Slashdot Mirror
Why Linux is About to Lose
mpawlo writes "Wired ran an interesting piece by Russ Mitchell in the latest issue of the magazine. Mitchell focus on the so called war between Microsoft and Linux and why Linux will have a hard time winning such a war, and especially in respect of the desktops. The article was only available in the paper issue, but is now also available online."
No more MS Os's on the Desktop ?
Or Linux Everywhere ?
Both sound bad, what we want i guess is
a competitive playing ground for OS designers.
We dont want the best the greatest the fastest,
we want something usefull and workable or atleast i do.
Linux is usable for me at the moment,
i dont care who wins or who is in war.
Quazion.
I disagree. Yes, Microsoft has vanquished its enemies, but it may have more trouble protecting itself from its own greed.
What happens when Win98, ME and 2000 Workstation (or whatever they were calling it) are no longer for sale? I think consumers' calculus will change when only WinXP and its successors are on the market
As Mitchell writes, consumers want "reliability, simplicity, access to popular software, and the ability to communicate easily with other users." But in XP these virtues are tangled up with Microsoft's efforts to force its online services down your throat.
Redirecting all mailto: links to Hotmail instead of the registered mail editor is an obstacle to communicating easily. Forcing customers to download a Java VM does not enhance access to popular software. Forbidding reinstallation of the OS without calling Microsoft and proving that you own it isn't what I'd call simplicity.
We all know the full list, and we all know that both consumers and CIOs are balking.
Don't get me wrong, Linux has a long way to go to offer a viable alternative for the average luser. But I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of people take a second look at MacOS and Linux after tangling with XP.
I read the original article (bigger than the online version) and I can only say it was a very flawed piece.
He started of recounting the story of some jerk tech. admin that deleted Windows and all other files off one of his companies staff laptops and installed linux. He then used this as one of his arguments as to why Linux wasn't going to succeed. How clever is that?
These are the facts as far as I can see them:
A new process has come in to the world. That process is called the open source development model. This allows commercial quality software to be developed by diverse entities around the world. These entities can be individuals, public bodies and governments or companies with an interest in the particular piece of software. Each can make a small contribution to a larger project. The software created is often distributed for free.
Because of this, it is very unlikely that there will ever be an Open Source software company with Microsoft's level of turnover. However, Open Source Software is not dependent upon any particular company for its success and is not reliant on anyone making a particularly great profit from it. More important are the savings that people can make from it.
The Open Source Development model has only really gained momentum over the last few years. In that time, some projects have demonstrated an increadible rate of development. Although it is true to say that many Open Source project still lag behind their commercial equivalents, the rate of progress of these projects suggests that this won't be the case for long.
Microsoft makes the majority of its profits selling an office suite and several operating systems.
It is now trying to change its licensing model to one of rental, rather than one-off payment, because the software is just about mature and there is increasingly little incentive for most businesses and organisations to upgade. The change makes Microsoft software an on-going cost for businesses, even though new releases do not add much in terms of essential new functionality for most busnesses.
Therefore, Microsoft's core business - the products that make most of its profits - are under threat from a new process. Just as new processes during the industrial revolution completely destroyed certain previously profitable businesses, so will new processes, such as the Open Source Development model, destroy certain types of buiness. Microsoft is likely to be one of those buinesss. In the long term, it is impossible for any business to seriously compete with free equivalent products.
Arguments like "Linux isn't ready for the desktop", "Dell decided not to ship Linux on the desktop", "What about support?" are all short term issues. Think big picture. Think long term. Think worldwide. Think fundamentals.
Microsoft is doomed unless it can radically change its business to something completely different, and maintain it current turnover levels, which from where I'm sitting looks like a practically impossible trick to pull off.
And hey, I'm typing this in IE on Windows 2000, I'm not a Microsoft hater. It's just I think the world is changing and there's not much Microsoft can do about it.
The simple, most basic fact of Linux on the desktop, is that that great majority of users fit a certain profile:
1. College student or fairly recent college graduate.
2. Strongly dislikes Microsoft.
Now, now, this is a blatant stereotype, but there is truth to it (heck, I thought geeks would hate Star Trek and for being mass market, condescending, and that people _expect_ geeks to like it, but Star Trek threads on Slashdot can get more than a thousand postings).
Students tend to use computers in fairly simple ways: browsing the web, playing MP3s, writing papers, doing programming assignments, playing games, exploring free software. Now keeping this in mind, when you see such a person zealously proclaim that The Gimp is superior to Photoshop for graphic arts work, you have to stop and wonder. So on the one side you have people with much passion but limited to no experience arguing that an open source program is just as good as a commercial offering. On the other side you have professional graphic artists who put The Gimp and Photoshop side by side and are stunned that they're even bothering which such a comparison.
The bottom line, for me, is that we should be seeing much less Linux advocacy than we currently do. If I met someone who ran a small business and later found out he used Linux or some open source software for some tangible reasons, then this would be interesting food for thought. But when I see threads like this:
A: I find it disturbing that a number of popular e-commerce sites don't work under Linux, either because Mozilla doesn't render them properly or because they require Windows-only tech, like ActiveX scripting.
B: Bah! I don't _need_ to go to sites that that! F**k em!
Then I realize that "B" isn't someone who uses computers. He's someone who dinks around and has a chip on his shoulder and shouldn't be listened to. Sadly, there's the impression that a majority of Linux users are like B.
That goes double for my wife. She uses her computer a lot more than I do, and I'm a programmer. She's an elementary school teacher with not enough time and too many students. Oh yeah, she's also a perfectionist.
For her 12 classes (3yrs old to 8th grade), she needs to make lesson plans, test, quizzes, worksheets, handouts, study sheets, notes to parents, attendance rosters, gradebooks, etc.
These documents are all done in Star Office with a lot of help from image manipulation tools.
Linux supports all of her needs, has never crashed during any of her all-nighters, and networks well with all of the other machines in our SOHO.
At school, however, she uses 98 and NT. NT she doesn't mind too much, except that she doesn't get to use the Gimp and Nautilus (which she adores). But 98 drives her insane.
I have learned a lot about Linux by taking on administration of a busy woman's machine. Over the years I have had to do a lot of little hacks to get things just right. Now, however, I can take a default 7.1 install of RedHat and she is perfectly happy. All of the little workarounds I used to do myself are now part of a standard distrobution. This is immensely important. I used to worry that if I got hit by a truck my wife would not be able to find any of her files and would end up reverting to Windows in my absence. That is no longer true.
She is now trying to find ways to introduce Linux to her students, as she thinks that Linux is a real choice for education. Considering that she works for a school that rations white chalk and pencils, the money to keep upgrading those Windows boxen is just getting too expensive. They have a nice computer lab at her school, but you can bet that the next upgrades of the hardware and software in that lab will coincide with Windows 2009.
Linux has come a long way on the desktop, and that is fantastic. It has become a real server powerhouse, too, and that is fantastic. But for the author of that article to say that Linux should focus on the server is suicidal. We all know that a Sun server will beat the pants off a Windows server. Always has, most likely always will. So would a SCO, BSD, Linux, or any other *nix. But that has not saved their bacon. Why? Because nobody has the money to pay for a decent sys admin (as Microsoft even concedes). Command line tools and config files? Not for the average sys admin. Microsoft learned that it is easier to sell a lousy server machine running a nice desktop than it is to sell a nice server with a lousy/non-existant desktop.
As programs like linuxconf evolve into highly usable administration tools, more people will give Linux the time of day.
I personally look forward to a future with all-open source protocols and programs. Instead of trying to get the next version of SMBS to work with Linux, perhaps the open source community should put its energy into finishing promising alternatives like Coda, with both Linux and Windows clients (but only Linux servers - back at ya, Microsoft).
I think that the war is over, but Microsoft just doesn't know it yet. Whether anybody buys Linux is irrelevant. So long as this mass of programmers continues to build better and better software, the user community can wait. And with all of the BS going on with the RIAA and MPAA getting in bed with Microsoft, it is only a matter of time before users are desperate for an alternative. By then Linux will be as good or better in the desktop realm as Microsoft.
So hackers, keep working on those office suites, USB drivers and eye candy. The war IS over.
Opinions change daily as new information arrives. Stay tuned.
Saying that desktop installs (of Linux) will not grow in the future is a very big mistake. 1 Reason I will give is like this: More than 1/2 of "desktop" users are finding that most of their work is happening via a browser and email client. Up until recentlly it is a well known fact that linux lagged WAY behind in the Browser market....but anyone using Galeon, Konq, or even the commercial Opera....can see that the gap is closing FAST....It took a few years to get here...but in those few years the browser has taken over the desktop....now the main (not only) thing Linux needs to compete is a simple browser...and the time of a level playing field in rendering HTML pages is drawing near.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
The writer of the article was the boss of the woman with the laptop when they both worked at Red Hat's Wide Open News.
The fact that they both worked at Red Hat means to me that she shouldn't have been running any Windows system to begin with. If she was having trouble with ApplixWare's spell-checker, maybe she should have investigated a Free Software solution or submitted it as a bug report to the development teams that work for the same company she does. Instead she uses (presumably) corporate funds to buy a competitors product instead of helping improve her own company's product?
And the writer of this article sounds like he has an axe to grind... he stoops to insulting the offending tech based on his appearance, rather than his reluctance to support a major competitors' software. I'm surprised this woman even thought it was reasonable to expect tech support to work on her Windows machine. And her main argument for having a non-standard OS in the first place is spell-checking? Please.
I do not have a signature
Without Linux & OSS, just imagine how restricive M$ would be with their products and business practices. Some people think M$ can't get much worse, but I think it can. M$ would make XP a mandatory immediate upgrade AND enforce product registration COMBINED WITH the rentware provisions of "Software Assurance" were it not for the threat of Linux desktops.
MS Office at $2000 per seat? Aside from Star Office and other OSS projects, what stops M$ from doing this?
I think Linux/open source can dictate features that M$ must include to keep pace. In effect, Linux can prevent M$ from breaking out each "feature" into a distinct product and revenue stream. Example: If Linux was not already doing IP masquerade, you would not see "connection sharing" thrown in as a freebie with Windows.
Linux & OSS do not have to "win" the game, they simply have to maintain pressure on M$.
The article states that M$ has won the desktop battle. I see plenty of weakness in M$'s position. Consider their diminishing upgrade rate with each new product release. The XP licensing practices border on desperation to lock people into the upgrade treadmill. As I see it, XP is the beginning of the end for M$.
Winning the battle and holding onto victory are two different concepts.
I have to admit that about 2/3 through the article I stopped reading, because I've heard it all before, and it's all very true. If I look at my friends around me I see them doing the same thing. A couple of them have removed Windows and installed a sloppy install of Linux on their parents' computers, and a few sysadmin friends that I have have even done the same at work (resulting in nearly getting terminated).
... ahem ... other operating systems that we all know have problems, but we have to sit and wait for an individual group to fix (:
... Linux in its current incarnation is for the geek community. My Mom and Dad would be so pissed if I took their Windows away. Just about everyone where I work would be outraged if I took Windows/Office away and replaced it with Linux/OpenOffice. Right now it just doesn't get the job done like Windows can. Give it time, all good things come to those who wait. The geek community needs to chill for a little while and let the OS and software get up to 'desktop snuff' before we take on giants like Microsoft.
If the Linux community as a whole would like to see Linux succeed in more than small shop servers and geek workstations, someone is going to have to spread the word that Linux can't be forced on those that don't want it.
Lets relate it to the Christian movement. What do we call Christians that won't leave us along in elevators and in lines at fast food? Turbo Christian Bible Thumbers. They irritate the crap out of me, AND I'M A CHRISTIAN! They're going about it wrong. Christ didn't bug the crap out of people about "Hey look at me, I'm the son of God, w00t!". No, he meerly lead by example. Geeks can do the same quite easily, and I've seen a few examples.
Run Linux on your computer, make it rock solid and bad ass. People will notice and want to give it a try, even if it's just surfing the web on your Linux Mozilla browser. Help them, but don't trash talk Microsoft or Apple in the processes. If they ask what you like about Linux (and they will), tell them the possitive things about Linux, but don't *compare* it to anything else. Just say what you like without trash talking something else. You might even want to point out a few of the problems it has, but mention that Linus and Alan are working on those things, *with help from the ENTIRE LINUX COMMUNITY*. Maybe that will light a bulb in their brain that shows them the difference between open source and
And yes
~LoudMusic
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
[Cross-post from the LinuxToday thread:]
Just mulling over Russ Mitchell's anecdote about his former employee, Anne Speedie. That description of her files being deliberately clobbered by a smarmy, scrawny, black-t-shirted Linux technician has such a conveniently mythic quality about it, doesn't it? We have the stereotyped Linux geek. We have the unrepentant and gleeful callousness. We have the outraged but helpless everyday office workers, persecuted by the former.
Seems tailor-made for Mitchell, doesn't it?
The more I think about it, the more I suspect that the story has, to quote Tolkien, "grown in the telling". Or, more specifically, that crucial parts of the story have been strategically omitted.
For instance: Mitchell (then Speedie's boss) says he confronted the scrawny, black-t-shirted technician about the deliberate mass-deletion when he was just supposed to "get some dial-up software installed", and the latter just stared back and smiled. And...? At that point, Mitchell and Speedie just dropped it? Why on earth would they do that? Wouldn't the logical next step be to escalate up the IS Dept. organisational foodchain? The account as written more than strains credulity; it leaves credulity in a body-cast.
Could it be that Mitchell's assertion about "getting some dial-up software installed" is a fabrication, and that Red Hat's IS Dept. has a firm, well-publicised policy that company-issued laptops will be reloaded with the supported Red Hat Linux load, when sent in for service, unless the user makes specific arrangements to the contrary? Could it be that Mitchell knew that Speedie had no cause for complaint, but is just incensed that his former employer didn't let him override software policy on company-owned machines?
Could it be that Speedie ignored company directives about data-file backups, or that her files were in fact backed up for safekeeping, but she and Mitchell are just steamed about losing her unauthorised and possibly bootlegged modifications?
We don't know any of this, because telling the latter half of the story doesn't help Mitchell's polemical stance. But it's not difficult to guess what he doesn't want to tell us.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com