Slashdot Mirror
Stopping Linux Desktop Adoption Sabotage
Mark Brunelli, News Editor writes "Outspoken IT consultant John H. Terpstra believes that Microsoft and electronics manufacturers are working together to hinder the adoption of Linux on the desktop. In a three part series, he tells a story about how two guys trying to buy Linux desktops found they were overpriced, and lacked certain tools. He then describes how Microsoft uses its considerable resources and the law to create such roadblocks. (Part 2, Part 3)"
Theres only so much you can push people. Windows XP did not deliver what people thought it would and Vista won't achieve what it set out to do, and updates take too long coming. Many people I know are or will switch to Linux in the near future because it makes more sense in the long run. Keep pushing people and they will try something else, look at Firefox or Opera. All it takes is a little piece of information to hit the public and people will begin to learn more about it, and adopt it.
"Outspoken IT consultant John H. Terpstra believes that Microsoft and electronics manufacturers are working together to hinder the adoption of Linux on the desktop
Wow, this guy is a genius for his insight. I really should read what he has to say now.
Bottom line if this is true then your company is being price gouged and being offered inferior goods and services ON purpose so that WilliamSoft can play out his personal Passion Play against imaginary enemies.
This would be worthy of Federal Prosecution.
I guess he can apply it to the rest of the world
did you forget to take your meds?
It went something like this...
I started customizing the zv6000 laptop, choosing XP Home, knowing that I probably wouldn't get reasonable tech support without having it installed (never mind that there wasn't an option to not get it). As I got to the end, I looked around for a way to request custom partitioning of the hard drive. No dice. So I cancelled the order and wrote to HP Shopping and asked if they could do a custom partitioning job because I wanted to create a dual-boot system.
The response I got was that they couldn't do it and that they were sorry the web site didn't suit my needs.
I responded by asking if they could sell me a blank laptop and provide the installation media on the side, since it was included, and I didn't feel like trying to reinstall the recovery partition for Windows. This is why you don't get installation media... they put it all on a partition on the hard drive that only the Windows installer can use.
Their reply was that they were contractually obligated to sell the laptop with the latest version of Windows installed.
So I told them that they just lost a sale because of their contractual obligations, and that I would take my money elsewhere.
So they replied again with how they were sorry that the website didn't suit my needs and that they would notify the appropriate people.
Now they've pushed my buttons... so I tell them that this is not about a web site, it's about a person sitting there running an FDISK command and watching the install take place instead of just using a ghosting program. I also tell them that I would've been willing to wait an extra couple of weeks, knowing I was asking for a truly customized job.
In the end, I did get an HP laptop, but got it from CompUSA. I got the HP L2000, and for about $40, the tech desk people there were able to do the customized partitioning job for me, reinstall the version of Windows that came with it, and leave me with blank, unformatted partitions to use for Fedora Core 4 x86_64. The tech guys there knew exactly what I wanted to do, understood it, and thought it was really cool. Yes, I need ndiswrappers to get the wireless card to work, and I have to download a driver for the ATI graphics card in there (both are available via a yum archive at livna.org).
Now if only we could get Macromedia to release a 64-bit version of the flash player and Sun to do a 64-bit verison of Java... (yes, I know about the OSS alternatives... doesn't change the fact that they need to do it).
OCO is Loco
TODO: Update Slashdot Eezi Post.
[X] Copy/Paste "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux"
Then it must've been some time since you last checked... check out this rather glowing Ubuntu review in the Inquirer, for example. Yeah, I know, not exactly the greatest news outlet in the world, but they're probably as non-geeky as you get, so the fact that they found Ubuntu so easy and comfortable to use says a lot, IMO. :)
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
"Part 2", the "what MS is doing to stop Linux" part, points out obvious facts (can't buy Linux computers in major retailers), asks why, and then postulates no decent answers. We should all ask, why does it suggest no decent answers? Is it perhaps because the most likely answer, that retail stores would lose money selling Linux systems due to higher difficulty of making the sale, higher support costs, higher return rates, and lower volume? Or is it perhaps because there is a global conspiracy that stores take against profitable actions?
The author says we should believe: "Obviously, there are forces at work in the IT industry that cause retailers to choose not to participate in being more profitable." Right. Global conspiracy, obvious. Try again. The only thing that is really obvious is that the course of action he is suggesting (selling Linux systems in mass market brick and mortar retailers) is deemed unprofitable for these stores.
Sure, Walmart sells Linux. But only online, not brick and mortar.
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
1. Forced sale of MS stuff still exists. Wow, what a surprise.
2. Before buying hardware, especially laptops, spend an hour googling or otherwise studying what IS supported. The morons in the story buy stuff and then find out compatibility. Fuckin' DUH!
Oh, and buy a system without ANY operating system, if it still is costing you more find someone with a 3 digit IQ to find a cheaper computer for you. Besides this is mostly Microsoft's fault because they won't give special discounts to dealers that sell computers with no OS/Linux.
The guy running SuSE 9.3 sounded like he tried Linux for a grand total of 10 minutes, of course you aren't going to know how everything works in that time frame. Sheesh.
I'm agneglectic, too lazy to care if there is a God.
That opening line was written by the editor of the piece. John Terpstra is a good author and more importantly, a long time contributor to FOSS, namely samba. See "Samba-3 by Example: Practical Exercises to Successful Deployment".
This is not true. In fact, the distros are each trying to beat the others silly by making package management such a breeze.
All Debian derived systems (like ubuntu) use apt/dpkg, Fedora/RedHat uses yum (or apt4rpm), Suse uses YaST and Gentoo uses portage. All of these will find dependancies for you and generally do the right thing - if the package is available, it will be installed and configured properly.
The only place where this is not true is when there are legal roadblocks (like DVD playback) to using the software in a free OS. Most commercial distros are able to bypass this however, since they pay a fee to the IP rights holder for the use of that IP.
In any event, you can't have checked software installation very recently. Today it's easier on linux than it's ever been on Windows.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
People for who I installed linux, say the following is missing:
Good MSN with all smileys, filetransfer, videochat.
Support for all streaming media in your webbrowser.
All multimedia files supported (without having to add (unofficial) repositories to have support for win32codecs and such).
Oh yeah, for the transition, full NTFS writing support.
Apart from that, my friends, mother, sister and girlfriend really like linux.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
It's probably more to do with the long term installed userbase. There really has never been a popular competitor to Windows on the x86 architecture. Even a company as vast as IBM gave in.
Many electronics companies don't see why they should devote developer time or make technical resources available when it's such a miniscule market.
Over time things will improve.
It's fud fud fud fud. Consperiacy bullshit, I figure.
n _Page
I LOVE Linux. Long time Debian user, I know that I simply couldn't use computers and be as happy with them if I was stuck with only choosing Windows and propriatory applications.
I am a GNU, Free Software, ra-ra-ra type of guy. I probably seem like a nut to many people.
But I don't beleive that it's a consperiacy against Linux. I beleive it's just complacency, laziness, apathy, and other crap like that.
It's not that they care and conspire, it's that they don't give a shit and MS nudges here and there very rarely.
Hardware manufacturers work their asses off making sure the everything works with Windows well. They generally dont' do jack shit about Linux because it doesn't contribute to their bottom line. (it could if they felt like it. No linux support = no Linux-related money = no reason to support linux = no linux support, etc etc etc.)
This is why it's important to support hardware manufacturers that support Linux. Stuff like Ralink-using Wifi cards that use the rt2500 and related chipsets. http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Mai
And specificly requesting Linux support is the only way to go. Seriously. Buying random hardware and expecting it to work in Linux or expecting that your Dell laptop will work 'just because' is foolish.
This guy is spreading fud. There are certainly hardware companies that dislike the idea of free software. They dislike having to tell end-users how to use the hardware or releasing minimal REAL documentation on the hardware. Well then, fuck them. Don't buy their shit and if you do don't cry when you can't get it to work with ndiswrapper.
PS. Don't buy wifi cards with Conextent, Broadcom, Texas Instruments using chipsets. Avoid them like the plague. Modern 802.11g that work in Linux well are Intel Wifi setups and Ralink rt2x00 based chipsets. Intel 'Sonoma' platform with Intel Video and Intel wifi should work well in a modern Linux setup. Avoid ATI and Nvidia if you can, and if you can't and need the 3d horsepower always choose Nvidia.
What Linux needs for the 'average' user however is pre-installed support from a major manufacturer. The most likely canidate would be HP right now, but it seems to me that it's going to take a relative unkown to realy break through and start making buckets of money from this sort of thing. Maybe a successfull company that produces hardware specialized for Linux clustering or server work can step up to the bat and do it. (not talking about IBM.)
It is certainly possible to get a very nice computer for inexpensive that will work in Linux without having to resort to e-crappo hardware to make it cheap.
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Linux's biggest problem is that it requires any "package management" at all. Because of the scattered directory structure, files are littered all over the place, so you have to run a program to install the program, and run a program to remove the program.
.app bundles that allows you to install a program simply by copying to your programs folder. Remove it by deleting it.
.NET, which cover everything from installation/uninstallation to networking to sound to graphics) with instead a reliance on QT on top of KDE on top of X11, are what hold desktop Linux back.
If people were really serious about desktop Linux, they would have long ago standardized a bundled package format like NeXTStep's
These kinds of things, along with the lack of true standardized API foundations (see Cocoa,
The mantra of "choice" that people use to justify the incredible fragmentation in the OSS world doesn't justify the lack of a standardized, vertical solution--there should be a desktop environment with its own sound and graphics engine and APIs (built using OpenGL and OpenAL), not relying on X11 and various extensions after the fact. It should provide its own APIs that tie into its internal engines. And most importantly, it should be designed with actual aesthetics and creativity in mind--no more of this amateurish K-this and K-that crap.
Just my opinion. I think many people gave up hope for desktop Linux and moved to OS X. Seriously, some of us have been waiting for almost ten years. Windows is more dominant than ever.
"Sufferin' succotash."
It comes down to development and support. In order to ship a PC, Dell has to package and certify a boat load of drivers and asssorted software. It has to be more cost-effective to do this and cater to Windows -- the OS that 95% of the world uses. More to the point -- Dell -- and other vendors -- have to do the best they can to make drivers reliable, easy to re-install, configure and troubleshoot in order to maintain their reputations and keep support costs down.
Now consider support. If you are a Windows user -- preferably an XP user -- and you call Dell or HP for support, theoretically all of the drivers have been tested, most issues have been noted and posted to a knowledge base and chances are good that the tech at the other end of the line will have reasonable experience in helping you solve the problem.
Conversely, if you buy a barebones systems and run into problems, Dell will have fewer Linux techs who can help, these techs will be more expensive to retain and _your_ level of competency will have a huge impact on the length and outcome of the support call than if you were a lowly Windows user.
Perhaps if you could purchase with an iron-clad zero-support option, then Dell could justify dropping the price. But probably not. Dell is probably just as greedy and unwilling to pass the savings on to the customer (if they don't have to) as most other companies. This is also true of many open source vendors. Whether it's Dell, RedHat or IBM, they'll work hard to extract money out of us one way or another.
Is this sig nificant?
I just happen to know the manager of a big-box retailer in a near-by major city (I live in the sticks). This retailer thinks they offer the Best prices to Buy things at (hint hint). Up until a couple of years ago, this retailer stocked a selection of Linux software, mainly Suse, RedHat, and Mandrake. It wasn't a lot (5 shelves on one display section about 6 feet wide), but hey, at least it was there.
Every time a new release of Mandrake (now Madriva...at least this week) came out, I went and bought the pro package, even though I could download it for free. I figured it was necessary to show support so they would maybe expand the selection.
Then it slowly disappeared. It has now been replaced by racks of more Windows stuff.
Not long after it disappeared, I asked him why. The basic answer was because aside from me and 4 or 5 other geeks, no one else was buying it. In fact, many people straight-up asked him "why should I buy this from you when I can get it legally and still for free on the internet?"
Stores are in business for one thing, and one thing only...to make their owners (stock holders) money. Any product that doesn't turn a certain level of sales disappears. Quickly.
To get the big box retailers to carry Linux, they are going to have to be shown there is a market there AND THEY CAN MAKE MONEY DOING IT. Thousands of people can talk the talk about wanting Linux, but in the grand scheme of actually spending money on it, its a very tiny segment of us that does so.
The moral of this story is that if you want more retailers to carry more Linux, then people need to step up with their wallets and actually buy some of the stuff that is already out there.
I still get every new release of Mandriva, but now I do it via the Mandriva Club since I can't find a retailer that carries it locally. And my club membership costs me almost as much yearly as a Windows XP Home license (and I don't have to have a new license every year). So Linux does cost me money, but I want to show support so that's okay. More people need to be showing their support with pictures of dead presidents (or what ever is on the currency in your country for non-US readers). Only then will Linux offerings and support increase.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
OK so 98% of my userbase uses Windows.
2 % use Linux.
I can write Windows drivers for my device and keep 98% of my userbase happy.
I can write Linux drivers for my device, and keep 2% of my userbase happy.
If the cost of writing that Linux driver is more than I would make back in profits, why would I ever do it?
Business decisions......
"He then describes how Microsoft uses its considerable resources and the law to create such roadblocks."
/. summary alleging 3 without evidence.
Where? I couldn't find that anywhere in the article.
Generally, support for Linux sucks in hardware retailing. There are at least three possible reasons for this:
1 There are good commercial reasons why it isn't profitable to support Linux.
2 It would be profitable, but companies lack the vision to see this
3 Big bad Microsoft is conspiring to keep it this way.
I was hoping to see evidence for number 3, but all I saw was the article questioning whether 1 could be true (but without in-depth analysis - how much would Linux support cost, and how many sales would it gain?), and the
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Windows desktops are less expensive than Linux? How can that be when the Windows desktop costs not one cent extra to put a FREE copy of Linux on and you get a Windows license left over.
Micrsoft is hindering Linux on the desktop? Excuse me while I laugh myself into an asthma fit.
The regular slew of updates to KDE ALONE will screw up the average KDE installation bad enough and quick enough to make you want to strangle everyone who works on it. Gnome which is supposed to be so much less cool than KDE is five times more stable in my experience and two times less useful. Of course so is a hammer by comparison to a vertical knee mill but at least the hammer does what it is designed to.
I use Fedora Core 3 as my regular desktop and only log into XP when I have an absolute need. I've made Quake run with sound in less than an hour USING the idiotically bad and largely conflicting and contradictory documentation on the net (woot! I can translate geekoid!). I got SSH working with public keys in ten minutes. I regularly customize my FC3 boxes and rework them rather than the lazier nuke and pave method. So... I am not a Windows newbie-to-Linux here.
The ONLY thing killing Linux on the desktop is Linux. XOrg and XFree86 and their ongoing back and forth pecadillos, KDE's zealot army of moronic children screaming the leetness of their preference, Gnome's less than stellar array of boosters, and both desktops' having little to no clue towards stability and regularity are merely the tip of the iceberg. The neverending foreverwar over what goes in the kernel, the endless bs of how drivers and hardware abstraction should work, the "ooh isn't this cool" phenomenon of distros spreading like mold based on their purveyors' egotistical desire to have some note in the history of Linux... All of this and more is what is killing Linux on the desktop.
It's like the movie Braveheart. The penguin sallies forth to do battle with the incredible menace and its own supporters backstabbing, squabbling, infighting, and inability to arrive at a common vision and stick with it do it in. Penguin meat anyone?
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
If I was an electronics manufacturer, the thing I'd want is as many operating systems as possible using my hardware to reduce the possibility of control being with one who could set the standards that I'd be forced to follow.
Hardware manufacturers, it seems to me are starting to open up to Linux. They know there's a market out there, and that if you are the only one in there, it's a good income.
It's hard enough making a choice of laptop these days based purely on the numeric stats of the innards. The way they play merry-go-round with their suppliers can really screw up your chances -- basically they play the game of "who's selling the cheapest wireless this week."
Even if you find stable laptop distributors, it's practically IMPOSSIBLE to determine whether you can run Linux on it because they usually won't tell you what's actually inside. Like, is that a Broadcom or a Atheros 802.11 wireless in there? It makes a *huge* difference.
If you don't know what kind of chipsets a laptop has in it, you can't do the research. Easy as that. You have to wait for someone to buy the thing, try installing a flavor of Linux on it, and report back what their successes and failures were.
Even if HP or whoever doesn't support the hardware directly, it'd be nice to know what kind of hardware is in there to begin with. I don't need them to hold my hand. I just want to know what I'm buying.
Today it's easier on linux than it's ever been on Windows.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. I can't remember the last time I installed something on Windows that wasn't as easy as clicking "next" a few times. I'm not saying that installing stuff on Linux is hard, I'm just saying that in my experience it's not "easier than it's ever been on Windows".
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I couldn't care less how much linux is on the shelf at best buy. I'm a BSD guy by choice, so I wouldn't have a use for it anyway. Put all the Windows software on the shelf you want, I don't care.
I want hardware that will work. When I want a wireless adapter for my laptop I want it today, with no hassles otherwise I'd buy it mail order. So I often find myself in Best Buy looking at some box, and wondering if it will work on my system.
My solution: research. First I find out what will work with BSD, and what will not. Then I go in, and buy something that will not. Open the box, installed it and play a little, and sure enough, it won't work with BSD - return it. Buy the part that does work. I'm doing my best to make it expensive to stock hardware that isn't BSD compatible.
With a Linux install (at least through my experiences with Fedora and RedHat), they ask you all the pertinent questions up front.
Pertinent questions like "Which of these 10,000 applications do you want", "what are the specific models and specs for every single component and piece of hardware you own", and "what permissions, groups, files, folders, and applications do you want each user to have". Sorry, but the linux install process is the most intimidating part of linux in it's entirety, even for experienced users.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
Hate to rain on your parade but your just way off base with that. It is not at all impossible to support at the desktop. If you can customize it to the point that tech support can't fix it then you don't need the kind of tech support you call in for.
The kind of user who buys linux on the desktop at a bestbuy isn't going to be installing a custom kernel or modifying their X-Windows config file. So yes you can support it. That's like saying if Mom and Pop buy a preinstalled linux computer then they will be instantly smart enough to find all the ways to mess it up thoroughly. I don't think so.
If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
But, I'm tired of being treated like I don't exist: Linux "made it" on my desktop years ago, has run for all of our family's needs (internet, chat, email, games, graphics design, programming, and YES office document use too!), will continue to "make it" on our desktops forever. And we're ALL sick of being discussed as if we were unicorns: "Do home Linux desktop users exist? No, that's just a fairy-tale. It's physically impossible to run Linux on a desktop, because it's just a teletype terminal you have to write the kernel from scratch every time you start it and it doesn't even use a monitor and mouse, it uses punched cards instead." This is all bandied about like it was common knowledge, taught at our universities, discussed with great seriousness in the tech publications, and carried as a confirmed opinion amongst many of my fellow Slashdotters, even.
If you can bear to have your whole reality re-defined, click here: http://www.lynucs.org/ . Behold: Linux desktops! Running on monitors! Note the "taskbar" on the bottom, JustLikeWindows. See the applications open on the desktop, they have a bar at the top with the little "x" thingie to close them and the little box thingie to full-screen them and they use jpg images for wallpaper, JustLikeWindows. Note the scrollbars on the sides of the windows, JustLikeWindows. Note the little icons that you click with the mouse to launch a program or open a file, JustLikeWindows.
Do you suppose, if they spend all this time making all this software...dozens of different window managers and hundreds of distros...that maybe, somewhere, just maybe, somebody could actually use them for anything, at all, at all?
So, the real story is, "Linux struggles daily against Microsoft to survive - and even thrive! - but we'd all be better off if there was less fighting in the world.", not "Linux has been killed by Microsoft. Alas, poor Tux, I knew him...almost." Get it right! Discuss us like we're dead, and we're likely to rise up and prove how alive we are!
The constant use of the term "Linux" is a misnomer and the sign of an immature market.
No one goes into a store and asks whether they stock "cola-based drinks", They ask for Coke, Pepsi, whatever. We'll know when Linux has really hit the highway when folks stop asking for "Linux", if they ever do, and start asking soley about a brand - Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu, whatever. As yet I guess the main Linux outfits haven't really extended beyond IT industry workers and enthusiasts but their challenge is to ensure that they do.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
Sorry Tim C but I call bullshit on you. I just updated my version of Ubuntu to the newest version. Although I know how to use the CLI, for the heck of it I tried it through the GUI (using Synaptic).
Point, Click to open Synaptic. Edit the word "Hoary" to replace it with the word "Breezy" in the nice GUI edit page. Point and click a couple of more times, Wait for download and install, and poof - done! A perfect upgrade. The entire operating system, and every single application on my Linux system, all upgraded simply by pointing and clicking.
You simply CANNOT do that on Windows. There is no way in Windows you can simultaneously upgrade the OS (say, move from Windows 2000 to Windows XP) and upgrade EVERY application you are using all at the same time.
You need to refamiliarize yourself with Linux. For a long time now, Linux has been better than Windows on the desktop in the following areas: (a) more control afforded to the user; and (b) much easier to install Linux from scratch on a computer than it is to install Windows from scratch.
With Ubuntu, it is time to add a THIRD area where desktop Linux has no become better - way better: program installation and upgrades. No offense, man, but you are out of touch, and you are the one spouting the bullshit, as you call it.
I couldn't disagree more. DLL hell in windows is precisely because of lack of DLL versioning as well as a variety of other reasons forcing apps to install their own DLLs.
/etc makes it easier for filesystem maintenance and indexing. Windows registry is a lousy solution to a non-problem that eliminates easy editing. You have a filesystem, use it.
.config files also end up having their parallels even if you install a massive app bundle. You need to keep configs *somewhere* and the registry, well. Enough ranting.
The advantage of shared system libraries ain't "disk space is cheap" - it is being able to rapidly and efficiently incorporate new changes.
If an exploit is discovered in zlib, I update it once with the patch. Done.
I don't have to update every single friggen app across my entire system and replace their hundreds of "disk space is cheap" separate files.
Might as well statically link at that point. Hah.
If you set aside libraries, unix apps actually are fairly consistent. All configuration files under
$HOME
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
That's right, you heard right. Simply force the user to buy his OS and software separately, and bar manufacturers from distruting system-specific install software too. Let the user choose his own OS and software according to his needs and install them himself. And no discounts for having just bought a PC, either.
"But Grey, the average user isn't qualified to install his own OS," I hear you cry. Well then how can he possibly be qualified to connect his OS to the Internet, where his zombie PC is currently gumming up the works for everyone. Besides which the Windows install is a point and click thing that anyone with half a brain can do in their sleep. Isn't that what Microsoft would have us believe? And if the user, presented with a choice between Windows for $200 or Debian for the cost of the netinst CD it's burned to, happens to unwisely choose the much harder (Microsoft would have us beleive) to deal with netinst CD, well at least he isn't out that much when he has to go back and buy the Windows media. Right?
As an added benefit, maybe then the manuals will tell us what hardware is actually in the machine we just bought again. Have you ever seen a manual from the pre-Microsoft era? You got ASCII charts and port pin-outs. Seriously. What do you get now? "Here's how to use all the bundled software that's installed on the machine," which I just formatted off in favor of Debian.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I don't see how a company can risk using Microsoft for any mission-critical task. If Linux or Apache break, that bug can be fixed at a trivial (for a business) cost of hiring a consultant. If Windows/IIS breaks, they are dead in the water unless they are the size of Dell and can actually make an impact on Microsoft's revenues. Even home users can type some stuff into bugzilla and have a reasonable chance of getting their problem fixed after a while.
The vast majority of Windows software doesn't come with *any* printed manual, let along a thick one; the OS doesn't come with a manual at all now. If you really like having the CD, and you don't want to burn one yourself, then buy a copy of your favorite OSS on CD.
There is an immense library of UNIX software, too. The difference is that Windows software is available in brick and mortar stores, and UNIX software largely isn't. It is a chicken-and-egg problem. Stores won't stock and developers won't develop until there is market, and there can't be market if nobody is selling.