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.
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.
"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.
If you enjoy scripting, one of the best sites around is Heiner's SHELLdorado.
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.
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
you are almost completely incorrect. Everyone that buys an E-machine or other discount budget pc is happy with them. It plays the silly card games they want, it goes online, it let's them type a letter. Aunt gertie is not going to be entering any UT3 deathmatches soon or getting herself a WoW addiction going. She is happy with that Pentuim III 500 she bought back in 1999 it does everything she wants and windows 98 works fine for her. (in face she get's less infections as most new viruses will not run on a non unicode machine)
If I upgrade her to A old thrown away G3 mac and she can do everything she did before, she will STILL be happy.
That is what the $200.00 walmart PC is for... Aunt Gertie, Grandma Fluffles, and creepy uncle Fred. I have supported far more happy low power pc owners than I have seen happy high power pc owners.
Funny part, most "high power" pc owners think sony Vaio = high end. sad reality is that it's low end just trendy.
Low end pc's are for the bulk of the computer users. They do not play games, they don't run bit torrent and watch movies on their computer. They check email, write and print out letters, do online banking and play solitaire.
For them, these computers are typically 300-400% faster than the 10 year old monster they are using now.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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
Under U.S. law, a company does not need to be a true monopoly (i.e., the only player in a sector) to be classified a monopoly. The threshold there (imlu, ianal) is whether or not the company yields monopoly-like influence over the market, including the creation of significant barriers to entry for potential competitors.
That said, the growing success of Linux (and the Mac OS)will ensure that one day--who knows how soon--Microsoft will use the Linux saturation levels as an argument against sanctions it faced (faces) as a monopoly. That's when the OS war will finally reach the point of full engagement.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
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
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.
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.
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