Linux Adoption Barriers
Roy Schestowitz
Breaking down barriers to Linux desktop adoption
"People reject Linux desktops for illogical reasons, says IT consultant and
developer Jono Bacon. For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for
not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few
actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they
want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features."
Larry Qualig
I just finished reading the article. The most interesting part to me
was this:
===================
--" What do you think prevents people from switching?
Bacon: One of the biggest things is lethargy. I consider myself a
semi-technical person. So moving between software platforms doesn't
mean anything to me.
But if, for example, I have to switch between insurance or phone plans,
I just don't want to do it because I don't want to learn about it. I
don't want to learn about what's different. Therefore, I'm resistant to
change even if it might save me some money each month. Unless I can see
a big, perceived win that attracts me, I'm not going to change my
current system for something else that doesn't really give me a
straight-up benefit.
The toughest thing is change. Microsoft carved out a culture. To its
credit, the company commoditized computers. There's no easy way around
that without education and giving someone that significant win."
===================
I have to agree with him 100% on this. Take your average someone who
already has a computer and has Windows on that machine. What exactly is
the reason to switch? Unless it is *significantly* better most people
won't switch to something that is essentially the same to them. What
are the factors:
Cost - Most users already own and have Windows on their machine. One
could make the case that switching involves extra 'cost' in both the
time to make the switch, learn new apps and the possibility that data
will get lost during the change. (Scenario is a home user with one
computer and a single NTFS partition. Repartitioning a hard-drive or
shrinking an existing NTFS partition isn't obvious to most.)
Free software - There's a ton of it for Linux but Windows also has more
free software (OpenOffice, Gimp, gcc, emacs, Audacity, etc.) than most
people will need.
Freedom - Sorry but "software freedom" and escaping from an evil
monopolistic tyrant corporation means zilch to 99.44% of home computer
users.
Access to source code - This is definitely a big plus for those who
care about this. But most home users would have no idea what to do with
source code.
Stability - Not enough to make a difference. If we were talking about
Win3.1 or Win95 it would matter but not anymore.
Security/Viruses - This is a big win for Linux but is it enough?
There are other intangibles: Curiousity in trying something new and
different.... experimentation.... heard about it and want to see what
the fuss is about.... have old hardware that won't run Windows well.
But most people won't switch unless there's a compelling reason/benefit
to switching. In late 1995/early-96 when I learned I was moving to
Redmond for a while I was talking to one of my neighbors about
Microsoft, Windows, etc. Turns out the guy was still running DOS. I was
surprised but he told me that DOS runs all of his apps and does
everything he needs his computer to do. This probably is a bit extreme
but it shows that people do resist change.
Larry Qualig
Crap - Forgot to mention that I also liked this part of the interview:
What were your complaints?
Bacon: Various perspectives on usability, clutter, too much
configurability and other things. Also, frameworks are a temporary
solution. We want less people hacking on frameworks and more people
hacking on applications that use frameworks. It's not a technical
problem so much as a social one.
What trends are you seeing?
Bacon: The advocacy side is focusing on business at the moment. Once
we've nailed that, we can move toward the consumer side. The difficulty
with the consumer side is that consumers naturally feel comfortable in
Windows because that's what they know. Lethargy is one of the toughest
nuts to crack, and consumers won't move unless they can see a key
benefit to the move, move with little or no hassle and don't incur any
further costs.
On the consumer side, there is also a greater scope for potential
snafus. You've got a million different use cases [and] a million
different devices that someone can plug in and get working, whereas a
business may only need X, Y and Z working and that's that.
B Gruff
> Freedom - Sorry but "software freedom" and escaping from an evil
> monopolistic tyrant corporation means zilch to 99.44% of home computer
> users.
>
> Access to source code - This is definitely a big plus for those who
> care about this. But most home users would have no idea what to do with
> source code.
Clearly you are talking about home users - Joe six-pack, if you like.
Now could I ask you to just go a little further in your deliberations, and
to consider just those two (for the moment) points in the context of, for
example, government bodies *outside* the U.S.?
In my view, the importance attached to them possibly changes considerably:-)
Larry Qualig
Good point. I was talking about home users. In the article the man
being interviewed (Bacon) distinctly addresses his answers towards what
he considers the two types of markets (users) that are out there. The
Corporate and home user.
For governments (and large corporations) it's an interesting question.
For example, does Coca-Cola want to focus on bottling and distribution
or do they want to get in to the software business (internally of
course)? Do they simply want off-the shelf products for things like
operating systems and word processors or do they want source code and
programmers to work on this code. (Most of these companies already
spend enough on IT developing their internals systems.)
billwg
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:dtvcbv$265c$2...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
No at all. People are just being polite and giving the surveyor
something to write down that is more acceptable that "Who gives a damn?
Go away, boy, you bother me!". Even the author of the piece knows this:
"What do you think prevents people from switching?
Bacon: One of the biggest things is lethargy. I consider myself a
semi-technical person. So moving between software platforms doesn't mean
anything to me.
But if, for example, I have to switch between insurance or phone plans,
I just don't want to do it because I don't want to learn about it. I
don't want to learn about what's different. Therefore, I'm resistant to
change even if it might save me some money each month. Unless I can see
a big, perceived win that attracts me, I'm not going to change my
current system for something else that doesn't really give me a
straight-up benefit.
I also think some people, particularly in business, are skeptical of
open source because it is community-based and it's free.
Roy Schestowitz
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1169030,00.html
>>
>> Breaking down barriers to Linux desktop adoption
>>
>> "People reject Linux desktops for illogical reasons, says IT consultant
>> and developer Jono Bacon. For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice
>> desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even
>> though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence,
>> they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features."
>
> Crap - Forgot to mention that I also liked this part of the interview:
>
>
> What were your complaints?
>
> Bacon: Various perspectives on usability, clutter, too much
> configurability and other things.
It depends on the tools being used. You could not argue that Thunderbird,
Firefox and OO.org suffer from such issues, whereas KDE (_Kernel Hackers_
Desktop Environment) applications like KMail and KNode are intended to
provide fine controls for power users.
> Also, frameworks are a temporary
> solution. We want less people hacking on frameworks and more people
> hacking on applications that use frameworks. It's not a technical
> problem so much as a social one.
The applications I mentioned above achieve just that! Same arguments apply.
> What trends are you seeing?
>
> Bacon: The advocacy side is focusing on business at the moment. Once
> we've nailed that, we can move toward the consumer side. The difficulty
> with the consumer side is that consumers naturally feel comfortable in
> Windows because that's what they know. Lethargy is one of the toughest
> nuts to crack, and consumers won't move unless they can see a key
> benefit to the move, move with little or no hassle and don't incur any
> further costs.
>
> On the consumer side, there is also a greater scope for potential
> snafus. You've got a million different use cases [and] a million
> different devices that someone can plug in and get working, whereas a
> business may only need X, Y and Z working and that's that.
Same with most amateur users. X and Y are often E-mail and Web surfing. Z is
sometimes productivity tools and particularly word processing, which even
Kile or LyX can cover admirably well.
With friendly regards,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:10pm up 14:21, 11 users, load average: 0.62, 1.01, 0.90
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Ray Ingles
> No at all. People are just being polite and giving the surveyor
> something to write down that is more acceptable that "Who gives a damn?
> Go away, boy, you bother me!". Even the author of the piece knows this:
No, there's a significant difference. It's true that much of what you
prattle is along the same lines as what Mr. Bacon states, but that's in
the same way that a scarecrow (a strawman) bears a passing resemblance
to a farmer.
You note obstacles such as he lists and cast them as insurmountable,
without any consideration of strategies already being used to deal with
them or mitigating factors or trends.
As you quote Mr. Bacon:
>> But if, for example, I have to switch between insurance or phone plans,
>> I just don't want to do it because I don't want to learn about it. I
>> don't want to learn about what's different. Therefore, I'm resistant to
>> change even if it might save me some money each month. Unless I can see
>> a big, perceived win that attracts me, I'm not going to change my
>> current system for something else that doesn't really give me a
>> straight-up benefit.
But, as you *don't* quote:
>> The advocacy side is focusing on business at the moment. Once we've
>> nailed that, we can move toward the consumer side.
And, of course, Linux *can* provide strong benefits. It's harder to
make people aware of them if you don't have a large marketing budget,
but once people are exposed to it at their place of work it's much
easier.
Something else to note is that people change computers every few years.
This is a built-in opportunity for alternatives. As Linux becomes more
common, it will nab a percentage of these 'updaters'. They're *already*
switching, so the resistance is lower.
There are already areas where people show this sort of behavior.
As Bacon notes, people don't change insurance long-distance plans
regularly - there's rarely a requirement to. But cell phones are quite
a different story. People change phone models, brands, and providers in
one stroke, and do it every few years. So inertia is far from
insurmountable.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable
operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying
to take over the world. - Drakmere
Ray Ingles
> Cost - Most users already own and have Windows on their machine. One
> could make the case that switching involves extra 'cost' in both the
> time to make the switch, learn new apps and the possibility that data
> will get lost during the change. (Scenario is a home user with one
> computer and a single NTFS partition. Repartitioning a hard-drive or
> shrinking an existing NTFS partition isn't obvious to most.)
Software is becoming an increasingly large fraction of the cost of a
machine. It's a hidden cost, but in a price-conscious market OEMs have a
lot of pressure to undercut the competition. If Linux can start to get a
hold in that area, it will snowball dramatically.
> Stability - Not enough to make a difference. If we were talking about
> Win3.1 or Win95 it would matter but not anymore.
>
> Security/Viruses - This is a big win for Linux but is it enough?
Note that Stability is strongly related to Security/Viruses. The worse
the security, the more the malware, and the less stable the system is.
I agree that an un-messed-with WinXP system can be stable enough for
home use, but in practice quite a large number get messed with.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Wirth made a language acclaimed in theory, but useless in
practice. He appropriately named it after the guy who came
up with 'Pascal's Wager'." - Dunbar the Inept, on Slashdot
Larry Qualig
Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 2006-02-27, Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Cost - Most users already own and have Windows on their machine. One
> > could make the case that switching involves extra 'cost' in both the
> > time to make the switch, learn new apps and the possibility that data
> > will get lost during the change. (Scenario is a home user with one
> > computer and a single NTFS partition. Repartitioning a hard-drive or
> > shrinking an existing NTFS partition isn't obvious to most.)
>
> Software is becoming an increasingly large fraction of the cost of a
> machine. It's a hidden cost, but in a price-conscious market OEMs have a
> lot of pressure to undercut the competition. If Linux can start to get a
> hold in that area, it will snowball dramatically.
This is actually an excellent point and one that I hadn't thought of. I
was viewing 'cost' throught the eyes of the consumer. To them the cost
of Windows is hidden and the reality is that today consumers can buy a
Windows machine for the same or better price than a Linux machine.
But - your point is that 'cost' is a bigger issue with OEMs. They are
certainly paying something for Windows licenses. In theory Joe user may
be able to save a few dollars buying a Linux box but for an OEM the
cost could be in the millions. The 'cost' issue is something that is
more likely to be driven by OEMs than consumers.
> > Stability - Not enough to make a difference. If we were talking about
> > Win3.1 or Win95 it would matter but not anymore.
> >
> > Security/Viruses - This is a big win for Linux but is it enough?
>
> Note that Stability is strongly related to Security/Viruses. The worse
> the security, the more the malware, and the less stable the system is.
> I agree that an un-messed-with WinXP system can be stable enough for
> home use, but in practice quite a large number get messed with.
Very true.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrne06is5....@localhost.localdomain...
>
> You note obstacles such as he lists and cast them as insurmountable,
> without any consideration of strategies already being used to deal
> with
> them or mitigating factors or trends.
>
still cast them as insurmountable. Rome wasn't built in a day and linux
will never take over the desktop since it has no way to begin.
> As you quote Mr. Bacon:
>
>>> But if, for example, I have to switch between insurance or phone
>>> plans,
>>> I just don't want to do it because I don't want to learn about it. I
>>> don't want to learn about what's different. Therefore, I'm resistant
>>> to
>>> change even if it might save me some money each month. Unless I can
>>> see
>>> a big, perceived win that attracts me, I'm not going to change my
>>> current system for something else that doesn't really give me a
>>> straight-up benefit.
>
> But, as you *don't* quote:
>
>>> The advocacy side is focusing on business at the moment. Once we've
>>> nailed that, we can move toward the consumer side.
>
Bacon, of course, offers that with no explanation as to where, when, and
how the advocacy side is doing that. No one here can explain it either.
Take Munich, for example, that was the poster child for the ultimate
success of the advocacy and the stated strategy. But after 3 years,
they have yet to actually do a single system conversion and have only
tentatively identified a guinea pig as the very office that made the
original initiative.
> And, of course, Linux *can* provide strong benefits. It's harder to
> make people aware of them if you don't have a large marketing budget,
> but once people are exposed to it at their place of work it's much
> easier.
>
Well, you give yourself too much room, ray! It is impossible to make
people aware of them if you don't have a large marketing budget and the
advocacy focused on client side has no budget at all.
> Something else to note is that people change computers every few
> years.
> This is a built-in opportunity for alternatives. As Linux becomes more
> common, it will nab a percentage of these 'updaters'. They're
> *already*
> switching, so the resistance is lower.
>
Naive, ray, and it has no meaning when the person looking for a new
computer has no knowledge of linux and no one to try to sell him one.
Rather, there are retail outlets everywhere with myriad versions of
Wintel machines for sale. Ask a clerk at Costco about what to buy and
you will get some simple notions about how to choose between a low-end
Wintel and a high-end Wintel, nothing more. You have to market to sell
and linux has no ability to do that.
> There are already areas where people show this sort of behavior.
> As Bacon notes, people don't change insurance long-distance plans
> regularly - there's rarely a requirement to. But cell phones are quite
> a different story. People change phone models, brands, and providers
> in
> one stroke, and do it every few years. So inertia is far from
> insurmountable.
>
I would totally agree that, in the advent of a replacement market for
personal computers, MS would be back in the pot with everyone else, but
that is not on the horizon just yet. Maybe in the year 2525? But can
linux last that long?
billwg
"Larry Qualig" <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141067657....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> But - your point is that 'cost' is a bigger issue with OEMs. They are
> certainly paying something for Windows licenses. In theory Joe user
> may
> be able to save a few dollars buying a Linux box but for an OEM the
> cost could be in the millions. The 'cost' issue is something that is
> more likely to be driven by OEMs than consumers.
>
market. That is the premise on which the DOJ founded their prosecution
of Microsoft for monopoly. They didn't consider the linux computers or
the Apple computers to be any form of competition and they were correct
in that. They saw the size and the effect of the Windows PC desktop
computer market and so do the OEMs. OEMs, like Dell and HP, are
experimenting with a Lintel market, mostly in the case of machines used
as servers or else high end workstations, but they are themselves
recognizing the two kinds of products do not substitute for one another.
The buy makes a decision to get a linux server or to get a Windows
server before deciding who to get it from.
Ray Ingles
>> certainly paying something for Windows licenses. In theory Joe user
>> may be able to save a few dollars buying a Linux box but for an OEM the
>> cost could be in the millions. The 'cost' issue is something that is
>> more likely to be driven by OEMs than consumers.
>>
> Windows is not a variable cost, it is a necessity for the Windows PC
> market. That is the premise on which the DOJ founded their prosecution
> of Microsoft for monopoly. They didn't consider the linux computers or
> the Apple computers to be any form of competition and they were correct
> in that.
Eh, by fairly contorted definitions, yes. You're mostly using
legalspeak as if it were colloquial English. In any case, it's worth
noting that one doesn't have to have 100% of a market to wield monopoly
power in the eyes of the law.
They saw the size and the effect of the Windows PC desktop
> computer market and so do the OEMs. OEMs, like Dell and HP, are
> experimenting with a Lintel market, mostly in the case of machines used
> as servers or else high end workstations, but they are themselves
> recognizing the two kinds of products do not substitute for one another.
> The buy makes a decision to get a linux server or to get a Windows
> server before deciding who to get it from.
Of course, the point is that OEMs may well see an opportunity to make
more money from a Linux system than a Windows system - server or
desktop - and themselves work to shift customers to one from the other.
In your terminology, they may see an opportunity to shift customers into
a market where they can make more money (the "Linux market") than they
currently do (in the "Windows market").
Again, even if the benefits for the consumer were meager (and I, of
course, have never conceded that), you yourself contend that marketing
rules the day. If the OEMs have a motive to do such marketing...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - Putting new limits on productivity.
JEDIDIAH
>> On Monday 27 February 2006 17:58 Larry Qualig wrote:
>>
>> > Freedom - Sorry but "software freedom" and escaping from an evil
>> > monopolistic tyrant corporation means zilch to 99.44% of home computer
>> > users.
>> >
>> > Access to source code - This is definitely a big plus for those who
>> > care about this. But most home users would have no idea what to do with
>> > source code.
>>
>> Clearly you are talking about home users - Joe six-pack, if you like.
>> Now could I ask you to just go a little further in your deliberations, and
>> to consider just those two (for the moment) points in the context of, for
>> example, government bodies *outside* the U.S.?
>> In my view, the importance attached to them possibly changes considerably:-)
>
> Good point. I was talking about home users. In the article the man
> being interviewed (Bacon) distinctly addresses his answers towards what
> he considers the two types of markets (users) that are out there. The
> Corporate and home user.
>
> For governments (and large corporations) it's an interesting question.
> For example, does Coca-Cola want to focus on bottling and distribution
> or do they want to get in to the software business (internally of
The last retailer I worked for had the source to their
warehouse management system. They took a pretty militaristic approach
to IT. Anything they use has to be well supported by the vendor or
supportable on their own.
They concluded that their warehouse management system was so
criticial that they could not even risk their vendor disappearing. So,
they licenced the source and maintain it themselves.
Many CIOs have come and gone and tried to replace that app
but in vain. They try because it is a 30 year old pick app and all
the CIO's want something shiny and new (plus the usual need to
meddle and be seen doing something).
> course)? Do they simply want off-the shelf products for things like
> operating systems and word processors or do they want source code and
> programmers to work on this code. (Most of these companies already
> spend enough on IT developing their internals systems.)
>
Companies need to go about their business. They need to do
this regardless of whether or not a ready made canned application
to suit them exists. Often times, such an app won't exist.
A company simply may have no choice but to be in the
business of software development.
--
Linux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their |||
choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Larry Qualig
Most definitely. Aetna, Pepsi, Coca-Cola are three companies that I've
visited first hand and they definitely develop and use custom solutions
to run their business. Such is the case in your first example - "They
concluded that their warehouse management system was so criticial that
they could not even risk their vendor disappearing."
This is entirely consistent with my statement that - "Most of these
companies already
spend enough on IT developing their internals systems." Since they
wrote/own/maintain this stuff they already have the source code for it.
So the issue isn't their own internal systems but rather are these
companies interested in spending the resources to maintain their own
databases, operating systems, word processors, etc. Or is it simply
easier for them to use commodity "off the shelf" (or off the internet)
software for non-mission critical applications.
GreyCloud
Sounds like my old neighbor. He had win98 on an old PC. He went to a
computer shop to get a better PC but wouldn't switch to XP because he
didn't want to learn any new stuff. He somehow managed to keep win98 on
a fairly powerful PC.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
JEDIDIAH
>
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2006-02-27, Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > B Gruff wrote:
>> >> On Monday 27 February 2006 17:58 Larry Qualig wrote:
>> > operating systems and word processors or do they want source code and
>> > programmers to work on this code. (Most of these companies already
>> > spend enough on IT developing their internals systems.)
>> >
>>
>> Companies need to go about their business. They need to do
>> this regardless of whether or not a ready made canned application
>> to suit them exists. Often times, such an app won't exist.
>>
>> A company simply may have no choice but to be in the
>> business of software development.
>
> Most definitely. Aetna, Pepsi, Coca-Cola are three companies that I've
> visited first hand and they definitely develop and use custom solutions
> to run their business. Such is the case in your first example - "They
> concluded that their warehouse management system was so criticial that
> they could not even risk their vendor disappearing."
>
> This is entirely consistent with my statement that - "Most of these
> companies already
> spend enough on IT developing their internals systems." Since they
> wrote/own/maintain this stuff they already have the source code for it.
>
> So the issue isn't their own internal systems but rather are these
> companies interested in spending the resources to maintain their own
> databases, operating systems, word processors, etc. Or is it simply
60K per cpu upfront pays for a LOT of developer time.
Then there's the 33K per cpu support contract.
> easier for them to use commodity "off the shelf" (or off the internet)
> software for non-mission critical applications.
>
Except corps aren't driven by easy. They're driven by the
bottom line. Typical corporate software and support costs can pay
for a lot of development. All it takes is one big company realizing
that they could be their own IBM or Microsoft with all that they
are spending to revolt and things could change dramatically.
Of course this would probably require thinking beyond
the next quarter.
--
OpenDoc is moot when Apple is your one stop iShop. |||
Tim Smith
> "People reject Linux desktops for illogical reasons, says IT consultant
> and developer Jono Bacon. For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice
> desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even
> though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence,
> they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features."
What he's missed is that one person's unnecessary feature is another
person's indispensible feature.
--
--Tim Smith
Robert Newson
...
> The last retailer I worked for had the source to their
> warehouse management system. They took a pretty militaristic approach
> to IT. Anything they use has to be well supported by the vendor or
> supportable on their own.
>
> They concluded that their warehouse management system was so
> criticial that they could not even risk their vendor disappearing. So,
> they licenced the source and maintain it themselves.
>
> Many CIOs have come and gone and tried to replace that app
> but in vain. They try because it is a 30 year old pick app and all
> the CIO's want something shiny and new (plus the usual need to
> meddle and be seen doing something).
Interesting that. The last retail company I worked for (effectively as the
computer dept) also used Pick, but I don't know if they licenced the source
code or not, but we had it anyway (possibly so that they could log in (via
modem) and maintain it)...not that it made much difference to me, it was
(is) fairly easy to convert compiled data/BASIC programs back into source
code (of sorts), if not the exact original - depends upon the compile
options used.
But then again, Pick was quite good and easy to use and so converting to
another system would be quite a task - I used "native" Pick systems (as
opposed to (eg, Universe?) running on Unix) and still have my knowledge of
how the data was stored (at the frame level...frame->physical disk location
wasn't anything I ever needed to know).
John Bailo
> http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1169030,00.html
>
> Breaking down barriers to Linux desktop adoption
>
> "People reject Linux desktops for illogical reasons,
It's the memeplex.
Linønut
> So the issue isn't their own internal systems but rather are these
> companies interested in spending the resources to maintain their own
> databases, operating systems, word processors, etc. Or is it simply
> easier for them to use commodity "off the shelf" (or off the internet)
> software for non-mission critical applications.
For their purposes, these databases, operating system, word processors,
etc. ARE off-the-shelf. With the added benefit of source code.
--
Q: Why does a GNU/Linux user compile his kernel?
A: Because he can.
Linønut
It's always "meme meme meme" with you! <grin>
Mathew P.
Hash: SHA1
On 2006-02-27, Larry Qualig spake thusly:
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1169030,00.html
>>
>> Breaking down barriers to Linux desktop adoption
>>
>> "People reject Linux desktops for illogical reasons, says IT consultant and
>> developer Jono Bacon. For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for
>> not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few
>> actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they
>> want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features."
>
> I just finished reading the article. The most interesting part to me
> was this:
>
>
>===================
>
> --" What do you think prevents people from switching?
>
> Bacon: One of the biggest things is lethargy. I consider myself a
> semi-technical person. So moving between software platforms doesn't
> mean anything to me.
<snip in the interest of courtesy>
The timid user can try Linux with a good live CD distro. They don't
mess with your system and they do a very good job of equipment
detection and use.
Something to think about,
Mathew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEA4+tlkJ5K/IU2ToRAhfgAKCKGPJdcaANfqTMn5Y+WLFcXf7NiwCgwN3E
iSbQAAB/tC1U9iFeJ6W2N40=
=h0pO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> Again, even if the benefits for the consumer were meager (and I, of
> course, have never conceded that), you yourself contend that marketing
> rules the day. If the OEMs have a motive to do such marketing...
>
And you never will because there is none. They merely need to respond
to a demand, if and when if ever it develops. They can price their
linux machines at the same price points as they price their Windows
machines with equivalent hardware content and fully expect to obtain the
same share of any such lintel market in the absence of any effort by
their competitors. Why waste a lot of money trying to move the shipping
door to the other side of the factory if no more will ship from the door
anyway? Surely you must understand this simple issue.
Larry Qualig
Linønutlinøn...@bone.com wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Qualig belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > So the issue isn't their own internal systems but rather are these
> > companies interested in spending the resources to maintain their own
> > databases, operating systems, word processors, etc. Or is it simply
> > easier for them to use commodity "off the shelf" (or off the internet)
> > software for non-mission critical applications.
>
> For their purposes, these databases, operating system, word processors,
> etc. ARE off-the-shelf. With the added benefit of source code.
Which once again brings us back to the point that Mr. Bacon made in the
interview regarding lethargy:
(Bacon) - "Unless I can see a big, perceived win that attracts me, I'm
not going to change my current system for something else that doesn't
really give me a straight-up benefit."
Is having the source code to a word processor or OS enough of a
"straight-up benefit" to convince people to switch.
Linønut
Depends. Here, I was merely noting that those applications you mention
above have off-the-shelf and OSS implementations that are equally
useful.
My opinion is, people switched to Word. They can switch away from Word,
too. It will only get easier to do so.
Roy Schestowitz
> person's indispensable feature.
Give an example. The majority of users out there use Word, but not much
beyond this. Name a feature that an average user relies on in Word and will
not have in OpenOffice 2 Writer.
Roy Schestowitz
> After takin' a swig o' grog, John Bailo belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1169030,00.html
>>>
>>> Breaking down barriers to Linux desktop adoption
>>>
>>> "People reject Linux desktops for illogical reasons,
>>
>> It's the memeplex.
>
> It's always "meme meme meme" with you! <grin>
Who left the door open? I agree however. It's the meme, a cattle effect.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Give an example. The majority of users out there use Word, but not much
> beyond this. Name a feature that an average user relies on in Word and will
> not have in OpenOffice 2 Writer.
Table drawing.
This feature literally, allows you to draw tables using a pencil and eraser
metaphor to create complex table structures.
Simply put, this is a feature I refuse to do without. Creating complex
tables with other methods takes way too much time.
Tim Smith
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> > What he's missed is that one person's unnecessary feature is another
> > person's indispensable feature.
>
> Give an example. The majority of users out there use Word, but not much
> beyond this. Name a feature that an average user relies on in Word and will
> not have in OpenOffice 2 Writer.
My point is that there isn't any such feature that will apply to the
average user. People are different.
For example, what I find better about Word than any other word processor
I've seen is the handling of outlines. For me, that's an important
feature, because the hard part of writing the documents I write is
coming up with the structure of the document. My formatting needs are
simple, so I don't need any of Word's (or OpenOffice's) fancy formatting
features.
For someone else, it will likely be something different.
If you want to be an average user, any word processor will do.
--
--Tim Smith
John Bailo
> http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1169030,00.html
>
> Breaking down barriers to Linux desktop adoption
>
> developer Jono Bacon. For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for
> not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few
> actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they
> want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features."
Someone who's name is Jono Bacon deserves his own thread, for chrissake.
Gordon
Creating "complex" tables is NOT. IMHO, something the "average" user would
do......
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.10
gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
to email me replace the obvious!
Kier
Depends on hte person. It probably won't lure the average user who just
wnats a machine for surfing and email and looking at his photo collection
(even though there are, indirectly, benefits for that user in the source
code being available).
--
Kier
Sinister Midget
Yeah, you're "average". Or below.
Let me put his request another way. Name a feature that a typical,
every day, Joe Sixpack type of user needs in Word that isn't in OO 2
Writer.
I suppose "average" means something altogether different in your
language. Along with most other words, except when it's convenient to
have them mean the same as what we're using.
--
The sad thing about bashing Windows is that it's all true.
Jamie Hart
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_
>> gci1169030,00.html
>>
<snip>
> I just finished reading the article. The most interesting part to me
> was this:
>
>
> ===================
>
> --" What do you think prevents people from switching?
>
> Bacon: One of the biggest things is lethargy. I consider myself a
> semi-technical person. So moving between software platforms doesn't
> mean anything to me.
>
> But if, for example, I have to switch between insurance or phone
> plans, I just don't want to do it because I don't want to learn about
> it. I don't want to learn about what's different. Therefore, I'm
> resistant to change even if it might save me some money each month.
> Unless I can see a big, perceived win that attracts me, I'm not going
> to change my current system for something else that doesn't really
> give me a straight-up benefit.
>
> The toughest thing is change. Microsoft carved out a culture. To its
> credit, the company commoditized computers. There's no easy way around
> that without education and giving someone that significant win."
>
> ===================
>
> I have to agree with him 100% on this. Take your average someone who
> already has a computer and has Windows on that machine. What exactly
> is the reason to switch? Unless it is *significantly* better most
> people won't switch to something that is essentially the same to them.
Not directly responding to your post Larry, but this thread started me
thinking. What follows is my attempt to put into words the result of that
thinking.
There is doubt in my mind as to whether chasing desktop users is the
right thing for the Linux community to be doing.
The open source community (which includes the Linux community) has grown
as well as it has because it has worked on the "scatching an itch"
principle. Programmers write a piece of software that they need, then
release it so that others may benefit. The users of each piece of
software form a community which helps the software grow and mature so
that it better meets the needs of those users.
New people join these communities when the software meets all of most of
their needs in that area and projects fork when the members of the
community decide that they want to take things in new directions. It is
a very organic process.
Lately, however, thing seem to be driven not by what the existing users
want from the software, but by what those users think _future_
_potential_ users may want.
Personally, I think this is a mistake, desktop linux's time will come,
but it should not be forced. the Linux community should keep on
scratching their personal itch. Linux will pick up new users as and when
the software meets the needs of those new users, when the advantages it
offers outweigh the disadvantages of learning a new system.
As has been said here before that linux is not windows, nor is it a
replacement for windows. Linux is just our attempt to provide ourselves
with a robust, stable, Unix like operating system and software to run on
it. If we lose sight of that while chasing "market share" then we will
be the poorer for it.
Kier
<snip>
> Personally, I think this is a mistake, desktop linux's time will come,
> but it should not be forced. the Linux community should keep on
> scratching their personal itch. Linux will pick up new users as and when
> the software meets the needs of those new users, when the advantages it
> offers outweigh the disadvantages of learning a new system.
>
> As has been said here before that linux is not windows, nor is it a
> replacement for windows. Linux is just our attempt to provide ourselves
> with a robust, stable, Unix like operating system and software to run on
> it. If we lose sight of that while chasing "market share" then we will
> be the poorer for it.
There's a lot to be said for this point of view. And in an idea world, I
think Linux would continue to develop and grow at its own pace.
Unfortunately, it's not likely to be left in peace to do so, this world
being so far from ideal.
--
Kier
Linønut
Hmmm. I've never used it. It's pretty easy to highlight cells and
split and merge them. Didn't even know that "table drawing" existed in
Word.
Are you saying you are an "average user"?
Linønut
> If you want to be an average user, any word processor will do.
Frankly, the majority of users would be satisfied with WordPad.
Or, on Linux, a far more powerful wp, AbiWord.
I often fire up AbiWord or Gnumeric in preference to their more bloaty
brethren.
chrisv
>After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>> Table drawing.
>>
>> This feature literally, allows you to draw tables using a pencil and eraser
>> metaphor to create complex table structures.
>>
>> Simply put, this is a feature I refuse to do without. Creating complex
>> tables with other methods takes way too much time.
>
>Hmmm. I've never used it. It's pretty easy to highlight cells and
>split and merge them. Didn't even know that "table drawing" existed in
>Word.
>
>Are you saying you are an "average user"?
Maybe Erik thinks that the "average user" FUDs for Micro$oft on
usenet.
billwg
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:du0isa$2gqi$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
You are ignoring the fact that MS Office is a lot more than Word and
Excel. Word processing and spreadsheets are fairly common and becoming
passé today. You have to have full features, but nothing much changed
from versions gone by. MS Office in my company provides the SharePoint
and Exchange connections and the Outlook calendar and contact features
are used constantly. Does OO do any of that? If not, most companies
would not use it regardless of price.
billwg
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:du0isa$2gqi$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
cloakable
> I would totally agree that, in the advent of a replacement market for
> personal computers, MS would be back in the pot with everyone else, but
> that is not on the horizon just yet. Maybe in the year 2525? But can
> linux last that long?
How can it not? I have to sources right here. So does probably every Linux
user. How do you go about killing something so widespread?
It's Windows, IMO, that has the time problem. Will Windows still be around
in 2525? I'm not sure.
But I *know* Linux will still be there.
Roy Schestowitz
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o'
> wisdom:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:15:45 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Give an example. The majority of users out there use Word, but not much
>>> beyond this. Name a feature that an average user relies on in Word and
>>> will not have in OpenOffice 2 Writer.
>>
>> Table drawing.
>>
>> This feature literally, allows you to draw tables using a pencil and
>> eraser metaphor to create complex table structures.
>>
>> Simply put, this is a feature I refuse to do without. Creating complex
>> tables with other methods takes way too much time.
Table instantiation and manipulation: create -> number of rows -> number of
cells -> split horizontally/vertically as desired. Remove/restore unwanted
borders with a single click. Any LaTeX front end can handle it, so no need
brag about a Mickey-Mouse tool. If you want to draw tables by stroking, use
Tuxpaint. *smile*
> Hmmm. I've never used it. It's pretty easy to highlight cells and
> split and merge them. Didn't even know that "table drawing" existed in
> Word.
>
> Are you saying you are an "average user"?
That's definitely a feature that is unknown to many. Those who are accustomed
to having it will yearn for its existence due to skill through experience.
It goes back to the issue of *change*. Those who have never used that
feature will never need it. That feature is representative of many such
gratuitous tools that exist somewhere deep inside the binaries and serve no
real purpose. They only keep the develops of a complete package occupied.
The outcome is called "bloatware".
Recent write-up:
Features Don?t Matter Anymore.
http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/v7i07_pfeiffer.html
Best wishes Erik (I never mean to sound too harsh),
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
2:00pm up 1 day 10:11, 8 users, load average: 0.46, 0.81, 0.72
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
Ray Ingles
>
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrne06mu4....@localhost.localdomain...
>>
>> Again, even if the benefits for the consumer were meager (and I, of
>> course, have never conceded that), you yourself contend that marketing
>> rules the day. If the OEMs have a motive to do such marketing...
>>
> But you COLA folk cannot find a motive for the OEM to do such marketing.
To repeat the paragraph just before the one you quoted:
>> Of course, the point is that OEMs may well see an opportunity to make
>> more money from a Linux system than a Windows system - server or
>> desktop - and themselves work to shift customers to one from the other.
>> In your terminology, they may see an opportunity to shift customers into
>> a market where they can make more money (the "Linux market") than they
>> currently do (in the "Windows market").
> Why waste a lot of money trying to move the shipping
> door to the other side of the factory if no more will ship from the door
> anyway?
Because they can make more money from the ones going out the other
door.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"...those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost
liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists..."
- John Ashcroft
"John Ashcroft scares *me* with notions of lost liberties." - Me
chrisv
>"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>> Again, even if the benefits for the consumer were meager (and I, of
>> course, have never conceded that), you yourself contend that marketing
>> rules the day. If the OEMs have a motive to do such marketing...
>>
>But you COLA folk cannot find a motive for the OEM to do such marketing.
>And you never will because there is none.
You are a bald-faced liar, billwg, because the motive is obvious has
has been discussed at length.
>They merely need to respond
>to a demand, if and when if ever it develops.
Dumbsh*t. The purpose of marketing is to create or increase demand.
>(snip claptrap)
>
>Surely you must understand this simple issue.
Surely you must understand what an ass you're making of yourself,
billwg. LOL!!!
Ray Ingles
> still cast them as insurmountable. Rome wasn't built in a day and linux
> will never take over the desktop since it has no way to begin.
Except the ways we've been pointing out. Like below.
>>>> The advocacy side is focusing on business at the moment. Once we've
>>>> nailed that, we can move toward the consumer side.
>>
> Bacon, of course, offers that with no explanation as to where, when, and
> how the advocacy side is doing that. No one here can explain it either.
See what Novell and Canonical are doing.
> Take Munich, for example, that was the poster child for the ultimate
> success of the advocacy and the stated strategy.
*You've* been presenting it as a "poster child". I know *I* haven't.
I'm not sure anyone else here on COLA has, feel free to quote someone if
you feel differently. There are other successful Linux transitions,
though, so it kind of defeats your point.
>> And, of course, Linux *can* provide strong benefits. It's harder to
>> make people aware of them if you don't have a large marketing budget,
>> but once people are exposed to it at their place of work it's much
>> easier.
>>
> Well, you give yourself too much room, ray! It is impossible to make
> people aware of them if you don't have a large marketing budget and the
> advocacy focused on client side has no budget at all.
If it's "impossible... if you don't have a large marketing budget" then
why is Firefox succeeding so well?
>> Something else to note is that people change computers every few
>> years.
>
> Naive, ray, and it has no meaning when the person looking for a new
> computer has no knowledge of linux and no one to try to sell him one.
We've pointed out that OEMs have motivation to sell their customers on
Linux (more profit for the OEMs - Windows is a very large fraction of
their costs in producing a computer and if they can cut that down they
don't have to pass on *all* of the savings to the customer). As Linux
becomes more widespread more and more will do so.
Smaller OEMs (e.g. Microcenter) are already advertising very
inexpensive Linux computers just to attract attention due to the low
price. If it gets customers to look, it's worth it.
> You have to market to sell
Not always - again, look at Firefox.
> and linux has no ability to do that.
"Linux" per se doesn't. Companies *using* Linux do. Nobody "marketed"
TCP/IP specifically; it succeeded because it was a level playing ground,
neutral territory where companies decided to work. Microsoft is *very*
agressive about "controlling the standard", and actively wielding the
power that gives them. Better a standard not in control of a competitor,
most companies will think. They already have with things like TCP/IP and
HTML, etc.
> I would totally agree that, in the advent of a replacement market for
> personal computers, MS would be back in the pot with everyone else, but
> that is not on the horizon just yet.
Not *here* yet, certainly. Not in the next couple of years either. On
the horizon, though, I'd say.
> Maybe in the year 2525? But can linux last that long?
Linux can "last" in any environment that Windows can. Linux is
immortal. Unlike, say, OS/2, it can't disappear if one company abandons
it.
The only way Linux could die in any real sense is if computing itself
undergoes a major transformation. The only potential change I can think
of is the advent of quantum computing. A quantum computer (if feasible)
would require an entirely different kind of operating system than we
have on any computer today. Windows would die in such a transition, in
the same way Linux would.
Whichever company came up with a usable quantum OS would take over
pretty damn quickly.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable
operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying
to take over the world. - Drakmere
Linønut
> Maybe Erik thinks that the "average user" FUDs for Micro$oft on
> usenet.
"Will FUD for food"
Roy Schestowitz
> After takin' a swig o' grog, chrisv belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Maybe Erik thinks that the "average user" FUDs for Micro$oft on
>> usenet.
>
> "Will FUD for food"
*LOL*
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2030
Good one...
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | YaSTall SuSE to figure out the magic
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:25pm up 1 day 11:36, 9 users, load average: 0.27, 0.52, 0.70
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> Because they can make more money from the ones going out the other
> door.
>
hypothesize all day long, but you are wrong and that is self-evident
from the fact that the major OEMs are not spending any money on linux
promotion.
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:gtn8025bfda9lenr9...@4ax.com...
so linux never shows up!
billwg
"cloakable" <cloa...@intpcentral.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.02.28....@intpcentral.com...
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:44:43 +0000, billwg wrote:
>> I would totally agree that, in the advent of a replacement market for
>> personal computers, MS would be back in the pot with everyone else,
>> but
>> that is not on the horizon just yet. Maybe in the year 2525? But
>> can
>> linux last that long?
> How can it not? I have to sources right here. So does probably every
> Linux
> user. How do you go about killing something so widespread?
>
Piece of cake. Linux has no life as a "unix-like" desktop. It has to
be a "Windows-like" desktop and it would seem that all of the efforts of
the linuxers these days is to mimic Windows UI look and feel as well as
administration methods. To no avail, however, and linux is put into a
never-ending tail chase. Long term, though, Windows gets more and more
complex and harder to clone function with Vista and .NET integration.
The amateur developers will soon tire of all work and no pay and give up
the effort.
> It's Windows, IMO, that has the time problem. Will Windows still be
> around
> in 2525? I'm not sure.
>
I would expect not.
> But I *know* Linux will still be there.
I think that is just a knee-jerk response and you have no way of knowing
that.
Liam Slider
>
> "cloakable" <cloa...@intpcentral.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.02.28....@intpcentral.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:44:43 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>> I would totally agree that, in the advent of a replacement market for
>>> personal computers, MS would be back in the pot with everyone else, but
>>> that is not on the horizon just yet. Maybe in the year 2525? But can
>>> linux last that long?
>
>> How can it not? I have to sources right here. So does probably every
>> Linux
>> user. How do you go about killing something so widespread?
>>
> Piece of cake. Linux has no life as a "unix-like" desktop. It has to be
> a "Windows-like" desktop and it would seem that all of the efforts of the
> linuxers these days is to mimic Windows UI look and feel as well as
> administration methods.
You're kidding right? It seems to me that Microsoft has been trying to
catch up to *our* features and administration methods.
> To no avail, however, and linux is put into a never-ending tail chase.
Substitute "linux" there for "Windows" and you'll be right on the money.
> Long term, though, Windows gets more and more complex and harder to
> clone function with Vista and .NET integration. The amateur developers
> will soon tire of all work and no pay and give up the effort.
All work and no pay makes billwg a dull wintard.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:42:56 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:15:45 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Give an example. The majority of users out there use Word, but not much
>>> beyond this. Name a feature that an average user relies on in Word and will
>>> not have in OpenOffice 2 Writer.
>>
>> Table drawing.
>>
>> This feature literally, allows you to draw tables using a pencil and eraser
>> metaphor to create complex table structures.
>>
>> Simply put, this is a feature I refuse to do without. Creating complex
>> tables with other methods takes way too much time.
>
> Creating "complex" tables is NOT. IMHO, something the "average" user would
> do......
I'm not a word power user by any stretch of the imagination. That makes me
an average Word user.
Erik Funkenbusch
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:15:45 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Give an example. The majority of users out there use Word, but not much
>>> beyond this. Name a feature that an average user relies on in Word and will
>>> not have in OpenOffice 2 Writer.
>>
>> Table drawing.
>>
>> This feature literally, allows you to draw tables using a pencil and eraser
>> metaphor to create complex table structures.
>>
>> Simply put, this is a feature I refuse to do without. Creating complex
>> tables with other methods takes way too much time.
>
> Hmmm. I've never used it. It's pretty easy to highlight cells and
> split and merge them. Didn't even know that "table drawing" existed in
> Word.
I knew that would be the response. "Oh, um... you don't really need that
anways". No, merging and splitting cells is not equivelemt. It takes too
damn much time.
> Are you saying you are an "average user"?
When it comes to Word I certainly am.
Gordon
No, a "specialist" user. The normal average person who uses Word to type
a few letters and possibly makes a few invitations or posters or the
odd memorandum or agenda or meeting report (and those people are in the
VAST majority of users) wouldn't even know what "tables" are......
Erik Funkenbusch
>>> Creating "complex" tables is NOT. IMHO, something the "average" user would
>>> do......
>>
>> I'm not a word power user by any stretch of the imagination. That makes me
>> an average Word user.
>
> No, a "specialist" user. The normal average person who uses Word to type
> a few letters and possibly makes a few invitations or posters or the
> odd memorandum or agenda or meeting report (and those people are in the
> VAST majority of users) wouldn't even know what "tables" are......
Not in my experience. Nearly every word document I receive has some kind
of table in it. Whether they copied something from excel, or they wanted
special layout (by far the most common use of tables in my experience).
Santo
Larry Qualig wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1169030,00.html
> >
> > Breaking down barriers to Linux desktop adoption
> I just finished reading the article. The most interesting part to me
> was this:
>
>
> ===================
>
> --" What do you think prevents people from switching?
>
> Bacon: One of the biggest things is lethargy. I consider myself a
> semi-technical person. So moving between software platforms doesn't
> mean anything to me.
> ....
> The toughest thing is change. Microsoft carved out a culture. To its
> credit, the company commoditized computers. There's no easy way around
> that without education and giving someone that significant win."
>
> ===================
>
> I have to agree with him 100% on this.
I disagree.
Microsoft has created, is reinforcing and "imposing' a non-voluntary
habit.
It is GNU/Linux that is creating a a movement and a culture.
santo
JEDIDIAH
>
> "cloakable" <cloa...@intpcentral.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.02.28....@intpcentral.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:44:43 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>> I would totally agree that, in the advent of a replacement market for
>>> personal computers, MS would be back in the pot with everyone else,
>>> but
>>> that is not on the horizon just yet. Maybe in the year 2525? But
>>> can
>>> linux last that long?
>
>> How can it not? I have to sources right here. So does probably every
>> Linux
>> user. How do you go about killing something so widespread?
>>
> Piece of cake. Linux has no life as a "unix-like" desktop. It has to
> be a "Windows-like" desktop and it would seem that all of the efforts of
You're confused.
All desktops today are more or less attempts to clone an Apple
interface from 20 years ago. That includes Windows and most of the GUI's
that predated it.
> the linuxers these days is to mimic Windows UI look and feel as well as
> administration methods. To no avail, however, and linux is put into a
WIMP is WIMP. Windows has no real monopoly on this.
Linux mocks everyone & always has while having some features
that are still in the purely X mindset.
[deletia]
--
Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-02-27, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> Ah, ray, you never pay much attention! I do consider the strategies
>> and
>> still cast them as insurmountable. Rome wasn't built in a day and
>> linux
>> will never take over the desktop since it has no way to begin.
>
> Except the ways we've been pointing out. Like below.
>
>>>>> The advocacy side is focusing on business at the moment. Once
>>>>> we've
>>>>> nailed that, we can move toward the consumer side.
>>>
>> Bacon, of course, offers that with no explanation as to where, when,
>> and
>> how the advocacy side is doing that. No one here can explain it
>> either.
>
> See what Novell and Canonical are doing.
>
>> Take Munich, for example, that was the poster child for the ultimate
>> success of the advocacy and the stated strategy.
>
> *You've* been presenting it as a "poster child". I know *I* haven't.
> I'm not sure anyone else here on COLA has, feel free to quote someone
> if
> you feel differently. There are other successful Linux transitions,
> though, so it kind of defeats your point.
>
How about the Holocaust? Want some cites? What other "successful linux
transitions"? The Ball boys?
>>> And, of course, Linux *can* provide strong benefits. It's harder to
>>> make people aware of them if you don't have a large marketing
>>> budget,
>>> but once people are exposed to it at their place of work it's much
>>> easier.
>>>
>> Well, you give yourself too much room, ray! It is impossible to make
>> people aware of them if you don't have a large marketing budget and
>> the
>> advocacy focused on client side has no budget at all.
>
> If it's "impossible... if you don't have a large marketing budget"
> then
> why is Firefox succeeding so well?
>
It isn't. How much MS business has it taken over?
>>> Something else to note is that people change computers every few
>>> years.
>>
>> Naive, ray, and it has no meaning when the person looking for a new
>> computer has no knowledge of linux and no one to try to sell him one.
>
> We've pointed out that OEMs have motivation to sell their customers on
> Linux (more profit for the OEMs - Windows is a very large fraction of
> their costs in producing a computer and if they can cut that down they
> don't have to pass on *all* of the savings to the customer). As Linux
> becomes more widespread more and more will do so.
>
None of the OEMs are doing that. You say they are motivated, but you
are not correct.
> Smaller OEMs (e.g. Microcenter) are already advertising very
> inexpensive Linux computers just to attract attention due to the low
> price. If it gets customers to look, it's worth it.
>
It's bad for linux overall because it casts them as a cheapo solution
for those who cannot afford better. Makes them look like a loser.
>> You have to market to sell
>
> Not always - again, look at Firefox.
>
Look at Firefox.
>> and linux has no ability to do that.
>
> "Linux" per se doesn't. Companies *using* Linux do. Nobody "marketed"
> TCP/IP specifically; it succeeded because it was a level playing
> ground,
> neutral territory where companies decided to work. Microsoft is *very*
> agressive about "controlling the standard", and actively wielding the
> power that gives them. Better a standard not in control of a
> competitor,
> most companies will think. They already have with things like TCP/IP
> and
> HTML, etc.
>
These things are not markets, ray. They are just characteristics.
Ray Ingles
> news:slrne08mq8....@localhost.localdomain...
>>
>> Because they can make more money from the ones going out the other
>> door.
>>
> Not after expenses, ray, they would make a lot less profit.
You simply can't back that up, and never have. You claim it's horribly
expensive to offer varying software options, but I'm in the market for a
laptop right now and even big names like Compaq and Dell offer different
operating systems and software bundles. Wait until they're offering six
different versions of Vista...
> You can hypothesize all day long
Funny, that appears to be your job.
> but you are wrong and that is self-evident from the fact that the
> major OEMs are not spending any money on linux promotion.
...yet. I didn't say this would happen tomorrow. Indeed, I specifically
said "not for a couple years". Linux will make wins elsewhere, on
corporate desktops (again, see what Novell and Canonical are doing), and
gain more exposure that way.
Once it's more recognizable in the eyes of the general populace, you'll
see the OEMs spending more money on Linux promotion. (Note: "more" -
it's not true that they are not spending "any" money on it now.)
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
If you have any trouble sounding condescending,
find a Unix user to show you how it's done.
-- Scott Adams: DNRC Newsletter 3.0
Dean G.
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> You're confused.
>
> All desktops today are more or less attempts to clone an Apple
> interface from 20 years ago. That includes Windows and most of the GUI's
> that predated it.
And Apple cloned Xerox's interface. Xerox had the interface, the
ethernet client/server setup, the WYSIWYG word processing, and all the
fun toys long before either Apple or MS "got it". It is amazing how
little some of this stuff has changed. Sure, there are more "features"
and eye candy, but nothing significant has really changed.
Dean G.
Linønut
>> Creating "complex" tables is NOT. IMHO, something the "average" user would
>> do......
>
> I'm not a word power user by any stretch of the imagination. That makes me
> an average Word user.
Another definition from Funkenbusch & Wagnall.
Ray Ingles
>>> success of the advocacy and the stated strategy.
>>
>> *You've* been presenting it as a "poster child". I know *I* haven't.
>> I'm not sure anyone else here on COLA has, feel free to quote someone
>> if you feel differently. There are other successful Linux transitions,
>> though, so it kind of defeats your point.
>>
> Do you deny the glee amongst the linuxers that followed the Munich saga?
That's what I asked for, yes.
> What other "successful linux transitions"? The Ball boys?
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/files/ASPCA.pdf
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/files/Schaper&Brummer.pdf
http://software.itmanagersjournal.com/software/04/01/09/2231250.shtml?
tid=32&tid=44&tid=69&tid=70&tid=71
See, I can search for stuff. Why can't you?
>> If it's "impossible... if you don't have a large marketing budget"
>> then why is Firefox succeeding so well?
>>
> It isn't. How much MS business has it taken over?
So incredibly obtuse. IE had over 95% of the browser space at one
point, and now it's ~80% and still dropping. IE-specific solutions
(which is to say, Microsoft-specific solutions) are in strong decline.
Can't afford to ignore the customers like that.
>> We've pointed out that OEMs have motivation to sell their customers on
>> Linux (more profit for the OEMs
> None of the OEMs are doing that.
Yes, some are, and I pointed out a specific example:
>> Smaller OEMs (e.g. Microcenter) are already advertising very
>> inexpensive Linux computers
> You say they are motivated, but you are not correct.
I know. If billwg's expectations conflict with reality, it must be
reality that's wrong.
> It's bad for linux overall because it casts them as a cheapo solution
> for those who cannot afford better. Makes them look like a loser.
There's a difference between 'cheap' and 'inexpensive'. When margins
improve, a superior product can outcompete on price as well as quality.
Those who get Linux systems certainly won't look on them a 'cheapo'.
>> "Linux" per se doesn't. Companies *using* Linux do. Nobody "marketed"
>> TCP/IP specifically; it succeeded because it was a level playing
>> ground, neutral territory where companies decided to work.
> These things are not markets, ray. They are just characteristics.
How many proprietary network protocols were killed by TCP/IP again?
Care to guess?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"I'd rather walk my grandmother through a NetBSD install on an SGI
Crimson via postcard than code with segmentation in mind again."
- hxnwix
Ray Ingles
> be a "Windows-like" desktop
Let's assume you're right. (You're not, of course... Windows 95 was
just an attempt to be "Mac-like", for example. But let's assume that.)
Linux won't disappear because it makes far too much sense in the
server, embedded, and supercomputing spaces. It will have corporate,
academic, *and* hobbyist backing there until computers are something
other than Turing-equivalent.
From that secure base, it has innumerable opportunities to spread into
the desktop space - and note that there's corporate, academic, and
hobbyist efforts to move it there. By your own admission you haven't
tried Linux in years - you should see what you're missing.
> Long term, though, Windows gets more and more
> complex and harder to clone function with Vista and .NET integration.
Much of Vista's functionality is a clone of what Linux already offers,
only compromised in design (in complexity of interface and
implementation) for reasons of backward compatibility. I don't see .NET
as a big Linux-killer either. The only Windows-specific part of it is
the Windows Forms stuff, and that can be emulated and cloned - easier
than Windows itself, really, thanks to the CLR. Not that Java and other
alternatives are going away, either.
Of course, much of that is beside the point. Linux doesn't need to
*kill* Windows - it just needs to get big enough to make cross-platform
programs attractive to developers. Not even all developers, just some.
We'd have a situation analagous to the game consoles of today - many
crossplatform programs, and some specific to particular platforms.
I'm happy with Microsoft just having to compete. Look at the state of
IE before Firefox, for example.
> The amateur developers will soon tire of all work and no pay and give up
> the effort.
Not all the effort behind Linux is 'amateur' by any means - not even
most of it. But the developers of Linux and other open-source
applications have shown no indications of 'tiring' - ever let alone
'soon'. (Care to quantify what you mean by 'soon', BTW?)
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Yes, but other than being useful, usable, reliable, extensible,
free, and unencumbered, what does Linux have going for it?"
- Hamilcar Barca
chrisv
>> Surely you must understand what an ass you're making of yourself,
>> billwg. LOL!!!
>>
>Tell us how everyone wants linux but Microsoft is telling them "No!" and
>so linux never shows up!
Straw man. Surely you must understand what an ass you're making of
yourself, billwg. LOL!!!
chrisv
>"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>> Because they can make more money from the ones going out the other
>> door.
>
>Not after expenses, ray,
Yes, after expenses, billwg.
>they would make a lot less profit.
Wrong, again, troll.
>You can
>hypothesize all day long, but you are wrong and that is self-evident
>from the fact that the major OEMs are not spending any money on linux
>promotion.
Micro$oft's immoral "incentives" at work.
JEDIDIAH
Sounds like people pounding in screws with a hammer more than
anything else.
--
If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing |||
MacOS X on a DELL! / | \
JEDIDIAH
>
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> You're confused.
>>
>> All desktops today are more or less attempts to clone an Apple
>> interface from 20 years ago. That includes Windows and most of the GUI's
>> that predated it.
>
> And Apple cloned Xerox's interface. Xerox had the interface, the
Yup. And Xerox corp had 0.0 interest in seriously bringing
it to market. So Jobs did. He gets a extra big cookie for that.
Vision beyond merely ruling the world is worth something.
> ethernet client/server setup, the WYSIWYG word processing, and all the
> fun toys long before either Apple or MS "got it". It is amazing how
> little some of this stuff has changed. Sure, there are more "features"
> and eye candy, but nothing significant has really changed.
>
> Dean G.
>
--
If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing |||
MacOS X on a DELL! / | \
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Ray Ingles wrote:
> The only way Linux could die in any real sense is if computing itself
> undergoes a major transformation. The only potential change I can
> think of is the advent of quantum computing. A quantum computer (if
> feasible) would require an entirely different kind of operating system
> than we have on any computer today. Windows would die in such a
> transition, in the same way Linux would.
>
> Whichever company came up with a usable quantum OS would take over
> pretty damn quickly.
Bah, they'll port Linux to the quantum computer within a couple of
months, a year at most. That's assuming no help from the developers of
the quantum computer. With cooperation it'll probably happen a lot
faster.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEBKv6d1ZThqotgfgRArBgAJ9xgCDBE/D8CMZ4+QKvgPSiBbJhQgCcDZdJ
3u/oI5QTs55aNaHdho3RUHY=
=tzUf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
BOFH Excuse #273:
The cord jumped over and hit the power switch.
Ray Ingles
>> Whichever company came up with a usable quantum OS would take over
>> pretty damn quickly.
>
> Bah, they'll port Linux to the quantum computer within a couple of
> months, a year at most. That's assuming no help from the developers of
> the quantum computer. With cooperation it'll probably happen a lot
> faster.
Quantum computing works (if it can be pratically made to work) rather
differently from classical computing. I'm pretty sure that a workable
quantum computer would need a rather different OS to reach its
potential. It could *emulate* a very fast classical computer but that'd
be a waste of its talents.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"When a friend of mine quit his last job, the reason he gave in his
notice was 'because Dilbert isn't funny anymore.' In his exit
interview, he was asked what he meant by that." - Stefan Bethke
JEDIDIAH
So? For most of us, Microsoft hasn't offered anything new and
neither has Apple really. There have been a few new types of applications
now and again but really there's been mostly stagnation with some
incremental improvements of things like resolution and framerate.
The bulk of it is nothing that's going to change in the near
future. So it doesn't really matter if all of the coders give up some
day. Their code lives on. It can be rebuilt for new platforms.
It's like the guy ranting about emacs. If emacs suits your
needs then what's the point in subjecting it to needless progress?
>
> Not all the effort behind Linux is 'amateur' by any means - not even
> most of it. But the developers of Linux and other open-source
> applications have shown no indications of 'tiring' - ever let alone
> 'soon'. (Care to quantify what you mean by 'soon', BTW?)
>
--
OpenDoc is moot when Apple is your one stop iShop. |||
Sinister Midget
> On 2006-02-28, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:40:18 +0000, Gordon wrote:
>>
>>>>> Creating "complex" tables is NOT. IMHO, something the "average" user would
>>>>> do......
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a word power user by any stretch of the imagination. That makes me
>>>> an average Word user.
>>>
>>> No, a "specialist" user. The normal average person who uses Word to type
>>> a few letters and possibly makes a few invitations or posters or the
>>> odd memorandum or agenda or meeting report (and those people are in the
>>> VAST majority of users) wouldn't even know what "tables" are......
>>
>> Not in my experience. Nearly every word document I receive has some kind
>> of table in it. Whether they copied something from excel, or they wanted
>> special layout (by far the most common use of tables in my experience).
>
> Sounds like people pounding in screws with a hammer more than
> anything else.
Probably goes back to early bad habits. Like using a spreadsheet as a
word processor. Or thinking Powerpoint has some real purpose.
--
Gaobot: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Ray Ingles wrote:
>> Bah, they'll port Linux to the quantum computer within a couple of
>> months, a year at most. That's assuming no help from the developers
>> of the quantum computer. With cooperation it'll probably happen a
>> lot faster.
>
> Quantum computing works (if it can be pratically made to work) rather
> differently from classical computing. I'm pretty sure that a workable
> quantum computer would need a rather different OS to reach its
> potential. It could *emulate* a very fast classical computer but
> that'd be a waste of its talents.
Nevertheless, an OS for a computer (no matter the underlying technology)
still needs to provide something resembling the same kinds of services
to the applications running on it (which are unlikely to be too
dissimilar to existing applications, as the same kinds of needs still
exist). I maintain that it will be easier to port Linux to that kind of
architecture than it will be to write something comparable from scratch.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEBLbrd1ZThqotgfgRApnMAKDIswSGfG2uiEhgEfJknD3+VNmfWACffN6n
83Ho81I46H/k+ZkeFOl7veM=
=XBX/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Any thread which begins on a serious subject will become frivolous, and
any thread which begins on a frivolous subject will become serious.
-- Rillion's Second Law
The Ghost In The Machine
<je...@nomad.mishnet>
wrote
on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:02:44 -0600
<kaced3-...@nomad.mishnet>:
> On 2006-02-28, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> "cloakable" <cloa...@intpcentral.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.02.28....@intpcentral.com...
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:44:43 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>> I would totally agree that, in the advent of a replacement market for
>>>> personal computers, MS would be back in the pot with everyone else,
>>>> but
>>>> that is not on the horizon just yet. Maybe in the year 2525? But
>>>> can
>>>> linux last that long?
Can *we*? :-) But that's probably an argument more suited to
either alt.fan.horrid.sci-fi.epics or a song 'froup... :-)
>>
>>> How can it not? I have to sources right here. So does probably every
>>> Linux
>>> user. How do you go about killing something so widespread?
>>>
>> Piece of cake. Linux has no life as a "unix-like" desktop. It has to
>> be a "Windows-like" desktop and it would seem that all of the efforts of
>
> You're confused.
>
> All desktops today are more or less attempts to clone an Apple
> interface from 20 years ago. That includes Windows and most of the GUI's
> that predated it.
Except in billwg's Universe, apparently.
Regrettably, however, everyone is far more familiar with Windows'
"Blue Screen Of Death" than Xerox PARC.
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Robert Newson
...
> Sounds like people pounding in screws with a hammer more than
> anything else.
Don't knock it (or perhaps...never mind), when screw gets tight and your
Yankee can't get it in, then a hammer finishes it off perfectly...built a
set of treads for a stage set like that...*AND* they were still together
(and being used) years after the original set had been scrapped.
Robert Newson
> On 2006-02-28, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> posted something concerning:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:15:45 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Give an example. The majority of users out there use Word, but not much
>>>beyond this. Name a feature that an average user relies on in Word and will
>>>not have in OpenOffice 2 Writer.
>>>
>>Table drawing.
>>
>>This feature literally, allows you to draw tables using a pencil and eraser
>>metaphor to create complex table structures.
>>
>>Simply put, this is a feature I refuse to do without. Creating complex
>>tables with other methods takes way too much time.
>
> Yeah, you're "average". Or below.
>
> Let me put his request another way. Name a feature that a typical,
> every day, Joe Sixpack type of user needs in Word that isn't in OO 2
> Writer.
>
> I suppose "average" means something altogether different in your
> language. Along with most other words, except when it's convenient to
> have them mean the same as what we're using.
Try defining which "average"...try the "modal" average user - ie take all
the users of Word (well, ok, a representative sample[1] and extrapolate) and
get them to list the features they use; sort the list by frequency of use[2]
then take the top 5 or 10[3] most frequently (modal) used features - these
would be the features an "average" user uses.
[1] selected using normal [proper] statistical methods.
[2] I doubt if "creating complex tables" would come high up that list and so
would not be a modal-average user's priority.
[3] Or a reasonable number to represent properly the features most used: eg
sum the total frequency of all features used, take a percentage of this (eg
10%) and then take the top features until their total frequency equals this
value.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-02-28, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:slrne08mq8....@localhost.localdomain...
>>>
>>> Because they can make more money from the ones going out the other
>>> door.
>>>
>> Not after expenses, ray, they would make a lot less profit.
>
> You simply can't back that up, and never have. You claim it's horribly
> expensive to offer varying software options, but I'm in the market for
> a
> laptop right now and even big names like Compaq and Dell offer
> different
> operating systems and software bundles. Wait until they're offering
> six
> different versions of Vista...
>
simpler to handle at the Dell factory, eh?
>> You can hypothesize all day long
>
> Funny, that appears to be your job.
>
>> but you are wrong and that is self-evident from the fact that the
>> major OEMs are not spending any money on linux promotion.
>
> ...yet. I didn't say this would happen tomorrow. Indeed, I
> specifically
> said "not for a couple years". Linux will make wins elsewhere, on
> corporate desktops (again, see what Novell and Canonical are doing),
> and
> gain more exposure that way.
>
Well Novell isn't doing much of anything and who is Canonical. Do they
have a stock symbol? Should a market for linux desktop machines
develop, I would expect Dell and HP to address it and aggressively
compete with the others, ray, but there is no reason for them to try to
create such a market. They know that, too, and do nothing but watch to
ensure they are not caught short. Meanwhile the advocacy bogs down
everywhere.
> Once it's more recognizable in the eyes of the general populace,
> you'll
> see the OEMs spending more money on Linux promotion. (Note: "more" -
> it's not true that they are not spending "any" money on it now.)
>
They are spending so little that it has no effect, ray. And I do not
disagree with the conditional premise, but I give it zero chance of
evolving.
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3u69025jnj10joafb...@4ax.com...
compact vocabulary!
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-02-28, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> Take Munich, for example, that was the poster child for the
>>>> ultimate
>>>> success of the advocacy and the stated strategy.
>>>
>>> *You've* been presenting it as a "poster child". I know *I* haven't.
>>> I'm not sure anyone else here on COLA has, feel free to quote
>>> someone
>>> if you feel differently. There are other successful Linux
>>> transitions,
>>> though, so it kind of defeats your point.
>>>
>> Do you deny the glee amongst the linuxers that followed the Munich
>> saga?
>> [...] Want some cites?
>
> That's what I asked for, yes.
>
>> What other "successful linux transitions"? The Ball boys?
>
> http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/files/ASPCA.pdf
> http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/files/Schaper&Brummer.pdf
> http://software.itmanagersjournal.com/software/04/01/09/2231250.shtml?
> tid=32&tid=44&tid=69&tid=70&tid=71
>
> See, I can search for stuff. Why can't you?
>
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=17131
"We evaluated Windows against Linux separately for both back-office
servers and POS terminals, and Windows was the more cost-effective
option in each case," says Ron Cook, Vice President and Chief Technology
Officer"
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=16665
"Heideker says: "Windows Server 2003 offers the decisive cost advantage
over Linux. We can capitalise on existing infrastructure and the
established knowledge of our IT staff and end users. Microsoft also
offers us far greater economy and choice when it comes to recruiting
additional IT professionals in the future."
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=16763
"A new IT chief with deep UNIX and Oracle roots launched a serious
investigation into migrating the bank to a Linux/Oracle platform.
However, analyses showed that Linux costs would be at least 20 percent
higher than those in a Windows environment. Cole Taylor chose to migrate
its 100 server computers to the Microsoft Windows Server 2003 operating
system and make SQL Server 2000 its database standard, decisions that
have led to lower costs, higher security, lower business and legal risk,
and faster time-to-market with new services."
>>> If it's "impossible... if you don't have a large marketing budget"
>>> then why is Firefox succeeding so well?
>>>
>> It isn't. How much MS business has it taken over?
>
> So incredibly obtuse. IE had over 95% of the browser space at one
> point, and now it's ~80% and still dropping. IE-specific solutions
> (which is to say, Microsoft-specific solutions) are in strong decline.
> Can't afford to ignore the customers like that.
>
What on earth is an "IE-specific solution"? I use a browser a lot and I
have found that they all work pretty much the same. IE, Firefox, even
the Mozilla and Konqueror that came with some linux installs. The new
IE7 is pretty handy, too, its frame takes up less space on the screen
with a much more compact header than Firefox so you can get more info on
the screen for the same size of monitor. Sweet. Comes with Vista, I
hear. But you can download it now. Automatically.
>>> We've pointed out that OEMs have motivation to sell their customers
>>> on
>>> Linux (more profit for the OEMs
>
>> None of the OEMs are doing that.
>
> Yes, some are, and I pointed out a specific example:
>
>>> Smaller OEMs (e.g. Microcenter) are already advertising very
>>> inexpensive Linux computers
>
>> You say they are motivated, but you are not correct.
>
> I know. If billwg's expectations conflict with reality, it must be
> reality that's wrong.
>
>> It's bad for linux overall because it casts them as a cheapo solution
>> for those who cannot afford better. Makes them look like a loser.
>
> There's a difference between 'cheap' and 'inexpensive'. When margins
> improve, a superior product can outcompete on price as well as
> quality.
> Those who get Linux systems certainly won't look on them a 'cheapo'.
>
Well maybe someday, ray, but the Microtel boxes are just cheapo. Have
you taken a look at them?
>>> "Linux" per se doesn't. Companies *using* Linux do. Nobody
>>> "marketed"
>>> TCP/IP specifically; it succeeded because it was a level playing
>>> ground, neutral territory where companies decided to work.
>
>> These things are not markets, ray. They are just characteristics.
>
> How many proprietary network protocols were killed by TCP/IP again?
> Care to guess?
>
Netware for one. :-) It didn't have much of an effect on Windows other
than to maybe help it become the mainstay.
I remember the early Windows days, with 3.0 and 3.1 wherein we had to
buy a package from Sun for NFS and a package from Beame&Whitesides for
the TCP/IP. Together I remember it costing around $250 per station so
that we could connect Windows machines to a Sun server. Some guy
invented a file passing message system so that the PCs could send info
back and forth by reading and writing files. It got better later when
Win95 and NT4 came along with TCP/IP and sockets built in. Cost some
companies their business, though, I don't think the network folk ever
recovered. It's all free now.
William Poaster
> Proven liar billwg wrote:
>
>>"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>>
>>> Again, even if the benefits for the consumer were meager (and I, of
>>> course, have never conceded that), you yourself contend that marketing
>>> rules the day. If the OEMs have a motive to do such marketing...
>>>
>>But you COLA folk cannot find a motive for the OEM to do such marketing.
>>And you never will because there is none.
>
> You are a bald-faced liar, billwg, because the motive is obvious has has
> been discussed at length.
>
>>They merely need to respond
>>to a demand, if and when if ever it develops.
>
> Dumbsh*t. The purpose of marketing is to create or increase demand.
>
>>(snip claptrap)
>>
>>Surely you must understand this simple issue.
>
> Surely you must understand what an ass you're making of yourself, billwg.
> LOL!!!
Oh, come now! If he understood that, he'd stop posting & check into a
rehab centre.
--
SuSE 10.1 OSS Beta3 (Agama Lizard)
The Ghost In The Machine
<bi...@twcf.rr.com>
wrote
on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:32:37 GMT
<p45Nf.49126$Fw6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
An IE-specific solution is a solution that only works with
IE (or, for the more naive, "the builtin Internet Explorer
packaged with XP" or "that big e thing"; remember that
most people treat a computer as though it were a toaster,
microwave oven, or coffeemaker). Since IE comprises over
80% of the browsers out there it's a preferential solution,
though a fair number of businesses are for some reason
avoiding such solutions, citing vendor lock-in concerns
for some reason.
(This is presumably a phantom concern because of Mono.net,
though ultimately it depends on what businesses need.)
> I use a browser a lot and I
> have found that they all work pretty much the same.
Except that IE works better for some websites.
> IE, Firefox, even
> the Mozilla and Konqueror that came with some linux installs.
Also Dillo, Arena (deprecated), Amaya, Lynx, Links, Galeon, and Epiphany.
> The new IE7 is pretty handy, too, its frame takes up less space on the screen
> with a much more compact header than Firefox so you can get more info on
> the screen for the same size of monitor. Sweet. Comes with Vista, I
> hear. But you can download it now. Automatically.
Define "automatically".
>
>>>> We've pointed out that OEMs have motivation to sell their customers
>>>> on
>>>> Linux (more profit for the OEMs
>>
>>> None of the OEMs are doing that.
>>
>> Yes, some are, and I pointed out a specific example:
>>
>>>> Smaller OEMs (e.g. Microcenter) are already advertising very
>>>> inexpensive Linux computers
>>
>>> You say they are motivated, but you are not correct.
>>
>> I know. If billwg's expectations conflict with reality, it must be
>> reality that's wrong.
>>
>>> It's bad for linux overall because it casts them as a cheapo solution
>>> for those who cannot afford better. Makes them look like a loser.
>>
>> There's a difference between 'cheap' and 'inexpensive'. When margins
>> improve, a superior product can outcompete on price as well as
>> quality.
>> Those who get Linux systems certainly won't look on them a 'cheapo'.
>>
> Well maybe someday, ray, but the Microtel boxes are just cheapo. Have
> you taken a look at them?
Not "cheapo". Cost-effective. Microsoft solutions are far cheaper
than Linux ones, as proven by at least one study comparing
a Pentium IV farm with an s390.
(Uh...there's one eentsy little problem there, of course. See
if you can spot it.)
>
>>>> "Linux" per se doesn't. Companies *using* Linux do. Nobody
>>>> "marketed"
>>>> TCP/IP specifically; it succeeded because it was a level playing
>>>> ground, neutral territory where companies decided to work.
>>
>>> These things are not markets, ray. They are just characteristics.
>>
>> How many proprietary network protocols were killed by TCP/IP again?
>> Care to guess?
>>
> Netware for one. :-) It didn't have much of an effect on Windows other
> than to maybe help it become the mainstay.
>
> I remember the early Windows days, with 3.0 and 3.1 wherein we had to
> buy a package from Sun for NFS and a package from Beame&Whitesides for
> the TCP/IP. Together I remember it costing around $250 per station so
> that we could connect Windows machines to a Sun server. Some guy
> invented a file passing message system so that the PCs could send info
> back and forth by reading and writing files. It got better later when
> Win95 and NT4 came along with TCP/IP and sockets built in. Cost some
> companies their business, though, I don't think the network folk ever
> recovered. It's all free now.
>
FSVO "free". IE cost millions of dollars to develop. I have no
idea how they plan to recoup those costs (though at this point one
hopes they already have).
GreyCloud
So? What part of 'ass' do you not understand??
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
cloakable
>
> "cloakable" <cloa...@intpcentral.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.02.28....@intpcentral.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:44:43 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>> I would totally agree that, in the advent of a replacement market for
>>> personal computers, MS would be back in the pot with everyone else,
>>> but
>>> that is not on the horizon just yet. Maybe in the year 2525? But
>>> can
>>> linux last that long?
>
>> How can it not? I have to sources right here. So does probably every
>> Linux
>> user. How do you go about killing something so widespread?
>>
> Piece of cake. Linux has no life as a "unix-like" desktop. It has to
> be a "Windows-like" desktop and it would seem that all of the efforts of
> the linuxers these days is to mimic Windows UI look and feel as well as
> administration methods. To no avail, however, and linux is put into a
> never-ending tail chase. Long term, though, Windows gets more and more
> complex and harder to clone function with Vista and .NET integration.
> The amateur developers will soon tire of all work and no pay and give up
> the effort.
Actually, hobbyists either do it for fun, or to insert a function that
they need. Iknow you probably have trouble with the concept of hacking for
fun, but you're stuck with closed API's, and shoddy development kits that
were the result of focus groups rather than trying to write stable code.
If I had to do that, I'd probably view coding as work too. But I don't :)
And I'd love to see Microsoft's shoddy developers make something that'll
be a threat to Linux as a server OS. Really I would. Stimulate Linux
development no end, it would.
>
>> It's Windows, IMO, that has the time problem. Will Windows still be
>> around
>> in 2525? I'm not sure.
>>
> I would expect not.
Well, at least you're honest :)
>
>> But I *know* Linux will still be there.
>
> I think that is just a knee-jerk response and you have no way of knowing
> that.
No, if I could see the future, I'd buy lottery tickets. But I do have
these mental faculties called 'reason' and 'intuition'. I find them handy
sometimes. You should try using them.
Ray Ingles
>> You simply can't back that up, and never have. You claim it's horribly
>> expensive to offer varying software options, but I'm in the market for
>> a laptop right now and even big names like Compaq and Dell offer
>> different operating systems and software bundles. Wait until they're
>> offering six different versions of Vista...
>>
> Rather a single version of Vista with a selection of license keys. Much
> simpler to handle at the Dell factory, eh?
Why simpler? Either way it's a different image on the hard drive.
>> ...yet. I didn't say this would happen tomorrow. Indeed, I specifically
>> said "not for a couple years". Linux will make wins elsewhere, on
>> corporate desktops (again, see what Novell and Canonical are doing),
>> and gain more exposure that way.
>>
> Well Novell isn't doing much of anything and who is Canonical. Do they
> have a stock symbol?
You're criticizing Linux advocacy and you have no familiarity with the
players and what they are doing?
> Should a market for linux desktop machines
> develop, I would expect Dell and HP to address it and aggressively
> compete with the others, ray, but there is no reason for them to try to
> create such a market.
Dell and HP don't have to create the market yet. But once the market
*is* created, they have good motivation to *expand* that market.
> Meanwhile the advocacy bogs down everywhere.
Billwg, master of the vague and unsupported assertion.
>> Once it's more recognizable in the eyes of the general populace, you'll
>> see the OEMs spending more money on Linux promotion. (Note: "more" -
>> it's not true that they are not spending "any" money on it now.)
>>
> They are spending so little that it has no effect, ray.
On someone like you, sure. Most people don't troll Linux newsgroups,
though.
> And I do not disagree with the conditional premise, but I give it zero
> chance of evolving.
As noted, your predictions have not been terribly reliable ere now.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Choice, flexibility and cost are really the driving factors [for
Linux adoption]. And Microsoft would have to stop being Microsoft
to ever compete with that combination." - emkey
William Poaster
If you explain to him, that it's the part of his anatomy that his head's
stuck up, then he *may* comprehend.
Ray Ingles
>>> Do you deny the glee amongst the linuxers that followed the Munich
>>> saga? [...] Want some cites?
>>
>> That's what I asked for, yes.
Et quelle surprise! You didn't provide any.
>>> What other "successful linux transitions"? The Ball boys?
[cites snipped]
>> See, I can search for stuff. Why can't you?
>>
> Oh all right, but I don't see why you place any stock in that, ray:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/casestudies/...
You ask for examples of other "successful linux transitions" and I
provide them. You respond by admitting that yes, they do exist.
No, no, I kid! That's what an *honest* debater would do. *You* respond
by pointing to some irrelevant Linux-to-Windows transitions. Encore,
quelle surprise.
>> So incredibly obtuse. IE had over 95% of the browser space at one
>> point, and now it's ~80% and still dropping. IE-specific solutions
>> (which is to say, Microsoft-specific solutions) are in strong decline.
>> Can't afford to ignore the customers like that.
>>
> What on earth is an "IE-specific solution"? I use a browser a lot and I
> have found that they all work pretty much the same.
Funny, most trolls talk about websites that don't work with Firefox.
You managed to find one that sorta had problems - the popup blocking
feature worked, as designed, to block popups. You happened to actually
want that popup, but didn't choose to allow it for some unspecified
reason.
There are websites that, say, specifically check for IE and refuse to
try to work with other browsers. (There's a User Agent Switcher addon to
deal with this, BTW.) But as Firefox increases in popularity, such
practices are going the way of the dodo very quickly.
>> There's a difference between 'cheap' and 'inexpensive'.
> Well maybe someday, ray, but the Microtel boxes are just cheapo. Have
> you taken a look at them?
See Ghost's response about "cost effective".
>> How many proprietary network protocols were killed by TCP/IP again?
>> Care to guess?
>>
> Netware for one. :-) It didn't have much of an effect on Windows other
> than to maybe help it become the mainstay.
It also took out NetBEUI (yeah, that did have some effect on Windows),
Appletalk, LANtastic, DECnet, and of course OSI.
> I remember the early Windows days, with 3.0 and 3.1 wherein we had to
> buy a package from Sun for NFS and a package from Beame&Whitesides for
> the TCP/IP. Together I remember it costing around $250 per station so
> that we could connect Windows machines to a Sun server. Some guy
> invented a file passing message system so that the PCs could send info
> back and forth by reading and writing files. It got better later when
> Win95 and NT4 came along with TCP/IP and sockets built in. Cost some
> companies their business, though, I don't think the network folk ever
> recovered. It's all free now.
I think you just described the future of the OS market. :->
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"[In programming, if] you know what you're doing, three layers is
enough; if you don't, even seventeen layers won't help." - Padlipsky
Larry Qualig
Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 2006-02-28, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
> >> You simply can't back that up, and never have. You claim it's horribly
> >> expensive to offer varying software options, but I'm in the market for
> >> a laptop right now and even big names like Compaq and Dell offer
> >> different operating systems and software bundles. Wait until they're
> >> offering six different versions of Vista...
> >>
> > Rather a single version of Vista with a selection of license keys. Much
> > simpler to handle at the Dell factory, eh?
>
> Why simpler? Either way it's a different image on the hard drive.
I want to get something straight here. I'm not taking anyones side in
this debate and quite frankly don't know who's side my position
supports.
On average Dell sells more than one computer per second. That 24-hours
a day, 7 days a week. It's not like people sit there and install
software for people. It is all automated.
Customers enter their order over the web-site. (Or they can call in
which case someone on the phone enters their order.) Then you get to
the screen where you configure your system. Here users can select
whether they want the disk formatted NTFS or Fat32. For software they
pick XP-Home or XP-Pro, optionally MS-Office (and they have different
versions... basic, pro, small-biz, etc.). You get the idea.
The system doesn't next go to some guy who sits there and installs this
software from a pile of CD-Roms. It's all automated by a high-speed
disk duplication machines. The drives go down the assembly line, plug
in to this machine, based on the data in the computer the correct
software and options automatically get installed. Adding new software
options to the mix doesn't require retraining people who build the
computers. It's a matter of adding new options to the disk duplication
software and tying that in with what the user orders.
I realize you guys are all smart enough to realize this. But some of
the posts seem to ignore how things are being done.
Ray Ingles
> The system doesn't next go to some guy who sits there and installs this
> software from a pile of CD-Roms. It's all automated by a high-speed
> disk duplication machines. The drives go down the assembly line, plug
> in to this machine, based on the data in the computer the correct
> software and options automatically get installed. Adding new software
> options to the mix doesn't require retraining people who build the
> computers. It's a matter of adding new options to the disk duplication
> software and tying that in with what the user orders.
>
> I realize you guys are all smart enough to realize this. But some of
> the posts seem to ignore how things are being done.
It's billwg who claims that adding Linux to this mix would be
horrendously complex and expensive. That explains the silliness.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The Most Significant Bit in any computer is the power switch."
Anonymous
Larry Qualig
Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 2006-03-01, Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The system doesn't next go to some guy who sits there and installs this
> > software from a pile of CD-Roms. It's all automated by a high-speed
> > disk duplication machines. The drives go down the assembly line, plug
> > in to this machine, based on the data in the computer the correct
> > software and options automatically get installed. Adding new software
> > options to the mix doesn't require retraining people who build the
> > computers. It's a matter of adding new options to the disk duplication
> > software and tying that in with what the user orders.
> >
> > I realize you guys are all smart enough to realize this. But some of
> > the posts seem to ignore how things are being done.
>
> It's billwg who claims that adding Linux to this mix would be
> horrendously complex and expensive. That explains the silliness.
There was once a rumor a couple of years back that all the Seagate
drives that Dell buys were shipped with 'all' this software
pre-installed. The theory being that it's quicker for Dell to 'enable'
the right options and delete the unused options then it is for them to
actually install software on every system.
chrisv
>On 2006-03-01, Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The system doesn't next go to some guy who sits there and installs this
>> software from a pile of CD-Roms. It's all automated by a high-speed
>> disk duplication machines. The drives go down the assembly line, plug
>> in to this machine, based on the data in the computer the correct
>> software and options automatically get installed. Adding new software
>> options to the mix doesn't require retraining people who build the
>> computers. It's a matter of adding new options to the disk duplication
>> software and tying that in with what the user orders.
>>
>> I realize you guys are all smart enough to realize this. But some of
>> the posts seem to ignore how things are being done.
>
> It's billwg who claims that adding Linux to this mix would be
>horrendously complex and expensive. That explains the silliness.
The stupid, lying, POS troll billwg has been corrected on this before.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-02-28, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> You simply can't back that up, and never have. You claim it's
>>> horribly
>>> expensive to offer varying software options, but I'm in the market
>>> for
>>> a laptop right now and even big names like Compaq and Dell offer
>>> different operating systems and software bundles. Wait until they're
>>> offering six different versions of Vista...
>>>
>> Rather a single version of Vista with a selection of license keys.
>> Much
>> simpler to handle at the Dell factory, eh?
>
> Why simpler? Either way it's a different image on the hard drive.
>
>>> ...yet. I didn't say this would happen tomorrow. Indeed, I
>>> specifically
>>> said "not for a couple years". Linux will make wins elsewhere, on
>>> corporate desktops (again, see what Novell and Canonical are doing),
>>> and gain more exposure that way.
>>>
>> Well Novell isn't doing much of anything and who is Canonical. Do
>> they
>> have a stock symbol?
>
> You're criticizing Linux advocacy and you have no familiarity with the
> players and what they are doing?
>
It is called a litmus test, ray. If I never hear about it, it is de
facto ineffective. It is easy to find things when you search for them,
but that is not the mechanism in the market. Consumers have to be made
aware of choices, they do not seek unless they have a desparate need.
>> Should a market for linux desktop machines
>> develop, I would expect Dell and HP to address it and aggressively
>> compete with the others, ray, but there is no reason for them to try
>> to
>> create such a market.
>
> Dell and HP don't have to create the market yet. But once the market
> *is* created, they have good motivation to *expand* that market.
>
>> Meanwhile the advocacy bogs down everywhere.
>
> Billwg, master of the vague and unsupported assertion.
>
>>> Once it's more recognizable in the eyes of the general populace,
>>> you'll
>>> see the OEMs spending more money on Linux promotion. (Note: "more" -
>>> it's not true that they are not spending "any" money on it now.)
>>>
>> They are spending so little that it has no effect, ray.
>
> On someone like you, sure. Most people don't troll Linux newsgroups,
> though.
>
Exactly. They don't read them either.
>> And I do not disagree with the conditional premise, but I give it
>> zero
>> chance of evolving.
>
> As noted, your predictions have not been terribly reliable ere now.
>
Well look at the scorecard, ray.
billwg
"Larry Qualig" <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141225066.6...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The system doesn't next go to some guy who sits there and installs
> this
> software from a pile of CD-Roms. It's all automated by a high-speed
> disk duplication machines. The drives go down the assembly line, plug
> in to this machine, based on the data in the computer the correct
> software and options automatically get installed. Adding new software
> options to the mix doesn't require retraining people who build the
> computers. It's a matter of adding new options to the disk duplication
> software and tying that in with what the user orders.
>
Dell a number of years ago for an automated warehousing controller that
was to do kitting for their PC production lines. Hard drives of various
sizes were warehoused with software already preloaded based on the
options being offered. They were trying to keep 24 hours inventory
level in the bins and were restocking based on their incoming orders.
All the other parts and subassemblies used for a product were in the
bins along with the pre-loaded HDs.
So they would create kits to build up to a hundred or so machines
absolutely identical to one another. More typical kit size then was 20
to 30. The bin picking material handler was designed to run tubs of
identical parts to a kitting station where the operator would hand pick
the required quantity and send the bin back into orbit, if it were
needed soon at another kitting station, or back into bin storage if not.
Once the kit station operator had picked out the last components on the
pick list, the pallet containing all the parts for the machines was
moved into an assembly queue based on the specific product line. The
pallet contents were then assembled into one or, almost always, more
machines. This was followed by automated testing and burn-in.
The limiting factors in this setup were the number of tubs that could be
in motion at one time. Each tub contained a single part stock number,
SKU. So to add linux to the mix, each size of hard drive had to be
considered and a HD SKU created for that combination with other options
that affected the preloading. What I see as upsetting in regard to
linux is that a low volume would occupy a lot of bins with little or no
content, depending on actual sales volume. In a high production
environment, this is wasteful of manufacturing capacity.
The whole factory was being built around this system and I would expect
that it is still in use. I think that ABB got the job eventually.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> It also took out NetBEUI (yeah, that did have some effect on Windows),
> Appletalk, LANtastic, DECnet, and of course OSI.
>
Larry Qualig
The problem with the scenario you describe is that there are too many
possible configuration options to build the computers from drives that
are pre-built and warehoused. Any given computer that you can buy from
Dell has many possible options. I took a look at only one of systems
that Dell sells. It's a mid-range Desktop from their small business
section.
The options they have available for this one system are:
OS = XP-Pro or XP-Home
NTFS or FAT32 formatting for the hard drive.
80, 160, or 200 Gig drives.
Depending on whether or not you get the DVD option you may get
CyberLink PowerDVD player.
Depending on whether or not you get the recordable DVD you may get
Sonic recorder
You also have the choice of 5 video cards so there's 5 possible
different sets of video drivers.
You may or may-not buy a modem so there's the modem drivers, fax
software, etc. that may or may not be installed.
You can also get a RAID controller which would also require specific
drivers.
There's the option of "Watchguard" firewall that may or may-not be
installed.
Someone may buy the wireless adapter option which is yet another set of
drivers that may need to be installed.
There are five (5) possible Office packages that buyers can choose
from. (Or none which is a 6th)
There are four (4) possible Anti-virus packages. (Or none which is 5
possibilities)
There are two (2) possible Quick-Books packages or none for a total of
3 choices.
Then there's customizations on the "Execute Disable" setting in WinXP.
You can buy your system with this enabled or not.
So just looking at this one particular system (out of many that they
sell) we get a total of over 300,000 possible system configurations. No
way is Dell going to keep that many different variations of "pre-built"
hard drives around and assemble systems out of pre-configured bins.
It's much easier (and cost efficient which is the real factor) to
dynamically build the disk-image based on the users options.
Ray Ingles
>> Why simpler? Either way it's a different image on the hard drive.
>>
> No, it is the same image for all six or eight.
So the user has to go through a licensing step on first boot, where
they type in a key or something?
>> You're criticizing Linux advocacy and you have no familiarity with the
>> players and what they are doing?
>>
> It is called a litmus test, ray. If I never hear about it, it is de
> facto ineffective.
Yup, your ears hear all things important. Sorry, I forgot.
As I've noted, the current desktop advocacy focus is on corporate
desktops. You've never indicated that you have anything to do with such
decisions or purchases, so you're not the intended audience.
> It is easy to find things when you search for them, but that is not
> the mechanism in the market.
Well, actually, the tech market's changing very quickly. E.g.
pricewatch.com, pricegrabber.com, etc. Other markets are lagging a bit
but more online searching is coming.
> Consumers have to be made
> aware of choices, they do not seek unless they have a desparate need.
Those catalogs and flyers that I saw, e.g. Microcenter advertising
Linux computers in are so misguided, then. No one will look at them
unless they already know what's in them!
>> On someone like you, sure. Most people don't troll Linux newsgroups,
>> though.
>>
> Exactly. They don't read them either.
So you admit you have little in common with the typical case. We agree
on something!
>> As noted, your predictions have not been terribly reliable ere now.
>>
> Well look at the scorecard, ray.
Care to provide a scorecard? Off the top of my head, I can recall your
prediction that the Linux Mark Institute would be denied tax-exempt
status, and your prediction that IBM would settle with SCO. Those
weren't exactly rousing successes.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The combination of threads, remote-procedure-call interfaces, and
heavyweight object-oriented design is especially dangerous... if you
are ever invited onto a project that is supposed to feature all
three, fleeing in terror might well be an appropriate reaction."
- Eric Raymond, The Art Of UNIX Programming
Ray Ingles
So does Netware's IPX, for that matter. It's not being used for any new
deployments, however, and it sure ain't installed by default.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - The Cutting Edge of Obsolescence.
chrisv
>The limiting factors in this setup were the number of tubs that could be
>in motion at one time. Each tub contained a single part stock number,
>SKU. So to add linux to the mix, each size of hard drive had to be
>considered and a HD SKU created for that combination with other options
>that affected the preloading. What I see as upsetting in regard to
>linux is that a low volume would occupy a lot of bins with little or no
>content, depending on actual sales volume. In a high production
>environment, this is wasteful of manufacturing capacity.
You are lying again, billwg. A different (Linux) HD is no more
difficult than a different video card, or memory option, or
Professional vs. Home, or any other of the myriad of combinations that
Dell produces. You're a stupid filthy liar when you claim that adding
one more HD option into the mix is anything significant to them.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> So does Netware's IPX, for that matter. It's not being used for any
> new
> deployments, however, and it sure ain't installed by default.
>
they added TCP/IP to the list of available network interfaces.
Ray Ingles
>> So does Netware's IPX, for that matter. It's not being used for any
>> new deployments, however, and it sure ain't installed by default.
>>
> But did they lose any business on that account? All that I see is that
> they added TCP/IP to the list of available network interfaces.
You have an almost miraculous ability to avoid the point. As I said:
>> Nobody "marketed" TCP/IP specifically; it succeeded because it was a
>> level playing ground, neutral territory where companies decided to
>> work.
There were competing, proprietary network standards that were being
actively marketed, and TCP/IP beat them all anyway. It was platform and
vendor neutral, and available for low or no fees. It's at least good
enough for most purposes, and very well designed for many.
People don't usually care exactly what kind of network they use as long
as it works. People also don't really care about the operating system
they are running, just the applications they use. Linux is "platform and
vendor neutral, and available for low or no fees. It's at least good
enough for most purposes, and very well designed for many."
No one pays for network stacks anymore unless they have very unusual
requirements. Eventually it'll be the same for operating systems.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which
is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man
in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to
investigation." - Herbert Spencer
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> There were competing, proprietary network standards that were being
> actively marketed, and TCP/IP beat them all anyway. It was platform and
> vendor neutral, and available for low or no fees. It's at least good
> enough for most purposes, and very well designed for many.
>
> People don't usually care exactly what kind of network they use as long
> as it works. People also don't really care about the operating system
> they are running, just the applications they use. Linux is "platform and
> vendor neutral, and available for low or no fees. It's at least good
> enough for most purposes, and very well designed for many."
>
> No one pays for network stacks anymore unless they have very unusual
> requirements. Eventually it'll be the same for operating systems.
forces I see propelling Linux, you just said it much better than I
have been able to.
Thad