PDA

View Full Version : Widespread acceptance...



binary-boy
May 7th, 2005, 03:33 PM
OK, brainstorming session....

What would it take for Linux to become widely accepted and used in non-techie land? Something like 40-50% market share....

Hardware support?
User interface?
Software availability?
Advertising?
OEMs building and shipping Linux boxes?

kleeman
May 7th, 2005, 03:50 PM
The basic problem is critical mass:

At present linux is hard to use because manufacturers of hardware and many software makers only write drivers and apps for the OS in widespread use since they consider minority OS's like linux a waste of money. Because M$ has a virtual monopoly hardware manufacturers have to provide the divers for M$ so M$ has to do nothing, To break this will require linux useage to get above 5-10% in my view. Then there will be incentive (at least as much as there is now to provide mac drivers) and the whole thing will take off. As we are now at maybe 3% usage drivers are often written by users (often using reverse engineering) or else by manufacturers servicing niche markets (eg hp and printer, nvidia and graphic workstations).

The other issue is ease of use: Winblows is easier to use - this is M$'s major corporate focus. If usage goes to 10% there will be strong incentive by companies such as Xandros (or Canonical ???) to comprehensively provide easy to use solutions.

Of course a lot of Linux users don't want the above scenario and are happy with the 3% usage level. I am agnostic.

Stormy Eyes
May 7th, 2005, 03:52 PM
OK, brainstorming session....

What would it take for Linux to become widely accepted and used in non-techie land? Something like 40-50% market share....

Corporate acceptance. When you see Linux own the corporate desktop, you'll eventually see it on home desktops. Do you think anybody would have put up with Windows at home if they hadn't been exposed to it on the job?

Spoofhound
May 7th, 2005, 04:21 PM
Corporate acceptance. When you see Linux own the corporate desktop, you'll eventually see it on home desktops.

Corporate acceptance will be important, but I don't believe its enough. Cost, stability, security and manageability will be important for enterprise take-up - particularly for the budget holders and admins. However, currently its relatively more difficult for an average user to blindly add new apps to a Linux desktop (in windows its download, double click and answer yes or continue without thinking).

In an enterprise environment this is a good thing - as an IT manager you have to less concerns about users installing all sorts of crap into their environment and creating extra work for you and risk for your firm. However, I think that users are likely to see this as "limiting" and may feel that the perceived less restricted nature of windows or whatever is what they need at home - despite the obvious lack of security, stability etc. A high level of succes at enterprise level may get Linux the "for enterprise only" label which won't help in the home environment.

Basically, enterprise success is needed, but so is increased simplicity and some creative marketing - plus some of the existing SW apps/games makers to take a chance and see what might be achieved

binary-boy
May 7th, 2005, 04:27 PM
Oddly I think the cost is a factor but not in the expected way.... our company had a very odd philosophy that if something doesn't cost anything, then it has no value.

Still can't figure that one out.... :?

Spoofhound
May 7th, 2005, 04:45 PM
Oddly I think the cost is a factor but not in the expected way.... our company had a very odd philosophy that if something doesn't cost anything, then it has no value.

Still can't figure that one out.... :?

I think in general stuff that's free is treated by companies with suspicion with the expectation that there's a catch somewhere - if it seems too good to be true, then it probably is!

However, lets face it, an enterprise linux environment is not free, but generally is quite cost effective. Being new to linux I like the "free as in speech, not as in beer" concept (or something like that), which I've read in some of these forums. But I don't know if this helps much with consumer take-up

binary-boy
May 7th, 2005, 05:02 PM
True... it may not be free but could definitely help save costs despite various reports to the contrary (usually sponsored my M$!)... it's just the unwillingness to consider it which puzzles me.

az
May 7th, 2005, 05:40 PM
OK, brainstorming session....

What would it take for Linux to become widely accepted and used in non-techie land? Something like 40-50% market share....

Hardware support?
User interface?
Software availability?
Advertising?
OEMs building and shipping Linux boxes?


1. Software that never requires you to drop down to the command line to get it to work. Ubuntu is getting cloer to that all the time.
2. Hardware support. That will not happen until a lot of people (greater than 10 percent of the desktop market) use it. That is contigent on Point #1.
3. The appreciation of free software. When people realize that their computer is a black box which can do someone else's wishes with your data, people will turn to free (libre) software. Companies also will appreciate the open source developmental model for software production.

binary-boy
May 7th, 2005, 05:52 PM
All of these seem to be relying on "people" accepting things/working things out for themselves. This isn't going to happen, "people" are inheritantly lazy and will go with whatever's the easiest route when it comes to something they're not particularly interested in, but want.

The only way concepts like Linux and open projects will become widespread will be via some kind of "push" from it's community instead of waiting for a "pull" from the rest of the world.

Ubunted
May 7th, 2005, 08:13 PM
An MSI-type one-click installer format would go a loooooong way. As said above - program installation should require no command-line useage.

Though I understand this is coming with the 2.8 or 3.0 kernel?

TravisNewman
May 7th, 2005, 09:01 PM
I'm not sure how the kernel can have any effect on the installation of software like that

Stormy Eyes
May 7th, 2005, 10:27 PM
All of these seem to be relying on "people" accepting things/working things out for themselves.

I know. I personally think that it's better if people freely choose to use Linux instead of getting it preinstalled or being forced to use it. Right now, Linux may be the minority OS, but it's also the OS for people who actually want to make a choice for themselves instead of having other people choose for them.


This isn't going to happen, "people" are inheritantly lazy and will go with whatever's the easiest route when it comes to something they're not particularly interested in, but want.

I'm not trying to flame, but I have grave doubts when it comes to getting people who don't want to make an effort to use Linux. I know it sounds elitist, but is it truly worthwhile to sell Linux to people who are genuinely content with Windows? If they don't care about security, or freedom, or even about having to deal with malware and defective software, then why not leave them alone? They can always come to us when they've seen reason, or when they've left patience behind.

Being an American who must sometimes deal with well-meaning people who want to "save my soul" by persuading me to convert to their brand of Christianity, I am wary of the idea that Linux needs evangelism and that it must convert Windows-using 'infidels' in order to gain ground. I think it is better to focus on making Linux better than anything else available while spreading the word that "You can do as you like, but Linux is here if you want it, and we're here when you want our help."

But I'm biased from my experiences. Nobody persuaded me to use Linux. I sought it out on my own, when I fell in love with Unix and wanted Unix at home. I asked around, was told that Linux would give me what I wanted, and so I started using Linux.

poofyhairguy
May 7th, 2005, 10:50 PM
What would it take for Linux to become widely accepted and used in non-techie land? Something like 40-50% market share....

I vote for these two:



Advertising?
OEMs building and shipping Linux boxes?

Without them mass markets will not be reached....

crun
May 7th, 2005, 11:18 PM
I concur with Stormy Eyes' second point. If you'd like people to switch to Linux, constantly preaching about it to them would be the wrong way to go. If you sneer at Windows users each time they tell you about spyware or insecurity and remind them of how much better your system works, you won't build much goodwill, just resentment.

Myself, I like to occasionally show friends and colleagues some new cool feature or program I've added. Doing this creates and interest, and shows people that there's more ways of getting your work done than they're used to.

On the other hand, some people will still take this the wrong way - my chef is is very much anti-everything that's not Windows, and for instance gets mad at me when I'm using Open Office instead of MS Office. In effect I'm showing him you can do the same work on a free (beer) piece of software as the one he wants to spend money on, something he just doesn't want to accept.

binary-boy
May 8th, 2005, 03:09 PM
I'm not trying to flame, but I have grave doubts when it comes to getting people who don't want to make an effort to use Linux. I know it sounds elitist, but is it truly worthwhile to sell Linux to people who are genuinely content with Windows? If they don't care about security, or freedom, or even about having to deal with malware and defective software, then why not leave them alone? They can always come to us when they've seen reason, or when they've left patience behind.

I completely agree, assuming these people are aware of the alternatives. Most people I've spoken to think that Windows is just part of a computer and there are no alternatives.

carlc
May 8th, 2005, 03:43 PM
Should widespread acceptance be the goal? How about targeting people who have an interest in learning that have not already switched to Linux. It seems that the only way to gain all of the XP crowd would with an OS like XP. It would be like lowering college admission requirements so that everyone could attend. If a Linux distro is ever produced that gains widespread acceptance, I vote to call it WalMart Linux.

binary-boy
May 8th, 2005, 03:49 PM
That's a fair point. Shame though, can you imagine how much more smoothly the world would run if Linux were where Windows is now.

Perhaps I'm just too much of an idealist! :)

Kimm
May 8th, 2005, 03:55 PM
I completely agree, assuming these people are aware of the alternatives. Most people I've spoken to think that Windows is just part of a computer and there are no alternatives.


That's what I thought untill perhaps 2-3 years ago... the minute I realized theres an option away it went :P ;-)

MuckSavage
May 8th, 2005, 04:18 PM
M$ was "forced" onto the general populace, that's how it has it's marketshare. Most people have no idea there are alternatives, or, I'll bet, they don't care. As long as they can surf the web, play their games and chat with people online, it's good enough for them. Spyware, adware, viruses, have all become commonplace and accepted in the computer world. When grandma's pc becomes unusable because of malware, it is dismissed as "outdated" and a new one with a fresh windows install is bought.

I would love linux to become more mainstream. I use it as a hobby, being a computer geek at heart. But I have seen some great strides in the few years I have been using it. I think it will take a bit of shoe horning, mostly by low cost pc makers shipping linux without the "M$ tax" to corporate users. When corporate bean counters see how much they can save the company using a cheap pc with a free OS, I think it will gain steam.

Linux needs to jump on the firefox "free software" train.

binary-boy
May 8th, 2005, 04:29 PM
I'm no Microphile but I think "forced" may be a bit strong. At the time, there were no alternatives and Windows "did the job" however flaky it may have been.

Microsoft's fight against piracy is somewhat ironic however, since I'm convinced that it only became as popular as it did from people taking software home from work and making copies for them and their mates!

There needs to be a level of re-education here in that viruses aren't normal and a computer can be much cleaner and faster to use... but that'll only come once OEMs start shipping Linux PCs or at least giving the choice to the consumer.

Domhnull
May 8th, 2005, 04:32 PM
In interviewing new people for a clerical-type position once I asked the question:

Which OS would you want on a new computer: Windows XP, OS X, or Linux? Why?

I wanted someone that was flexible, willing to change, etc. Most of the applicants said Windows "because that's what I've used". One said they'd like to use OSX but hurriedly assured me they were comfortable with Windows. None had any idea what Linux was or showed any interest in it. A few said, of course, they'd use whatever was required for the position.

I can't say I was surprised about the responses. One of my employees was telling me the other day that they couldn't use their home Windows-based PC because of all of the popups and problems with the system. But they don't really see that there is an option. They don't know how to even use a Windows system effectively. For those users the idea of installing Linux is just too scary.

What would encourage widespread acceptance? The same thing that has happened in countries where Linux is gaining ground faster. Government adopting it for their offices would be a big help. Can you imagine how fast it would spread if local/state/federal government mandated a switch to open source? Not to mention the money it'd save tax payers. Plus all of those nice workers would then have much greater incentive to switch at home - they always want the same thing at home. If government offices mandated a switch it wouldn't take long for corporate & small business offices to do the same. Personally, if I were running a business all of the machines would be running Ubuntu :)

I think the other factor that would make a big difference is improved gaming. Transgaming.com is nice and I'm thrilled I can play World of WarCraft better under Linux than I was under WinXP. But Linux is far from the killer gaming platform right now. Without that support I think it'll be hard to get widespread acceptance. If, however, there were some really killer games available - that aren't available under Windows - I don't see gamers switching.

Of course there are other issues too. How many people immediately want to use MP3s instead of ogg vorbis when installing Ubuntu? Multimedia is another area that needs to be addressed - but even with free versions available many people will fight changing. It'll take work to convince people to switch to free software.

Given the obstacles I don't see it happening soon.

benplaut
May 8th, 2005, 07:03 PM
(excuse me if this has already been posted, i don't feal like reading through it all)

i think what linux needs is some unification. sure 3 or 4 distros are fine, but

one for enterprise

one for home user

one for server

one for [geeks]

(and, of course, one for embedded)

even with 4 distros, they would all need to be interrelated...

like the relationship between M$ Server and XP Pro...

think of how great a distro would be even if only half of the linux developers out there worked on it...

it could be incredible!

Arthemys
May 8th, 2005, 07:38 PM
One of the avenues that my company persues is system integration for both consumer and businesses. On a few occasions, we've built some linux boxes for general consumers, and for the most part they've been satisfied with the results.

At the time they were SuSE 9.2 Pro installs on those boxes, but after using Ubuntu I will probably try it on our hardware base.

Another thing I'd like to mention is that I -refuse- to sell linux to any consumer that wants a truely... "Easy" environment, unfortunately linux isn't at the stage right now where non-computer people can pick up the keyboard and mouse and just go to town.

One example being internet connectivity; "Where's AOL" or "Why doesn't Verizon DSL work when I plug it in"

Hardware compatibility is another thing, say a consumer walks out of my shop with a new linux box with a three year hardware warranty, having not just paid for a license of Windows... They bring it home and think everything's fine and dandy... "Oh crap I need a scanner/printer/combo deal from Staples up the road!"

Said MFC comes home to the linux box and they do NOT talk to each other, NOW the customer must call the place that built the computer to ask why "It's not working..."

Tech support on our part becomes costly when we give it away for free over the phone, it takes me away from my projects / tasks (as I'm the only linux guy at the shop). And I really can't tell the user to go to the forums for help when they don't have their Verizon DSL working out of the box.

Damn you Win32! ](*,)

poofyhairguy
May 8th, 2005, 10:58 PM
I think the other factor that would make a big difference is improved gaming. Transgaming.com is nice and I'm thrilled I can play World of WarCraft better under Linux than I was under WinXP. But Linux is far from the killer gaming platform right now. Without that support I think it'll be hard to get widespread acceptance. If, however, there were some really killer games available - that aren't available under Windows - I don't see gamers switching.

I think this is overstated. I think that Windows gamers are a LOUD (and very spend happy) minority of Window's users. Most gamers use a console.

I mean...I don't see gamers switching either. But Linux REALLY doesn't need them. Many of them want shiny new hardware from companies that refuse to make good drivers Linux and OSS (ATI I'm looking at you).

You have to think, for many companies that fear a loss of productivity, the lack of games in Linux is a good thing.....

poofyhairguy
May 8th, 2005, 11:00 PM
Another thing I'd like to mention is that I -refuse- to sell linux to any consumer that wants a truely... "Easy" environment, unfortunately linux isn't at the stage right now where non-computer people can pick up the keyboard and mouse and just go to town.


Yep. Thats the exact moment you say "you see that Apple store down the road? Why don't you go become their problem."

In the past year or so, I've outsourced a lot of my Window's work (to family, friends) to Apple.

Let them and AOL deal with the lowest common denominator in computerland.....

Domhnull
May 9th, 2005, 04:28 PM
I think this is overstated. I think that Windows gamers are a LOUD (and very spend happy) minority of Window's users. Most gamers use a console.

I mean...I don't see gamers switching either. But Linux REALLY doesn't need them. Many of them want shiny new hardware from companies that refuse to make good drivers Linux and OSS (ATI I'm looking at you).

You have to think, for many companies that fear a loss of productivity, the lack of games in Linux is a good thing.....

Good points. I do like consoles, but being a gamer who has switched, I would like to see more gaming support under linux. Including from those companies making the shiny new hardware. When I switched I realized I was just going to have to spend more time playing console games so a picked up a few new ones.

KiwiNZ
May 9th, 2005, 09:17 PM
Let them and AOL deal with the lowest common denominator in computerland.....[/QUOTE]

A customer is never the lowest common denominator , every customer is a treasure , even the angry customer is a gift .

poofyhairguy
May 10th, 2005, 01:00 AM
A customer is never the lowest common denominator , every customer is a treasure , even the angry customer is a gift .

There is a marketing department somewhere thats missing its messiah.

elasticwings
May 10th, 2005, 01:12 AM
A customer is never the lowest common denominator , every customer is a treasure , even the angry customer is a gift .
I take it you don't work in customer service.

Stormy Eyes
May 10th, 2005, 02:40 AM
A customer is never the lowest common denominator , every customer is a treasure , even the angry customer is a gift .


An angry customer is one thing. But rude or abusive customers are fit only to be crow bait.