Linux article - Windows is Free

GarethDW

GarethDW

GarethDW

Soldato
Joined
22 Jun 2006
Posts
2,971
Location
Swindon
Just read this article - http://tlug.jp/articles/Windows_Is_Free - and thought some of you guys would find it enjoyable too.

It's very long but it raises some great points... briefly, the author is saying that Linux isn't as popular as it could be because most ordinary people don't have any incentive to make the switch - because they use pirated copies of Windows anyway, so there's no real benefit from using (legally) free software.

If ordinary people really had to cough up £100 for each version of Windows, instead of "obtaining it" from a friend or downloading it via P2P, would it make them more inclined to consider Linux?

I'm interested to know everyone's thoughts... both *nix users and Windows/Mac users.
 
Most people are not using pirated copies of Windows. It's PC enthusiasts and their close acquaintances that are using pirated copies; people who have scratch-built computers. Most people are using the installation of Windows that was on the machine when he or she bought it. If computers came without OSes from the store and you had the option of paying £75 for windows or £0 for Linux, I know which many people would pick. It still wouldn't make Linux a majority but it would egg it along.

Of course I'm generalizing but I think you get the picture.
 
It's an interesting point to raise. I'm no Linux expert (tried Kubuntu and Suse) but it's about so much more than price for me.

First of all, there are just too many versions. People had a good enough laugh with Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise and Ultimate. So when it comes to wanting Linux, what do you want?

Kubuntu, Fedora, RedHat, Ubuntu, Suse, Debian, Slackware, Knoppix, Gentoo, Mandriva, CentOS and so on. I managed to name five of those and the rest I went to Wikipedia for, I'm sure there are more though and I think this is a massive problem.

People enjoy variety, but the normal computer user wants something to do a job. They don't want to have to do research on what is going to be best for them and their machine - especially on as many distros as there seem to be.

Kubuntu seems to be the one trying best to reach out to the public - it's got coverage on a few tech shows and is one of the more user-friendly ones from my very limited experience.

Things just seem complicated on Linux. I remember wanting to install a messenger on my version of Kubuntu and instead of going to Google, typing in what I wanted, downloading and installing - I had to type some cryptic message into a box and it installed itself.

Very handy, but not as straight-forward as the option which requires no 'message' knowledge. My sound didn't work either and I couldn't find a work around.

I have to say I liked it for a bit - the automatic spell check is a great thing to have and inexplicably useful - some of the interface bits and pieces were nice - but I didn't find it any better overall and was back to Windows after a few weeks.

More importantly and probably evident in my post so far - people don't enjoy change. Windows works, so why switch? Even it means paying an x amount or in the case of piracy, not doing that - you get something you're familiar with, don't have to work at a lot (usually) and has infinite results on most problems you'll face. As well as easier problems where non-power users need a little helping hand (installing programs, uninstalling, customizing and so on)

The fact that Linux runs on a lot of servers and not on a lot of home pc's says as much about it as needs to be - the benefits of it aren't found by the average Joe. Even if it is free.

The only way I can see Linux working out is if they were all to pull together and make an uber operating system that everyone (even good old average Joe) could use. But it doesn't seem to be like that - instead they are fighting amongst themselves for the best distro. And doing nothing but diluting the product.
 
90%+ of PC's in the world fall into the hands of consumers with Windows already on it. Why should Mrs Miggins who checks her emails twice a day and plays online bingo with IE go through all the hassle of swapping OS just "because"?
 
Even if Linux cost double that of Windows, i'd still buy and use Linux :)
It's not because Linux is free is why I use it. :)
 
I read an interesting article about MS changing there views on the asian market, they went from going in heavy handed to almost turning a blind eye to pirates as MS would rather people use a pirated version of windows than use linux, its all about market share. I think in some parts of Asia you can buy cut down versions of windows for something like $8, as Linux has a much bigger market share over there. They even have vending machines that will burn a variety of linux distros and office apps for a few pence.
Unfortunately i cant find the article anymore.
 
Linux isn't trying to replace or even compete with Windows. So this whole argument is moot.

Linux is written by Linux users for themselves. Most don't care if Average Joe uses it or not.

The argument about there being too many versions is rubbish too. If you plan to install Linux you need to do your research. There are hundreds of car manufacturers selling thousands of models. People choose a car just fine and spend far more than they would on a PC. Not quite the same I know, but close enough.

If more people use Linux, then great. If they don't - who cares?
 
SiriusB said:
If more people use Linux, then great. If they don't - who cares?
Click to expand...
While I get your point I don't think it's entirely accurate. There are many things that the PC industry could do that would help Linux users that just simply isn't done because there aren't enough of us. Drivers are a huge issue.

A Few threads down the forum we see a guy having issues. He wants to use Linux but is unable to do so since ATI isn't providing us any help. They haven't released an OSS driver that works nor do they support his graphics card with their official drivers nor have they documented the hardware so that volunteers can write an effective driver themselves. They instead concentrate their efforts on benefiting the Windows market. If Linux was more popular you'd definitely see more effort being given toward portable code and writing for open standards.

Though IE-only web sites are a dying breed they still exist. Linux users are unable to benefit from those sites as Windows users are. If Linux was a more popular platform we'd see better, more standards-compliant sites in existence which would really benefit everybody, Mac and Windows users as well.

Closed standards and practices hurt the market as a whole. We see it hurting the Windows market as software writes struggle to make their products work on Vista. C and C++ are dropping in popularity in favor of .Net. If MS decided they no longer wanted to support .Net, as they've done with other initiatives in the past, a whole lot of code would be rendered useless. Openness benefits everybody. If Larry Wall decided that he no longer wanted to support Perl, for example, we'd see somebody else take over. Even if nobody did that companies would still be able to hire C programmers to make the changes they needed. This isn't possible with a closed platform. We all know the benefits and drawbacks of relying on a single vendor.

I'd just like to see more competition in the marketplace. It makes everybody's product better. Netscape Navigator started to suck. MS decided they could make inroads in the browser market and bought code from Spyglass. Their new browser, Internet Explorer, was far superior to Netscape. Once Netscape died out MS focused its efforts elsewhere leaving IE 6 to languish. Since there's only one vendor for IE people just had to put up with it for the most part. Netscape was reborn as Firefox and soon we saw real competition in the market. Firefox had better features and many people made the switch. MS had to get back to work on their browser to improve it to keep up with Firefox. Both projects benefit from the competition. The users benefit the most.
 
I wouldn't say Linux isn't trying to compete with Windows. To go as far as to promote your distro of Linux and recommend that people use it over Windows, would be a form of competing in my eyes. The Linux community have been saying for years that it will eventually take over the home desktop. To do that, it must compete.

In terms of market share, facts and figures - Linux isn't in the big picture for the home computer user, but to say it hasn't made any difference to the share that Microsoft had on the market would be wrong. As it's free and spread throughout many different distros, it's very quietly competing.

Your comparison of the distros and cars is one I can't see reason with. The needs of the computer user are a bit more vast than that of essentially wanting to get from A-to-B.

In my opinion the people behind Linux do want the average Joe to use their product. In many cases there will be, as you say, techies who are making for their own personal reasons and gain, but I think their ambitions now reach far beyond what Linux may have been a few years ago.
 
Just like with a PC, there are lots of considerations to buying a car. You don't walk into a dealer, point at the nice blue one say "I'll buy it". You should consider the road-worthiness, cost of maintenance, handling, space, safety etc etc etc. All this you find out through research - whether that's asking a mate or watching Top Gear :D

Like i said, it's not a perfect comparison but you get the jist. :p

I agree that the fact there are lots of Linux users and distro that there is competition, but I see that as being more passive than active.

I have yet to see a Linux distro that's as easy to use as Windows for a novice. Even Ubuntu is a long, long way off and it is probably one of the easiest to use.

The only way Linux would even get close to properly competing is if they had lots of money. Vista has billions poured into it. Linux has no chance.

And as already said the big sticking point for a lot of users is driver support.

Whoever said Linux would take over the desktop market forgot to take the plastic off their cigar before smoking it!*


*stolen without shame from the Simpsons and shoe-horned into my post :p
 
deadite66 said:
if you have an older pc that runs something like 98/me you get no more security updates from MS, so a dist like xubuntu would be ideal for them.
Click to expand...
Except that most 'current' versions of Linux either wouldn't run on it or would be incredibly slow.

As has been suggested earlier, Linux is not yet really a desktop product. On a server, it is hard to beat. However, Linux really does need quite a lot of performance tuning in order to be viable on a typical user's desktop.
 
what nonsense search google to find loads of hits were ppl are running xubuntu on old hardware.
the biggest cpu/memory hit on linux is kde/gnome if you use those, whereas xubuntu uses Xfce4 which is a light footprint desktop.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
90%+ of PC's in the world fall into the hands of consumers with Windows already on it. Why should Mrs Miggins who checks her emails twice a day and plays online bingo with IE go through all the hassle of swapping OS just "because"?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a good point. The best move Microsoft made was getting the PC manufacturers to include an OS with every PC sold. Kinda like the crack dealer who is nice and friendly until he gets people hooked so they're reliant upon him :D

Mrs Miggins might not see the point in changing her OS unless she has to, but there'll come a time when she does have to, and I guess that's the point where Linux could be considered if a) she's aware of it's existence and b) she's not willing to purchase Windows or "acquire" it from a friend.

IF all Mrs Miggins is doing is checking her emails (from her staff at the pie shop) and browsing a bingo site, then there's no real reason for her not to use a Linux box really, imo. Nearly all sites are compatible with FF these days, so reliance
 
stockhausen said:
Except that most 'current' versions of Linux either wouldn't run on it or would be incredibly slow.

As has been suggested earlier, Linux is not yet really a desktop product. On a server, it is hard to beat. However, Linux really does need quite a lot of performance tuning in order to be viable on a typical user's desktop.
Click to expand...
Nah, if you can get 98 or ME to work on it then you can get Linux running too... might not get the full eye candy but the kernel itself takes hardly any resources, and then you can add stuff on top to make it as useable as you want.

With Windows you can't do this because the GUI is so tied-in to the kernel that you can't run one without the other.
 
I bought a laptop last year, and when I bought it, I specifically told them that I wasn't paying for windows, they knocked about £80 off it and sold it to me naked.

You can imagine I was bricking it whether linux would work or not, but tbh, I was just unbelievably happy, ubuntu installed first time, only hassle was sound and wireless, fixed shortly.

Yay for FOSS :D

As for the article, I can believe it, I don't run pirated software, but there is not much as good as photoshop, for example, OpenOffice rocks, but some areas are definately lacking. The cracked software does eat into foss territory, thats for sure. But then do we have to get jobs in security in places like Adobe just to kill it from the inside? Theres something counterintuitive about all of this...
 
Photoshop and gaming is the only reason I still run Windows.

Although recently I have been running photoshop on my laptop through the 20" screen in my room. That's PS sorted.

Now just need 1000 quid for a gaming laptop and I can be rid of Windows on my main machine :p
 
I would say most people running computers don't care what it is running, as long as they can pick up there email and browse the web.

If they use a computer at work then it is likely to be running Windows and so running Windows gives them a PC at home that they are familiar with.

If that is what comes pre-installed then even better as they don't have to install anything.

The only people that care what there machine is running is the small minority of computer users that you will find on forums like this. When I say small minority it is small compared to the number of computer users in the world.
 
Slogan said:
It's an interesting point to raise. I'm no Linux expert (tried Kubuntu and Suse) but it's about so much more than price for me.

First of all, there are just too many versions. People had a good enough laugh with Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise and Ultimate. So when it comes to wanting Linux, what do you want?

Kubuntu, Fedora, RedHat, Ubuntu, Suse, Debian, Slackware, Knoppix, Gentoo, Mandriva, CentOS and so on. I managed to name five of those and the rest I went to Wikipedia for, I'm sure there are more though and I think this is a massive problem.

People enjoy variety, but the normal computer user wants something to do a job. They don't want to have to do research on what is going to be best for them and their machine - especially on as many distros as there seem to be.

Kubuntu seems to be the one trying best to reach out to the public - it's got coverage on a few tech shows and is one of the more user-friendly ones from my very limited experience.

Things just seem complicated on Linux. I remember wanting to install a messenger on my version of Kubuntu and instead of going to Google, typing in what I wanted, downloading and installing - I had to type some cryptic message into a box and it installed itself.

Very handy, but not as straight-forward as the option which requires no 'message' knowledge. My sound didn't work either and I couldn't find a work around.

I have to say I liked it for a bit - the automatic spell check is a great thing to have and inexplicably useful - some of the interface bits and pieces were nice - but I didn't find it any better overall and was back to Windows after a few weeks.

More importantly and probably evident in my post so far - people don't enjoy change. Windows works, so why switch? Even it means paying an x amount or in the case of piracy, not doing that - you get something you're familiar with, don't have to work at a lot (usually) and has infinite results on most problems you'll face. As well as easier problems where non-power users need a little helping hand (installing programs, uninstalling, customizing and so on)

The fact that Linux runs on a lot of servers and not on a lot of home pc's says as much about it as needs to be - the benefits of it aren't found by the average Joe. Even if it is free.

The only way I can see Linux working out is if they were all to pull together and make an uber operating system that everyone (even good old average Joe) could use. But it doesn't seem to be like that - instead they are fighting amongst themselves for the best distro. And doing nothing but diluting the product.
Click to expand...

Great post & I agree, I like the .pbi system PC-BSD has. Just click & install like a windows .exe file, why would anyone want to compile then install?? It is a nice thing to compile so you can do it how you want, but atleast have a GUI utility for KDE, Gnome whatever Window Manager you want to use & you could open that, pick the source file(s) then everything is GUI like a .exe setup box. You pick what you want & click next a few times, then it is installed. Plus. the what is it 300 distroes out there just confuses people. Then you have things like having sound work in 1 distroe & not another or internet doing that, that happened to me, PCLinux OS 2007 sound, but no internet sometimes, OpenSuSE 10 Internet always, but no sound. :confused: Plus, OpenSuSE has the sound device listed & says it is setup in the audio setup. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Edward78 said:
Plus, OpenSuSE has the sound device listed & says it is setup in the audio setup. :confused:
Click to expand...

Did you check it wasnt muted? Some disto's have sound output's muted by default, that use to get me all the time in the RH7.x days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom