Linux is free.

Windows is not.

Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

Windows XP.

Linux is free.

Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

Linux is free.

Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

operating system called Vista.

Linux is free,

 

So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

 

After all, Linux is free.

Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

so good afterall.

 

How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

Windows?

It's a most common occurence.

 

So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

 

Where is Linux hiding?

 

Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

place.

It's not.

 

Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

year of Linux"

Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

year of Linux will ever arrive.

 

Why?

<dont.pullout@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1189260347.149706.323110@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

> Linux is free.

> Windows is not.

> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

> Windows XP.

> Linux is free.

> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

> Linux is free.

> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

> operating system called Vista.

> Linux is free,

>

> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>

> After all, Linux is free.

> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

> so good afterall.

>

> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

> Windows?

> It's a most common occurence.

>

> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

>

> Where is Linux hiding?

>

> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

> place.

> It's not.

>

> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

> year of Linux"

> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

> year of Linux will ever arrive.

>

> Why?

>

 

 

Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it. If

no one is making money no one is selling it. If no one is selling it there

is no mainstream distribution channel. Someone could easily create a

distribution (Ubuntu is one) that could compete with Windows. To become

popular and gain significant market share they would have to spend a lot of

money marketing it. Where would they get a return from that investment? If

there was a great demand for it OEMs would be free to distribute it and not

pay the creator of the distro. The reason for slow linux adoption is not

because it is technically inferior to Windows. It is financial and societal.

The capitalist system doesn't work when trying to market something that is

free.

 

--

Kerry Brown

Microsoft MVP - Shell/User

http://www.vistahelp.ca

On Sep 8, 10:21 am, "Kerry Brown" <ke...@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m>

wrote:

> <dont.pull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>

> news:1189260347.149706.323110@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

> > Linux is free.

> > Windows is not.

> > Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

> > Windows XP.

> > Linux is free.

> > Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

> > Linux is free.

> > Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

> > operating system called Vista.

> > Linux is free,

>

> > So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

> > Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>

> > After all, Linux is free.

> > Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

> > so good afterall.

>

> > How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

> > tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

> > Windows?

> > It's a most common occurence.

>

> > So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

>

> > Where is Linux hiding?

>

> > Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

> > arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

> > place.

> > It's not.

>

> > Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

> > year of Linux"

> > Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

> > and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

> > year of Linux will ever arrive.

>

> > Why?

>

> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it. If

> no one is making money no one is selling it. If no one is selling it there

> is no mainstream distribution channel. Someone could easily create a

> distribution (Ubuntu is one) that could compete with Windows. To become

> popular and gain significant market share they would have to spend a lot of

> money marketing it. Where would they get a return from that investment? If

> there was a great demand for it OEMs would be free to distribute it and not

> pay the creator of the distro. The reason for slow linux adoption is not

> because it is technically inferior to Windows. It is financial and societal.

> The capitalist system doesn't work when trying to market something that is

> free.

>

> --

> Kerry Brown

> Microsoft MVP - Shell/Userhttp://www.vistahelp.ca

 

Linux is already technically superior to Windows however Windows has

the base market share and quantity of users because of Microsoft's

lock in.

It's not easy for Windows, or any other OS using person to just jump

ship and switch. There is a lot of money and time invested in the OS

that they are currently running and the alternative has to provide a

clear and worthwhile advantage.

At the moment Linux does not provide such an advantage which is the

primary reason why even though being free it has been almost totally

ignored by Windows users, especially desktop users.

 

A good example of where Linux is a worthwhile alternative is in the

movie industry which is moving to Linux by storm.

Why?

Simple, they are moving off their highly proprietary and EXPENSIVE SGI

hardware platforms onto Intel/AMD based generic platforms.

Linux pundits like to use the movie studio example to show how Linux

is gaining ground against Windows but the truth is that these studios

were never using Windows much in the first place with the exception of

the front office.

 

So now you have average Joe with his entire life on his Windows

machine and Linux has to provide him with a reason to switch.

So what is it?

He already has tons of software and doesn't mind paying for additional

software if he needs it.

His Windows machine syncs to his PDA, his Phone, his mp3 player and

all his hardware and allows automatic updating of calenders, phone

lists, mp3 files and so forth. He likes iTunes and uses day trading

programs. He is also required to take corporate training, much of

which is CBT based.

 

Can Linux do all of that and do it easily and full featured?

Doubtful.

 

And THAT is why Linux is going no place on the desktop.

 

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

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 07:05:47 -0700, dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

>Linux is free.

>Windows is not.

>Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>Windows XP.

>Linux is free.

>Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>Linux is free.

>Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>operating system called Vista.

>Linux is free,

>

>So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

there is NO SUPPORT for a FREE program

there are very few programs written for Linux.

Windows OWNS 90% of the computer market.

No one's ever heard of Linux.

The AVERAGE computer user, knows how to use a keyboard, pictures and a mouse.

Linux needs technical knowledge just to set it up.

M$ Support = 24/7 but costly. And severely limited in technical expertise.

--

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

<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 :-)

 

--

Kerry Brown

Microsoft MVP - Shell/User

http://www.vistahelp.ca

dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

> Linux is free.

> Windows is not.

> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

> Windows XP.

> Linux is free.

> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

> Linux is free.

> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

> operating system called Vista.

> Linux is free,

>

> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>

> After all, Linux is free.

> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

> so good afterall.

>

> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

> Windows?

> It's a most common occurence.

>

> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

>

> Where is Linux hiding?

>

> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

> place.

> It's not.

>

> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

> year of Linux"

> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

> year of Linux will ever arrive.

>

> Why?

>

 

When XP came out, there was no mention of Linux on XP.general. Now even

die hard MS fanboys are starting threads about Linux on this Vista

newsgroup. Why?

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Kerry Brown wrote:

> <dont.pullout@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:1189260347.149706.323110@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

>> Linux is free.

>> Windows is not.

>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>> Windows XP.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>> operating system called Vista.

>> Linux is free,

>>

>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>>

>> After all, Linux is free.

>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

>> so good afterall.

>>

>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

>> Windows?

>> It's a most common occurence.

>>

>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

>>

>> Where is Linux hiding?

>>

>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

>> place.

>> It's not.

>>

>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

>> year of Linux"

>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

>> year of Linux will ever arrive.

>>

>> Why?

>>

>

>

> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it.

> If no one is making money no one is selling it. If no one is selling it

> there is no mainstream distribution channel. Someone could easily create

> a distribution (Ubuntu is one) that could compete with Windows. To

> become popular and gain significant market share they would have to

> spend a lot of money marketing it. Where would they get a return from

> that investment? If there was a great demand for it OEMs would be free

> to distribute it and not pay the creator of the distro. The reason for

> slow linux adoption is not because it is technically inferior to

> Windows. It is financial and societal. The capitalist system doesn't

> work when trying to market something that is free.

>

 

 

Nail on head, simple as that.

Kerry Brown wrote:

> <dont.pullout@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:1189260347.149706.323110@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

>> Linux is free.

>> Windows is not.

>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>> Windows XP.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>> operating system called Vista.

>> Linux is free,

>>

>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>>

>> After all, Linux is free.

>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

>> so good afterall.

>>

>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

>> Windows?

>> It's a most common occurence.

>>

>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

>>

>> Where is Linux hiding?

>>

>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

>> place.

>> It's not.

>>

>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

>> year of Linux"

>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

>> year of Linux will ever arrive.

>>

>> Why?

>>

>

>

> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it.

 

Gosh, I guess this "MVP" hasn't heard of making money from tech support.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

news:fbugqv$f5v$1@aioe.org...

> dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

>> Linux is free.

>> Windows is not.

>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>> Windows XP.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>> operating system called Vista.

>> Linux is free,

>>

>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>>

>> After all, Linux is free.

>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

>> so good afterall.

>>

>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

>> Windows?

>> It's a most common occurence.

>>

>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

>>

>> Where is Linux hiding?

>>

>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

>> place.

>> It's not.

>>

>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

>> year of Linux"

>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

>> year of Linux will ever arrive.

>>

>> Why?

>>

>

> When XP came out, there was no mention of Linux on XP.general. Now even

> die hard MS fanboys are starting threads about Linux on this Vista

> newsgroup. Why?

 

Because they like to annoy you!

>

> --

> Alias

> To email me, remove shoes

Alias wrote:

> dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

>

>> Linux is free.

>> Windows is not.

>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>> Windows XP.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>> operating system called Vista.

>> Linux is free,

>>

>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>>

>> After all, Linux is free.

>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

>> so good afterall.

>>

>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

>> Windows?

>> It's a most common occurence.

>>

>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

>>

>> Where is Linux hiding?

>>

>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

>> place.

>> It's not.

>>

>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

>> year of Linux"

>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

>> year of Linux will ever arrive.

>>

>> Why?

>>

>

> When XP came out, there was no mention of Linux on XP.general. Now even

> die hard MS fanboys are starting threads about Linux on this Vista

> newsgroup. Why?

>

 

They are?

I don't think so!

Frank

Charlie Tame wrote:

> Kerry Brown wrote:

>> <dont.pullout@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:1189260347.149706.323110@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Windows is not.

>>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>>> Windows XP.

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>>> operating system called Vista.

>>> Linux is free,

>>>

>>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>>>

>>> After all, Linux is free.

>>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

>>> so good afterall.

>>>

>>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

>>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

>>> Windows?

>>> It's a most common occurence.

>>>

>>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

>>>

>>> Where is Linux hiding?

>>>

>>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

>>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

>>> place.

>>> It's not.

>>>

>>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

>>> year of Linux"

>>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

>>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

>>> year of Linux will ever arrive.

>>>

>>> Why?

>>>

>>

>>

>> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from

>> it. If no one is making money no one is selling it. If no one is

>> selling it there is no mainstream distribution channel. Someone could

>> easily create a distribution (Ubuntu is one) that could compete with

>> Windows. To become popular and gain significant market share they

>> would have to spend a lot of money marketing it. Where would they get

>> a return from that investment? If there was a great demand for it OEMs

>> would be free to distribute it and not pay the creator of the distro.

>> The reason for slow linux adoption is not because it is technically

>> inferior to Windows. It is financial and societal. The capitalist

>> system doesn't work when trying to market something that is free.

>>

>

>

> Nail on head, simple as that.

 

Didn't Linux go capitalist with Novell and Suse?

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.

keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 07:05:47 -0700, dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

>

>> Linux is free.

>> Windows is not.

>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>> Windows XP.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>> operating system called Vista.

>> Linux is free,

>>

>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

> there is NO SUPPORT for a FREE program

 

Idiot

> there are very few programs written for Linux.

 

Idiot

> Windows OWNS 90% of the computer market.

 

Who is "Windows?"

> No one's ever heard of Linux.

 

Idiot

> The AVERAGE computer user, knows how to use a keyboard, pictures and a mouse.

 

And Linux is perfect for that and free.

> Linux needs technical knowledge just to set it up.

 

Less than Vista you obviously never tried.

> M$ Support = 24/7 but costly. And severely limited in technical expertise.

 

Also wrong, this group costs nothing and whilst some MVPs are nothing

more than shills and fanboys they are the noisy minority, just as in any

other group. Many MVPs advice and websites are far better than MS

official ones. Learn what to ignore and you won't be anywhere near so

misinformed, however it seem you chose to make a career out of being

misinformed so maybe you better get back to work?

Spanky deMonkey wrote:

> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:fbugqv$f5v$1@aioe.org...

>> dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Windows is not.

>>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>>> Windows XP.

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>>> operating system called Vista.

>>> Linux is free,

>>>

>>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>>>

>>> After all, Linux is free.

>>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

>>> so good afterall.

>>>

>>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

>>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

>>> Windows?

>>> It's a most common occurence.

>>>

>>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

>>>

>>> Where is Linux hiding?

>>>

>>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

>>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

>>> place.

>>> It's not.

>>>

>>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

>>> year of Linux"

>>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

>>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

>>> year of Linux will ever arrive.

>>>

>>> Why?

>>>

>> When XP came out, there was no mention of Linux on XP.general. Now even

>> die hard MS fanboys are starting threads about Linux on this Vista

>> newsgroup. Why?

>

> Because they like to annoy you!

 

Doesn't annoy me at all. It is interesting that Linux is talked about

here almost as much as Hasta la Vista, Baby!

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>> dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

>>

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Windows is not.

>>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>>> Windows XP.

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>>> operating system called Vista.

>>> Linux is free,

>>>

>>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>>>

>>> After all, Linux is free.

>>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

>>> so good afterall.

>>>

>>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

>>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

>>> Windows?

>>> It's a most common occurence.

>>>

>>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

>>>

>>> Where is Linux hiding?

>>>

>>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

>>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

>>> place.

>>> It's not.

>>>

>>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

>>> year of Linux"

>>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

>>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

>>> year of Linux will ever arrive.

>>>

>>> Why?

>>>

>>

>> When XP came out, there was no mention of Linux on XP.general. Now

>> even die hard MS fanboys are starting threads about Linux on this

>> Vista newsgroup. Why?

>>

>

> They are?

> I don't think so!

> Frank

 

Unbelievable, the old man is in a constant state of denial. Who started

this thread about Linux?

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

"John Bailo, Texeme.Construct" <jabailo@texeme.com> wrote in

news:1189268155.391560.181440@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

> On Sep 8, 8:30 am, Handover Phist <ja...@jason.websterscafe.com>

> wrote:

>

>> Many reasons. Until recently it was more difficult to use, even if it

>> was more secure and efficient. Price pointing was never a factor and

>

> I was amazed just now when running a CNN video feature from Yahoo

> Firefox started up the popup windown with mplayer plugin cleanly and

> fluidly.

>

> I remember that not working too well for me a year ago.

 

But yet if you read Linux groups from a year ago you will find that many

people will claim that it works fine for them. That is unfortunately

another poor trait of Linux groups in general. Linux always seems to work

fine for the Linux users yet these same people seem to have horrible

problems with Windows.

Linux advocates have been claiming for years that Linux fonts are fine yet

it has just been recently, like the last 2 years or so where the Linux

fonts have started to look good. Printing is another area where Linux users

claim it just works. Sure it does, if you happen to own a Postscript or

possibly HP printer which traditionally have worked reasonably well with

Linux. Up until recently, printer support for Linux has been terrible.

Even Eric Raymond had problems making CUPS work.

 

http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html

 

Yet there was the Linux community making all these wild -works for me-

claims just like they generally do.

 

Web browser plugins are another horror story, as you have found out.

Depending upon the distribution, some work rather well these days but that

was not always the case and once again the Linux advocates were claiming it

works fine for them so it must be user error.

 

People pay for Windows rather than use free Linux because their time is

valuable and they don't feel like being treated to lies when they ask a

question in a Linux group.

Kerry Brown wrote:

> <dont.pullout@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:1189260347.149706.323110@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

>> Linux is free.

>> Windows is not.

>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>> Windows XP.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>> operating system called Vista.

>> Linux is free,

>>

>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>>

>> After all, Linux is free.

>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

>> so good afterall.

>>

>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

>> Windows?

>> It's a most common occurence.

>>

>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

>>

>> Where is Linux hiding?

>>

>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

>> place.

>> It's not.

>>

>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

>> year of Linux"

>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

>> year of Linux will ever arrive.

>>

>> Why?

>>

>

>

> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it.

> If no one is making money no one is selling it. If no one is selling it

> there is no mainstream distribution channel. Someone could easily create

> a distribution (Ubuntu is one) that could compete with Windows. To

> become popular and gain significant market share they would have to

> spend a lot of money marketing it. Where would they get a return from

> that investment? If there was a great demand for it OEMs would be free

> to distribute it and not pay the creator of the distro. The reason for

> slow linux adoption is not because it is technically inferior to

> Windows. It is financial and societal. The capitalist system doesn't

> work when trying to market something that is free.

>

Ah. Common sense. :)

 

--

norm

norm wrote:

> Kerry Brown wrote:

>> <dont.pullout@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:1189260347.149706.323110@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Windows is not.

>>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>>> Windows XP.

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>>> operating system called Vista.

>>> Linux is free,

>>>

>>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>>>

>>> After all, Linux is free.

>>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

>>> so good afterall.

>>>

>>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

>>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

>>> Windows?

>>> It's a most common occurence.

>>>

>>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

>>>

>>> Where is Linux hiding?

>>>

>>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

>>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

>>> place.

>>> It's not.

>>>

>>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

>>> year of Linux"

>>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

>>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

>>> year of Linux will ever arrive.

>>>

>>> Why?

>>>

>>

>>

>> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from

>> it. If no one is making money no one is selling it. If no one is

>> selling it there is no mainstream distribution channel. Someone could

>> easily create a distribution (Ubuntu is one) that could compete with

>> Windows. To become popular and gain significant market share they

>> would have to spend a lot of money marketing it. Where would they get

>> a return from that investment? If there was a great demand for it OEMs

>> would be free to distribute it and not pay the creator of the distro.

>> The reason for slow linux adoption is not because it is technically

>> inferior to Windows. It is financial and societal. The capitalist

>> system doesn't work when trying to market something that is free.

>>

> Ah. Common sense. :)

>

 

 

Makes a refreshing change here doesn't it Norm :)

keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 07:05:47 -0700, dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

>

>> Linux is free.

>> Windows is not.

>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>> Windows XP.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>> Linux is free.

>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>> operating system called Vista.

>> Linux is free,

>>

>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

> there is NO SUPPORT for a FREE program

You have not looked very hard for such support. But, since you probably

don't use linux, why would you look for support? It is much easier to

make assumptions. If you download a free app for windows, might it have

support, even if it is just a faq or something similar?

> there are very few programs written for Linux.

My copy of kubuntu has access to thousands of programs through synaptic

in just the repositories. There are thousands more that can be found by

searching for what you might need.

> Windows OWNS 90% of the computer market.

Probably.

> No one's ever heard of Linux.

Even you have heard of linux. So it doesn't take an einstein to be aware

of it.

> The AVERAGE computer user, knows how to use a keyboard, pictures and a mouse.

I would hope so.

> Linux needs technical knowledge just to set it up.

Yup. Insert a disk, and follow prompts for basic setup, which will

generally satisfy most of the needs of your so called "average" user.

> M$ Support = 24/7 but costly. And severely limited in technical expertise.

????.

 

 

--

norm

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:09:21 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

wrote:

>Kerry Brown wrote:

>> <dont.pullout@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:1189260347.149706.323110@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Windows is not.

 

>> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it.

>> If no one is making money no one is selling it. If no one is selling it

>> there is no mainstream distribution channel.

 

Classic MVP misdirection. While you can obtain SOME versions of Linux

free online, it is also SOLD under many brand names and available both

on the web from countless sources as well as in the retail channel at

most computer/electronics retailers, like Best Buy, Circuit City,

Fry's, CompuUSA, even in the chain book stores like Borders where some

flavors are sold free standing as software others as a disc included

with many Linux related books. Surely somebody is "making money" if it

is this widely distributed.

 

Very funny that Microsoft supporters need to LIE to defend Microsoft.

 

This is NOT an endorsement of any flavor of Linux or any OS for that

matter. Simply injecting some MUCH NEEDED truth into this thread.

 

I have tried so far 7 versions of Linux. While not suitable for my

specialized needs, it is a good choice for many. Ditto for Windows

being a good choice for others. There is no one OS fits all. Period.

 

As far as Windows or Linux being "better" as far as superior in some

technological way that too is misleading since it depends WHAT you're

going to do with the OS. For gaming and high end video work Linux at

the present time isn't ready for prime time. However since a great

many people don't waste their time with excessive game playing or do

serious video editing and instead spend much of their time doing

simple word processing, reading email, surfing the web Linux for many

is equal to if not better than Windows if for no other reason some

versions are much cleaner than bloated Vista. So they can be more

stable, faster than Vista. Not everybody needs or wants some bloated

OS that eats up 18 GB that's comprised of 50 million lines of bug

infested code. Do the math. If Vista is 99% bug free look how many

lines of code are still potentially buggy.

Alias wrote:

> Spanky deMonkey wrote:

>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:fbugqv$f5v$1@aioe.org...

>>> dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>> Linux is free.

>>>> Windows is not.

>>>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>>>> Windows XP.

>>>> Linux is free.

>>>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>>>> Linux is free.

>>>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>>>> operating system called Vista.

>>>> Linux is free,

>>>>

>>>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>>>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>>>>

>>>> After all, Linux is free.

>>>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't

>>>> so good afterall.

>>>>

>>>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,

>>>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to

>>>> Windows?

>>>> It's a most common occurence.

>>>>

>>>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

>>>>

>>>> Where is Linux hiding?

>>>>

>>>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more

>>>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the

>>>> place.

>>>> It's not.

>>>>

>>>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the

>>>> year of Linux"

>>>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more

>>>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the

>>>> year of Linux will ever arrive.

>>>>

>>>> Why?

>>>>

>>> When XP came out, there was no mention of Linux on XP.general. Now

>>> even die hard MS fanboys are starting threads about Linux on this

>>> Vista newsgroup. Why?

>>

>> Because they like to annoy you!

>

> Doesn't annoy me at all. It is interesting that Linux is talked about

> here almost as much as Hasta la Vista, Baby!

>

 

With your constant lip service about it, why not?

Charlie Tame wrote:

> keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:

>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 07:05:47 -0700, dont.pullout@yahoo.com wrote:

>>

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Windows is not.

>>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with

>>> Windows XP.

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.

>>> Linux is free.

>>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)

>>> operating system called Vista.

>>> Linux is free,

>>>

>>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?

>>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

>> there is NO SUPPORT for a FREE program

>

> Idiot

>

>> there are very few programs written for Linux.

>

> Idiot

>

>> Windows OWNS 90% of the computer market.

>

> Who is "Windows?"

>

>> No one's ever heard of Linux.

>

> Idiot

>

>> The AVERAGE computer user, knows how to use a keyboard, pictures and a

>> mouse.

>

> And Linux is perfect for that and free.

>

>> Linux needs technical knowledge just to set it up.

>

> Less than Vista you obviously never tried.

>

>> M$ Support = 24/7 but costly. And severely limited in technical

>> expertise.

>

> Also wrong, this group costs nothing and whilst some MVPs are nothing

> more than shills and fanboys they are the noisy minority, just as in any

> other group. Many MVPs advice and websites are far better than MS

> official ones. Learn what to ignore and you won't be anywhere near so

> misinformed, however it seem you chose to make a career out of being

> misinformed so maybe you better get back to work?

 

<You shouldn't pay too much attention to Charlie Lame Brains out of the

UK. He is good at bashing anything in the US, even though this clown is

living in the US at this time.>

Adam Albright wrote:

 

<snipped the garbage>

 

 

<It's classic not so bright Albright running is mouth with his usual

bashing, and it doesn't matter what it is or about, as long as he can

get his bash in on it. And believe it or not, the old *clown* is using

Vista, and he has never seen or used Linux. How pathetic is that? How

can someone brainwash himself on something he has *never* seen or used?

<VBG>>

"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

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 10:49:15 -0700, Kerry Brown wrote:

> "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.

>

 

However, nobody at present owns the patent for the production of books.

 

So in the fullness of time, the M$ monopoly will inevitably be superseded.

 

Like books, knowledge of how to provide knowledge via a computer will

become common property, and not the property of a capitalist monopoly.

 

To be sure, in the early days of printing, books were restricted to those

who could afford them.

 

But as sure as night follows day, this will change.

 

So, the average computer user actually has a choice.

 

Even though M$ would wish to deny it.

 

Either be part of the past, or join the future.