PDA

View Full Version : Why don't most home PC's come with Linux pre-loaded?



Carrots171
June 20th, 2006, 04:00 PM
In your opinion, why don't big PC companies like Dell and Lenovo pre-load Linux on most desktop computers?

Brunellus
June 20th, 2006, 04:02 PM
...because they will lose the competitive advantage of preferential pricing on OEM licences of Windows.

FISHERMAN
June 20th, 2006, 04:07 PM
I miss the option "all of the above"

catty0320
June 20th, 2006, 04:18 PM
I miss the option "all of the above"

your not blind, i dont see it either but i think it is mostly 2 and 3

PenguinMan
June 20th, 2006, 05:44 PM
edit...

Kvark
June 20th, 2006, 05:54 PM
I think the primary reason is that PCs with Linux preinstalled has a too small market share. If say 10% of all PCs that are sold would have Linux preinstalled then all of the major OEMs would offer Linux to compete for that 10% of the market. But now only a few (0.5%? or less?) PCs with Linux preinstalled are sold, thats a too small portion of the market for most OEMs to bother with.

IYY
June 20th, 2006, 05:54 PM
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm sure it's not "Too many distributions to choose from". That's just an excuse they use that makes them look good. The truth is, they could pick any distro and most Linux users will be happy (because this means that the other distros will also work on this machine).

bruce89
June 20th, 2006, 05:55 PM
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm sure it's not "Too many distributions to choose from". That's just an excuse they use that makes them look good. The truth is, they could pick any distro and most Linux users will be happy (because this means that the other distros will also work on this machine).
I'd have said all of them apart from the one mentioned here. This poll should have been multi-choice.

aysiu
June 20th, 2006, 10:37 PM
I think it's quite obvious from this news story (http://www.crn.com/sections/custom/custom.jhtml?articleId=189500745) that it has everything to do with Microsoft and nothing to do with demand, too many distros, or whatever other excuses people can come up with:
Hewlett-Packard has no plans to preload versions of the upcoming Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop (SLED) 10 on its PCs, but HP aims to support the operating and sees opportunities for it, an HP spokeswoman said.

Plans call for HP to certify SLED 10 for select desktops--including the nx6310, nx6320, nc6320, nc2400, nx6315 and nx6325 models--before the year's end, the spokeswoman said in response to questions from CRN.

She said HP so far doesn't plan to offer Linux as a preload on business notebooks but added that the Palo Alto, Calif.-based company is actively assessing the market for Linux clients and sees much potential for SLED 10.

Novell is set to launch SLED 10 next month. The OS contains as many standard desktop features as Microsoft's forthcoming Windows Vista but takes up a fraction of the hard disk space and costs about $50 per seat, several hundred dollars less than current Microsoft operating systems. Novell also has said it plans to bundle the OpenOffice suite of productivity software with SLED 10.

HP rival Lenovo has said it plans to support SLED 10 on some PC configurations, yet it has stopped short of saying it would offer the Linux desktop OS as a standard installation on any models. They obviously think Linux has an audience; otherwise, why would they support it. The number of distros is irrelevant, which is why they've chosen Novell's SLED.

rai4shu2
June 20th, 2006, 10:44 PM
Very simple: MS Office and Internet Explorer (which are not generally available on Linux distros). Microsoft has used this unfair trade practice to not only reduce the value of Linux, but also Apple or any other competitor.

NeghVar
June 20th, 2006, 11:07 PM
Very simple: MS Office and Internet Explorer (which are not generally available on Linux distros). Microsoft has used this unfair trade practice to not only reduce the value of Linux, but also Apple or any other competitor.

IE is shrinking, I know many Hardcore MS fans who hate it and who choose FF the moment they do a format.

TechHut
June 20th, 2006, 11:10 PM
It all has to deal with Microsoft in English. When a consumer goes into a computer store (This is generally in America) He/She wants something they hear is the easiest to use, now being Linux is rarely advertised in America (IBM did a few short ads, but only to a business perspective) people flock to windows. Society is messed up in the long run, the consumer only knows what is layed out for him/her. Hopefully that will change.

Brunellus
June 20th, 2006, 11:22 PM
IE is shrinking, I know many Hardcore MS fans who hate it and who choose FF the moment they do a format.
it still represents somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of users, though. Granted, ten percent of the population is probably a larger proportion than, say, the Bolshevik party in Russia at the time of the revolution--but somehow I don't see that kind of force being brought to bear against MS.

G Morgan
June 20th, 2006, 11:43 PM
it still represents somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of users, though. Granted, ten percent of the population is probably a larger proportion than, say, the Bolshevik party in Russia at the time of the revolution--but somehow I don't see that kind of force being brought to bear against MS.

I'm not sure about that, Socialism had a very large following in Russia. If Russia had a democracy you can almost guarentee that a Socialist party would have won. The same is true in most of Europe but Socialism has died back in Europe* as people realised that exploitation isn't acceptable.

Anyway I thought Firefox had 15% of users. It's certainly used by everyone I know (as much from my evangalism as anything else, its much easier converting people to Firefox than to Linux obviously).


*At least in as far as theres no threat of revolution anymore, there was a time 50%+ of the British population would have backed such a revolution but since then we've seen socialism win anyway. Theres no real poverty like there was in the early 1900's and people don't work for company shop tokens anymore.

rai4shu2
June 20th, 2006, 11:52 PM
I think I may have found another piece to this puzzle:


Before 1998 Microsoft contributed little to political campaigns, and most donations went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' Web site. But in 2000, the year Bush was elected, more than 60 percent of Microsoft's $4.5 million political spending went to Republicans. Microsoft and its employees contributed to both presidential campaigns in 2004, but more to the Bush campaign.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,125963,00.asp

Compucore
June 21st, 2006, 12:19 AM
From the way I see it and I'm coming from the good old days of DOS command-line. MS has been brain washing the general public when you buy a IBM or compatible pc that you should use windows. They don't want the general public to know about the other operating systems or the other applications like openoffice. I have seen this since the early 90's till today. They want the general public to believe that there is only one OS out there and its them. Same goes with the office suites, programming languages like C#, visual studio line. While the community like us here who know a bit more and the average joe off the street. And the noobs that are seeing the light now of Linux and the other distros.(I'm including the Mac and some others that are not linux based but they are of the unix or other design as well.) That there are more options available to them than just windows.

And that is what is more likely scaring them that they are starting to loose some ground on this. Ever so slowly and I don't know the exact number if I did I would leave the link for it.

Compucore

G Morgan
June 21st, 2006, 12:41 AM
I'm not sure if criticism on the Visual Studio front is fair. For one its one of the better MS apps, secondly programmers are going to know enough to know about alternatives.

MS can't be blamed that Linux can't afford advertising, they can be blamed for releasing a security weak OS and teaching users to be as stupid as posible.

marcelm
June 21st, 2006, 12:50 AM
Because Windows XP is simply more reliable, stable, advanced,and easy to use, than Linux distro's.

G Morgan
June 21st, 2006, 12:55 AM
Because Windows XP is simply more reliable, stable, advanced,and easy to use, than Linux distro's.

Based on what exactly. Its certainly not more advanced or stable (which means exactly the same as reliable). If Windows XP is more stable than Linux then why does Linux have the largest market share in the server market when Windows Server is far more stable than XP. Your left with the conclusion XP > Linux > Win Server > XP in terms of stability. Never seen such an idea in the past, I'm sure theres something wrong with it somewhere.

BWF89
June 21st, 2006, 12:58 AM
Theres not enough demand for Linux yet.

marcelm
June 21st, 2006, 01:05 AM
Based on what exactly. Its certainly not more advanced or stable (which means exactly the same as reliable). If Windows XP is more stable than Linux then why does Linux have the largest market share in the server market. I don't know. Maybe because it's free. I am a game developer and I get classic windows 95 freezes when developing. In my 4-5 years of windows XP use, I have Never got a total freeze of a window when debugging or executing a project. Maybe server business is not as bug-prone as game development. Who knows. My guess the Windows kernel is just better. Maybe it's some other thing. Mind you, i don't mind the freezes, i know it's all alpha unstable etc. Linux is cool for game dev. I have, Mixed feelings about it.:-\" But the Windows kernel seems better to me~

aysiu
June 21st, 2006, 01:57 AM
I've never seen instability in the Linux kernel.

The desktop environments? Plenty! Unstable Gnome. Unstable KDE. Oh, yeah. Unstable Linux... nope.

G Morgan
June 21st, 2006, 02:01 AM
It's certainly not my experience or the general industry perception, prehaps your problem is with the SDL library (I assume your using SDL) as opposed to the kernel. It could be million things.

The NT kernel hasn't got a great reputation for stability TBH. If you can't get it working on Linux why not try BSD, they are probably more famed for stability than Linux is. At the end of the day its the right tool for the job, BSD is more difficult to configure than Linux though (there is a desktop BSD but I've never tried that).

Another posibility is doing your dev work on a 2.4 kernel. The 2.4 kernels are much more stable than the 2.6 ones though I'm not sure if the GFX drivers work with them.

G Morgan
June 21st, 2006, 02:02 AM
I've never seen instability in the Linux kernel.

The desktop environments? Plenty! Unstable Gnome. Unstable KDE. Oh, yeah. Unstable Linux... nope.

My understanding is the SDL library bypasses the DE anyway and even the X-Server itself. It makes direct hardware calls AFAIK.

NoTiG
June 21st, 2006, 05:20 AM
You cant say its demand really. When most ppl buy a computer they dont even know what windows is. The day when you see two computers side by side with the same hardware..... one with linux and one with windows, and the windows version more expensive (since even to an OEM it costs something, whereas linux costs nothing) then you will see the true demand. Will the consumer pick the cheaper one ? or the windows one? It doesnt even really matter because the choice is not there. Some companies have tried to sell linux along side windows..... but strangely the price was the SAME. which is evidence of the problem. It doesnt matter how good or bad linux is as an operating system and alternative to windows... THere simply isnt a chance for it to use one of its greatests strengths... that its free and should cost less than the windows computer. about 30 or 40 bucks less if i remember correctly. Im sure at first.. the majority of ppl would chose windows because they need some particular program to work (especially gaming ) but a substantial amount would probably pick linux as well... and that would increase the userbase which in turn would increase hardware and software support which is what the entire community needs.

ssergeje
August 18th, 2006, 02:02 PM
I think big amount of distros isn't an option. It's rather SUSE, Ubuntu, Mepis (ubuntu core), Xandros(Debian, maybe ubuntu soon), Linspire, Mandriva.

The problem is multimedia, support, availability of software, unstable GUIs, drivers.
For example in USA it wouldn't be possible to sell linux which plays WMV. Who need's such. Many users don't tweak they machines, like most linuxoids. They go to tech support. They won't install w32codecs, pitfdll etc.

Also hardware support is an option. I have an HP nx6310, and WiFi doesn't work with default software out of the box. I have to reinstall ndiswapper from source, intel GMA950 is glitching. My Canon i350 printer isn't supported.

Though linux is well suted for business use in banks, schools :D , where it runs specially designed software (probalby JavaEE, Mono), it is better localised (or lets say more comfortobaly customizeable)

Lord Illidan
August 18th, 2006, 02:12 PM
I don't know. Maybe because it's free. I am a game developer and I get classic windows 95 freezes when developing. In my 4-5 years of windows XP use, I have Never got a total freeze of a window when debugging or executing a project. Maybe server business is not as bug-prone as game development. Who knows. My guess the Windows kernel is just better. Maybe it's some other thing. Mind you, i don't mind the freezes, i know it's all alpha unstable etc. Linux is cool for game dev. I have, Mixed feelings about it.:-\" But the Windows kernel seems better to me~

Nah...it wouldn't be unstable just because it is free. The linux kernel should be more stable than the windows kernel. Perhaps it is the apps or DE you use that is more unstable. I've seen KDE crash on me, but never a total system freeze.

I believe that it has more to do with lack of awareness.
I mean...give someone who has always used Windows an Ubuntu desktop.. They will probably say :

WTF is this???
1. It can't play my mp3s. (how would they know about the existence of the forum)?
2. Where is Microsoft Office?
3. What is firefox? Where is Internet Explorer??
4. HOW DO I DO ANYTHING?

I've experienced these comments from windows users myself.
And even if Ubuntu came with a manual, people prolly wouldn't read it.
So what there is to do?

djsroknrol
August 18th, 2006, 03:14 PM
Micheal Dell has said in a few articles that I've read that there are too many distros to choose one to preload and make everyone happy with...

Lord Illidan
August 18th, 2006, 03:16 PM
Micheal Dell has said in a few articles that I've read that there are too many distros to choose one to preload and make everyone happy with...

Probably an excuse..

bensexson
August 18th, 2006, 03:19 PM
It is a combination of fear of Microsoft (the strongest factor) and just plain inertia. To many people a computer means Windows.

Blondie
August 18th, 2006, 03:21 PM
Network effect. Basically lots of reasons that boil down to Microsoft's present market dominance -

Availibility of games
Availibility of other third party commercial software
Universality of Word, Excel etc. formats
Hardware manufacturers automatically write drivers for Windows by default because of it's market position


Combined with user-friendliness and to a lesser extent features. Linux is getting there wrt user-friendliness, arguably it has arrived, but if so it's only happened recently. This will soon become a non-issue, if it isn't already. Particularly with companies like Novell, Red Hat and Canonical trying to compete with Windows by taking all the voluntary work done on Linux for free and adding their own polish and features (eg. XGL / Compiz). Since they don't have to pay the billions to reinvent the wheel it becomes economically attractive for them even though they don't own the code, and all of Linux benefits from that new code (as do the Linux companies that didn't write the code). We're now seeing some features that not only meet the standard set by Microsoft but exceed it.

The good news is that if Linux can crack a sizable chunk of market share then most of the practical advantages of Windows as listed above disappear. It doesn't have to even be a majority market share or even anything close to a majority market share.

So how can Linux compete with Windows? The same way Microsoft beat Apple - cost. Because DOS / Windows was not locked into a specific hardware vendor but ran on hardware supplied by competing vendors, the free market forced down the prices of PC hardware for the end user, increasing Windows market share. That's how Linux can beat Windows. Several things are moving in Linux' favour,

OpenOffice is increasingly making lock in to Microsoft Office formats less strong. This is a big reason behind government departments around the world looking at free software alternatives. Now it's not just a desireable option but also a viable one where it wasn't before. The relationship between Office and Windows is symbiotic - if you hurt the market share of one you do the same to the other.
Just as consoles overtook arcade machines for gaming they are now starting to overtake PCs more than before. Compare what an original Playstation could do with a PC from the same era with what an Xbox 360 can do compared to a current PC. Whichever way you want to argue the gap is, I think it is clear that the direction is for consoles to be increasingly more powerful compared to PCs of the same era. Also look at how the relative shelf space for PC games is decreasing in stores compared to console games.
Hardware costs are being driven down. This means that an increasing % of the price of a new PC is the Windows tax. There is therefore greater and greater scope for cost savings to end users from using Linux pre-installed.

master5o1
September 6th, 2006, 11:30 PM
I hear that the Sony PS3 will have a Linux based OS...Do you think this would make Sony's computers (Vaio?) be more likely to have linux in the future?

I think if Sony wants to rival Microsoft in the gaming market, they should join in on the computer market by loading Linux on some of their machines...

aysiu
September 6th, 2006, 11:32 PM
Embedded Linux and desktop Linux are two totally different animals.

kdog
September 25th, 2006, 07:40 AM
Some manufacturers have linux pre-loaded, like IBM/Lenovo and HP.

But I think the most don`t have this possabillity, due to the amount of time they would have to put into the images, to get all the hardware running.
The majority of hardwaredrivers are written for windows, as mentioned by others already.

If Linux would have a much wider audience, it would be different.

But this is where the main problem is.

Ken

snakyjake
September 27th, 2006, 11:33 PM
There's too much of a learning curve with Linux. There's not enough hand holding with Linux. Linux is more for the hobbiest, or experimentor.

If Linux wants to compete for the Desktop, someone will need to make the ultimate effort to make everything easy, simple, and intuitive.

aysiu
September 27th, 2006, 11:36 PM
There's too much of a learning curve with Linux. There's not enough hand holding with Linux. Linux is more for the hobbiest, or experimentor.

If Linux wants to compete for the Desktop, someone will need to make the ultimate effort to make everything easy, simple, and intuitive.
Sounds as if you need to read this:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth

rfruth
September 27th, 2006, 11:38 PM
Microsoft has a all or none policy, its the only way they can stay on top :twisted:

snakyjake
September 27th, 2006, 11:38 PM
When people go out to buy a computer, they aren't just shopping for an operating system, or the hardware. They are truly shopping for an experience.

Within a computer store, put Apple, Windows, and Linux next to each other. I think Linux would do okay. But people are going to buy what they are more comfortable with, and what they are familiar with. Plus, Linux has more of a "dark site" reputation, and people want the bright happy side. And of course, Apple and Microsoft like to market their products as being happy, bright, successful.

Also, there's going to be a sales person involved. And truly, I don't think I would be giving my customer a good experience by recommending Linux for the long term. What about supportability? What about the hardware support? What about the software support? I can't honestly recommend/sell it to anyone over Apple or Microsoft. Not unless I knew the person was more technical and willing to put some effort into it.

DoctorMO
September 27th, 2006, 11:51 PM
Nah they'll be fine, most users bring back their computers to the shop because they couldn't open their email. with Linux it's going to be exactly the same.

the only real difference is that more people _know_ windows and are used to it. but just because some sales guy knows windows doesn't mean linux isn't suitable for the buyer even when said buyer is not technical.

aysiu
September 27th, 2006, 11:59 PM
Considering how many problems I've seen on Windows (and even Mac sometimes) for "average consumers" and the very fact that the Geek Squad exists... I don't see how you can say desktop Linux would work for only technical folks.

1. There are those who won't figure it out.
2. There are those who can figure it out.
3. And there are those who create it.

If you belong to group 1, you're going to have trouble no matter what OS you use because you won't be inclined to learn how to do things properly, secure your system, discern which programs are safe or not to install, create strong passwords, solve problems.

If you belong to group 2, you could probably figure out any OS if you put your mind to it, but you've also probably invested in putting your mind to the one you've been using for years. Unlearning that and picking up a new OS will be no easy task.

If you belong to group 3, you can do whatever you want.

The difficulty lies not with the software but with social and economic circumstances, education, and familiarity. Believe me, if the software were difficult to use, I wouldn't be using it.

snakyjake
September 28th, 2006, 12:15 AM
Sounds as if you need to read this:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth

Aysiu, your site is awesome. I've used it many times.

I like the essay, but I think it still falls short of Apple and Microsoft. Sure Linux has become easier and better.

But how many of us have purchased hardware to find out there isn't a Linux driver? Or perhaps it has forced us to research the hardware before purchasing? Is your average computer user going to do this? Or maybe try and compile a Linux driver...eek.

How many different ways are their to install an application? So I hear about this hot new application. I want it. But guess what, it isn't in the repository yet. Or maybe I visit the website and see they have packages for Red Hat, Suse, Fedora...but no Debian package. Wait...Debian? I have Ubuntu. No wait...Ubuntu used Debian. Is the average user going to get confused?

If my system breaks, who is going to fix it? Can I take it to CompUSA and have someone fix it for me?

Or how about the applications. I really enjoy my recreation software for hiking (topo maps)...but they don't make it for Linux. Maybe wine or CrossOver?

Or when I purchase new hardware, there's always good instructions for Windows, hardly any for Mac...and Linux? Non existant.

Perhaps the bigger problem as a new and ignorant customer in a computer store....tell me why I should go Linux and not Windows or not Apple? Which one do you think the sales person will have an easier time selling?

The other issue I noticed, Linux isn't cutting edge enough for the consumer. Plus, I can get a lot of the same software that Linux uses for Windows.

Or how about learning Linux...way too many different places to find information, and a lot of the information isn't geared toward the average user. People don't want to search 100 sites to find 200 different ways of doing something. It needs to be intuitive.

Familiarity. Windows is extremely familiar since most of us use it at work.

I also worked at technical support before, and I can tell you that people have very little patience when something doesn't work as they expect. Nor do they want to learn something new.

I wish I could personally meet everyone on Ubuntu because I'm extremely interested to know the type of person we are. Are we curious, tweekers, fiddlers, DIY, hobbiests, anti-Microsoft, want stuff for free, patient, obsessive? How many of the members are the type that buy a car, and just want to turn the key and press the gas? Or how many are the type that would change their own oil versus taking it to the shop because they don't know or want to know how.

Most of the desktop market doesn't even care about a computer. They rather have an appliance that does everything for them, or they tell a software company what they want the software to do for them.

To me, Linux is a niche.

aysiu
September 28th, 2006, 12:26 AM
I agree with your points, but not your conclusion.

Yes, of course desktop Linux is niche. That doesn't mean it has to be niche. And everything you're talking about works together. More preinstallation means more users, more users means more software readily available, more software readily available means more commercial support, etc.

You're basically saying Linux is losing the desktop because it's losing the desktop. It's a vicious circle that has very little to do with the technical/software limitations of the Linux kernel or its associated applications.

snakyjake
September 28th, 2006, 12:39 AM
You're basically saying Linux is losing the desktop because it's losing the desktop. It's a vicious circle that has very little to do with the technical/software limitations of the Linux kernel or its associated applications.

You are 100% correct, it is a vicious cycle for sure. Linux has the best potential. Linux probably won't gain the market share because of marketing, reputation, and people's perceptions. We don't always buy something because it is better, we buy it because some company's marketing/sales told us how much better we will become if we use their product.

The more I realize the short comings that Linux has, the more I want help it over come the obstacles. That's why I spend a lot of my free time on the forum. I just wish I knew a lot more so I could be writing wikis. And perhaps do some videocasts for those who need hand holding. I want to make Linux intuitively simple. It is so darn close in my opinion. It just needs to be a bit more organized.

I have the highest admiration for people who have been contributing to the success of Linux. Right now I'm extremely jealous of those that are writing for Linux and making Linux better. aysiu...again...awesome website..and thank you for your contributions.

Jake

bobbybobington
September 28th, 2006, 04:35 AM
I just wish there was an organization whos sole purpose was to do marketing for desktop linux. Think of all the thousands of people working on various distrobutions, now imagine if the number of people who work on a single distro made an organization for linux marketing! Now comparing software projects and marketing is kinda like comaring apples and oranges, but i think a community driven linux marketing team would go a longway to solving the problem. The software(mostly) is ready, but people don't know jack about linux and what it could do for them!

One more thing, if ulugs(ubuntu linux user groups) just set up a stand at local fairs, festivals etc... and had a handful of computers with ubuntu on them for people just to use for free (you could enable all the eyecandy to impress them), it would let ubuntu speak for itself!

aysiu
September 28th, 2006, 06:55 AM
I like your attitude, Jake. You do what you can. Complaining doesn't do much, but doing does.

I can't code. I don't have a whole lot of money to spare. And I know nothing about marketing. But I sure can do some screenshots and write some documentation! So that's what I do.

stuh84
September 28th, 2006, 11:44 AM
Pretty simple really. Most hardware is already compatible with Windows. Nearly every game is compatible with Windows. Wireless just works and is easy to change networks by just point and click.

The fate has been sealed already, MS has the market share to such a point that trying to go against is an exercise in futility. The only reason Mac's can get away with it is because all the hardware more or less HAS to be compatible from off the bat, and they provide almost all of the hardware anyway. I know if it was pre-built you wouldn't have a problem with the included hardware, but some of the stuff I've gone thru with just setting up a webcam before is really daft. I have no problem with it, but the average user wants to plug it in, stick in their setup CD if needed, wait for it to be done and then press on the little camera button in MSN. Anything else is too hard for most.

The general public will not want anything that isn't very very straightforward point and click, even the thought of opening up a terminal scares them. The closest you'll get for normal people wanting Linux is Linspire and the like as it just looks like what people are used to.

Here's an analogy, you drive cars with a clutch and a gear stick. You can remove the clutch because people can deal with it as they know the gear changes are being done for them (could make that a Metaphor for MCE if you want). Put someone on a motorbike afterwards and tell them to drive it straight away. It may have the advantages of being able to overtake without a full lane, but you are more likely to make a mess of things by one little mistake. Just ain't gonna happen. You have to learn again. Only the committed want to relearn.

Most people like what they know and couldn't care less about anything else. If someone was raised on Ubuntu then chances are they would have problems with XP. Someone raised on Mac's get scared in XP and Ubuntu. Given that XP is the most predominant, most people are scared of XP, Ubuntu and other forms of Linux, simply because its different. So, as a business, would you rather scare nearly all your customers away, just to support the community so to speak, or install XP and be part of the monopoly, but not go out of business and actually make money? Sure, open source and the community is alright for the bedroom user and a few smaller suppliers, but this is a profit driven world, rent and mortgages and food dont pay for themselves, so money has to come from somewhere.

I'm a dedicated Ubuntu user, but I won't kid myself that everyone must have Linux. I still dual boot and XP is still my most used OS, simply because when I want to do web design, or record (and dont tell me Audacity is great, I really don't like it, just like I don't like Cubase), or want to load up iTunes, Ubuntu just doesn't cut it. I find it a lot of fun in Ubuntu, because I like to tinker with stuff, and like to learn things, but XP makes it so I don't have to use half hearted attempts at software to do what I want to do.

The only way Ubuntu or other Linux variants will make it big is if you don't have to load up Synaptic or Apt-Get every time you install a piece of hardware thats not a USB hard drive. It will get big when the driver installation is automated. It will get big when wireless support is perfect. It will get big when if you have hardware issues, you can just ring up the tech support line and get it over with.

Don't take this as a dig against Linux or Ubuntu, I like them a lot, but I am also realistic in that they will not make much of a dent on Windows until either everyone becomes a power user of Windows, but gets sick of it (unlikely, as those sick of Windows who aren't power users will probably just go Mac now anyway), or theres a real upheaval in commercial support for Linux. Given that Linux is meant to be open source, I really doubt this will happen either.

NESFreak
September 28th, 2006, 03:32 PM
most specialized dutch non OEM sellers in the netherlands have linux optionally, but they don't offer additional suport for it. (like installing a broadband conection). Most people don't even know linux is optional though, they just buy what they know that is 'good'.

NESFreak

xhaan
September 28th, 2006, 03:35 PM
It's been said too many times before, but...
Linux is more than capable of supporting a whole lot of hardware, but the problem is that it's often not allowed to.

Reverse engineering drivers for hardware is often illegal to even begin with, so the only options there are to either not support it or make your own hack which may not work on all systems.

Same thing goes with porting, you can't do it if you can't take apart the program, and compatibility layers don't work for everything, so we're left with either using only native programs or buggy compatibility layers.

As far as package management goes, this could be easier and more standardized I suppose. There are point and click executable installers for various things in Linux, but the problem is that what they install isn't always as easily tracked as when you use a package manager to install something.

snakyjake
September 28th, 2006, 03:46 PM
Linux is having ALL the same problems to overcome that Microsoft originally had.

I remember when there wasn't much hardware/driver support.
I remember when there wasn't much software.
I remember when Microsoft was "command line" only.
I remember when Microsoft was driven by the community.
I remember when you had to learn Microsoft when we didn't have the web.

Linux could easily overcome these obstacles. But I think the community is less organized and cohesive. You see, if we don't like something about Linux, we just dual boot into XP. Linux doesn't experience a noticable loss. Now if we all got tired of Windows, and started to use Linux more, Microsoft will feel a loss, because we stop giving money to Microsoft. This will strongly motivate Microsoft to perform better.

A community that is organized and more cohesive could probably accomplish a lot more a lot quicker. They can set some very high goals with predictable time lines. The goals will need to go beyond technology development. A lot of Linux revolves around the development and system administration communities, which becomes its primary audience and target market.

Linux does have some very high strengths that may move into more market share. The community is LARGE. Microsoft doesn't have the whole world working for them (at least not yet). Plus, Linux has the community philosophy, so I always feel like contributing back to Linux for everything that it has given to me. What would you do with 1 billion potential contributors? Microsoft would freak if that many people provided some contribution to Linux.

I also think OS development is going to slow down. So will some other applications like word processing. Those products segements are maturing and we're not going to see huge leaps of innovation in those areas. Linux will eventually catch up over time.

But there will be other market innovations, and I hope Linux won't be too far behind. I hope Linux could be in leader in some of those areas, but I doubt it. In a capitalist market, innovation is usually motivated by money. Money motivates patents, copyrights, protectionism, and closed-source.

If innovation with the OS and mainstreams applications slow down, we're probably going to see more bundling, or ways to box people in. Boxing people in will help those companies keep their market share when the mainstream applications become more of a commodity. Probably will see Microsoft tie their OS more with Office, more with media, more with cell phones, more with businesses, more with automobiles...and maybe tie more into a "smart" home. Then lock people in and make it too difficult to leave. But give it another 5-10 years after that, and I think Linux will "unlock" people from their cages, and then the whole cycle will repeat over again.

Jake

chipfryer
October 21st, 2009, 06:40 PM
It's probably been said but I feel the reason is that not enough people know how to run it at major retail outlets.

hoppipolla
October 21st, 2009, 06:43 PM
It's probably been said but I feel the reason is that not enough people know how to run it at major retail outlets.

hehe you just saved a thread that was from over three YEARS ago! That's kinda cool! I wondered why I didn't recognize many of the posters! xD

Artificial Intelligence
October 21st, 2009, 06:46 PM
Necromancing.

Thread closed.