Slashdot Mirror
Why Free Software is a Hard Sell
jeffro writes "Dont know if this has been submitted yet, but the Independent news UK has a rather newbiesh article on the ups and down of Linux software as a free alternative to Windows.
"Perhaps Linux shouldn't be regarded as an operating system at all, but more as a sophisticated multi-player game with a large number of enthusiastic players. You can lose yourself in Linux for hours, tweaking here, updating there. It's great fun if you like that sort of thing. But if you need to produce a document, spreadsheet or presentation, you're still likely to be able to do it faster and better by sticking with the Microsoft devil you know.""
I think a lot of people still believe in the old saying You get what you pay for. While the /. crowd knows this doesn't always apply, the average user is what any *nix desktop OS has yet to convince is worth the trouble of upgrading.
Linux will appeal to anyone that is well versed in computer OSes for many different reasons.. but then again, they aren't the ones that need Linux -sold- to them.
visit my free wallpaper collection, wp.erasei.com
As a once-was computer reseller I'll tell you. It is really easy to blame things on microsoft, you can get 900 different windows for dummies, morons, complete idiots, treestumps type books out there and Linux has to fight an uphill battle against FUD.
Couple with this that best-buy employees cant tell you the difference between linux and windows let alone answer a hard question like how to change the background wallpaper on linux. The salespeople are not there to support it (they arent there to support windows, but linux is a magnitude more powerful and therefore scary.)
Gateway wants to be able to tell the user "pop-in the restore cd and reboot, yes all your data is gone now, windows does that."
All the questions asked by users back in 1980-1990 will be asked again with linux and computer sellers dont want to answer them.
Linux looks like it needs more support than windows, in reality it does not, but it's "different" and that scares companies that are used to their current cash cow.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
is name recognition. Yes, Linux is generally recognized by the public, but that's about as far as it goes. And when people hear Linux, they think "Server operating system that is constantly being worked on." I don't know of one person in my company that would even think to use Linux as a desktop OS. That's not to say there aren't any good applications for Linux for desktop work (StarOffice is great), but none of those applications have the name recognition that competing Microsoft products have.
When it comes to free software, the name recognition it gets is "You get what you pay for." Most people don't understand that "free" refers to the licensing restrictions, not to the monetary cost of acquiring the software.
Free software will eventually become more of an option to business. Microsoft will see to it by shooting itself in the foot with its XP licensing structures. Time is on our side. As more companies suffer under Office and Windows renewal fees, they will begin to explore other options. And as more employees begin to see the advantages of free software, they will begin to use it at home. In this case, Microsoft ends up being our ally. (Strange, huh?)
When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
[Linux] uses an "open-source" model, so its users can suggest - or even write their own - enhancements to the operating system, which can then be incorporated in future releases
[SNIP]
Of course, the development of new versions of Linux follows exactly the same process used by Microsoft
hmm... does this mean Microsoft is opensource? Where can I get the RPM of XP?
If you want to produce a text document, you can often produce it faster and better by staying away from the Microsoft devil you know and using TeX, with the LyX GUI front end. It produces beautiful output, is incredibly full-featured, and can do just about everything you could want. You don't have to waste time on typesetting details because LaTeX takes care of all that. All in all, it's better than Micros~1 Word for most things. And OpenOffice is coming along very well too. Linux is a very nice system.
Lets face it: Linux is not a clear choice for joe idiot consumer looking to buy a PC to put under the xmas tree.
At the same time, it's come a _long_ way in just a few years. I'd bet my job (well, actually I just about have) that Linux is a better business desktop than Windows. For a business, Linux makes a lot of sense. It gets you off the Microsoft-upgrade-churn cycle, most everything you'd want is freely available, and the simplicity of administration and the excellent security make it a great choice.
Yes, KDE/Koffice, Gnome/'Gnome office', and StarOffice are not MS-Office. So what? As more businesses adopt Linux as their desktop, manufacturers will take note and start offering it, ISVs will take note and start selling more software, and consumers will take note and start buying linux for home since they want to be compatible with what's at the office. Same sort of cycle that made the IBM PC more popular than the Mac back in the late 80's/early 90's.
This might not be the year of linux for the consumer, but it's getting close for linux on corporate desktops.
"But actually trying to use m4 as a general-purpose langage would be deeply perverse" --ESR
I just passed in my independent study paper (saved in winword/2000) using Staroffice and I didn't have a single problem.
I don't need microsoft to get my job done... and never will.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
I liked this part:
"For while Linux has a large presence in the server marketplace, it doesn't cut it as a desktop operating system. That's not through any technical shortcomings of the product itself, but rather the technical shortcomings of users"
It's funny because it's true.
Article is already slashdotted, but coming for experience, it is hard to sell OSS to PHBs that are used to paying serious cash for something as simple as email.
Recently I convinced a client to use Linux/Apache over Win/IIS. He couldn't believe that you can setup a webserver without paying for the software. He would have spent alot more money on the close source solution.
The only way he would agree to my solution was if I set up both a Lin and Win box, show that the Linux box could do all of the same things as the Windows server. Once I did that then he sprung for the total Linux solution.
Of course, the kicker would be,
"You know, we saved you about $100,000 in software costs, why don't you donate 10% of that cost to Debian and/or Apache."
"Um, no."
The Microsoft devil you know
Key word - "know". I'm sure it would be possible to produce open source versions of stuff like Office which had the same UI etc. so users could pick them up and use them quickly. Possible, yes but you'd be drowned in lawsuits before you could say frost pist.
This is interesting. Imagine if, in the early days of motoring, someone had copyrighted having the gas pedal on the right, the brake in the middle, the clutch on the left, the steering wheel etc. Basically, the user-interface for a car. All the UIs for all the different makes would have to be different. How would that work? Eventually, the car with the most popular UI would become a default monopoly. Either that, or they'd be a lot of wrecks when people changed brands.
People are comfortable with what they know. It's not legally possible to produce something which they can operate in the same way to get the same result - even if, under the hood, it's completely different.
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
...as the saying goes. I use Linux in several areas of my consulting, but I would not attempt to make my users work in it as a desktop operating system. In the future more advances may be made in the ease of use area, but the fact is most users are not willing to learn Unix-like quirks. That isn't an argument against the Unix model, just the fact that most desktop users are more focused on the presentation that is due in 2 hours than learning a new language for interaction with the computer. Yes there are productivity applications, but they are not as smooth as Office (for those not versed in Unixisms), especially to the novice user who can't get the informal support of coworkers on "how do I center mail merge this spreadsheet of names with this word processing document".
That said, there is a lot of productivity found for me to use it in server roles where the users could care less how the interactions are performed. I can save the user money and set up a low end box as a file server (compatible with Windows) and never have to worry about needing to reset again until upgrade time. Cost savings in hardware/software and my time.
The realization needs to be that technical people see the merits of Linux (cheap, malliable and crashproof) but those merits mean little to a non technical user, who can barely remember how to cut and paste.
Sig under construction since 1998.
As the article states: . It's a real achievement, in fact XP could be the first Microsoft operating system that people don't talk about, simply because the user doesn't have to worry about it - it's like a TV, you turn it on and it works. All the time.
To most users, this is how an os should be. A necessary thing which does what is does when it should do it wihtout the user having to wonder how or why.
If you are the type who screws open the vacuum cleaner to find out how it works, then you are likely to install linux and have fun fiddling with it. The hours spend are hobby and learning time. The fact that all the software to play with is free is a nice add-on.
If you are the type who couldn't care less how stuff works, but just wants it to work to play games, to make a presentation or whatever turns you on, then every minute spend learning stuff and fiddling with an os to get things to work feels like eternity. The fact that all the software is free only confirms your feeling that there *has* to be a reason why it is free.
So it isn't that free software is a hard sell, it is hard to sell because a lot of people do not see their time as being free too.
I intend to live forever, so far so good.
I have seen Mandrake 8.1 to install flawlessly in about 2 hours (note: 45minutes was selecting components to have, what was needed and what was not). A friend have terrible experience with installing Windows XP, he had to reinstall them after their complete failure again before getting them to work.
The point is that both systems have their problems sometimes, but one cost much more.
-- Wanna textmode user interface for ruby? http://freshmeat.net/projects/jttui/
I know plerty of people who drive cars with manual transmission, but I don't know anyone who uses automatic transmission. I live in the UK, by the way.
Also, I did a presentation at University on Monday. I could have chosen to use Powerpoint, but I chose to use KPresenter, because the only comments I've heard people making about powerpoint were in relation to it being "confusing", not working properly, or crashing. My chosen alternative was intuitive to use and caused no problems.
Having not had much experience of any presentation software up until now, I did give both Powerpoint and KPresenter equal consideration and based my choice purely on efficiency.
Is this a UK thing? Why would you not choose the most efficient way of doing something? Surely any extra learning is not a problem if the result is increased efficiency. And in the case of software, it's something else to add to your resume.
Follow me
I see this is a two-pronged issue. On one side we have the familiar /. argument that M$' dominance is simply a self-fulfilling prophecy based on its existing monopoly. Of course people are more familiar with it because it's ubiquitous.
The other issue is whether hackers WANT to make Linux as easy and straightforward as Windows. I think the reality has to be faced that _choice_ means a certain level of complexity, and complexity is a burden to ease-of-use. I would argue that the very advantage Windows has for the common user is diametrically opposed to the goal of Linux hackers everywhere which is to make the system as robust as possible.
That said, I don't think it's impossible for Linux to break into the desktop market. All that is needed is for GUI developers to start emphasizing Windows-like functionality that makes it easy for newbies to pick up the OS. I think that the current problem is that these goals have only come to be emphasized recently.
I think the reason M$ is so scared of Linux recently has to do with the fact that Linux isn't dependent on winning this battle anytime soon. It doesn't have earnings report deadlines or any other interest in profitability. It can simply keep chugging along until one day it is suddenly winning...
For while Linux has a large presence in the server marketplace, it doesn't cut it as a desktop operating system. That's not through any technical shortcomings of the product itself, but rather the technical shortcomings of users.
I take issue with that statement. It is not the users' fault that Linux GUIs use X windows and as a result the GUIs are more slugish in Linux that in Windows. No amount of reasonable configuring by a user can change that.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
The author of the article is Andrew Thomas, formerly of The Register and now (occasionally) of The Inquirer . He knows what he's on about wrt computers, but he's pretty new to Linux.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Linux I own and use about 15 Linux machines everyday. It is perfect for me in nearly every way. I love the applications, the feel, the price, the stability, the configurability, and the ability to alter the software that runs under it.
However, does that necessary mean that my mom has to like it and use it as well? She doesn't program, in fact she can barely type up an email, much less work some "|grep" magic from the command line. She, and most other people I know could care less about daemons and altering cron jobs. They just want to type up an email, surf the web, and create a document here and there.
The more software the better I guess when it comes to Linux, but if the price of getting more software for our OS is changing and dumbing down it down, then I vote to keep Linux just the way it is: For geeks, by geeks.
--It's Pimptastic!--
I had to laugh when I read the remark:
I see so-o-o many Windows users doing exactly the same thing. Tweaking fonts, adjusting colors, downloading more screensavers than you can shake a stick at. It's not just a Linux phenomena and I see more UNIX users grow out of this more than I see Windows users getting tired of this tweaking. (I wonder why...)
Remember the Apple ad with the two guys futzing with the PC for hours/days on end when the secretary asks when is that thing going to be ready to use. Their response ``We're tweaking it.'' followed by ``To make it easier to use.'' still cracks me up and is as applicable today as it was then.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
It's great fun if you like that sort of thing. But if you need to produce a document, spreadsheet or presentation, you're still likely to be able to do it faster and better by sticking with the Microsoft devil you know.""
So why is Microsoft the only alternative here? What about Mac OS X? Yes I know you have to get a completely different machine to run it, but the upside is that with Mac OS X you can have your cake and eat it too. You can do on Mac OS X just about anything you can on Windows yet you have the power and stability of Linux. It may still not be as fast as it outta be (but it *is* getting better by leaps and bounds) but you can certainly have the fun of Linux with the wide range of software like you would find under windows. And, unlike Linux, you can find *tones* of commercial games for the Mac, many of which either run under classic just fine, or have OS X native updates. Some even ship that way now.
Yes, with Mac OS X you have to bow to some corporate entity, but hey if you have to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven, its better to have Apple as your satan than Microsoft.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
.... is that they are talking to Computer Resellers.
Frankly, when I buy a computer, I get the parts and I put it together myself. I don't want Dell, Gateway or Computer Manufacturer of the week on my box.
I've spent the time learning a bit about my computer (well, more than most of course), I've done the research and know what to expect out of it. I also know that I spent a good $1500 at least on it and want to get my money's worth.
I put together the machine, configure it, and it works. It keeps working and never has to be majorly upgraded because I use a linux distribution that I have researched and found to be suitable when it comes to small, automatic upgrades with minimal hassle (debian). I never have to buy a new piece of software to make my machine run smoother, faster, or more reliable.
When I rent a house/apartment, I research the location, size in square feet, and cost per month + utilities. I check if it uses gas or electric heating. I make sure that I have a place to park that's close to the building. I *ensure* that this place fits my needs.
When I buy a car... Well you get the point. If people are unable to research, learn, and evaulate the caveats of working with any piece of software, well, sorry to be brash, but fuck them.
Microsoft is trying to build a psychic computer. One that takes care of all of your needs, wants, and desires as a user.
The simple fact is that this does NOT exist, and will *never* be possible with out user intervention. The user that is not able to learn and make decisions regarding software/hardware choice is going to get left in the land of shoddy and expensive tech support, constant upgrades (to make the machine faster of course, instead of working to configure it to be), and a lot of cash missing from their wallet.
Linux, FreeBSD, and other mature 'free' operating systems are not going anywhere. We (those of us who use these systems) should not be worried. Nothing threatens our 'market' but users who do not opt to use the systems, which isn't really threatening at all, as long as users still exist.
Of course, some people who have researched will choose Microsoft because it suits their needs. That's fine IMHO, but the realization that you're in a cycle of relatively constant upgrades and/or possible support issues (Win95 anyone?) should be at least something to consider when you make that decision.
Basically, the point is that with any large purchase, if you're not going to spend the effort to learn about the product your purchasing, you deserve any hassle you'll get over it.
The whole reason Windows is a pain for expert users to use is that it has been designed with novice users in mind. If I go into "Program Files", for example, I have to click on a special link to even see the contents of the directory. This isn't because Microsoft is clueless, but because so many novices have hosed their critical folders that this 'feature' is necessary.
If you look at any interface designed to maximize ease of use for expert users ( for example, air traffic control radar, or pilot controls in a large airliner ) you will see that it is very spartan, cryptic, and complex-looking. But it is perfect for conveying information once you learn how to use it.
Even plain old writing systems illustrate the point -- hieroglyphics ( with pictures of recognizable objects ) may be easier on the newbie reader, but every culture rapidly standardizes on a complex abstract writing system to favor the advanced reader.
I say let's not obsess so much about making Linux comfortable for everyone, and instead make it so good that it's irresistible to anyone using computers for non-trivial work.
A customer service representative will be with me shortly.
But selling can be done for free because you are trying to sell people on the idea of Linux.
;)
But here is why it does not sell in the corporate desktop environment. I know somebody is going to label this is flamebait but it is the truth-- although Linux works VERY WELL for small desktop installations it is missing one very important thing for the corporate workplace: an enterprise-ready office suite.
The reason why MS Office has been so successful in the corporate world is that it is extremely powerful. Word is not just a word processor but an actual development platform. So is Excel and Outlook, and while Microsoft has not historically done a good job at making this a secure development platform, it has done an outstanding job of making it powerful. Last I checked, KOffice did not support the kinds of macros that MS Office does, and the only office app for Linux that does is Gnumeric (which kicks Excel's butt IMO). The office application is the primary enterprise application for businesses and it is also an important development platform for enterprise applications.
I am not saying that one has to have fully-functional programming languages associated with office applications. That is a way to get all sorts of viruses, etc. but the office applications have to support full automation from outside programs and also powerful internal scripting (though preferably sandboxed).
Do am I a Windows fan? Not at all. In fact, I have seen rapid application development on Linux go from a pipe dream to a reasonable reality in a year and a half, and I think that the office suites will do the same.
Wold domination takes time
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
None of this has anything at all to do with Linux.
That is part of the problem with trying to use Linux. I get my kernal from one group of individuals, my window manager from another, my drivers from some guy in North Carolina, and all of it bundled by a distribution company.
When common-users (and even tech-minded Windows and Mac users) install Linux, it is *the entire* experience that they are going to judge on, much like the original poster. Linux advocates need to get that into their head.
Your post reminds me of ThankGeeks' T-Shirts: "It is a hardware problem," "It is a software problem."
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
A reminder: /. readers. The free software purists out don't use free software because it's more user friendly or technically superior, they use it because it is free (as in liberty).
It's apparent that the original goals of the free software movement are lost on the vast majority of
Free software is first and foremost a political movement. It's a backlash against proprietary software and the restrictions it places on users. By arguing whether or not the Linux is technically superior to Windows, you are arguing a point that free software was not originally designed to address. A "true" free software advocate would shrug their shoulders at this article and wouldn't care if was is right.
I'm a neutral party to the "free" vs. "open" software debate but I just thought I'd bring this point to light because it is highly relevant.
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
So you are saying that to get to work, and there's a problem with your car, you shouldn't call a mechanic. You should try to fix it yourself? Why does a newspaper reporter need to know how to install a kernel? Why does he need to learn how to configure the network?
I'm not saying that Windows is inherently better in all applications and I'm not saying that linux is inherently better in all applications. But Linux as it stands cannot be the panacea of all computer applications. Linux as it is is best suited for for server use.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."