Sell me on why I should use Linux instead of Windows XP Pro

[Ext User(Dave)]

> >
> > download iso for puppy linux, burn it to cdr, data, multisession
> > boot it
> >
> > Now I've just shattered someone's dreams of making a fortune helping
> > people migrate to linux. :) -Dave
>
>
> How so? The money will not be in installing Linux. It will be in
> helping people develop solutions that get the monkey off their backs.

Huh? I don't follow. Linux has everything you need, included,
usually. -Dave

[Ext User(Dave)]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:25:29 +0100
Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote:

> * Matt:
>
> > How so? The money will not be in installing Linux. It will be in
> > helping people develop solutions that get the monkey off their
> > backs.
>
> How many consumers actually pay for Windows support? Exactly, close
> no none. Why should they pay for Linux support?
>
> Benjamin

Y'know, what should really scare the shit out of the folks in Redmond
is, linux is slowly but surely becoming what windows should have been,
but never will be.

That is, linux is getting easier to install, configure, use, modify,
etc. Meanwhile, windows keeps regressing, getting harder to do
everything.

I'm betting within 10 years most people will be using linux as it is an
EASY solution, whereas they are tired of trying to get windows to work
how they want it to. :) -Dave

[Ext User(Dave)]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:25:29 +0100
Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote:

> * Matt:
>
> > How so? The money will not be in installing Linux. It will be in
> > helping people develop solutions that get the monkey off their
> > backs.
>
> How many consumers actually pay for Windows support? Exactly, close
> no none. Why should they pay for Linux support?
>
> Benjamin

Y'know, what should really scare the shit out of the folks in Redmond
is, linux is slowly but surely becoming what windows should have been,
but never will be.

That is, linux is getting easier to install, configure, use, modify,
etc. Meanwhile, windows keeps regressing, getting harder to do
everything.

I'm betting within 10 years most people will be using linux as it is an
EASY solution, whereas they are tired of trying to get windows to work
how they want it to. :) -Dave

[Ext User(Matt)]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * Matt:
>
>> How so? The money will not be in installing Linux. It will be in
>> helping people develop solutions that get the monkey off their backs.
>
> How many consumers actually pay for Windows support? Exactly, close no
> none. Why should they pay for Linux support?


What are you saying? That people can't make money using Linux or other
free software to help people solve their problems? More than a few
millionaires can tell you otherwise.

[Ext User(Matt)]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * Matt:
>
>> How so? The money will not be in installing Linux. It will be in
>> helping people develop solutions that get the monkey off their backs.
>
> How many consumers actually pay for Windows support? Exactly, close no
> none. Why should they pay for Linux support?


What are you saying? That people can't make money using Linux or other
free software to help people solve their problems? More than a few
millionaires can tell you otherwise.

[Ext User(Matt)]

Dave wrote:
>>> download iso for puppy linux, burn it to cdr, data, multisession
>>> boot it
>>>
>>> Now I've just shattered someone's dreams of making a fortune helping
>>> people migrate to linux. :) -Dave
>>
>> How so? The money will not be in installing Linux. It will be in
>> helping people develop solutions that get the monkey off their backs.
>
> Huh? I don't follow. Linux has everything you need, included,
> usually. -Dave


Everything I need, usually.

Everything some people need.

Maybe you haven't notice that a lot of people and organizations are
locked in to MS products and that it will take a lot of doing to break
those locks. Maybe you haven't noticed that there are Windows apps
whose Linux equivalents are inadequate or nonexistent.

Promising people what Linux apps can't deliver is not going to help
anybody or win you any friends. That approach will rightly earn you
ridicule and hostility.

[Ext User(Matt)]

Dave wrote:
>>> download iso for puppy linux, burn it to cdr, data, multisession
>>> boot it
>>>
>>> Now I've just shattered someone's dreams of making a fortune helping
>>> people migrate to linux. :) -Dave
>>
>> How so? The money will not be in installing Linux. It will be in
>> helping people develop solutions that get the monkey off their backs.
>
> Huh? I don't follow. Linux has everything you need, included,
> usually. -Dave


Everything I need, usually.

Everything some people need.

Maybe you haven't notice that a lot of people and organizations are
locked in to MS products and that it will take a lot of doing to break
those locks. Maybe you haven't noticed that there are Windows apps
whose Linux equivalents are inadequate or nonexistent.

Promising people what Linux apps can't deliver is not going to help
anybody or win you any friends. That approach will rightly earn you
ridicule and hostility.

[Ext User(Benjamin Gawert)]

* Matt:

>> How many consumers actually pay for Windows support? Exactly, close no
>> none. Why should they pay for Linux support?
>
>
> What are you saying? That people can't make money using Linux or other
> free software to help people solve their problems? More than a few
> millionaires can tell you otherwise.

Really? Then please tell me which millionaires made their money with
providing Linux support to consumers. Or at least name some companies
that make money by providing Linux support to consumers.

Consumers rarely pay for service, no matter if for Linux, Windows, Mac
OS or any other OS, period. Companies do but as I said already they
usually buy solutions and not an OS.

Benjamin

[Ext User(Benjamin Gawert)]

* Matt:

>> How many consumers actually pay for Windows support? Exactly, close no
>> none. Why should they pay for Linux support?
>
>
> What are you saying? That people can't make money using Linux or other
> free software to help people solve their problems? More than a few
> millionaires can tell you otherwise.

Really? Then please tell me which millionaires made their money with
providing Linux support to consumers. Or at least name some companies
that make money by providing Linux support to consumers.

Consumers rarely pay for service, no matter if for Linux, Windows, Mac
OS or any other OS, period. Companies do but as I said already they
usually buy solutions and not an OS.

Benjamin

[Ext User(Matt)]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * Matt:
>
>> Your reply is moderate, and I am in basic agreement with you. But
>> there ought to be mention that there is evidence that the situation
>> regarding OS dominance is changing, as I tried to show in my list of
>> (mostly rather recent) Linux adoptions. This group's readers are more
>> technically inclined, so some here might want to get interested in an
>> OS that could well be dominant 10-15 years from now. Linux goes well
>> with homebuilding and system integration, and some among us could
>> conceivably be making fortunes five years from now helping people
>> migrate to Linux.


> Just because some companies or governmental agencies switch to Linux
> won't make it better for the average user.


Network effects and economies of scale imply that any increase in Linux
usage makes it more useful to its users and potential users. There is
always a set of users on the edge of being able to get their work done
with Linux. The more computers running Linux, the faster people develop
new apps that advance that edge. Is this somehow controversial?

In 1992 the mentioned users on the edge were a few software developers
whose work was to develop Linux---in other words, the main use or only
use of Linux was to develop Linux. Maybe you've noticed that that isn't
true anymore---the edge has moved and continues moving.

The more people use Linux at work or at school, the more of them will
start to use it at home.

[Ext User(Matt)]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * Matt:
>
>> Your reply is moderate, and I am in basic agreement with you. But
>> there ought to be mention that there is evidence that the situation
>> regarding OS dominance is changing, as I tried to show in my list of
>> (mostly rather recent) Linux adoptions. This group's readers are more
>> technically inclined, so some here might want to get interested in an
>> OS that could well be dominant 10-15 years from now. Linux goes well
>> with homebuilding and system integration, and some among us could
>> conceivably be making fortunes five years from now helping people
>> migrate to Linux.


> Just because some companies or governmental agencies switch to Linux
> won't make it better for the average user.


Network effects and economies of scale imply that any increase in Linux
usage makes it more useful to its users and potential users. There is
always a set of users on the edge of being able to get their work done
with Linux. The more computers running Linux, the faster people develop
new apps that advance that edge. Is this somehow controversial?

In 1992 the mentioned users on the edge were a few software developers
whose work was to develop Linux---in other words, the main use or only
use of Linux was to develop Linux. Maybe you've noticed that that isn't
true anymore---the edge has moved and continues moving.

The more people use Linux at work or at school, the more of them will
start to use it at home.

[Ext User(Matt)]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * Matt:
>
>>> How many consumers actually pay for Windows support? Exactly, close
>>> no none. Why should they pay for Linux support?
>>
>>
>> What are you saying? That people can't make money using Linux or
>> other free software to help people solve their problems? More than a
>> few millionaires can tell you otherwise.
>
> Really? Then please tell me which millionaires made their money with
> providing Linux support to consumers. Or at least name some companies
> that make money by providing Linux support to consumers.


Oh, sorry. I didn't get it quickly that you were talking about
individuals.

My quote: "The money will not be in installing Linux. It will be in
helping people develop solutions that get the monkey off their backs."
was meant to refer mainly to organizations such as companies,
governments, and schools. In that context see
http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/tiemans.html
to appreciate some business models.

I don't know that individuals buy Linux support contracts much anymore.
It used to be common with Red Hat and Suse and others. I always
suspected that they tolerated glitches in the distro so that you would
have to buy support. With Ubuntu, the problems are much fewer.
Canonical loses money, and that can't continue forever. I'm guessing
that at some point some consortia of application developers and
enterprise desktop users and others will take over Ubuntu or other distros.


> Consumers rarely pay for service, no matter if for Linux, Windows, Mac
> OS or any other OS, period. Companies do but as I said already they
> usually buy solutions and not an OS.
>
> Benjamin

[Ext User(Matt)]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * Matt:
>
>>> How many consumers actually pay for Windows support? Exactly, close
>>> no none. Why should they pay for Linux support?
>>
>>
>> What are you saying? That people can't make money using Linux or
>> other free software to help people solve their problems? More than a
>> few millionaires can tell you otherwise.
>
> Really? Then please tell me which millionaires made their money with
> providing Linux support to consumers. Or at least name some companies
> that make money by providing Linux support to consumers.


Oh, sorry. I didn't get it quickly that you were talking about
individuals.

My quote: "The money will not be in installing Linux. It will be in
helping people develop solutions that get the monkey off their backs."
was meant to refer mainly to organizations such as companies,
governments, and schools. In that context see
http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/tiemans.html
to appreciate some business models.

I don't know that individuals buy Linux support contracts much anymore.
It used to be common with Red Hat and Suse and others. I always
suspected that they tolerated glitches in the distro so that you would
have to buy support. With Ubuntu, the problems are much fewer.
Canonical loses money, and that can't continue forever. I'm guessing
that at some point some consortia of application developers and
enterprise desktop users and others will take over Ubuntu or other distros.


> Consumers rarely pay for service, no matter if for Linux, Windows, Mac
> OS or any other OS, period. Companies do but as I said already they
> usually buy solutions and not an OS.
>
> Benjamin

[Ext User(Conor)]

In article <6cfrenF3e7ktmU1@mid.individual.net>, Benjamin Gawert
says...

> Really? Then please tell me which millionaires made their money with
> providing Linux support to consumers. Or at least name some companies
> that make money by providing Linux support to consumers.
>
Novell, Redhat, Sun.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

[Ext User(Conor)]

In article <6cfrenF3e7ktmU1@mid.individual.net>, Benjamin Gawert
says...

> Really? Then please tell me which millionaires made their money with
> providing Linux support to consumers. Or at least name some companies
> that make money by providing Linux support to consumers.
>
Novell, Redhat, Sun.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

[Ext User(Benjamin Gawert)]

* Matt:

>> Just because some companies or governmental agencies switch to Linux
>> won't make it better for the average user.
>
> Network effects and economies of scale imply that any increase in Linux
> usage makes it more useful to its users and potential users.

How the use of Linux in companies which (regarding to the desktop world)
usually use it for either standard applications like web browsing or
office (documents and spreadsheets) or for special-purpose developed
inhouse applications should make Linux more useful for most generic
users that besides standard taks like email, web and office also want to
edit and recode videos, play games, edit their pictures or do a lot of
other stuff that's just a snap on Windows. Regarding games Linux offers
a number of compatible titles (this number can be counted on one hand),
the rest of games mostly consist of a copy of a copy of a 25yr old
console game, another Mah Jongg clone, or kids-grade stuff like
"Tuxracer". Or talk about picture editing, there still is no Linux
program that even comes close to Photoshop & Co (and no, GIMP doesn't do
either).

Linux on the server and in the embedded world is great because due to
it's openess it can be tweaked for almost all tasks. But one requirement
to be able to do this is to have someone with very deep Linux knowledge.
All the companies and agencys you never stop to mention that moved to
Linux, they moved to Linux because in their particular task it was the
best option. But even here it required a lot of highly skilled and very
knowledgeable people, and the companies wouldn't have moved if there
weren't anyone providing them with enterprice-class software support.
Linux can probably be made for the average user to do all he wants
including running most of his Windows apps and games by the help of
CEDEGA, WINE or running Windows in a virtual machine. But this also
requires someone that has very deep Linux knowledge, and in most cases
the effort isn't just worth the result when Windows runs all the
applications without a problem.

> There is
> always a set of users on the edge of being able to get their work done
> with Linux. The more computers running Linux, the faster people develop
> new apps that advance that edge. Is this somehow controversial?

So how does another say 5000 new Linux computers running OpenOffice help
to develop new software for Linux?


> In 1992 the mentioned users on the edge were a few software developers
> whose work was to develop Linux---in other words, the main use or only
> use of Linux was to develop Linux. Maybe you've noticed that that isn't
> true anymore---the edge has moved and continues moving.

What you definitely didn't notice is that Linux indeed moved on - but
mostly on the server market (where it really excels). On the desktop
market it's market share is in the same barely-worth-mentioning area it
has been the last 5+ years. Yes, I know, 2009 will be the breakthrough
of Linux on the desktop (as it was supposed 2008, 2007, 2006 and so on
back to 1997), but this just won't happen. Maybe it's lack of knowledge
how corporates work but you obviously are limited by the view of a home
user that likes Linux. You don't know that corporate IT doesn't reflect
what the average user wants (otherwise the percentage of home users
running Solaris/SPARC, HP-UX, AIX, OS/400, OpenVMS and whatever would
probably be more than just a handful of hobbyists that run retired
systems for fun). None of the examples of companies/agencies running
Linux will lead to any new application. On the other side, there is a
Linux community that in most parts treats newcomers like shit and puts
more energy in endless discussions and fights over things like closed
source drivers instead of getting well organized and pulling on the same
string alltogether and work more user-oriented and get more
standardized. If you look close Linux (or better, the distributions as
Linux indeed is just the kernel) is just an unorganized mess.

> The more people use Linux at work or at school, the more of them will
> start to use it at home.

You still don't get the fact that an OS is no end in itself, it is a
tool. Most people don't give a shit if their computer runs Linux,
Windows, Mac OS or whatever, as long as they can go down the shop and
buy the latest game or program and have it run on their computer. The
fact that Linux is free (i.e. no initial costs) doesn't matter as most
people get their OS together with their new computer anyways, and
companies as I said don't buy OSes but complete solutions for a problem.
Companies usually also don't give a dime on Linux being free (i.e. no
price tag) as the OS price alone is usually just peanuts compared with
the other costs, and when choosing an enterprise-class Linux with
support (like Redhat Linux) you end up paying the same or even more than
with Windows.

Linux is great for servers, it' great for learning, it's great if you
write your own applications and need a highly tweakable environment,
and today it's also quite good for standard tasks (like web/mail,
office, and basic picture editing). However, for the most average users
it's simply not ready because the necessary apps aren't there yet.
Expecting users to use Linux that lacks the apps they need just to
convince ISVs to develop their software for Linux is naive at best.
Especially as I said when Windows (and even Mac OS) do what most users
need much better.

Benjamin

[Ext User(Benjamin Gawert)]

* Matt:

>> Just because some companies or governmental agencies switch to Linux
>> won't make it better for the average user.
>
> Network effects and economies of scale imply that any increase in Linux
> usage makes it more useful to its users and potential users.

How the use of Linux in companies which (regarding to the desktop world)
usually use it for either standard applications like web browsing or
office (documents and spreadsheets) or for special-purpose developed
inhouse applications should make Linux more useful for most generic
users that besides standard taks like email, web and office also want to
edit and recode videos, play games, edit their pictures or do a lot of
other stuff that's just a snap on Windows. Regarding games Linux offers
a number of compatible titles (this number can be counted on one hand),
the rest of games mostly consist of a copy of a copy of a 25yr old
console game, another Mah Jongg clone, or kids-grade stuff like
"Tuxracer". Or talk about picture editing, there still is no Linux
program that even comes close to Photoshop & Co (and no, GIMP doesn't do
either).

Linux on the server and in the embedded world is great because due to
it's openess it can be tweaked for almost all tasks. But one requirement
to be able to do this is to have someone with very deep Linux knowledge.
All the companies and agencys you never stop to mention that moved to
Linux, they moved to Linux because in their particular task it was the
best option. But even here it required a lot of highly skilled and very
knowledgeable people, and the companies wouldn't have moved if there
weren't anyone providing them with enterprice-class software support.
Linux can probably be made for the average user to do all he wants
including running most of his Windows apps and games by the help of
CEDEGA, WINE or running Windows in a virtual machine. But this also
requires someone that has very deep Linux knowledge, and in most cases
the effort isn't just worth the result when Windows runs all the
applications without a problem.

> There is
> always a set of users on the edge of being able to get their work done
> with Linux. The more computers running Linux, the faster people develop
> new apps that advance that edge. Is this somehow controversial?

So how does another say 5000 new Linux computers running OpenOffice help
to develop new software for Linux?


> In 1992 the mentioned users on the edge were a few software developers
> whose work was to develop Linux---in other words, the main use or only
> use of Linux was to develop Linux. Maybe you've noticed that that isn't
> true anymore---the edge has moved and continues moving.

What you definitely didn't notice is that Linux indeed moved on - but
mostly on the server market (where it really excels). On the desktop
market it's market share is in the same barely-worth-mentioning area it
has been the last 5+ years. Yes, I know, 2009 will be the breakthrough
of Linux on the desktop (as it was supposed 2008, 2007, 2006 and so on
back to 1997), but this just won't happen. Maybe it's lack of knowledge
how corporates work but you obviously are limited by the view of a home
user that likes Linux. You don't know that corporate IT doesn't reflect
what the average user wants (otherwise the percentage of home users
running Solaris/SPARC, HP-UX, AIX, OS/400, OpenVMS and whatever would
probably be more than just a handful of hobbyists that run retired
systems for fun). None of the examples of companies/agencies running
Linux will lead to any new application. On the other side, there is a
Linux community that in most parts treats newcomers like shit and puts
more energy in endless discussions and fights over things like closed
source drivers instead of getting well organized and pulling on the same
string alltogether and work more user-oriented and get more
standardized. If you look close Linux (or better, the distributions as
Linux indeed is just the kernel) is just an unorganized mess.

> The more people use Linux at work or at school, the more of them will
> start to use it at home.

You still don't get the fact that an OS is no end in itself, it is a
tool. Most people don't give a shit if their computer runs Linux,
Windows, Mac OS or whatever, as long as they can go down the shop and
buy the latest game or program and have it run on their computer. The
fact that Linux is free (i.e. no initial costs) doesn't matter as most
people get their OS together with their new computer anyways, and
companies as I said don't buy OSes but complete solutions for a problem.
Companies usually also don't give a dime on Linux being free (i.e. no
price tag) as the OS price alone is usually just peanuts compared with
the other costs, and when choosing an enterprise-class Linux with
support (like Redhat Linux) you end up paying the same or even more than
with Windows.

Linux is great for servers, it' great for learning, it's great if you
write your own applications and need a highly tweakable environment,
and today it's also quite good for standard tasks (like web/mail,
office, and basic picture editing). However, for the most average users
it's simply not ready because the necessary apps aren't there yet.
Expecting users to use Linux that lacks the apps they need just to
convince ISVs to develop their software for Linux is naive at best.
Especially as I said when Windows (and even Mac OS) do what most users
need much better.

Benjamin

[Ext User(Matt)]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * Matt:

>> There is
>> always a set of users on the edge of being able to get their work done
>> with Linux. The more computers running Linux, the faster people develop
>> new apps that advance that edge. Is this somehow controversial?
>
> So how does another say 5000 new Linux computers running OpenOffice help
> to develop new software for Linux?

That's a silly question.

Besides, we are talking about migrations of hundreds of thousands, not
thousands.

[Ext User(Matt)]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * Matt:

>> There is
>> always a set of users on the edge of being able to get their work done
>> with Linux. The more computers running Linux, the faster people develop
>> new apps that advance that edge. Is this somehow controversial?
>
> So how does another say 5000 new Linux computers running OpenOffice help
> to develop new software for Linux?

That's a silly question.

Besides, we are talking about migrations of hundreds of thousands, not
thousands.

[Ext User(Matt)]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> Not to forget that the Linux community with it's very small market share
> in the desktop computing world really needs these press releases while
> Microsoft with it's huge market share doesn't.


When I see Russia putting Linux on all its school computers or Brazil
doing the same thing, I think of it as something more than a "press
release".