Linux article - Windows is Free

[GarethDW]

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.

 

[GarethDW]

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"?

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

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

 

[GarethDW]

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.

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.

 

[GarethDW]

Because her version of Windows is no longer supported by Microsoft... or because her PC breaks so she buys a new one but the OEM version of Windows she had on her old machine can't be transferred on to her new machine, so she's forced to buy a copy of Windows.

 

[GarethDW]

Why would Mrs Miggins care that "her version of Windows is no longer supported by Microsoft"? She probably doesn't even bother to update her anti-virus signatures.

When she buys a new PC, there is pretty well a 100% chance that it is going to come with Windows Vista pre-installed. I don't think that she is going to tell the spotty faced youth at her high street electrical retailer that she wants it reemoved so that she can install Ubuntu instead, do you?

Yeah, you're right, she's probably not aware... but as we're talking hypothetical situations, let's assume she goes to that high street retailer to buy a webcam to be able to communicate with her family that has moved to Australia. The spotty faced oik shows her a webcam and she asks if it will work with her current computer, which she's had for a number of years now. The spotty faced oik then frowns and suggests she considers upgrading the operating system, because it's so out of date that Microsoft don't even support it any more.

Now, you and I both know that it's pretty much irrelevant if Microsoft support it. The spotty faced oiks that work on a commission basis in those high street retailers, though, very rarely have the customers' best interests at heart - sadly.

As for her asking to have Windows removed so she can install an open source alternative, I also agree that it ain't gonna happen... but that's largely because she's already paid for Windows and the price of her new PC isn't gonna change if she has it removed - assuming she even knew of the existance of alternative operating systems. Let's imagine for a second, though, that things were different... Mrs Miggins goes to the high street retailer to buy a new PC, and the friendly sales guy shows her 2 systems... one which costs £x because it includes Windows, and one which has exactly the same components on the inside but costs considerably less, only £y, because it includes this free operating system which works almost exactly like Windows, has all the same software available, is compatible with her internet connection, printer, webcam, etc...

Now, I'd say that Mrs Miggins may well choose to pay the extra £100 for Windows, but there's also the possibility that she'd take the cheaper PC and put the £100 she's saved into buying something else. Given the choice, she may choose to go open source... but at the moment, she's not given the choice.

Does this make sense...? It's kinda clear in my head, but I've got a headache so trying to explain what I mean is proving painful.

 

[GarethDW]

Why is software and hardware installation in linux so horribly complex when compared to Windows and the mac OS's? It appears to largely be caused by dependencies. Which i guess would be a common issue when you rely on another developers software but cannot directly distrbute it.

Yeah, this used to be a real problem, but seems way better these days than it used to be. Which distro have you been using? I've not been in dependency hell for a long long time.

The Windows application installation seems easy to you because you're used to it. However, if you look at it, it could be said to be more complicated than under Linux.

You need to download setup.exe from a web site (first question... which web site to use?). Then you have to work out where the browser saved setup.exe. When you've found it, you're asked during the installation where you want to install it - experienced users would know that you're supposed to just chuck everything in C:\Program Files\ but inexperienced users don't know that. Lastly, you've got to remember to delete setup.exe cause you shouldn't need it again and it's taking up disk space.

Compare that with Synaptic, for example. You launch Synaptic, select the application you want to install, click the install button. Synaptic does the rest - downloads the installer, runs it, installs the app where it belongs and tidies up after itself.