Slashdot Mirror
How To 'Sell' Open Source Software
An anonymous reader writes "Have we missed the boat in terms of selling Linux to the average Joe? The writer of this article at NewsForge certainly thinks so. He points out that most people don't yet get the idea of a free operating system, and that the best way to start winning them over is to provide free software for Windows, such as OpenOffice.org." This sentiment isn't new, but unlike a lot of commentators, the writer in this case is in a good place (as a retailer who's tried selling Linux-equipped systems) to observe the man-on-the-street reaction to Free operating systems as of 2003.
I wonder about this too. Since I released that halter tying manual that should be SO simple that nobody should be able to screw up, I got my first customer asking me to make one for her within first 15 minutes.
People are often too lazy to download and burn a CD, they want a "hard copy from reliable source", they may want a paper manual... or they are too used to buying software to actually understand the idea they can get it for free...
(not counting these who consider this a way to contribute or express gratitude to the open source community)
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I have a weird case - a project for a local government agency is being stonewalled by the 'official' IT department/subcontractors who want to control all software used anywhere in the govt. I'm told we can get around thier clutches (I'll leave the reasons why out for now) by buying some software we can use for internal operations, then, once that's in the door, we can try to get the software exposed to the internet so our 'customers' can use it as well. But I have to buy it. If I develop it (using open source) then the whole thing falls apart. Must be bought.
It's a Content Management project, so I'm hoping to pick an open source solution and offer the developers some cash if they give us a bill of sale.
Silly reason, but it's one that I've come across for why you might have to buy free software. Buy=product. Free software = custom development. We can buy products but we aren't alowed to develop solutions. Go figure.
closed minded is as closed minded does
In the last couple of months I've come across tw ocustomers of the company I work for that are using open source software..
One, a small local bank that has 90% of what they have with some linux and Gnome. All desktop users (normally people who only need a word processor and a spreadsheet) use OpenOffice. Licencing costs = 0. This is not so easy to understand even for a business man. The guy in the IT deparment had to work his case.
The other one is swithing from MS Office to OpenOffice for every one excpet people who are really familiar (and actually use) with Excel. Every one else get's OpenOffice (on win32). This guys are saving some 10000 USD in licences. Still they had to be introduced to the subject of Free Software by one of the guys who works with me when our customer complained about the cost of Microsofts Office. This kind of "OSS consulting" for our customer, was some value added to another project we're on.
Still, I think, as people who benefit from the works of others for free, that we should encourage business users to make donations to projects they benefit from. At least to support these projects future survival.
I work at Circuit City, and any time a customer asks me about Office (none of our computers come with it and everyone wants it), I always tell them about OpenOffice and give them the web address. But, almost none of my fellow salespeople knew about it before I got there. So, I think one thing that would definitely help is if some funding could be provided to have a free/oss rep go to Circuit Citys, Best Buys, etc and either give them discs, literature, or just educate them about what's available. They'll pass it on to their customers. God knows my coworkers have lost a bunch of sales because customers didn't feel like paying $400 for office for school when its bundled with some Dells (of course it ends up costing the same thing, but if these were smart and informed customers, they wouldn't be in this position in the first place). Plus the stores wouldn't care, cause the profit margins are nonexistent for software.
barzelay.net
For instance, I was initiated into Linux, Emacs etc because a certain programming course required it;the lecturer developed a grade-tracking software, and didn't want to port that to Windows, so all our labs were done in Linux. We learnt all those Emacs keyboard tricks from seniors in the span of a week (before we discovered what the Vi versus Emacs flame was all about).
So yes, at least in the bigger, older universities, Linux/Unix is already an established thing with full community participation.
More than mere navel gazing.
To fight fire cold water is some times the only answer. Right now if you go into a retailer the MS A+ pimple faced tech discourages you from using Linux. We all know that in reality Mandrake is really a main stream distro now and any user could easily learn it. Even MSN and AOL keyword junkies.
The battle is hardware shelf space and it always has been. If I were to open a store there would be two sections for hardware MS stuff and stuff that is Linux friendly. That way the user would very quickly see that Linux mostly runs on the good stuff, like HP lasers, and dual processor boards etc.
Another good tactic is to let them run on the net in customer user profiles, with applications like Kstars. Especially show them the great math and science tools that are already there. Leave the other part of the store to braindead gamers, and Hot Mail, but point out that Hot Mail is actually quicker on BSD or Linux running KDE.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Linux maybe great, but until well known names run on the platform, you can forget it. I am not talking hardware, but software. I got so fed up with my Win98 box three years ago I switched to SuSE 6.4 and was happy. Then a year ago, I bought my iBook when it became clear that while OS soultions were progressing, I still needed Photoshop and MS Office. I've been more than happy with my iBook and tell people if they are going to purchase a new desktop, especially just for checking email, surfing, basic word/excel stuff, to buy a mac. For desktop use, Apple has come to play and is beating Linux badly. I know more linux people that switched to OSX than from windows to X or Linux. I am now an IT director for a small company that owns several dozen public access terminals that currently run Win2Kpro with a custom kiosk app. In my first week, we pulled half the HD's and had to clone them with Norton Ghost because people DLed programs they should not have been in the first place. I found a replacement in the Linux Based FirecastOS that we are testing over the next 30 days. If that doesn't work out, then I am going to begin to develop a custom solution using RH 9. (well it will proably be PHP or PERL based so should work on any *iux enviroment) We bought the $40 copy of RH 9 from Best Buy so I could show it to him and the number of times I got the, "Are you sure we can install this on as many boxes as we want with having to buy any more licenses?" In our case, Linux offers a great solution, but guess what, joe Q. public will be using Linux on our terminals and not know the difference. So long as they can surf the net and check their hotmail accounts, they don't give a *&#$9. We are in works to see about putting a "This terminal is powered by Linux" ad button. We currently have one box in the field we are test marketing. And when users are asked if they knew they were using Linux, they mostly say no. Then when asked what they thought, its "Well I could check my email, its what agian?" If photoshop (Sorry GIMP doesn't cut it), Dreamweaver, and maybe a couple other widely used apps made it to Linux (like Maya has for 3D artists), then people might be willing to make the jump. Ask most Mac users if they know that FreeBSD is under the hood, and they will say "Free what? It runs iMovie, and this iTunes is cool. Word and Powerpoint work better than on Windows." Now as a server OS, I still deploy FreeBSD before Linux for most uses. I guess its a personal thing, but FreeBSD was designed as a Server Platform. While Linux still has that Desktop/Server dual personality issue to work out.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Well, speaking for myself, I don't, and for a whole lot of reasons.
The first reason is that open source software is written to scratch the itches of people competent enough to write it. It must be, because people who are not competent enough to write operating systems by definition don't write operating systems; and, unless you're being paid to, you don't write programs to do things you've no interest in doing. So Linux will always be a geeks operating system, and will only ever be good as a geeks operating system, and that's how it should be.
If, in some act of self-denying humanitarian madness, the Linux community did turn round and make Linux into an operating system for Joe Average to use, we would just by doing that make it an operating system which was not comfortable for us to use, and so we'd all drift away to using something else and there would be no-one left to maintain or develop Linux.
Joe Average is inevitably going to have to continue to buy operating systems which people get paid to write, because there is no-one who is motivated to build a Joe Average Operating System ('JAOS'?) for free. Microsoft seem to perform this function perfectly well.
Of course the corporate (and government) desktop is different, because large organisations can afford to pay sysadmins to tune an operating system to the needs of the organisation, and lock it down so that the lusers can't make a mess with it. They're going to have to do this anyway whatever operating system they choose, so they might as well start with a free one.
Obviously, there's some benefit for us in Linux being more widely used. The bigger the community, the greater the number of contributers, the more software there is that's available to us. Great. But actually there's even more benefit to us in letting a thousand flowers bloom. The more heterogenous the operating systems in common everyday use, the more important interoperability is, and the less possible it is for wannabe-monopolists to 'embrace and extend', or to save files by default in proprietary formats.
So don't - don't - strive, campaign, persuade or even hope to see Linux on every desktop. It won't do us any good and it won't do Joe Average any good. Strive instead to expose Joe Average to a wider range of options he can understand. Let's face it, Mac OS X is a good operating system for Joe Average - at least as good as Windows - and once the Joe Average desktop market begins to fragment there will be more chance for new operating systems to emerge and break in there, and that can only be interesting for us.
And yes, perhaps, in future, we will see JAOSes emerging which are based on Linux; perhaps Lindows is the first of those. But please, we don't want Linux to become a JAOS. That's in no-one's interest.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.