Slashdot Mirror
Why Linux Doesn't Spread - the Curse of Being Free
Vlad Dolezal tips us to a philosophical take on why Linux hasn't grown to challenge Windows as the most popular operating system. According to the author, the reason is simple; Linux is free, and humans tend not to equate free things with being valuable.
"Here's what Compy McNewb sees. He can get both OS's for free. But one of them is worth over three hundred dollars, while the other one is worth nothing. 'That's not true!' I hear you scream. 'Linux is worth a lot! It's just being offered for free!' I know it's not true that Linux is worth less than Windows. It's far more valuable to the end user in terms of getting things done. But that's not what Average Joe Computer Newbie sees. He sees a free product versus a three-hundred-dollar product he can get free. It's all about the perception!"
because it is relatively difficult to buy as a pre-installed system.
Nothing new, and basic psychology. This has been proposed before, even on Slashdot many times in many posts.
It is also the explanation behind fraternity rites / hazing and various initiation procedures to clubs. No pain == no value in many people's eyes.
You could almost look at defense of Microsoft as a form of the Stockholm syndrome.
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
This is just another story about perceived value vs. actual value ... whoop-de-do. It's funny too, because the music industry would take the exact opposite position: people see "free" as being more "valuable".
Gagh. The human psyche is fundamentally twisted.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
A computer nowadays is an appliance, that plays games, downloads porn, and gets you onto Myspace. Whether its a Mac or PC is based on what other s/w you can steal from your friends, or whether you're rich and/or trendy. You have to buy a computer, and it "comes with" the OS - why would you even waste your time farking around with something else?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Who wants to use Linux when there always seems to be one damn thing that doesn't work? How many of the cheap Walmart cd's will run on a linux box? The killer still seems to be accounting programs. When Quicken, Quick Books and Simply Accounting work, then there will be real in-roads to business.
Home users may never sign on. Shit far too many home users already shouldn't have a computer. You want Linux to work and be accepted by the masses? Make it look and work like windows. Any learning curve is too large. We've had the same basic windows functions and menus (until Vista) since 95. How the hell are we going to train legions of AOL users to use Ubuntu? Good luck with that.
I hate Microsoft as a company. Their business practices have been highly suspect, but their software (XP Pro anyway) does work and lets me do stuff without having to read man pages, or tweak files or find special drivers or find a replacement program, or run in a sandbox. After 8 years, countless distros, way too much time and actually failed hardware (how does ubuntu kill a previously working drive), I personally have jumped off the linux soapbox for the last time. Linux is awesome on servers but I don't think it will ever even challange even Apple for desktop market share.
/rant
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
One can come up with all sorts of complicated theories on why linux hasn't gained significant ground on windows, but it's very simple. Applications, applications, applications. If linux was running word, photoshop, quickbooks, and a host of other business software (not to mention games), we wouldn't be reading these endless pontifications about why linux hasn't been overtaken windows on the desktop.
I call this the "King's New Robes" effect, which is the same logic by which "boutique" products are sold - you can take the same crap, repackage it in a pretty way, and charge 10X as much, and people will flock to buy it by the hundred.
In the past year I've had a lot of success converting frustrated Windows users into Linux people... and simply convincing both Windows and Mac users that Linux was a legitimate operating system. However, I've also frequently run into a scenario where I would be showing somebody my Dell laptop running Ubuntu, and they'd be REALLY excited about the features, the intuitive UI, the eye candy... and then they'd ask me how much it was... and when I told them it was free, they'd be disappointed!
I'm guessing it has a lot more to do with Windows being pre-installed on everyone's computer. Once it's there and average joe is used to it, he's not going to bother changing to something else. There's no estimation of value, explicit or implicit there. And honestly, Linux would "cost" the average person more than $300 to start using in terms of time and effort. It's cost me way more than that, and I have some idea of what I'm doing.
I don't think the n00b sees it this way at all. To them, the OS/window manager is part of the computer. That's what they see when they turn it on, and that's all that matters. As they don't see Windows as separate from the computer, they won't see it as extra value. Linux may be ready for the masses at last, but until it's marketed as such in the stores they visit, they'll never know. I was at Harvey Norman the other day buying a new Wacom tablet. There was not one Linux PC in the building. Same goes for just about any other computer store. If your lucky, there might be one or two in a corner. Linux is a build-to-order option from Dell, but Joe n00b won't choose that - he'll just take what's recommended. Right now, you have to actively seek out Linux if you want it; that's perfect for techs, but no use for n00bs.
I've tried to setup several small offices with OpenOffice. Within a week or two, they are screaming for their Excel and Word. It's not that they hate free, they hate change! If it doesn't look and behave exactly like they are used to, they won't invest the time to learn a new product.
It's not because Linux is free, it's because businesses don't put Linux on their desktops.
For a really large number of people, their main experience with computers is at work--that's what they learn on, that's what they come to understand. Deviation from what they know is a barrier to entry.
Couple that with virtually no vendors selling computers with Linux pre-installed, and you have a huge barrier to entry. The vast majority of users use what's put in front of them, either by their employer or Dell or Walmart, and see little to no incentive to switch.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Thanks for the profound knowledge, Einstein.
I noticed this a long time ago, when I first started my business. According to economics, there is more demand if you lower your price. But in reality, this is not always the case. In fact, I would go so far as to say that almost as often as it does, price does not affect demand at all.
I've been saying for a long time that someone should package a Linux distro in a box, and sell it for $100. People will buy it. Anybody could do it, developer or not. It is perfectly legal, as long as you follow the license for all of the programs, which can usually be done by including a source CD along with the package. I haven't done it myself because I'm not familiar with retail setup, and would probably just end up spending my money on a business venture that I can't complete.
Red Hat does something similar. They sell their package for $15. They should increase the price.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
The author is off base, Linux isnt free when presented with the same features as Windows ie codecs. Thats why we have $$$ distributions that sort all that out for the consumer. What is an issue are people downloading free versions of Linux then being stupidly surprised that the $$$ bits are missing.
I think the reason doesn't spread is because of the virtual monopoly windows has on the OS market. Linux is difficult to get on a system pre-installed, and its difficult to get a lot of mainstream software on Linux. Games are almost non-existent in any real way because developers just aren't producing for Linux. At the moment, it will take quite a bit for Linux to take hold of the OS market just because Windows has made it so hard to get in.
I have a minor in marketing and economics, woohoo. Anyway...
This is the best example I can think of. There was a small watch company (can't think of the name off my head without getting out a textbook) who sold fairly high-end watches for about $500-$800 and sales were poor to flat. The company raised the price to around $1500 and sales went crazy. The higher price has a perceived higher quality, even if it doesn't.
Cars work that way, computers work that way. Of course price doesn't always equal quality, but it can and that is a that point is stronger in peoples minds.
Gone!
People associate more expensive products with being superior. Stupid, I know. But it's true.
Fonts look crap so lets see how to install some decent ones..a quick google and after reading several different ways to do it, I'm copying them over from my Windows installation - another 20 minutes. Now, lets set up a shared folder so I can access it from my Vista desktop. Right click on folder, select Share Folder. Goes off and gets another raft of files. Refresh Windows and my laptop shows..all good. Click on the icon for the laptop, user/pass prompt. Try several including guest and the logon for ubuntu and no go. Off we go to Google again and there's a Howto. Only problem is it misses out a few IMPORTANT steps (like saying I have to add a SMB user WTF???) In the end, a post directs me to a Youtube link which shows exactly how to do it. Try to let it share without user/pass and in the end I give up. There's another 45 minutes wasted.
So it's taken me 2 hours just to install BASIC multimedia functionality, some decent fonts and figure out how to share files over a windows network. What makes it worse is there's not just one way to do something but several ranging from completely ridiculous strings of CLI commands to a simple solution but you can bet which one tops the search results. OK, I know how to do it for next time but do you honestly think Average Joe on their first venture into Linux is going to persist as much as I did? Not a chance. Windows "Just works" so that's what they'll go back to. It'll be "Yeah I tried it once but it was just too damned complicated to do anything so I gave up."
And that's why Linux isn't cutting it on the desktop.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
About 6 years ago during my introduction to Linux and subsequent zealotry phase, I stubbornly ran Linux as a desktop environment despite all its shortcomings at the time. Once I got over that part, I slowly found myself drifting back to...Windows. Linux was clunky in that area and really didn't have the support it needed. It has come leaps and bounds since then, but I believe still has some to go. After being introduced to OS X, I would never go back to either. Linux has its place in my life as a spectacular server operating system and I wouldn't consider using anything else. Windows...doesn't have place in my life. OS X bridges the gap for me by combining the flexibility and integration potential of Linux while retaining the familiarity and ease-of-use of Windows (go ahead, laugh,) and bringing to the table a _killer_ GUI that is intuitive and as simple or as tricked out as I want it to be. I can sit my Windows-only Mom down in front of my Macbook and she can figure it out just fine. But it can still run all the fun Linux stuff and more! Woohoo.
1) IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Sun...along with small businesses and individuals across the country (via the Ron Paul *Money Bomb* line of fund raising), do a flat-out hostile takeover of Intuit.
2) Quickbooks and TurboTax are ported to Unix/Linux under the GPL.
3) IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Sun, etc., build a Linux application server tuned especially to offer up Quickbooks in a Remote Desktop style.
4) Offer said server on an easy to install LiveCD that lets everyone try it out and easily install it.
5) IBM, Sun, etc., make a huge amount of money selling enterprise ready QuickBooks servers.
6) Novell, Red Hat, etc., make a huge amount of money selling QuickBooks support.
7) All the small businesses save a ton of money not having to deal with QuickBooks forced upgrades and other shenanigans.
8) MS certainly isn't going to disappear, but they certainly feel a disturbance in the force -- as if a million people suddenly cried out Freedom!
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
How many people pay for Windows? These scenarios are common:
"When I need Windows, I just grab my friend's Windows disc with a volume license."
"When I need Windows, I just buy it for $5 with my University ID."
"When I need Windows, I just borrow my friend's bootleg copy that he got in Asia."
"When I need Windows, I get the pre-cracked version from The Pirate Bay."
How many people really know the real cost of a full license of the various versions of Windows Vista?
This was news years ago but this view is slowly changing.
1) Open Source is gaining more and more penetration in the workplace. It starts out small with free stuff like wiki's, gimp, open office, etc. Eventually the ethos will spread to the OS as well. OSS isn't just abstract theory anymore, there are real apps that non-geeks can appreciate.
2) There's more and more frustration with Microsoft.
I'm hearing people in userland start to talk about going open source. Case in point, a parent I know found out the cheap computer they got did not come with Office. They need it for school. Well, you can fork over $125 for Office or $0 for Open Office. Assuming they just need basic word processing, free is fine. Said parent was highly receptive to the idea. Five years ago, I can just about guarantee the answer would have been "Open what? No, no, I want the Microsoft brand, what everybody's using."
More than "free must = crap," I think the dominant corporate meme is still "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." If Microsoft drops a steamer in your lap, you just shrug and look at the boss like "Hey, what can I do, the market leader is dropping steamers on everyone." You go with a product no one has ever heard of and it fails, the boss looks at you like "We're the only outfit in the industry with a steamer in our laps and gee, we're also the only one using that Foosoft app. Got any excuses, flitboy?"
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
...for what it's worth, as to the reasons Linux isn't spreading as quickly as was hoped:
(1) Crap-all marketing. Windows has posters, flyers, tv spots, and general awareness by most computers users. Apple has poster, tv spots, attractive retail stores, and in most cases a general awareness by most computer users. What does Linux have? At best, word of mouth.
(2) Lack of commercial apps. Don't give me crap about being able to use GIMP for free - armature and profession photographers want professional-level tools like Photoshop. They WILL pirate the damn thing if necessary.
(3) Path of least resistance. Moving from one operating system to another is generally an exercise in trading one set of hassles for another. It's not often that it's a painless experience. Moving to a Mac though is much more realistic for someone fed-up with Windows than moving to Linux however, due to points (1) and (2).
Finally, the biggest reason of all - why change? Windows just isn't that bad if you know how to use a computer. Most people have more important things to do in life than worry about operating systems, or at least they do once they get to a certain age when priorities become clearer.
I'm not bashing Linux or open source software in general, but the simple fact is that Windows is Just Fine for most people. Add to that fact that people don't see the hidden cost of Windows, and you have the current situations.
Anyone tried getting a java applets to work in firefox on a 64-bit AMD linux platform? Or how about sending audio to a TV over an HDMI connection? How about video overlay on an ATI x1250 video card (on a motherboard with the AMD 690 chipset)? Can you tell it just took me over 1 week at over 8 hours a night of getting my new HTPC set up with linux? And I tought very long and hard between whether to go with linux or windows xp. It has decent new hardware but still performance is horrible mainly due to lack of proper driver support (even though this hardware has been out for more than a year). Anyway ... if you have the ability to patch source code, (re)compile kernel modules, and sort through 100's of pages of forum threads telling you to change one config setting after another, then sure, you can make a really great platform working for free.
But is the average PC user really able or willing to put the necessary time to figure all this out? At the same time, you can't blame manufacturers in not putting the resources to support the relatively small linux userbase. So it's a chicken and the egg problem.
Whether chicken/egg or not, the FACT remains though that overall, installing, maintaining, and using linux is still far more complicated for the average user (who has no clue what a daemon or python script is) than windows.
It's lock-in, hardware and software lock-in.
Hardware: Linux is pretty good at working with MOST of the hardware, but there are wireless cards and scanners and of course other devices that don't work out of the box with Linux
Software: yes there are replacements and most of the people probably need only a browser, but if 100% of Windows programs would work on Linux I'm sure we'd not have this discussion.
All the rest of "reasons": ease of use, resistance to change, lack of perceived values they are there but they are minor issues, most of the people I know won't even be able to tell the difference between KDE and Windows, most of the people I know don't care about the "value" of their OS either.
And of course, why says that Linux is not growing? It's growing pretty fast considering these issues. What do people expect?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
I just installed Ubuntu 7.10 this weekend on my thinkpad. The process was seamless. Ubuntu is ready for grandmas. I got it at a good price too! However, I don't know how I can convince my non-geek friends that it really is that good, and it really is that easy.
--why?
It's got NOTHING to do with Linux being free and EVERYTHING to do with inertia. Linux is used by jillions of companies every day for all kinds of shit BESIDES desktop apps, so it's not like there's widespread distrust of Linux, and certainly not due to its price tag. The reason it hasn't reached that tipping point is circular: nobody is using Linux on the desktop because nobody is using Linux on the desktop.
Windows is well-known and it's Good Enough for the masses, so they have no reason to go through the unknowns of switching. That the "something else" is Linux has nothing to do with it.
Yo mama so fake, she failed the Turing Test.
Chad: Whatcha doin', Luke?
Luke: [nervous] Nothing!
Chad: Looks like you're installing linux.
Luke: It's just a Live CD.
Chad: You know, I've been into linux for years now.
Luke: Really? I'm just
Chad: Yes?
Luke: God, I can't believe I'm saying this
Chad: Oh. Let me show you how to properly set the boot parameters on that Live CD you've got
[cue the "bow-chicka" music
1. It doesn't run "Word", "Outlook", "Photoshop" and all that people are used to
2. The flaws, difficulty and learning curve are very different from the flaws, difficulty and learning curves the people are already accustomed to under Windows. (It's important to note that Windows isn't perceived to be 'better' than Linux or even MacOS, it's that the users are accustomed to the problems with Windows and are reluctant to learn to deal with a new set of problems associated with alternatives.)
Most Windows users will not give you any argument about the expectedly poor performance, stability, reliability or security of MS Windows. If you told them it was unsafe, you wouldn't be telling them they don't already know. The reality of the user psychology that most people seem to be missing is that people are accustomed to Windows and its shortcomings.
The reality is that there's a LOT of psychology to overcome when it comes to getting users to try alternatives... even alternatives such as MacOSX. And getting beyond the psychology still isn't enough -- there has to be a comprehensive set of answers to handle the questions surrounding migrating their data to a new OS and running needed applications or their acceptable substitutes. And most significantly, the answers to those issues are not one-size-fits-all! The comprehensive solutions need to be tuned to the user being converted.
I don't have a clue how to get beyond the psychological barriers to change. But taking a lesson from Microsoft when they were busy converting users from Word Perfect to MS Word, they were ALL ABOUT providing massive guidance and assistance for Word Perfect users. Microsoft's efforts won users over. It would seem to me that if there were sufficiently effective documents and "wizards" to guide Windows users in using Linux, it might prove to be helpful... do a degree. (If I were to estimate how effective such an effort might be, I'd guess about 5% effective. It's not a big estimation, but it's not 0.)
"According to the author, the reason is simple; Linux is free, and humans tend not to equate free things with being valuable." Linux fails because it's _doesn't_ do anything significant. Apple = iTunes, iPod, iPhone, Digital Monopoly Windows = Gaming, Office, Corporate Environment, Desktop Monopoly Where does Linux fit in among the current scheme of things? It does nothing well of the previously mentioned market space, so what does it have going for it? Those 8 things are probably 95% of what consumers do with computers so where and how will Linux compete?
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Windows *is* free to most users, eg. people who use Windows at work or get it pre-installed with their systems.
... 'Office software' ... and they're good.
... tho they tend to think that it's a Mac. My girlfriend doesn't care that her Eee runs linux - she just cares about browsing the web and writing documents ... the same as most people!
If you asked people how much Windows costs, I'm sure most people would have NO IDEA.
Seriously, who buys Windows anyway?
You get it for "free" with the system you buy.
Or, at work, it's magically installed on all of the workstations.
To the general public, Windows *IS* FREE !!!
I'm sure most people don't even know that you can install operating systems besides Windows on their PCs. Hell, the term 'PC' essentially means 'Windows' to lay-people and technical support employees.
The *real* way to spread linux is, in my opinion, to do it without letting on that it's 'linux.' Kindof like the new microlaptops have been doing - they run linux but they haven't overly promoted that facts. All consumers here is 'Web browser'
My boss and many of our employees use my workstation (Ubuntu) just fine
Besides us geeks, people aren't going to buy computers and devices because they run linux. They're going to buy them because they're affordable and meet their needs. That's all. End of story.
Do you care which brand of toaster you buy?
I used a linux type OS fr the first time in the late 90's at a computer lab at the university I went to. Mosaic worked and later netscape worked. I thought it was fine as a way to access the internet. I still used word perfect (on a windows system) for word processing. Hell... I remember telling my dad that you could find anything on the internet. i told him if you want to find out more about "nose picking" just type it into a search engine and you will discover new ways to pick your nose (there were less than 10 hits back then on fast.com compares to 400,000+ on google now) So recently I downloaded and burned a gutsy gibbon boot disk. I was not a Comp Sci major. I am not some computer guru even though i built all my computers and my parents computers (the only exception being the laptop I am currently posting from. Booting to GG showed me a desktop that I was almost familiar with (things do change a bit with time). I immediately discovered that my bluetoooth mouse and my internet connection did not work. Obviously without internet it becomes impossible to research solutions to a problem on the internet. Without bluetoooth I could not use my mouse and I hate using a touchpad. I would like to use some sort of Linux distro but I don't seem to have the specialized knowledge required to do so. If, eventually it becomes a system where all you have to do is install it and almost everything works then I will gladly become faithful fan. Until then I will continue to use windows products because I have a lot of other things on my plate than learning how to finagle an operating system to meet my needs when there is one that already does.
Tell him his new clothes are ready!
As far as I am considered, I hope Linux NEVER becomes mainstream.
I've been using Linux exclusively for 4 years and I love it, especially when all the freeloaders ask me
"You're in computers; my computer is acting up, can you take a look?"
"What operating system are you running?" I ask.
"Windows."
"Sorry, I can't help, I run Linux"
Ahh... Sweet peace and quiet, not only in my computer, but in my life also.
Fuck being an evangelist, it has caused nothing but pain for me and now I just want to be left alone.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
If everyone else used it i wouldn't feel cool anymore.
Am I the only one who immediately thought of Chad Vader?
Zing!
I think many people with some basic computer knowledge associate unix-like systems with a CLI and they consider that archaic. I'm a college student using kubuntu as much as I can, and lots of people in the dorms get wide eyed at compiz. When my roommate first saw it he asked me what it was and I told him it was linux. His response was "That's a really old system".
I "wobbled my windows" and "rotated my cube" and replied "Yeah, it's real ancient"..
Business users don't generally use Linux on the desktop because of:
1) IT inertia - i.e., application infrastructure which would require replacement (a.k.a. lock-in)
2) Corporate desire not to spend extra money supporting another OS
3) Training costs
Joe Home User sees #1 and #3 as well. e.g. for #1, they want to play Cabela's Big Game Hunter, not hack on Gnumeric. And Big Game Hunter is a Windows app, not a Linux app. For #3 - and this is the killer - Linux is still too hard to use. Venture outside the well-defined, tolerably easy-to-use user needs space of web browsing and... and that's about it... and you're looking at having to deal with a command-prompt. God forbid you should have to install something like a printer, which is usually dirt-simple on Windows, but a PITA on Linux (to wit: I have used Linux and FreeBSD since 2000. I still cannot get my Brother HL-2040 to print anything besides text and Word docs via CUPS + SMB on my FreeBSD box. PDFs are a no-go. But it works fine when connected to my OSX laptop - which also runs CUPS, so I know it *can* be done.)
Users have a hard time dealing with command-prompts -- that's partly why GUIs were invented.
Windows offers a path-of-least-resistance/lower barrier-to-entry. It does so by having a larger established application base, far-greater mindshare (which in turns feeds the app base), and by providing a generally easier-to-use interface -- all of which drive its own growth, or at least self-perpetuation.
Meanwhile, although Linux is free-to-possess, it is certainly *not* free to learn, and operating it requires more time spent "tweaking" than is usually the case on Windows. As the old saying goes, "Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing." Hence why some of us have switched to OSX (my time is pretty expensive)...
Windows' continuing desktop dominance is ultimately a feedback loop in action. Linux is great for many things, and for a power user who does no more than basic Office-type work (Word docs, spreadsheets, etc.), and who doesn't mind multiple audio streams failing to mix together correctly -- or require different audio frameworks to do it, depending on the app -- it's usable... But as a desktop for Joe User, Linux isn't there yet, and probably never will be (consider the expansion into synchronization with iPods, cellphones (and the PIM stuff that goes along with smartphones), and so forth. Even Apple has a lot of catch-up to do here; Microsoft is using its market dominance to connect all these things in a tolerable -- but far from perfect -- manner.)
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
MORPHEUS: At last. Welcome, Neo. As you no doubt have guessed, I am Morpheus.
THOMAS: It's an honor.
MORPHEUS: No, the honor is mine. Please. Come. Sit. [Pause] I imagine, right now, you're feeling a bit like Alice, tumbling down the rabbit hole?
THOMAS: You could say that.
MORPHEUS: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up. Ironically, this is not far from the truth. Do you use closed source software, Neo?
THOMAS: No.
MORPHEUS: Why not?
THOMAS: Because I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my computer.
MORPHEUS: I know exactly what you mean. [Pause] Let me tell you why you are here. You have come because you know something. What you know you can't explain but you feel it. You've felt it your whole life, felt that something is wrong with the world. You don't know what, but it's there like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?
THOMAS: Windows?
MORPHEUS: Do you want to know what it is? Don't we all feel that there is more to life...that there is something missing? [Pause] Windows is everywhere, it's all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your - ahem - window [short pause] or when you turn on your media center. You can feel it when you login at work, when you surf to slashdot, when you pay your taxes online. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
THOMAS: What truth?
MORPHEUS: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what Windows is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the recovery disc, the story ends. You wake in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the Ubuntu disc, you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember, all I am offering is the truth. Nothing more.
(Thomas takes the Ubuntu disc and some cookies.)
I don't know that Ubuntu GNU/Linux isn't spreading.
//have// to. The thing installs itself; I just get a postcard every so often.
//precisely// because of the lack of restrictions on what it lets them do, instead of trying to sell and advertise a bunch of crap they don't want, or have to pay more to get if they do want it.
//taken away// instead of given to them, they find ways to make the switch.
I've long since given up trying to advocate a new OS to people who aren't fed up with the one they have. But last week, I heard from a friend of mine who told me his roommate installed it after seeing it on his PC. He installed it after seeing it on his girlfriend's computer. She happens to be my roommate, and she asked me to install it without prompting from me.
I didn't even install two of these systems. I didn't
Aside from that, freedom is worth more than free. I am worth more than beer. Thank you very much.
So he may be right, in the sense that Windows users basically hate freedom (like terrorists! er, no wait...), so they put a low price tag on it. But everyone I know who's installed Gutsy since it's been out has been pretty pleased with it
Perhaps freedom won't sell. But that's because it can only be given away. And as people realize that they're paying to have their freedoms
And again, why is it so important that GNU/Linux "spread"? Just keep it^H^H me free.
Seriously, five years ago only the companies's local geeks had heard of Linux, nowadays only the young-and-stupid MSCEs *haven't*. And the amount of Linux users I've met during non computer-related activities has been surprising, too, and it has only tended to increase during the last couple of years.
Sure, it hasn't been as fast as Firefox, but I'd say it's not so much due to Linux's "free" status, as much as due to Microsoft's tight grip on it's OS monopoly. HTML is a standard, the Win32 API... not so much.
Not that I particularly care, though, Linux works for me perfectly without needing a 50%+ marketshare, but it *is* spreading, slowly perhaps but that should change once it gains a good foothold in the business market.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
The real problem is that it is a hassle to get any operating system up and running on a machine. Microsoft solved this problem by working with manufacturers
to make sure the windows runs on their product. Apple solved this problem by only allowing their operating system to be used on machines that they sell.
Until recently there had been no solution of this sort for Linux, so people who ran linux had to be brave enough souls to fuss with the machine
so that it acts right after the operating system has been installed. Part of the reason that linux is starting to be used more on the desktop is
because manufacturers are selling the machines with linux preinstalled. I am not so sure its about perceived value, its more likely about convenience.
A few years ago, you could walk into a Best Buy store and find any of several boxed Linux install kits in the $75-$100 range sitting next to the $75-$100 Windows XP upgrades.
Did charging money for Linux do anything to spread it to the masses? Well, SUSE was purchased by Novell, Mandrake nearly went bust, and Red Hat canned its end-user distribution and replaced it with Fedora. So much for that idea.
Every business I've ever seen is running Microsoft Office.
I don't doubt that there are businesses out there running Open Office or something else, but over the length of my career and through engagements at probably three dozen or so companies in a wide variety of industries, I've never seen a business that didn't run MS Office. Even tech companies where I've been where the culture was very anti-Microsoft and open/free technology was used for everything else humanly possible were still running Microsoft Office.
Its the apps... Thats it.
It starts with the applications. Its things like iTunes. It's things like Office, Games, etc. On the more professional level, there are a lot of apps that are still just windows and those that do have linux versions lack the other complimenting applications that are only still on windows... which prevents people from using the linux versions.
There are other factors such as ease of use. Linux is still a bit tricky in some areas. Its a lot easier to install now a days but it is still not as smooth and straight forward as windows.
Hardware. Linux supports a lot of hardware... but not all.
The main thing is applications and not because its free. Just because it's free, doesnt mean i'll take it. A free Ferrari without its Ferrari engine in it, is worthless to me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Linux is in fact the most popular OS out there. There are far more Linux machines in the world than Windows. Each year about 300 million Linux devices are produced, while the total number of Windows devices are only about 600 million. If we assume a 5 year life span for a Linux device, then there must be at least 1.5 billion Linux devices in the world. Granted, these things are mostly routers cell phones and telephone exchanges, but the fact that ordinary yokels cannot see the mountain of Linux devices in the field, doesn't mean that they aren't there.
Desktop wise, the little Asus Eee PC alone will outsell Apple in 2008. Apple produces about 3 million Macs in a year, while Asus plans to sell 5 million of there little toys.
So don't tell me Linux ain't popular, while it is in fact the biggest OS success story ever.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
The good:
- rock solid stability if a system is well configured, no latency,
- solid office and graphics software: firefox, ooffice, latex, gimp, inkscape, etc
- peace of mind, being in control of all processes, own the machine
The bad:- presentation software. there is a long way towards something like Keynote on the mac.
- games. Will I ever see games like "crysis" be sold for linux?
- propriatary software like Flash, photoshop, dreamwaver, tax or business software
The ugly:A good example would be the whole source code thing. This is scary to a non-technical user. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. While it is possible to run Linux and never run in to any code, it isn't that hard to find something you want to do that needs source code. Maybe it is a driver or an app that is distributed only in source form. Well, compiling that scares people. You have to drop to a command line and you are going to get a shitload of text dumped at you that makes no sense. Even though the end result might be just as easy as running a visual installer in Windows, it doesn't FEEL as easy, it feels scary.
I could go on with a whole list of design choices Linux has made that are like this. Basically what it comes down to is that it doesn't seem as easy to a non-technical user. Even if the process is just as easy (and there are times when it certainly isn't) the fact that it involves something that looks highly technical makes it very intimidating. This is going to hinder adoption, of course. If people feel it is harder, they aren't going to want to use it or learn it.
I believe that Linux being free has nothing whatsoever to do with its value perception.
Instead I believe that people, and to some extent correctly, still equate Linux with "something for geeks, not end-users" because of:
- the generally poor standard of GUI's on Linux itself and Linux software
- the generally dismissive attitude of Linux users / software developers for a nice polished GUI with all the details taken care of.
There ... I've said it. So flame me.
Ordinary users simply do _not_ want something that forces them to go to the command line for system maintenance. Neither do they want to have to edit configuration files, let alone scripts. It has taken Linux distributions years to come up with something as sophisticated as YAST (for SuSE Linux) and KDE Control center, and especially KDE still doesn't provide a reliable one-stop solution to detect and install my inkjet printer. I have to go to CUPS for that. In a word ... it's less simple than MS Windows (unless you already know what you should be doing because you did it before and kept notes).
I have seen threads with expostulations about how great command line oriented programs are, and I agree ... for some programs that are oriented towards batch processing, for repetitive jobs, and for software that I write myself for my own use. (When I write software for my own personal use, I never write GUIs. Command-line, control files, and file in, file out. If a GUI is needed, someone else can do that.)
But for other people's programs, and for programs I don't use every day I want to be prompted and guided ... by a GUI ... with tooltips and a smoothly functioning and fairly complete Help function. The very last think I want is to be obliged to read a manual and remember commands for some fink of a program before I use it. I believe I have a typical end-user mentality in this respect.
And did I mention that as an end-user I really do _not_ want to see every program sporting its own GUI layout either? I don't care a fig about what some programmer thinks is good way to organise his GUI. I want my GUI to be *standardised* (at least the toolbar) so that it's somewhat familiar as soon as the application starts. Copy-paste should of course be supported, and don't you dare to let it default to any other key combination than C for copy and V for paste, and a print option (if applicable at all) right where I expect it ... under the menu (which has to be the leftmost menu) somewhere 3/4 down the list.). Well ... I might be able to cope with a standard GUI layout under Linux that's different from Windows, but no more than one.
And then the graphics itself ... ouch. I really *hate* GTK-based programs. They look somewhat like the Windows programs I'm used to, but the widgets work differently. I find them clunky. Ugly and clunky. Again, I couldn't care less what some programming community thinks of them. I don't want them. Take the typical GTK file menu for one thing. An abortion! And what's more, I won't have them unless there is no alternative.
As an illustration, take for example AviDemux (see here: http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/). It comes in two flavours: with a GTK+ interface and with a QT4 interface. I tried the GTK+ flavour first and disliked it. The QT4 version on the other hand was acceptable. It didn't irritate.
The good news is that this nicely illustrates the difference between what in the context of "Git" (the version control software) is called: the plumbing (the guts) and the porcelain (the superficial layer that comprises the GUI). A well-designed GUI can be rendered in either GTK+ or QT4, and it should have absolutely no impact on the plumbing.
I can't tell you how many IT people claim to have "tried linux and it is too experimental/incomplete/unstable/whatever". Then, I ask them a little more about their experience and find that they tried the wrong distro, three versions ago. In the OSS world, 6 months is a long time. If you haven't tried the recommended beginner linux distro at the version that has been released within the last 6 months, you shouldn't be asserting that modern linux distros are not mature. That would be like me taking a copy of windows 98, trying to install it on my 3 month old computer, and then calling Windows a bad OS because it didn't work. You wouldn't give an assessment of Vista based on your experiences with Windows 2000 would you? Then why does it make sense to say that current linux distros can be evaluated based on your experience with older versions.
I highly recommend you take that computer and try it again with Ubuntu linux 7.10. Your nVidia card will almost certainly work. Installing software is really easy and the number of packages in the repositories is massive. NTFS just works. The sound should just work. Finally, are you really complaining about having to choose between desktop managers???? Give me a break. Use whatever you like. Stop spreading ignorant assessments of linux. If you don't know the current state of linux, don't say anything. Better yet, learn the current state of linux. From what I hear, it is pretty cheap to try it out.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
No. No it's not. OpenOffice sucks. It's usability is worse than MS Office
Oddly enough, I've been using OpenOffice since its early StarOffice days (before it was bought out by Sun). Its kept its UI generally stable and I've never had to waste my time learning new menu layouts at each new version release. It's available where ever I might need it.
Personally, I always remove Microsoft Office and replace it with OpenOffice. OO's the known quantity. MSO is the one with the dodgy shifting target document formats.
it's compatibility filters regularly screw up simple files
If Microsoft doesn't care if its own Office app is compatible with older copies of Office, why should I? Need to transfer a document to someone else? Use PDF, RTF or TXT.
They DO care about WindowsMedia 10
Sucks to be them. Everyone else has heard of Videolan's VLC.
Also, if you require me to do any sysadmining whatsoever you've epicly failed
Ah, so you're the one who doesn't use Windows Update, clean the viruses from your PC or run defrag every once in a while.
You want linux to really be valuable to people
Nope. Personally, I want Microsoft to buy out the QNX folks and impliment Windows 7 as its GUI. Then create a nice sandboxed emulator to handle all the old Win32 app cruft.
No, the problem with Linux is that it's decentralised and developers are working all over the place doing whatever bits they want to do. It's a strength, but also a weakness.
Linux is a lot better than ever before, but some sort of focused development would solve a lot of the problems people complain about. Sadly there's no-one ponying up the dough so we're largely back to people doing whatever they feel like.
You most likely know the type.
Enters a friend of mine. New to Linux. Reasonably clever, manages to install, then wants to run Windows games under Linux. He learns about wine and wants to know if it will do what he wants it to do.
"No problem," he thinks, "there is this thing called the community and I will go and ask!"
And he did. In polite words. Telling people about his system setup, about his idea to change to Linux, then asking a number of questions about distributions (which one?), wine and performance.
Answers included things like:
- "Go away, windows boy!" (no further comments)
- "RTFM!" (no further comments)
- "Use Google." (including the common "Oh no, another Windows user..." quote)
It was made very clear to him, in all but two answers, that he was not welcome, the wrong kind of user, morally inferior for wanting to play non-free games.
Two people actually jumped in and told him that, yes, Windows was actually better in supporting Windows games and wine wouldn't really help there. Linux would not make sense here. Heresy takes courage. :)
I am a bit of a late starter, installed my first SLS when kernel versions were around 0.98, the file system was minix and you had to hex-edit sectors to set your boot device. If you haven't been there, you don't want to know what you had to do to make X run. I remember a different kind of Linux crowd from that time. "Snotty" was not part of that.
Nowadays, my t-shirt would probably read: "I was root. It becomes boring. Now I just fired root for beeing cheeky and hired Admin because he is polite, solves my problems and will not risk my business on alpha code."
Linux is a great OS - and my friend is now learning how to use a Linux server as a game server (for windows games), web server and FTP server. He is doing fine, even with bash, as he is not stupid - just untrained. His web interface for game servers is not looking too bad...
But like would be easier if the "WHOOOA! I am root!" kids (on a single user system, probably running a boot-from-DVD Knoppix or a SuSE Live DVD) learned to shut up unless they had something helpful to say. They are not doing Linux any good.
demand increases as price goes down... with one very important caveat. all else must remain equal. don't forget that caveat b/c it is *extremely* important. all else doesn't always remain equal. for example, if the price of $10k fur is marked down to $1k, some folks might think it is a fake and not be interested. or damaged goods. or stolen. or whatever. linux is gaining market share, but it is different and people need an *incentive* to do different things. their incentive to learn windows was they wanted to be employable - so they learned windows even if they *hated* it. business doesn't move away from windows due to the incompatibility issues caused by msft brass in order to maintain monopoly like control over the business desktop. the consumer market will go where the business market goes. if business went 100% linux tomorrow, nobody would remember msft in about 3 years. the incentive for me to move to linux was that i value freedom, saving a few extra bucks and learning new things. i like the road less traveled. that is probably why i chose postgres over pgsql and i ended up trying the zone diet based on a glowing referral. i'm very happy with all three choices, too. if linux wants to compete with msft, they need the business desktop in a big way. applications are important here and msft brass did a great job lockign most companies into msft dependent applications - so this is a tough sell.
Always the same story...
Around 1828, after Greece revolted and got independent from Turkish enslavement, Greece's new governor Ioannis Kapodistrias, in order to feed the people, introduced the potato to Greece and large shipments of potatoes were distributed to the people for free. Nobody even bothered to taste it. Kapodistrias was smart: He gathered back all the potato quantities and locked in large containers, and also put armed guardians to 'guard' it, as if it was something extremely valuable. Quickly, interest was sparked among the Greeks, and soon they started looting the containers (under the guards eyes (who they were told to overlook)) in order to eat the forbidden fruit...
The moral: If you want linux to spread, lock it, and also distribute the necessary cracks. But there is also a more subtle moral: Do you really want this kind of stupid people for linux users?
I have had too many (real non-IT-pro) people I have tried to expose to linux give me feedback on the system, and here's the real scoop:
1. it is too difficult to install new applications. Yes, even installing Firefox is a challenge for a noob... now try to do it on a generic Linux distro.
2. Where ARE the apps I just installed? WTF... why aren't the in the 'start menu'? Try to explain THIS to someone who has been using windows.
3. logical navigation of folders: Advanced users may know where everything is, but the average tool looks in 'Program Files', or 'My Documents'. So they just have no clue what the Linux folders are.
Maybe this is the time to admit that Linux IS a great OS (yes, it is), but we have not done enough to enlighten the AVERAGE computer user. **Unless this ever becomes an important requirement, Linux will continue to be the FREE system, while others will be able to charge a premium.
Personally, I don't care if an OS is free, or cost $$ (it's not my $$ after-all). I just need 80% + of the users to be using it without calling me every 5 minutes.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
It does spread.
It's been a while since I've used linux. I don't particularly care for XP, but I use it on a daily basis because everything supports it. As an engineer, it's a lot more important to get the job done than to have a great OS and support the open source community. I've looking at buying an Apple laptop, and I may do that. Worst case, I could dual boot XP.
After reading through some of the comments, however, I became interested in giving it another go. The comments suggest that Ubuntu would be a good one to try. I downloaded the appropriate Ubuntu distro CD (x64 for my 64-bit AMD machine here at home) and tried to install it. I have already had enough time to completely evaluate Ubuntu on my machine, because the install CD will not get past the loading screen. When the progress bar is complete, the screen goes black. I let the machine sit there for half an hour: black screen. Different monitor: black screen. Built-in video (previously disabled) instead of video card: black screen.
In the past I've found linux to be such a pain in the ass that I considered it to be not just not user-friendly, but actively user-hostile. Ubuntu may be a great distro and perfect for beginners, but since I can't get it to install, it's about par for the course with my past linux experiences.
This is why linux hasn't spread. The user experience--for people who aren't linux hobbyists--is terrible. Free has nothing to do with it, and the author's pop psychology conclusion is horse shit.
-podom
We're wanted men. I have the death sentence in 12 systems!
I don't use Linux because I don't like it much. Its not user friendly. And I'm a geek!
every so called 'realistic' reporting is telling us that everyone makes decisions based on their perceptions. Stock market, elections, choosing a consumer product. If that's the case has the population become a bunch of numbheaded drones or its part of the propaganda to isolate people and feel helpless?
Oh, if just Linux had been proprietary like the other Unix lookalikes of the time, it might today have enjoyed the same propagation on the desktop as, say, Coherent or Xinu.
BTW: Linux does ship today with more computer based products than MS Windows, just not on the most visible platform of them all, the PC desktop.
SCO said so!
Well, I don't advise to exactly *do* this, but it's probably a concrete example of how to value what is got at a free or very low price.
Let's make an equivalent to breathable air...
Think it's not valuable? Here's a nice plastic bag around your head. Wait a few seconds... Still think free isn't valuable? ]:-)
There have been much improvements lately but it is still hard for end users. Ubuntu really tries not to be, but still.
Assuming you get past the installation point, there are a number of things that are not user friendly.
Applications have a horrible UI. Really, Linux has by far the worst looking apps. Users don't use bad-looking apps, regardless what that they do.
Users don't want to type commands in a terminal. By each command line you tell someone to do, God kills a new Linux user and makes a windows user instead.
WiFi with Samba are not easy to set up. Before you yell at me, I know YOU can, and I know users can't.
It has too many config options. Many config options clutter the screen and they end reading nothing.
Users don't care about squeezing every single processor cycle, the don't even know there is one, and they shouldn't know.
Users don't know what a hard drive is and don't need to know, so don't even ask about partitioning.
Probably the worst one: If something goes wrong, it doesn't degrade too gracefully. You'll probably have to type some lines in the terminal making God kill a dozen new Linux users until you fix it.
Have you seen an iPod fail? It doesn't give you a mem dump, nor a blue screen. It displays a "sad iPod" icon and a URL to Apple's tech support. That's all the users need to know.
>> Linux is free, and humans tend not to equate free things with being valuable.
.
That's why peer to peer downloading of mp3 is so hugely unpopular
Not only is it free it's also *shock* *horror* LEGAL. An illegal pirate copy of WindowsXP has much more street cred than the goody two shoes linux option. I ordered 6 ubuntu cds to give to people on my course here in Ireland who are attending a hardware maintenance course. Not one of them even put the disc in the machine! Why? Cos it's legal! Therefore I propose two new linux distros based on Linux Mint. 1) Illegal Linux (complete with activation key scribbled on the cd case) 2) Thousand dollar Linux (linux that is sold in the shops for $1,000) This was typed on an ASUS eeepc running Ubuntu 7.10.
The reasons why Linux is no use :
1/ No Photoshop
2/ No GAMES
3/ No MS Office
Now I'm on Macintosh/Hackintosh, I can use real software. Like Photoshop and MS Office. (I suck too much at games to ever enjoy them.)
Why not GIMP and OpenOffice?
Because they both suck. GIMP is unusable and lacks major features. (No CMYK? WTF?) And OpenOffice takes an hour to load.
And don't come talking to me of gaming on Linux. When Wine works right out of the box, yes. Maybe. Or in the alternate reality where a virtual PC (vmware etc) has hardware 3D. (This necessitates to download and half-install a Windows anyway, though.)
I'll keep OSX on my Apple and -compatibles, thanks. (Hint : Intel chipset + Intel CPU + nVidia GPU = Mac)
No package dependency hell, no half-baked "will finish between my studies and my first job" software, no "we don't ship the settings for the mobos sensors even though we do have them", no "these drivers support half a thousand obsolete webcams that no one makes anymore", no "this has been compiled with GCC2.95 and an alternative libc", no "recompile your kernel without support for your TV tuner if you want to ever use the controller card that interfaces to the HDs you bought to record TV".
When Linux is INTEGRATED and works RIGHT, NOW, as in OUT-OF-THE-FUCKING-BOX, then I'll use it again. If it has the software I need to GET WORK DONE : Adobe Suite and MS Office.
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
Some may be old enough to remember Turbo Pascal. Back when Microsoft and Digital Research were selling Pascal compilers for DOS for a few hundred dollars or more -- in the days before C took off on that platorm -- fast Turbo Pascal hit the market for $39.95. They sold bunches. I sure fewer people would have acquired Turbo Pascal if it had been released for no cost with a free license of some sort.
Linux is not held back as much by the "it's free" factor as it is by its unavailability in places where many people look for software. I know that sounds incongruous to everyone here, but the world is full of people who expect software to come in a shiny box sold by a store in the mall.
That, of course, is marketing, something that Turbo Pascal had and Linux has never had. More precisely, it's something no single commercial Linux distribution has ever taken seriously: market Linux to a mainstream audience. (Plenty of distributions have decalred they were targeting the mainstream audience, but they never bothered to tell the mainstream.)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
That is exactly the type of advice you get when you ask for Linux help, and it soooooo clarifies things for Joe User.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
You're horribly misrepresenting Windows by acting as though every Windows user is a complete idiot. Let me ask you something, how is the average joe going to find out what in the heck Synaptic is if they don't know enough about computer to know the difference between downloading and installing? I have no idea what Synaptic is, but I could download and install FF in 30 seconds on a windows box.
There are 2 main problems with Linux right now that stop the average joe from wanting it. Installation issue (Windows has them as well but since it normally comes pre-loaded the average joe has never seen them. And, while is seems like heresy, Windows has far less installation issues, if only because the hardware is made for it) and fanboys who don't understand how someone can't figure out how to use a command line tool with the proper switch options in order to enable their 'insert absolutely necessary component of a computer here' so they can use Linux, I mean a child could do this!
Windows is far simpler to use than Linux right now, sorry but that's the facts. Linux is far more useful than Windows but it's still not easy enough for primetime.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
So, let's see:
1/ No Photoshop
Sure, if a company needs Photoshop, Linux is out. But how many PS installations does a regular company needs, unless it is a graphics shop? One, maybe two.
2/ No GAMES
Companies don't want people to play games.
3/ No MS Office
So you simply use OpenOffice. And it doesn't take "an hour to load". On my desktop (a simple AMD 3200) it takes 12 seconds to load the first time, the second time 2 seconds.
No package dependency hell
Yes, and 1999 wants it's fud back.
no half-baked "will finish between my studies and my first job" software
You can find that kind of software for any os, also for Macs.
no "we don't ship the settings for the mobos sensors even though we do have them"
What!? Ship settings?
"these drivers support half a thousand obsolete webcams that no one makes anymore"
What's wrong with that? It's very much better than not having the drivers. And how are the obsolete webcam drivers for Mac doing?
"this has been compiled with GCC2.95 and an alternative libc"
That is why one uses the packages for _one_ distribution. And don't try too install binaries from unknown sources, please.
"recompile your kernel without support for your TV tuner if you want to ever use the controller card that interfaces to the HDs you bought to record TV"
Did this happen to you, or did you just try to think of something weird?
"When Linux is INTEGRATED and works RIGHT, NOW, as in OUT-OF-THE-FUCKING-BOX, then I'll use it again."
You wanted a pre-installed box? No problem, you even have choice these days.
"If it has the software I need to GET WORK DONE : Adobe Suite and MS Office."
Oh, ok. Goodbye.
Well, having a Hackintosh is pretty illegal.
And when I'll have a Mac OS X that will work "OUT-OF-THE-FUCKING-BOX" on my current hardware and with legal permissions too, then we'll talk about Mac OS vs Linux.
Until then please acknowledge the fact that what makes Mac OS X great is the open-source software that it ships with.
No OS does 100% of what you want though unless you only want to play games, or only want to email or only want to use Photoshop or only need to administer remote servers... etc.
I've bought several computers over the years and even though they keep getting cheaper they still seem expensive to me. As their prices go down my expenses go up so I am just keeping pace by using computers that see at least 5 years before I start looking around for a new one.
Right now Vista doesn't do it for me because I don't have a computer that runs it. OSX doesn't do it for me because I don't want to run their software on my hardware if they don't want me to. And I'm not sure it would anyway. Linux does it for me because it runs on my hardware, well. Not Damn Small Linux, not some floppy install from hell, Ubuntu or Etch, I like them both. Modern, graphics for when I need them, a powerful shell, office apps, web apps, etc. I don't need Photoshop and anyone who says OO.org takes an hour is talking about their experience with StarOffice in the 90's.
But guess what, I do also use XP. Age of Empires II is a favorite of my son and playing over the LAN with him is about the most fun I ever have with a computer... (he's ten).
So, I use one OS to get work done and one to play. And I do it because my primary job is monitoring Linux servers, writing scripts for said servers and basically I need something stable and flexible. All the Firefox, Cygwin, WinSCP, Putty, Open Office, etc in the world doesn't make me feel as productive on Windows as I do on Linux.
Is one better then the other? IMHO, yes. Does that mean sh*t to the next guy? No, choose what works for you. And if it stops working because MS or Apple changed the rules again and you either need to upgrade or do without? Thin about switching to Linux. IN the beginning you'll at least save some cash and in the end you may find you have all the tools you need after all.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Heh you just made his point. If I have to know all that just to use the damn thing then I'm not going to use it. :)
Yes, graphics professional do use CMYK before preprint, to check for color reproduction accuracy. They also use other modes that Photoshop supports but GIMP doesn't, such as duo and tri-tone. You are aware that there are many colors that RGB can create which are not in the printed CMYK color space, right? And I am aware of both the existence of that plugin, and its limitations. It's not an anti-Linux rant (GIMP is not Linux, for one thing) it's a realistic assessment of the situation.
I've done preprint work as a professional (Megachrome large format four color printing), as well as working in graphic design and dealing with printers (the profession, not the machine) getting color advertisements printed. What's your background in graphics?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
All you have to know is that you missed my point.
Well, you've inadvertantly answered my question, "What is your graphic design background?" question. It is obvious: none. There is software to match screen to print, color meters, special viewing booths with calibrated lighting, all kinds of stuff that any graphics professional knows all about.
Look, fanboi, I'm not coming down on GIMP. There are things GIMP does better than Photoshop. I've never had a problem with the interface. I like GIMP and have used it extensively, okay? But take it from someone who has worked in the industry and knows more than you, okay? The CMYK thing IS a big deal, the plugin DOES NOT do everything that graphics professionals need, and even the developers acknowledge that. And conversion between RGB and CMYK is NOT easy. Do you know why? Here's a hint, Cyan is the opposite of red, magenta is the opposite of green, and blue is the opposite of yellow. So, what's the K for? And how much do you put in? And what do you do with the other colors to compensate?
This is Slashdot. Do not pontificate on things which you know nothing about here. Because, I guarantee, there is someone here who knows WAY more than you on the subject, and will be only too happy to fact-slap you down.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
http://www.mhall119.com