PDA

View Full Version : Linux overtaking Microsoft: Why do you think this will happen?



Mtown
December 14th, 2007, 05:25 AM
To start things out, I'm really going to try to keep things fair and unbiased, but just to warn you I might say a few things that could seem Anti-Linux, but I'm not a Linux-hater or a Windows-lover. I just want to get your opinion and response on something. I've been thinking this out for a while. Also I'll try to bold important parts.

Recently I've seen a lot of posts and headlines about Linux and how it's getting closer to actually competing with Microsoft and will eventually win the Desktop OS battle. The main reasons I saw given for this were:
A. Linux is free
B. Linux computers cost less

I've seen a lot of articles praising Linux for being able to run smoothly on low-end machines that could barely even boot up Vista or XP, let alone run something useful. A whole swarm of articles have been popping up on Digg; one boasting how Linux ran smooth as butter on a PC with a 400mhz processor, another foretelling the end of Microsoft's reign with a line of Linux-computer's costing only $500. The article pointed out that the average price of a computer being bought to run Vista costs over $1,000- and thats BEFORE you even purchase Vista itself, and most Vista/XP using computer's being bought these days end up costing somewhere between $1,000-$3,000, which looks pretty high compared to the $500 Linux machine.

Another study done by some European company stated that if everybody switched to Linux, the amount of computer waste generated would be cut in half. This is because the average Windows user purchases a new computer every 2-4 years while the average Linux user purchases a computer ever 4-8 years. I've seen so many of these articles and posts claiming that Linux would soon be going over the top and start replacing Windows as the Desktop of choice. Again, the reasons were mainly PC's that cost MUCH less.

Here is an example article of what I'm talking about: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/12/prediction_linux_will_eat_micr.php

Now again, I do not have a "side" in the whole "MS vs. Linux" battle, but for reasons (WELL THOUGHT OUT reasons, mind you) that I'll list below, I just don't see Linux ever overtaking or really coming close to overtaking Microsoft, and the reason has nothing to do with the operating system.

From What I've seen, Linux does run very well on low end or budget machine. It runs well on machines that XP and Vista can barely crawl by on. However, the crux of the issue is not really about the OS, but about the physical requirements of the software. Take this for example:

Sony Vegas is a high end video editing tool, requiring lots of RAM and processing power. Linux can obviously not run Sony Vegas because it's a Windows program. However, if Sony suddenly this very instant released a version of Vegas that was compatible with Linux, it would become obvious WHY the average price of a computer today is over $1000.

On a budget machine, Linux (or any OS) would be completely incapable of running such a program in timely or useful manner. This is not because of the OS, but because of the hardware. Sure, Linux uses, say, 128mb less RAM to run the OS than XP or Vista does (I made this number up), but in the scope of things that doesn't mean anything. For a $500 machine with only 512mb RAM, freeing up 128mb will have AMAZING results. However, if you want to run a program like Vegas you'll need 2-4 Gigs of RAM, and the 128mb that Linux would free up would no longer be noticeable and the experience would be exactly the same as a somebody using a Windows OS. While Linux runs great on low-budget PC's, you will need something bigger and better to use the more complex programs around today REGARDLESS of what operating system you have. If Vegas was available for Linux, do you thing movie editors and studios would rush out and purchase a bunch of $500 PC's? No, they'd go for a souped-up $1,500-$3,000 PC so they could run Vegas and other high end programs well. Once again, it's not about the OS, but the software. No matter how efficient and stable Linux is, if the program says it needs 2 gigs of RAM, than it needs 2 Gigs of RAM.

However, at the moment Linux cannot run Vegas or many other high-end, CPU/RAM intensive programs. This is why it can get away with the "budget PC" headline. As of now Linux doesn't really have a use for a 3.6Ghz Quad-Core processor, so there's no point in getting one since a 800mhz or so will do everything Linux can do just fine.

If major software titles like FL Studio and brand-new games like Bioshock or Crysis had dedicated Linux versions available, a $500 computer is no where close to what would be required to run them and you would be looking at prices back in the $1,000-$3,000 range.

This is what is confusing me. When I ask why Linux is so desirable, the responses I get most often are "It runs smoother than Windows will on the same machine" and "Linux computers cost less than MS ones".

Example #2: Lets say I'm buying a computer and I have to decide if I want Vista or Linux (and lets also assume all software available for Windows is also available for Linux). Lets say in order to run smoothly, Vista needs 1gb of ram. And for a cool, sleek, pimped out version of Linux (complete with cube-desktop!) to run smoothly, it only needs 512mb of ram. The Linux machine clearly seems like a better deal. It comes with a bunch of cool graphical features Vista doesn't have and it's cheaper because I only need half the RAM!

But wait... I just restricted myself without even knowing it. It seems like I got the better deal, but I really just prevented myself from using a variety of programs and games. Sure, my Linux OS runs smooth as silk, but my copy of "The Sims 2" doesn't care. It wants 1 Gig of ram and won't settle for anything less. So I go out and buy another 512mb of Ram and end up paying the same amount that I would have for the Vista computer (pre-OS purchase).

Now answer me this: Do most Linux supporters and enthusiasts realize that if Linux is eventually supported by all major software, they will have to buy computers that cost just as much as people using Windows? The only reason Linux-based computers cost so little right now is because there isn't really any software or programs out there that require more ram, better graphics cards or faster CPU's.

If I had a Mo-Ped and my friend had an ATV that cost 3 times as much as my bike did, yet my bike looks cooler and goes a bit faster over flat terrain, of course the bike looks like the better deal! But if me and my buddy suddenly hit a mountain, my Mo-Ped is going to get stopped in its tracks while his ATV is going charge right up the hill. Thats what it is like right now for Linux vs. Windows. Right now Linux has a niiiice flat terrain, but sooner or later something hardware-intensive is going to come along and then it won't matter what OS you have if you don't have the hardware to back it up.

I know first hand how amazing Linux an look. My roommate Dual-Boots Ubuntu and SUSE. I have a Dell laptop with dual 1.8Ghz processors, a Gig of ram, and a Nvidia GeForce 7300 graphics card.

His is a single 1.1 Ghz processor, 700-something mb of RAM, and an ancient graphics card.

When it comes to hardware, my computer is better than his in every way. But if you didn't know and compared them side by side, you would instantly conclude his computer was better. His Linux OS runs faster and smoother than my XP, he can load files faster then I can, and his cube-desktop makes it look like he has a top-of-the-line graphics card and I have never once seen it stutter or slow down. Ubuntu and SUSE must be brilliantly coded to be able to run like that and the OS really put XP to shame. But like I said before, this isn't about the OS. The Linux OS runs superbly but a simple test showed that it didn't matter. I downloaded a free physics simulator on both our computers (there was a Linux version available) and his computer's true colors showed. It lagged, stuttered, and look horrible on his machine while it looked smooth and natural on mine. It was kind of jarring looking at this, because one minute he was fluidly spinning a cube-desktop without a bit of slowdown, and the next his computer all but crashed when 3 spheres ran into each other.


Now why have I been repeating myself so much? I just want to get the point across thats confusing me. All I see is a vicious cycle: Linux supporters WANT programs like Flash, Photoshop, and new games to have dedicated Linux versions, yet they keep promoting news about how well Linux runs on low-end and cheap machines: Machines that won't be able to run the programs and games they keep asking for. There are not really any Linux programs that require multiple cores or large amounts of RAM, so most linux-only users buy cheaper, lower end machine that works GREAT for what is available for Linux. But if nobody is using any pimped-out top-notch computers JUST for Linux, why should developers even bother working on a Linux version of a game or software if most Linux user's don't have the Hardware to run it? And before people start posting things like, "Uh, I use Ubuntu and I have 3.2Ghz dual core with 4 gigs of ram..." , let me ask: Do you dual boot? If have a sweet PC and you ONLY use Linux, you are a trooper and I respect you for supporting your cause. However if you dual boot, it begs the same question: You might have the right hardware, but why should developers work on converting a program to Linux when it's already available for Windows? Same goes for Wine.

Sooo if you've made it this far, you probably know what I'm asking. Why do you think Linux is going to overtake or at least compete with Microsoft? OS costs aside, the PC is going to cost the same amount to run certain programs regardless of which OS you chose. Do you think people will be willing to buy a 1-2K computer and run Linux on it knowing full well that 95% of their processing power will not be used until a major developer decides to port some programs over to Linux? What about people who have bought and are buying cheaper low-end desktops to use for Linux? Do you think some new Linux-users may become angry or disappointed about choosing Linux on a lower-end machine when they suddenly discover, "Wait, my computer runs smoother and has a cooler desktop than my brother's new $1,500 PC, but it isn't even capable of running Roller Coaster Tycoon!?!? (hardware wise, not OS wise)


Is the point I'm trying to make correct? Am I missing something? I'm just tired of having chat or forum conversations like this.

Guy: Linux i soooo much better then Windows it's not even funny
Me: Why?
Guy: Well my Linux PC cost half as much as normal Windows PC would, plus it runs twice as smooth!
Me: Well since you bought a cheaper PC, aren't you limiting yourself to lower-end software and games?
Guy: Oh how typical, lets all bash Linux because it doesn't have a lot of software available..
Me: No I mean your computer can't, physically, ever run higher-end programs because you don't have the hardware needed. And even if you might be able to, they'll be slow and laggy.
Guy: Why don't you do some research, Linux is WAY smoother and WAY faster than any other operating system. Nothing is slow or laggy.
Me: No I mean if Linux could run newly released games they would be slo...
Guy: OH BOY lets bash Linux some more for not having a lot of software. Friggin MS fanboy...
Me: ugh

So what are your thoughts? I'm not arguing that "Linux will never overtake Microsoft", but trying to clarify how you think it will happen? Most people ignore or don't realize the problems I've listed above.

Mateo
December 14th, 2007, 05:29 AM
It will win because OSes aren't important any more. Increasingly all of the market leaders are companies which develop either server-side applications or mobile devices. Operating systems are just interfaces to get you to the internet and your media.

SolusNunquam
December 14th, 2007, 05:35 AM
Good post, I have a Gateway Media Center P.C that i bought a year ago and it came with Windows Media Center 2005...I have tons of memory, GeForce GT8600 video card and the computer ran like a beauty with Windows and still does now with linux, even better... Obviously cost me well over 1 grand (U.S $), so Why did i switch to linux? Well, to each his own. I happen to like what ubuntu has to offer and my needs are met. It's a matter of a square block fitting into a square hole...some people might be trying to fit a square into a round hole...

Incense
December 14th, 2007, 05:37 AM
I think Linux would have a better chance if the big players (Red Hat, Novell, and Canonical) would have some way of uniting their resources and going after the EOMs and big corporate customers. As they are still fragmented and in a sense competing with each other and Microsoft at the same time, I just do not see it happening any time soon. Microsoft is losing ground, and Linux is gaining momentum but there is still a very big gap between the two. Just my .02

BTW very good post! I completely agree with what you said regarding "older" hardware. I have rescued many out of date pc's with linux, that would otherwise be e-waste.

siciliancasanova
December 14th, 2007, 05:51 AM
Sorry but cost will not be the reason why, if Linux takes over.

It may be A reason for some people, but not the reason.

As long as Windows continues to come shipped with desktops the average consumer will never fully realize that they are paying for the OS.

If the Linux community can stop focusing on this and focus more on software compatibility, working with software companies to make versions available for Linux, and working with vendors such as HP and Dell and cutting deals to bring Linux pre-installed will be the route that will win it.

The rest will come with it. When someone's already sitting on a Windows machine that they paid for, the argument of "Ubuntu is free" isn't going to convince them of anything.

inversekinetix
December 14th, 2007, 06:02 AM
@ OP
well said, I couldn't agree more. I cant imagine what crysis would be like on a cheap linux machine, nor could I imagine editing a 300MB image on a machine with 512 ram.

astromech
December 14th, 2007, 06:03 AM
Well I would say the bulk of MS's desktop consumers don't even know what the hell they're running . Is this a good mouse? people will ask in wal-mart or other big box outlet like I've tried every single mouse on the market!!!! : D or buying a whole bunch of wireless routers on sale thinking they were cable modems duhhh.. What kind of computer do you have ? uh,uh, I don't know! they'll say .So the argument of will they use their high performance high cost box with Linux and mind never using most of it's potential would apply to some users but not the majority. I suspect that they will gravitate towards the Linspire and Xandros type of OS if they ever switch .I

Is Linux ready for the desktop?

Yeah I'm sick of reading that headline .Of course it's ready.If it wasn't I wouldn't be writing this on here right now would I? Marketing is Linux's biggest problem .Since many are community developed then the community will also have to make supreme efforts to promote their brand . Keep on pluggin' don't give up and Microsoft is definitely going to lose ground to linux partly because the only other alternative is really expensive.

Mtown
December 14th, 2007, 06:03 AM
the computer ran like a beauty with Windows and still does now with linux, even better...

I was really tempted to Dual-Boot with SUSE after I saw my roommate's computer. I mean my computer kicks his computer's *** from a technical standpoint, but his ran so much faster with Linux. He used to taunt me by occasionally starting up AND shutting down his computer before mine had even finished loading from startup, haha. I would have dual-booted, but pretty much all the programs I normally use don't have Linux versions, even with Wine, so I figured I wouldn't be using it that much.


Microsoft is losing ground, and Linux is gaining momentum but there is still a very big gap between the two. Just my .02 Yeah, Dell's helping though by offering it as an OS though.



As long as Windows continues to come shipped with desktops the average consumer will never fully realize that they are paying for the OS.


Wait, so how is it normally? I've only bought from Dell and they were pretty blunt about making sure you know which Windows version you are getting with your PC, but they give you choices.

Do other computer manufactures just stick it on without telling you?

jinx099
December 14th, 2007, 06:07 AM
Your argument assumes everyone who runs Linux has a budget PC, and is therefore fundamentally flawed. I run Linux on a nearly top of the line PC, and it runs games just as fast in Linux as it does in Windows... native games that is. I predict that Linux will gain considerable market share when game developers, and other major program developers start making Linux versions in addition to Mac and Windows.

siciliancasanova
December 14th, 2007, 06:13 AM
Wait, so how is it normally? I've only bought from Dell and they were pretty blunt about making sure you know which Windows version you are getting with your PC, but they give you choices.

Do other computer manufactures just stick it on without telling you?

What choices? Between versions? Do you want home or professional?

What if they asked my dad if he wants Ubuntu or Vista. They would of course let him know that Ubuntu would save him $200 on the computer.

His response would be "Well can I create microsoft word documents on there?"

The argument of cost means nothing if the product doesn't do what the consumer wants.

If the popular Linux distributions cost money, I would still pay for it.

The people who actually use Linux because it is free, and that is the sole reason, take up such a small majority of the market that even if all those consumers switched over, it would make no major impact on their market share. These are the people who can't afford a $1,000 computer. Those who can, want something that will run their shite. period. and fiddiling around on an operating system they've never heard of, seen, or used, is not something that will run their shite.

SolusNunquam
December 14th, 2007, 06:14 AM
I was really tempted to Dual-Boot with SUSE after I saw my roommate's computer. I mean my computer kicks his computer's *** from a technical standpoint, but his ran so much faster with Linux. He used to taunt me by occasionally starting up AND shutting down his computer before mine had even finished loading from startup, haha. I would have dual-booted, but pretty much all the programs I normally use don't have Linux versions, even with Wine, so I figured I wouldn't be using it that much.


I didn't bother dual booting. Just don't find a reason to use windows for my personal P.C. Now when it comes for work and designs, i have to use my laptop which has photoshop. That's about it lol, so like i said, it's up to the individual. Linux could get the edge it needs if more people try it out like i did. I have no previous knowledge in using Linux, but i liked what i tried.

HermanAB
December 14th, 2007, 06:19 AM
There are at least 2 billion devices (mostly cell phones and routers) running Linux, vs about 600 million running Windows and every year another 300 million Linux devices are produced.

Desktop systems are just a tiny drop in the ocean of computer applications.

Mtown
December 14th, 2007, 06:34 AM
Your argument assumes everyone who runs Linux has a budget PC, and is therefore fundamentally flawed. I run Linux on a nearly top of the line PC, and it runs games just as fast in Linux as it does in Windows... native games that is. I predict that Linux will gain considerable market share when game developers, and other major program developers start making Linux versions in addition to Mac and Windows.

Well by all the headlines I've been reading lately it seems that way. In fact, my roommate that I mentioned before purposely bought his computer with a 1.1Ghz processor when there were several faster ones available.

The reason? Somebody in some forum told him that a 1.1Ghz processor was more than enough to run Linux and he didn't need anything faster.

And the guy was telling the truth. it DOES run the OS really fast and smooth. The fact that his computer's abilities were still bound to his hardware never really dawned on neither me or him until I tested that physics thing on his rig and watched his normally quick display turn into a slide show.

And when you said "runs just as fast on Windows", do you mean you dual boot?


What choices? Between versions? Do you want home or professional?



Well I haven't checked in a while but I think it offered all the Vista types, XP or XP media center, or some form of Linux.

I thought you meant that when you buy a computer from other companies, you open the box and are surprised to see Vista box sitting in there along with a bill.

Mtown
December 14th, 2007, 06:37 AM
There are at least 2 billion devices (mostly cell phones and routers) running Linux, vs about 600 million running Windows and every year another 300 million Linux devices are produced.

Desktop systems are just a tiny drop in the ocean of computer applications.

lol well thats not quite what I was talking about there but ok.

I mean there a lot more flies on the planet then there are humans, but flies don't rule the earth, haha. :)

Flying caveman
December 14th, 2007, 07:10 AM
The reason? Somebody in some forum told him that a 1.1Ghz processor was more than enough to run Linux and he didn't need anything faster.

And the guy was telling the truth. it DOES run the OS really fast and smooth. The fact that his computer's abilities were still bound to his hardware never really dawned on neither me or him until I tested that physics thing on his rig and watched his normally quick display turn into a slide show.



Well of course more demanding apps are going to run better on better hardware. It is true regardless of which OS. If all your roommate was going to do with his computer is run that physics app. maybe he should have gotten a faster processor. but its not up to me to decide what a person needs.

jinx099
December 14th, 2007, 07:27 AM
Well by all the headlines I've been reading lately it seems that way. In fact, my roommate that I mentioned before purposely bought his computer with a 1.1Ghz processor when there were several faster ones available.

The reason? Somebody in some forum told him that a 1.1Ghz processor was more than enough to run Linux and he didn't need anything faster.

And the guy was telling the truth. it DOES run the OS really fast and smooth. The fact that his computer's abilities were still bound to his hardware never really dawned on neither me or him until I tested that physics thing on his rig and watched his normally quick display turn into a slide show.

Linux having the ability to run on lower spec. computers is an ADVANTAGE of it it over Windows. Nobody is telling him 1.1 GHz is good enough for Vista because clearly it is not.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Why not compare 2 PCs with the same specs to eachother, 1 running Linux, and one Vista. We all know that if the PC will work well with Vista, it will also work well performance wise with Linux. The other way around is not necessarily true! The same hardware will run Linux faster than Vista.

Furthermore, since Vista is a total resource hog, your big apps will be able to run better on Linux than Vista.

Additionally, the same computer will be more expensive with Vista for obvious reasons.

In short, it does not make any sense to compare a top of the line Vista PC to a low-spec Linux PC!



And when you said "runs just as fast on Windows", do you mean you dual boot?
Yes, but not with Vista. XP is faster for gaming.

sh1v
December 14th, 2007, 07:31 AM
Your argument assumes everyone who runs Linux has a budget PC, and is therefore fundamentally flawed. I run Linux on a nearly top of the line PC, and it runs games just as fast in Linux as it does in Windows... native games that is. I predict that Linux will gain considerable market share when game developers, and other major program developers start making Linux versions in addition to Mac and Windows.

Same here. I run linux on my Quad Core machine. Come to think of it, why would devs go to great lengths to devolop a software that only .01% of market will use. As for Game devolopment on linux, it will never happen. Apple has more marketshare than linux and yet devs rarely make a MAC port of their games. With the exclusion of EA.

Here is a great quote by Gabe Newell, CEO of Valve Software. (makers of Half Life series)

Well, we tried to have a conversation with Apple for several years, and they never seemed to... well, we have this pattern with Apple, where we meet with them, people there go "wow, gaming is incredibly important, we should do something with gaming". And then we'll say, "OK, here are three things you could do to make that better", and then they say OK, and then we never see them again. And then a year later, a new group of people show up, who apparently have no idea that the last group of people were there, and never follow though on anything. So, they seem to think that they want to do gaming, but there's never any follow through on any of the things they say they're going to do. That makes it hard to be excited about doing games for their platforms.

http://games.kikizo.com/features/gabenewell_valve_iv_sep07_p1.asp (Source)

Jammerdelray
December 14th, 2007, 07:40 AM
Linux just needs to stay focused on making the OS better, Microsoft has dominated the market for years and will continue to do so.

GSF1200S
December 14th, 2007, 08:03 AM
Linux just needs to stay focused on making the OS better, Microsoft has dominated the market for years and will continue to do so.

If trusted computing takes hold (look in my sig), Linux will be extinct in 10-20 years- it simply wont be able to compete with the lockin of TCG.

Assuming TC doesnt happen, Linux will still never be a majority market share wise.. I think the highest it will reach is 15-20%, and thats if were lucky. You know what though- who cares? It works great for all of us already. Slowly more people and more devs will come along and improve Linux and its community. Of course I hope im wrong, and people become interested with OSS, but regaurdless we still will have a great OS..

djbon2112
December 14th, 2007, 08:28 AM
Sorry but cost will not be the reason why, if Linux takes over.

It may be A reason for some people, but not the reason.

As long as Windows continues to come shipped with desktops the average consumer will never fully realize that they are paying for the OS.

If the Linux community can stop focusing on this and focus more on software compatibility, working with software companies to make versions available for Linux, and working with vendors such as HP and Dell and cutting deals to bring Linux pre-installed will be the route that will win it.

The rest will come with it. When someone's already sitting on a Windows machine that they paid for, the argument of "Ubuntu is free" isn't going to convince them of anything.

My thoughts exactly. The biggest hurdle before about 3 days ago for me using Linux was software support. Sorry, but half the time I don't want an "alternative", I want the app I've been using for 3 years!

I made this argument the other day on another forum, but basically, until Linux (well, its community in general) realizes that to beat MS it must compete DIRECTLY with it (and that means as well no "we're not MS" fanboyism, no MS bashing, etc.), it can't overtake it. I made the suggestion of integrating WINE completely into the OS (so you can just double click any .exe from the get-go and it runs), and working on getting it compatible with everything, games included! I realize that this might seem like a daunting task, but if Linux developers would start working more in unity on tasks like this, instead of constantly fragmenting themselves into different Distros and competing with each other, it would take no time at all.

After that happens, I think more software companies would take notice of Linux, and maybe start working on native Linux versions of apps, and OEMs might start offering it preinstalled.

popch
December 14th, 2007, 09:22 AM
@OP:

The low cost PCs which have recently entered the market sell at USD 200, not 500.

Some of your arguments imply that there was one market while there are, in fact, quite a few market segments.

For instance, you argue that you can not run some video editing software on a cheap Linux box. That argument is true but utterly useless, because you could run that application even less on a cheap and/or elderly Windows box.

That particular example illustrates the case where the application is given and the computer as well as the OS just have to be able to run that application. While this is an important scenario, it is not the most widespread one.

A VW rabbit is a popular vehicle despite the fact that scarcely anyone uses it for transporting Grand Pianos.

HotShotDJ
December 14th, 2007, 09:23 AM
Sorry, but half the time I don't want an "alternative", I want the app I've been using for 3 years!
Then what you want is a Windows computer. Linux IS not and SHOULD NOT be a Windows clone. EVER. If you are looking for a computer that runs Microsoft Office, Intuit Quickin, Adobe Photoshop and/or other Windows-Only software, then Linux is NOT for you.

"But what about GAMES?!?!?!" I hear you yell. Get an X-Box. Windows is very good at turning an expensive and powerful computer into a game console... but what, exactly, is the POINT?

I use (and have used for years) applications like OpenOffice, GnuCash, & GIMP. I have no desire to spend hundreds of dollars (if not thousands) for the "privilege" of learning and running Windows-only "alternatives."

HotShotDJ
December 14th, 2007, 09:25 AM
A VW rabbit is a popular vehicle despite the fact that scarcely anyone uses it for transporting Grand Pianos.
:lol: I love that metaphor!

djbon2112
December 14th, 2007, 09:34 AM
Then what you want is a Windows computer. Linux IS not and SHOULD NOT be a Windows clone. EVER. If you are looking for a computer that runs Microsoft Office, Intuit Quickin, Adobe Photoshop and/or other Windows-Only software, then Linux is NOT for you.

"But what about GAMES?!?!?!" I hear you yell. Get an X-Box. Windows is very good at turning an expensive and powerful computer into a game console... but what, exactly, is the POINT?

I use (and have used for years) applications like OpenOffice, GnuCash, & GIMP. I have no desire to spend hundreds of dollars (if not thousands) for the "privilege" of learning and running Windows-only "alternatives."

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The average user doesn't care! You may be comfortable using only OSS alternatives, but to 90% of people out there, they need one of these apps to work. In order to be seen as an alternative to Windows to average consumers, this attitude must be shed, and the Linux community needs to recognize that without explicitly appealing to Windows users by providing them the same software they have on Windows, they're not going to convert a large number of people, and Linux will unfortunately remain relegated to a "geek's OS" status.

I don't know, maybe we have different ideas for what should become of Linux. I'd rather see it grow in market share and overtake Windows, but without this paradigm shift, that's never going to happen.

HotShotDJ
December 14th, 2007, 09:43 AM
This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The average user doesn't care! In order to be seen as an alternative to Windows to average consumers, this attitude must be shed.
To what attitude are you referring? Linux is Linux. Windows is Windows. Linux is not a Windows clone. This is not an attitude, it is a fact.

There is no reason for Linux to become a clone of anything. And there is no need to define "success" in terms of world domination. In fact, in a perfect world, there would be several platforms (such as Windows, Linux, BSD, Apple) all competing and all having roughly the same market share.

djbon2112
December 14th, 2007, 09:50 AM
To what attitude are you referring? Linux is Linux. Windows is Windows. Linux is not a Windows clone. This is not an attitude, it is a fact.

There is no reason for Linux to become a clone of anything. And there is no need to define "success" in terms of world domination. In fact, in a perfect world, there would be several platforms (such as Windows, Linux, BSD, Apple) all competing and all having roughly the same market share.

The "attitude" I refer to is one of general "It's all open source or use Windows" which I find permeates most Linux communities. Some of us prefer an Open and Free operating system, but frankly don't mind closed-source programs, especially when they do the job better than open-source alternatives*.

I agree. Linux is Linux, Windows is Windows. But that's no reason why, say, Photoshop shouldn't work on both. Why should we be forced to use Gimp over Photoshop because we prefer Ubuntu over Windows? Applications are not the operating system. This isn't about making Linux a "clone" of anything, it's about opening that OS up to the possibility of the large group of users who would switch, except for one or two applications that they need regularity that keep them bound to Windows. I personally have wanted to switch to a FOSS OS for over a year due to privacy concerns with Windows (among other things), but until now the three apps I use regularity (in addition to games, but on my current laptop that's irrelevant) have kept me tied down to Windows. I know I'm not alone there.

* I'm not saying proprietary programs are always better than FOSS programs, but sometimes it is the case. Example, IMHO, Photoshop is much easier to use than Gimp. Sibelius is much easier to use than Lillypond with any if its frontends. But that's just my opinion.

HotShotDJ
December 14th, 2007, 10:05 AM
The "attitude" I refer to is one of general "It's all open source or use Windows" which I find permeates most Linux communities. Some of us prefer an Open and Free operating system, but frankly don't mind closed-source programs, especially when they do the job better than open-source alternatives.
To point #1: I never said anything like "It's all open source or use Windows." What I DO say is that given the choice, I prefer OSS solutions. Others are free to make other choices.

To point #2: I agree that there is some proprietary software that is very good AND has no OSS equivalent or the OSS equivalent is not as good (for me, that software is SPSS). Additionally, I further agree that proprietary software is a choice that some people will make. In fact, that is a choice I have made regarding SPSS. There is NOTHING preventing Microsoft, Intuit or Adobe (just to name three) from creating native Linux ports of their software. Again, SPSS has, in fact, ported their software to Linux. The issue is not with Linux, but with the third-party software vendors. The solution lies with the software vendors, NOT with the Linux developers.

djbon2112
December 14th, 2007, 10:09 AM
To point #1: I never said anything like "It's all open source or use Windows." What I DO say is that given the choice, I prefer OSS solutions. Others are free to make other choices.

To point #2: I agree that there is some proprietary software that is very good AND has no OSS equivalent or the OSS equivalent is not as good (for me, that software is SPSS). Additionally, I further agree that proprietary software is a choice that some people will make. In fact, that is a choice I have made regarding SPSS. There is NOTHING preventing Microsoft, Intuit or Adobe (just to name three) from creating native Linux ports of their software. Again, SPSS has, in fact, ported their software to Linux. The issue is not with Linux, but with the third-party software vendors. The solution lies with the software vendors, NOT with the Linux developers.

I understand your point completely; I was never calling YOU out for this, it's just a general attitude I've seen among Linux users over time. But that is why I'm not encouraging the MERGING of the Wine projects and the actual Linux OSes, just the idea that Wine should, for instance, be turned on by default in an OS designed for novice users, like Ubuntu, and that perhaps more attention could be paid to it by some people, instead of dismissing it as trying to "clone" Windows.

Added: Basically what I'm trying to say summed up, is it would really help Linux's reputation if it allowed the computer illiterate to just download an app they want (FOSS or otherwise), and install it, no questions asked (well, other than security stuff of course! ;)). If the user wants MSN Messenger, give it to them. If they want Pidgin, give it to them. That's how to get market share away from Windows. I don't think that in any way takes away from what makes Linux unique, it just helps it grow.

[Sorry if this just appeared, I'm an editing nazi!] As to your second point, I agree, it is the software vendors, but frankly most of them don't see a market share there, and it's not worth their time (just look at Winamp and its decisions regarding Linux). However, from our side of the fence we can do something about it, something like Wine that can run the programs and show the makers there IS an interest. It has the added benefit of enticing people who wouldn't use Linux before (due to being tied down) to actually get on board with the OS, and therefore further increase market share, and then the software maker's incentive to make Linux ports. It comes full circle and ends up being Win-Win for Linux users, which is what I think everyone wants, it being a community-driven OS.

siciliancasanova
December 14th, 2007, 10:11 AM
To what attitude are you referring? Linux is Linux. Windows is Windows. Linux is not a Windows clone. This is not an attitude, it is a fact.

There is no reason for Linux to become a clone of anything. And there is no need to define "success" in terms of world domination. In fact, in a perfect world, there would be several platforms (such as Windows, Linux, BSD, Apple) all competing and all having roughly the same market share.

You're right, Linux is not a clone. And no one is saying it should be.

The market speaks. Linux may be better from so many aspects but in no way could the world of desktop computers suddenly drop Windows and everything would be ok on Linux. People don't have time to learn a new operating system like you do. They just want things to work.

The average Windows user could get on a Mac and just "figure it out" and if anything they have back up tech support.

An average Windows user could not just get on a Linux machine and "figure it out" without help. And if they need help they don't have guaranteed tech support, only places like this where people spend time in the cafe arguing meaningless points that we all agree upon anyway instead of helping users out in the beginners forum.

Who cares about Windows? No one here seems to like Windows yet all everyone does is complain. If you want Ubuntu to take over Windows, stop complaining and put that energy into working on all the things that could be better about Ubuntu.

HotShotDJ
December 14th, 2007, 10:33 AM
People don't have time to learn a new operating system like you do. They just want things to work.Where did you get the idea that I ever had to learn a new operating system? Windows is as foreign to me as Linux is to "the average Windows user." When I find myself having to use a Windows machine (thankfully, a rare occurrence) I always need help -- especially with Office 2007 -- I can't find anything useful when I fire up that monstrosity.

An average Windows user could not just get on a Linux machine and "figure it out" without help. And if they need help they don't have guaranteed tech support, only places like this where people spend time in the cafe arguing meaningless points that we all agree upon anyway instead of helping users out in the beginners forum.
Windows is not "easier," just more familiar. My 70 year old mother uses Kubuntu and has far fewer questions for me than she did with Windows. However, for those who need more hand-holding to get up and running with Linux, users can get guaranteed commercial support the exact same way that Windows users get it.... PAY FOR IT. Canonical, Red Hat, SuSE, Mandriva all offer support options. Just don't expect it for free.

siciliancasanova
December 14th, 2007, 10:54 AM
Where did you get the idea that I ever had to learn a new operating system? Windows is as foreign to me as Linux is to "the average Windows user." When I find myself having to use a Windows machine (thankfully, a rare occurrence) I always need help -- especially with Office 2007 -- I can't find anything useful when I fire up that monstrosity.

So then why are you even talking about Windows? If you don't understand the competition in the market then don't talk.


Windows is not "easier," just more familiar. My 70 year old mother uses Kubuntu and has far fewer questions for me than she did with Windows. However, for those who need more hand-holding to get up and running with Linux, users can get guaranteed commercial support the exact same way that Windows users get it.... PAY FOR IT. Canonical, Red Hat, SuSE, Mandriva all offer support options. Just don't expect it for free.

Again, you admit you can't work on Windows and then you say it's not easier. How is that any different than the perspective of someone on Windows saying Linux is not easier?

You are right about familiarity. But along with familiarity comes ease of use.

HotShotDJ
December 14th, 2007, 11:12 AM
However, from our side of the fence we can do something about it, something like Wine that can run the programs and show the makers there IS an interest.All WINE can ever offer is a reverse-engineered "compatibility" layer that will always and forever be playing catch-up with Windows. Never mind the potential copyright and patent issues that would come up if it were included by default in any commercial distribution. I don't see that as a benefit. It can only divert limited resources from developing Linux and native Linux applications to an impossible dream.

Now, there ARE those who need Windows applications. I recognize and understand that. I use Virtualbox, which is in the Ubuntu repositories, with a fully licensed copy of Windows 2000. I rarely need it anymore, but I have it just because I CAN. :) And for gamers, there is always dual-boot. Of course, getting a legal, licensed copy of Windows costs money (and more so with Windows Vista, since only their more expensive versions will run in a virtual machine).

For those who want a free clone of Windows.... Linux isn't for you. HOWEVER, there is ReactOS (http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html). I don't know if it actually works, though.

panaretos22
December 14th, 2007, 11:15 AM
my oppinion yes slowly slowly linux must find vendors like HP ,DELL or othe companies if we want to top the monopoly.In case that linux succeed that the diffference in price would be from 100 dollars up to 2000 (like installing adobe programms in win).You save those money.In case you are designer buy osx in case you are a student ot internet fun or business man INSTALL UBUNTU:) in case you are a gamer install wndows hhah Windows GAME !!!

HotShotDJ
December 14th, 2007, 11:22 AM
So then why are you even talking about Windows?
Uh, I wasn't talking about Windows. I was talking about Linux. You suggested that I had spent time learning a new operating system. All I was doing was letting you know that by using Linux, I was actually AVOIDING learning a new operating system.

You are right about familiarity. But along with familiarity comes ease of use.And that is all I was saying. Furthermore, I was disputing your incorrect belief that there is no guaranteed support for Linux. You'll note that I did not make any personal attack against you -- I could have easily just said "if you don't know the facts, then don't talk." Of course, that would have been inappropriate.

b0ng0
December 14th, 2007, 12:42 PM
Until Linux is compatible with more software and hardware (although i'll admit Ubuntu is pretty good with hardware) I just don't think it will overtake Microsoft. I continue to dual boot because I need certain programs that just don't work in Ubuntu and probably never will.
Also, on my new laptop I am running Vista and I hate to admit it but it's running faster than Ubuntu on my desktop :s.

n3tfury
December 14th, 2007, 01:12 PM
talk about recurring discussions..

subs
December 14th, 2007, 01:17 PM
linux and open source is the future.....


who would pay so much for software when u can get the same functionality for free

Mr.Auer
December 14th, 2007, 01:49 PM
To me, this is mostly a moot point. I buy the hardware to suit my needs. If I need to cut together a movie with Cinelerra, sure im gonna buy at least a dualcore with several gigabytes of memory. And why would I want to give up the sweet reliability and customazibility of Linux if I DO have a fast modern computer? The good sides of linux are only emphasized on a high--end computer. Being ABLE to run on low-end comps and do SIMPLE tasks well is what matters to MOST people who just websurf, watch videos and listen to music and type the odd document now and then. Vista and a fast machine would be total overkill for these people.

If, on the other hand, you KNOW you WILL be using hardware intensive programs, you should buy good enough hardware for that. Consider your applications and needs, then select right hardware. The good sides of Linux are in no way decreased by the fact that numer crunching applications demand number crunching hardware. An efficient OS goes only as far as the physical limits of the processor and memory f.ex. That is no comparison at all. And I know for a fact that every machine that ive ever owned performed better under Linux OSes than Windows. And ive tried all of em with both.

And where the difference really shows: I have an old IBM laptop with 192 megs memory. I got it with Win 98 installed. It took 5 mins 30 secs to boot. It was painfully slow and unreliable. I installed Xubuntu, with XFCE, and now it boots in 2 minutes. I can watch videos, listen to music, browse web with Flash9 and Java, use office software and so on. All better than with Windows. The machine wouldnt even run XP. But of course this machine would absolutely SUCK at running Folding@Home. Actually, ive tried it. And its SLOW as hell compared even to my second desktop box with 1.6 Ghz P4 and 768 megs mem. Of course it is. It IS a slow. old computer. But its still able to perform all BASIC computer tasks with efficiency and enough speed, where XP wouldnt even run. You are missing the point here and comparing apples to peaches.

Mr.Auer
December 14th, 2007, 02:16 PM
And what comes to the "average" computer user not being able to learn a "new os"..
Well, if you have only ever used a Windows computer, then poor luck to you. Your brain definitely needs a learning experience to stop shedding neuronal connections at an alarming rate. Learning new things is what keeps our minds nimble. If you like unchanging routines and patterns, you are digging your own hole (mentally). But hey, many people like driving cars 300 meters to the grocery store as well, even thou its gonna take several years off their life spans. Whats better often isnt the same as what feels "good" at the moment.

I was a total Linux-noob when I decided to give it a try. And with an open mind it didnt take me long to get used to it. 2 days for first succesfully configured system, a few months for a comfortable level of expertise. I had used Windows for years before that. All the bad habits and cryptic problems. No command line experience. But then, Windows wasnt my first OS - I had learned to use C64, Atari, Amiga, DOS and OS2 before. Learned their ropes. When you are willing to learn and use your mind, you can learn anything. When you approach something new with the attitude "im used to this different thing so I HAVE to have that, this new thing is different!" you wont learn a thing, except to complain "I dont like this, I dont know this, Im not USED to this!" What made humans do so well is our adaptive, learning mind. When we get lazy and complacent, its the first thing that we lose.

ugm6hr
December 14th, 2007, 02:18 PM
It will win because OSes aren't important any more. Increasingly all of the market leaders are companies which develop either server-side applications or mobile devices. Operating systems are just interfaces to get you to the internet and your media.

I agree.

Even hardware manufacturers are beginning to see that the OS is less relevant to a proportion of "desktop" users.

The Asus Eee PC (http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=24&l2=0&l3=0&l4=0&model=1907&modelmenu=1) has already been launched with an unbranded Xandros Linux derivative OS, with the XP version to come afterwards. It's targeted at educational establishments / students, and has generic names for Word Processor, Spreadsheet, Email, Web browser etc in its menus. For users who don't need to edit video etc - having the hardware to be able to do this is irrelevant. It has already sold out in the UK and USA, showing that enough people don't care about the OS.


lol well thats not quite what I was talking about there but ok.

I mean there a lot more flies on the planet then there are humans, but flies don't rule the earth, haha. :)

Re: The question of Linux overtaking Windows. This will probably never happen, since you say that you are not thinking of total numbers. The Asus device mentioned above does not even mention Linux / Xandros unless you dig deep into the Specs. Hence consumer awareness is zero. Without marketing, Linux will never overtake Windows in terms of awareness. By that measure, Mac OS(X) has probably almost (?already) overtaken Windows.

EDIT:
This is a good editorial re: computer desktops vs computer appliances: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/18/news

"If you've got a fixed level of functionality, it doesn't matter what the operating system is," he says. "How many of the people who have a BlackBerry know or care which OS it runs?"

willie_wang
December 14th, 2007, 02:30 PM
linux is great! i'm a new convert. only started using it as my primary OS a few weeks ago (honest, you can see this from my posts i've posted here)

increasingly, more and more people use their computers for communication, web browsing, playing media, a little bit of photo editing, and other menial tasks. ubuntu is perfect for this!

and for those who do things professionally such as graphic design and programming (i.e. me) i've found so many open source software packages which really do the job! i've designed a couple of websites recently totally in inkscape and gimp and bluefish!

free, fast and with just about any application for any use you could possibly want? linux wins hands down.

PrimoTurbo
December 14th, 2007, 02:37 PM
I don't think for one second there is any truth to Linux ever taking over Windows. If it happens at any point it won't be because of Linux, but because Microsoft really messed up.

Someone will come in to fill the gap.

Average people think FREE = BAD, anyways.

willie_wang
December 14th, 2007, 02:43 PM
here's a thought...

would microsoft win over people if they made a lightweight vista distro? like fluxbuntu?

i wonder how many people would buy and try? i know i would.

Raval
December 14th, 2007, 03:01 PM
What choices? Between versions? Do you want home or professional?

What if they asked my dad if he wants Ubuntu or Vista. They would of course let him know that Ubuntu would save him $200 on the computer.

His response would be "Well can I create microsoft word documents on there?"

The argument of cost means nothing if the product doesn't do what the consumer wants.

If the popular Linux distributions cost money, I would still pay for it.

The people who actually use Linux because it is free, and that is the sole reason, take up such a small majority of the market that even if all those consumers switched over, it would make no major impact on their market share. These are the people who can't afford a $1,000 computer. Those who can, want something that will run their shite. period. and fiddiling around on an operating system they've never heard of, seen, or used, is not something that will run their shite.

A lot of Linux users don't get this, does not compute.

Linux OS needs better relationship and more influence on hardware vendors for one.

Ubuntu is great and I love it but it can't compete with my user experience on Windows XP.

I see a major part of the problem as applications many are not as robust as Windows competitors.

waiting for the person who will respond with two or three links.

Tomosaur
December 14th, 2007, 03:11 PM
You're missing the point completely:

Most people use their computers for the following:

1) Internet access.
2) Media entertainment
3) Word processing / Spreadsheets etc
4) Email / Communication

The vast, VAST majority of people do not use high-end, specialist software. That is why it is called 'high-end, specialist software'. The 'high-end' part is required because the machines needed to run the software are high spec compared to the majority, and the 'specialist' part is needed because the software is suited to a niche market.

So, considering that Linux does everything the vast majority of computer users want to do, there is no reason whatsoever to shell out for XP or Vista and all of the hardware that it requires, when you can achieve better performance on cheaper hardware with Linux.

Gamers and media developers will probably stick with Windows for a while until competitive software starts to appear on Linux (which it is starting to do, by the way), but eventually they will see Linux as a viable alternative for whatever their special requirements are, with the added advantage that Linux is far more efficient.

It's true that some people will still require lots of memory, powerful processors and such to run their specialist software, but that is a given. The real benefit of Linux is that the operating system itself requires minimal resources. That is the point of an operating system - to put you, and your software, in control of the resources the machine offers.

Microsoft are trying too hard to make their OS the software people want to use. They integrate the browser, the media player, the office suite, and all that stuff, into the main OS. This massively increases the overhead of running the OS, and forces people to buy expensive hardware for every new release of the operating system. On top of this they have to deal with backwards compatibility, the demands of corporations (DRM and such-like) and investors, and their overwhelming desire to compete with all new technology forces them to introduce new features all the time. They don't seem to understand that people don't give a damn about the OS itself, they want software. Microsoft would be better off scrapping Windows, and selling individual software packages and hardware. Microsoft's hardware IS very good - stylish and functional, and their new software ideas are very impressive to say the least, but their OS sucks, and this damages a lot of their software, given that when people think of Windows, they also think of MS Office, WMP, and so on. I have used Vista once, on a brand new computer, and it was just a horrible experience. Sure, it looks pretty nice, but I am always very aware that I'm using Windows. All I wanted to do was listen to some music and browse the web, but I was constantly reminded that I wasn't just using WMP and Internet Explorer, I was also using Windows. This is obviously bad design.

When I'm using Ubuntu, I'm not reminded constantly that I'm on Ubuntu. I am using Firefox and Amarok. I think this is what will start attracting people to Linux more and more - the ability to use it on budget PCs, and the fact that it lets you do whatever it is you want to do without getting in the way.

teamalpha
December 14th, 2007, 03:23 PM
As long as Microsoft has a control of the market, ubuntu and other linux distros will never get a good share. Microsoft will be using their tactics of forcing computer makers to choose them only, for as long as computers are used. Microsoft also has the advertisements, while we do not, hindering the spread of ubuntu. on almost any techsite you go, you will see some cheesy Microsoft ad saying that some major company uses windoze over linux, which makes people think that linux is ... not that good. also, the word linux itself makes people think of some geeky command line system with all these numbers and strange words, which is in most cases not true. since linux distros do not put advertisements up, people still think linux is a geeky system, but this is not the case. If we somehow managed to spread linux through ads, pamphlets, or sponorship, the user base would go threefold.

n3tfury
December 14th, 2007, 03:25 PM
You're missing the point completely:

Most people use their computers for the following:

1) Internet access.
2) Media entertainment
3) Word processing / Spreadsheets etc
4) Email / Communication

The vast, VAST majority of people do not use high-end, specialist software. That is why it is called 'high-end, specialist software'. The 'high-end' part is required because the machines needed to run the software are high spec compared to the majority, and the 'specialist' part is needed because the software is suited to a niche market.

So, considering that Linux does everything the vast majority of computer users want to do, there is no reason whatsoever to shell out for XP or Vista and all of the hardware that it requires, when you can achieve better performance on cheaper hardware with Linux.

Gamers and media developers will probably stick with Windows for a while until competitive software starts to appear on Linux (which it is starting to do, by the way), but eventually they will see Linux as a viable alternative for whatever their special requirements are, with the added advantage that Linux is far more efficient.

It's true that some people will still require lots of memory, powerful processors and such to run their specialist software, but that is a given. The real benefit of Linux is that the operating system itself requires minimal resources. That is the point of an operating system - to put you, and your software, in control of the resources the machine offers.

Microsoft are trying too hard to make their OS the software people want to use. They integrate the browser, the media player, the office suite, and all that stuff, into the main OS. This massively increases the overhead of running the OS, and forces people to buy expensive hardware for every new release of the operating system. On top of this they have to deal with backwards compatibility, the demands of corporations (DRM and such-like) and investors, and their overwhelming desire to compete with all new technology forces them to introduce new features all the time. They don't seem to understand that people don't give a damn about the OS itself, they want software. Microsoft would be better off scrapping Windows, and selling individual software packages and hardware. Microsoft's hardware IS very good - stylish and functional, and their new software ideas are very impressive to say the least, but their OS sucks, and this damages a lot of their software, given that when people think of Windows, they also think of MS Office, WMP, and so on. I have used Vista once, on a brand new computer, and it was just a horrible experience. Sure, it looks pretty nice, but I am always very aware that I'm using Windows. All I wanted to do was listen to some music and browse the web, but I was constantly reminded that I wasn't just using WMP and Internet Explorer, I was also using Windows. This is obviously bad design.

When I'm using Ubuntu, I'm not reminded constantly that I'm on Ubuntu. I am using Firefox and Amarok. I think this is what will start attracting people to Linux more and more - the ability to use it on budget PCs, and the fact that it lets you do whatever it is you want to do without getting in the way.

i think the thread needs to have a distinction between home users and business. it MAY happen at home, but it won't for businesses.

dnns123
December 14th, 2007, 03:26 PM
Amazing realization! I've never seens a Linux VS Windows in this point of view.
Anyway, heres my answer:
Linux is capable of running in ultra low-end computers, 4mb ram on some. But it is also able to run in super computers. (those freakin comps with 120 proccessors with a room of harddrives and RAMs)
So what I mean is, Linux is able to run in low and high end machines. Programs which require extraordinary specs must have been taken into consideration when bought. Only a few people are power users.

I dont know if most you read this,
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm


I think I have a good comp. It's a 3.0Ghz intel dualcore proc with 2gb ram and an 8800GT video card. I dont dual boot. I bought these specs for games which I play using WINE. I think I've maximized my linux experience.

Tomosaur
December 14th, 2007, 03:27 PM
As long as Microsoft has a control of the market, ubuntu and other linux distros will never get a good share. Microsoft will be using their tactics of forcing computer makers to choose them only, for as long as computers are used. Microsoft also has the advertisements, while we do not, hindering the spread of ubuntu. on almost any techsite you go, you will see some cheesy Microsoft ad saying that some major company uses windoze over linux, which makes people think that linux is ... not that good. also, the word linux itself makes people think of some geeky command line system with all these numbers and strange words, which is in most cases not true. since linux distros do not put advertisements up, people still think linux is a geeky system, but this is not the case. If we somehow managed to spread linux through ads, pamphlets, or sponorship, the user base would go threefold.

You'll be pleased to know that Ubuntu advertisements are starting to appear.Granted, at the moment I think they're only pushing the server edition on tech websites, but I may be wrong, and I think we'll see adverts for the desktop OS soon enough.

daynah
December 14th, 2007, 03:29 PM
It REALLY depends on the business. We have a money management program that is definitely beefy enough for businesses (I used it at one, a neurodiagnostic office). So, basic merchandise can be linux, no prob, and that's the vast majority of businesses.

Tomosaur
December 14th, 2007, 03:31 PM
i think the thread needs to have a distinction between home users and business. it MAY happen at home, but it won't for businesses.

It already is - many businesses don't use any software outside of an office suite (which Linux is perfect for), and many businesses are waking up to the fact that Linux is more stable and secure. It's not that un-common to see administrators enquiring about 'Linux in the business place' on these forums, and I'm sure other communities see the same thing. We even have entire governments mandating the use of Linux in their offices.

Again, the only problematic areas are those businesses who need specialist software which just isn't available on Linux. When there is enough base demand, developers will begin developing such software for Linux, thus giving these businesses the choice to pay for a resource consuming OS like Vista, or an efficient OS like Linux.

forrestcupp
December 14th, 2007, 03:33 PM
I don't think for one second there is any truth to Linux ever taking over Windows. If it happens at any point it won't be because of Linux, but because Microsoft really messed up.

Someone will come in to fill the gap.

Average people think FREE = BAD, anyways.

It's kind of like a true story I heard about a guy who set his stove out by the road with a sign that said "Free" on it. A week later, no one had taken it. So he went out and put a price on it, and within a day, it was stolen.

n3tfury
December 14th, 2007, 03:35 PM
It already is - many businesses don't use any software outside of an office suite (which Linux is perfect for), and many businesses are waking up to the fact that Linux is more stable and secure. It's not that un-common to see administrators enquiring about 'Linux in the business place' on these forums, and I'm sure other communities see the same thing. We even have entire governments mandating the use of Linux in their offices.

Again, the only problematic areas are those businesses who need specialist software which just isn't available on Linux. When there is enough base demand, developers will begin developing such software for Linux, thus giving these businesses the choice to pay for a resource consuming OS like Vista, or an efficient OS like Linux.

smaller businesses yes, but not larger.

Tomosaur
December 14th, 2007, 03:43 PM
smaller businesses yes, but not larger.


But that's what I'm saying - you can't go from the top-down with this, because nobody wants to target the smallest user-base out there. There is a lot of money in high-end software development, but FOSS has never been motivated much by money. The natural, FOSS development model means that the biggest set of users - home desktop users, will be targeted first. Once they're on board, small to medium sized businesses will be accommodated, then the larger businesses who require very specific software. By then, many proprietary developers may well have begun to develop such software for Linux (and indeed, Microsoft may have already radically changed in the face of the competition). It's already happening with Mac - I don't see why it wouldn't happen with Linux either.

popch
December 14th, 2007, 03:49 PM
it MAY happen at home, but it won't for businesses.


I don't think that's all that predictable.

Signs and portents are present:


You find government agencies on all continents which are actively studying or even undergoing migration projects from proprietary to open source products.
Large corporations have in the past decided on solutions different from the ones used by the majority. Banks, for instance, have been known to use OS/2 for their offices, counters and teller machines when the rest of the corporate world used Windows only.
Local and national associations of professionals of different types could detect the obvious advantages of open source solutions (or perhaps closed source applications based on open source platforms), such as plumbers' associations, plumber's suppliers, book shops or dentists.
Firms supplying IT services for small and middle sized enterprises might detect the advantages of using a more robust and more cheaply deployable environment for their customers.
In fact, one smallish IT supplier I know used to offer SuSe's enterprise server environment for their customers. They stopped doing so because Novell wanted to make them sell Novell solutions as well.

aysiu
December 14th, 2007, 03:51 PM
Linux supporters WANT programs like Flash, Photoshop, and new games to have dedicated Linux versions, yet they keep promoting news about how well Linux runs on low-end and cheap machines: Machines that won't be able to run the programs and games they keep asking for. What's the problem?

Linux can work on multiple fronts. For many people, more than 512 MB of RAM will never be necessary, and I don't care about Flash, Photoshop, and games.

But I'm not everybody. I want Flash, Photoshop, and games to be ported to Linux for other people.

There are different demographics. The vast majority of people want email, web browser, word processor, and music player. And that's the target audience when people say Linux is great for low-end and cheap machines.

aysiu
December 14th, 2007, 03:58 PM
talk about recurring discussions..
Definitely. So I've moved the thread to a more appropriate subforum.

dnns123
December 14th, 2007, 04:05 PM
About larger companies using linux, all of Google's computers use linux. It's much more economical. :P

ugm6hr
December 14th, 2007, 04:55 PM
About larger companies using linux, all of Google's computers use linux. It's much more economical. :P

And Google are trying hard to remove the OS importance with their Google Docs, Gmail, Picasa etc.

Increasingly, typical home users won't need much hardware at all to edit documents & photos, surf the web, email etc - just a very basic computer (low end processor, minimal RAM, no HD) with potentially all open source software and a high speed internet connection.

This kind of thing will be popular if promoted properly: http://www.thinkgos.com/ Walmart is already selling it.

When high speed internet becomes a reality for the majority in Africa and South America, Linux-based OS will be increasingly popular, and will receive a kick-start from the OLPC project (and other similar projects such as http://www.ubuntu.com/news/macedonia-school-computers)

boast
December 14th, 2007, 05:09 PM
replace linux with firefox.

Look how long it took mozilla to get its 30% market.
Now add hardware compatability, and other issues, and you have a long long road for linux.

djbon2112
December 14th, 2007, 09:09 PM
All WINE can ever offer is a reverse-engineered "compatibility" layer that will always and forever be playing catch-up with Windows. Never mind the potential copyright and patent issues that would come up if it were included by default in any commercial distribution. I don't see that as a benefit. It can only divert limited resources from developing Linux and native Linux applications to an impossible dream.

Now, there ARE those who need Windows applications. I recognize and understand that. I use Virtualbox, which is in the Ubuntu repositories, with a fully licensed copy of Windows 2000. I rarely need it anymore, but I have it just because I CAN. :) And for gamers, there is always dual-boot. Of course, getting a legal, licensed copy of Windows costs money (and more so with Windows Vista, since only their more expensive versions will run in a virtual machine).

For those who want a free clone of Windows.... Linux isn't for you. HOWEVER, there is ReactOS (http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html). I don't know if it actually works, though.
This is that "attitude" again. You're saying "if you want to use Windows programs, Linux isn't for you". But why? Applications are not the operating system! What harm does this kind of cross-compatibility bring to Linux? Should devs stop developing OSS apps for Windows then, because they "divert limited resources from developing Linux and native Linux applications"?

The way I see it, the OS and the applications is runs are two completely different beasts. I don't see why so many in the Linux community are quick to shut people out because they want or need to use Windows apps. It's not some kind of sin, and it doesn't "divert" anything from anyone (and are programmer's resources REALLY that "limited" with 30+ distros roaming around and thousands of OSS apps being developed?). Simply saying "just use Windows or ReactOS" [which is still in Alpha BTW] if we need Windows apps doesn't help anyone, and is pretty naive, especially when we have legitimate reasons for dumping Windows.

Finally, not really related, but I personally will not dual boot. Why? If I dual boot, what possible reason would I have to actually ever use the Linux distro installed? If all the apps just work in Windows, there's no incentive for me to even start Ubuntu, let alone actually use it as my main OS. I don't want this, I WANT to use Linux, but if I'm in Windows anyways, why restart to browse a webpage?

popch
December 14th, 2007, 09:24 PM
This is that "attitude" again. You're saying "if you want to use Windows programs, Linux isn't for you". But why? Applications are not the operating system!

Excuse me for butting in.

The argument that you should not use Linux if you want to run programs written for Windows is a technical argument and not uttered out of spite. Your reaction simply shows that you have no background in serious programming, which is of course perfectly all right.

It is the simple truth that a program written for Windows can not usually be run in Mac OS X, BeOS, Linux or an other operating system and vice versa.

There are exceptions to this rule insofar as there are programming languages which do allow one to write programs which run on more than one OS. However, those programming languages have other shortcomings and are therefore not used by as many programmers and projects as some would like.

Hence, you could just as well demand that a train designed to run on tracks be usable on roads or on tracks of different widths. It can be done under some quite rare circumstances, but the solution is often worse than the problem.

Therefore, it is very useful advice to use the OS which is suited to run the applications you need. If those are written for Linux (or if there are generic applications available), then Linux is a good choice. If, on the other hand, some applications are essential to you which run only under Windows, then you should probably use Windows.

There are ways around the dilemma, but all have a drawback or two.

Peace?

djbon2112
December 14th, 2007, 09:46 PM
Excuse me for butting in.

The argument that you should not use Linux if you want to run programs written for Windows is a technical argument and not uttered out of spite. Your reaction simply shows that you have no background in serious programming, which is of course perfectly all right.

It is the simple truth that a program written for Windows can not usually be run in Mac OS X, BeOS, Linux or an other operating system and vice versa.

There are exceptions to this rule insofar as there are programming languages which do allow one to write programs which run on more than one OS. However, those programming languages have other shortcomings and are therefore not used by as many programmers and projects as some would like.

Hence, you could just as well demand that a train designed to run on tracks be usable on roads or on tracks of different widths. It can be done under some quite rare circumstances, but the solution is often worse than the problem.

Therefore, it is very useful advice to use the OS which is suited to run the applications you need. If those are written for Linux (or if there are generic applications available), then Linux is a good choice. If, on the other hand, some applications are essential to you which run only under Windows, then you should probably use Windows.

There are ways around the dilemma, but all have a drawback or two.

Peace?

It's alright, I'm really referring to Wine when I talk about running Windows apps in Linux; I've got some programming background and I know enough about operating systems to know the incompatabilities. When I'm talking about this kind of stuff, I'm referring more to the mindset rather than the technical (since Wine already works quite well most of the time).

forrestcupp
December 14th, 2007, 09:57 PM
Finally, not really related, but I personally will not dual boot. Why? If I dual boot, what possible reason would I have to actually ever use the Linux distro installed? If all the apps just work in Windows, there's no incentive for me to even start Ubuntu, let alone actually use it as my main OS.
Exactly. Well said.


Your reaction simply shows that you have no background in serious programming, which is of course perfectly all right.

It is the simple truth that a program written for Windows can not usually be run in Mac OS X, BeOS, Linux or an other operating system and vice versa.

There are exceptions to this rule insofar as there are programming languages which do allow one to write programs which run on more than one OS. However, those programming languages have other shortcomings and are therefore not used by as many programmers and projects as some would like.
But there are some options that are good. wxWidgets is one good example. It allows a programmer to use the already familiar C++ language, and it gives us a framework that is arguably much better than MFC and definitely much easier than win32. The same code can be compiled on Windows, Linux, and MacOsX without modification, and it uses native controls so the app looks native.

People hate Mono, but why hate something that adds to cross-platform compatibility?

Ogre3D is a good framework for cross-platform 3D game creation. It also uses C++ and can be programmed to utilize DirectX or OpenGL depending on the platform used.

But programmers either don't know their options, or don't care.

popch
December 14th, 2007, 10:07 PM
If I dual boot, what possible reason would I have to actually ever use the Linux distro installed? If all the apps just work in Windows, there's no incentive for me to even start Ubuntu, let alone actually use it as my main OS. I don't want this, I WANT to use Linux, but if I'm in Windows anyways, why restart to browse a webpage?

My situation was - for some time - the inverse: I managed to do nearly everything in Linux. It took, however, some time until I could get rid of two or three applications which I needed very badly but not very often. And one of those applications used the scanner which was not supported by Linux.

I still need an odd Windows application from time to time, but I run them in a virtual box. No more dual boot for me (on my main machine).

aysiu
December 14th, 2007, 10:09 PM
Finally, not really related, but I personally will not dual boot. Why? If I dual boot, what possible reason would I have to actually ever use the Linux distro installed? If all the apps just work in Windows, there's no incentive for me to even start Ubuntu, let alone actually use it as my main OS. I don't want this, I WANT to use Linux, but if I'm in Windows anyways, why restart to browse a webpage? That's one of the reasons I encourage people who have more than 512 MB of RAM to install Ubuntu as a virtual OS inside Windows. No need to worry about partitioning. No need to worry about Grub not installing properly. And, most importantly, no need to reboot in order to switch OSes.

k99goran
December 16th, 2007, 01:06 PM
It is the simple truth that a program written for Windows can not usually be run in Mac OS X, BeOS, Linux or an other operating system and vice versa.
I tend to agree. I often read posts from people who are annoyed because some application or hardware doesn't work under Linux, and this is what I tell them: "If your hardware or application requires a specific operating system, then you use that operating system". I wonder sometimes if their annoyance stands from the fact that someone told them Linux is the right platform for everyone.
Now, if a program exists for both Ubuntu and Windows XP, I run it under Ubuntu as I prefer the desktop environment (loves my wobbly windows).

djbon2112
December 17th, 2007, 06:59 AM
I tend to agree. I often read posts from people who are annoyed because some application or hardware doesn't work under Linux, and this is what I tell them: "If your hardware or application requires a specific operating system, then you use that operating system". I wonder sometimes if their annoyance stands from the fact that someone told them Linux is the right platform for everyone.
Now, if a program exists for both Ubuntu and Windows XP, I run it under Ubuntu as I prefer the desktop environment (loves my wobbly windows).

I must respond with my reasoning.

It's not that someone said it was the "right platform" for everything, but that Linux has been and is trying to come off as an alternative to Windows for the desktop computer (at least that's what I've been getting; if this is incorrect the rest of my post here is moot, but I'll continue). But in order to be a real alternative, it can not be completely different, especially from an app standpoint. There must be a good deal of overlap to draw Windows users to Linux. What you're seeing is frustration from those users (like me) who want to use Linux as an alternative to Windows (for whatever reason), but get shut out because (1) their apps don't work anymore and the alternatives don't work as well/are missing features/are buggy/simply aren't as good, and (2) the linux community often just dismisses them with ignorant statements like "just go back to Windows if you want to run Windows apps" or "Linux shouldn't be a clone of Windows".

I don't see why it should be "Windows apps are for Windows, period". I really don't. ALL that improving Wine (and perhaps further integrating it into Ubuntu*) can do is HELP draw Windows users to Linux. But as soon as this idea is proposed, suddenly the Linux community gets in an uproar like their holy water was just pissed in. Not that there aren't alternatives to the Windows apps, there's plenty, but frankly Jim Bozo doesn't want XMMS, he wants iTunes, and Joe Professional wants Photoshop, not GIMP. Not that these programs or using them is bad, far from it, but in order to attract the Windows userbase, some things must stay the same. Especially when, as I've said, people are used to the old app, and in some cases when the old app is frankly better than the clone.

I don't see a way for Linux to grow except by taking users away from Windows. There just aren't that many new computer users out there, like there was a couple years ago. But with people constantly saying "just go back to Windows if you want to run Windows apps", why would anyone want to move to Linux? I see absolutely no reason to use it except AS a replacement to Windows (except for fooling around, learning about OSes, etc.). Because of this, without being able to use the same apps (the ones they're used to), I can never see a large flood of Windows users leaving it on the horizon. The way I see it, Linux must actively COMPETE with Windows to move forward and actually capture some real market share. And to compete, it needs compatibility with apps so the new users aren't in a completely alien landscape. Maybe I'm wrong in all my thinking, maybe I'm out of touch with every other person using Linux out there, maybe Linux SHOULD remain a hobbyst's OS and not become mainstream, but for me personally I WANT to see something free and open competing with Microsoft, and this is the way I see the situation. Please don't flame or anything, I'm honestly spent on this topic and defending my reasoning. This post pretty much sums it up.


*Notice I say Ubuntu, because as distros go, I see it as the most likely to actively compete with Windows, as it is the simplest for new users coming aboard Linux.
**I mean this because, I know some people are going to say stuff about fixing bugs yourself, writing and compiling your own drivers, etc. But this is a moot point to the vast majority of people who would go from Windows to Linux.

EDIT: Sorry k99goran this isn't really a reply to what you said, just a general reply, but I felt the need to quote you :p

ugm6hr
December 17th, 2007, 09:04 AM
I don't see a way for Linux to grow except by taking users away from Windows. There just aren't that many new computer users out there, like there was a couple years ago.

Internationally, I am fairly sure there are plenty of people in certain parts of the world who do not have a Personal computer, but only have access at school / university etc, or none at all. That is certainly true of internet connected computers (assuming google use is indicative of connections).

Otherwise, why would the One Laptop Per Child project exist?

k99goran
December 17th, 2007, 02:50 PM
I don't see why it should be "Windows apps are for Windows, period". I really don't. ALL that improving Wine (and perhaps further integrating it into Ubuntu*) can do is HELP draw Windows users to Linux.
Yes of course the Wine project has gone a long way and my own experience with Ubuntu has certainly been improved as a result of all the work that has been put into it. There may come a time when all Windows applications and games run on both Linux and OS-X and when Microsoft has to compete with these operating systems on the merits of Windows alone, but it's not today. Some Windows applications/games work flawlessly under Wine and do not require any extra tweaking, but the majority (I've tested at least) will be buggy, and some won't even start at all.

I don't see a way for Linux to grow except by taking users away from Windows. There just aren't that many new computer users out there, like there was a couple years ago. But with people constantly saying "just go back to Windows if you want to run Windows apps", why would anyone want to move to Linux? I see absolutely no reason to use it except AS a replacement to Windows (except for fooling around, learning about OSes, etc.).
That could of course be turned around in many cases. Why would you shell out money for Windows and worry about being attacked when your current operating system already allows you to surf the web, play card games, copy photos of your camera, edit and print them, write text documents...?
I'm thinking the low-end market is where Linux has the best chance of growing. Partially because it is free, partially because Linux distributions tend to be very feature complete and partially because hardware vendors have a lot of control over it.

saulgoode
December 17th, 2007, 06:40 PM
I must respond with my reasoning.

It's not that someone said it was the "right platform" for everything, but that Linux has been and is trying to come off as an alternative to Windows for the desktop computer (at least that's what I've been getting; if this is incorrect the rest of my post here is moot, but I'll continue). But in order to be a real alternative, it can not be completely different, especially from an app standpoint. There must be a good deal of overlap to draw Windows users to Linux.
Linux does not need to draw Windows users to be an alternative. Linux already is an alternative to Windows, just as Royal Crown Cola is an alternative to Pepsi. Popularity does not make something better, and there is no reason to change a good formula just to be like the leading brand; in fact, doing so would be to the cost of those who prefer the difference (and in the case of GNU/Linux, those are the people who created it in the first place).

k99goran
December 17th, 2007, 07:37 PM
Popularity does not make something better...
Well, indirectly you could say that it does. A larger market share means hardware and software manufacturers are more willing to support the platform. It doesn't change the platform itself, but it changes the situation for people using it.

djbon2112
December 17th, 2007, 08:06 PM
Well, indirectly you could say that it does. A larger market share means hardware and software manufacturers are more willing to support the platform. It doesn't change the platform itself, but it changes the situation for people using it.

That's why I personally believe GETTING a good market share through Wine and stealing Windows users, is a very good thing. At 3% of the marketshare, no average software developer is going to see ANY reason to develop for Linux, especially given the sheer number of Linux flavors for which they might have to do some tweaking (if only in the installer method). At 10% or more, though, you'd see a lot more companies start producing, or porting, good programs for Linux. And that would help the community, and again people like me who want to abandon the Windows OS but not it's applications, a lot!

k99goran
December 17th, 2007, 10:58 PM
An easy cross-distribution method of distributing applications in a binary form wouldn't hurt either.

molom
December 18th, 2007, 02:35 AM
These processes to take over Microsoft have to be taken in steps, just making the OS better is never going to make Linux the most popular OS. The steps and targets would be:
1. Office people - I know OpenOffice is a good alternative, but it's not fully compatible from head to toe with Microsoft Office. And that's why Linux isn't a good alternative for businesses and office people. The app needs to be ported, which is unlikely or OpenOffice needs to be more compatible with Microsoft Office. And crossover office is not a good solution because it's incredibly buggy.
2. Graphics and Multimedia - There is no photoshop for Linux, that is the main problem for graphics designers and thats why Macs are mainly used for graphics than Windows (Because it's stable and handles graphics with the available proper apps). Multimedia editing has to be taken with one big linux app like a simple garageband and cubase/logic pro. And there needs to be a good video editor like iMovie and Final Cut Pro.
3. Marketing - Macs are becoming very popular now and that's because they have these office/multimedia apps such as MS office, Photoshop/Adobe apps and iLife. If these programs are ported or equivalents are made and then are marketed like on TV, this could decrease the popularity of Windows.
4. Gamers - This is probably the hardest because there are so many companies that make games. I know there's cedega, but it still lacks performance and stability. The big time games first have to be ported and contacted with big TNC game companies. You could first sign for example with EA Games or Sierra for example. Or you could start with small companies, which is easy and gradually contract with every small game business until you get to the top.

These are probably the 4 things that are limiting linux to be for home use and business. And that stupid Wine emulator is not a solution. Only places now that Linux is being used is for servers, public places like libraries and government owned workplaces. These are hard tasks and many people don't accept this as a way to increase the popularity of Linux and some instead make viruses to corrupt Windows. That is not the right way to approach Windows. The reason why Apple is succeeding is because they have the MS and Adobe apps. Linux is user friendly enough now, which is one task that has been set to make Linux more popular, which is a good start. You have PCLOS and Linux Mint, which are the most suitable for Windows Users. But those 4 points are the limitations. And having an OS which is free makes it even better to gain popularity when these tasks are performed. Linux is smoother than Windows. And I imagine that high consumption apps will need more expensive computers, but the OS will be consuming less which means that lower ended machines can be used as an equivalent to Windows using the higher end apps.

I wish there were people who would listen to this comment to make a difference, but I think the only way Linux would ever become the most popular if these steps are taken appropriately.

Incense
December 19th, 2007, 09:59 PM
These processes to take over Microsoft have to be taken in steps, just making the OS better is never going to make Linux the most popular OS. The steps and targets would be: (snip)

You are just listing ways for linux to be just like MS, or just like apple. Why not celebrate the fact that linux is NOT microsoft or apple. OpenOffice, Gimp, amarok, kdenlive, digikam, firefox, inkscape... those applications are all fantastic, and for most users, they are all they will ever need. You are saying that if we are just like the other guys, we will be more popular. Why? The other guys are already doing that, so what draw would linux have? If I can use photoshop on my OSX machine, and my linux box, then why would I come to linux? We need to point out the fact that we are unique, why free software does not mean cheap and useless, and why it is worth the time it takes to try it out.

Another thing we really need is already happening with the EEE pc, OLPC, Dell, wal-mart and the gOS... we need to get linux in the hands of more regular people who just want to do what 80% of most home users want to do. Email, internet, some photo stuff, myspace, listen to music, and maybe type a few documents

People want MS office and photoshop, because they believe that's the only product that will do what they want. They have been told that it is what they want. Most people do not know there is an alternative, and that is where we fail. The big linux companies need to unify, they need to market their product, and they need to make it simple. We're getting there, but it's taking time.

djbon2112
December 19th, 2007, 10:23 PM
(snip)

You are just listing ways for linux to be just like MS, or just like apple. Why not celebrate the fact that linux is NOT microsoft or apple. OpenOffice, Gimp, amarok, kdenlive, digikam, firefox, inkscape... those applications are all fantastic, and for most users, they are all they will ever need. You are saying that if we are just like the other guys, we will be more popular. Why? The other guys are already doing that, so what draw would linux have? If I can use photoshop on my OSX machine, and my linux box, then why would I come to linux? We need to point out the fact that we are unique, why free software does not mean cheap and useless, and why it is worth the time it takes to try it out.

Another thing we really need is already happening with the EEE pc, OLPC, Dell, wal-mart and the gOS... we need to get linux in the hands of more regular people who just want to do what 80% of most home users want to do. Email, internet, some photo stuff, myspace, listen to music, and maybe type a few documents

People want MS office and photoshop, because they believe that's the only product that will do what they want. They have been told that it is what they want. Most people do not know there is an alternative, and that is where we fail. The big linux companies need to unify, they need to market their product, and they need to make it simple. We're getting there, but it's taking time.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have 2, 3 or more different operating systems that can all run the same programs. I'd like more choice, from both sides. Right now, it's "Windows and Windows apps" or "Linux and linux apps", and that's just bad for everyone. It's one thing to celebrate that Linux isn't those two, but quite another to actively distance yourself from them.

Incense
December 19th, 2007, 10:41 PM
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have 2, 3 or more different operating systems that can all run the same programs. I'd like more choice, from both sides. Right now, it's "Windows and Windows apps" or "Linux and linux apps", and that's just bad for everyone. It's one thing to celebrate that Linux isn't those two, but quite another to actively distance yourself from them.

I will agree that the ideal working environment is the one where an application does not depend on your OS in order for you to run it. It would be great to be able to run, amarok, final cut and ... some piece of windows software all on the same platform, but since we are not there I think we need to work with what we got.

molom
December 19th, 2007, 11:28 PM
(snip)

You are just listing ways for linux to be just like MS, or just like apple. Why not celebrate the fact that linux is NOT microsoft or apple. OpenOffice, Gimp, amarok, kdenlive, digikam, firefox, inkscape... those applications are all fantastic, and for most users, they are all they will ever need. You are saying that if we are just like the other guys, we will be more popular. Why? The other guys are already doing that, so what draw would linux have? If I can use photoshop on my OSX machine, and my linux box, then why would I come to linux? We need to point out the fact that we are unique, why free software does not mean cheap and useless, and why it is worth the time it takes to try it out.

Another thing we really need is already happening with the EEE pc, OLPC, Dell, wal-mart and the gOS... we need to get linux in the hands of more regular people who just want to do what 80% of most home users want to do. Email, internet, some photo stuff, myspace, listen to music, and maybe type a few documents

People want MS office and photoshop, because they believe that's the only product that will do what they want. They have been told that it is what they want. Most people do not know there is an alternative, and that is where we fail. The big linux companies need to unify, they need to market their product, and they need to make it simple. We're getting there, but it's taking time.

I would like to just have a variety of apps I need. I can't only use linux because I'm a gamer for instance. I want to move all the way to linux, but because of that limitation I can't. And there are alternatives, but because of compatibility issues there will be problems when sending info to other people such as businesses using MS office. I'm just saying Linux needs some of those commercial apps. I will still use K3b, songbird and others. But I will use MS Office, Photoshop and the other essentials. We don't need apps like nero, itunes and MSN messenger because there aren't any compatibility issues with the Linux ones. I wish Linux took these steps because I would love to see people use Linux more and if Linux have these apps, Windows/Mac users would say 'Linux is free, it runs the apps I need, there are no viruses, there isn't any spyware, it's completely stable, why would I stay with Windows or Mac? It's free!' And thats why Linux needs these apps to grow. I'm just asking for Adobe apps , Autodesk (Autocad) apps and Microsoft Apps (Which are the hardest to get). That's all. And that's all Linux needs to get Windows office users to get off there back side and use Linux. It's that easy, just make a contract with Adobe, which is a start. Then there either needs to be MS Office for Linux, which is hard to get and when Linux already has Open office pre installed and when Windows users see it on Linux they would notice it more and Open Office could even taken over the MS Office market share, which is even a better strategy.

aysiu
December 19th, 2007, 11:35 PM
I will agree that the ideal working environment is the one where an application does not depend on your OS in order for you to run it. It would be great to be able to run, amarok, final cut and ... some piece of windows software all on the same platform, but since we are not there I think we need to work with what we got.
Trying to convince Microsoft to port Office to Linux or Apple to port iTunes to Linux is an exercise in futility. Creating open source applications that have 100% compatibility with those applications is as well (just look at Wine and ReactOS--always behind).

Our best bet would be to encourage people to use web applications. If people use Google Docs instead of MS Office... well, then they can use Google Docs on any OS. Web apps are almost always cross-platform. As processor, RAM, and bandwidth capacities increase for consumers and businesses, I think we'll find more people using web apps--making the switch to Linux a lot easier.

Of course, then privacy becomes a major issue.

misfitpierce
December 19th, 2007, 11:37 PM
More and more businesses especially have been switching to linux. It's a cost effective and more efficient OS for just doing things. Only thing windows seems to have an edge on is gaming market, because as much as I hate to say it they marketed it just right. Perhaps eventually more developers will pick up OpenGL and make games for linux and unix systems as id software has. :)

popch
December 19th, 2007, 11:44 PM
And there are alternatives, but because of compatibility issues there will be problems when sending info to other people such as businesses using MS office. I'm just saying Linux needs some of those commercial apps. (...) I wish Linux took these steps because I would love to see people use Linux more and if Linux have these apps, Windows/Mac users would say 'Linux is free, it runs the apps I need,

Roosters and hens are an egg's way of producing more eggs.

By that I mean to say that microsoft does not care so much if you use Windows or not. But they do want you to use their magnificent Offfice suite. Why? Look at the price tags.

So, for quite a few people here your argument that Linux has to run MS Office is not - er - at the center of the heart's desire.

One of the reasons for using open source you keep hearing in this forum is the price tag. The cost of the application software.

A minor point in answer to your post: I keep saying that documents processed with Open Office are not markedly more or less compatible with - say - Offfice 2000 than those produced or processed with MS Office 2003.

And this is not hearsay from e-zine articles, but hard fact straight from the help desk.

djbon2112
December 19th, 2007, 11:48 PM
Roosters and hens are an egg's way of producing more eggs.

By that I mean to say that microsoft does not care so much if you use Windows or not. But they do want you to use their magnificent Offfice suite. Why? Look at the price tags.

So, for quite a few people here your argument that Linux has to run MS Office is not - er - at the center of the heart's desire.

One of the reasons for using open source you keep hearing in this forum is the price tag. The cost of the application software.

A minor point in answer to your post: I keep saying that documents processed with Open Office are not markedly more or less compatible with - say - Offfice 2000 than those produced or processed with MS Office 2003.

And this is not hearsay from e-zine articles, but hard fact straight from the help desk.
Sometimes I don't mind paying, especially if the software is REALLY good and worth the money. And there's been a few programs like that for me. But it also gets frustrating, because I drop the money on these apps, but dislike Windows, but am trapped in it forever. Linux needs to support Windows applications! Let it have both, and there will be even more reasons to use it over Windows!

molom
December 20th, 2007, 01:09 AM
Roosters and hens are an egg's way of producing more eggs.

By that I mean to say that microsoft does not care so much if you use Windows or not. But they do want you to use their magnificent Offfice suite. Why? Look at the price tags.

So, for quite a few people here your argument that Linux has to run MS Office is not - er - at the center of the heart's desire.

One of the reasons for using open source you keep hearing in this forum is the price tag. The cost of the application software.

A minor point in answer to your post: I keep saying that documents processed with Open Office are not markedly more or less compatible with - say - Offfice 2000 than those produced or processed with MS Office 2003.

And this is not hearsay from e-zine articles, but hard fact straight from the help desk.

If MS office on Linux became a reality right. People from Windows/Mac would move to Linux. And since Linux tries to convince people to use open source and already has open source programs pre-installed, people will be able to notice them more and will eventually change to open office. It's as simple as that. Go ask someone who is just a normal Windows User and ask them 'What is OpenOffice?' they will not have a clue. It's just a plan to gain popularity and then move users to open source, it would totally work. And I think Microsoft totally cares about their Windows sales, otherwise they wouldn't be putting so much work into making Windows Vienna or Windows Vista. Windows Vista has huge price tags look at Windows Vista Ultimate.

Incense
December 20th, 2007, 01:19 AM
Trying to convince Microsoft to port Office to Linux or Apple to port iTunes to Linux is an exercise in futility. Creating open source applications that have 100% compatibility with those applications is as well (just look at Wine and ReactOS--always behind).

I agree, which is why I just leave them behind and use open source alternatives. I am personally very proud of the open source community, and everything they have done. On linux, there is really no software that I miss from the "other side" and I love that!



Our best bet would be to encourage people to use web applications. If people use Google Docs instead of MS Office... well, then they can use Google Docs on any OS. Web apps are almost always cross-platform. As processor, RAM, and bandwidth capacities increase for consumers and businesses, I think we'll find more people using web apps--making the switch to Linux a lot easier.

Of course, then privacy becomes a major issue.

I think that is where things are moving, which is a bit scary to me. The world of online applications are growing richer, and have even hit a point where they are quit functional. Privacy is a big issue though. Google just knows too much, and they are going to hit a point where they are unable to just say no to the NSA.

aysiu
December 20th, 2007, 01:33 AM
If MS office on Linux became a reality right. People from Windows/Mac would move to Linux. And since Linux tries to convince people to use open source and already has open source programs pre-installed, people will be able to notice them more and will eventually change to open office. It's as simple as that. Go ask someone who is just a normal Windows User and ask them 'What is OpenOffice?' they will not have a clue. It's just a plan to gain popularity and then move users to open source, it would totally work. And I think Microsoft totally cares about their Windows sales, otherwise they wouldn't be putting so much work into making Windows Vienna or Windows Vista. Windows Vista has huge price tags look at Windows Vista Ultimate. I'd much rather try to convince Windows users to switch to OpenOffice than convince Microsoft to port MS Office to Linux. MS Office on Linux just keeps people locked into Microsoft. OpenOffice, however, frees them up to use any platform they want and opens their eyes to the wonders of open source. Like many other users here, I found Firefox to be the gateway drug to open source. Once I started using Firefox in Windows, I started using Audacity, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and FileZilla. Then, it was only a matter of time before I switched to an open source OS.



I think that is where things are moving, which is a bit scary to me. The world of online applications are growing richer, and have even hit a point where they are quit functional. Privacy is a big issue though. Google just knows too much, and they are going to hit a point where they are unable to just say no to the NSA. Yes, Google does know too much, but I think it's more likely that the NSA will infiltrate (physically or virtually) Google's servers and cull the information themselves and then defend it after the fact than somehow legally coerce Google to cough up the data. Google gets a lot of flack about privacy, but they were the only major search engine last year that didn't give up searches to the federal government when they subpoenaed the searches for some anti-child porn thing.

molom
December 20th, 2007, 02:46 AM
I'd much rather try to convince Windows users to switch to OpenOffice than convince Microsoft to port MS Office to Linux. MS Office on Linux just keeps people locked into Microsoft. OpenOffice, however, frees them up to use any platform they want and opens their eyes to the wonders of open source. Like many other users here, I found Firefox to be the gateway drug to open source. Once I started using Firefox in Windows, I started using Audacity, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and FileZilla. Then, it was only a matter of time before I switched to an open source OS.


Its impossible to get novice computer users to use open source apps. They don't know what open source is, they don't know what Linux is, they don't know what open office is. It is impossible. Your a guy that is very knowledgeable with computers I assume and you were good with computers when you switched to firefox. Many people I know use firefox, but they don't know what open source is. You have to get MS office on linux first and then word of mouth or marketing is far easier to use and convince people to use open source apps.

Just listen to this example. I'm just a novice computer user. I find out Linux is free by an ad on tv, which tells me that MS Office and Adobe apps can be installed. Then I would definately get Office and Adobe for Linux. Then I choose Ubuntu for instance and then I find Open Office on the OS and by word of mouth people will start talking about it. And then another ad comes on Open Office and says that it's compatible with MS Office and it's free. So I definately switch the Open Office so I don't pay $500 for some office apps. And you do the rest for Adobe and so on. There isn't any proper photoshop equivalent and that's why we should port these apps and then persuade users to use Open Source. No novice computer user is ever going to switch to Open office in one go from MS Office. Open Office is free for Windows and it only has something like 5% of the Office app market share. Firefox was just some opportunity that came along. Its just a browser that isn't is as important as an Office app.

There is no way. Linux can only reach the top with the method I suggested. Mac is reaching higher because they have these apps ported, but they don't convince to use open source. Linux could convince. It is no big deal. Port the app and there will be a pace in change to open source.

djbon2112
December 20th, 2007, 03:57 AM
I don't think Microsoft Office is the best example of this. OpenOffice is serious competition to it, and for most intents and purposes the functionality is the same. In fact, I think OpenOffice is the best way (besides Firefox) to bring the public up to speed about OSS and its benefits. The issue, however, comes from programs for which there is no real open-souce equivalent, Photoshop being the one at the top of my mind, followed by other more specialized apps. No, the average user probably doesn't need these, but if they're there, the more tech savvy and professionals will start using Linux, and then a trickle-down will happen, with novice users realizing it's free and does the same stuff.

BSDFreakNo2
December 20th, 2007, 04:14 AM
I don't think Microsoft Office is the best example of this. OpenOffice is serious competition to it, and for most intents and purposes the functionality is the same. In fact, I think OpenOffice is the best way (besides Firefox) to bring the public up to speed about OSS and its benefits. The issue, however, comes from programs for which there is no real open-souce equivalent, Photoshop being the one at the top of my mind, followed by other more specialized apps. No, the average user probably doesn't need these, but if they're there, the more tech savvy and professionals will start using Linux, and then a trickle-down will happen, with novice users realizing it's free and does the same stuff.

Actually, OpenOffice is what i replaced my families O2k3 with and they didn't much notice it beyond the layout that they just figured out thinking "oh ok this is a new thing, ok" and that was it.

But Koffice is years ahead IMO and quite portable, i hate to port to windows but since no one else will and it doesn't take much time, i'll do it myself.

Under the BSD licence.

Incense
December 20th, 2007, 05:00 AM
Actually, OpenOffice is what i replaced my families O2k3 with and they didn't much notice it beyond the layout that they just figured out thinking "oh ok this is a new thing, ok" and that was it.

But Koffice is years ahead IMO and quite portable, i hate to port to windows but since no one else will and it doesn't take much time, i'll do it myself.

Under the BSD licence.

Are you talking about porting koffice to windows? They are already porting koffice 2 for windows, along with a few other kde 4 apps. If you're talking about something else, then sorry for misunderstanding.

BSDFreakNo2
December 20th, 2007, 05:18 AM
Are you talking about porting koffice to windows? They are already porting koffice 2 for windows, along with a few other kde 4 apps. If you're talking about something else, then sorry for misunderstanding.

Thank you very much for the information, i have been of the loop for too long and just concentrated on another thing it seems.

Yet i am trying to argue the virtures of the RC2+ candidate right now, i guess i should pay more attention to what is really going on.

Koffice is awesome, at least under KDE (well duh).

Would you mind if i poll you on this info by PM'ing you since you know your **** and i constantly get out of the windows progressions of the QT devs windows progressions?

molom
December 20th, 2007, 06:56 AM
Are you talking about porting koffice to windows? They are already porting koffice 2 for windows, along with a few other kde 4 apps. If you're talking about something else, then sorry for misunderstanding.

Are they porting K3B to windows. If KDE does, that could really stuff up Nero.

Cybertronic
March 28th, 2009, 04:03 AM
If I had 2 Identical High end computers one ran Windows and the other Ran Linux and both could run the same software and games I would STILL choose Linux for two BIG reasons....

1.) I don't want the OS taking up most of my system resources.
2.) I enjoy having more security on an OS that doesnt run as Root


Yes people boat Linux runs twice as fast on half the hardware that windows would but imagine that on a high end computer.... you get better performance that way.

I cannot think of a better example then that of the AMIGA OS for the AMGIA 4000 computer. Because of the efficency of the OS combined with the state of the art Hardware. It could do more than other OS's with Same if not similar hardware.

Having an OS that dosent suck your resources is important when you want to get the most out of your hardware, low end or not.

I have a fairly high end computer that ran XP and it would lag or freeze running certain applications that I normally run. So I switched to linux and ran those same applications or their linux equivilant and instantly increased my productivity. EFFECIENCY IS KEY. A more effecient or easier to develop for platform means that software developers can get the most of the system and have feature rich applications. So yeah if Vegas requires 1gb on windows and they happen to make a Linux Version, they could essentially put more features in the linux version within that same 1gb because of the reduced overhead on the OS.

You should comapire Photoshop between Windows and OSX and tell me which one is more feature rich or fairs better on two comapirable hardware computers.


Also the post counter seems broken...