equivelent, but they just aren't quite there yet, unlike Open Office, which is a great replacement for Microsoft Office. I also know there are a couple of options for running Windows based programs under linux, but from what I have read thus far, they are not perfect yet and not seemless for the average user.

So, if most application designed for linux can be run under Mac OS X, what is preventing applications that run natively under OS X from running under linux? In my opinion, it is that there is not one dominant linux desktop version for the commercial software companies to target.

What do you think would happen if the Ubuntu community at large would start contacting Adobe and asking for the ability to run a licensed version of their products under ubuntu? I am not saying make it free, there is some software that is worth paying for.

not to say you shouldn't post this here, i don't own this forum. but i feel like i've read hundreds of posts/articles asking this exact same question, i'm sure if you google it real quick, you'll get answers faster than you will just waiting for peoples responses to this thread.

anyway, to answer the question:

adobe photoshop - i've read a lot of people just run it virtually (i believe) in cross over - that is, if GIMP doesn't cut it for you.
dreamweaver - i never made much use of the auto-completion and auto-building-the-site-for-you features of Dreamweaver (which is why I dropped it), but if you know what you're doing (as far as development) than you should be fine with apps like: bluefish (http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/), kompozer (http://kompozer.net/). (some of the apps out there, i'm sure, have all the fancy auto-do-everything features too).
illustrator - inkscape (http://www.inkscape.org/) is its counterpart, and from using both, i quite like inkscape
indesign - scribus (http://www.scribus.net/) is its counterpart, same - i really do like scribus
flash - if you're developing flash, then I have no clue (i'ver never touched flash). if you're watching flash, than the adobe plugin works fine. fyi, i've found full screen to not work too well and for me a solution has been: just zoom in the size of your browser's view [crtl +] so that the youtube player takes up the whole browser window (especially great trick when you switch your browser to fullscreen [f11])
just remember, by "counterpart" I don't mean "duplicate"
the financial software - i use a complex workbook of spreadsheets for my financial stuff... but I know I remember reading once about a lot of alternatives to those apps.
apple itunes - unless its for iPods (which I think I read somewhere that through plugins you can hack rhythmbox to play iPods), like DeMus said there are a bunch of media players for Ubuntu. I'm a long time mac user and I've come to like Rhythmbox more than iTunes.


oh yeah, http://www.osalt.com/ pretty much covers everything and more, I believe

[Marlonsm]

flash - if you're developing flash, then I have no clue (i'ver never touched flash). if you're watching flash, than the adobe plugin works fine. fyi, i've found full screen to not work too well and for me a solution has been: just zoom in the size of your browser's view [crtl +] so that the youtube player takes up the whole browser window (especially great trick when you switch your browser to fullscreen)



To develop Flash you can do just like for Photoshop, run it in Wine or Crossover.

[rmeske]

Your affirmation that there is some software that is just worth purchasing implies that the non bought software is not worth, which is obviously not true.
window$ is not worth to buy even if its price was a fourth . And its price should be at most a fourth of what it is.

What I mean by some software is worth purchasing, is that it has no equivalent available in another format or it takes me less time to create what I want to create, thus saving me time. Software should make things easier and save me time. If a UI isn't intuitive, or the software isn't stable, then it will take more time to use it to accomplish the task it is being used for and therefore isn't worth using unless there is no other choice.

My real point is, for the average user out there, they just want it to work. They really don't care if it is Windows, Mac, or *nix software. They want it to be as simple as turning it on and doing what they want to do. Most users are willing to pay something for that, though they would prefer it to be free.

[rmeske]

oh yeah, http://www.osalt.com/ pretty much covers everything and more, I believe

This is a perfect reference that I didn't know about. Thanks jzacsh!

[mac666]

regarding Adobe Flash, Illustrator and Photoshop CS3, how are they comming allong with Wine? Last time i tried the installer wouldnt run :popcorn:

I use Ubuntu on my PC, but not on my WC (Work/Windows computer, and toilet) Where i need 100% functional Adobe CS3 suit...

[pricetech]

For the few applications that I need winders for I use a virtual machine. Setting it up was painfully easy.

[overdrank]

Moved to Recurring Discussions

[Marlonsm]

regarding Adobe Flash, Illustrator and Photoshop CS3, how are they comming allong with Wine? Last time i tried the installer wouldnt run :popcorn:

I use Ubuntu on my PC, but not on my WC (Work/Windows computer, and toilet) Where i need 100% functional Adobe CS3 suit...

I've already seen Photoshop CS2 and Flash 8 running in Wine without tweaks, but I'm not sure about other versions.
It seems that PS CS3 doesn't work right out-of-the-box in Wine.

[tsali]

How about the ability to successfully and EASILY sync other handheld devices like Blackberry? Also, vcast stuff for verizon phones is becoming popular around here.

[bruno9779]

Flash

Thanks firefox for the great flashblock addon. I can see flash when I really have to, and avoid it 99.7% of the times.

If flash is a way to put annoying, aggressive laughing banners on sites, play crap games and watch Youtube: than I don't need it.

Streaming still sucks. On an HD screen it is awful to see.

The only point I agree on is Gimps total lack of support for CMYK color space. Professional photo-editing HAS to have it. And Gimp doesn't.

[Mornedhel]

So, if most application designed for linux can be run under Mac OS X, what is preventing applications that run natively under OS X from running under linux? In my opinion, it is that there is not one dominant linux desktop version for the commercial software companies to target.

Yeah, that's not true.

1. OS X applications may rely on specific libraries that are not available in Linux. Applications native to OS X need to be ported to other OSes, and applications native to Windows need to be ported to other OSes. A basic, simple reason is that usually they're written with the native toolkits, which are unavailable anywhere but on the original platform (Cocoa, MFC...). *This* is what prevents applications that run natively under OS X from running under Linux. On the contrary, applications written for Linux can be run about anywhere, since GTK+/Qt/whatever are free and can be installed anywhere, almost.

Plus ports for commercial applications are written only when there is a financial incentive to it, while free software is ported by devs that feel like it would be a good idea.

2. You don't need to target a specific distribution or whatever to deliver a Linux port. My favorite example is Unreal Tournament 2004 (yes, a popular, commercial 3D game) that shipped with a Linux installer on the CD. It was a shell script (thus distribution- and package manager-agnostic) and installed in /opt. It was ported from DirectX to OpenGL/OpenAL by, apparently, a two-men team at Epic that just felt like it (they say so in the readme). Packaging for specific distributions would be the icing on the cake, but seriously, just something like this would already be a huge step forward.

[mdsmedia]

Your affirmation that there is some software that is just worth purchasing implies that the non bought software is not worth, which is obviously not true.
Your conclusion does not necessarily follow. Saying that something is worth purchasing does NOT imply that Free software is not worth purchasing. It simply says that some non-free software IS worth purchasing.

[mdsmedia]

How about the ability to successfully and EASILY sync other handheld devices like Blackberry? Also, vcast stuff for verizon phones is becoming popular around here.
I've almost given up arguing with you, but once again you bring up SPECIFIC examples where the HARDWARE developer isn't supporting Linux.

I don't have a Blackberry and as far as I know Verizon doesn't even operate here, so I don't really care. Looks like Blackberry is off the shopping list and my ISP has no problem with Linux. That's good because I like my ISP.

[rmeske]

Yeah, that's not true.

1. OS X applications may rely on specific libraries that are not available in Linux. Applications native to OS X need to be ported to other OSes, and applications native to Windows need to be ported to other OSes. A basic, simple reason is that usually they're written with the native toolkits, which are unavailable anywhere but on the original platform (Cocoa, MFC...). *This* is what prevents applications that run natively under OS X from running under Linux. On the contrary, applications written for Linux can be run about anywhere, since GTK+/Qt/whatever are free and can be installed anywhere, almost.

Plus ports for commercial applications are written only when there is a financial incentive to it, while free software is ported by devs that feel like it would be a good idea.

2. You don't need to target a specific distribution or whatever to deliver a Linux port. My favorite example is Unreal Tournament 2004 (yes, a popular, commercial 3D game) that shipped with a Linux installer on the CD. It was a shell script (thus distribution- and package manager-agnostic) and installed in /opt. It was ported from DirectX to OpenGL/OpenAL by, apparently, a two-men team at Epic that just felt like it (they say so in the readme). Packaging for specific distributions would be the icing on the cake, but seriously, just something like this would already be a huge step forward.

Thank you for the clarification on this. I was under the impression commercial software would need to be in binaries. I am stilling getting up to speed on linux and applications.

For my own understanding, if a commercial application is distrubuted in this fashion is it more vulnerable to pirating or does it matter?

[mdsmedia]

Flash

Thanks firefox for the great flashblock addon. I can see flash when I really have to, and avoid it 99.7% of the times.

If flash is a way to put annoying, aggressive laughing banners on sites, play crap games and watch Youtube: than I don't need it.

Streaming still sucks. On an HD screen it is awful to see.

The only point I agree on is Gimps total lack of support for CMYK color space. Professional photo-editing HAS to have it. And Gimp doesn't.
I don't use or need Photoshop and I use Gimp very little, but why is it that every time there is a comparison of Photoshop to Gimp, people forget the other graphical editing software that others mention, such as Inkscape?

It is acknowledged that Gimp is not a stand in replacement for Photoshop, but then Office doesn't open ODF documents, but nobody suggests that Office is inferior to OpenOffice, either.

IE doesn't have addons that Firefox has, but that doesn't (by itself) make IE inferior to Firefox.

There are other Linux-based apps which may fit the needs of those who want things which, say, Gimp does not include. Gimp may not do something that Photoshop does, but Inkscape might. If not, there might be another program which does. Again, Gimp is not the only graphical manipulation tool in Linux.

[sudoer541]

" contacting Adobe and asking for the ability to run a licensed version of their products under ubuntu? "

just reading that i wanna puke again all over my screen :lolflag: if Canonical would do such a thing, they would break the whole idea of free software and after time they will endup just as redhat.

i wouldn't dream of installing adobes licensed software if i didnt have to.
thats only your opinion.
in my opinion I would love to have a native port of the programs that run on windows. I would even buy them, free is not always better.

[Mornedhel]

Thank you for the clarification on this. I was under the impression commercial software would need to be in binaries. I am stilling getting up to speed on linux and applications.

For my own understanding, if a commercial application is distrubuted in this fashion is it more vulnerable to pirating or does it matter?

No, it *will* be in binaries. Unreal Tournament 2004 was entirely in binary blobs ; the graphical engine had just been written to be able to use OpenGL and thus run on Linux.

My point was that you can deploy commercial applications to Linux, the only problem resides in porting from proprietary libraries to open source libraries, when it is not possible to use the proprietary libraries in the target platform (the typical example being native widget toolkits such as OS X's Cocoa). Whether or not incurring the costs to port to a minor platform (as far as most commercial applications are concerned) is a good idea, is another problem entirely.

Porting Linux open source applications to other platforms does not pose such a problem because most of the time, you can distribute any library used to the target platform (the typical example being GTK+ applications such as the GIMP, ported to Windows).

Also, when porting a commercial application to Linux, you don't need to target a specific distribution. It won't be as well integrated (you won't get a .deb to install it cleanly on Ubuntu and have it managed by APT, for instance), but even that would already be a first step forward.

For the piracy issue, closed source applications in Linux are just as susceptible to it as they would be on Windows.

[blur xc]

Flash


If flash is a way to put annoying, aggressive laughing banners on sites, play crap games and watch Youtube: than I don't need it.


adblock plus- get rid of all those annoying flashing ad banners and leave what's intended to be seen intact.

A lot of sites these days no longer have html version anymore.

Here are two examples I could think of off the top of my head-

http://www.santacruzbikes.com/home/
http://www.intensecycles.com/

BM

[bruno9779]

adblock plus- get rid of all those annoying flashing ad banners and leave what's intended to be seen intact.

A lot of sites these days no longer have html version anymore.

Here are two examples I could think of off the top of my head-

http://www.santacruzbikes.com/home/
http://www.intensecycles.com/

BM

I agree that flash is the only way to go sometimes, but we do influence this.

When i bought my box components I could have done so in 4 different sites, for roughluy the same price. I bought from my second choice shop because the first one has a flash only site that kept hanging on me.

they have lost the sale of the hardware that follows.

[rmeske]

It is interesting to see the perception of Flash being a bad thing.

[blur xc]

It is interesting to see the perception of Flash being a bad thing.

I've been seeing that for years, especially when flash was still pretty new. A lot of website designers would knock flash sites as being poorly designed, and all they had going for them was the "flashy" flash content. Other than being slower to load, I've got no problems with them. And I have Flash working pretty darn well on my Ubuntu machine, so I'm not complaining. Do i' dare say- that most flash sites load faster and run faster on my Ubuntu machine right now than they do on my xp machine?

BM

[tsali]

I've almost given up arguing with you, but once again you bring up SPECIFIC examples where the HARDWARE developer isn't supporting Linux.

I don't have a Blackberry and as far as I know Verizon doesn't even operate here, so I don't really care. Looks like Blackberry is off the shopping list and my ISP has no problem with Linux. That's good because I like my ISP.

I'm not arguing with you either. The point of the thread was Ubuntu acceptance by the average user. The "average" user around here LIKES their Blackberry or other smartphone and they LIKE for their computer to work with it.

The ability of a system to integrate with the average user's lifestyle is important to their "acceptance" of it.

Stop being nasty

[JDShu]

It will be at last 2 years, but the Gimp 2.10 should have full GEGL integration. Another year after that and I think that the Gimp will be at least as good as if not superior to Adobe Photoshop.

My overly optimistic 2c.

[mdsmedia]

I'm not arguing with you either. The point of the thread was Ubuntu acceptance by the average user. The "average" user around here LIKES their Blackberry or other smartphone and they LIKE for their computer to work with it.

The ability of a system to integrate with the average user's lifestyle is important to their "acceptance" of it.

Stop being nasty
I'm not being nasty. You keep missing my point and coming back with specific issues which will not affect those who do not use those specific pieces of hardware.

I use a Nokia phone and I LIKE using my Nokia phone, but it doesn't affect my opinion of Linux. Nokia's software is written for Windows. It's specifically written for Windows, so it doesn't affect my opinion of Linux.

If you choose to use a Blackberry "or other smartphone", understand that the makers of that smartphone MAY not have written their software for Linux and THEREFORE you MAY have problems with that HARDWARE.

BTW, the "average" user may not even have a smartphone.

[rmeske]

It will be at last 2 years, but the Gimp 2.10 should have full GEGL integration. Another year after that and I think that the Gimp will be at least as good as if not superior to Adobe Photoshop.

Each time I have looked at Gimp it has improved, which is great. In fact, just about every application I have used and updated has improved over the years, regardless of platform or license type.

My whole reason for starting this is to raise awareness of what it will take the average user to make a switch from Windows or Mac OS X to Linux. I now have a great site to check to find software that is comparable to software I currently use. So this has been beneficial to me.

[JDShu]

Each time I have looked at Gimp it has improved, which is great. In fact, just about every application I have used and updated has improved over the years, regardless of platform or license type.

My whole reason for starting this is to raise awareness of what it will take the average user to make a switch from Windows or Mac OS X to Linux. I now have a great site to check to find software that is comparable to software I currently use. So this has been beneficial to me.

Well, in response to that question here are a couple of things I think (and probably have been stated many times before) would probably be needed before the average user uses Linux.

1. Worldwide adoption of open formats, fonts, etc. People can't work when their Open Office documents could lose their formatting when loaded in Microsoft Word. Nobody wants to take that risk. Its true that this is less of a problem now, but people would rather have something that is guaranteed to work. Similarly, many businesses use Microsoft Access for database management. Whatever the company uses, you probably need to use it as well. Your job is at stake.

2. More availability of Linux preinstalled. This is obvious. We all know that a fresh install of Windows is very painful compared to a fresh install of say, Ubuntu, but thats not how we're competing. To the regular consumer, Windows "just works" because the computer they bought had it installed works perfectly literally fresh out of the box.

3. Better drivers from hardware companies, notably wireless and graphics cards. I'm looking forward to the open source ati drivers to change the landscape here :D

4. Advancement in key programs in various fields. Replacements for various Adobe products comes to mind. Which is why I mentioned the Gimp. The need of particular programs, such as photoshop or dreamweaver, is what stops many people from switching.

The way I see it, points 3 and 4 are in the bag and will be fulfilled with time. Maybe even in a year or two. Point 2, we're on our way with Dell offering Ubuntu and other OEMs offereing other flavors of Linux... but this will require alot of time and effort. However, 1 is major problem. Recently, IBM actually made all its workers use Open Office, which is kind of cool and funny, but the vast majority of the corporate world uses Microsoft Office. I don't see how this could realistically happen.

[Mornedhel]

Recently, IBM actually made all its workers use Open Office, which is kind of cool and funny

Actually, IBM switched to their own Lotus Symphony suite, which is a closed source fork of Open Office (OO.o's license allows this).

[3rdalbum]

Adobe products - Especially Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, InDesign


You lost me right there. Does the average user have a licensed copy of Dreamweaver? ($399 USD) Photoshop? ($699 USD) Flash? ($699 USD)

Has the average user even heard of Illustrator and InDesign? (I have, but my father is a typesetter and works with these programs). $599 and $699 respectively.

Yes, it would be fantastic to have those programs available on Linux, but their lack of availability does not hurt the "average user" that you mention in the title. Because the average user can't afford Dreamweaver just to make a personal web page, and they can't afford Photoshop to edit their holiday snaps.

[Tom Mann]

[Deleted] oops...

[Mornedhel]

You lost me right there. Does the average user have a licensed copy of Dreamweaver? ($399 USD) Photoshop? ($699 USD) Flash? ($699 USD)

Has the average user even heard of Illustrator and InDesign? (I have, but my father is a typesetter and works with these programs). $599 and $699 respectively.

Yes, it would be fantastic to have those programs available on Linux, but their lack of availability does not hurt the "average user" that you mention in the title. Because the average user can't afford Dreamweaver just to make a personal web page, and they can't afford Photoshop to edit their holiday snaps.

I'm sure the average user does not have a *license*. He does, however, use Photoshop on his computer. Without a license. Somehow.

There still are many users who use Dreamweaver, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. Some even have a copy of 3D Studio Max, obviously unlicensed (the license does cost $4k...). The trouble with those users isn't that they represent a majority of the potential user base (they don't), but that they're among the most vocal.

[rmeske]

You lost me right there. Does the average user have a licensed copy of Dreamweaver? ($399 USD) Photoshop? ($699 USD) Flash? ($699 USD)

Has the average user even heard of Illustrator and InDesign? (I have, but my father is a typesetter and works with these programs). $599 and $699 respectively.


You are correct in that the typical average home user would not have copies of these. But if you consider the average user in an office environment, then Adobe products are just as prevalent as Microsoft Office.

Well, in response to that question here are a couple of things I think (and probably have been stated many times before) would probably be needed before the average user uses Linux.

1. Worldwide adoption of open formats, fonts, etc. People can't work when their Open Office documents could lose their formatting when loaded in Microsoft Word. Nobody wants to take that risk. Its true that this is less of a problem now, but people would rather have something that is guaranteed to work. Similarly, many businesses use Microsoft Access for database management. Whatever the company uses, you probably need to use it as well. Your job is at stake.

2. More availability of Linux preinstalled. This is obvious. We all know that a fresh install of Windows is very painful compared to a fresh install of say, Ubuntu, but thats not how we're competing. To the regular consumer, Windows "just works" because the computer they bought had it installed works perfectly literally fresh out of the box.

3. Better drivers from hardware companies, notably wireless and graphics cards. I'm looking forward to the open source ati drivers to change the landscape here :D

4. Advancement in key programs in various fields. Replacements for various Adobe products comes to mind. Which is why I mentioned the Gimp. The need of particular programs, such as photoshop or dreamweaver, is what stops many people from switching.


As you say, having computers preloaded with linux will help drive demand. But for individuals to buy those computers they need to know that they will either be able to:


Run their favorite applicaiton that they can do without.
Find a comparable application that does everything their current application does, is just as easy to use or easier, and is just as reliable.

So, how to get the word out to the average user without a marketing budget?

[alexcckll]

Hmm - on the piracy front, with Ubuntu AppCentre (or whatever the name du jour is), I don't think that would really be an issue. My reasoning? Company talks to Canonical, gets it rolled to their AppStore, and it's handled through the repositories in the same way as Parallels and the FLuendo CD playback elements are handled now. Website, supply credit card number, apt:// link gets sent - or with AppCentre, the purchase is handled and the relevant repository is added behind the scenes... apt-get runs, drops package...

Your average user is not going to much about (or the mainstream user won't.. and would prefer to install from Official locations).