Sure, I'll grant you security, too... but as you admitted in your own post, even that isn't a particularly *compelling* reason for a lot of users to switch from Windows. Unless and until insecurity makes the system unusable, most entry-level users won't care enough to switch. Security is something everybody is going to say, "yeah, that would be great to have," but it's not something that a lot of people care enough to spend time on.
As for the instabilities in my fc4 system... no, I'm not getting kernel updates frequently at all... I'm still working on chasing down the source of the error. But the original point is (and was) that if the user experience is more or less the same between XP & Linux for your most common users, there has to be a fundamentally compelling reason for them to switch... overcoming the inertia of "just leaving XP on there" is not going to happen without that reason. If all I need to do is email, im, browse, and write an occasional document, then all of the theoretical arguments in the world aren't enough to convince me to change: "You can change the source code!" -- but 95% of your users wont... "You can completely customize your window manager!" -- but 95% of your users don't want to be bothered... "It's trendy, you can be on the cutting edge!" -- but 95% of your users just want to send an email...
I guess the bottom line is that maybe linux isn't (and perhaps shouldn't be) for everyone... you've got to talk to your user base in terms they understand & care about, and if you don't offer them a good reason -- that they care about -- to switch, they'll stick with what they've already got, warts & all, if it's "good enough."
Yes, I'm well aware of all of that... but my original point is, what's the compelling reason to change in the first place?
Choice? Flexibility? Philosophy? The ability to fix your own bugs? Despite yours & my wishes to the contrary, these arguments are irrelevant to a large portion of users. You might be able to make the sale based on price, or more stability (though I will also say that I end up having to reboot my Fedora system every couple days because things start freezing on me for no apparent reason... just like my XP system used to), or more features, but advocating change for the sake of flexibility... choice... etc. is irrelevant when 90% of the population will *never* use those advanced capabilities.
In my experience, most people treat a computer & its accompanying o.s. as they would the purchase of a car, or an appliance... does it have the functions I need & want? Is it cost-effective? Is it reliable? What's my long term maintenance cost? MOST of the population doesn't care if that Honda Civic is tuner-friendly or not, or whether or not instructions & tools for maintaining your refrigerator's compressor & ice maker are included with the purchase. Maybe I know too many non-technical people, but I have to wonder whether or not some of these arguments for Linux are trying to scratch something that's not even a mild itch for most users.
If you distribute, license or sell a Licensed Implementation, this license is conditioned upon you requiring that the following notice be prominently displayed in all copies and derivative works of your source code and in copies of the documentation and licenses associated with your Licensed Implementation:
By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.
I'm certainly no lawyer, but aside from including the statement included in the above quote in any source code which parses / interprets the MS XML documents, I don't see how Microsoft is forcing you to do "anything" with your data stored in that format... I know that giving any credit to Microsoft is a bitter pill to swallow for some people, but really... what percentage of your end-users are looking at the damn source code? It can be our little secret...
To quote Shakespeare... I'm really starting to think that all of this furor over Microsoft's "patenting XML to control my data" is nothing more than "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..."
I have to question the accuracy of this statement... The vast majority of corporate & home users of Office products that I know are nontechnical, and aren't all that concerned about the fact that their version of Word, Excel, etc. doesn't have the latest & greatest bells and whistles. Slashdot is, by and large, a group of tech enthusiasts who love to play with new toys & new tools. If you want to know who the typical end users of all those computers that Dell & HP sell are, look at your parents, and maybe your not-so-tech-savvy brothers and sisters.
I work at a computer all day... and I have two major concerns when I fire up any "Office" program:
1. It works.
2. What I produce is readable by other people.
I don't really care how the program goes about that task -- my choice of an 'office suite' is based on those practical criteria, it's not a philosophical statement for me. Much the same way that a lot of other people select their software, I think.
Now that said, I've actually installed the OOo 2.0 beta on my Windows laptop, and have fiddled with it some, just to see what all the fuss is about... and I've actually been impressed, because it works pretty much the same as Microsoft Office. So yeah, it's absolutely a legitimate competitor... but at first blush, I frankly don't see much in the usability / functionality of the tool that's new and ground-breaking. (And this might be the thing that I find the most puzzling of the Open Source movement -- without MSFT to chase, where would they go? Please don't get me wrong, I'm not demonizing open software, or lionizing MSFT... but most of what I actually *see* on my Fedora system at home looks "pretty much just like" the WinXP interface I'm used to here at work... which is good, I guess... but I just don't see a lot to distinguish the two apart.
And yes, I know all the party lines about openness, flexibility, and choice... but for a lot of non-technical home users, the computer is an "appliance" -- used for checking email, browsing the web, occasionally IM'ing with family & friends, and maybe writing the occasional letter in Word. So if that's all they're doing... is there really a compelling difference?
The "vote with your dollars" fallacy? Unless I'm mistaken, boycotts of products & brands have been remarkably effective in bringing about change in corporate behaviors in the past, haven't they? To put it in mildly zen terms, what is the sound of no products selling? (Sounds a lot like bankruptcy to me...)
The problem is, this argument simply focuses on the big evil corporations trying to defraud defenseless citizens of their rights to fair use... does the simple fact that a corporation must abide by the laws of the land thereby absolve the citizens of all responsibility to abide by copyright laws? For MOST of us, the Closed Circuit TV systems you mentioned above are unnecessary... so why do they exist? Because if they did not exist, there is a segment of the population that would rob the vendor blind.
The problem here is that the stakes get higher here -- a kid with a bulky jacket might be able to rip off a store to the tune of a couple hundred bucks via five-finger discount. But when ANYBODY on the planet can copy the entire contents of my ~5000-song library for the cost of adequate storage for that copy (~25 GB, if I recall correctly -- not exactly pushing the limits of hard drive technology) and a few hours of electricity... you DO have a significant risk of theft, and that theft can have a significant impact on the company's bottom line. So why is it surprising that these companies would attempt to develop ways of controlling the content they distribute? Even at 99 cents a song, that 5000 song library is worth nearly $5k -- I'd be pretty pissed off if somebody jacked me for five grand, wouldn't you?
Are the record companies overreacting? Undoubtedly... it's not the doomsday scenario they envision, and the smart companies will figure out a way to do business with (rather than in spite of) the capabilities of digital distribution. Are CDs and DVDs overpriced? Almost certainly... but let's also not pretend that the ease of copying & redistribution for digital media does not make it almost impossible to *not* use some sort of copy protection / digital rights scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, I'll grant you security, too... but as you admitted in your own post, even that isn't a particularly *compelling* reason for a lot of users to switch from Windows. Unless and until insecurity makes the system unusable, most entry-level users won't care enough to switch. Security is something everybody is going to say, "yeah, that would be great to have," but it's not something that a lot of people care enough to spend time on.
As for the instabilities in my fc4 system... no, I'm not getting kernel updates frequently at all... I'm still working on chasing down the source of the error. But the original point is (and was) that if the user experience is more or less the same between XP & Linux for your most common users, there has to be a fundamentally compelling reason for them to switch... overcoming the inertia of "just leaving XP on there" is not going to happen without that reason. If all I need to do is email, im, browse, and write an occasional document, then all of the theoretical arguments in the world aren't enough to convince me to change:
"You can change the source code!" -- but 95% of your users wont...
"You can completely customize your window manager!" -- but 95% of your users don't want to be bothered...
"It's trendy, you can be on the cutting edge!" -- but 95% of your users just want to send an email...
I guess the bottom line is that maybe linux isn't (and perhaps shouldn't be) for everyone... you've got to talk to your user base in terms they understand & care about, and if you don't offer them a good reason -- that they care about -- to switch, they'll stick with what they've already got, warts & all, if it's "good enough."
Yes, I'm well aware of all of that... but my original point is, what's the compelling reason to change in the first place?
Choice? Flexibility? Philosophy? The ability to fix your own bugs? Despite yours & my wishes to the contrary, these arguments are irrelevant to a large portion of users. You might be able to make the sale based on price, or more stability (though I will also say that I end up having to reboot my Fedora system every couple days because things start freezing on me for no apparent reason... just like my XP system used to), or more features, but advocating change for the sake of flexibility... choice... etc. is irrelevant when 90% of the population will *never* use those advanced capabilities.
In my experience, most people treat a computer & its accompanying o.s. as they would the purchase of a car, or an appliance... does it have the functions I need & want? Is it cost-effective? Is it reliable? What's my long term maintenance cost? MOST of the population doesn't care if that Honda Civic is tuner-friendly or not, or whether or not instructions & tools for maintaining your refrigerator's compressor & ice maker are included with the purchase. Maybe I know too many non-technical people, but I have to wonder whether or not some of these arguments for Linux are trying to scratch something that's not even a mild itch for most users.
I'm certainly no lawyer, but aside from including the statement included in the above quote in any source code which parses / interprets the MS XML documents, I don't see how Microsoft is forcing you to do "anything" with your data stored in that format... I know that giving any credit to Microsoft is a bitter pill to swallow for some people, but really... what percentage of your end-users are looking at the damn source code? It can be our little secret...
To quote Shakespeare... I'm really starting to think that all of this furor over Microsoft's "patenting XML to control my data" is nothing more than "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..."
"People want something new."
I have to question the accuracy of this statement... The vast majority of corporate & home users of Office products that I know are nontechnical, and aren't all that concerned about the fact that their version of Word, Excel, etc. doesn't have the latest & greatest bells and whistles. Slashdot is, by and large, a group of tech enthusiasts who love to play with new toys & new tools. If you want to know who the typical end users of all those computers that Dell & HP sell are, look at your parents, and maybe your not-so-tech-savvy brothers and sisters.
I work at a computer all day... and I have two major concerns when I fire up any "Office" program:
1. It works.
2. What I produce is readable by other people.
I don't really care how the program goes about that task -- my choice of an 'office suite' is based on those practical criteria, it's not a philosophical statement for me. Much the same way that a lot of other people select their software, I think.
Now that said, I've actually installed the OOo 2.0 beta on my Windows laptop, and have fiddled with it some, just to see what all the fuss is about... and I've actually been impressed, because it works pretty much the same as Microsoft Office. So yeah, it's absolutely a legitimate competitor... but at first blush, I frankly don't see much in the usability / functionality of the tool that's new and ground-breaking. (And this might be the thing that I find the most puzzling of the Open Source movement -- without MSFT to chase, where would they go? Please don't get me wrong, I'm not demonizing open software, or lionizing MSFT... but most of what I actually *see* on my Fedora system at home looks "pretty much just like" the WinXP interface I'm used to here at work... which is good, I guess... but I just don't see a lot to distinguish the two apart.
And yes, I know all the party lines about openness, flexibility, and choice... but for a lot of non-technical home users, the computer is an "appliance" -- used for checking email, browsing the web, occasionally IM'ing with family & friends, and maybe writing the occasional letter in Word. So if that's all they're doing... is there really a compelling difference?
The "vote with your dollars" fallacy? Unless I'm mistaken, boycotts of products & brands have been remarkably effective in bringing about change in corporate behaviors in the past, haven't they? To put it in mildly zen terms, what is the sound of no products selling? (Sounds a lot like bankruptcy to me...) .
The problem is, this argument simply focuses on the big evil corporations trying to defraud defenseless citizens of their rights to fair use... does the simple fact that a corporation must abide by the laws of the land thereby absolve the citizens of all responsibility to abide by copyright laws? For MOST of us, the Closed Circuit TV systems you mentioned above are unnecessary... so why do they exist? Because if they did not exist, there is a segment of the population that would rob the vendor blind
The problem here is that the stakes get higher here -- a kid with a bulky jacket might be able to rip off a store to the tune of a couple hundred bucks via five-finger discount. But when ANYBODY on the planet can copy the entire contents of my ~5000-song library for the cost of adequate storage for that copy (~25 GB, if I recall correctly -- not exactly pushing the limits of hard drive technology) and a few hours of electricity... you DO have a significant risk of theft, and that theft can have a significant impact on the company's bottom line. So why is it surprising that these companies would attempt to develop ways of controlling the content they distribute? Even at 99 cents a song, that 5000 song library is worth nearly $5k -- I'd be pretty pissed off if somebody jacked me for five grand, wouldn't you?
Are the record companies overreacting? Undoubtedly... it's not the doomsday scenario they envision, and the smart companies will figure out a way to do business with (rather than in spite of) the capabilities of digital distribution. Are CDs and DVDs overpriced? Almost certainly... but let's also not pretend that the ease of copying & redistribution for digital media does not make it almost impossible to *not* use some sort of copy protection / digital rights scheme.