"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:Oo7zLYj8HHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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.
I agree with some of this. I disagree that Vista is that poor that there
will be a mass exodus from Windows. It is no worse and better than most
major new versions of Windows at first release. It is very different and has
a steep learning curve. It has some bugs and performance problems that
should be addressed. It has caused a lot of problems for software and
hardware vendors who can't figure out how to program for security. In my
opinion however it is the best major new version of Windows since NT. I
think the problem is that it has been a long time since a major new version
of Windows. A lot of people haven't experienced the joys of incompatibility
before.
The other point you make about Microsoft's policies creating a backlash is
very true. When you couple the frustration people are feeling about these
policies with the teething problems of a major version change the door is
opening for the competition. Unfortunately for the linux crowd I don't think
they will be able to take advantage of this. There is too much
disorganization with no clear vision of how to take advantage of this
opportunity. This goes back to my original point that for linux (or any
product) to succeed there initially needs to be one entity in charge and
they need to be draconian about it. I do see major opportunity for Apple to
gain market share. I also see a big opportunity for possibly Sun or maybe
even Corel to make some inroads into the Office market. The way OEM Office
2007 is being pushed as a trial on every OEM computer is causing a lot of
customer pain that may cause a backlash.
Your point about companies switching to linux is valid from a server
perspective but I don't see how this applies to the desktop. The backend of
the system is just a black box to the end users on a corporate network. They
don't care or probably even know what OS or what version of SQL is on the
servers. They do care about what is on their desktop. The cost of training
and overcoming employee resistance is the deciding factor here. I don't deal
with any very large companies, mostly smaller ones with 5 to 50
workstations. I just helped one company that has rapidly grown from around
ten workstations to sixty or so. They were switching from an outsourced
pop/imap email solution to Exchange. The technical portion of the switch
over was simple, quick, (a couple of days) and relatively inexpensive. They
are actually saving about $2,000 per month. The training and overcoming user
resistance to change took about four months and probably ate up the first
year's savings. It would be harder to change the corporate desktop to an
alternative OS than it would be to change home users. If home users changed
first then the corporate world would be much easier to change as there would
be far less resistance from the end users. With Vista being forced on home
users through the OEM channel by the time most companies are ready to change
a lot of the users will already be familiar with Vista and won't need a lot
of training.
--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca
