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.'"
Everything Microsoft has on the market pre-Vista has long since been amortized, I think. And I'm not sure ink is what MSFT has in its veins...
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/04/1331246&from=rss
Is it any coincidence that Microsoft has done this? Piracy does help them to a certain extent, it pushes their products into markets where people cannot afford them, or just flat out don't want to pay for it, which still ultimatley counts towards their market share.
but I'd been using OSX heavily for about one year and since then, my usage of linux has dramatically increased. It started with Kubuntu, but got a little tired of it, before finally settling on Fedora 8 just recently. I've completely flicked Windows now. The last legacy for me using Windows was for the casual gaming, but that was gone when I finally got a console (admittedly a 360). I gradually got used to using a terminal, picked a shell that I liked and stuck with it. Forced myself to do everything with the terminal. Eventually, have a little library of scripts that do most of my everyday stuff. I'll never look back. I think the big thing that made it happen was sites like macosxhints that post little snippets of one line shell scripts that users comment on, improve (if possible) and then are easily searchable. Some of the LinuxForums are useful, but I'm yet to find one that is good, and as simple, as the one I mentioned above.
Previously sales figures for Linux desktops were suspect because of the argument "Well, everybody buying them is just putting a pirated copy of Windows on them anyway." Scanning the article I didn't see anything about piracy...
..."
But recently with activation & continuous authentication, Microsoft has tried to prevent this.
Has Microsoft finally given up its an extra tier of pricing beyond retail and volume? "You'd never give us a cent for Windows? Well, at least pirate it
TFA is just a rather poorly informed opinion piece and a lot of wishful thinking.
Since when did this consititute 'news'?
In my coutry we have had GNU/Linux in low end PC's at mainstream outlets for sometime now.Most of these are replaced by an ilegal copy of windows on the first days of use, but still some stick around.That is just part of the vicious circle desktop systems are inserted due to the monopoly exerced by Microsoft, and certainly the few GNUs remaining do contribute for a slow market share shift.
The main problem, IMHO, is not even Joe Newbie who re-formats his GNU PC. It is the mentality of PC vendors itself who do not even configure their GNU/Linuxes correctly on their hardware.
The other day I saw a notebook at a shop with a misconfigured video driver, logged in X11 with a purplish tint and horizontal garbage lines everywhere. Another example: a local LinuxMagazine review a couple of years ago found out that in a Hwlet Packard low end desktop system pre-configured with GNU/Linux (indeed!), OpenOficce would take a full 3 minutes to start!! Because they had configured a 128MB system with a 1GB Swap.
-><- no
The nicest device I can see at present is the Nokia N810 which runs the Maemo (linux) OS.
High resolution touch screen (800*480), hardware keyboard, gps and customisable - ~$450
This looks dreamy (and its on my xmas list)
liqbase
I realize I should expect no less from an article on desktoplinux.com, but I'm extremely annoyed by comments like "Still, it won't be enough." I can just imagine a typical Linux fanboy laughing diabolically while typing it. While the article has valid points, comments like that are wishful thinking and immature conjecture.
My biggest complaint wasn't the fact that Vista was a bug ridden piece of filth the likes of which made windows ME look good, but the fact they have Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate... oh and Enterprise too that no bugger seems to be using. An OS which will cost you $100 to $400.
I'm not going to say $100 isn't reasonable for the OS that runs your PC. It's a fair price. But the version game is unacceptable. So hopefully some of the linux based PCs will drive down prices of MS's OS down to reasonable and sane levels.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
While there is nothing to do to stop it. Having Linux run on Low End systems may not be good overall.
When most people buy a Low End System they are not happy with it...
Packard Bell, Compaq, eMachines... They buy them because they though they are a good deal, or just because they don't have the money for a good System. They are not happy with it. Then throw a OS that people can't buy new software in the stores or the latest or even older games on it. Hardware problems causing the OS to Crash... While saving Windows for the high end systems which have better working hardware and more secure drivers Windows will run rock solid on those.
No it is not Linux's fault but putting linux on the Low end to try to get into the Desktop Market is a poor way to go. Linux already has a knitch in the servers, and if people work half as hard in the imbedded market Linux can get a good foothold there too. Right now there are 2 strong competitors in the Desktop Market Windows and Macs. And for Desktop use Linux isn't close they are still about 6 years behind. (Which is an improvement 5 years ago they were 10 years behind)
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"people who want Windows will pay for it"
Yeah, but they probably aren't the low end, now, are they? I think a lot of people are fed up with virus software updates and other fine Windows features. The high end of the market is moving to Mac, and the low end -- at least the more knowledgeable among them -- are moving to Linux. I live near Howard County, Maryland, which has an award-winning public library system. The free internet access is spectacular there; walk in, sit down, start using, no waiting, no library card required. Guess what operating system and applications it uses? And no one complains about it not being Windows.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
I wouldn't say that! I would say that the linux-solution would be superior functionality for the money, and probably in absolute functionality as well. An Exchange server farm has a limited featureset compared to a debian-server.
Op-ed from a pro Linux site isn't exactly an unbiased "news" source. Yes desktop Linux is going to become a bit more common, yes we'll see more entry level boxes shipping with it ... but MS' virtual monopoly on the OS market is not going to suddenly go away. If this becomes a serious threat to them they'll release something like XP starter edition for next to nothing, or even at a net income to the vendor after paid crapware pre-installs are added on. At that point Linux loses the main advantage that most people (initially at least) care about : that it's free-as-in-beer.
They're comparing Granny Smiths apples to Golden Delicious apples:
Set of computers that can run all required email and office apps (the latest versions) along with a server to support the mail etc, all based on Linux
Vs
Set of computers that can run all required email and office apps (the latest versions) along with a server to support the mail etc, all based on Vista
The only difference is that the base specs required for one is much higher than the other, which is the whole point of the article.
Okay, so it might not be as viable in a huge company where everyone (especially admins) already have Windows training, but for a ~100 person or less SME (Small/Medium Enterprise) then the huge savings on costs would be a boon.
In the grand /. tradition, I haven't RTFA. However, I guess that the argument is that as the price of hardware comes down, the price of commercial software makes up a bigger part of the total expenditure.
Customers will balk when they realize that they use the computer for just internet and simple word processing and maybe some multimedia.
The problem is, in the real world Linux isn't even on the radar of most individuals. If they did hear about it, it's probably something from a few years ago and not about one of the modern distributions.
The solution: Whoever sells these cheap machines has to advertise. It should be simple enough. A short TV add showing wireless internet and desktop productivity apps for a $200 machine like the OLPC would sell them like hotcakes. Especially when you say that the price includes full versions of all the software. (You can even have two people discuss during the ad about how they hate trial versions that came with their last computer, and comparing it to amarok, k3b, openoffice.org, and digikam. Especially mention seamless integration with mp3 players and digital cameras.)
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Please get in touch for implementation details.
sballmer@microsoft.com
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Not all free software is "free" per-say. Look at MySQL, making money while we all use their software. That's just one example, so here are a few more that produce free products while still earning significant income:
Sun Microsystems
Novell
Mozilla Foundation
Spiceworks(a personal favorite)
Trackball users will be first against the wall.
Many slashdotters fail to make any distinction between the honest hard working programmers/researchers who deserve their pay and the not so honest business execs, lawyers, and lobbiests on some of whom Microsoft's bad behavior can be blamed, lumping them all together as a single entity: "M$".
Nobody's hoping to see software engineers starve, it's just easy to get carried away hating Microsoft for all the monopolizing, anti-FOSS, and other damage it's responsible for. Can you really blame the GP for having no sympathy for Microsoft's bottom line?
MS can create a cheap version of Vista or XP with very little effort. And because they are earning *something* on it, I suspect in the long run it will get better support than anything that can be had for free. Commercial version of Linux are of course another story.
I think Linux cannot succeed on price alone. It has to be enough better that people will invest the time needed to change their habits - which today drive them straight to Windows.
These devices aren't going to directly hit MS's products - what they could do is cost them mindshare and threaten the future of their monopoly.
Products like the eeePC occupy a precarious niche just below cheap "regular" laptops - put a bigger screen and a CD drive on them and there'll be a cheaper Dell laptop - so while they may be successful for their manufacturers they're not going to make a big dent in PC sales. People will buy them as "extra" machines for kids or as spare "take anywhere" machines (don't buy a £2000 ultra-portable - buy a £1000 desktop or large screen laptop plus an eeePC for when you don't need the power or don't want to risk carrying your main machine). But if they find that, out-of-the-box, they can connect to web and EMAIL and open most of their documents with these things called "Firefox", "Thunderbird" and "Open Office" then they might have their eyes opened to other possibilities.
Remember, MS's real monopoly is Office, not Windows. How many lUsers have you met who, when asked what version of windows they are running, respond with their Office version? However, I was in a school (in England) recently and saw a big (homemade) poster on the wall saying "Haven't got MS Office at home? Have you tried the free alternative from www.OpenOffice.org?" - so there is hope for the world.
If I were MS right now I'd be busily developing something like "Vista Lite Edition" that could be sold on a memory stick alongside eeePCs and the like for about $25, probably including a stripped down office. ISTR they did do something similar in some countries but it was perceived as "Windows - crippled edition". It might be an easier sell if it was linked to built-to-a-price "appropriate technology" hardware.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
You have it almost exactly backwards. Speaking from bitter experience.
Their costs towards their IT infrastructure simply aren't large enough to worry about license costs. Microsoft already have this market. SMEs simply buy PCs with windows already installed, and use SBS on the back end. Their savings from Linux are in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands or millions. It isn't worth their while to switch. Especially given the fact they can't afford to hire competent admins and so are stuck with whomever is locally available.
Large companies on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of fish. They can save millions by making use of Linux, and that's exactly what they do. The CTO or CIO's may or may not be aware of it but pretty much every large company out there has Linux just about everywhere from file servers to RDBMS servers to web application servers. They can afford to hire competent admins who can run Linux as well as their other Unix systems and who understand the mathematics of I.T. systems.
The market for Linux is not SMEs. I've been there and tried to sell it. The real market for Linux is on the big end. Multinationals, governments etc. They can save vast sums.
Deleted
I think there's a potential goldmine for Microsoft just looming off to the side.
If Microsoft made Windows 2000 Pro available for $20 per copy in 2008, then shuttered it; and Windows XP Pro/64 Pro for $40 in 2008, then 2009, then shuttered it, imagine how easy it would be for many 'cloned' copies to get right. Now imagine how easy it would be for Microsoft to compete against Linux in the low-end market. Microsoft would be able to say -- which Linux cannot -- "Our OS works with Microsoft Office natively, including Exchange". The real cash cow is untouched, i.e. Office, and Microsoft finally gets into the "sell the blades, not the razor" business once and for all.
-BA
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
No. I doubt you will find many of us who object to the idea of having money. It is the methods of getting it and the attitudes that MS have that people here may not be happy with. /. I am unable to speak for others, so I shall speak for myself.
In a place like
I don't like the fact that software is sent out before it is ready, just because some manager types want it to be released now.
If I buy clothes, I assume things are made and they didn't just ship me the cloth and expect me to sew it together myself.
When they release a new product, they will tell us all how fantastic it is.
A couple of years later, when it is about ready for use, they drop it and bring out the next item. They then tell us how this fixes the many shortcomings of its precescessor. I am told how bad it was. I know that in a couple of years, I will be told how rubbish this one is too.
Microsoft bears at least some, and perhaps much, of the blame for the mess we are all in with patents and copyrights.
So they think that GPL is socialism and thus theft? I think that Closed source is protectionist racketeering and thus theft.
When they were small and growing, they relied on the fact that lots of people "borrowed" their software. This enabled them to grow. It was profiting from theft.
Now they are in a position of market dominance, they object to what they once relied on. Stealing is wrong, so when people ask me for a dodgy copy of Office, I point them to a free alternative. I object to their hypocrisy, not the fact that they object to people stealing.
If I buy something, I expect to be able to use what I buy. I expect to be able to sell what I buy, when I no longer want it. I do this with books and cars, so why are MS different?
As I started, I don't object to making money. I just object to some methods of extortion and hypocrisy. I work for money and would love to have more. I will not hit people over the head to get it. My basic objection is that they are no longer a software company. They are a protection racket.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
More /. hypocrisy.
You guys always talk of Linux taking over, but at the same time demand that govt. tie Microsoft down in monopoly regulations. If Linux is going to take over, then Windows is not a monopoly, by definition. Which is it slashdot? Is Windows doomed and therefore not a monopoly or is it the other way around?
If Linux becomes the O/S of choice for cheap hardware, then I hope GNU/Linux will not get the name of "poor man's operating system". While it may be free of charge, it is not is a label the software deserves. Oh well Lindows or whatever it's now could be "poor man's Windows", they deserve that I guess. Seems to be the market they're targeting anyways.
What is also good for linux in this market, is that Windows seems to not be able to easily adjust to different form factors. They try to put windows XP on the EEE, but everything will be unreadable on the small screen! You can make icons and fonts bigger, but does that help? Making an interface for mobile devices requires a 'paradigm shift' (to put it in managerspeak), the Xandros developers for the EEE got that right with their simple menu. Nokia got that right. But even Windows CE doesn't get it, still thinking to much in the good-ol' "Desktop" idea.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
The ASUS Eees are good. Yeah, MS is set to sell XP for them for another $40, but their default PDA=like screens are idiot-proof, and it's simple to switch them to a clean, ASUS-customized KDE. The screen is good. The keyboard's good. There's nothing cheap about them except maybe the button bar beneath the touchpad - and you can get the same function from the touchpad itself. And there are no rough edges in the Linux experience. It's not for games, but it boots and loads apps plenty fast. It even has mplayer working out of the box - no extra installation steps for a modern browsing experience (as with, say, Ubuntu).
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
So, a web site dedicated to Linux says that Linux is going to take over a market segment. Big surprise. Expecting anything different would be like expecting Microsoft to say Linux is the best option for a market segment.
This is not news. It is not even opinion. It is propaganda.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I love how an AC has posted this obviously inflamatory drivel, and continue to marvel that the mods mod crap like this up.
1) The US and European union have both declared MS to be a monopoly.
2) A monopoly in legal terms is not someone who owns 100% of the market, but owns an overwhelming portion of the market. Windows is at what, 90%? 95%?
3) Worse still, MS has been shown, time and time again, that they use that monopoly influence to bully PC vendors. MS hasn't been able to use that influence as much because people in government are watching them, and because the PC vendors are finally getting some balls.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Sorry, those honest programmers are working for a dishonest corp, which makes them a bit less than honest. With their intelligence, they could do better. Next excuse, please.
"I think it would be a good idea!"
Gandhi, about Internet Security
You should have included the "Netcraft confirms it:"
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.
The issue with M$ is not that they make money or that they are the dominate OS ---- When you combine incompetence + arrogance + Ruthless Biz practices --- not just once - but over and over .... people tend to catch on and come to resent this.
A "new technology" coming up from the bottom (low cost) is the traditional way to upset a market. And M$ knows this.
Programmers don't need to work for free -- low cost PC devices will still require lots of programming (integration of SW and improved applications + continual OS tweaks) from cradle to grave. They will be employed by the OEM and 3rd party support companies. Just because you (a tech head) can get Linux for free has no correlation to selling a product that has a tailor made + polished SW load. It just means the total SW + OS package needs to be awesome and under say $35 per machine. And many people would pay some sort of a very modest ($8) subscription fee for the latest tweaks + upgrades + support.
Last week I got to play with an EEPC --- very neat device for $300
Its not the years, its the mileage
One of the myriad of benefits of owning a monopoly is the ability to set price. (price maker) Economic history is full of examples where the monopoly owner temporarily lowers prices to eliminate low-end competitors.
This low-end desktop market is owned by Microsoft. They allow it to exist to give the illusion of competition. If they want that segment, they'll take it simply by throwing some money at it and eliminate the competitor. Meanwhile, the low-end provider scrapes by. Novell certainly isn't going to beat Microsoft. Mark Shuttleworth doesn't have the resources to do it either.
Where it counts, Linux distros are simply a negotiating tool for enterprises/agencies to get a lower price/bigger bribe out of Microsoft. That lower price is STILL HIGHER than the price in a vaguely competitive market.
Vista? Oh yeah, you'll be able to pirate it just like XP because every software company knows that's the best way to introduce future customers.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
...the Vaio SZ range is shit-hot.
So you're staying it's a steaming pile of crap?
Making money is fine - I am happy to pay for stuff, including software and music.
But there is something riding against commercial vs. free software, and it's a double edged sword: feature creep.
In the commercial world, software has to keep adding features in order to sell the next version and keep the profits rolling in. This might help an otherwise under-featured bit of software gain widely sought-after functionality. However, we all know there comes a time when a software package is "just right," yet continues to add features and functionality that are unwanted and only complicate usability (e.g., winamp, nero, etc.)
With free software, there is no incentive to add unnecessary features. This is why I believe that in the long run, free software will dominate the marketplace, because it can afford to not give users features they don't need. But it can be difficult for a sophisticated package to take on critical functionality without a carrot.
Look at the state of video editing on Linux. Yes I have used Kino and Cinelerra, but anyone who has used them knows how tricky and unstable these tools are compared to, say, iMovie.
Free will win in the end, unless commercial software finds a way to bust the bloat.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Precisely BECAUSE no one knows about it. Like you said, very few people understand the distinctions between OSes -- so they won't know they bought a PC that runs Linux, they'll know they bought a PC for under $200. So what if it can't run Bioshock? Who buys a $200 PC to play modern games? Once they figure out Add/Remove Programs, they'll never go back to the store to buy more software anyway.
At least, that's the optimistic view of the situation. And I do like to hope. If this doesn't work, we'll just try something else! But the gPCs flying off the shelves at Wal-Mart do give one pause, and make one wonder if this might not be the wave of the future. Think about it -- this whole "mainstream acceptance" thing would have been RIDICULOUS five or ten years ago. Now we're seriously debating it. Who's to say where Linux won't be in another few years?
I know several developers who work for Microsoft, and they are invariably intelligent - the way a cop is intelligent. They have a certain type of intelligence, but not a general intelligence that informs them at a greater level about the scheme of things. Just like cops, they also think that they are doing a great thing for the world and are helping out the misguided unwashed masses by unleashing their work upon the world. They are deluded pompous bastards, make no mistake. I can't imagine what their lawyers and marketing people must be like. good grief
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
If you RTFA you'd note one of the major points was that several pre-installed Linux machines from several vendors are making their way to mainstream venues. Note, the vendors you list are well and good, but you're missing Wal-mart and Costco both of which sell considerably more computers than several of the retailers you mention.
The average consumer has a very vague idea of what an Operating system is.This is very true and often overlooked. The market is all about pre-installed OS's.
The fact that PCs are cheap and that Linux is "free" doesn't really give Linux as big an advantage as many think. Price isn't as important as exposure.Another point of the article was that as prices come down and you look at lower portions of the market, the cost difference between a Windows pre-install and a Linux preinstall becomes more and more significant. If you're comparing a $1200 Linux box to a $1275 Windows box, many consumers are less likely to take a chance or go out of their way. When you're comparing a $250 Linux box to a $325 Windows box, the market is much more likely to be price sensitive and make a change based on price, if given the option. If the market continues in this direction, what is going to happen when users are considering a $100 Linux box or a $300 Windows box because the cost of running Windows includes not only the license, but also more hardware to accommodate its larger footprint for the same performance?
Then, in that same mall, try and find someplace selling PCs with Linux pre-installed. This is not an indication that Linux is about to take over any market.The fact that you're starting to be able to find a Linux box on some of those shelves, however, is a sign that Linux might be starting a growth spurt on the low end. The weathervane, by the way, is not the mall, but Wal-mart... that is where the low end shoppers are.
So what, exactly, is the argument again? Everyone on this planet has a right to be payed for their hard work EXCEPT someone who spends 4 years at a university learning how to develop software? They should work for free, so that their hard work can then be given away for free? Sigh. Do we have to go over this again?
It's "free" as in "freedom". Not "free" as in "free beer".
Locking up and hiding code in the "proprietary" model is actually the one that fails. Every proprietary software program out there sprouts endless "features" to drive upgrades until you reach a point of utter unusability. The point of the proprietary model is money, not usability. And it never can be. Once a product is done, then what? You can't sell any more copies can you? So you beat on it senselessly until you have word processors doing spreadsheets and spreadsheets doing browsing and browsers doing email and email doing viruses.
In an open model, there may be many people who do not get "paid" per se. They may write code that does something useful for them then contribute it back. They do get benefit in that they end up with software that satisfies their needs. Others who have the same needs also benefit. How is that a loss?
There's no incentive for throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the software. If nobody needs "feature X", nobody bothers to write the code. Open software will, inexorably, move toward an optimal state. Only those "features" somebody finds useful enough to do something about (for her or his own benefit first) will enter the code base.
(Yes, that's the abstract ideal and reality sometimes goes wonky but I stand by the concept)
Further, one of the latest driving forces in the open/free software world are companies. They are paying their programmers. And they are obtaining benefit from the work of those programmers. But by opening up the code, they also obtain benefit from the work of others who contribute something which that person needs or sees usefulness in. Said programmer--regardless of who he or she works for and is or is not paid by--gains benefit in having useful software.
What's happening is the "shrink wrap" model--which is a recent phenomena in the field--is dying. And it's not even the bigger part of the field. Most programmers (I've seen figures as high as 95%) are doing "in house" software. They're not going to lose their jobs if, say, Quicken tanks and is replaced by some FOSS software. If all "shrink wrap" software tanks, if the whole sector disappears, the impact to the field would likely be less than the implosion of the "tech bubble".
It's a transient model that's dying out. Big whoopee.
Software is about getting things done. Not about driving upgrade money. That's why MS (and others) will ultimately fail. The need to drive upgrades corrupts software. Ultimately, it will fail to be useful. Software is a tool, not an end in itself. You make money by enabling people to get something useful done. MySQL does it. And they give their software away.
(For that matter, have you noticed the cell phone business? They're giving away handsets. Are they crazy? No, they're making huge profits. Think about it.)
Finally, and I think importantly, the FOSS world imitates the way we do science. Information is open and shared. That process has catapulted our civilization from horse draw carriages to me sitting here sending messages via satellite Internet and in only about two centuries. The system works.
Or hadn't you noticed the Internet? Open protocols. The people who created them were paid but the information is belched out freely all over the place for anybody and his dog to use. And it works.
Funny that...
To the customer, they are selling a one-off jobber with a combination of programs and UI features that represent no platform in particular. Even if they have looked at other "Linux" PCs, they are not likely to see something they recognize in a highly customized Enlightenment desktop. If they buy the system they
Linux boosters are showing their derangement here: Promoting "Linux" to end-users is like promoting Gecko to people who want a browser. But Linux and Gecko are effectively invisible to non-techies. The difference is that Mozilla are not stupid enough to work on only the Gecko engine, and then let umpteen distros implement various browsers and promote them all as "Gecko". Instead they made a complete product Firefox that users can consistently recognize and use, and protect their trademarks such that other browsers using Mozilla technology are not confused with Firefox in the slightest bit.
In short: Stop confusing end-users and yourselves with "desktop Linux" promotion. If you must promote a FOSS operating system to the public, then focus on a specific free distro that adheres to the LSB Desktop spec.
Again, stop confusing people!!