Kerry Brown wrote:
> <devon.mcnasty@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1189262710.068372.279510@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snipped>
>
>> Money CAN be made with Linux by selling services, which is the same
>> way money is made with Windows. However you need to have people
>> willing to use Linux first and then start selling them services
>> contracts.
>> It's chicken and egg all over again.
>> I see Linux as a superior system but one that is going to ultimately
>> fail due to lack of interest.
>> It's a novelty now but seeing as it has gone virtually no place in 10
>> years (desktop) I can't see a bright future for Linux.
>> Devon
>>
>
> For linux to become popular it has to be installed on OEM machines. This
> is what initially drives the market. When a new Microsoft OS comes out
> the previous is eventually made irrelevant because new computers have
> the new OS. Most people don't care what OS they run. They walk into a
> store and buy whatever the salesman gets the best commission on. Once
> they get home or back to work they try to figure out how to use it. If
> new computers came with linux they would figure out and use linux. This
> model isn't based on selling a service but selling a product. OEM's
> aren't going to switch to linux anytime soon for several reasons. The
> main one is money. They have a lot of money invested in the Windows
> ecosystem. It would be very expensive for them to switch to a different
> OS even if the OS was free. That brings up the second problem. If the OS
> is free where is the incentive to develop it into a product that can be
> sold? Yes, some money can be made selling services to medium and big
> business. No, a lot of money can't be made selling desktop services to
> the general public. Currently the general public through OEM computer
> sales drives the desktop market.
>
> I stand by my original assertion that there is no technical reason why
> linux can't compete with Windows. The reason it isn't competing is
> because of the way linux is licensed. In a capitalist society a free
> product can't compete with a product that has an easy revenue stream.
> Everyone in the channel gets a little piece of the pie so you have a
> very large channel with the company at the top (Microsoft) controlling
> the channel. With linux there is no channel. There is no one at the top
> controlling how the channel works. For some one to get to this position
> would be impossible with the linux license.
>
> I'm not saying this model is a good thing. In my opinion it is the way
> things work. Perhaps the linux community should look to Apple as a
> model. Someone needs to create a proprietary distro and spend 100's of
> millions marketing it 
>
Again very true, however one thing that may make a difference (I guess
several smaller things).
If people pay a lot of money out expecting the best and get something
like Vista ultimate, but then run into loads of problems with it public
opinion may be swayed. PO goes a long way in what the more knowledgable
user will ask for from OEMs. IOW a lot of friends ask me about buying a
new machine - what I say may influence them and their friends.
PO is also influenced when paying customers are branded as thieves by an
OS that assumes you stole it unless it can contact it's "Master", some
server in Redmond. I entirely accept that MS has a legitimate piracy
problem and has every right to act as they see fit in response, the same
way that even as a Microsoft MVP and customer (and computer enthusiast)
I have a right to complain about what I see as a major flaw with this
policy.
My company would not consider an OS upgrade in less than a year anyway,
expecting some glitches, and at this time they are in any case tied into
proprietary software that only runs on windows, However if the backlash
against Vista prompts those software authors to supply a version that
can use a non MS SQL and a server package that replaces W2003 the
company will switch to the lowest cost solution. The users will also
have to switch, that means the familiarity with the other solution will
grow, and people are not too stupid to learn, they just tend to take the
easy familiar path is all.
By rearranging so many things in Vista that people hace grown familiar
with in XP Microsoft HAS imposed a similar learning curve on all those
users.
The apple OS is much like Linux, Sun's Solaris is much like Linux, so
although they will not directly be about to support free Linux there is
a user base out there, which from a learning curve point of view is not
insignificant.
Microsoft's biggest threat from Linux is in fact Microsoft, and the
various methods they have for demonstrating their own weaknesses to the
maximum number of users at any time - it is generally easier to knock
down the most exposed target. I think they are in danger mostly from
their own policies, WGA representing a shot in one foot, Activation / GA
being a shot to the other foot and the more recent debacle with an
activation server failure (Their own software fell over?) just missed
the head.
