Cultural differences in Indian computer usage?

[praveesh]

Since Iam a 100% (k)Ubuntu user, I don't use right click>refresh , eventhough it's there in the kde 4.3 Iam using. But if I get a windows computer and have to wait for some time (may be for loading a web page or encoding a video) I might do it , just for a fun and as a time pass. I have to agree that many people here believe the refreshing as very important

[earthpigg]

If most Indians are comfortable using Windows, I very much doubt they need a lot of tech support. If anything, switching to Linux will probably help reduce India's rate of unemployment.

i am no economist. macro economics stumps me.

however,

this is debatable, but for better or worse, i am pretty sure based on my basic and incomplete understanding of the subject that any nation adopting widespread home and commercial Free Software (GNU/Linux, *BSD, etc) use would increase unemployment.

consider the pro-Linux TCO arguments and cathedral vs bazaar stuff:

-sysadmin jobs. because of the sysadmin to server ratio. i know we have some linux sysadmins here: how many servers can one linux sysadmin be expected to manage full time? and windows? instead of having 5 mediocre Microsoft Certified dudes, Company X just needs one good dude.

-software developers. consider Ubuntu. if it where proprietary, they would have had to develop the whole thing from scratch instead of building on Debian's stuff.

-tech support dudes. sure, Windows "just works"... until it randomly breaks. you really have to know windows inside and out to keep a system running. Ubuntu LTS? Debian Stable? *BSD? not as much. less help desk technicians, less telephone tech support dudes.

-software retail. did anyone here get Ubuntu by going to a retail store and purchasing it for $19.99? no need for middle men.

-et cetera. a lot of the stuff that makes Free Software more economical does so by letting companies get more done with fewer employees. (in addition to other money not wasted on other stuff such as needing new workstation computers every 5 years...)

clearly, there will still need to be some folks working in all of the above fields... but will there need to be nearly as many?

widespread Free Software use in Nation X would probably create some jobs, yes.... but would it create as many as Nation X would be losing?



from the POV of neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism, it could potentially help or be helping the United States out a great deal that 9X% of the worlds computers run Windows....

...9X% of the worlds computers do all of their basic operating system computing in a manner approved and endorsed by the United States Federal Government. i've never really thought about it like that.

i don't understand economics very well, but i wonder how much US Federal tax revenue is a direct result of that. that could be quite a chunk of change coming into the United States just because people choose to use a proprietary operating system.

is that very well maintained and clean stretch of US Highway 101 that i enjoy driving on cleaner and better maintained than it otherwise would be because somewhere around one billion Europeans are running paid-for legitimate copies of Microsoft Windows?

how much nicer would the Eurorail be, and how much nicer would that elementary school in Prague be if not for Microsoft Windows?

these are questions i am not well informed enough to answer definitively.

[mikewhatever]

During the industrial revolution, there were workers' movements that claimed the widespread of machinery would lead to higher unemployment, because fewer workers were needed to operate machines that produces more product. Some of them went as far as destroying machinery at their factories. We all know the outcome. Generally speaking, better efficiency doesn't mean higher unemployment.

[Chronon]

For Indians, from an American point of view:

I have never been to India.

<snip>

anyone else a chronic highlighter? where where you raised?

Haha. I do the same thing. I don't think it's cultural, though because I don't recall seeing other people do this. I live on the west coast of the US.

[t0p]

During the industrial revolution, there were workers' movements that claimed the widespread of machinery would lead to higher unemployment, because fewer workers were needed to operate machines that produces more product. Some of them when as far as destroying machinery at their factories. We all know the outcome. Generally speaking, better efficiency doesn't mean higher unemployment.

Automation in farm work has directly led to a reduction in the numbers of agricultural jobs available. This in turn has led to large numbers of people leaving rural areas to look for work in urban areas. This is undeniable.

The Luddites weren't wrong about everything. They just get a bad press because they didn't get to write history.

[t0p]

During the industrial revolution, there were workers' movements that claimed the widespread of machinery would lead to higher unemployment, because fewer workers were needed to operate machines that produces more product. Some of them when as far as destroying machinery at their factories. We all know the outcome. Generally speaking, better efficiency doesn't mean higher unemployment.

Automation in farm work has directly led to a reduction in the numbers of agricultural jobs available. This in turn has led to large numbers of people leaving rural areas to look for work in urban areas. This is undeniable.

As for your comment that "better efficiency doesn't mean higher unemployment": so why is it that, when a company makes "efficiency savings", that nearly always results in workers being laid off? Hmm?

The Luddites weren't wrong about everything. They just get a bad press because they didn't get to write history.

[Viva]

i am no economist. macro economics stumps me.

however,

this is debatable, but for better or worse, i am pretty sure based on my basic and incomplete understanding of the subject that any nation adopting widespread home and commercial Free Software (GNU/Linux, *BSD, etc) use would increase unemployment.

consider the pro-Linux TCO arguments and cathedral vs bazaar stuff:

-sysadmin jobs. because of the sysadmin to server ratio. i know we have some linux sysadmins here: how many servers can one linux sysadmin be expected to manage full time? and windows? instead of having 5 mediocre Microsoft Certified dudes, Company X just needs one good dude.

-software developers. consider Ubuntu. if it where proprietary, they would have had to develop the whole thing from scratch instead of building on Debian's stuff.

-tech support dudes. sure, Windows "just works"... until it randomly breaks. you really have to know windows inside and out to keep a system running. Ubuntu LTS? Debian Stable? *BSD? not as much. less help desk technicians, less telephone tech support dudes.

-software retail. did anyone here get Ubuntu by going to a retail store and purchasing it for $19.99? no need for middle men.

-et cetera. a lot of the stuff that makes Free Software more economical does so by letting companies get more done with fewer employees. (in addition to other money not wasted on other stuff such as needing new workstation computers every 5 years...)

clearly, there will still need to be some folks working in all of the above fields... but will there need to be nearly as many?

widespread Free Software use in Nation X would probably create some jobs, yes.... but would it create as many as Nation X would be losing?



from the POV of neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism, it could potentially help or be helping the United States out a great deal that 9X% of the worlds computers run Windows....

...9X% of the worlds computers do all of their basic operating system computing in a manner approved and endorsed by the United States Federal Government. i've never really thought about it like that.

i don't understand economics very well, but i wonder how much US Federal tax revenue is a direct result of that. that could be quite a chunk of change coming into the United States just because people choose to use a proprietary operating system.

is that very well maintained and clean stretch of US Highway 101 that i enjoy driving on cleaner and better maintained than it otherwise would be because somewhere around one billion Europeans are running paid-for legitimate copies of Microsoft Windows?

how much nicer would the Eurorail be, and how much nicer would that elementary school in Prague be if not for Microsoft Windows?

these are questions i am not well informed enough to answer definitively.

Alternatively, more people will make money USING linux, like they are already doing on the internet. And more people will make money supporting linux desktops, just like they are doing with windows. A very small percentage of software developers make money from directly selling proprietary stuff. Developers losing jobs because of FLOSS is pure FUD spread by proprietary companies and developers who are not willing to change their business model.

[Marlonsm]

Alternatively, more people will make money USING linux, like they are already doing on the internet. And more people will make money supporting linux desktops, just like they are doing with windows. A very small percentage of software developers make money from directly selling proprietary stuff. Developers losing jobs because of FLOSS is pure FUD spread by proprietary companies and developers who are not willing to change their business model.

Right. As far as I know, adopting Linux would reduce unemployment, as it's free to modify and distribute, more people would be able to develop for it, make changes...
The paid technical support would still exist, some people and most companies don't like to rely on a bunch of forum users.
Paid software would still exist, as much as I don't like to say that, a good part of the free sofware out there just isn't ready for professional use yet, and some professionals also don't like relying on community support.

So, IMO, if Linux replaced Windows sometime in the future, it wouldn't cause mass unemployment. It would cause just the opposite. As you can see many countries are adopting free software, and they wouldn't risk increasing unemployment just to save a some bucks buying software.

[mikewhatever]

Automation in farm work has directly led to a reduction in the numbers of agricultural jobs available. This in turn has led to large numbers of people leaving rural areas to look for work in urban areas. This is undeniable.

Has anyone denied it?

As for your comment that "better efficiency doesn't mean higher unemployment": so why is it that, when a company makes "efficiency savings", that nearly always results in workers being laid off? Hmm?

The Luddites weren't wrong about everything. They just get a bad press because they didn't get to write history.

Companies may sack workers for various reasons. The problem with your examples is that you limit yourself to a sector of society, first to agriculture, then to a company. If we choose to limit ourselves to a single sector, your argument holds, that is, more efficiency, less working hands, but on the scale of a society, it simply crumbles.

[t0p]

The problem with your examples is that you limit yourself to a sector of society, first to agriculture, then to a company. If we choose to limit ourselves to a single sector, your argument holds, that is, more efficiency, less working hands, but on the scale of a society, it simply crumbles.

At least I came up with examples. You assert that the Luddites were wrong, and that I'm wrong, yet you provide no proof of your statements. You claim that my argument "simply crumbles" when applied to society: so you should have no trouble showing us how it crumbles.