Why Linux on the Desktop is a Total Non-Starter
6egert
Why Linux on the Desktop is, and Will Always Be, a Total Non-Starter
I know this is a massively unpopular opinion with the Linux crowd, but
the facts of the OS market are self-evident. The only real choices you
have other than Microsoft's Vista are (a) other (earlier) MS operating
systems and (b) Mac OSX. And that's where it ends for 99.5% of people.
Done. Conversation over. Stop selling, because nobody's buying.
Please, don't even try to tell me about Linux-on-the-desktop (LOTD). The
entire idea is, and has always been, a total non-starter, and it will
remain so for quite some time, if not forever. If Mac OSX isn't
compelling to Joe and Jane Sixpack, Linux, no matter how pretty the
distro, will never be. Applications are wonky and different, the
interface sucks (and yes, I've seen the lastest XGL stuff and even the
previews of what's to come, and both OSX and Vista just simply destroy
it), and it's far too complex for the average user to USE, let alone
troubleshoot. There is zero mainstream application crossover to Linux
save a precious few examples, and there's just nothing compelling about
Linux to make users want to swallow the learning curve. At least Apple
has the end-to-end device story and fantastic hardware to make the OS
and application re-learning curve more palatable (and even enjoyable) in
some cases.
LOTD is great for hobbyists, enthusiasts and specialized client-side
requirements, but it will never catch on. Again: it. will. never. catch.
on.
One more time: it ain't ever gonna catch on.
Flame me now and call me a clueless Apple fanboi, but five years down
the road when Vista owns the market and OSX is the only real choice out
there that makes a lick of sense to the average user, you will see. LOTD
died in utero, and it's never going to get another chance.
Sorry, but them's the facts.
http://sotto0.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-linux-on-desktop-is-and-will.html
Geico Caveman
You call it an "honest" read ? When a person uses the phrase "Conversation
over" in the first paragraph of an article, its hard to take him/her
seriously beyond that.
Linux on the Desktop is going to end up doing much better than this dumbo
realizes.
Kier
> a good honest read.....
Nope.
>
> Why Linux on the Desktop is, and Will Always Be, a Total Non-Starter
Nope.
>
> I know this is a massively unpopular opinion with the Linux crowd, but
> the facts of the OS market are self-evident. The only real choices you
> have other than Microsoft's Vista are (a) other (earlier) MS operating
> systems and (b) Mac OSX. And that's where it ends for 99.5% of people.
> Done. Conversation over. Stop selling, because nobody's buying.
You don' even *need* to buy Linux. If you want, it comes totally free of
cost. Your choice.
>
> Please, don't even try to tell me about Linux-on-the-desktop (LOTD). The
> entire idea is, and has always been, a total non-starter, and it will
> remain so for quite some time, if not forever. If Mac OSX isn't
> compelling to Joe and Jane Sixpack, Linux, no matter how pretty the
> distro, will never be. Applications are wonky and different, the
> interface sucks (and yes, I've seen the lastest XGL stuff and even the
> previews of what's to come, and both OSX and Vista just simply destroy
> it), and it's far too complex for the average user to USE, let alone
> troubleshoot.
You're lying right there, so stop pretending you know anything worth
saying. Linux works just fine, so don't give us bullshit about it, and no,
the interface doesn't suck half as much as anything MS produces.
> There is zero mainstream application crossover to Linux
What, you mean we can't use Word? Sorry, you're just wrong.
> save a precious few examples, and there's just nothing compelling about
> Linux to make users want to swallow the learning curve. At least Apple
> has the end-to-end device story and fantastic hardware to make the OS
> and application re-learning curve more palatable (and even enjoyable) in
> some cases.
Most apps in any platform are pretty similar. Any new apps needs to be
learned, regardless of its platform.
>
> LOTD is great for hobbyists, enthusiasts and specialized client-side
> requirements, but it will never catch on. Again: it. will. never.
> catch. on.
Prove it. Oh, but you can't, since it is. Slowly, but surely. Which is all
it needs to do.
>
> One more time: it ain't ever gonna catch on.
Why's that? Facts, please. Not just statements that aren't supported by
anything.
>
> Flame me now and call me a clueless Apple fanboi, but five years down
> the road when Vista owns the market and OSX is the only real choice out
> there that makes a lick of sense to the average user, you will see. LOTD
> died in utero, and it's never going to get another chance.
Oh, really? Where's you evidence? Beyond your imagination, I mean.
>
> Sorry, but them's the facts.
Nope, them's *your* *opinions*. You're entitled to them, but don't expect
anyone here to agree with you.
--
Kier
Brad
> Sorry, but them's the facts.
Those aren't facts. That's fiction. Like Dan Brown's book.
Brad
asj
dude, you're not...you're in fact a clueless Microsoft fanboi.
>but five years down
the road when Vista owns the market
actually 5 years from now windows xp will still own the market. pc
sales are peaking and i don't see that many normal users switching just
their os, do you? i mean , i still see quite a few people running win
98!
*Posted using Opera Mini Java Browser on Nokia 9300 while being blocked
by the guy in front at Fordham U in NY NY. This conference is in
Chinese and I don't speak chinese!
P.
> when Vista _owns_ the market
There's the problem with your logic. M$ owns the market because they bought
it; that's how you own something. I don't think the GNU/Linux community
wants to own anything, but perhaps in your branded world that's too
difficult a concept for you to grasp. Think of the OSS and GNU/Linux
communities as a kind of counter-enclosure movement.
Just my opinion of course.
P.
--
"This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not
God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that
feeds them to dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach, Watchmen
Michael B. Trausch
Sat, May 20 2006 18:37:
>
> a good honest read.....
>
[snip the article]
> http://sotto0.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-linux-on-desktop-is-and-will.html
>
Certainly is an interesting read. The thing about it is that really, nobody
knows what the future holds. Right now, there's too many things going on
that could influence the market in just about any direction. The biggest
problem with this article is that it makes a great deal of assumptions,
which is already dangerous. Secondly, the concept of the future being
fact, which is based on the fact that the broad assumptions are being made,
makes the article that much more flawed in its premise.
In any case, there's really no telling at this point in time where the
market will be in five years; too many influencing factors of late have
come about and changed to tell where things really _can_ go at this point.
There is a ton of speculation that could be let out as to where things go,
and plenty of that speculation, much like the article linked above, can and
will be tainted by personal bias and views. The way things are going at
this point, there is no reasonable speculation to be made at this point.
The market could stay in favor of Microsoft, and merely keep a steady
progression with the permeation of Linux and other UNIX-like and UNIX-based
systems such as OS X into the market. Apple could beef up its marketing
more then it already has (which I rather like, the commercials are
great!) -- and OS X could make waves into being the primary desktop
OS/environment that people will wind up using. Linux or another UNIX-like
system could climb ropes to the top, with people seeing the value of free
software, giving the world of free software the talent and the ability to
change and evolve even faster then it does now, which might even be enough
to keep it at the top indefinitely. Lastly, somebody could come up with a
new, innovative operating system that makes heavy waves and permeates the
market like a sharp knife through warm butter. Really, nobody knows.
Personally, I think that it's likely that Microsoft will be unseated as the
primary vendor in the market for operating systems within the next few
years. Again, this isn't because I personally hate them -- although it is
certainly true that I dislike them. I think it will be because eventually,
people are going to get sick and tired of the delays and the general lack
of truth that comes from Microsoft Corp. and make a switch to somewhere.
Really, when people begin leaving Microsoft, it's not going to matter all
that much _where_ they go. Right now, all of the viable alternatives are
UNIX based systems, and so really the question boils down to one of choice
in the interface. It's not a question of OS X vs. Linux at this point, and
which one is going to win in the market. It's a question of KDE vs. GNOME
vs. OS X vs. any one of many environments that might sprout up into common
use over the next few years.
Now, if you asked me personally, I'd like to see KDE take that position, no
matter what OS is running under it, because the interface has been
dramatically improved since the last time I used it in the days of version
2. KDE 4 is supposed to be quite a big deal for a release, too, and IIRC,
it's supposed to be released before Vista comes out, so that means that it
should be ready for usage by the general public sometime shortly after
that. KDE 3.5 is pretty impressive already, if you ask me.
Regardless, there's just too little information to definitively predict
where the market will head over the next few years. Interesting, however,
is the consideration that things are moving quite fast now, and while there
isn't any opportunity for something to make the waves that Microsoft did
when they entered the market at this point, there is an opportunity for
something else that people desperately need -- and it goes beyond
technology. Users need to know what it is about their systems that makes
them legal or illegal; they need education that clarifies the issues of
software licensing, and how to spot piracy, and they need to realize that
using pirated software is the very same thing, in a sense, as shoplifting.
Then, and only then, can they make an educated choice as to what to do --
buy Microsoft, buy Apple, or go with something freely available.
Unfortunately, people have been left without that type of information made
clear to them for far too long. Sure, it's easy enough for people to seek
that information out, however, they're not typically motivated to do so.
They don't read the screens on their computer screens when they
click "Next" or "Accept" to accept a software license, so there's no reason
to believe that they're going to educate their selves on it.
Finally, the last thing to consider when trying to think about where the
future of computing is going to be going in terms of the operating systems
that people may be using "tomorrow" is what the motivators would be. For
the people around me that have seen me using Linux and seen me not be
frustrated at my computer all the time, they want to know why. They begin
to use the system and, as they learn more about it, they realize more what
they can actually do with their computer. I have several people that I
know that are using simply because it's not going to get them in trouble
like Windows would have had they not migrated from a pirated copy of it
(and they didn't want to spend any money, either). Now, out of 11 people
that I've personally migrated to Linux in the past one year, only one has
reverted back to a Windows setup, and that was because they absolutely
couldn't be bothered to learn to use anything other then Photoshop, and
they refused to learn how to use Wine or qemu to get it installed.
Eventually, they may revisit it, but not for the time being. Of course,
everybody else that I've migrated has been more then happy with it --
they've been able to keep their data, use their systems more effectively,
and even began to learn how the CLI works so that they can make use of
their computer remotely without using X11 and the like to create heavy use
of network resources. Given that it's much faster then any remote desktop
technology, it's ideal if you don't absolutely need to have the graphical
display.
Finally, I can honestly say that I -- and others that would be in positions
to provide support -- would be able to better support people by using tools
such as SSH with SSH keys, and so forth. Since you can have a host on the
Internet, and disable any type of password-only access to a host, you can
automatically have a more secure environment then that which Windows
provides. Add to that, the fact that you can then tunnel SSH, and you've
got a much more versatile environment that is available for support. For
me, I prefer users that are using it. They call me, I log in and fix
whatever is wrong (usually in under five minutes) and everything is happy
again. Some of them are eager to learn, or simply want to see what I'm
doing, and so we add GNU screen to the process and are able to make that
program share the terminal in an easy enough fashion that the user is able
to see what's going on, and I can explain things to the user as I go along.
Factually, there are just too many things that are easy, easier, or possible
at all, out of the box, on a functional Linux distribution that make my
life easier, and the lives of users easier. I could literally go on and
continue about more and more and more aspects, contrasts, and comparisons
of Windows vs. {OS X,Linux,UNIX-like systems} forever. And yes, I'm
explicitly excluding Cygwin emulation from the equation here -- It's
absolutely horrid, and way too slow for serious use: A result of trying to
add a POSIX layer on top of the Win32 layer on top of the kernel, no doubt.
- Mike
--
Registered Linux User #417338, machine #325045.
A Bugless Program is an Abstract Theoretical Concept.
ray
> a good honest read.....
>
> Why Linux on the Desktop is, and Will Always Be, a Total Non-Starter
>
> I know this is a massively unpopular opinion with the Linux crowd, but
> the facts of the OS market are self-evident. The only real choices you
> have other than Microsoft's Vista are (a) other (earlier) MS operating
> systems and (b) Mac OSX. And that's where it ends for 99.5% of people.
> Done. Conversation over. Stop selling, because nobody's buying.
>
> Please, don't even try to tell me about Linux-on-the-desktop (LOTD). The
> entire idea is, and has always been, a total non-starter, and it will
> remain so for quite some time, if not forever. If Mac OSX isn't
> compelling to Joe and Jane Sixpack, Linux, no matter how pretty the
> distro, will never be. Applications are wonky and different, the
> interface sucks (and yes, I've seen the lastest XGL stuff and even the
> previews of what's to come, and both OSX and Vista just simply destroy
> it), and it's far too complex for the average user to USE, let alone
> troubleshoot. There is zero mainstream application crossover to Linux
> save a precious few examples, and there's just nothing compelling about
> Linux to make users want to swallow the learning curve. At least Apple
> has the end-to-end device story and fantastic hardware to make the OS
> and application re-learning curve more palatable (and even enjoyable)
> in some cases.
Total B.S. There is no 'learning curve' to 'swallow'. In January last year
I installed Mandrake Linux on the public access internet computers at thee
local library. To date NO complaints. A customer satisfaction survey
showed complete acceptance. We recently installed a four head system from
Userful in Canada - it's an RHEL system - again; full acceptance. Linux is
no harder to use on the desktop than MS - it is just a little different,
and anyone with a room temperature IQ can adapt very easily. What Joe
Sixpack can't do is install it. Of course he could not install MS or
MACOSX either. But if it's done properly for him/her it's simple to adapt
to, and all the tools he/she needs are there. For free. Ready to go.
Geico Caveman
> Total B.S. There is no 'learning curve' to 'swallow'. In January last year
> I installed Mandrake Linux on the public access internet computers at thee
> local library. To date NO complaints. A customer satisfaction survey
> showed complete acceptance. We recently installed a four head system from
> Userful in Canada - it's an RHEL system - again; full acceptance. Linux is
> no harder to use on the desktop than MS - it is just a little different,
> and anyone with a room temperature IQ can adapt very easily. What Joe
No argument with what you are saying, but I do hope that you know that
standard room temperature (NTP) is 298K :)
6egert
"P." <no....@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and the slithy 6egert did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
>
> > when Vista _owns_ the market
>
> There's the problem with your logic. M$ owns the market because they bought
> it; that's how you own something.
well, technically they inherited it from I.B.M using a sneaky legal
contract. they didn't buy anything, they stole.
> I don't think the GNU/Linux community
> wants to own anything, but perhaps in your branded world that's too
> difficult a concept for you to grasp. Think of the OSS and GNU/Linux
> communities as a kind of counter-enclosure movement.
i don't think anyone in the know wants to be part of a branded OS like
what MS does, that's what makes OSX so attractive to linux users since
you get all the counter-enclosure benfits, but an OS that actually
works. plus you get to use all the OSS stuff, without hassle. OSX has
pretty much taken over the movement best I can tell, that's why this guy
was so correct in his observations.
Geico Caveman
Hello Oxford. How are you doing tonight ?
Chirag Shukla
> I know this is a massively unpopular opinion with the Linux crowd
Nah, its not unpopular. People just dont know about it too much as yet.
Linux is entering the market slowly. About 10% people I know have
accepted Linux once they got it to install and once the learnt that
hard drive is not C:\.
> the facts of the OS market are self-evident. The only real choices you
> have other than Microsoft's Vista are (a) other (earlier) MS operating
> systems and (b) Mac OSX.
Thats what general consumers see. In that case, let me take off Mac OSX
also. At BestBuy, I talked to a few fellows who were looking at
computers and all I learnt from them was that for them there is no
difference between a PC and Mac as long as they can surf the internet,
write emails and such. Now, these people are good target market for
Linux distributions. If I were building computers and selling it, I'd
surely preinstall Linux on it!
> And that's where it ends for 99.5% of people.
Thats true. Most general users use Windows or Mac.
> There is zero mainstream application crossover to Linux
What do you mean? Examples? Yes, MS Word documents with lots of
formatting and macros wont look/work the same on Linux - but hey, thats
not the purpose of Linux. Its an OS. If Microsoft would make Word for
Linux, that document would work. OpenOffice does pretty good though,
for free.
> save a precious few examples, and there's just nothing compelling about
> Linux to make users want to swallow the learning curve.
New learners catch up to Linux fast! I had my parents work on Linux
until I messed up some traditional fonts that Firefox did not render
well. But otherwise, they were happy with Linux. I will not deny that
they found Windows more user-friendly than Linux but never complained
about Linux either. According to me, the learning curve is not steep at
all with Linux.
> LOTD is great for hobbyists, enthusiasts and specialized client-side
> requirements, but it will never catch on. Again: it. will. never. catch.
> on.
That time will say.
> Sorry, but them's the facts.
These weren't facts. They were opinions and predictions. Lets see how
your predictions stand.
I think Linux needs a bit of promotion. We all need to treat newbies
better. Asking them to read the manual is just not working out. Most
newbies around me that received such answers (RTFM) kicked Linux off
their system and reused its partitions to store music and movies.
Chirag Shukla.
P.
> that's why this guy
> was so correct in his observations.
Why are you talking about yourself in the third person?
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
> a good honest read.....
>
> Why Linux on the Desktop is, and Will Always Be, a Total Non-Starter
>
> I know this is a massively unpopular opinion with the Linux crowd, but
> the facts of the OS market are self-evident. The only real choices you
> have other than Microsoft's Vista are (a) other (earlier) MS operating
> systems and (b) Mac OSX. And that's where it ends for 99.5% of people.
> Done. Conversation over. Stop selling, because nobody's buying.
Dude, nobody is buying your pointless troll. Desktop linux was reaching
the same market share as Mac around two years ago:
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/insight/software/linuxunix/0,39020472,39118695,00.htm
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/35688.html
At this point it has likely surpassed Mac, though recent Mac
growth makes that uncertain. Data I've seen in the ISP industry
seems to give Linux the edge over Mac. One thing is absolutely
clear, however, Linux is growing in excess of 20 percent per year,
on par with server growth. If it follows the same growth curve as
server linux, it could grab double digit share in only a few
years followed by a third of all desktops a few years after that.
Later,
Thad
6egert
ray <r...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> What Joe
> Sixpack can't do is install it. Of course he could not install MS or
> MACOSX either.
joe sixpack could certainly install OSX, it's by far the easiest install
of all the main 3 oses, ms/osx/linux. just click a few buttons, click
restart and you are done. SWEEET
Jim
> a good honest read.....
>
> Why Linux on the Desktop is, and Will Always Be, a Total Non-Starter
<snip waffle>
oi, fanboi. Smell the coffee. LOTD is a harsh reality. I use it, plenty
of my clients use it, and they enjoy it (though one keeps phoning me up
and asking me to help him install his NIS... go figure...).
--
When all else fails...
Use a hammer.
Some people are like Slinkies
They serve no particular purpose
But they bring a smile to your face
When you push them down the stairs.
M
<snip>
> Finally, I can honestly say that I -- and others that would be in
> positions to provide support -- would be able to better support people by
> using tools
> such as SSH with SSH keys, and so forth. Since you can have a host on the
> Internet, and disable any type of password-only access to a host, you can
> automatically have a more secure environment then that which Windows
> provides. Add to that, the fact that you can then tunnel SSH, and you've
> got a much more versatile environment that is available for support. For
> me, I prefer users that are using it. They call me, I log in and fix
> whatever is wrong (usually in under five minutes) and everything is happy
> again. Some of them are eager to learn, or simply want to see what I'm
> doing, and so we add GNU screen to the process and are able to make that
> program share the terminal in an easy enough fashion that the user is able
> to see what's going on, and I can explain things to the user as I go
> along.
>
Much nicer than RTFM :-) If this sort of thing became more widely available,
then I think you would see Linux take off with a real vengeance. The BBC
made a comment a while back about people starting to give up on the
internet because of all the security problems.
What Linux does provide the average user besides a more secure environment,
is a fantastic community. This is where it leaves Windows for dead.
</snip>
--
Regards,
M
ray
I also realize that the majority of the world does not report room
temperatures in degrees K. In some portions it's degrees F - about 72 and
in others degrees C - about 35.
ray
So OSX is the easiest. I stand by my statement.
Gustavo Vasquez
Thats right man. I'm watching my local news and they show the control
console at the station. It's running Windows.
They switch over to local weather. The computer their is running
Windows.
They show a clip from the police department and the 911 call center.
Windows again.
I watch the Deadliest Catch on TV and all those computers on the boats
have Windows.
Switch over to the financial channel and nothing but Windows their too.
Go to the dentist office the other day. They run Windows.
Every office I've ever been in. Every person their is using Windows.
Michael B. Trausch
2006 06:21:
Yeah, I know that I'm much more capable of supporting Linux, especially over
the Internet, compared to Windows. For those of my friends that are using
dial-up access to the Internet, it's tons easier for me to be able to help
them if they're using Linux or another UNIX-like system, because I can use
SSH -- and even with the encryption overhead, that's better then a 1024x768
scree -- or even a 640x480 one -- being transmitted, like in Windows.
Even moreso when I'm limited to a dialup connection. And I don't mind
helping people, but more and more as time goes by, I dislike helping people
on Windows. Many end users act as poor eyes and ears, and sometimes it's
just not practical or possible to be able to share their screen. *shrugs*
Anyway, I've always been a believer in helping somebody through something,
and then pointing out where they could've found the information. I try not
to just tell somebody to RTFM unless they're consistently showing me that
they're unwilling to learn on their own and clearly using me as an
information repository. Then I tell them that the options that they have
are to either spend time reading the documentation, or pay me $100 per
incident so that they learn to not rely on me -- I think that every person
should be able to be self-reliant (e.g., independant), without worrying
about running into a need for technical help every time they turn around.
On the flip side of the coin, if somebody needs to take something out of an
SQL database, and convert the data into something tabular or get
information selectively or something, and what they're working with is the
shell, I'm not going to expect your average end user to just magically pull
that out of their rectal cavity, either. :-)
- Mike
--
Registered Linux User #417338, machine #325045.
A bad day: "Transfer completed (5720468 bytes, 56651 errors, 1 CPS)"
Cameron L. Toew
>>> system - again; full acceptance. Linux is no harder to use on the
>>> desktop than MS - it is just a little different, and anyone with a
>>> room temperature IQ can adapt very easily.
Anyone, beside you.
> I also realize that the majority of the world does not report room
> temperatures in degrees K. In some portions it's degrees F - about 72
> and in others degrees C - about 35.
(72-32)(.55555) = 22.2 degrees C, not 35.
JEDIDIAH
>
> 6egert wrote:
[deletia]
>> Sorry, but them's the facts.
>>
>> http://sotto0.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-linux-on-desktop-is-and-will.html
>
>
> Thats right man. I'm watching my local news and they show the control
> console at the station. It's running Windows.
>
> They switch over to local weather. The computer their is running
> Windows.
>
> They show a clip from the police department and the 911 call center.
> Windows again.
>
> I watch the Deadliest Catch on TV and all those computers on the boats
> have Windows.
>
> Switch over to the financial channel and nothing but Windows their too.
>
> Go to the dentist office the other day. They run Windows.
>
> Every office I've ever been in. Every person their is using Windows.
That was true 15 years ago. So what's your point? That once
people have gotten hooked on crack (or proprietary media formats) that
they find it REALLY hard to kick the habit?
It's like you're trying to patent something you got out of
encylopedia brittanica.
MacOS had the same problem when what it was competing against
was not even 16-bit Windows.
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
JEDIDIAH
Linux is the same way, assuming you don't need it to peacefully
co-exist with anything else. Otherwise, I can't see you making OSX simple
enough to install either.
>
> So OSX is the easiest. I stand by my statement.
>
How does it do on a random Dell or Sony laptop?
Michael B. Trausch
<1148243084....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> on Sun, May 21 2006
16:24:
>
> Thats right man. I'm watching my local news and they show the control
> console at the station. It's running Windows.
>
Possibly. How do you know it's Windows? Did they zoom in that close that
you could tell for sure? Or did you see a similar interface to Windows and
make an assumption?
>
> They switch over to local weather. The computer their is running
> Windows.
>
I repeat my question.
>
> They show a clip from the police department and the 911 call center.
> Windows again.
>
And, again. (And if they are, that's pretty scary to me. I don't know that
I would trust my life to Windows. And that might explain why the times
that I've needed to call 911, they've not gotten there in any timeframe
that I could consider reasonable -- funny, I thought that was more of a
problem with people then technology, though it could be both...)
>
> I watch the Deadliest Catch on TV and all those computers on the boats
> have Windows.
>
Same question as the first one.
>
> Switch over to the financial channel and nothing but Windows their too.
>
Again I ask the same question.
>
> Go to the dentist office the other day. They run Windows.
>
Last two dentist's offices I were in were running a Windows front end. The
only software in the first one that was running on it was a terminal
emulator hooked up to a UNIX back-end machine that did the management of
the system. The second office I was in, had a Windows front end, and they
were running Hummingbird eXceed. I'll leave it as an exercise to the
reader to figure out what eXceed does, but that was the gateway to the
back-end system that was being used by that particular office.
>
> Every office I've ever been in. Every person their is using Windows.
>
And I can tell by your wonderful attention to detail in language, that you
are a real stickler for details, right? I gave you your chances today. I
only am glad that I am on a broadband connection, and don't have to pay by
the minute for waiting for my headers before the killfile filters kick
in...
- Mike
--
Registered Linux User #417338, machine #325045.
To boldly go where I surely don't belong.
Ray Ingles
> Please, don't even try to tell me about Linux-on-the-desktop (LOTD). The
> entire idea is, and has always been, a total non-starter, and it will
> remain so for quite some time, if not forever.
The only hard part about Linux-on-the-desktop is the install, and
that's only "hard" for the average user if you're trying to dual-boot.
Using it is no problem. My kids (none older than six) and my elderly
parents (who don't learn computer stuff easily) have *no* *trouble*
*whatsoever* using Linux.
Linux has real advantages in security, stabilty, ease of maintenance,
and cost. The "disadvantages" are, so far a I've ever seen, *massively*
exaggerated. My parents don't complain about the system they are
running, and it's not even the latest - it's Ubuntu 5.04. I can't wait
to bump them up to 6.06 when that's released...
> LOTD is great for hobbyists, enthusiasts and specialized client-side
> requirements, but it will never catch on. Again: it. will. never. catch.
> on.
Trolls around here have said the same thing about Firefox. It has no
advertising budget to speak of, people have to go to extra trouble to
install it, and almost everything it does can be done on IE with
extensions (except the security, of course). And yet it's growing
continuously, and has taken at *least* 10% world browser share, and
*much* more in some areas.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."
- Anonymous
Larry Qualig
Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 2006-05-20, 6egert <rgd...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Please, don't even try to tell me about Linux-on-the-desktop (LOTD). The
> > entire idea is, and has always been, a total non-starter, and it will
> > remain so for quite some time, if not forever.
>
> The only hard part about Linux-on-the-desktop is the install, and
> that's only "hard" for the average user if you're trying to dual-boot.
> Using it is no problem. My kids (none older than six) and my elderly
> parents (who don't learn computer stuff easily) have *no* *trouble*
> *whatsoever* using Linux.
>
> Linux has real advantages in security, stabilty, ease of maintenance,
> and cost. The "disadvantages" are, so far a I've ever seen, *massively*
> exaggerated. My parents don't complain about the system they are
> running, and it's not even the latest - it's Ubuntu 5.04. I can't wait
> to bump them up to 6.06 when that's released...
A friend of mine at work summarizes this very well IMO. His description
is something like - "The single biggest problem with Linux is that it
is not Microsoft Windows."
If I were to end the post now I would expect to see responses like -
"Good. I don't need a machine that crashes every 10 minutes."
But that's not the point. It's more about public perception, market
dynamics and etc. Despite the security and technical benefits of Linux,
the biggest obstacle facing Linux (on the desktop) is that it isn't
Windows. I think there's a fair amount of truth to that and that the
same statement could be applied to say... Open Office.
Ray Ingles
>> Linux has real advantages in security, stabilty, ease of maintenance,
>> and cost. The "disadvantages" are, so far a I've ever seen, *massively*
>> exaggerated. My parents don't complain about the system they are
>> running, and it's not even the latest - it's Ubuntu 5.04. I can't wait
>> to bump them up to 6.06 when that's released...
>
> A friend of mine at work summarizes this very well IMO. His description
> is something like - "The single biggest problem with Linux is that it
> is not Microsoft Windows."
Yes, inertia is a serious obstacle. Widespread Windows use attracts
more Windows use. Many Linux (and Apple) detractors like to portray
Microsoft's position as a black hole; past the point of no return. An
event horizon which only accepts new users, never releasing them. (I'm
not saying *you* do this, necessarily, Larry, but it's not hard to point
out examples of those who do on this newsgroup.)
But, of course, even black holes are not really black. They have a
temperature, and give off "Hawking" radiation. There are different ways
to look at it, but the most productive for this discussion is to look at
the phenomenon in terms of tunneling.
In classical Relativity, the event horizon is an insuperable barrier,
something would have to exceed the speed of light to leave a black hole.
But in Quantum Mechanics, particles don't have a fixed position as such;
there is always a chance you might find them almost anywhere. The further
away, the (much) lower the odds, but the odds are never zero. Some
particles "tunnel" through, or past, that 'insuperable' barrier and
appear outside the black hole. Energy escapes the black hole, and it
gets a bit smaller. The smaller the black hole, the more often this
happens. So every black hole has a (long) half-life, and toward the end
of its life it's losing energy at a stupendous rate.
We can apply this analogously to Windows. Despite what the trolls say,
people *do* switch away from Windows (and not just to Linux; there's
also the Apple factor). And Windows is having a harder time finding new
users; ironically, their own increasing anti-piracy measures will limit
their growth rate. Of course, the trolls will note, the half-life of a
black hole is *very* long, generally longer than the lifetime of the
universe.
But, unlike with a black hole, size is *not* the only factor that
affects the 'permeability' of their 'event horizon'; security,
stability, and price also have an impact. Then there are the niches
where 'tunneling' from Windows to Linux is particularly easy. These
areas are increasing in range, and they do have an effect on the
overall 'attractiveness' of Windows. And from everything I've seen,
the Linux-to-Windows transition rate is *far* lower than the converse.
And finally, unlike black holes, the decay doesn't have to be
exponentially accelerating to be significant. Witness Firefox's growth,
and its impact on web development. It's *far* from the majority but is
already making web standards more prevalent and IE-only sites less and
less common. Linux doesn't have to be the majority, or anything like
that, to become a significant development target.
(As I've noted before, I don't know of *any* examples of an industry
moving from an open standard to a closed, proprietary, vendor-controlled
one. All the transitions are in the other direction.)
The analogy can be taken too far; it's only a notion to help insight. I
don't expect Windows, or Microsoft, to "flame out" in a bright explosion
of expelled users. :-> But I do expect a gradually weaker and weaker
position for them in the coming years.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Only one thing is impossible for God: to find any sense in
any copyright law on the planet. - Mark Twain
The Ghost In The Machine
<lqu...@uku.co.uk>
wrote
on 22 May 2006 08:37:14 -0700
<1148312234.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> On 2006-05-20, 6egert <rgd...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Please, don't even try to tell me about Linux-on-the-desktop (LOTD). The
>> > entire idea is, and has always been, a total non-starter, and it will
>> > remain so for quite some time, if not forever.
>>
>> The only hard part about Linux-on-the-desktop is the install, and
>> that's only "hard" for the average user if you're trying to dual-boot.
>> Using it is no problem. My kids (none older than six) and my elderly
>> parents (who don't learn computer stuff easily) have *no* *trouble*
>> *whatsoever* using Linux.
>>
>> Linux has real advantages in security, stabilty, ease of maintenance,
>> and cost. The "disadvantages" are, so far a I've ever seen, *massively*
>> exaggerated. My parents don't complain about the system they are
>> running, and it's not even the latest - it's Ubuntu 5.04. I can't wait
>> to bump them up to 6.06 when that's released...
>
>
> A friend of mine at work summarizes this very well IMO. His description
> is something like - "The single biggest problem with Linux is that it
> is not Microsoft Windows."
>
> If I were to end the post now I would expect to see responses like -
> "Good. I don't need a machine that crashes every 10 minutes."
Windows machines have an average uptime of over a week.
This is adequate for desktops, especially if they are shut
off over the weekend to save power. (For their part Linux
machines can stay up a lot longer than that.)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
reports that www.microsoft.com servers have an uptime of
59 days, for example (as of 2004-09).
Of course individual boxes might have problems related
to many factors, such as bad hardware, bad video drivers,
and just plain bad luck if a piece of malware sneaks past
one's protective barriers. Windows tends to encourage
bad behavior, though it's getting better. Of course, the
"getting better" will generate more noise for Windows,
and more exposure; Linux doesn't need to get better
(although it does get better anyway :-) )
>
> But that's not the point. It's more about public perception, market
> dynamics and etc. Despite the security and technical benefits of Linux,
> the biggest obstacle facing Linux (on the desktop) is that it isn't
> Windows. I think there's a fair amount of truth to that and that the
> same statement could be applied to say... Open Office.
It is a problem. People are *used* to Windows --
and have been for more than two decades. They know
how to "deal" with its flaws (ctrl-alt-del) and how it
indicates them (as indicated in, among other places,
http://www.errorwear.com).
Contrast that to Linux, which until recently was mostly
used by various specialists. The scientific community and
some of the engineers (myself among them) are probably
well aware of Unix, but few others were, prior to the
advent of Linux.
If anything Microsoft is a victim of its own success.
But people also aren't used to deal with anything more
cmoplicated than a toaster, by and large. (Ideally,
they shouldn't have to be.)
There's also a large secondary market to buttress the
problem and patch Windows' failings. Symantec and McAfee
in particular try to make money where Microsoft goofed.
For its part Linux didn't goof, and therefore gets shut out
of that part of the press; the bad OS gets all the noise
and commentary, making it easy to find (and implanting
it firmly in people's minds). The good OS [*] -- Linux --
is well-nigh invisible, barely making a ripple as it just
does the job right the first time. Also, Symantec can't
leverage Linux like it can Windows to get customers; Linux
doesn't really *have* malware, beyond the occasional token
demonstrator -- and maybe propagating something that will
eventually end up making Yet Another Windows Zombie.
(Mozilla has issues, but that's Mozzie. Not Linux.
Most people won't care to make the distinction, however.)
This makes Linux largely ideal for mobiles (where the
actual app/computer interface is mostly invisible anyway)
and servers (ditto), but not for desktops (because of
market pressures).
Microsoft now has $42.64B in yearly revenue and $33.51B
in the bank. Even if all revenue were cut off tomorrow,
their losses would only be about $9.05B/year at the very
most, and they could survive for almost 4 years *without
making a single change in their company structure*.
(And they probably would lay off a bunch of people in that
case anyway. Also, taxes for Microsoft would be lower,
further decreasing losses.)
Their yearly profits are $33.59B, or about $92M/day.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT
Compare that to the EU's fine of $0.613B for the Windows
Media Player issue:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/
That's only a week's worth of profits...and they're still
fighting it:
http://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=7392
(In a more normal world that fine would accrue at about a
7% interest rate per year minimum, and a whopping 20%-25%
maximum, with late charges and all that -- but apparently
no one's bothered.)
This is a *big* company. If and when it does die, the
death will have repercussions all throughout the industry.
A bit like Goliath, or the giant in Jack and the Beanstalk,
hitting the ground and generating a massive earthquake.
(If it gets big enough, it might step on Washington, DC,
even. DeLay's bribery indictments might have involved
a few million dollars at most. Microsoft could hand him
over $11.5M/hour (assuming 8-hour days) or $170,000/hour
for every Congressperson. That's almost, if not more
than, a year's pay!)
By contrast, Exxon Mobil, the current "bad boy" of the
gas crunch, has to make do with $157.68B gross profits
on $338.61B revenue. While Exxon's profits are bigger,
Microsoft has a more favorable profit margin (31.59%
versus 10.83%).
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=XOM
And then there's Halliburton, which has a measly gross profit of $2.85B,
and a *lot* of news coverage (and probably badwill):
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=HAL
Small wonder Linux is having minor problems gaining
a toehold; the size of the foot it has to dislodge is
massive. Fortunately, the user community can still light
a match and give it a hotfoot, and Microsoft is definitely
feeling that:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
Now if only we could convert that into a blowtorch. :-)
The good news: the match is burning under the foot, and
Microsoft's spitting in the general direction of the match
appear to be less effective than they would probably desire.
Of course they also seem to be taking shots at their own
foot with their gun. Oooh, that's gotta hurt.... :-)
>
>
>
>
>> > LOTD is great for hobbyists, enthusiasts and specialized client-side
>> > requirements, but it will never catch on. Again: it. will. never. catch.
>> > on.
>>
>> Trolls around here have said the same thing about Firefox. It has no
>> advertising budget to speak of, people have to go to extra trouble to
>> install it, and almost everything it does can be done on IE with
>> extensions (except the security, of course). And yet it's growing
>> continuously, and has taken at *least* 10% world browser share, and
>> *much* more in some areas.
>>
>> --
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
>>
>> "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."
>> - Anonymous
>
[*] I should qualify this by noting that there are other
good operating systems out there, FreeBSD and traditional
Unixes among them. "The" is therefore a bit of a misnomer
-- but then, this *is* COLA, and a preference for Linux
is therefore somewhat excusable. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Rob Hughes
<snip asinine opinion>
> Sorry, but them's the facts.
>
Anyone who can't tell their own opinion from fact isn't worthy of one of my
flames.
--
Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a way of life.
chrisv
>Sorry, but
*plonk*
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 04:51 AM, tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com said:
>Dude, nobody is buying your pointless troll.
c 'Dude' 'Dud'
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
The Ghost In The Machine
<AuntyD...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Tue, 23 May 2006 09:57:04 -0400
<5506729l18q4h4lse...@srb.com>:
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 00:08:24 +0100, Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:37:04 +0000, 6egert wrote:
>>
>>> a good honest read.....
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Why Linux on the Desktop is, and Will Always Be, a Total Non-Starter
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I know this is a massively unpopular opinion with the Linux crowd, but
>>> the facts of the OS market are self-evident. The only real choices you
>>> have other than Microsoft's Vista are (a) other (earlier) MS operating
>>> systems and (b) Mac OSX. And that's where it ends for 99.5% of people.
>>> Done. Conversation over. Stop selling, because nobody's buying.
>>
>>cost. Your choice.
>
> Is that why most people would rather BUY Windows than get Linux
> for FREE?
> Hell, just as many would rather pirate Windows, than use Linux
> legally.
That's assuming anyone "buys" Windows anyway. Try getting
a computer in a store such as CompUSA, Fry's Electronics,
or Best Buy without Windows...if it's not an ultra cheapie,
one's probably out of luck in that department.
Of course, the cost of Windows is somehow reflected in that
computer. Either the customer pays part of the cost, or
the company loses part of the revenue to Microsoft...most
likely, both.
Mail order is a little easier but one has to know where
to look. Dell has a section with "alternatives";
these look reasonably workable. HP does as well.
I've not looked at Lenovo, but a quick persual of
http://www.lenovo.com doesn't suggest any non-XP variants.
Specialists such as http://penguincomputing.com are also
available; a partial list of such vendors are available
at http://www.linux.org/vendor/system/desktop.html .
Madtux in particular offers an ultra-cheapie desktop,
which might look interesting -- but beware. A little
research coughs up some troubling facts.
$169.00 VIA C3 Samual II 2000 (800 MHz) microprocessor,
512 RAM (max 2GB DDR266),
1 GB bootable USB key w/Knoppix
NIC, PS2 kb/mouse, parallel, serial, VGA, 4 USB, onboard audio.
Because there's no disk drive it's ultra-quiet. It's probably
also ultra-incapable of serious OpenGL, but it's a start.
http://store.madtux.org/product_info.php?cPath=57&products_id=103
The good news: MadTux also offers nvidia and processor upgrades,
though not for this mobo. Did I say good news?
http://store.madtux.org/index.php?manufacturers_id=4
The bad news: no monitor, keyboard, CD-ROM, or mouse
are supplied. A comparable Dell Dimension 1100 will sell
for $299 ($349 w/monitor; keyboard and mouse are free);
however, the comparison isn't all that accurate as the
Dell comes with a Celeron running at 2.53 GHz, plus an
80 GB ATA, and a CD/DVD combo drive.
An open source Dimension 1100n is also available, for $369, although
it might be $319 with $50 instant rebate.
(The $269 has only 256 MB RAM.)
This dumps a computer on one's lap with a conventional CRT monitor.
Apart from a maybe helpful FreeDOS CD, you're on your own.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/dimen_1100n?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd
Worse news: The C3 is apparently a Socket 370/Socket 7.
The fastest microprocessor I can find for this thing
appears to be a 1.2 GHz Pentium III (Tualatin) -- and
that's a used pull. Market price appears to be around $60.
Total price is now $229.99, and this for half the speed
of Dell hardware.
One can also try K6-2 and K6-III if one has 6-year-old
hardware lying around, but this is clearly two generations
behind from a hardware/upgrade standpoint.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc3/socket_370
describes the situation nicely.
Caveat emptor.
[snippage]
>>> save a precious few examples, and there's just nothing compelling about
>>> Linux to make users want to swallow the learning curve. At least Apple
>>> has the end-to-end device story and fantastic hardware to make the OS
>>> and application re-learning curve more palatable (and even enjoyable) in
>>> some cases.
>>
>>Most apps in any platform are pretty similar. Any new apps needs to be
>>learned, regardless of its platform.
>
> That's totally contrary to the "..there is no learning curve to Linux"
> statement so often spouted here.
The learning curve to Linux can be extremely steep.
How much do *you* know about interrupt $0x80 on the x86
variant, for example? What registers are used to open
a file, fork a process, read TERMIOS settings from the
serial driver?
(I know enough to dink around with it. "Hello world"
isn't too hard but isn't all that useful.)
Of course, for most Linux distros these little nuggets
are hidden deep within glibc, and invisible to most
application programmers, never mind the common user.
But there are a large number of differences between the
typical Linux distro and Windows, both at the user level
(wizards, configurations, web and file browser behavior)
and at the application level (process handling, file
pathname resolution, device/program communication).
One of them that's *not* minor is ActiveX support --
required by some IE-specific websites.
Windows presumably has similar crap, at the NTOSKRNL level.
I'd frankly have to dig fairly deep to find it; at least int $0x80
isn't that hard to find.
>
>>
>>>
>>> LOTD is great for hobbyists, enthusiasts and specialized client-side
>>> requirements, but it will never catch on. Again: it. will. never.
>>> catch. on.
>>
>>Prove it. Oh, but you can't, since it is. Slowly, but surely. Which is all
>>it needs to do.
>
> "Slowly, but surely" is Linux-speak for "nobody likes us".
> How many polls does it take for you to see that the majority
> of users want and use MS Windows and don't care about
> (LUBO) Linux, Unix, BSD or open-source.
>
> If the current rate of Linux adoption is "...all it needs to do." then
> Linux has bigger problems than being a hobbyist OS.
Windows is the top dog. The attacker must vanquish but
the defender (Windows) need only survive. Microsoft is
surviving *very* well, with a $33B profit in the last
12 months.
It's a tough row to hoe. The good news: Linux can be
adapted to a jackhammer if necessary. :-) The bad news:
a jackhammer may not be quite strong enough to solve
what is essentially a problem with consumer expectations,
as opposed to cement-hard metaphors.
In short, everyone uses Windows; therefore everyone loves
Windows. (Well, sort of. Be careful of gold-colored
swinging watches, especially while wearing a green
T-shirt.)
[snip]
>>>
>>> Sorry, but them's the facts.
>>
>>Nope, them's *your* *opinions*. You're entitled to them, but don't expect
>>anyone here to agree with you.
>
> Again, he's talking numbers and statistics while you're talking hopes
> and dreams. While hopes and dreams make great Disney movies
> they don't sell software.
>
> Ease of use,
Linux fails. This is primarily because Windows is known
to everybody and problems in Windows are "easy" to solve
by just rebooting using Ctrl-Alt-Del or powercycling.
Can't get much simpler than that.
Of course individuals such as myself know that doesn't
really "solve" anything; all that does is reset the system
into a usable state. The crash will happen again if
all of the conditions happen again -- and some of those
conditions might not be controllable by the end user.
Race conditions in particular can be iffy. But never mind
that; just hit Ctrl-Alt-Del again.
> application base,
Linux fails. It's a pity, but Windows has more
applications. Of course, Windows also has more problems
to throw applications at, such as malware disinfection.
I for one consider that sort of thing makework, but it
does allow for profits to somebody.
I for one consider Linux a better gaming platform, but
Windows has more games. We shall see.
> user base.
Linux fails. This is primarily because Windows came out
first for the desktop PC, successfully leveraging the
near-monopoly MS-DOS at the time. Had the Apple Lisa or
AT&T 7300 took off, who knows? Or perhaps had AT&T and
BSD been less stingy with their cost structure for Unix
systems, or given out their source earlier.
As it is, Microsoft gets a lot of the credit here
for making the PC cheaper -- at first. Now, they are
apparently corrupted by their own success, and shareholders
will take their heads off because they're merely growing
by about 25-30% a year, despite already being a software
monopoly.
There has been some strife between Windows and Intel
lately, for example. Low-level but irritating, presumably,
to Microsoft.
> These three things put
> MS in the lead. A lead that LUBO can't keep pace with.
It's not LUBO. It's marketing. Linux is an excellent
OS that is almost invisible (whisper quiet whisper
whisper shhh whisper sneak stealth tiptoe whisper
gosh look at the neat stuff here SHHHH!!!! whisper).
Microsoft is flashy (BANG, it crashed again), noisy
(oh, hello, BSOD, is that obvious or what? BANG!!),
crappy (DAMN THIS &@*#$@&*!@!!! machine! [KABOOM]),
frequently upgraded (shitty shitty BANG BANG noise),
frequently patched (noise), frequently reported on (oh
the noise noise noise noise!), frequently complained about
(AAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGHH!!!!!!).
Free press for Windows, everywhere. There's even t-shirts
(http://www.errorwear.com). More free advertising for
Windows. Ask about the Linux blue screen of death and
one might get a very puzzled look -- or a screensaver
mimicking popular machine crashes, which shows a sense
of humor but tends to confuse the naive.
Linux quietly serves. Apart from the occasional "puff
piece" and the Mozilla bug, where would one hear about
Linux patches?
Hello? Anybody there?
*crickets*
See the problem? Linux has to be *sold*. (Not necessarily
in the monetary sense, either. Word of mouth is
excellent but unreliable advertising, hence such tricks
as astroturfing.)
Xgl looks to be a sales campaign with, among other things
"wobble windows". While nice looking this doesn't get
the job done -- the job usually being a spreadsheet,
word processor, or simulation. Might be good for demos.
Excel and Word work reasonably well -- even if Gnumeric or
oocalc2 and koffice/oowriter2 work better. (IMO, they do.)
> While the "small inroads" made by LUBO into the desktop arena
> are significant to their user base, they can't compare to the
> "leaps and bounds" made by MS.
Not sure what "leaps and bounds" are here. Vista's "leaps
and bounds" have generally leapt forward and bounded away;
Vista, as released in 2007, will be but a shell of what
was originally promised, because of scheduling concerns.
It'll generate a little noise. Expect Fiji to be far
more exciting now. But never mind that, buy Vista anyway.
You know you want to. :-)
>
> The collective open-source antagonism toward anything MS
> reflects their resentment at being forced to wear their
> "coat of many colors" operating system and their embarrassment
> that the OS world doesn't find it fashionable.
>
s/OS world/computer user base/
Quick question: what is an OS? Uh....exactly.
*BUSINESS DOESN'T CARE*.
Neither should they. An OS is a means to an end -- in this
case, the running of applications that generate revenue
on the user's machine, assuming they need the machine
(or for that matter, the user).
Windows is an excellent means if one can put up with
its many and tiring idiosyncracies, and can afford the
licensing costs.
Linux might be a better solution, but for all the history.
It's enough to make a purist cry.