People, I use Linux, too, and I love it. There's really no need to preach to the choir here about that.
But seriously, why do people use MS? Particularly people whom it would seem shouldn't have the money? Well, it was said earlier "application support." This is part of it, for sure. But it's not the whole picture.
People use MS because windows is a toy. It's there for your amusement. Just like building blocks or legos...not too hard to use, easy to make work right, and everything you build is kinda ghetto, but hey, at least you get off the ground. Try giving a kid a load of scrap metal and a machine set. Even if it's the most user-friendly machine set in the world, the very fact that the extra functionality is there will confuse and anger them. Sure, you can make X as pretty as you want, and it's user friendly in a way, but every instance of X is different (to a learning mind) and there's not enough conformity to make their experience meaningful. All windows are virtually the same and you don't have to dig down to the kernel to find non-user servicable (and thus customizable) parts. Even if every computer in the school were the same, what about the one at home? At a friend's house? Well, even if they were Linux (which they're probably not) then you wouldn't know anything about them. To a kid, learning a linux box is totally unapplicable at the level they'd be learning.
Also, it's cheaper. Yes, believe it or not, people would rather shell out a lot of $$$ one time and have something they're pretty sure will work, rather than have something so complex (and it IS complex to the average Joe, don't kid yourself) that they can be virtually guaranteed that any given person won't be able to use it without help. You'll have to hire one (probably several) highly paid experts just to get the things running, and then again every time you want to change the load on them. Maybe the product is better, maybe the costs are lower long-term, maybe the benefits are there, but who knows and who is willing to risk it? See the discussion on micropayments for a great analysis of why flat-rate is appealing.:)
Just to add another voice to the fray.:)
You should talk to a sales engineer for Cache (http://www.intersys.com). It is all you say, performs about 80% (yes, eighty) better than Oracle in most circumstances, is massively scalable, and is so reliable that it's the leading database used in the healthcare industry. It's also very inexpensive compared to what you would be laying out for Oracle. Just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
People, I use Linux, too, and I love it. There's really no need to preach to the choir here about that. But seriously, why do people use MS? Particularly people whom it would seem shouldn't have the money? Well, it was said earlier "application support." This is part of it, for sure. But it's not the whole picture. People use MS because windows is a toy. It's there for your amusement. Just like building blocks or legos...not too hard to use, easy to make work right, and everything you build is kinda ghetto, but hey, at least you get off the ground. Try giving a kid a load of scrap metal and a machine set. Even if it's the most user-friendly machine set in the world, the very fact that the extra functionality is there will confuse and anger them. Sure, you can make X as pretty as you want, and it's user friendly in a way, but every instance of X is different (to a learning mind) and there's not enough conformity to make their experience meaningful. All windows are virtually the same and you don't have to dig down to the kernel to find non-user servicable (and thus customizable) parts. Even if every computer in the school were the same, what about the one at home? At a friend's house? Well, even if they were Linux (which they're probably not) then you wouldn't know anything about them. To a kid, learning a linux box is totally unapplicable at the level they'd be learning. Also, it's cheaper. Yes, believe it or not, people would rather shell out a lot of $$$ one time and have something they're pretty sure will work, rather than have something so complex (and it IS complex to the average Joe, don't kid yourself) that they can be virtually guaranteed that any given person won't be able to use it without help. You'll have to hire one (probably several) highly paid experts just to get the things running, and then again every time you want to change the load on them. Maybe the product is better, maybe the costs are lower long-term, maybe the benefits are there, but who knows and who is willing to risk it? See the discussion on micropayments for a great analysis of why flat-rate is appealing. :)
Just to add another voice to the fray. :)
You should talk to a sales engineer for Cache (http://www.intersys.com). It is all you say, performs about 80% (yes, eighty) better than Oracle in most circumstances, is massively scalable, and is so reliable that it's the leading database used in the healthcare industry. It's also very inexpensive compared to what you would be laying out for Oracle. Just a thought.