Rescuing the victims of the Vista explosion

[dyssident]

Thesis: Windows Vista will (continue to) be a disaster that will provide the greatest opportunity yet for Linux to gain desktop marketshare.

People will hate it for many reasons: resource piggishness, being 40% bigger than XP, huge price, little substantial improvement. They will feel the malaise that comes with using a product whos time has past (http://garywiz.typepad.com/trial_by_fire/2006/03/windows_vista_p.html).

What can true believers do to lead these lost souls into the glorious light of Ubuntu?

In the post Vista epoch, Ive begun think that MS will have no choice but to break compatibility (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/technology/27soft.html?ex=1301115600&en=d0c82ccf5d5122fb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) the way OSX did. If this happens, then there will truly be an exploitable period of absolute chaos. But even if never happens, OSX already has Joe User thinking about switching platforms.

What about capturing people who are ready to bolt to OSX but dont want to drop the coin on Apple goods?

[Sye d'Burns]

My guess is that MS will eventually break windows compatibility and here's why: Virtual Machines. With the emergence of virtual technology it would make this break almost painless.

[Patrick-Ruff]

hmm, interesting post, but, Microsoft takes atvantage of the ignorance of the illknowledgeable computer users. which is a vast majority of the united states, IT pros and all that, they will be convertnig most likely, but, average person in your average household, stays with vista, microsoft, since its the easiest to get up and running from the ignorant perspective, macs are too expensive for the time being to beat windows. or get even close, problem is, windows is distibuted on ALOT of different hardware, every computer you see, in pretty much any computer store is built with Windows on it, not Mac (which is impossible to do btw), or Linux. etc.


just my 2c

[mostwanted]

I don't think that is going to happen.

[RavenOfOdin]

There is no possibility that Windows is in good health. NONE.


And it took people HOW long to realize this?

When patches were being released through Windows Update and doing as much good as a Depression-era dollar bill - thusly being followed by new patches, and then patches to patch the patches - I knew something was rotten in Denmark.

[mostwanted]

And it took people HOW long to realize this?

When patches were being released through Windows Update and doing as much good as a Depression-era dollar bill - thusly being followed by new patches, and then patches to patch the patches - I knew something was rotten in Denmark.

Hey leave Denmark/Hamlet out of this :p

[dyssident]

seems like the idea of Vista being good for Linux is in the zeitgeist: Vista-Bashing: Good for Linux? (http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/vistabashing-good-for-linux-176561.php)


microsoft, since its the easiest to get up and running from the ignorant perspective

oh, but ubuntu is getting so much better. breezy badger was without a doubt the easiest setup ive had for an OS. it took me a fraction of the time to get my arcane wifi card working on my ancient laptop, and with the windows driver no less. works even better now that ive discovered NetworkManager.

this sounds shallow, but from the point of view of winning converts, a nicer default look would go a long way. true geeks may hate this, but the 'sexy' factor matters. just ask Jobs.

[Sye d'Burns]

this sounds shallow, but from the point of view of winning converts, a nicer default look would go a long way. true geeks may hate this, but the 'sexy' factor matters. just ask Jobs.


If Jobs had Gates' marketshare I might ask him. Not many people would argue that XP is 'sexy.' Just ask any geek... or grandma. :P

[alphaomega]

From what I have read on digg and other places is that Vista and it's "security" features are going to make Admins and home users destroy their cpus. There is nothing as annoying than pop ups, and instead of pop up adds, there are going to be pops saying...."You are trying to access the intarweb, are you sure, it could pose a security risk that we didn't even think about fixing before we released Vista."

Why is it so hard for them to just make it easy, simple, affordable and secure.

[aysiu]

Thesis: Windows Vista will (continue to) be a disaster that will provide the greatest opportunity yet for Linux to gain desktop marketshare.

People will hate it for many reasons: resource piggishness, being 40% bigger than XP, huge price, little substantial improvement. They will feel the malaise that comes with using a product whos time has past (http://garywiz.typepad.com/trial_by_fire/2006/03/windows_vista_p.html). Windows ME didn't make Windows users go to Linux--why should Vista? Windows users I know put up with a lot of s**t for familiarity, compatibility, and "ease of use."

[BoyOfDestiny]

Windows ME didn't make Windows users go to Linux--why should Vista? Windows users I know put up with a lot of s**t for familiarity, compatibility, and "ease of use."

That's not a fair comparison. There were no viable Linux alternatives for the average desktop user. Seriously, Ubuntu is super friendly, but would someone who installs and uses Ubuntu now, be able to cope with the state of Desktop Linux 5 or 6 years ago? I doubt it.

I've personally never had to do a modprobe... I'd be lost in getting hardware working... Mounting everything manually... Lack of plug and play and autoconfiguration... The old debian installer?

[Harold P]

I have friends who still use AIM with "viruses", I.E. with all the security risks (spyware, adware, malware, etc.), and just plain locking up, yet they keep it. Most people don't even know there is an alternative to Windows.

[BoyOfDestiny]

I have friends who still use AIM with "viruses", I.E. with all the security risks (spyware, adware, malware, etc.), and just plain locking up, yet they keep it. Most people don't even know there is an alternative to Windows.

I forgot who said it, I think it was a poster here, or some blogger... That windows users have Stockholm syndrome...

"The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in a hostage, in which the hostage exhibits seeming loyalty to the hostage-taker, in spite of the danger (or at least risk) the hostage has been put in."

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

[Kimm]

Lol that sounds pretty right...
I have several friends that always complain about Windows, As a mather of fact... I dont think I know a single person that has it working correctly and is sattisfied with it.
When they come here, to see a movie or something else, they pretty much droole over my Linux desktop since everything seems to just work.

Yet... they dont let me guide them to make the switch, I've had two that where close, but then they claim that they want to stay with their old faitfull (faithfull??! yeah....)

[aysiu]

That's not a fair comparison. There were no viable Linux alternatives for the average desktop user. Seriously, Ubuntu is super friendly, but would someone who installs and uses Ubuntu now, be able to cope with the state of Desktop Linux 5 or 6 years ago? I doubt it.

I've personally never had to do a modprobe... I'd be lost in getting hardware working... Mounting everything manually... Lack of plug and play and autoconfiguration... The old debian installer? In a way, you're right--it's an unfair comparison. Desktop Linux sucked even two years ago. Now, it's practically golden. The kinds of complaints we get are people not being able to print double-sided in Gnome. I mean, come on!

Still, the principle holds true--people are afraid of computers and the unfamiliar and even more afraid of unfamiliar computers (they don't know what an operating system is usually).

No matter how much people complain, most users will stick with Windows because it has nigh-universal compatibility with whatever's out there that they get at Best Buy or whatever, and because they're used to it.

[BoyOfDestiny]

In a way, you're right--it's an unfair comparison. Desktop Linux sucked even two years ago. Now, it's practically golden. The kinds of complaints we get are people not being able to print double-sided in Gnome. I mean, come on!

Still, the principle holds true--people are afraid of computers and the unfamiliar and even more afraid of unfamiliar computers (they don't know what an operating system is usually).

No matter how much people complain, most users will stick with Windows because it has nigh-universal compatibility with whatever's out there that they get at Best Buy or whatever, and because they're used to it.

What I'm curious about is: How will things be when WINE has improved further.

The common worry I hear from potetial new users is "I need app/game XXX to run."

For many, alternatives are good or better, but there are always exceptions...

If the compatibility ever gets extremely high, directx9 or higher, overall api's, etc... To run that "odd" app... Would a user still hold back. Not to mention GNU/Linux as a whole is still improving.

I'm also wonder how compatible VIsta will be with the older releases' binaries. Some apps were known to break even from the transition to XP SP2...

[aysiu]

I'm not the foremost authority on this, but my guess is that once Wine progresses to the point where it can do all Windows apps, Microsoft will create new specifications (in Vista +1) for Windows applications that will make the Wine developers have to start from scratch for those applications.

It'll always be a game of catch-up.

Also, people will say, "Oh, it's because I need..." but most of the time that's just an excuse. If people really needed whatever, they'd get Crossover Office or run Windows in VMWare. It's familiarity and fear. It's also the ability to get any hardware or any software and not having to worry about, "Is this compatible with Windows?"

I have to admit, for me, even that is a draw to Windows. Now that I use Ubuntu, I constantly have to wonder "If I get a new ________ will it work with Ubuntu?" It'd be nice to have little penguins on the boxes of Linux-compatible hardware, but we're not quite there yet.

[fuscia]

Windows ME didn't make Windows users go to Linux--why should Vista?

it made me go to linux. after using it for five years, i was just sooooooo bored with it.

[aysiu]

it made me go to linux. after using it for five years, i was just sooooooo bored with it. You may be the exception to the rule, though.

[warp99]

Because of the requirements of vista and in most cases will require new equipment people may opt for a different OS with similiar features. One thing I can say is when I show family members the eye candy with xgl and compiz they are amazed.

I beleive that you can rescue some people who want cool new features, but don't want to invest the $$$. You have to remember that 21% of Windows users still use Windows 98. :D

[BoyOfDestiny]

Because of the requirements of vista and in most cases will require new equipment people may opt for a different OS with similiar features. One thing I can say is when I show family members the eye candy with xgl and compiz they are amazed.

I beleive that you can rescue some people who want cool new features, but don't want to invest the $$$. You have to remember that 21% of Windows users still use Windows 98. :D

The percentage is that high?
Great... I can only imagine the number of zombied machines when there are no longer any MS patches...

Although I guess people can try using someone elses patches... Yet, that sounds like even more trouble...

[fuscia]

isn't vista's eye candy effects going to be annoying to the 'i just want it to work' crowd?

[warp99]

Then there is no reason to go to Vista because the main difference is the eye candy. :D

[ComplexNumber]

isn't vista's eye candy effects going to be annoying to the 'i just want it to work' crowd? yes it is. i'm one of those who don't care about having lots of resource hungy (and useless) animations, fade in/outs of menus, wobbly windows, 3D kaleidoscopic multidimensional animated entities floating around my desktop, blah blah. i like my desktop to look nice.....but seriously, do we really need all this silly eye candy? i think not. my desktop does look nice with a nice toolkit (gtk), nice wallpaper, a nice theme, and a desktop environment thats paid attention to usability, HIG, and nice appearence. thats all it needs. all that useless eye candy doesn't add anything to usability at all. thats why i uninstalled xcompmgr after about a day or 2.

[alphaomega]

Vista is just Microsoft's way of polishing a terd. As just as the great prophet Butthead once said, "Ya know Beavis, you can't polish a terd, because no matter how much you polish it, it's still a terd, huh huh huh."

[BoyOfDestiny]

yes it is. i'm one of those who don't care about having lots of resource hungy (and useless) animations, fade in/outs of menus, wobbly windows, 3D kaleidoscopic multidimensional animated entities floating around my desktop, blah blah. i like my desktop to look nice.....but seriously, do we really need all this silly eye candy? i think not. my desktop does look nice with a nice toolkit (gtk), nice wallpaper, a nice theme, and a desktop environment thats paid attention to usability, HIG, and nice appearence. thats all it needs. all that useless eye candy doesn't add anything to usability at all. thats why i uninstalled xcompmgr after about a day or 2.

I have a similar feeling. More power to those who enjoy all that stuff (glad it's available in Linux with reasonable system requirements).

My limit on eye-candy is a semi-transparent terminal and a desklet or 2 (sometimes).

That's what I like about gnome, it's so clean and boring. Seeing all that candy shell stuff with pretty pictures instead of simple buttons and menus...
Not my thing...

It's my refuge from too much eyecandy, just as GNU/Linux is my refuge from proprietary OS's and the DRM...

[intarweb]

And it took people HOW long to realize this?

When patches were being released through Windows Update and doing as much good as a Depression-era dollar bill - thusly being followed by new patches, and then patches to patch the patches - I knew something was rotten in Denmark.
All I know is that in 2 years, I've had to install Windows XP only twice. And not because of any virus or other "security" issues.

In short, I don't know what the big deal with XP is. I've been using XP for more than 2 years now, on more than 5 different computers. You use XPs vulnerability as a scarecrow, when in fact it's the wrong usage by people who open dubious email attachments, visit weird websites and install anything that pops up that makes XP "insecure".

Compare to Linux, which I've had to reinstall countless times, most of which were because I wanted to have a clean install, and two of which was because sudo apt-get dist-upgrade broke everything.

So, let's keep the FUD low on this camp too, OK? Thanks.

As for whether Vista's bloat will cause a massive exodus to Ubuntu,
a) No, why should it? Most people don't even know there's an alternative
b) No, those who know the alternative don't want to spend time fiddling around to make their wireless work
c) No, this is only hype by Linux fans.

Ubuntu is an Operating System. It's great, I like it, I use it everyday. If my computer costs $1000, $50 of which is cost for a single-user license, then of course I won't have ANY moral qualm to use something I already paid for, when it makes everything on my computer function.

[megamania]

You use XPs vulnerability as a scarecrow, when in fact it's the wrong usage by people who open dubious email attachments, visit weird websites and install anything that pops up that makes XP "insecure".

So, let's keep the FUD low on this camp too, OK? Thanks.
What you call FUD could be called "opinions I don't agree with". That would be a good general rule for handling a discussion.

I don't want to get into this flame, but saying that XP is "made insecure" by "wrong usage" and "weird websites" sound just a little bit biased (or true only in part) to me.

And to keep the flames low, I'll tell you that I've used all Dos/Win versions since Dos 3 and I switched to Linux only a few months ago, so I'm not a linux-rulez-winsucks-geek.

[intarweb]

What you call FUD could be called "opinions I don't agree with". That would be a good general rule for handling a discussion.

I don't want to get into this flame, but saying that XP is "made insecure" by "wrong usage" and "weird websites" sound just a little bit biased (or true only in part) to me.
Who's flaming anyway? An opinion you don't agree with is not necessarily a flame.

All I know from my experience (and like you, I started with DOS 3 on a 8086 machine), is that since I started using Linux (Redhat 5.0, kernel 2.0.32), I've quite probably made a lot more reinstalls of Linux than Windows {95,98,98SE,XP}. It's pretty weird:
DOS/Windows 3.11: never had any viruses
Windows 95: no viruses ever, but system was really unstable
Windows 98: one relatively harmless virus between tons of lockups
Windows XP: no virus, no lock-ups

After this very nice experience with DOS/Windows, what should I say? That it has been a hallucination and that suddenly Linux has solved all of my problems?


And to keep the flames low, I'll tell you that I've used all Dos/Win versions since Dos 3 and I switched to Linux only a few months ago, so I'm not a linux-rulez-winsucks-geek.
Even if you were, that'd be OK. We're all biased, that's called having an opinion. I understand that people want Ubuntu to become more widely adopted, but we should play fair. I understand that it's easy for grandma X using XP to unknowingly install an virus on XP, and honestly I think Ubuntu is better suited for grandmas

However, for people who need to do some serious work instead of just try out stuff and reinstall everything every couple of weeks, Vista or ANY Windows version >= 98SE fulfills most tasks satisfactorily.

Noone's flaming, but let's keep in mind that being a fanatic is lame. Repeating decade-old misconceptions about Linux vs. Windows more so.

Peace out.

[linbetwin]

Who's flaming anyway? An opinion you don't agree with is not necessarily a flame.

All I know from my experience (and like you, I started with DOS 3 on a 8086 machine), is that since I started using Linux (Redhat 5.0, kernel 2.0.32), I've quite probably made a lot more reinstalls of Linux than Windows {95,98,98SE,XP}. It's pretty weird:
DOS/Windows 3.11: never had any viruses
Windows 95: no viruses ever, but system was really unstable
Windows 98: one relatively harmless virus between tons of lockups
Windows XP: no virus, no lock-ups

After this very nice experience with DOS/Windows, what should I say? That it has been a hallucination and that suddenly Linux has solved all of my problems?


Even if you were, that'd be OK. We're all biased, that's called having an opinion. I understand that people want Ubuntu to become more widely adopted, but we should play fair. I understand that it's easy for grandma X using XP to unknowingly install an virus on XP, and honestly I think Ubuntu is better suited for grandmas

However, for people who need to do some serious work instead of just try out stuff and reinstall everything every couple of weeks, Vista or ANY Windows version >= 98SE fulfills most tasks satisfactorily.

Noone's flaming, but let's keep in mind that being a fanatic is lame. Repeating decade-old misconceptions about Linux vs. Windows more so.

Peace out.

I totally agree.

When it comes to security, the user is the weakest link in the chain. It's every Linux user's dream that one day the Windows crowds will jump ship, but we will rue the day when that happens, because those users are going to bring the "run-as-root-open-all-attachments-install-anything" mentality to Linux.

Everybody talks about the supposedly outrageous hardware requirements for Vista, yet XP runs faster than Ubuntu and I bet that Linux distros will have higher sys-reqs in a year or two, what with GNOME 3.0 and KDE 4. End even now the bloody crappy good-for-nothing gnome magnifier eats 100 % of my CPU when you merely move the mouse a little. But who need accessibility, right ?

[DeusEx]

In reply of one of the first posts in this thread:

In my opinion, as soon as enterprises start using linux-based OS'es, people will start using those at home too.

It's just a question of when linux supports enough business applications, and when there are enough cheap linux-fed programmers.

[intarweb]

In reply of one of the first posts in this thread:

In my opinion, as soon as enterprises start using linux-based OS'es, people will start using those at home too.

It's just a question of when linux supports enough business applications, and when there are enough cheap linux-fed programmers.
I think so too.

It's difficult to switch a whole organization from A to B. It's naive even to imaging that such as switch could be fast and radical.

It's a lot easier to get people working with something from the beginning, and there's the funny thing: get a small company to switch really slow to Linux for the server, Samba for file-sharing, Thunderbird and Sunbird for simple things and after a while they'll switch.

OR, I imagine that a new company that decides to use Linux from the start (with the exception of some specialized tools that run only on Windows) for office stuff would find it easy to just go on with Linux.

[linbetwin]

What can we expect when even Novell is still using Windows desktops ?

[intarweb]

What can we expect when even Novell is still using Windows desktops ?
We can't expect anything, really.

You don't need the rest of the world to run Linux so that YOU can run Linux. Just run it, enjoy it and don't be smug about it :)

Maybe it'll succeed, maybe it won't. In the end, the question is whether YOU alone can do your job with it in a satisfactory way. The rest is just politics, fanaticism and fanboyism. And may I add that the title of this thread ("Rescuing the victims of the Vista explosion") is tremendously sensationalist?

Who are you to "rescue" them? "Rescue them" from what, from spending more money? Is it YOUR money they're spending? Why do you care?

Just let the good people spend, it makes the world go round.

My 2 Eurocents.

[FredSambo]

It's a lot easier to get people working with something from the beginning, and there's the funny thing: get a small company to switch really slow to Linux for the server, Samba for file-sharing, Thunderbird and Sunbird for simple things and after a while they'll switch.

that's the approach i've been taking with my clients. i just tell them that by allowing me to switch their servers over to ubuntu, i'll be able to maintain their network at a lower over all cost to them. i figure it is a seed well planted anyway.

:)

[megamania]

We can't expect anything, really.

You don't need the rest of the world to run Linux so that YOU can run Linux. Just run it, enjoy it and don't be smug about it :)

Now I totally agree with you. Even if I erased Windows for good (and I don't think I'll ever go back), I don't need (and wouldn't want) the rest of the world to run Linux. I have no friends using linux and have to rely entirely on these forums, the wiki and other websites, but I see it as a good thing.

If linux became too popular, it would probably lose many of its features (mainly the freedom of choice as a consequence of the need to offer a "standard" look). A few more official drivers would be appreciated though. ;-)

[jbmalone]

For m family what happened was my mom saw my new MacBook Pro that I got for college. She commented on how much she liked it and how easy it was to use. Then, the next computer she bought was an Apple, so now we are at 2 Windows, 2 Apple and 1 Linux.

[kriding]

Personally, I believe that if your going to hate windows, then hate it for the right reasons, not because others hate it aswell. If somebody doesn't hate windows, then so be it, it's their choice to make and they have made it.

I have my own reasons for disliking windows, but it doesn't mean I'm going to try converting all my friends and family to Linux, and I will still provide support to their windows machines as I am significantly more competent then they are at fixing windows.

I agree with some comments made in this thread, that if Linux became more mainstream, then a standard 'fit' would need to be developed that could take alot away from OS, also, lets not forget that DOS was a CLI based OS ooriginally developed by a programmer for his own needs, Bill Gates bought/was given the rights and that eventually evolved into windows, who knows what the future holds for Linux if it becomes mainstream.

[aysiu]

I agree with some comments made in this thread, that if Linux became more mainstream, then a standard 'fit' would need to be developed that could take alot away from OS, I disagree. A standard fit would exist, but it wouldn't need to be developed after the fact. One distro will probably rise above the others, and that distro--just by virtue of being the most popular--will be the "standard fit."
also, lets not forget that DOS was a CLI based OS ooriginally developed by a programmer for his own needs, Bill Gates bought/was given the rights and that eventually evolved into windows, who knows what the future holds for Linux if it becomes mainstream. Can't happen, since Linux cannot be owned by anyone--it's GPL'ed. If anyone makes it Windows-like, anyone else can branch off and it make another Linux distro that's not Windows-like.

[handy]

Each to their own, free choice is the most important aspect of this thread...

As far as the possibility of Linux becoming as vulnerable as ******* to security threats is concerned?

It can't happen, the *nix's don't have the design flaws.

You may care to read this? (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/)

[aysiu]

As far as the possibility of Linux becoming as vulnerable as ******* to security threats is concerned? Have you ever seen Seinfeld? What good is creating the best lock on the market... if the person in the apartment is too dumb to close the door?

The more users Ubuntu gets, the more stupid users Ubuntu also gets and the more malware that's targeted at stupid users.

Stupid users will click anything and type in their passwords to install anything. They won't care of it's from the repositories or not or if it's from a trusted source or not. If you click on something and type in your password indiscriminately... security design means nothing.

[handy]

Have you ever seen Seinfeld? What good is creating the best lock on the market... if the person in the apartment is too dumb to close the door?

The more users Ubuntu gets, the more stupid users Ubuntu also gets and the more malware that's targeted at stupid users.

Stupid users will click anything and type in their passwords to install anything. They won't care of it's from the repositories or not or if it's from a trusted source or not. If you click on something and type in your password indiscriminately... security design means nothing.

I agree that the larger any population, the more of every type of member.

I don't agree that this will cause anything like the same type of situation that the ******* world is in re. viruses & other forms of malware.

The 2 architectures are just too dissimilar.

My small intelligence can not see how viruses can spread at an exponential rate via linux.

The user has to take too many conscious steps.

[aysiu]

I agree that the larger any population, the more of every type of member. I don't think it's proportionate, though. Whatever operating system has the largest share will attract a larger percentage of stupid users.



I don't agree that this will cause anything like the same type of situation that the ******* world is in re. viruses & other forms of malware. You're right. It's not the same situation, but I just don't want to give people the impression that *nix systems are invulnerable to malware, especially if you have stupid users.



The 2 architectures are just too dissimilar. Agreed. I'm trying to run something like sudo on my Windows computer at work, and Windows just isn't built for it. If, for example, you try to run Windows Update as another user (the administrator), then the updates fail. You actually have to log out of limited user, log in as administrator, update the computer, and then log in as the limited user again. That's just one example.



My small intelligence can not see how viruses can spread at an exponential rate via linux.

The user has to take too many conscious steps. Yes, agreed. It won't be at an exponential rate, as self-replicating viruses won't spread quickly, but among dumb users, it's almost a moot point. They'll download malware themselves.

[K.Mandla]

Thesis: Windows Vista will (continue to) be a disaster that will provide the greatest opportunity yet for Linux to gain desktop marketshare. ...
I want very much to agree, but I just don't see it happening.

Vista won't be the first poor Microsoft product, and it won't be the last. But I don't see MS losing out on those grounds.

Like every other step in MS history, Vista and the company will suffer a mediocre product by virtue of devious marketing.

In other words, every private computer sold after Vista's ship date will include Vista, in whatever shape it takes. Even if it sucks, like WinMe sucked, people will get it, use it, and suffer.

And corporations with mega-million contracts for new PCs (like my witless employer) will get it too. And suck it may, but they'll all suffer through it.

It might force some to migrate outside the Windows balloon, but I don't see it happening in the droves people expect.

[warp99]

The area of expansion Linux needs to be focused is the enterprise arena. If you look back in history Microsoft's sucess did not start with the general public, but with IBM and the business community.

In the 1980's the computer for the masses was Apple. Schools in mass purchased thousands of Apple II computer's for classrooms and also did numerous home users. Mentality at the time was buy an IBM/PC for the business desktop and an Apple for the home.

What eventually happened is that Microsoft was able to capitalize on the home market due to it's success within the bussiness community. The shift from Apple to Microsoft on the home desktop didn't happen overnight, but was a gradual progression. So what does this tell us?

In order for Linux to be an acceptable alternative on the home desktop businesses will have to adapt it first. Why would businesses adapt Linux? The many reason would be price and to a lesser degree avoiding vendor lock-in.

If you notice anything about the studies that Microsoft throws around they don't include information on tax considerations. Linux in fact does beat Windows in the TOC department once ALL factors are considered.

In the United States all off the shelf software must be expensed on a depreciation schedule as per IRS rules. Yes the IRS will allow up to $100,000 on section 179 property, but that would assume that all of the software procurement would fall at or under this threshold. However all salaries, IT services and training associated with a software installation and implementation can be immediately expensed in the year they are incurred.

Since Linux has a higher cost in the this area of training and services those additional cost can be expensed immediately for an additional tax benefit. With off the shelf software, such as with Microsoft products, they must be depreciated on schedule over 36 months. Also in many states off the shelf software carries a sales tax while IT services and training, especially with sub-contractors, in most places does not.

Once the tax considerations are included in the equation Linux beats Microsoft TOC hands down within medium to large compaines. Many compaines know and completely understand this. Swicthing to Linux products will start going in that direction as the product starts to mature. You can see the difference already.

Red Hat is the second fastest growing company in technology for 2006 according to Money Magazine. It's only a matter of time before the shift occurs utimately allowing linux to enjoy a very health market of the desktop. :cool:

[handy]

A (if not the) major reason why apple does not dominate the desktop market these days is because of the (some say arrogant) decision to not license their technology to third parties.

If they had of done that, the computing world would be a very different place than the one we know now.

Bill who?

[sinaen]

I have friends who still use AIM with "viruses", I.E. with all the security risks (spyware, adware, malware, etc.), and just plain locking up, yet they keep it. Most people don't even know there is an alternative to Windows.

Then why not "salvage them" and lead them to the great ubuntu community :D

[Mr_J_]

Honestly!
There is little knowledge about the alternatives to windows.
Most windows users have stockholm sindrome which makes it not so easy to help them change.

Vista might be one hell of a hog, but then XP won't look so bad.

Most users upgrade Windows and then they miss the next version, only to upgrade on the next one.

By far the easiest way to gain more users would be to get those 21% still stuck in Windows 98.

Most people think "if windows who has been around this long is like this, then what can I possibly do with something that is free?"
Nothing good is free... Money! Money! Money! Who'd believe there are still kind hearted people in this world? And that they do a good job!?

[DeusEx]

Off course the IT managers in a company already know they're upgrading to Vista, in one year or so. Even though they haven't even checked whether it's any good! This is a bad mentality. E.g. if you buy a car you check it first.

But only a company with a large enough capital could switch to *nix based desktops, because instantly there would be the need for:
-a migration
-courses teaching the users
-a trained helpdesk
-trained s/w engineers for *nix
-customized programs

About the viri: linux architecture makes it very hard to get infected. A user would in the worst case destroy his/her homedirectory. Can't touch the system files!
The Linux architecture just allows far better rights administration over the windows architecture. This should make Linux attractive to companies, which, from my experience, all have to deal with giving the user just enough rights to do something in a windows rig, but not too much so that they can destroy the system.
Users are just Dumb. ](*,) :mrgreen: I know that's a bit harsh, but if we were able to set all security properly in windows (*nix style that is) the OS wouldn't be that bad. But one simply can't. In the current architecture hordes of software-engineers and -keepers are needed for fixing problems the users can create because of a unsecure architecture.

[aysiu]

This should make Linux attractive to companies, which, from my experience, all have to deal with giving the user just enough rights to do something in a windows rig, but not too much so that they can destroy the system. By the way, this is very difficult to do in Windows. A lot of programs require you to have administrative privileges in order to function. Also, it's difficult to mass-upgrade applications for security holes. Windows is not designed with security in mind--security is an afterthought.

Just try using something like sudo ("Run as...") in Windows, and you'll quickly discover how Windows encourages you to run as administator.

[ComplexNumber]

By the way, this is very difficult to do in Windows. A lot of programs require you to have administrative privileges in order to function. in windows? if so, can you give me an example? :-k. i haven't come across any ever.

[aysiu]

Well, my company used to use a database application that has a suite of applications that require administrative access to run. They were called SBI. You may not have heard of them.

Our current database, Datatel, occasionally needs its scripts refreshed, and this can be done only by the administrator. Since we're on a domain, we can't even do fast user switching, so our tech person has to force us out of all our applications, log us out, switch to administrator, refresh the scripts, and then log out again and have us log back in again... unless we have administrative access.

I've heard of other programs requiring administrative access as well, but those are the ones I have experience with.

Edit: I should probably append my earlier remark--"a lot" is misleading, as it implies "most." It's entirely possible, if you use certain applications, to run as limited user and have no problems, but I do think it's far more common in the Windows environment for application developers to create applications that require administrative access.

And I can tell you right now that the "run as" function doesn't work for everything, especially Windows Updates. I've set myself up as administrator and limited user on my work computer, and when I tried to "run as" Windows Update as administrator from my limited user account, the updates failed.

[ComplexNumber]

aysiu
so what you really meant to say was: on windows, only very specialist applications (that require admin privilages no matter what platform they run on) require admin privilages ;)

[aysiu]

aysiu
so what you really meant to say was: on windows, only very specialist applications (that require admin privilages no matter what platform they run on) require admin privilages ;) Except those programs don't run on other platforms.

They are specialized, but I doubt they're the only ones. I'll concede that administrator-only applications are not common, but they're far more common on Windows than on any *nix system.

The only thing I can think of in Linux is the K3B cdrdao thing...

The Windows Update thing is really a problem, because if you can't sudo that, you have to log in as administrator to use it. You also can't "run as" for Explorer either. These are problems specifically with Windows--not the applications designed for Windows.

[ComplexNumber]

Except those programs don't run on other platforms.

The Windows Update thing is really a problem, because if you can't sudo that, you have to log in as administrator to use it. You also can't "run as" for Explorer either. These are problems specifically with Windows--not the applications designed for Windows. i meant if they were ported to other platforms. the applications that you're describing would require admin privilages no matter what platform they run on due to their nature. the request for admin privilages from those applications is specific to those applications and has no connection with windows whatsoever.

so in other words, there isn't anything thats part of the windows operating system that absolutely requires admin privilages by default.

[aysiu]

i meant if they were ported to other platforms. the applications that you're describing would require admin privilages no matter what platform they run on due to their nature. the request for admin privilages from those applications is specific to those applications and has no connection with windows whatsoever. You may be right. I don't know about Datatel, but the SBI applications need administrative privileges because they try to create files in the C:\Program Files directory. The program writers would have to be dedicated to keeping that same model and modifying the code to try to write to /usr something, I guess.

[prizrak]

ComplexNumber,
The issue is not even application design, you can't combat that with any OS. The biggest issue is the fact that while everything I have tried with Ubuntu works great with sudo (although I hear it can't be used for everything), it is just not the case with Windows. As aysiu said, even if you start Windows Update as a Run As... with admin privileges the updates don't get installed. There are a few other issues, like I can't run Control Panel as admin if I'm a limited user. I run a Windows based Media Center PC (temporary as it is not finished yet, when it is it will be Linux) and I had to change the power scheme, which I could not have done as a limited user had to actually log out. Also VNC doesn't work with fast user switching you get a blank screen and remote desktop doesn't restore your local log in after you are done.

I doubt Vista is gonna make many regular users switch, they don't know better anyway and just buy a computer with w/e is installed.

[Lord Illidan]

About the viri: linux architecture makes it very hard to get infected. A user would in the worst case destroy his/her homedirectory. Can't touch the system files!

I disagree. System files are not important compared to the data in the homedirectory. In Linux, it is a piece of cake to reinstall the system files. But it will not be a piece of cake to restore the work I've done, the mp3s I've lost, etc. What if I lose a thesis? Or an important piece of work on a deadline?

More linux users = more stupid users. That is why I've stopped preaching Linux.
1. I am not suited to be a preacher.
2. Linux is just an OS, not a religion.
3. I don't want my friends who are less tech savvy than me to keep on bugging me every time they want something, or blame me when something goes wrong.

So I just keep mum about it. I only feel smug when I hear them recount their misadventures with Windows. Still, I lose this smugness when I see the apps that they can use, and I can't. So I dualboot. Big deal.

[aysiu]

I'm with Lord Illidan on this.

System files can be reproduced, and these days it's really quick to do a reinstall, especially if you have a separate /home partition.

/home files are important to me, though, which is why I do regular backups. If I lost my data, I'd be very sad.

I'm also very cautious about evangelizing Ubuntu, too. Most people, no matter how many frustrations they have on Windows, like their comfort zone. If they encounter a frustration or two on Ubuntu, though, that will turn them off from Linux forever... if you twist their arm into it.

I would gladly migrate people over to Ubuntu if...

1. They definitely stand to benefit from it--no peculiar needs and maybe some older hardware that would fly on Xubuntu.

2. They came with an open mind. People who migrate (even with help) need more of a This is exciting. What else can I do? attitude than a So show me what's so great about this compared to Windows attitude.

[ComplexNumber]

ComplexNumber,
The issue is not even application design, you can't combat that with any OS. The biggest issue is the fact that while everything I have tried with Ubuntu works great with sudo (although I hear it can't be used for everything), it is just not the case with Windows. As aysiu said, even if you start Windows Update as a Run As... with admin privileges the updates don't get installed. There are a few other issues, like I can't run Control Panel as admin if I'm a limited user. I run a Windows based Media Center PC (temporary as it is not finished yet, when it is it will be Linux) and I had to change the power scheme, which I could not have done as a limited user had to actually log out. Also VNC doesn't work with fast user switching you get a blank screen and remote desktop doesn't restore your local log in after you are done.

I doubt Vista is gonna make many regular users switch, they don't know better anyway and just buy a computer with w/e is installed. i'm talking about what windows is like by default. of course, admin rights can be enabled. but as aysui correctly says, the permissions system on windows is nothing more than a bolt-on.

[Lord Illidan]

What aysiu said is v. important. Open mindedness.

My friends are a good example. If they spot a single defect in Linux, then the whole OS is bad, rotten to the core. In Windows, it doesn't matter. They use Windows for the apps and the games, too, not for the philosophy. I like the philosophy, the challenge, and the community, which is why I am here.

Eventually, they just started mocking me, so I just shut up, and let them have it. At the end of the day, I am learning how to use a new OS, and learning new things every day, and they are not. At the end of the day, I will probably be using this knowledge in my work, and they will not.

[aysiu]

I tried to migrate a friend over to Linux, and it didn't end up well. She's a Windows user through and through. In fact, I'm kind of surprised she let me install Linux on her computer at all.

It failed for two reasons:

1. She had a premium (the kind you pay for) version of Hotmail. I tried out Thunderbird with the webmail extension, and it worked for the normal Hotmail, but not the premium version. With the premium version, Thunderbird would re-download every message every time you started the application--so you'd end up with tons of duplicated messages.

And, she wasn't the type to check Hotmail in her web browser--she liked email clients and used Outlook in Windows.

2. I didn't know enough about Linux. I had been using it for only a month and a half, and I was using Mepis. I installed Mepis on her computer (actually, it was a computer my wife and I used to own but ended up loaning to this friend), which is 128 MB of RAM with a 766 MHz processor. Even with swap, it was hurting--still faster than Windows XP, but it froze every now and then if two or three applications were open.

If I were to do it over again, I would have put XFCE on there... though, we'd have still had the Hotmail issue.

Now, she's back on Windows and "happy" again... well, complaining, but not willing to ditch it. She was very quick to ditch Mepis, though, I tell you.

[G Morgan]

People expect rationality from members of the public ](*,). My aunt had a bad experience with broadband when they first rolled it out in my home town. She continually nagged me to fix it when the problem wasn't at their end but with the fact BT are a bunch of muppets and hadn't got the system working anything near an acceptable level before they started selling it.

Now, 2 years later, broadband is brilliant in this area and she continues to use a dial-up connection. She spends the same amount for unlimited 56k as I pay for 4Mbit with a 50Gb limit but insists on sticking with 56k because that works and the only reason the broadband does is because I'm there 24/7 to keep it working (which is of course patent nonsense).

She also insists shes being 'hacked' all the time whenever the slightest thing changes (normally a site she uses changes its implementation or even just a scheme so shes been hacked). She heard me mention the term when talking to my father about the number of IP's on my ban list from Denyhosts.

Anyway my Mother used Linux for a few weeks but in the end she insisted on me re-installing XP because 'thats what they use in work'. She moaned about minor things like having to click 3 times to highlight a paragraph in OOo when you only had to wait 10 seconds then click once in word. It worked perfectly bar the annoyance with a bloody Lexmark but a few simple things (most of which I fixed by fiddling defaults) put her off.

[aysiu]

I think it's a fear of being laughed at... in combination with diffusion of responsibility.

If Windows users typically have ten problems, they know at least that many other Windows users (people they know) also have those ten problems. They also know that, no matter how annoying those problems are, they've been able to live with those problems thus far.

If something new comes along, it could be better or it could be worse. They don't want to risk it being worse. And they also have no concept of what a normal problem is what an abnormal problem is, as they know very few people (usually the person who installed Linux for them... and that's about it) who use Linux.

Fear of the unknown, basically. I think it's a natural human instinct. If I use an insurance company that stinks, but I've been overcharged by it, and so has everyone else I know, I may be hesistant to go for a cheaper insurance company that no one else I know uses... what if it's worse? What if it's all a scam? What if it goes out of business in two months? Then I'll be a laughingstock. Of course, if I'm using the rip-off business I've been using for years, at least all my other friends will also be ripped off. No one can laugh at me.

[handy]

On the evangelizing topic:

I recently closed a support business which I ran for 11 years. All dos & *******.

Personally, I am really happy that I only know 1 other household who is using Linux (Ubuntu), & they know more about it than me by now :)

So, the meager amount of support that I do give to Ubuntu is in the forums, voluntarily. (Mostly moral :-D )

Evangelizing will only bring other peoples trouble to my door. Diluting the enexpected freedom & enjoyment that I have found in Ubuntu & the Ubuntu Community.

I'll see how Dapper is going in a couple of months.

If Breezy was the end of the Ubuntu developement cycle, I would be totally happy, & can not yet imagine a reason to change OS's! :KS

P.S. I do appreciate that many people have needs that are not satisfied by Ubuntu (linux). I'm not one of them!

[edit:] I don't mind evangelizing anonymously! :-)

[trorion]

Security: I don't know much about security but I do know that it's more likely to affect OSX than Linux (just numbers) and thus far I have only seen MS Office viruses in OSX.

Mentality: People will blame everything then they will blame Windows. I have a friend who has been bugging me to help him because he bought a USB drive that's broken. He explains the problem and I tell him: the drive isn't broken, it just doesn't work with Windows 98. I can run a liveCD of linux and you'll be able to use it. He bought a new USB drive that 'works' now.

Business Conversion: MS will continue to dominate in the business desktop market because of things like Internet Explorer (how many web-based applications do you use at work? Want to take a guess at how many of those REQUIRE I.E. version x.x?) and MS Office (no, OO isn't a substitute). Cost of converting people from those applications would be obscene in lost productivity. This lock could be broken by states following suite with MA, TX, MN, OR and Sweden(?) to require open data formats. The Internet Explorer lock is probably going to be worse but I have yet to hear an end user say "boy, I love these IE based apps!"

Home Conversions: will follow business conversions but will need a system that offers easier access to the big 7: Email, Internet, Video, Music, Games, Finance and photos. Email, Internet and Photos are easy enough in Linux but it still has problems with Video, Music, games and Finance.

VISTA will do fine as long as it's shipped with new computers and (this is disgusting) MANUFACTURERS MUST PAY FOR VISTA ON EVERY COMPUTER THEY SELL REGARDLESS OF WETHER THEY INSTALL IT OR NOT. Yes that's right, If Dell wants to sell computers with Windows VISTA loaded and not pay retail price ($289 retail vs $50 based on volume) they have to pay for VISTA to be installed on every computer they sell even if they install Ubuntu instead of VISTA. Add the restrictive license that says they can't install any programs that "interfere with the boot process for Windows" and you won't soon see computers shipping with linux except boutique shops.

Worthless opinion on my part.

[prizrak]

Security: I don't know much about security but I do know that it's more likely to affect OSX than Linux (just numbers) and thus far I have only seen MS Office viruses in OSX.

OS X isn't more popular than Linux not in the very least. It's about the same one the desktop and is virtually nonexistant on the servers.

[handy]

Security: I don't know much about security but I do know that it's more likely to affect OSX than Linux (just numbers) and thus far I have only seen MS Office viruses in OSX.


Please read this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/)?

[prizrak]

Please read this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/)?
While Linux has better defaults than Windows it is not bullet proof. You have to remember that a virus does not attack an OS, it attacks a security hole in something that is running on that OS. In Windows it might be IE that is compromised, in Linux it could be a different program for instance Apache. In fact there was an Apache slammer worm that spread extremely quickly.

While maybe Evolution will not be affected by a virus that uses e-mail to spread, Thunderbird might be. Make no mistake there are enough things that are present in vritually every Linux distribution to make Linux viruses highly effective. Once Linux based OS's are used by enough regular folks there will be more than enough stupid users who will put in their passwords when prompted without thinking.

Of course if the quality of code in Linux will continue to be on the same level as it is now it will never become as bad as Windows in the virus department. Having central repositories will aslo help security issues since a single updater can update all of the software installed on a machine. There are also tools such as SELinux that are enabled by default in Fedora Core 5 and has some policies set out of the box (Ubuntu has SELinux installed but not enabled and there are no policies), which would mitigate many risks from unpatched software.

Linux IS more secure than Windows but I don't want people to have a false sense of security and think that nothing would ever happen. OS X users are doing that and there are already viruses in the wild that work just like Windows ones (through the web browser) and the users have no idea how to deal with them.

[DeusEx]

On XP, a real big issue here is that a restricted user can't connect USB printers because when connecting each new printer an installer needs to install new USB drivers, which requires Administrator rights.
That's why we're still using lpt!

*edit*
and remotely doing administrative stuff in the user's profile requires: RD as an admin, make user admin, logoff, RD as user, do tricks, log off, RD as admin, make user user, log off, have user login again.

[handy]

While Linux has better defaults than Windows it is not bullet proof. You have to remember that a virus does not attack an OS, it attacks a security hole in something that is running on that OS. In Windows it might be IE that is compromised, in Linux it could be a different program for instance Apache. In fact there was an Apache slammer worm that spread extremely quickly.

While maybe Evolution will not be affected by a virus that uses e-mail to spread, Thunderbird might be. Make no mistake there are enough things that are present in vritually every Linux distribution to make Linux viruses highly effective. Once Linux based OS's are used by enough regular folks there will be more than enough stupid users who will put in their passwords when prompted without thinking.

Of course if the quality of code in Linux will continue to be on the same level as it is now it will never become as bad as Windows in the virus department. Having central repositories will aslo help security issues since a single updater can update all of the software installed on a machine. There are also tools such as SELinux that are enabled by default in Fedora Core 5 and has some policies set out of the box (Ubuntu has SELinux installed but not enabled and there are no policies), which would mitigate many risks from unpatched software.

Linux IS more secure than Windows but I don't want people to have a false sense of security and think that nothing would ever happen. OS X users are doing that and there are already viruses in the wild that work just like Windows ones (through the web browser) and the users have no idea how to deal with them.

Thanks for the heads up!

Do you use a firewall &/or virus checker on your home Ubuntu box?

The vast majority of us don't!

[Carrots171]

isn't vista's eye candy effects going to be annoying to the 'i just want it to work' crowd?

Most tech-savvy people see Vista this way: "Well, it does has a lot of new eyecandy, but not much has changed in terms of the OS itself. Sure, there are a few new features that have been ripped off from Macintosh, but but not much else."

Most "average" people will see Vista this way: "WOW!!! THIS LOOKS SO COOL!! IT'S ALL TRANSPARENT AND COOL LOOKING!!! WINDOWS VISTA IS THE BEST OPERATING SYSTEM EVER MADE!!!!!!!!"

It's just like Microsoft Office: For features that the "average" person uses everyday, each new version of MS Office changes very little. But, each new version looks a lot better in terms of eyecandy, which is the reason why a lot of people think it's actually better and upgrade.

[prizrak]

Thanks for the heads up!

Do you use a firewall &/or virus checker on your home Ubuntu box?

The vast majority of us don't!
I have an external firewall that I use for my entire network so no local one is running on Ubuntu. There is only one Linux virus checker I am aware of that checks for Linux viruses and it is not free in any sense of the word. The rest only check for Windows viruses to make sure you don't pass them on to the Windows users.


It's just like Microsoft Office: For features that the "average" person uses everyday, each new version of MS Office changes very little. But, each new version looks a lot better in terms of eyecandy, which is the reason why a lot of people think it's actually better and upgrade.
Actually just about the only reason for people to upgrade Office is because each new version's documents cannot be opened by the previous version.

[ComplexNumber]

Most "average" people will see Vista this way: "WOW!!! THIS LOOKS SO COOL!! IT'S ALL TRANSPARENT AND COOL LOOKING!!! WINDOWS VISTA IS THE BEST OPERATING SYSTEM EVER MADE!!!!!!!!" unfortunately, that is just so true. all show and no substance. in microsoft's eyes, thats all its ever been and its all that matters - the work of clever marketing to dupe the public.

[aysiu]

unfortunately, that is just so true. all show and no substance. in microsoft's eyes, thats all its ever been and its all that matters - the work of clever marketing to dupe the public. I came to Ubuntu for the eye candy, actually...

[Lord Illidan]

I came to Ubuntu for the eye candy, actually...

I did not. Lol... I kept switching distros, until I learned I could change the brown theme. Now that Dapper's theme looks great, I can say that Ubuntu has eye candy!

The one thing I hate about Linux : zealots who "proselytise" Linux. They get obnoxious. I have to admit that I was one of them, until I saw a Jehovah Witness, and realised I was like him in evangelising Linux.

Since then, I have stopped. Imho, it is stupid to evangelise Linux. It is not a religion. People will switch if they have a reason to, like I did, not because someone is nagging them to do it, or leaving cds all over the place.

And about leaving Ubuntu cds all over the place, I would never pick up a cd like that, and use it, just imagine booting from it, unless i scan it for virus throughly.

[bruce89]

Most "average" people will see Vista this way: "WOW!!! THIS LOOKS SO COOL!! IT'S ALL TRANSPARENT AND COOL LOOKING!!! WINDOWS VISTA IS THE BEST OPERATING SYSTEM EVER MADE!!!!!!!!"[/QUOTE]
Possibly all in leet, with bad grammar and spelling would be more true to life.

[Lord Illidan]

Most "average" people will see Vista this way: "WOW!!! THIS LOOKS SO COOL!! IT'S ALL TRANSPARENT AND COOL LOOKING!!! WINDOWS VISTA IS THE BEST OPERATING SYSTEM EVER MADE!!!!!!!!" Possibly all in leet, with bad grammar and spelling would be more true to life.[/quote]

The age old adage of style over substance is proved again, then!