Well I am from india as well. Although I would agree with the current scenario as you have detailed but I don't agree with the reason. They don't use linux because they don't know the reasons for using linux and I guess you don't too. So read on.
I work for a software company Hughes Software Systems, and we do fair amount of work on Linux. We are MVP (Monta Vista Partner) which produces Monta Vista Linux a Linux for Real Time and Embedded applications. I am sure other software companies like Infosys and Wipro will also be doing some work for linux.
I think people think that only companies like Microsoft exist, which make software and sell software to make a living. But if they see around them they will find that most money is made by providing software as a service. And this is especially true for Indian companies most do offshore or on shore development for their clients. Very few Indian companies make products that they sell.
If these people will think deeply, its not selling of the software that wins the bread at the end of the day. Its the providing of a service. It could be in the form of a product, but it could also be in the form of writing a piece of code that your client needs. It could be in the form of helping a client setup their machines network systems. It could be in the form of just giving training to the customer. If you think that you will only be creating products and selling them then you are restricting yourself to a very small niche. Creating products and selling it is a very risky and mostly a losing proposition, more so if you come in the line of a monopolist.
I hope that Indian Software Engineers will see the light and understand that products is not the be all and end all of software development. I am not saying that they should be coding and giving their code away with no expectation in return. I think that is a stupid concept if people code for the sake of giving it away. I think the reason why people should code for Linux is when they are still learning or when they need to in their jobs. I think Linux is the best place to learn, because it doesn't hide concepts from the user. If the OS is hiding from you what really is happenning how will you learn. The other thing you need to do while learning is create some test code, undertake some project, to test your learning. Without testing your learning you do not know whether you know what you have learnt. If you do coding you could put it up on the internet and make your project live forever, and maybe make yourself a name and reputation like so many Linux developers have. Maybe that will help you in searching for a job. Enlightened self interest is the only way to a good life. I think Linux is getting so popular because people are finding it useful in their day to day work not because of some free software BS.
There are some people who take software development as altruistic endeavor, they are also a vocal group because that is what they see as the product (that they will be praised for their work). But they are a very small group.
Apple could do this, but what Apple user wants the widely inconsistent guarantees about whether any particular driver actually works. Some Linux drivers work with ease and robustness, some work after an hour of tweaking and/or fighting, some work only after a few days of fighting, some don't work at all. A free-for-all development model probably won't satisfy Apple's target audience.
The Apple user that does not want widely inconsistent guarantees should stick to the systems made by Apple, for them the situation would be the same as now.
What about combinations of disparate hardware and drivers. One huge problem with Windows on PCs is that conflicts are common and sometimes adding one thing requires removing another. Sometimes Windows just breaks needing reinstallation.
Microsoft at least tries. So we agree that Apple isn't as good as Microsoft. It doesn't deserve the wide user base Microsoft enjoys. It doesn't even have the guts to face Microsoft. So Microsoft still has only one competition ie Linux.
This is largely true for Apple and other companies like Sun. Their business model is based on building top-notch hardware, where the OS is just icing on the cake.
Sun has come around and is trying to survive using Linux. I don't think they will survive for long until they are consciously willing to toss out Solaris.
Normal free-market forces did not get Microsoft where they are now. Microsoft would be a small fraction of what they are now, if they didn't cheat, steal, crush, and lie to get to the top.
Actually it was normal market forces due to which Microsoft won. How they are maintaining the monopoly is a different matter. Microsoft won because Apple wouldn't think out of the box (i.e. Macintosh). Because Sun wouldn't think out of the box (i.e. think about the desktop). These two companies could win and conceded the market to Windows.
How much would you be willing to pay for Mac OS X to keep Apple in business? Bundling their OS with the hardware doesn't mean the OS is free.
Same as for Windows, does it deserve better. I haven't seen it on the PC. I think it would, then I would pay more.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I am from india as well. Although I would agree with the current scenario as you have detailed but I don't agree with the reason. They don't use linux because they don't know the reasons for using linux and I guess you don't too. So read on.
I work for a software company Hughes Software Systems, and we do fair amount of work on Linux. We are MVP (Monta Vista Partner) which produces Monta Vista Linux a Linux for Real Time and Embedded applications. I am sure other software companies like Infosys and Wipro will also be doing some work for linux.
I think people think that only companies like Microsoft exist, which make software and sell software to make a living. But if they see around them they will find that most money is made by providing software as a service. And this is especially true for Indian companies most do offshore or on shore development for their clients. Very few Indian companies make products that they sell.
If these people will think deeply, its not selling of the software that wins the bread at the end of the day. Its the providing of a service. It could be in the form of a product, but it could also be in the form of writing a piece of code that your client needs. It could be in the form of helping a client setup their machines network systems. It could be in the form of just giving training to the customer. If you think that you will only be creating products and selling them then you are restricting yourself to a very small niche. Creating products and selling it is a very risky and mostly a losing proposition, more so if you come in the line of a monopolist.
I hope that Indian Software Engineers will see the light and understand that products is not the be all and end all of software development. I am not saying that they should be coding and giving their code away with no expectation in return. I think that is a stupid concept if people code for the sake of giving it away. I think the reason why people should code for Linux is when they are still learning or when they need to in their jobs. I think Linux is the best place to learn, because it doesn't hide concepts from the user. If the OS is hiding from you what really is happenning how will you learn. The other thing you need to do while learning is create some test code, undertake some project, to test your learning. Without testing your learning you do not know whether you know what you have learnt. If you do coding you could put it up on the internet and make your project live forever, and maybe make yourself a name and reputation like so many Linux developers have. Maybe that will help you in searching for a job. Enlightened self interest is the only way to a good life. I think Linux is getting so popular because people are finding it useful in their day to day work not because of some free software BS.
There are some people who take software development as altruistic endeavor, they are also a vocal group because that is what they see as the product (that they will be praised for their work). But they are a very small group.
-anand
Apple could do this, but what Apple user wants the widely inconsistent guarantees about whether any particular driver actually works. Some Linux drivers work with ease and robustness, some work after an hour of tweaking and/or fighting, some work only after a few days of fighting, some don't work at all. A free-for-all development model probably won't satisfy Apple's target audience.
The Apple user that does not want widely inconsistent guarantees should stick to the systems made by Apple, for them the situation would be the same as now.
What about combinations of disparate hardware and drivers. One huge problem with Windows on PCs is that conflicts are common and sometimes adding one thing requires removing another. Sometimes Windows just breaks needing reinstallation.
Microsoft at least tries. So we agree that Apple isn't as good as Microsoft. It doesn't deserve the wide user base Microsoft enjoys. It doesn't even have the guts to face Microsoft. So Microsoft still has only one competition ie Linux.
This is largely true for Apple and other companies like Sun. Their business model is based on building top-notch hardware, where the OS is just icing on the cake.
Sun has come around and is trying to survive using Linux. I don't think they will survive for long until they are consciously willing to toss out Solaris. Normal free-market forces did not get Microsoft where they are now. Microsoft would be a small fraction of what they are now, if they didn't cheat, steal, crush, and lie to get to the top.
Actually it was normal market forces due to which Microsoft won. How they are maintaining the monopoly is a different matter. Microsoft won because Apple wouldn't think out of the box (i.e. Macintosh). Because Sun wouldn't think out of the box (i.e. think about the desktop). These two companies could win and conceded the market to Windows.
How much would you be willing to pay for Mac OS X to keep Apple in business? Bundling their OS with the hardware doesn't mean the OS is free.
Same as for Windows, does it deserve better. I haven't seen it on the PC. I think it would, then I would pay more.