Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] [Rival] ComputerWorld Highlights Microsoft's Vista Bluff and Information Manipulation

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron Quark
<hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx>
 wrote
on Thu, 31 May 2007 17:52:43 +0200
<877iqp3s8k.fsf@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, [H]omer belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> It's also interesting to note, that despite admitting that formulating
>>> meaningful statistics about Vista sales is hindered by Microsoft's veil
>>> of secrecy, Lai is quite happy to swallow the IDC's magical "2%" figure
>>> for Linux deployment. Like the IDC, he appears oblivious to the fact
>>> that aggregating metrics about something that is Free is virtually
>>> impossible; and the IDC, and all those who naively believe them, are
>>> just wildly guessing. The general consensus of information on the
>>> Internet does not even remotely tally with this fictitious 2% figure.
>>
>> I have to confess that, anecdotally, this 2% figure is probably right,
>> if it counts the purchase of Linux computers by people who are
>> consumers.
>>
>> However, if I aggregate all the tech-oriented people I know and count
>> any kind of Linux installation, I'd say the number is a bit higher than
>> 2%.  Maybe 5% to 10%.
>
> The tech people *you* know.
>
> There are many Windows developers, probably like Peter Koehlmann, who
> dont know *anyone* using Linux as their corporate desktop. There are
> certainly very few commercial desktop apps being developed for Linux.

Exactly.  The standard user/developer will go with the
"standard" platform, and that "standard" platform for
most pays little heed to what W3C, ISO, and ANSI say
(they should; hopefully enough will complain about IE's
oddball behaviors to at least make a certain vendor sit
up and take notice); it's what the people know and, to
some extent, tolerate (I can't say love).

It's proprietary, it's clumsy, it's not all that pretty,
it's laden with malware in many installations, it only
works on one family of CPUs (which deserves its own
analysis, and I'm not as up on Intel's machinations,
though their recent OLPC actions are, to say the least,
interesting) and pretty bad even when "clean" ... and it's
downright ubiquitous, supports a *lot* of functionality
underneath (some of it even works on occasion in the
user's favor), is supported by Microsoft's Customer Support
which at least gives the customer someone to yell at (for
a fee), and is sufficiently easy to use that most people
tolerate its many quirks, or go out and buy third-party
"fix-itware" such as malware disinfectors, registry
cleaners, and disk optimizers.  (They won't want Linux;
it destroys their raison d'etre.)

Guess where the developer money goes?  It follows
Microsoft, as it more or less should, absent other
developments (e.g., Microsoft alienating their developer
base).  I'm not sure where the tolerance-failover point is;
it's not been reached yet, and it may differ for different
people; many technocenti (for lack of a better word)
will embrace Linux but few others will until it gets a
certain amount of media exposure.  Maybe if the Superbowl
commercials were saturated with Tux commercials...but I'm
not sure even that is enough.  Word-of-mouth isn't bad but
it only works so far.

Besides, it's the applications, not the OS.  One doesn't
buy a house for its foundation; one buys a house because
of its living space, its ability to support a family,
with things such as ovens, dishwashers, garbage disposals,
and garages being highly visible "house applications";
of lower visibility might be a bigger water heater,
central air conditioning, efficient home heating, built-in
recessed lighting in certain nooks.  Completely invisible
are the aluminum wires (fortunately, no one uses them
anymore), the asbestos (ditto), or the chemically treated,
termite-resistant wood.

I suspect many people don't look at electrical plugs
(though some might, for older houses; the newer houses
might include network jacks, for all I know).

In a similar vein, who gives a crap as to whether an
OS is standard or not?  The main issue is whether an OS
gives a foundation for one's applications.  Linux distros
do very well in that area, but Linux qua Linux does
absolutely nothing -- it can't even boot without help from
a bootloader (I prefer GRUB but many use LILO), /sbin/init
and /bin/sh or /bin/bash.

Also, since Windows has more installation-points, it has
more applications.  Since Windows has more applications,
it tends to get more installation-points.

A vicious cycle.

Granted, a standards-conformant OS such as Linux or FreeBSD
has a better chance of being ported to, and most of the
distros have free applications such as Gimp, Office,
Firefox, and Eclipse, which are at least as good if not
better than what they're replacing.  (The last is primarily
for hardcore developer types, but it's very flexible.)
But all of these run on Windows as well, making Linux a
less-than-compelling case to switch to -- unless one has
been bitten one too many times by Windows hangs, stop
screens, strange pathnames, and other such oddities.

Such is Life Under The Monopoly(tm).  One wonders how to
fix it (and how long it will take).  I'd say it does need
fixing, but I'm not sure everyone will agree.

>
>>
>> Linux usage is /not/ at significant levels amongst the consumers I know,
>> but it it very signficant in my technical acquaintances.
>


-- 
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/dev/signature: No such file or directory

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index