Slashdot Mirror
The Linux Desktop and ISVs/OEMs
olau writes "Michael Meeks, who's worked on GNOME and LibreOffice integration for many years, now for SuSE, has some really interesting thoughts on the recent Linux desktop debate and suggestions for possible strategies. He points out that regarding independent software vendors (ISVs), the real issue isn't actually the quality of the tools but the size and attractiveness of the market, and perhaps that a solution could be lower barriers for paying or donating. Regarding OEMs selling hardware with software preinstalled, he points out that while a free OS + software sounds good for consumers, it's actually a problem for OEMs on razor-thin margins, since they lose the cut they get from the preinstallations. A possible countermove could be nailing robustness and hardware diagnostics for good, lowering OEM support costs."
At the end of the day, it's a lot easier if Grandma has an OS that other family members can help her with.
No matter how much I like my Linux Desktop, I don't want to be responsible for bringing non-tech-savvy people along. The rest of the family is fully capable of troubleshooting basic windows problems, more or less.
You have a sales team, you are trying to sell your product. That is hard enough. Now you need to push Linux too on their existing Windows infrastructure too...
Companies like consistency. Linux is a perfectly good OS. However we are a windows shop here, and don't want to support two platforms.
Companies will pay more money to keep a consistent environment. Those Linux servers will need to cost $500 less then their windows counterparts. You need to be less then the OS cost and less then the Its different cost, then you will need to deal with people who will just get the lesser cost system and put their own OS on it (legal/illegal/let the courts decide if they find out)
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"family is fully capable of troubleshooting basic windows problems"
tee hee
... when you have children to feed and a mortgage to pay ... ... and the users expect all their software to be free?
Better off spending one's time addressing a market where people expect to have to pay for stuff, no?
What linux users expect all software to be free?
I guess I did not pay for all these steam games.
Where did you get that idea?
Linux is like water. Water is free and abundant, but the only way a business is going to make money off water is
a. take the good stuff (mt spring for example) for yourself and sell it (e.g. Evian)
b. give "free" water such a bad rap that yours is better (e.g. pollute the crap out of free water). But then sell basic tap water with good marketing (e.g. Dansi, Dannon, Arrowhead, etc...)
So a company like Microsoft can:
a. provide a niche OS, e.g. one that plays mpeg-4 AVC more efficiently... cause they OWN the IP (aka mpeg forum)
b. show how Linux sucks.
Bonus: Guess where Apple fits in this picture (think b., but adds favor to their water, e.g. Vitamin Water).
Lead the way with software people expect to pay for. Get solid tax software on linux, and they will come? If TurboTax won't migrate to Linux, then a competitor must arise...
The internet before those hordes was the internet without wikipedia.
There are immense benefits to growing your community.
Isn't TurboTax all on the website now?
I know I paid to use it last year.
More software a linux user paid for!!! SHOCKING NEWS!!!
Ah, Slashdot. You've entered a new age when anti-FOSS/anti-Linux trolling is marked as "Insightful."
In fifteen years, I've purchased ONE application. It wasn't very good and since it wasn't open source I couldn't fix it. So I guess I'm one who expects all my software to be "free". (I contribute code, bug reports, etc., not cash) Funny thing is, I make a living mainly by SELLING software for Linux, but I never BUY software.
Yeah, we really need a new old slashdot.
Oh well, all good things ....
Isn't TurboTax all on the website now?
I know I paid to use it last year.
More software a linux user paid for!!! SHOCKING NEWS!!!
I'm a die-hard Linuxer and I also pay to use TurboTax online. I doubt if I'd buy the Windoze edition to run at home but running in my browser is just fine and there is the presumed added advantage that the on-line edition is up to date.
The quoted poster's implication is correct. Linuxers don't want everything for free; I pay for lots of value-added services, such as the aforementioned TurboTax, membership on a chess site, etc. I'm even going to BUY--- that's right, I said BUY--- the Linux edition of Scrivener when it comes out of beta.
That said, I do enjoy and benefit from the many free options I have such as LibreOffice, TaskJuggler, etc. etc.
The internet before those hordes was the internet without wikipedia.
There are immense benefits to growing your community.
Again, even as a die-hard Linuxer, I have to recognize the advantages of a larger Linux community. But I do not pretend that Linux is going to be a dominant force in the foreseeable future, if ever.
Still, I'm OK with that. As long as there are enough knowledgeable users--- and the growth of Linux since the very early days makes me believe that's not a problem--- Linux will be around. It's a fact that I can do more today with Linux than I ever could before. Of course, if I have a problem I troubleshoot it myself, aided by the knowledgebase accumulated by other Linuxers. I don't think or expect that everyone (i.e. "Joe User") would do the same.
But guess what: "Joe User" doesn't troubleshoot his own Windows issues, either.
So are you, you double spacing troll!
I can think of 5 reason why (in no particular order):
1) Your company pays you to write software for linux
2) You have fun writing application for linux and do it part time (everyone needs a hobby, right?)
3) The software is good enough, that people donate money to help you work full time on it.
4) You sell support (or special edition cds or whatever) for your software, but your software is free.
5) You sell a commercial version of your software, that has additional components that are not included in your free version.
I am surprised you been on slashdot for so long, and still did not understand this.
I'm not ganna say Linux doesn't have problems, but it installs at least as easily as Windows.
Since several years it is called SUSE.
It started as S.u.S.E., then became SuSE and then SUSE.
I understand that it is very hard to get right, but Editors: please try to edit and correct errors.
Ow hell, who am I kidding. These editors have no understanding what an editor is or does.
Since 2006 I've just called it "Microsoft Linux".
I got my mom to use linux, and she's a Grandma. I got sick of having to re-install windows so I left for linux*, then told her that I wasn't really doing windows anymore because I no longer learned anything when i fixed problems on it. So she switched, loves it, when it has issues...at least I learn something.
*not having internet explorer is a feature!
Unlike Windows, when I install a fresh copy of Linux on my laptop, all the hardware works out of the box. Shit, I can't even get internet out of the box on Windows without using an OEM-supplied disk that already has drivers pre-loaded...
Windows isn't more usable than Linux -- OEMs MAKE Windows more usable than Linux. Would you expect Windows to be easy if you bought a computer from Apple and a regular Windows install disk from, say, Amazon.com? And even with these massive advantages, I've still always found Linux to be easier to get working from a fresh install than Windows...
(1) Well, people have certainly paid me to write software that runs on Linux, but it's always been proprietary stuff that runs on servers in turnkey systems and suchlike (in fact I'm doing one such project right now), never shrink-wrap desktop stuff for sale to end users.
(2) Erm ... I'm afraid that my hobby is flying little aeroplanes ... and my other hobby, being an elected politician, is even more expensive.
(3) Don't have sufficient marketing skills and expertise, in that I can make more money by writing C++ for Windows and being paid by the hour.
(4) I really hate that business model, where you can download the source code for something for free, but the only way to find out whether it will do the job you want or not is to pay a consultant hundreds of dollars to tell you, ie to answer your pre-sales enquiries (or spend thousands of dollars worth of your own time trying it out) ... I much prefer the alternative, where the pre-sales support is free (eg there are decent specs and other documentation) but the software costs a few tens of dollars.
(5) I realise that that does work for some people ... but it can't be that easy to get it right. I think I have never paid the extra for any such software (or service). If the free version is too crap to be useful, how can you trust that company with your money, as your only experience of them is that they produce crap software? On the other hand if the free version is wonderful there's no need to pay for the extras.
I agree with that. But the linux community has grown considerably (the computer market has grown, and the proportion of linux users has grown slightly). This has brought benefits in the form of more focus on usability and esthetics.
I mean, I like the command line, but there is something to be said about a good file manager with does previews. I think that the evolutions in desktop linux we are seeing are a consequence of the growth in the community. Some of which is not so good (I'm looking at you, GNOME and unity), and some of which is better (yay better openoffice, yay firefox, yay KDE four point whichever version you feel stopped sucking).
So it is a worthwile goal that we all benefit from to grow the community.
Thought this one was worth a try :-)
I do sometimes get things right.
%s/[sS][^ ]*[uU][^ ]*[sS][^ ]*[eE]/SUSE/g
Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
Exactly why Granddad is on linux! But it never actually breaks, so that's a bonus too.
Grandma wants nothing to do with computers, she says she's gotten along just fine without them for nearly a hundred years and sees no need for them in her life.
Face it, if you don't run windows, you'll never, never, never ever have 100% office compatibility. Never. .
If you run Microsoft Office you've never had 100% Office compatibility. Open a docx document with Office 2003. You can look at it ( with a helper program), but you can't edit it unless you save it as a .doc document.
and the users expect all their software to be free?
Interesting contradictory fact. Scroll down and look at the payment statistics. Linux users evidently pay about twice as much as Windows users when given the choice. I have bought two bundles before, and both times the pattern was the same as with the latest bundle.
Artificial scarcity. It is the backbone of the American economy as well as many other corporatist nations. Since you can't make money off free stuff, stores won't carry it. Even when selling hardware, if they can make more money selling restricted software along with it, they will. Before if you got a discount from buying a pre-built computer with crapware on it, at least you could wipe it all and install whatever you wanted. Now with “secure boot”, they can push control onto the software level and control the entire software stack if the wanted to. Don't like that Windows 8 Crapware Edition on there? Too bad, you're stuck with it, and the Crapware Edition won't allow you to remove the crapware on it either, plus it comes with adware and spyware (when you purchased this computer, you automatically opted-in to provide us with “information for marketing purposes”) pre-loaded which you also can't remove. I can also see this entire system pushing out build-it-yourself computers since the pre-built one offers more money. Even if some semblance of DIY hardware is still available, at the very least the pre-built systems will ultimately cost less because the hardware vendors will get a cut of the marketing and data mining profits.
I just figured I would share the future in advance with everyone so that the reality would set in sooner: Start supporting vendors which sell pre-built computers that aren't locked down as well as standardized DIY hardware. Also, start supporting home fabrication projects which will soon be able to create primitive computers, because ultimately unregulated capitalism will always find some way to fuck you otherwise. DIY hardware is already horribly unstandardized and consumer-raping. If you live in a country which is regulated so you feel you don't have to worry - just wait, you will. There is meaning behind the saying with the roots and the evil. No, not the recipe for making evil root beer.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
Linux desktop, with browser, backed by web applications.
Five OEM systems and counting.
1) It depends on the company. Many companies understand the open source community and do fund stuff that help them market some of their other products.
2) After the initial ground work by one developer (or a small set of developers), the hobby developers can and do make an impact. By hobby I mean something like one hour a month, by hundreds (in some projects thousands) of developers (some of them would have worked on similar problems before and are really experts in them). You can contribute if you want to too, there are open source project that help RC enthusiasts (if you interested in UAVs, there are projects that help you build one too, you could contribute there if you are interested in)
3) Depends on the idea and how much scope you see for it.
4) I am not really familiar with this area, but if the software is truly open source, I assume there would competitors who can provide support at a much competitive rate.
5) Very often the commercial version, provides you immunity from being sued for patent violation, and provides components that make things much more efficient or cutting edge. I have never seen this model work when the free version is crap.
TINSSAAFL. If you try to write applications for desktop Linux, you'll find the same problem as desktop Windows: the main vendor(s) will try to subsume the need for any other vendors for any of the mainstream software. This is a natural consequence of trying to lure in more people to use the software by offering more value added. It's only really by stepping outside that into a more niche market where you have a chance of being able to write and sell applications on the desktop. On the other hand, the Mac market is quite different. It lacks the mainstream dominance and funding of Windows and it lacks the OSS, write-once-use-in-any-distro of Linux. So, there's more room for more general applications.
In the end, though, you have to first ask yourself, "if I were a potential customer, would I want to buy my application and why?" More often than not a lot of people just have no interest in your application in the first place. And the rest remaining either don't see enough value in what you offer compared to the alternatives--freeware or OSS software or even other commercial offerings--or they do see the value and do buy your software. Sure, there's more of a mindset in the Linux world of "if I can't find a free alternative now, if I wait a while I'm sure a free one will appear". But for people who have used Linux for years? We'd love to have some decent applications to feel the gaps where OSS fails, either in not producing applications at all or doing them badly.
Sure, there's a risk that it'll be a big failure to try to target the Linux community--especially if you focus on just them--, but then every such venture is a risk. It's not like most Windows developers hit it off big either, and it has nothing to do with freeware Windows software or piracy; it's just that people aren't interested in what you offer at the price you ask--and possibly not at any price. Your best bet would be to support Linux users in addition to Windows and Mac users, anyways, presuming that the added cost is reasonably low; and developing for QT should make it relatively easy, usually.
In short, I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by blaming potential customers.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Srsly. That would invalidate the cost/margin argument.
If you don't want crapware, download an ISO and reinstall, just like you can with Win7.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Comparing the closed source GL implementations from NVIDIA and AMD to the open source ones is shooting fish in a barrel, with a canon.
It's true that there are some very powerful companies whose business models depend on the failure of free software.
... when you have children to feed and a mortgage to pay ... ... and the users expect all their software to be free?
Better off spending one's time addressing a market where people expect to have to pay for stuff, no?
I bought the Linux Edition of Corel WordPerfect 8 a while back. No, I don't expect everything to be free. But companies also have to make the effort to support Linux. Soon it will be required if they want to keep certain market segments as Microsoft is destroying itself.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
First off, Windows and Apple ecosystems are quite similar. The main exceptions are that 1) OS X has significant chunks that are FOSS, 2) OS X has to run on Apple hardware as opposed to the effort that Microsoft and OEMs make to ensure they are compatible/well integrated, and 3) Windows is encrusted with money-making schemes (even ISPs and breakfast cereals are in on it) whereas Apple shuns the crapware ecosystem entirely.
Other than that, both commercial platforms try to provide a familiar (feature-stable), powerful (vertically-integrated) and rich environment where app developer and consumer interests meet.
Desktop Linux doesn't have this goal at all and the result is that the wannabe-platform (I am restricting my comments to the desktop PC context) is too chaotic to inspire people to learn app development and to stick with their endeavors in that environment. Yes, we have seen a few examples of ISVs who tried to cut through the chaos to deliver really interesting apps but they had to restrict themselves to limited functionality to achieve wider compatibility among different distros.
Furthermore, if I'm selling and doing tech support for an app or a service (like an ISP) on Linux desktops, then how do I tell users to navigate their system and change system settings and peferences? For my purposes, Desktop Linux is virtually formless and un-navigable.
Hardware has something to do with it, of course: Apple automatically supports built-in features of its computers, and MS makes an effort to work with OEMs (although the result isn't as good or smooth as with Macs). Then there is peripheral hardware -- Here both Apple and Microsoft have programs that let mfgs reach for compatibility in a systematic way and then license a trademark symbol they can put on their product packaging to assure the consumer that a peripheral works with OS X or Windows.
In my 19 years of Linux experience, I have only seen the issue you claim, once. When ATA drives using sata drivers renamed devices to sd. However, even that single instance caused no one issues who referred to drives by uuid or label in their fstab- the recommended practice (or for luns that used md, lvm, etc.) so for many (of that small number of users) who's hardware was affected, even that was a non-event. This also would only have affected a rather small percentage of the linux boxen at the time.
So, I think you are just trolling.
Not sure why you were modded up. /. seems to be going to hell lately with tons of troll linux on the desktop stories, and even greater numbers of microsoft windows crap posing as stories-- I mean really, MS changing their logo made the front page?!! How much is M$ paying you Timmothy? Seems either a bunch of MS shills or a bunch of windows fan-boys found out about this site called /., and have destroyed it.
"Would you expect Windows to be easy if you bought a computer from Apple and a regular Windows install disk from, say, Amazon.com? "
Actually, I just did that. I got a regular old copy of Window 7, put it in the drive of my old 2006 1.66Ghz core Duo Mac Mini and it installed without a problem. It recognized the Wifi, Intel graphics, bluetooth, Firewire, Gigabit ethernet and kne it was a MacMini1.2 manufactured by Apple. No drivers were necessary.
ABI
Another Microsoft marketing guy.
Michael Meeks (michael.meeks@novell.com)
Figures...
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Given that both have been around since at least 2004, would either of these be described as a success on the Desktop, if described a failure then why would that be also? It's also inexplicable that in that whole piece, there's no mention of the litigation issues promulgated by a convicted monopolist against Open Source. Given it took me about two hour to install and fine-tune Linux on this cobbled-together-desktop, it puzzles me how you could describe the "transaction costs" as too high. Just how high can two man-hour every half-year be? I would of course test the configuration internally before shipping my tens of thousands of machines .. :)
AccountKiller
You could try the LyX the document processor
Self-publishing with LYX
AccountKiller
%s/[sS][^ ]*[uU][^ ]*[sS][^ ]*[eE]/SUSE/g
It actually turns "superuser" into "SUSEr". I am thrilled!
I forgot to add, the 3rd option, donations, is becoming more and more popular with kickstarter (remember how dispora got $200,000). If you have an real idea that people would find useful. Linux, free-as-in-beer, and donation depend is not a bad model at all. You can find a number of such tools getting funded on kickstarter.
Suggestion for Michael Meeks: work more on LibreOffice and less on Gnome.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
The biggest problem w/ Linux is that requirement of CLI knowledge. The only ones who have managed to completely eliminate that requirement has been Apple. NEXT had proven in the 90s that it could be done, and Apple continued the trend. Forget about the XNU kernel for a bit (Apple could have used FBSD completely had they so wanted), but Apple putting Quartz on top of FBSD userland demonstrates that it can be done.
So, given that KDE has tools by which one could alter system configurations and do just about anything, why isn't it automatic? Very often, solutions involve going into an editor and editing /etc/ files. Not acceptable. And then again, there are all those 'nuanced' differences even in the CLI - in RHEL, 'system-config-network' and 'service network restart' work, but not in other (non-RHEL) distros. Locations of configuration files are altered, and one has to either look for them, or know where they are, and how different they are. Even if someone was a CLI expert, distro-hopping can be a nightmare. At least, the BSDs have this one right.
Then, there are the software packages. Extracting tarballs can be hairy, and there are now 5 packaging standards - .rpm, .deb, .pac, .txz (for Slack) and ports. So when one visits sites that host Linux software, one either has to download tarballs, or one finds that a software is not available in a particular package. And then there are the package dependencies that can break, depending on which library version it may be using. Why can't Linux have ONE package management system similar to PC-BSD's .pbi, and then have that as standard, across distros, sorta like X11?
About the graphic drivers, I think that Wayland will be an improvement, but introducing another transition point will introduce one more variable in the equation. However, since open drivers have not worked for X11, it's worth trying both open and closed drivers for Wayland. Hopefully, in Wayland, we won't see too many releases that throws in a new variable, since all that is needed there is to bring the compositor front & center, and allow applications that depend on other X11 services to continue to use X11.
The QA issues listed above are a result of the mix/match b/w different combinations of different versions of a kernel and a library. I once replaced my RHEL5 w/ another RHEL based distro which had a whole range of software available, and found that the ALSA driver I had previously downloaded didn't work. I had to go back, download about 5 or 6 versions, and experiment w/ which one did, and finally got one working. You can't have this in something that's supposed to challenge Windows. Again, BSD apparently does a better job here - they do not allow compatibility breakages b/w generations - something that Linux would do well to learn from.
I am unaware of the mess about Qt, but the KDE project at least attempts to address the availability of applications, from simple configuration tools to elaborate ones like Calligra. But they often have a plethora of choices in one type, such as text editors or music players, and a real dearth of applications, such as, say, tax software. I have no idea whether Skrooge or GNU Cash are anywhere near Quickbooks, but it would be nice if it was there.
One last thing - given everything that doesn't work in the FOSS world, toning down the zealotry would be a good thing. BSD - FBSD in particular - doesn't have a problem using open software when possible, and closed when necessary. That is how it should be, until open alternatives to the closed parts can be duplicated. At one extreme, you now have the libre-linux guys stripping their distros of all closed blobs. Well, good luck w/ that. Actually, given how BSD rarely breaks things, it would be a good idea to prefer BSD to Linux, where one
The better question is: why write applications for one OS? Wouldn't a software developer with children and a mortgage want the largest customer base possible?
I've been running Linux for a decade and a half, both at home and at the company I founded. I've bought many thousands of dollars worth of software over the years on Linux, primarily Engineering apps such as Eagle, VariCAD, FPGA tools, and the like. Most of these apps are built on cross-platform toolkits, and run just fine on Windows, Mac AND Linux. It's not that hard to do.
Personally, I got tired of these OS wars years ago. Fortunately, the Internet is slowly making the 'which OS' question a moot point in the not-too-distant future.
But do web sites that need real power use Windows? eg. Google, Amazon?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Windows users are known to be the biggest software pirates who don't want to pay for anything
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
1) Your company pays you to write software for linux
Yeah, but will the company want to pay him to write the same thing once and port it to different revisions of Linux, or different combinations of Linux/X/glibc/Qt/GTK+? Most ISVs would want to write a software version once that would run on Linux version n, n++ and so on. Subsequent versions of the software would be enhanced features, not merely more ports
2) You have fun writing application for linux and do it part time (everyone needs a hobby, right?)
Yeah, but how much fun is it writing the same application once, and struggling to port it to a myriad #platforms and software combinations?
3) The software is good enough, that people donate money to help you work full time on it.
Why not just straight-forward sell it for a reasonable price, say $20-50?
4) You sell support (or special edition cds or whatever) for your software, but your software is free.
I agree w/ the GP's response on this one
5) You sell a commercial version of your software, that has additional components that are not included in your free version.
I am surprised you been on slashdot for so long, and still did not understand this.
Again, like he said, it's hard to draw a balance b/w making it so good that add-ons won't be needed, vs making it so bad that the user won't want to trust him w/ his money.
This is correct. Windows has gotten to the point of diminishing returns, and Windows 7 is a good target for someone like, say ReactOS, to attain. Similarly, if someone makes a suite compatible w/ and does everything that Office 2003 does, he's good. Calligra could use some catching up on PowerPoint and Kexi, but yeah, it too can get there.
There won't be any reason for any OS or app to be compatible w/ Windows 8 any more than anybody had any reason to be compatible w/ Itanic.
1) Your company pays you to write software for linux
Yeah, but will the company want to pay him to write the same thing once and port it to different revisions of Linux, or different combinations of Linux/X/glibc/Qt/GTK+? Most ISVs would want to write a software version once that would run on Linux version n, n++ and so on. Subsequent versions of the software would be enhanced features, not merely more ports
Er, why would you want to port a Qt application to GTK+, when it will run just fine? But I understand you point, companies do not pay for porting to varying platforms, but this is where the community (of hobby devs) usually takes over.
2) You have fun writing application for linux and do it part time (everyone needs a hobby, right?)
Yeah, but how much fun is it writing the same application once, and struggling to port it to a myriad #platforms and software combinations?
Not fun, but you always find volunteers doing this on many many open source projects.
3) The software is good enough, that people donate money to help you work full time on it.
Why not just straight-forward sell it for a reasonable price, say $20-50?
Why not just straight-forward accept donations and then build your project (aka kickstarter)
4) You sell support (or special edition cds or whatever) for your software, but your software is free.
I agree w/ the GP's response on this one
I have responded to GP.
5) You sell a commercial version of your software, that has additional components that are not included in your free version.
I am surprised you been on slashdot for so long, and still did not understand this.
Again, like he said, it's hard to draw a balance b/w making it so good that add-ons won't be needed, vs making it so bad that the user won't want to trust him w/ his money.
Again responded to GP, but many projects have successfully used it. I guess proof is in the pudding.
Ubuntu was the perfect tool for some friends who just use their PC to browse and chat online. It worked perfectly. The fucking Ubuntu went to Unity and fucked it all up. I have raged as a nerd often enough about the Gnome 3 and Unity shit but it was with the geek installs for people who just needed a PC to launch a browser that it has the biggest effect. Just installed XP back from the rescue partition and told them that IT hates them and doesn't want them to use a computer.
OSX and Windows 8 are just as bad.
It took people years to get used to the standard "windows" method of doing things. DON'T FUCKING CHANCE IT JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE SOME FANTASY OF MOVIE INTERFACES IN YOUR DISEASED MIND.
I am getting more and more pissed of at it, to the point I think the designers of Windows 8, Unity, Gnome 3 should have their hands crushed and told to "adapt" to their new future of disability. It is new and exciting!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If only _someone_ would make a non-retarded LaTeX to HTML converter.
Even better, if someone else would make things like LyX really work with alternate document type macros, particularly SFFMS (which I used to write my novel because it will actually produce printed paper drafts in the absurd formats publishers want like double-underline for italics).
Currently I use Kile on KDE for editing my latex documents.
---
But _really_ *where* is the word processor that just saves its text in reasonable HTML. You know where paragraphs are in angle-p-angle "paragraph" tags?
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Give yourself a remote account. Give grandma her own account that can only write in her own directory. Do remote maintenance at will. Back up her shit to something at your house because grandma is gonna break or lose that shit to her own activities someday. Do stealth maintenance.
In short, nuke that family shit from FOSS Orbit _before_ it can fester.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I get paid major bank to work on software for Linux. That some of it goes out to be free is no skin off my teeth.
See free software isn't "I'm gonna write some POS and hope someone buys it" development model. Those days are dead mostly anyway. Its "Some guy wants these features put on that 'free' bit because he actually has a use case, and he's gonna pay me to meet his needs then give it away so neither of us get stuck paying upkeep and he can have me do something newer and better".
Who want's to spend 40 years doing maintenance on a some accounting or word processing software anyway. There are people who are writing better gear because they need to process words and account for money. And since they really make their money counting money and processing words, giving the bycatch code out as the "whole cost" of getting the whole pre-mod app is a huge win.
It just won't lead to "another microsoft"
That closed source model was a fluke anyway, the preceding 40 years were open source. The next twenty five or so was a grand experiment that largely failed except for a few really unexpected cutthroat operators, and now its back to the more natural state of only paying for what you need.
In a current version of word I don't use 90% of it, and I'm a technical writer and novelist, but I paid for it all back when I was that foolish. Same can be said for any person or company that has ever bought that slag. So now there is this free stuff that was made by someone who actually needed it, so it's not so much slag, and given away to others who _might_ need it, and then gotten back greatly improved by the supporters and the adders on.
That's lots of money feeding lots of people, and nobody is wasting their time or money playing the "trade secret" and "big P.R." games.
What's not to love?
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
...orary software-for-money model.
See, thing is. Software was originally written by people who had to actually do things other than write software. It was all open soruce anyway. Not just Unix whith its original sharing stuff, but all the software that came before. In the seventies when IBM delivered you a copy of DOS and TSO and CICS for your big-iron mainframe it came on two sets of tapes. One was the ready to run binaries, and the other was the "you bet your ass you are going to find something you are going to need to tweak and recompile" sources.
Microsoft's bizzare model of selling software and keeping the source secret worked for lack of meaningful competition. The just imposed it onto the PC. And IBM, the company that put the whole bios source in the technical manual, didn't care because they just wanted to kill the Apple II and they then expected to dump the PC just like the other lugables they had put out to kill other small competitors.
The monkey got in the barrel when Business People took the "Personal Computer" and made it into a Business Computer surrogate.
That killed the multitude of brands in computing available and then left IBM supporting their business base with what was designed to be a throw-away. There's a reason that the AT used the stupidest mode of the interrupt controller and had to gang up on IRQ2 and bump its original occupant to IRQ9 and such. The chip they used had way better configurations but IBM had already glued their hourglass to their table on many technical shortcuts.
So flash forward. Microsoft never managed to escape software (windows and word) despite constantly trying to, because secrecy doesn't lead to good service or products. As larger more open systems in every other area of technology passed Microsoft by, lots of people wanted to be The Next Microsoft, but even Microsoft doesn't really want to be Microsoft. They just don't have any idea of how to be anything else. So they survive on a constant diet, cosisting of the flesh of their "preferred partners" and washed down by the secret bitter tears of the windows users who have learned to eat their gruel and like it mister.
But out here, we are back to people writing the software they need to use. After all, who better to know how it should work? And they do so knowing that the free-as-in-liberty materials they used to do so were _not_ free as in cash. Instead of paying Microsoft $10,000 for a development kit, and $2 per unit shipped, negoatiated up front to make a Windows CE monstrosity, they know they have to "pay" for their zero-cash initial outlay with 'here, have this URL full of code" for each unit sold.
Who cares? They are selling those units. Money is being made. People who want to sell you a phone have _no_ _interest_ in being in the "phone operating system development" business. So why would they care if you can replace the OS using the code they got for free and gave away for free? You bought the phone and good riddance till you decide you want the next one!
Same for military gear. Same for office suites. Same for business software. Same for scientific software.
People want to do business and science. Those few freaks like me in the mix who want to do software just find someone who wants to do that business or science and say "hey, buddy, I'll make that thing do what you want for a little green"...
What could be more natural.
The artificial scarcity attempt will fail, it will do horrific things to the U.S. economy as it fails, but the world will soldier on and in another 30 years the U.S. will come begging at the world technology table, with a black eye, and pretending to have no memory of chasing and seducing That Harlot DRM they went home with even when their friends tried to tell them they would regret it...
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Don't feed the hosts file guy. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Linux is like water. Water is free and abundant, but the only way a business is going to make money off water is
a. take the good stuff (mt spring for example) for yourself and sell it (e.g. Evian)
b. give "free" water such a bad rap that yours is better (e.g. pollute the crap out of free water). But then sell basic tap water with good marketing (e.g. Dansi, Dannon, Arrowhead, etc...)
Odd, I thought companies making things like boats, fishing rods, lures, bate, sails, paint, etc,etc were all making money off Water.
1) Your company pays you to write software for linux
Yeah, but will the company want to pay him to write the same thing once and port it to different revisions of Linux, or different combinations of Linux/X/glibc/Qt/GTK+? Most ISVs would want to write a software version once that would run on Linux version n, n++ and so on. Subsequent versions of the software would be enhanced features, not merely more ports
Er, why would you want to port a Qt application to GTK+, when it will run just fine? But I understand you point, companies do not pay for porting to varying platforms, but this is where the community (of hobby devs) usually takes over.
Problem is that once a company has ported an app to, lets say, Mint 12, it would expect it to work seamlessly in Mint 13, 14, and so on. Let's say it makes something called Acmeworks 1.0, which was developed on/for Mint 12. Now, later, it might choose to develop Acmeworks 2.0 and make Mint 15 its target platform - that is standard practice.
However, if the company has ported Acmeworks 1.0 to Mint 12, and finds that 1.0 doesn't work on Mint 13, that's a major bummer. B'cos it would like to leverage its work over as many versions as possible, w/o having to reinvent the wheel every time. That's one pain point, but what makes it even worse is that the breakage could be due to anything - due to using Linux 3.5 instead of 3.2, or using a different Qt version, or a different glibc, or who knows what else. So debugging why it doesn't work becomes an expensive proposition in terms of time, which is why companies wouldn't want to do it. What's worse - let's say, it developed Acmeworks 1.2 for Mint 13, and released it, and later found that 1.2 doesn't work under Mint 12. Now, they are forced to maintain different versions of the app for different versions of the OS. Oh, and let's say, later, somebody tells them that hey, 1.2 works w/ Mint 13 for KDE, but not w/ Cinnamon. They have to do 1.2.3. This is just w/ Mint. Multiply that w/ the top 3 or 4 distros (never mind all 100) and see how hairy it becomes.
Even hobbyists would prefer doing fun stuff - in the above example, a hobbyist would prefer working on Acmeworks 1.5, or 2.0, or 2.5, and not fixing bugs in 1.0. It's this stuff - fixing bugs, porting software, et al, which are not fun jobs, and where companies need to pay people to do it. And when Linux serves to make that task more difficult, guess what happens in the end.
2) You have fun writing application for linux and do it part time (everyone needs a hobby, right?)
Yeah, but how much fun is it writing the same application once, and struggling to port it to a myriad #platforms and software combinations?
Not fun, but you always find volunteers doing this on many many open source projects.
True, but then accept that support would be spotty. When someone asks you 'Does Acmeworks work under Linux', you have to play 20 questions w/ him and ask him things like which distro, which DE, which libraries, et al, None of which have to be asked in case of Windows or OS-X. The other thing about volunteers is lack of accountability - nobody's paying them to do this, so why should they prefer that over, say, their actual jobs, or other personal responsibilities?
3) The software is good enough, that people donate money to help you work full time on it.
Why not just straight-forward sell it for a reasonable price, say $20-50?
Why not just straight-forward accept donations and then build your project (aka kickstarter)
Two words: cash flow. Donations have a huge uncertainity factor about them. Sales implies a given revenue that, amortized over the estimated number of copies sold, would cover the cost of development, and enables him to pay the rent
OK, well good for you I guess if you find it works...my experience has been the exact opposite.
Windows updates have a history of breaking things. This may be a bit out of date -- I haven't used Windows much since XP -- but remember XP SP2? I can't count the number of systems I had to reverse that update on after it broken damn near everything. I recall at least one or two needing a full system reinstall. I know systems that are still running XP SP1 because of how much of a disaster that was. As for drivers -- I can remember installing XP on the family desktop and then having to go find drivers for the printer, drivers for the wifi...shit I remember my dad driving me to his office in a goddamn blizzard so I could download network drivers onto a USB drive to get the internet working again.
Meanwhile, on Linux...I currently run Arch. The only driver I can remember installing was for my printer (which doesn't work on Windows either without downloading extra drivers -- VERY cheap Brother laser printer.) I've NEVER had a system update break anything, and I run those on a monthly basis at least. And yes, that includes the system kernel and drivers. Granted, the average user couldn't figure out installing Arch; it's not the most user-friendly process if you don't know Linux -- but my experience with Mandriva a few years ago was pretty much the same, and I bet even my mother could make it through that installer. Install it off the CD; it comes with everything you need pre-installed (unlike Windows where the very first thing you do is spend a couple days downloading and installing all the crap you need and removing all the crap you don't) and it was able to pick up all my hardware right "out of the box".
Of course, I also did attempt Ubuntu once and spend days trying to get the damn thing to work before finally deciding that it probably wasn't the distro for me...so yea, I admit you have to find the right distro and that's not always the easiest thing to figure out, but that's hardly a problem with Linux itself. If you ask me it's more a problem with everyone for some inexplicable reason deciding Ubuntu is the best distro for new users. Never heard a single complaint from a Mandriva user (well, except maybe 2010 and 10.0 being crap releases, but Windows does the same thing...)
Remember Linux kernel 1.0? Wow Linux sucks ass, what with it having no GUI and all!
Give me a damned break, you drag up a fucking 12 year old OS for comparison? Fine ONLY compare it to 12 year old Linux distros, otherwise your entire statement? pointless. MSFT hasn't even allow OEMs to sell XP in over 5 years and are ONLY giving it updates as legacy status, which means security ONLY. NO new features, NO fixes for anything security related. Show me ONE Linux, just one mind you, where I can get even security fixes on a 12 year old install without jumping on the upgrade deathmarch, you can't, it doesn't exist.
So either compare apples and apples or quit with the "works for me" and pointless talk about how a 12 year old OS, made when a FAST machine was a 600MHz P3 with 128Mb of RAM, gave you problems. Well no shit I'd love to see the first release of Linux find jack shit myself, since obviously to make that comparison you must be running a 12 year old install of Linux.
Its called "stop using ancient ass OSes" because surprise surprise things have gotten a LOT better...at least in Windows. Linux has gotten prettier but NOT better, as that link to over 200 show stopping bugs I posted showed. WTF is the community gonna do when XP goes EOL? Are they gonna talk about how unstable FAT is and how people had to use VXD drivers in Win9X? Hell look at the numbers, even legacy installs of XP are nosediving as even lazy business users are tossing it, its old, its no longer used by anyone with any sense, yet sadly I'll still take the pepsi challenge against ANY Linux released at the same time and when we update both to current? XP WILL still have working drivers, Linux? will crap all over itself.
Sorry but that is a fact. Hell i ought to put up a damned YouTube video showing the first release of Ubuntu VS Vista to showing how Linux craps on drivers but then I'd get told "use distro X!" and that I MUST have rigged the camera...God save us from FOSSies.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
First of all, Windows XP is still very much in use. Shit, I just got a laptop for work, and guess what it's running? XP. I haven't heard of anyone using a 12 year old Linux distro. The reasons for that are quite numerous, but that's a different topic.
I started using Linux with Mandrake 9.2. That was in 2003. Back then...yeah, some wifi drivers wouldn't work out of the box. Never had an _ethernet card_ or a _dial-up modem_ require drivers like I have with XP. There you go, apples to apples.
Never had a significant upgrade problem, since Mandrake 9.2. There were two bad releases -- Mandrake 10 and Mandriva 2010 -- but you know, a bad release here and there isn't so bad when they release every six months. If there's a bad Windows release it may be years before people upgrade -- look at Vista. There's a reason why, 12 years later with support discontinued, XP is still around 25% market share. Find me ANY Linux distro with even a 5 year old version holding a quarter of that distro's market share and then we can talk about how comparing Linux to a two release old version of Windows is so wrong.
Twelve years ago Windows cause enough problems for to learn a completely new OS. Linux hasn't made me even entertain a fleeting thought of switching back since. I do have a dual-boot machine (why not, hard drives are cheap and it came with Windows anyway) and I have booted to Windows once or twice -- needed a mix of Linux and Windows tools to maintain pixel-perfect images, one of the downsides of freelancing for a design company -- and it was always a headache and a half...although I blame Adobe for that more than Windows. Photoshop and especially Illustrator are just terrible experiences.
I will give you this: Windows 7 looks pretty good. I haven't seen a problem with it, though I haven't personally used it enough to say much of anything. But...I have over a decade of experience with Linux being far easier than the most modern Windows OS...and am looking at Windows 7 as something that what _might_, from a few _brief experiences_ be just as good. Maybe. For now. The news of Windows 8 makes me glad I'm on Linux though, as does the fact that I can start stripping down the OS when I need to run it on older hardware and keep things running fine. So yes, I will admit, both may now be capable of doing everything I need. Only one is capable of the customization I _want_ and may need in the future. Easy choice.
If your work gave you an XP laptop frankly you are working at a shitty place and I'd tell them to take it back, especially after that guy spent nearly 3 years trying to clear his name thanks to a badly configured XP laptop handed him at work that turned out to have a backdoor that some scumbags were using to run CP through the thing.
But again you wanna compare to a 12 year old OS then dig out a 12 year old Linux distro, because otherwise you are purposely trying to rig any comparison. You are talking about an OS that has been legacy for over 5 years, that no longer gets ANY updates but security, and which hasn't been sold for half a decade so fair is fair, compare it to a 7 year old Linux.
At the end of the day that doesn't change the fact that Linux internals are deep fried ass and I'd be happy to take the pepsi challenge to prove it. funny that I have yet to see a single person try to take up the challenge either, probably because they know Linux will die hard.
The challenge is incredibly simple, we will take ANY distro that was released the same quarter as Vista, and I will give Linux the advantage by taking not only one of the most hated OSes but by giving them only HALF the amount of updates XP has had, we'll install it on two identical systems, make sure all the drivers are working, and update BOTH systems to current.
And I can tell you because I have done it that the Linux unit will be totally fucked by the end of the updates. The sound won't work, the DE is more than likely to be glitching if the graphics drivers are even functional, and the WiFi won't have a snowball's chance in hell, I don't care which chip you choose. that is just FIVE years mind you, barely half the time you get with Windows.
I'm sorry but as a wise man said "Linux is free..if your time is worthless" and no truer words have been spoken. Take a modern version of Windows like 7 and you can slap it on ANY laptop made in the last half a decade and upgrade from RTM to the last patches from patch Tuesday and it will ALL work, every. single. driver. will be functional, including wireless and printers. Try that with Linux? You get a broken mess, why? because Torvalds and the other devs frankly don't give a damned if YOU have problems, all they care about is scratching THEIR itches.
Since the FOSS koolaid drinkers modded it down you might not have seen it so I urge you to take a look at this list filled with show stopping bugs (with links) and compare it to to the same list from three years ago and see how many haven't been fixed after THREE years. Hell go to the Ubuntu bug tracker, they have bugs SIX years old. Maybe you'd like a Linux dev's thoughts on the subject so here is a RH dev and he says the desktop is "suckage" and while his take is different than a retailer it all comes down to basically the same thing, devs biting off more than they can chew and designs that worked 20 years ago but don't work now being hung on to.
So we retailers have a DAMNED GOOD reason why we won't touch Linux with a 50 foot pole, and I have a reason to be kinda pissy about it, because I'm tired of being lied right to my face with total bullshit about how "Linux is ready for the desktop!" yet when I point out obvious problems, documented up the ass I might add, I get the same parroted "use distro X!" "Works for me!" and "You must be an M$ Shill" retarded garbage. Frankly if Linux wasn't free it would be deader than BeOS right now, and rightly so. The devs engage in Mickey Mouse Amateur hour shit when it comes to the internals, NO stability, NO ABIs, NO QA or QC, yet because its "Free as in freedum!" the community will happily take their crap and bitch at anyone who points out emperor RMS is running around bare assed. Well if it actually worked why is ALL the B
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
If your work gave you an XP laptop frankly you are working at a shitty place and I'd tell them to take it back, especially after that guy spent nearly 3 years trying to clear his name thanks to a badly configured XP laptop handed him at work that turned out to have a backdoor that some scumbags were using to run CP through the thing.
Well, I'm a consultant so I'm not supposed to mention this company's name (these laptops were provided by the client) but it's in the top 20 on the Fortune 500 listing. Granted, that doesn't mean it isn't a shit company, but that is evidence that XP is clearly still very much alive in the corporate world. For what it's worth, the consulting company I work for (Tata Consultancy Services; international consulting firm in 42 countries, 240,000 employees, over $10 billion revenue) also still uses Windows XP.
But again you wanna compare to a 12 year old OS then dig out a 12 year old Linux distro, because otherwise you are purposely trying to rig any comparison. You are talking about an OS that has been legacy for over 5 years, that no longer gets ANY updates but security, and which hasn't been sold for half a decade so fair is fair, compare it to a 7 year old Linux.
There's this thing called 'math' that you may want to learn. Windows XP is not 12 years old; it's 10 -- it was released in October 2002. I compared it to a 9 year old Linux (It's not 2010 anymore; 2003 is not 7 years ago). One year difference, not five.
At the end of the day that doesn't change the fact that Linux internals are deep fried ass and I'd be happy to take the pepsi challenge to prove it. funny that I have yet to see a single person try to take up the challenge either, probably because they know Linux will die hard.
"Deep fried ass"...is that some technical term I'm not familiar with? Because otherwise I'm not sure what the hell you're trying to say here. As I said, Windows 7 looks alright I guess, but if it ain't broke...why the hell would I switch back? Just to wait for Microsoft to fuck it all up again? To lose the ability to customize my computer? To get more system crashes? (Don't give me any bullshit about how that doesn't happen anymore -- as rarely as I boot into Windows 7 I still fucking get 'em)
The challenge is incredibly simple, we will take ANY distro that was released the same quarter as Vista, and I will give Linux the advantage by taking not only one of the most hated OSes but by giving them only HALF the amount of updates XP has had, we'll install it on two identical systems, make sure all the drivers are working, and update BOTH systems to current.
And I can tell you because I have done it that the Linux unit will be totally fucked by the end of the updates. The sound won't work, the DE is more than likely to be glitching if the graphics drivers are even functional, and the WiFi won't have a snowball's chance in hell, I don't care which chip you choose. that is just FIVE years mind you, barely half the time you get with Windows.
LOL, yea, you just keep telling yourself that. Not sure where you get those ideas, I've done it without problems. Although I have some rather nasty memories of having to reinstall XP every two years just to keep the goddamn thing functional. Yes, Windows Vista or 7 may be better. I wouldn't know.
I'm sorry but as a wise man said "Linux is free..if your time is worthless" and no truer words have been spoken. Take a modern version of Windows like 7 and you can slap it on ANY laptop made in the last half a decade and upgrade from RTM to the last patches from patch Tuesday and it will ALL work, every. single. driver. will be functional, including wireless and printers. Try that with Linux? You get a broken mess, why? because Torvalds and the other devs frankly don't give a damned if YOU have problems, all they care about is scratching THEIR itches.
Brand new HP dv6t laptop. Slapped an A
No. This "new age" only exists because a lot of people have becomes tired and fed up with Linux continually being talking about on Slashdot as some sort of "savior" operating system that's somehow superior to Windows, despite its many many flaws that don't seem to get acknowledged. Now there's push-back, and the traditional Linux gurus don't like the fact not everyone is listening to their bullshit anymore.
I'm enjoying this critical analysis of Linux period we're going through. It's the only way we'll be able to analyze the legitimate reasons why it's failing to secure any mainstream share, rather than just the usual "Microsoft monopoly" BS. It's a lot more complicated than that.
Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
Its 11 years old next month, source. My timeline was off because I was running the beta long before release, just FYI but I went back to Win2K and skipped XP entirely, I went from 2K to Win XP X64 (really Server 2k3 Workstation) and then went from that to Win 7.
And the reasons servers run Linux is two fold, 1.-The companies pay millions of dollars for highly educated Linux admins to negate some of those disadvantages as well as hiring many of the devs to fix their own messes, nice racket if you can get it. 2.-MSFT has given a HUGE chunk of the server market away by being purposely obtuse on their licensing and frankly charging too much. The stupid idea of user CALs is a perfect example. I blame this on Ballmer, who cares more about stock price than actual share, and will actually feel sorry for the Linux server guys when Ballmer is finally fired because if they bring in someone like Allchin or Ozzie that actually knows the business market? You'll see $500 server licenses with no user CALs and Linux will drop like a rock as it'll be cheaper to buy Windows than deal with the bullshit.
And the difference with Windows bugs VS Linux bugs? Its shows the "all eyes" horseshit is exactly that, horseshit. These aren't some bugs nobody has tripped over, these are well documented bugs that have existed for YEARS because the devs would rather put out something "New!" than fix their own damned messes.
In the end Linux simply can't escape the busted shitter problem. What is the busted shitter problem? Simple, ask someone to paint you a picture or write you a song for free? you'll get several offers and while most won't be top 10 quality many will actually be passable. Ask someone to come by and fixed your busted shitter for free? I hope you like pissing in the sink.
What the community refuses to accept, and instead deals with workarounds and CLI "fixes" and other crap than accept, is the reason those bug trackers are filled with several year old bugs is that fixing bugs, doing regression testing, QC and QA is long boring and tedious and you simply won't get enough volunteers to do long boring and tedious jobs EVAR, it just won't happen.
So every year Linux gets prettier, because making pretty things is a part of human nature but better? Nope, it just doesn't get any better. Why does De Icaza have to give up on sound in 2012 on Linux? Because the whole sound subsystem needs to be trashed along with X Server but replacing those is long, boring, and thankless work so it just isn't getting done.
In the end I say to any Linux user that is ready step up and take the pepsi challenge I have previously listed. Since all camcorders today have the ability to timestamp it'll be easy to see if you try to cheat and if I'm wrong this will give you the chance to show me up in front of the world...but they won't, because they can't. you simply can't take any mainstream distro from 5 years ago and upgrade to current without at least one, usually multiple, drivers shitting all over themselves. And until a single Linux can pass the challenge there really isn't anything to discuss, the entire system is broken so who cares.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Part of the problem I think is that many of the Linux people do not see PCs as a means to an end, they are an end onto themselves. People use PCs because they are useful for accomplishing a task. The PC needs to be functioning and accomplish whatever task they want to do as efficiently as possible.
There is nothing wrong with having machines that are ends unto themselves, nothing wrong with having a hobby. I have three Mopeds at home, two classics from the late 70's early 80's and one modern friction drive kit I built myself. The two old ones are ends unto themselves. I enjoy fixing them up and keeping them running, they require constant tinkering and tweaking along with a great deal of knowledge. On the other hand, my third one is for "scouting" garage sales on the weekend and sometimes going to work, since it gets 170 mpg, it needs to work with no fiddling or tweaking.
For most people, computers need to be like my third moped, most Linux people I know seem to view computers as I view my first two mopeds. Getting the stupid thing working is half the fun. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not get such enjoyment. I understand that when it comes to mopeds, why can't they in regards to computers?
Very wise words, oh and nice rides, I miss my scooter but frankly this is SUV city here and I am getting too old to dodge soccer moms fiddling with smartphones while doing 80+ MPH.
The problem is just as you said, when what needs to be done is they need to be targeting users like my GF. Frankly I met her because she had broken her PC and needed it fixed, she has ZERO clue about how any of it works and the ONLY thing she uses is the Internet.
You would think she'd be a perfect Linux user but the system devs constantly futzing with low level guts screw up too many drivers and frankly the skillz required to fix those messes is beyond her. I can stick in a simple GUI based snapshot tool like Comodo Time Machine and if she breaks something? She can be back up in 15 minutes without even requiring me to be there. In Linux if the devs crap on something you are just SOL if you don't have the ability to find the forum, know the make/model/rev of tha hardware they broke, find a fix, tweak said fix because its always gonna need tweaking, and apply said fix without typing something wrong and possibly screwing the system. Hmmm...all of that VS hitting the home key on boot and picking a snapshot from a GUI? Yeah...no contest.
So I agree your analogy nails it, I always used my old 73 Dodge as an example but the same thing, I'd spend weekends under the hood but I enjoyed spending weekends under the hood, if I'd have had to rely on that for work? It would have been sold that very day. Folks need "it just works" and frankly since the end of XP its really easy to keep Vista and 7 running, Linux? Not so much.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Windows did not come free with my PC because I built it.
You are obviously someone who regards the OS as an integral part of the PC. I expect you toss the whole thing in the skip when you feel you need an upgrade (or get over-run with malware) and buy new. Agreed, that is what most people do.
I have a different approach. My PC does all I want now and I don't need to upgrade for performance. I upgrade/replace hardware only when/if it breaks and upgrade my Linux distro only when it ceases being supported.
Please recognise that different people have totally different approaches to things, not all like yours.
DOS. TSO. CICS. == That's all IBM mainframe stuff from the sixties and seventies. Always came with source tapes.
Forth, the language, made by an astronomer, eventually extended into Postscript, e.g. that thing that runs all those printers.
All the platform-agnostic products like Open Office or the entirety of the platform agnostic elements of the GNU Suite.
Really, software used to be always be open sourced.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press