>>"...e average person is more or less an idiot..."
Well, you said it, not me.
>>"...it is fair to say that an operating system is a fairly technical concept that most people need to be educated on before it is even possible to entertain a discussion of Linux."
An operating system is part of an appliance that allows people to do things they could not otherwise do. Arguing that you can't debate the failure of Linux to achieve widespread acceptance until people have the technical expertise to understand operating systems is tantamount to arguing that people can't buy toasters until they understand physics.
>>"...I have been identifying the problem as I see it."
Most people do not want to use Linux. That is not a problem.
Someone's obviously paying for Word and Photoshop and all the other commercial software that's on the market. If people weren't buying them, they wouldn't be on the market.
For people who make extensive use of programs like Word and Photoshop, especially those who derive their income from using those programs, their unavailability on the Linux platform is an absolute disincentive and for most a deal breaker.
I don't disagree with the points you raise, and several years ago I would have cheered you on. But, now, other things are more important to me.
My argument is not original or even new. But the evidence of the market shows that few Windows users see a reason to switch to Linux. Or Apple, for that matter.
The evidence of the last 15 years amply demonstrates that few satisfied Windows users see a reason to switch to Linux.
Every point you mention has existed since the creation of Linux. But, still, people do not switch. Perhaps you are addressing the wrong issues.
>>"Because it's not hard, and it'll save them money, as I mentioned below."
Those are not incentives to switch. Those are attributes that come into play only after someone has decided to switch.
>>"But only their current versions, so they're fscked as far as new functionality goes if they don't pay again. "
Most people who already own and use Word and Photoshop, especially for professional purposes, do not see the price of an upgrade as a reason to stop using Word and Photoshop. The evidence of the market supports that.
>>".. having a free, secure OS that needs only a fraction of the money investment to run well as their current one *isn't* a good reason to switch? "
To repeat, the evidence of the market is that the answer to that question is yes. Linux is a free, secure OS that's costs a fraction of Windows... and only a tiny fraction of Windows users have switched. Therefore, one might suspect that those attributes provide an insufficient incentive.
>>"If you have already paid hundreds of dollars for Windows, Word, and Photoshop then there's absolutely no reason not to use them. But not everyone has that kind of disposable income. "
Then you are not talking about satisfied Windows users. You are talking about people who need to buy a PC and install a lot of software. That's a different discussion.
>>"The fact that you switched to Apple speaks volumes about how much you dislike bargain-shopping..."
As I stated, the fact that I switched to Apple demonstrates I couldn't get wireless to work in Linux. I was tired of spending money to buy hardware that some discussion forum or some email archive claimed would work with this distro or that distro, only to find that it wasn't true. Yes, I could (and have on occasion) built a Linux system that's comparable to my Mac and saved a few hundred bucks. The cost in time and hassle would be much greater, and for me these days that's too high a price to pay. I spent ten years tweaking Linux and bending it to do my will. Now, I have better things to do.
>>"Simply put, it's (ed. learning a new OS) not that big of a deal, it just requires the desire to do so."
No, for a lot of people it isn't. But that's not the point. Why would anyone who's happy with Windows have a desire to switch in the first place?
>>"...they'd appreciate the $1000 saved by not buying either Office or Photoshop."
When I say "If someone is happy using, say, Word and Photoshop... ", it suggests they already own Word and Photoshop.
>>"For your Mac, it's easy, and you'll know it when your motherboard decides to give up the ghost."
Linux is going to save my motherboard? Hmm. And again, you haven't provided any reason for a satisfied Windows user to switch to Linux. The fact that Vista is overfed, that Linux is more secure, and that Linux is often available gratis are not things that would motivated a satisified Windows user to switch. You're essentially arguing that Linux users should switch because Linux is better. That's not enough.
Before I take on some of your specific points, let me just say that the best argument I can make about human nature in this instance is that Linux has been around for at least 15 years, it's free, and it's easy to find. Linux has failed to motivated more than a tiny sliver of the market to switch. Regardless of Microsoft's methods, more people would switch to Linux if they felt they had a reason to do that.
>>" Linux does everything I need it to and runs noticeably faster, on everything. I especially like the 100ms knocked off my ping time on WoW. Windows is a horrible, horrible resource hog, even on my fancy 64-bit desktop."
To repeat, if Windows does everything a Windows user wants it to do, why should he switch?
Most people don't know what ping time is, and don't care to know. (BTW, how did your Linux installation make the routers on the Internet faster?).
Most people don't care if their OS is wasting resources.
>>"I spent time researching and optimizing the Vista system... don't tell me I didn't set it up properly. Linux is simply faster."
I didn't, and wouldn't dream of it. I've got an old DOS machine that's faster than Linux. Speed isn't everything. Again, if a Windows user is satisfied, why switch?
>>"Installing WINE correctly on your Linux machine will allow you to install Windows applications.."
That's actually a disincentive to switch to Linux. Keeping Windows allows users to run every Windows application and avoid paying for Wine and making the effort needed to use Linux and its applications.
>>"... you can't troubleshoot your own hardware, and taking your machine into Apple costs time and money..."
One, I've never needed to take Apple hardware in for repair, period. Two, as a former, and knowledgeable, Linux user I did my fair share of trouble shooting, but I don't recall not having to pay for replacement parts.
>>"...OS religious wars are pathetic..."
This discussion isn't about OS superiority. It's about human nature. that's what determines most folks readiness to stay with the familiar (Windows) rather than switch to the unfamiliar (Linux).
No straw man. Linux has been around for 15 years and it still has a tiny market share. Yes, Microsoft is hard to compete with, but people know that and they don't care. Few people are going to be motivated to switch to Linux just to help thwart Microsoft.
People simply do not willingly move from the familiar to the unfamiliar without incentive. By only offering to do the same things as Windows, Linux offers insufficient incentive for most people. If Linux enabled people to do something they want to do and is impossible to do with Windows, that's something I'd consider an incentive.
Well, I think experience inside a business is liable to differ from experience with customers who are paying their own money and using their own time.
I had an experience with an organization that spent tens of millions of dollars to install new software. They ran all employees through training ( 5 full days away from the job ). Employees hated the software and refused to use it. Within a few months, the new software was abandoned and we all went back to using the familiar stuff.
Vista may change the equation, but If the choice is between buying hardware running an unknown OS and unknown applications versus hardware running a familiar OS and familiar applications, I contend that the vast majority of customers will opt for the familiar, even if it costs more.
I'm not arguing the virtues of one OS or another. I'm just saying that must people will stay with the familiar as long as it's there.
Yes, I read the article. Yes, I know that they're looking at Ubuntu. Regardless of what it looks like, Ubuntu is still Linux. People who can't find the Word icon will still be unhappy.
No, saving a little money is not enough reason for most Windows users to switch.
Look, I'm not bashing Linux. I used it for a decade. But it is naive to expect people to willingly throw away their investment in Windows (time and money) simply to learn an OS that allows them to keep on doing the same things.
If someone is happy using, say, Word and Photoshop, what's attractive in hearing that Linux can't run Word and Photoshop but they can do pretty much the same things with Openoffice and Gimp, once they take the time to learn how to use them? Why should they do that when they can keep on using Word and Photoshop?
Like I said, i used Linux for ten years. I switched to Apple a few years ago because I wanted wireless to work. Now, I need to buy new hardware. I could easily save a few bucks and run Linux on something. But, why should I? I like Apple software, I'm accustomed to using it. Everything I did in Linux I can do on a Mac, often with greater ease and reliability. Why should I care if Linux allows me to do the same things once I learn how to use it and a bunch of new programs? Where's the incentive? There are tens of millions of Windows users thinking the same thing.
If someone knows how to do "common tasks" with Windows, where's the incentive to go to the hassle of being re-educated just to learn how to do the same things in Linux?
The only real incentive to switch operating systems is that the new system allows you to do something the old one doesn't.
Would you buy a toaster that required watching a training video before you could use it?
I'm in North Carolina, but not in Wilmington. Maybe those annoyed folks down there haven't been actually watching TV, because it's been almost impossible to avoid the multiple daily commercials about the switch, the incessant crawls across the screen, and the incessant news stories. Maybe these are the same people who walk out of a flooded house and complain that no one warned them about the hurricane.
Per local press, the largest proportion of complaints were directed against a single station whose digital coverage area is smaller than it's analog umbrella was. If true, then with or without a converter, those folks won't be able to watch that channel.
Twenty years ago I was using DOS. It booted almost instantly. If I wanted to, I might have edited autoexec.bat to include a command to launch an editor at the end of the boot. Or, I might have used a TSR like Sidekick that would have provided access to a text editor, and more, at the touch of a key.
Modern operating systems are several orders of magnitude larger than DOS. Hence, the longer boot times.
Remember, however, that Unix and Linux are text-based operating systems. You don't need to run X, the graphical interface, if you don't want to. You can alter the boot scripts of a Unix/Linux machine to stop at the text interface, ask you which interface you want to use, or just boot in text mode and launch a text editor.
There's no reason Shuttleworth can't deliver something on par with OS X. All he needs to do is concentrate on functionaliy, usability, and marketability, and not worry that much about ideology. I.e., the same things Apple worries about.
The market does not care how software is writen, it just cares about what it does and how it looks.
A two-hour meeting is good. Time off to job hunt is great. I hope they made someone available to meet with each employee to discuss issues like insurance, etc.
In your second announcement, you provided an announcement that consisted of a couple of sentences. To me, that's a "tiny notice". Did that company do something more that you did not mention?
No one ever said management is any smarter than employees.
Frankly, I don't think your second example is an example of a business doing the right thing. If you're going to fire 20 people, you need to do more for them than simply post a tiny notice.
But, regardless of how people are treated, there's no excuse for theft and sabotage. Crime is crime.
No, the lesson is to have at least one trustworthy employee on staff who can disable an admin's account the minute he turns in his notice.
If an employee is willing to subvert his ethics to get back at an employer, that's reason enough to fire him.
If you're my employee and you decide you don't like me and then you sabotage me on the way out, I'm getting a lawyer and chasing you down. And I'm looking at filing charges.
Sabotaging a network is no different than setting fire to the building.
One, I've been to a number of parties in private residences where more than 60 people showed up. Obviously, you have missed a lot of really good parties.
Two, Why would you assume that that a public or commercial venue would blithely assume liability? More realistically, the contract between that facility and anyone who rents it would specifically make the venue immune from such suits.
Slashdot Mirror
>>"...e average person is more or less an idiot..."
Well, you said it, not me.
>>"...it is fair to say that an operating system is a fairly technical concept that most people need to be educated on before it is even possible to entertain a discussion of Linux."
An operating system is part of an appliance that allows people to do things they could not otherwise do. Arguing that you can't debate the failure of Linux to achieve widespread acceptance until people have the technical expertise to understand operating systems is tantamount to arguing that people can't buy toasters until they understand physics.
>>"...I have been identifying the problem as I see it."
Most people do not want to use Linux. That is not a problem.
>>"... most people are idiots who respond best to dumbed-down marketing schlock..."
I think that pretty much eliminates you as a useful participant in this debate.
Do you understand you are asserting that widespread adoption of Linux depends on an evolutionary boost in human intelligence?
Someone's obviously paying for Word and Photoshop and all the other commercial software that's on the market. If people weren't buying them, they wouldn't be on the market.
For people who make extensive use of programs like Word and Photoshop, especially those who derive their income from using those programs, their unavailability on the Linux platform is an absolute disincentive and for most a deal breaker.
I don't disagree with the points you raise, and several years ago I would have cheered you on. But, now, other things are more important to me.
My argument is not original or even new. But the evidence of the market shows that few Windows users see a reason to switch to Linux. Or Apple, for that matter.
>>: don't know why anyone would have a hard time doing common tasks in Linux?
To start a program you click on the menu item."
I can find and click on the Photoshop icon, therefore I am a graphics designer.
The evidence of the last 15 years amply demonstrates that few satisfied Windows users see a reason to switch to Linux.
Every point you mention has existed since the creation of Linux. But, still, people do not switch. Perhaps you are addressing the wrong issues.
>>"Because it's not hard, and it'll save them money, as I mentioned below."
Those are not incentives to switch. Those are attributes that come into play only after someone has decided to switch.
>>"But only their current versions, so they're fscked as far as new functionality goes if they don't pay again. "
Most people who already own and use Word and Photoshop, especially for professional purposes, do not see the price of an upgrade as a reason to stop using Word and Photoshop. The evidence of the market supports that.
>>".. having a free, secure OS that needs only a fraction of the money investment to run well as their current one *isn't* a good reason to switch? "
To repeat, the evidence of the market is that the answer to that question is yes. Linux is a free, secure OS that's costs a fraction of Windows... and only a tiny fraction of Windows users have switched. Therefore, one might suspect that those attributes provide an insufficient incentive.
>>"If you have already paid hundreds of dollars for Windows, Word, and Photoshop then there's absolutely no reason not to use them. But not everyone has that kind of disposable income. "
Then you are not talking about satisfied Windows users. You are talking about people who need to buy a PC and install a lot of software. That's a different discussion.
>>"The fact that you switched to Apple speaks volumes about how much you dislike bargain-shopping..."
As I stated, the fact that I switched to Apple demonstrates I couldn't get wireless to work in Linux. I was tired of spending money to buy hardware that some discussion forum or some email archive claimed would work with this distro or that distro, only to find that it wasn't true. Yes, I could (and have on occasion) built a Linux system that's comparable to my Mac and saved a few hundred bucks. The cost in time and hassle would be much greater, and for me these days that's too high a price to pay. I spent ten years tweaking Linux and bending it to do my will. Now, I have better things to do.
I don't recall that you refuted anything.
>>"Simply put, it's (ed. learning a new OS) not that big of a deal, it just requires the desire to do so."
No, for a lot of people it isn't. But that's not the point. Why would anyone who's happy with Windows have a desire to switch in the first place?
>>"...they'd appreciate the $1000 saved by not buying either Office or Photoshop."
When I say "If someone is happy using, say, Word and Photoshop... ", it suggests they already own Word and Photoshop.
>>"For your Mac, it's easy, and you'll know it when your motherboard decides to give up the ghost."
Linux is going to save my motherboard? Hmm. And again, you haven't provided any reason for a satisfied Windows user to switch to Linux. The fact that Vista is overfed, that Linux is more secure, and that Linux is often available gratis are not things that would motivated a satisified Windows user to switch. You're essentially arguing that Linux users should switch because Linux is better. That's not enough.
Before I take on some of your specific points, let me just say that the best argument I can make about human nature in this instance is that Linux has been around for at least 15 years, it's free, and it's easy to find. Linux has failed to motivated more than a tiny sliver of the market to switch. Regardless of Microsoft's methods, more people would switch to Linux if they felt they had a reason to do that.
>>" Linux does everything I need it to and runs noticeably faster, on everything. I especially like the 100ms knocked off my ping time on WoW. Windows is a horrible, horrible resource hog, even on my fancy 64-bit desktop."
To repeat, if Windows does everything a Windows user wants it to do, why should he switch?
Most people don't know what ping time is, and don't care to know. (BTW, how did your Linux installation make the routers on the Internet faster?).
Most people don't care if their OS is wasting resources.
>>"I spent time researching and optimizing the Vista system... don't tell me I didn't set it up properly. Linux is simply faster."
I didn't, and wouldn't dream of it. I've got an old DOS machine that's faster than Linux. Speed isn't everything. Again, if a Windows user is satisfied, why switch?
>>"Installing WINE correctly on your Linux machine will allow you to install Windows applications .."
That's actually a disincentive to switch to Linux. Keeping Windows allows users to run every Windows application and avoid paying for Wine and making the effort needed to use Linux and its applications.
>>"... you can't troubleshoot your own hardware, and taking your machine into Apple costs time and money..."
One, I've never needed to take Apple hardware in for repair, period. Two, as a former, and knowledgeable, Linux user I did my fair share of trouble shooting, but I don't recall not having to pay for replacement parts.
>>"...OS religious wars are pathetic..."
This discussion isn't about OS superiority. It's about human nature. that's what determines most folks readiness to stay with the familiar (Windows) rather than switch to the unfamiliar (Linux).
No straw man. Linux has been around for 15 years and it still has a tiny market share. Yes, Microsoft is hard to compete with, but people know that and they don't care. Few people are going to be motivated to switch to Linux just to help thwart Microsoft.
People simply do not willingly move from the familiar to the unfamiliar without incentive. By only offering to do the same things as Windows, Linux offers insufficient incentive for most people. If Linux enabled people to do something they want to do and is impossible to do with Windows, that's something I'd consider an incentive.
Well, I think experience inside a business is liable to differ from experience with customers who are paying their own money and using their own time.
I had an experience with an organization that spent tens of millions of dollars to install new software. They ran all employees through training ( 5 full days away from the job ). Employees hated the software and refused to use it. Within a few months, the new software was abandoned and we all went back to using the familiar stuff.
Vista may change the equation, but If the choice is between buying hardware running an unknown OS and unknown applications versus hardware running a familiar OS and familiar applications, I contend that the vast majority of customers will opt for the familiar, even if it costs more.
I'm not arguing the virtues of one OS or another. I'm just saying that must people will stay with the familiar as long as it's there.
Yes, I read the article. Yes, I know that they're looking at Ubuntu. Regardless of what it looks like, Ubuntu is still Linux. People who can't find the Word icon will still be unhappy.
No, saving a little money is not enough reason for most Windows users to switch.
Look, I'm not bashing Linux. I used it for a decade. But it is naive to expect people to willingly throw away their investment in Windows (time and money) simply to learn an OS that allows them to keep on doing the same things.
If someone is happy using, say, Word and Photoshop, what's attractive in hearing that Linux can't run Word and Photoshop but they can do pretty much the same things with Openoffice and Gimp, once they take the time to learn how to use them? Why should they do that when they can keep on using Word and Photoshop?
Like I said, i used Linux for ten years. I switched to Apple a few years ago because I wanted wireless to work. Now, I need to buy new hardware. I could easily save a few bucks and run Linux on something. But, why should I? I like Apple software, I'm accustomed to using it. Everything I did in Linux I can do on a Mac, often with greater ease and reliability. Why should I care if Linux allows me to do the same things once I learn how to use it and a bunch of new programs? Where's the incentive? There are tens of millions of Windows users thinking the same thing.
If someone knows how to do "common tasks" with Windows, where's the incentive to go to the hassle of being re-educated just to learn how to do the same things in Linux?
The only real incentive to switch operating systems is that the new system allows you to do something the old one doesn't.
Would you buy a toaster that required watching a training video before you could use it?
I'm in North Carolina, but not in Wilmington. Maybe those annoyed folks down there haven't been actually watching TV, because it's been almost impossible to avoid the multiple daily commercials about the switch, the incessant crawls across the screen, and the incessant news stories. Maybe these are the same people who walk out of a flooded house and complain that no one warned them about the hurricane.
Per local press, the largest proportion of complaints were directed against a single station whose digital coverage area is smaller than it's analog umbrella was. If true, then with or without a converter, those folks won't be able to watch that channel.
Twenty years ago I was using DOS. It booted almost instantly. If I wanted to, I might have edited autoexec.bat to include a command to launch an editor at the end of the boot. Or, I might have used a TSR like Sidekick that would have provided access to a text editor, and more, at the touch of a key.
Modern operating systems are several orders of magnitude larger than DOS. Hence, the longer boot times.
Remember, however, that Unix and Linux are text-based operating systems. You don't need to run X, the graphical interface, if you don't want to. You can alter the boot scripts of a Unix/Linux machine to stop at the text interface, ask you which interface you want to use, or just boot in text mode and launch a text editor.
There's no reason Shuttleworth can't deliver something on par with OS X. All he needs to do is concentrate on functionaliy, usability, and marketability, and not worry that much about ideology. I.e., the same things Apple worries about.
The market does not care how software is writen, it just cares about what it does and how it looks.
A two-hour meeting is good. Time off to job hunt is great. I hope they made someone available to meet with each employee to discuss issues like insurance, etc.
In your second announcement, you provided an announcement that consisted of a couple of sentences. To me, that's a "tiny notice". Did that company do something more that you did not mention?
The first example is of a stupid business.
No one ever said management is any smarter than employees.
Frankly, I don't think your second example is an example of a business doing the right thing. If you're going to fire 20 people, you need to do more for them than simply post a tiny notice.
But, regardless of how people are treated, there's no excuse for theft and sabotage. Crime is crime.
No, the lesson is to have at least one trustworthy employee on staff who can disable an admin's account the minute he turns in his notice.
If an employee is willing to subvert his ethics to get back at an employer, that's reason enough to fire him.
If you're my employee and you decide you don't like me and then you sabotage me on the way out, I'm getting a lawyer and chasing you down. And I'm looking at filing charges.
Sabotaging a network is no different than setting fire to the building.
I've worked a couple of places where fired admins sabotaged their network on the way out.
Lesson: Lock them out before you send them out the door.
One, I've been to a number of parties in private residences where more than 60 people showed up. Obviously, you have missed a lot of really good parties.
Two, Why would you assume that that a public or commercial venue would blithely assume liability? More realistically, the contract between that facility and anyone who rents it would specifically make the venue immune from such suits.
And the lesson for today, Grasshopper, is that people lie. And that they change their minds.
People in Finland don't being suit when someone is negligent and causes them harm? How charming.