Slashdot Mirror
Linux To Take Over The Low-End PC Market?
An anonymous reader writes "Desktop Linux has a recent commentary on the inevitable growth of Linux on the cheaper end of the desktop market. According to the article, the availability of under-$500 usable hardware, combined with a free operating system, free desktop office products, and free or cheap 'software as a service' online applications, opens a new market in which Microsoft cannot compete. 'Microsoft will fight this trend tooth and nail. It will cut prices to the point where it'll be bleeding ink on some of its product lines. And Windows XP is going to stick around much longer than Microsoft ever wanted it to. Still, it won't be enough.'"
Don't be impressed by the big accounting word ("amortized," in case you missed it). If they're forced into maintaining the XP code base longer than they had planned, those are real expenses.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
If you enjoy scripting, one of the best sites around is Heiner's SHELLdorado.
You can also check out http://www.coolcommands.com/ for Linux and scripts help.
They are not equivalent but that's not entirely the question.
The question is do they provide satisfactory functionality?
Because actually, 100 sub-$200 PC systems running Win98SE would probably work faster and be cheaper in means of TCO, and quite likely provide all the functionality needed as well (with exception of stability and security).
If I need email, office, file sharing and some, get the work done in acceptable comfort, you ask yourself what you need. You may get Vista and $1000 PCs, you can get XP and $500 PCs, or Linux and $300 PCs and the user experience and efficiency of work will be the same. You can get $150 PCs and Win98 too, but the risk of data loss and intrusion is prohibitory, otherwise it would have the work done as well. This way Linux can compete just fine and seems to be the best choice.
OTOH if you need a development environment of 4GB RAM quad-core 4GHZ CPU computers for all the 100 desktops, the price difference between OSes and their efficiency overhead becomes much lower. Linux doesn't fare just as well here, especially if you need to run WINE to have some essential apps working. If you need a high-end hardware not because it's required to run the OS, but because your application requires it, choice of the OS should be guided by other factors than just price of purchase or TCO. Although not disqualified here (by far), Linux doesn't have the upper hand of "vastly cheaper setup to get the same things done" here.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
You meant Ubuntu 7.10? Because it has Wine (installed by several clicks trough Add/Remove...), and it works out of box. Office 2003, World of Warcraft (Yes, I have account, and yes, I play it everyday), uTorrent... You name it.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Here's a Nokia n810 and Asus Eee comparison:
http://www.ultramobilegeek.com/2007/11/asus-eee-701-vs-nokia-n810-linux-fight.html
Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
Not really, no.
A Swiss Army Knife has different blades, tools and utensils for different purposes.
Each platform is a different purpose; a recompiled kernel (and userland) is a different blade/tool/utensil.
It is not users that need to recompile the kernel, which would be putting an edge on each and every blade -- it's the distro maintainers' job. Users just select the blade they need.
Ignore this signature. By order.
I would call it a potentially fair assessment. My one complaint is using the word 'Linux'. Linux could mean Gentoo (definitely not new user firendly) to Linux From Scratch (and if you thought Gentoo was complex), to Ubuntu. That out of the way, if you could find someone who has not used Windows to any significant extent since before Win95 released, and sat them down at an Ubuntu 7.10 system and a XP system and asked them to do some tasks I think they'd find Ubuntu easier. At the surface, XP comparison to 7.10 is somewhat unfair, as 7.10 is about 5 years newer, but I've never touched Vista and I think most people wouldn't accuse XP of being significantly harder than Vista to use. Particularly if you consider what Microsoft is actually technically responsible for versus what third parties have done underneath.
First off, there are things that are measured by what you don't have to do. The single platform update system tracks and automatically notifies of updates for all the programs they have (if they use add/remove to find and install the applications), not just the 'operating system' components. Did Freeciv set up an auto-updater? No, but Ubuntu set one up for them. Same for a staggering number of programs. Under Windows, you'll probably have at least a half-dozen auto-updater programs running (i.e. microsoft's, apple's, steam, java updater, etc etc), but even then *not* actively track some software that could leave you in a tight spot. So ask a user to update an Ubuntu system, they get to select a single item, click check for updates, and done. Under Windows, ask to update all the software, it's painful.
Ask a user to browse a flash enabled web site. Firefox will interact with apt and download the right thing automatically, and it starts getting updated. Internet explorer, I don't know what it will do, but whatever happens, it won't add it to an updater automatically unless Adobe sets it up for themselves. Firefox under windows will prompt the user and user does merely need to click a button to install Flash, but again, no auto-update.
Ask a user to install software by role. Under Ubuntu, they'd probably have noticed the Add/Remove menu item (admittedly, it's not obvious that includes intall or even distinguishes it from adding and removing menu items, but to their defense, it seems to be an attempt to mimic Windows terminology). If the role was one of the categories on the left, they'd click it and peruse the list. Failing that, they type it into the search field on that page and up it comes. Under Windows, they may have noticed the Add/Remove programs and then go to that. They will probably poke and prod and realize it's not even remotely meaningfully a way to 'add' programs, only to remove them. Then I'd guess they'd go to the internet and google around until they found an answer, in a medium not intended to present things in a targeted fashion.
Now, ask that user to find that application and run it. Under Windows, the program list gets incredibly large (ease individual program seems to decide it needs a whole submenu item, while 99% of applications in ubuntu only get a single menu entry by default, under an appropriate category. To be fair, this may be more the fault of the third party application providers though, who somehow feel the need to have at least one (maybe more) icons to start their program, at least one icon for a readme file, and at least one icon for uninstalling).
Now, give them a USB stick and have them stick it into the system. Under XP, it might not mount and instead ask for drivers, or it might go ahead and mount. Now they have to figure out which arbitrary drive letter means 'the usb device I just inserted'. XP does segregate things, so the search would be limited to removable devices at least. Under Ubuntu though, a much friendlier name simply appears to describe what is inserted.
The thing that make Microsoft 'easier' is that they were first with something usable in the x86 space. The world in terms of both users and softwar
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
And that sums up, in one efficient sentence, why Linux will not be easily adopted by the masses anytime soon. Users who don't know anything about computers probably shouldn't be relying on volunteer-supported forums for their sole source of technical support, either. If you go to a place where people only help you out of the kindness of their hearts, and ask ridiculously dumb questions, of course you're going to get useless responses. Those forums are run by, and essentially for, people who are interested in computers generally and Linux in particular. If you don't find computers interesting, don't want to do anything on your own, and basically need inch-by-inch hand-holding, it's going to be frustrating for all concerned.
I think it's setting clueless users up for failure if you give them a computer for which volunteer forums are the sole/primary source of support. Those people need paid callcenter drones to deal with their mindless questions and general incivility and lack of interest in self-help.
And that is why the Linux machines at WalMart come with free phone support.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."