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.
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
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 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.
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
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