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

[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".

[Ext User(Igor)]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:05:28 +0100, Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@gmx.de>
wrote:

>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.

It won't happen because frankly, Windows is a far better desktop OS.
I've installed (or tried installing) various Linux distros at various
intervals over the last 8 or 9 years and Linux has never managed to
live up to the hype of its proponents. There are no compelling reasons
for the individual user to run Linux over Windows on the desktop
unless he harbors a fanatical hatred of Microsoft or is a hacker who
likes to screw around with computers for its own sake.

[Ext User(Igor)]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:05:28 +0100, Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@gmx.de>
wrote:

>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.

It won't happen because frankly, Windows is a far better desktop OS.
I've installed (or tried installing) various Linux distros at various
intervals over the last 8 or 9 years and Linux has never managed to
live up to the hype of its proponents. There are no compelling reasons
for the individual user to run Linux over Windows on the desktop
unless he harbors a fanatical hatred of Microsoft or is a hacker who
likes to screw around with computers for its own sake.

[Ext User(Matt)]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> Linux on the server and in the embedded world is great


You concede the server, the embedded computer, and presumably the
supercomputer,

You indicate that administration costs and lack of apps make Linux
unattractive to the individual desktop user. That is why the current
battleground is large IT operations with either 1) only specialized
needs, or 2) lack of legacy data. Linux kills MS revenues in either case.

Special purpose clients for which a general-purpose OS would be
underused: eg auto-parts inventory, post-office, public employment-agency.

School labs and classrooms are the most important operations without
legacy data.

I believe you can find old interviews of Bill Gates wherein he explains
the economies of scale for software. Software can be cheap if everybody
uses and pays for it.

Large operations are increasingly turning to Linux to save a lot of
money. As large operations switch to Linux/FOSS or demand MS products
for peanuts, MS has to shift development costs onto the small user, and
that situation is unsustainable.

[Ext User(Matt)]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> Linux on the server and in the embedded world is great


You concede the server, the embedded computer, and presumably the
supercomputer,

You indicate that administration costs and lack of apps make Linux
unattractive to the individual desktop user. That is why the current
battleground is large IT operations with either 1) only specialized
needs, or 2) lack of legacy data. Linux kills MS revenues in either case.

Special purpose clients for which a general-purpose OS would be
underused: eg auto-parts inventory, post-office, public employment-agency.

School labs and classrooms are the most important operations without
legacy data.

I believe you can find old interviews of Bill Gates wherein he explains
the economies of scale for software. Software can be cheap if everybody
uses and pays for it.

Large operations are increasingly turning to Linux to save a lot of
money. As large operations switch to Linux/FOSS or demand MS products
for peanuts, MS has to shift development costs onto the small user, and
that situation is unsustainable.

[Ext User(John Doe)]

Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:

> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>
>> Linux on the server and in the embedded world is great
>
>
> You concede the server,

That's because Linux is a server operating system.

> ...
> Large operations are increasingly turning to Linux to save a lot
> of money. As large operations switch to Linux/FOSS or demand MS
> products for peanuts, MS has to shift development costs onto the
> small user, and that situation is unsustainable.

That the small user is insignificant is what IBM thought before
Microsoft became big enough to push IBM around.

1. Developers write for Windows because consumers buy Windows.
2. Consumers buy Windows for the applications/programs.
3. Goto 1

That positive feedback loop keeps Windows pegged at the top.

To a user, a personal computer/workstation is applications. Nobody
cares about the operating system. No matter how much you want to
change it, that's the way it is. If you want to sell Linux, try
selling it to programmers. Trying to sell Linux to users is a
non-starter.


--
My in-line street skates (a.k.a. rollerblades).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2565924423/

Google Groups is destroying the USENET archive, to hell with
Google.

[Ext User(John Doe)]

Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:

> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>
>> Linux on the server and in the embedded world is great
>
>
> You concede the server,

That's because Linux is a server operating system.

> ...
> Large operations are increasingly turning to Linux to save a lot
> of money. As large operations switch to Linux/FOSS or demand MS
> products for peanuts, MS has to shift development costs onto the
> small user, and that situation is unsustainable.

That the small user is insignificant is what IBM thought before
Microsoft became big enough to push IBM around.

1. Developers write for Windows because consumers buy Windows.
2. Consumers buy Windows for the applications/programs.
3. Goto 1

That positive feedback loop keeps Windows pegged at the top.

To a user, a personal computer/workstation is applications. Nobody
cares about the operating system. No matter how much you want to
change it, that's the way it is. If you want to sell Linux, try
selling it to programmers. Trying to sell Linux to users is a
non-starter.


--
My in-line street skates (a.k.a. rollerblades).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2565924423/

Google Groups is destroying the USENET archive, to hell with
Google.

[Ext User(Matt)]

John Doe wrote:
> Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>
>> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>>
>>> Linux on the server and in the embedded world is great
>>
>> You concede the server,
>
> That's because Linux is a server operating system.


That is a kneejerk claim that has been obsolete for some years now.


>> ...
>> Large operations are increasingly turning to Linux to save a lot
>> of money. As large operations switch to Linux/FOSS or demand MS
>> products for peanuts, MS has to shift development costs onto the
>> small user, and that situation is unsustainable.
>
> That the small user is insignificant is what IBM thought before
> Microsoft became big enough to push IBM around.
>
> 1. Developers write for Windows because consumers buy Windows.
> 2. Consumers buy Windows for the applications/programs.
> 3. Goto 1
>
> That positive feedback loop keeps Windows pegged at the top.
>
> To a user, a personal computer/workstation is applications.


Good point. The MS-only applications are being replaced one-by-one with
cross-platform, browser-based, and web-based apps, so that the user will
not notice when the OS is switched. Firefox, OpenOffice, Thunderbird, etc.


> Nobody
> cares about the operating system. No matter how much you want to
> change it, that's the way it is. If you want to sell Linux, try
> selling it to programmers. Trying to sell Linux to users is a
> non-starter.


As I said, the battles nowadays are for the large installations.

System integrators (if there are any left in this group) could be
setting up systems for individual schools now. After they get
experience, they could be helping whole school systems to migrate
(witness Indiana, San Diego, Macedonia, Brazil, Extremadura (Spain),
Kerala (India)), Geneva canton (Switzerland). These schools are moving
or have moved to Linux on the DESKTOP as well as on their servers.

MS will be making very little money from school desktops 4 to 8 years
from now.

[Ext User(Matt)]

John Doe wrote:
> Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>
>> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>>
>>> Linux on the server and in the embedded world is great
>>
>> You concede the server,
>
> That's because Linux is a server operating system.


That is a kneejerk claim that has been obsolete for some years now.


>> ...
>> Large operations are increasingly turning to Linux to save a lot
>> of money. As large operations switch to Linux/FOSS or demand MS
>> products for peanuts, MS has to shift development costs onto the
>> small user, and that situation is unsustainable.
>
> That the small user is insignificant is what IBM thought before
> Microsoft became big enough to push IBM around.
>
> 1. Developers write for Windows because consumers buy Windows.
> 2. Consumers buy Windows for the applications/programs.
> 3. Goto 1
>
> That positive feedback loop keeps Windows pegged at the top.
>
> To a user, a personal computer/workstation is applications.


Good point. The MS-only applications are being replaced one-by-one with
cross-platform, browser-based, and web-based apps, so that the user will
not notice when the OS is switched. Firefox, OpenOffice, Thunderbird, etc.


> Nobody
> cares about the operating system. No matter how much you want to
> change it, that's the way it is. If you want to sell Linux, try
> selling it to programmers. Trying to sell Linux to users is a
> non-starter.


As I said, the battles nowadays are for the large installations.

System integrators (if there are any left in this group) could be
setting up systems for individual schools now. After they get
experience, they could be helping whole school systems to migrate
(witness Indiana, San Diego, Macedonia, Brazil, Extremadura (Spain),
Kerala (India)), Geneva canton (Switzerland). These schools are moving
or have moved to Linux on the DESKTOP as well as on their servers.

MS will be making very little money from school desktops 4 to 8 years
from now.

[Ext User(John Doe)]

Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>> Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Linux on the server and in the embedded world is great
>>>
>>> You concede the server,
>>
>> That's because Linux is a server operating system.
>
>
> That is a kneejerk claim that has been obsolete for some years
> now.

For almost two decades, Linux Lunatics have promoted the mantra that
Linux is the next personal computer operating system.

Every time I hear that mantra, I think back many years ago when I
first noticed USENET, and in discussion a guy was promoting the same
mantra. It's like patent applications for a perpetual motion
machine.

>>> ... Large operations are increasingly turning to Linux to save a
>>> lot of money. As large operations switch to Linux/FOSS or
>>> demand MS products for peanuts, MS has to shift development
>>> costs onto the small user, and that situation is unsustainable.
>>
>> That the small user is insignificant is what IBM thought before
>> Microsoft became big enough to push IBM around.
>>
>> 1. Developers write for Windows because consumers buy Windows.
>> 2. Consumers buy Windows for the applications/programs. 3. Goto 1
>>
>> That positive feedback loop keeps Windows pegged at the top.
>>
>> To a user, a personal computer/workstation is applications.
>
>
> Good point.

At the same time it zooms right over your head.

> The MS-only applications are being replaced one-by-one with
> cross-platform, browser-based, and web-based apps, so that the
> user will not notice when the OS is switched. Firefox,
> OpenOffice, Thunderbird, etc.

Just when I was becoming totally annoyed at applications that
persistently ask for Internet access.

I thought that was Microsoft's idea. Go figure.

The Internet is not a necessary part of my personal computer. The
Internet is data on hard drives that don't belong to me. With their
permission, I should have access to those hard drives, but (just
like browsing my own hard drive) only when I choose to.

The only exception to that IMO is stuff like instant messaging and
online gaming when I'm having interactive fun with other people.

Computing is no different than it's always been, except for some who
want to warp things out of shape to fit their own schemes.
Information sharing has increased greatly, but the amount of known
information chugs along at an ordinary pace. Worthwhile data doesn't
change from one minute to the next, so it can be provided with a
program that doesn't seek Internet access.



--
My big wheel in-line street skates (a.k.a. rollerblades).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2565924423/

Google Groups is destroying the USENET archive, to hell with
Google.

[Ext User(John Doe)]

Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>> Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Linux on the server and in the embedded world is great
>>>
>>> You concede the server,
>>
>> That's because Linux is a server operating system.
>
>
> That is a kneejerk claim that has been obsolete for some years
> now.

For almost two decades, Linux Lunatics have promoted the mantra that
Linux is the next personal computer operating system.

Every time I hear that mantra, I think back many years ago when I
first noticed USENET, and in discussion a guy was promoting the same
mantra. It's like patent applications for a perpetual motion
machine.

>>> ... Large operations are increasingly turning to Linux to save a
>>> lot of money. As large operations switch to Linux/FOSS or
>>> demand MS products for peanuts, MS has to shift development
>>> costs onto the small user, and that situation is unsustainable.
>>
>> That the small user is insignificant is what IBM thought before
>> Microsoft became big enough to push IBM around.
>>
>> 1. Developers write for Windows because consumers buy Windows.
>> 2. Consumers buy Windows for the applications/programs. 3. Goto 1
>>
>> That positive feedback loop keeps Windows pegged at the top.
>>
>> To a user, a personal computer/workstation is applications.
>
>
> Good point.

At the same time it zooms right over your head.

> The MS-only applications are being replaced one-by-one with
> cross-platform, browser-based, and web-based apps, so that the
> user will not notice when the OS is switched. Firefox,
> OpenOffice, Thunderbird, etc.

Just when I was becoming totally annoyed at applications that
persistently ask for Internet access.

I thought that was Microsoft's idea. Go figure.

The Internet is not a necessary part of my personal computer. The
Internet is data on hard drives that don't belong to me. With their
permission, I should have access to those hard drives, but (just
like browsing my own hard drive) only when I choose to.

The only exception to that IMO is stuff like instant messaging and
online gaming when I'm having interactive fun with other people.

Computing is no different than it's always been, except for some who
want to warp things out of shape to fit their own schemes.
Information sharing has increased greatly, but the amount of known
information chugs along at an ordinary pace. Worthwhile data doesn't
change from one minute to the next, so it can be provided with a
program that doesn't seek Internet access.



--
My big wheel in-line street skates (a.k.a. rollerblades).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2565924423/

Google Groups is destroying the USENET archive, to hell with
Google.

[Ext User(Matt)]

Igor wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:05:28 +0100, Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> It won't happen because frankly, Windows is a far better desktop OS.


There are more and better apps for Windows for some more years into the
future. Many people are locked in by their MS-formatted data or by
their previous training.

To put it politely, the OS itself is certainly not better than Linux.


> I've installed (or tried installing) various Linux distros at various
> intervals over the last 8 or 9 years and Linux has never managed to
> live up to the hype of its proponents.


Tried Ubuntu? Heard of it?


> There are no compelling reasons
> for the individual user to run Linux over Windows on the desktop
> unless he harbors a fanatical hatred of Microsoft or is a hacker who
> likes to screw around with computers for its own sake.


One compelling reason might be that the management/administration and IT
people at the user's school or workplace have determined that Linux is
adequate for the user's desktop.

[Ext User(Matt)]

Igor wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:05:28 +0100, Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> It won't happen because frankly, Windows is a far better desktop OS.


There are more and better apps for Windows for some more years into the
future. Many people are locked in by their MS-formatted data or by
their previous training.

To put it politely, the OS itself is certainly not better than Linux.


> I've installed (or tried installing) various Linux distros at various
> intervals over the last 8 or 9 years and Linux has never managed to
> live up to the hype of its proponents.


Tried Ubuntu? Heard of it?


> There are no compelling reasons
> for the individual user to run Linux over Windows on the desktop
> unless he harbors a fanatical hatred of Microsoft or is a hacker who
> likes to screw around with computers for its own sake.


One compelling reason might be that the management/administration and IT
people at the user's school or workplace have determined that Linux is
adequate for the user's desktop.

[Ext User(Dave)]

>
> I didn't know that---I thought Wubi invented the idea.
>
> Can the puppy installer run as a Windows process?

Don't know, never tried it from windoze. :) -Dave

[Ext User(Dave)]

>
> I didn't know that---I thought Wubi invented the idea.
>
> Can the puppy installer run as a Windows process?

Don't know, never tried it from windoze. :) -Dave

[Ext User(Benjamin Gawert)]

* Conor:

>> 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.

But you are aware of the difference between consumers and corporate
users, right? And now guess to whom Novell, Redhat and Sun provide Linux
support.

Benjamin

[Ext User(Benjamin Gawert)]

* Conor:

>> 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.

But you are aware of the difference between consumers and corporate
users, right? And now guess to whom Novell, Redhat and Sun provide Linux
support.

Benjamin

[Ext User(Benjamin Gawert)]

* Matt:

>> 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".

Unfortunately you don't think of the magnitude more schools that use
cheap MS software. So for you the few occasions where someone moves to
Linux on the desktop might seem to you like a big change, however in
real life it's just insignificant.

Benjamin

[Ext User(Benjamin Gawert)]

* Matt:

>> 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".

Unfortunately you don't think of the magnitude more schools that use
cheap MS software. So for you the few occasions where someone moves to
Linux on the desktop might seem to you like a big change, however in
real life it's just insignificant.

Benjamin

[Ext User(Benjamin Gawert)]

* 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.

Ok. Then tell me how do another say 500000 new Linux computers running
OpenOffice help to develop new software for Linux?

The question is valid because that's what the majority of Linux desktops
you mentioned are used for: generic office tasks.

Benjamin