Article: Linux is a bust with end users.

[Eug]

No surprise here:

End users don't like Linux.

Yep, it's Steve Jobs that has brought *nix to the masses, not Linus Torvalds.

 

[RangerBFK]

heresy!!

 

[UnixFreak]

Yeah, next year people are going to be saying "linux, what's that?" They will have forgotten all about it, and went back to the big boys.

Yeah right. These guys are sucking up to M$. Their little "stats" contradict thousands of others. They are trying to downplay the current situation, to suck up to M$. Its already been established that M$ considers linux a full-fledged "threat". If these stats were correct, then M$ wouldnt give it a second look. They are trying to make Linux look like BeOS. Now I know what site not to go to, for accurate information.

This is sheep tactics at its finest. The public is so willing to follow each other. The article doesnt compare the Operating systems, at all just states what others are doing (falsely, IMO) and basically is saying "Dont put That linux on your Number machine, nobody else is! Step back in line!" how lame.

 

[Eug]

<< Yeah, next year people are going to be saying "linux, what's that?" They will have forgotten all about it, and went back to the big boys.

Yeah right. These guys are sucking up to M$. Their little "stats" contradict thousands of others. They are trying to downplay the current situation, to suck up to M$. Its already been established that M$ considers linux a full-fledged "threat". If these stats were correct, then M$ wouldnt give it a second look. They are trying to make Linux look like BeOS. Now I know what site not to go to, for accurate information. >>

I don't think their stats are that surprising, since they're talking mainly about casual web surfers.

As for BeOS, I wasn't too enamoured with it, but at least this un-techified end user found BeOS a lot easier to install and use than RedHat Linux (last year).

I just think this little article is reinforcing what most of us already knew, which is that Linux is nowhere near ready for the end-user desktop market, even though it's an excellent solution for some users and corporations.

As a *nix variant, I personally think Apple's Darwin/OS X is much more accessible today for the average non-sysadmin user than any version of Linux will be in 2004.

 

[BlackOmen]

"WebSideStory, Inc. ( www.websidestory.com), the world's leading provider of outsourced e-business intelligence services"

This starts off the previously linked article. Right after reading that you have question the credibility of the article.

 

[Nothinman]

I find it amusing how people keep posting these stories like they mean anything. There's very few people who actually care about Linux as a desktop OS, most of the people doing the real work, especially Linus, could care less if Joe Blow likes mozilla.

As a *nix variant, I personally think Apple's Darwin/OS X is much more accessible today for the average non-sysadmin user than any version of Linux will be in 2004.

OS X is really cool and I give Apple a lot of credit for doing as well a job packaging up FreeBSD as they did, but they're still not making a dent in any market they didn't already own. And by the year 2004 there will be many more iPaq type devices, only better, that it really doesn't matter what OS it has because the device functionality and apps are what makes it popular. And the embeded space is somewhere MS can't get ahead in, which is good.

The whole OS debate is dumb, really the OS should be free and have source provided for those who care to tinker. The real money should be made in applications that run on the OS.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< Yeah, next year people are going to be saying "linux, what's that?" They will have forgotten all about it, and went back to the big boys.Yeah right. These guys are sucking up to M$. Their little "stats" contradict thousands of others. They are trying to downplay the current situation, to suck up to M$. Its already been established that M$ considers linux a full-fledged "threat". If these stats were correct, then M$ wouldnt give it a second look. They are trying to make Linux look like BeOS. Now I know what site not to go to, for accurate information. >>

I don't think their stats are that surprising, since they're talking mainly about casual web surfers. >>



Ok, and linux needs to go after these people? No, they shouldnt have computers. They need an appliance.



<< As for BeOS, I wasn't too enamoured with it, but at least this un-techified end user found BeOS a lot easier to install and use than RedHat Linux (last year). >>



BeOS was a WONDERFUL operating system. It was way ahead of its time. I dont think XP could even boot as fast as BeOS

As far as not being able to install an operating system... Well Good luck with a non-computer career.



<< I just think this little article is reinforcing what most of us already knew, which is that Linux is nowhere near ready for the end-user desktop market, even though it's an excellent solution for some users and corporations.As a *nix variant, I personally think Apple's Darwin/OS X is much more accessible today for the average non-sysadmin user than any version of Linux will be in 2004. >>



OS X rocks. Its one of the few main stream OSes that would fit my needs for a desktop. Sorry Microsoft, you still have not provided necessary tools for someone that needs networking tools.



<< And the embeded space is somewhere MS can't get ahead in, which is good. >>



Embedded XP (2000?) has some neat features, but nothing that makes it worth using over more mature offerings. I heard some (non-microsoft) developers talking about it and the impression of Microsoft's embedded OS that I got from them was "hahahahahaha".

 

[Saltin]

Oh geeze. Here we go.........................

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

<< Oh geeze. Here we go......................... >>

 

[UnixFreak]

<<<FLAME WAR!! WOO HOO!>>

heh heh.. I agree with you, n0cmonkey, BeOS is great. Too bad things turned out the way they did. This could have matured and beat the hell out of XP, IMO. I was really impressed with it.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< <<<FLAME WAR!! WOO HOO!>>heh heh.. I agree with you, n0cmonkey, BeOS is great. Too bad things turned out the way they did. This could have matured and beat the hell out of XP, IMO. I was really impressed with it. >>



I think Apple should have scooped it up when they had the chance.

 

[Eug]

<< I think Apple should have scooped it up when they had the chance. >>

Well, here's an article from a BeOS guru who has "defected" to OS X: Musings from Scot Hacker. Apparently there are some significant mistakes in his article, but nonetheless it's a good read. I wonder how much it would have cost to get BeOS, but in retrospect I think Apple made the right decision. (Not that I really know a lot about these sorts of things. ) I'm not saying BeOS sucks or anything - I don't want to start a BeOS flame war. Part of the reason I didn't get won over by BeOS was simply because I couldn't do much with it. Not really BeOS's fault per se, since it was 3rd party software that was needed, but nonetheless it was a non-starter for me, again as an end-user.


<< Oh geeze. Here we go......................... >>

I'm not meaning to start a Linux vs. everything else flame war either. However I do think that Linux does have some serious issues that need to be addressed, which includes the huge factor of usability for the average person. Plus I always get the impression that Linux development kind of wanders around, with really only a good focus in the stuff that the techies need, like for web servers, etc. etc.


<< As far as not being able to install an operating system... Well Good luck with a non-computer career. >>

Yep, I have a non-computer career, which is precisely my point. However, while I am a amateur, I'm not a complete computer moron (although often on a board like AT I feel like I am). I consider myself a well-informed amateur. Nonetheless I found Linux very difficult to configure correctly even with help from Unix guru friends over the phone. Whereas configuring Linux may not be a big deal for a Unix-trained network administrator, it's not network administrators that buy end-user PCs in a big way. Corel made large advances in terms of ergonomics of the OS, but still it pales in comparison to OS X, BeOS, or even Windows for simplicity of installation and use.


<< OS X is really cool and I give Apple a lot of credit for doing as well a job packaging up FreeBSD as they did, but they're still not making a dent in any market they didn't already own. >>

Well, interestingly, after being pure Windows since the early 90s (starting with 3.0) I finally bought my first Mac, partially because of OS X.1 and partially because of the hardware. And it seems that on the Mac boards, more sysadmin types are showing up than before. But you're right to an extent - the majority of OS X users were already Macheads. It's interesting though to see web designers, etc. learning Unix commands and talking about the latest permutation of GIMP, etc.


<< Ok, and linux needs to go after these people? No, they shouldnt have computers. They need an appliance. >>

Well, I disagree, unless somebody very soon can create a web appliance that also has full MS Word functionality and other basic commercial consumer software. I don't see that within the next five years, so in the meantime there are a lot of computers to be sold, mostly without Linux on them.

In any case, I would love to see Linux succeed in a wider market, but it definitely needs more direction, and needs more attention paid to ergonomics IMHO.

 

[Nothinman]

Plus I always get the impression that Linux development kind of wanders around, with really only a good focus in the stuff that the techies need, like for web servers, etc. etc.

That's because those are the people that use it and develop for it, sorry if we all don't have fun making pretty icons.

However, while I am a amateur, I'm not a complete computer moron (although often on a board like AT I feel like I am). I consider myself a well-informed amateur. Nonetheless I found Linux very difficult to configure correctly even with help from Unix guru friends over the phone.

When you first started using Windows did you get a PC and an install disk and have to install and configure it all? No, it all came preconfigured and installed. Get a Linux box pre-setup and see how it runs.

it's not network administrators that buy end-user PCs in a big way.

And it's not end users that make the big money, hell most of them are script kiddie pirates that cost corporations money. Other big companies make MS, Dell, etc money because they're better about actually paying for software.

Corel made large advances in terms of ergonomics of the OS, but still it pales in comparison to OS X, BeOS, or even Windows for simplicity of installation and use.

Corel took Debian, wrote an installer and a file manager. That's it. And they did it poorly because they pissed off a lot of Debian developers with their antics, it's not a good idea to piss off the people writing 99% of your product.

In any case, I would love to see Linux succeed in a wider market, but it definitely needs more direction, and needs more attention paid to ergonomics IMHO.

Then lend a hand, you don't have to be a developer to beta test and provide feed back.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< I think Apple should have scooped it up when they had the chance. >>

Well, here's an article from a BeOS guru who has "defected" to OS X: Musings from Scot Hacker. Apparently there are some significant mistakes in his article, but nonetheless it's a good read. I wonder how much it would have cost to get BeOS, but in retrospect I think Apple made the right decision. (Not that I really know a lot about these sorts of things. ) I'm not saying BeOS sucks or anything - I don't want to start a BeOS flame war. Part of the reason I didn't get won over by BeOS was simply because I couldn't do much with it. Not really BeOS's fault per se, since it was 3rd party software that was needed, but nonetheless it was a non-starter for me, again as an end-user. >>



And I dont think BeOS is the end all and be all. I think it has some great ideas that I would love to see encorporated in other OSes. Just because you buy the OS doesnt mean it has to stay packaged as that OS. Spread the love



<<

<< Oh geeze. Here we go......................... >>

I'm not meaning to start a Linux vs. everything else flame war either. However I do think that Linux does have some serious issues that need to be addressed, which includes the huge factor of usability for the average person. Plus I always get the impression that Linux development kind of wanders around, with really only a good focus in the stuff that the techies need, like for web servers, etc. etc. >>



And in my opinion, this is where it needs to devote its time. Screw the end user. Lets get running on big iron. Lets get the net back to the unix crowd. Lets Show Microsoft that linux is a viable alternative to a rebadged desktop OS. Winning the desktop is a losing battle.



<<

<< As far as not being able to install an operating system... Well Good luck with a non-computer career. >>

Yep, I have a non-computer career, which is precisely my point. However, while I am a amateur, I'm not a complete computer moron (although often on a board like AT I feel like I am). I consider myself a well-informed amateur. Nonetheless I found Linux very difficult to configure correctly even with help from Unix guru friends over the phone. Whereas configuring Linux may not be a big deal for a Unix-trained network administrator, it's not network administrators that buy end-user PCs in a big way. Corel made large advances in terms of ergonomics of the OS, but still it pales in comparison to OS X, BeOS, or even Windows for simplicity of installation and use. >>



My first installation of OpenBSD was *WONDERFUL*. It took around 60 minutes because of a slow cdrom (8x?). It installs in about 20min on my newer machines. There are no graphics, no stupid questions, and less bloat than most other OSes. It asks questions (simple ones at that), I answer them, I have a fully configured operating system ready to dive into. And this was when I was even more of a UNIX newbie than I am now.



<<

<< OS X is really cool and I give Apple a lot of credit for doing as well a job packaging up FreeBSD as they did, but they're still not making a dent in any market they didn't already own. >>

Well, interestingly, after being pure Windows since the early 90s (starting with 3.0) I finally bought my first Mac, partially because of OS X.1 and partially because of the hardware. And it seems that on the Mac boards, more sysadmin types are showing up than before. But you're right to an extent - the majority of OS X users were already Macheads. It's interesting though to see web designers, etc. learning Unix commands and talking about the latest permutation of GIMP, etc. >>



OS X got me to buy an iBook. Im happy with it.



<<

<< Ok, and linux needs to go after these people? No, they shouldnt have computers. They need an appliance. >>

Well, I disagree, unless somebody very soon can create a web appliance that also has full MS Word functionality and other basic commercial consumer software. I don't see that within the next five years, so in the meantime there are a lot of computers to be sold, mostly without Linux on them. >>



Appliances already failed. If you want something to browse the web and use horrible (in my opinion of course) office applications a p133 would be great. Or we could throw embedded Windows in a small machine and boom, you have everything you need. It wouldnt be hard to make these appliances, just no one does it.



<< In any case, I would love to see Linux succeed in a wider market, but it definitely needs more direction, and needs more attention paid to ergonomics IMHO. >>



It has direction. Several directions in fact. You tame its development and you are basically snipping off the nuts. The freedom of being able to do whatever you feel like to enhance your linux computing experience is one of the good things. There is no reason to try and tame that, or change it, or mold it into something its not. Let it go. Worry about which OS has the bigger penis later. Right now, use what you want, dont worry about starting flame wars like this, chill, smoke what you smoke, drink what you drink, and just let it go.

 

[Chaotic42]

Of course end users don't like Linux.

Everyone is using GNU and Plan9. Where have you been?

 

[Chatterjee]

i just love linux/gnome/nautilus... it's so awesome

-S

 

[Eug]

<< And it's not end users that make the big money, hell most of them are script kiddie pirates that cost corporations money. Other big companies make MS, Dell, etc money because they're better about actually paying for software. >>

The end user is not only the home market, but also the individual users in large corporations.


<< And in my opinion, this is where it needs to devote its time. Screw the end user. Lets get running on big iron. Lets get the net back to the unix crowd. Lets Show Microsoft that linux is a viable alternative to a rebadged desktop OS. Winning the desktop is a losing battle. >>

This is the attitude that hinders the development of Linux IMO. Screw the end user, because they're sheep and they don't matter.... It's too late to "get the net back to the unix crowd", especially since the net is now ubiquitous and when "real" Unix OS variants now exist that even an end user can love. Either one redefines what "unix crowd" means or else one accepts that it no longer belongs only to it. By the way, I've accessed the net since the late 1980s and I've never used a Unix box until now.


<< When you first started using Windows did you get a PC and an install disk and have to install and configure it all? >>

Yes. I started with DOS and upgraded to Windows 3.0 later. Etc, etc. I played with config.sys and autoexec.bat, tweaked memory settings, etc. In fact, I actually started with AppleDOS on an Apple clone. The first time I've ever had a pre-config'd machine (besides my Windows boxes at work) is with my iBook and my Windows 2000 laptop.

 

[Nothinman]

The end user is not only the home market, but also the individual users in large corporations.

Yes but those end users use what the IS department gives them, if they give them all dummy X terminals running Linux with all their apps running of a farm of servers they have no choice. And any necessary training would be handled by the company, the "end users" won't be left to thumb through HOWTO docs all day. Corporate end users are very different from home end users.

This is the attitude that hinders the development of Linux IMO.

It may hinder MS Project type application development, but Linux development continues at it's normal speeds.

It's too late to "get the net back to the unix crowd", especially since the net is now ubiquitous

It's also synonymous with "dot-bomb" to a lot of people, sure a lot of people have AOL but those are the easy ones to force convert.

Yes. I started with DOS and upgraded to Windows 3.0 later. Etc, etc. I played with config.sys and autoexec.bat, tweaked memory settings, etc. In fact, I actually started with AppleDOS on an Apple clone. The first time I've ever had a pre-config'd machine (besides my Windows boxes at work) is with my iBook and my Windows 2000 laptop.

Then you remember how confusing it was to stare at a "C:\>" prompt and have no idea what to do next. Most people now a days have never seen DOS besides when their geek friend/cousin/etc comes over to fix what they broke this week, sadly they are the majority and should never be alowed to install any OS even a Windows based one.

 

[neuralfx]

well though i havent read this thread thoroughly, i did check out the article .. lets take a look at what we are talking about "Websidestory.com" .. ya i've heard of them, very reputable </uneeded sarcasm>
qoute
"Despite Media Hype and Corporate Support for Linux Operating Systems, Web Usage Share Remains Less Than One Percent Worldwide" .. heh i love how scientific they like to make these stats sound .. was anyone here inquired by this little stat company .. its worthless statistics, which. no one will argue that ms has a broader user share .. hm, but take linux for example, ok everyone likes to say "oh linux doesnt have this, or doesnt have this, or the Big Boy Unices, have what linux doesnt" .. ok, then wait 2 weeks, and then you see ur list of "doesnt have's" for linux decreasing ..
its funny, people really like to say this and that about it, but look at it like this, how long has linux been a *Serious OS project* .. not that long, its still in its early stages, and people go off on their little opinions about linux .. i think its progressing the way it should be .. eh but anyway, no use in debating over an article from a non-tech ecommerce/bs/buzzword site anyway .. heh well just my thoughts ..
-neural

[edit] oh ya, just wanted to say, I completely agree with you n0c on the l.users and the appliance thing, it just makes more sense .. [/edit]

 

[Halogen]

where is the credibility in this site? i mean really??

linux is the FASTEST GROWING OPERATING SYSTEM IN THE WORLD
it's a fact and there is no way you can dispute that, it has been said on so many websites i have lost count

there is a big misconception about Linux being this big bad hard to use operating system (well it really is sometimes) but for the big part it's not this old school DOS like thing that is used to be, it has evolved into having a nice flashy cover to it and it's name is KDE (there is Gnome too but KDE is better IMO)

seriously if all games that were out for Windows were also made for Linux and made wide spread i would install Linux in a picosecond without giving another thought into, i found Linux to be fast, VERY easy to setup and it NEVER EVER crashes or freezes

if you just follow the instructions on how to install things or how to run things you wont have any problems with it! (im just a bit confused on how to set the partitions, which is supposed to be bigger / or /usr??)

if we could get the average stupid person to realize the joy of Linux i think we would be onto something here

 

[NorthenLove]

<< No surprise here:

End users don't like Linux.

Yep, it's Steve Jobs that has brought *nix to the masses, not Linus Torvalds. >>



This article would mean something if Linus actually cared about making money on his Linux kernel that he created but since he doesn't really care at all what others think and he codes for Linux because "It's fun" this article totally misses the point. Linux has gotten this far on basically nothing. Compared to the billions and billions of dollars wasted on Windows and other OS's and if you compare it to it's beginning Linux has become a resounding success. People fail to understand the Linux OS, philosophy, design, and community. Linux is not in competition with anyone but for some reason people are in competition with it. How can you defeat a technology when it is developed by people who love to use it and code for because "It's fun"? Here's the short answer- You can't ! Linux will be around long after M$ and other OS's are turned to dust because it does not depend on cash flow but on the love of the people who code for it and develop applications for it. This is the same reason why people use Linux as well. People who use Linux don't use it because it has the biggest marketing hype behind it. People use it because they love what it can do for them and the design and thinking proccess that went into developing it.

 

[Halogen]

I love Linux so much, i really recommend Linux Mandrake 8.0 made my Mandrakesoft

Linus and his buddies made Linux because he could not afford to buy Unix himself, the entire point of Linux was to make an open source OS free for all to see and try to improve and tamper with.

It's sort of comparable to things that university students do, make programs and stuff like that for marks or as final projects. One version of Linux can't remember which) was actually made by a bunch of highschool students who just wanted to make a distribution of Linux.

If MS went open source with Windows you could basically see all the bugs taken out, the efficiency sky rocket and the bloatware shrink down within a year but it would put MS out of bussiness and only a retard would give up the multi billion dollar income MS has.

if i knew how to make a good dual boot FOR SURE WITH NO PROBLEMS AT ALL i would do it in a second but i'm new to it and i don't know how so i won't bother trying just yet, i will buy a cheap computer and put Linux on it sometime.

 

[neuralfx]

well i completely agree (well partly agree) with that, ya it started out that way .. but to go so far as to say Linus doesnt care about making money with linux .. sure he does, hell he is doing it right now at transmeta .. Linux, from a business stand-point, just has a different business model from closed-source systems .. but ya it started out that way, and thats the spirit that drives all ( well 90% ) of the projects in Linux and other open-source systems .. ah but there is money to be made .. like i said before its a bogus article by some bs "outsourced ecommerce mission critical provider" and all that other buzzword nonense, website .. heh just my thoughts ..
-neural

 

[NorthenLove]

<< well i completely agree (well partly agree) with that, ya it started out that way .. but to go so far as to say Linus doesnt care about making money with linux .. sure he does, hell he is doing it right now at transmeta .. Linux, from a business stand-point, just has a different business model from closed-source systems .. but ya it started out that way, and thats the spirit that drives all ( well 90% ) of the projects in Linux and other open-source systems .. ah but there is money to be made .. like i said before its a bogus article by some bs "outsourced ecommerce mission critical provider" and all that other buzzword nonense, website .. heh just my thoughts ..
-neural >>




No he may be working with Transmeta as the result of the work done on Linux and all his coding but that is the besides the point I was trying to make. If he really wanted to make money off Linux he wouldn't of open sourced it to begin with ( after all he does own the rights to the Linux OS/kernel ) and if he wanted to he would of demanded royalties from each every company or programmer out there using /developing for the linux OS and kernel but the fact remains that he has no desire to do so.

 

[neuralfx]

eh none of that was my point either heh .. thats why i mentioned the different business model part .. transmeta makes money with linux also .. as do many embedded device companies ..
-neural