can linux realistically compete with M$???

[hungrygoose]

ok, before any flames start, let me just say that i am a new linux user....i'm using mandrake 8.2 right now and i like it....i like the interface, i like the stability, and i really like the server features.....so, now my point....

with the interface like it is, with most everything ran from a bash prompt using clunky commands in a dos like manner, will the average user ever really consider this to be a viable solution vs. windows?....i understand all of the advantages, but you have to admit that it is pretty difficult to learn.....is it worth it for most users?....i agree that
M$ has done many things to make people want (and possibly need) to switch to another alternative, but will linux ever really move into the home consumer market?....servers ---> it rules....but home use?....i don't know

 

[tigerwannabe]

my personal opinion is that folks who were DOS diehards would go for linux. from what i understand, linux holds its own against MS in the server space. as for desktop, it's still possible. linux is having the same sort of growing pains that MS suffered when windows started out a few years ago. now if linux evolved into a full-fledged GUI sorta thing, that would give MS a run for its money. just my 2 cents worth

 

[Nothinman]

The only people pitting Linux against Windows are the people not using Linux. Most of us, i.e. those already Linux users, don't care about marketshare vs Microsoft we only care that we have a free OS that works great for us.

If you think using the CLI is clunky then Linux probably isn't for you. Using the CLI is more efficient and usually easier in the long run than big fat GUI programs and it's well worth learning. If you just want to browse the web and read email get someone competent to setup the box and maintain it for you.

now if linux evolved into a full-fledged GUI sorta thing,

If that happened that majority of Linux's userbase would leave and it would die. One of the greatest things about Linux is it's flexibility and the fact that it's not tied to a single GUI with a single way to do things.

I have no issues with Mandrake or RedHat designing GUI programs to manage the system, but they'll never be ubiquitous because things change so rapidly in Linux it's hard for them to keep up and things vary from distribution to distribution so no single tool can be used on all of them.

The problem is that Windows makes it's users think they can manage the system easily when all that really happens is the system gets setup poorly and slowly degrades to the point they reinstall. Linux forces you to learn which makes it a pain at first, but in the end you have a well working system that you actually know how to use. I havn't reloaded my Debian install on my main box in probably more than 3 years and I don't plan on it any time soon.

 

[thornc]

Well, and who want's to compete with MS??

I like MS, I like Linux, I like Unix, I like Novell(not much these days but well), I liked BeOS, and I'm still
waiting for a change to get to know MacOS well... each one is good in it's own ways....

And if you need a good GUI take a look at Ximian... it's almost perfect! I still have to really test Kde 3.x
but it's very good also...

One thing I notice is that the people who don't like linux or don't want to bother learning it are: hardcore
gamers, MSCEs, and Joe Sixpacks.... everyone else I see given the time and effort will learn and use it!

I see it here at the lab were we have a linux file server, alpha unix calculation servers, linux clients and
a single windows machine to run those things that some people insist on sending us! Everyone uses
the desktop linux clients and doesn't have any problems... once in a only we receive some visiting personnal
and those usually are up and running in less than 2 weeks and most of them have windows only backgrounds...

 

[Tiger]

my personal opinion is that folks who were DOS diehards would go for linux. from what i understand, linux holds its own against MS in the server space.

Even in windows if you want to get something done quickly you use the CLI. Some of the best diagnostic tools avaiable run only on the CLI. Will Linux compete with windows for the hearts and minds of the appliance operators out there? It's getting close. The days of a would be Linux user having to spend hours getting the system installed and having to fight with hincky or non-existing device drivers are all but gone. I can do a Mandrake 8.2 install and have all my hardware detected and configured in 20 minutes. Way less time than W2K Pro.

Getting it installed is one thing, maintaining it is another. Thankfully in Linux if an app crashes it doesn't take the whole shooting match down with it. What percentage of windows tech support calls are caused by a renegade dll, exception error, or BSOD?

Linux in and of itself is more than capable of supplying the regular Joe with a robust, secure, and configurable computing experience. The only thing "Linux" needs to do is a better job of marketing. I watched Tech TV's sceensavers last night and they did a preview of Lindows OS. Being a traditional Linux guy I wouldn't install it because I think it's Windows running on a Linuc kernel but it may "Linux" enough to get the great unwashed hourde a start.

My .02

 

[hungrygoose]

hey everybody, keep in mind that i am a current linux mandrake user and have also used some red hat as well as all flavors of windows.....i wasn't saying that linux is not a good OS....in fact, if u read my original post again, you'll see that i praise linux in many ways.........my point was that with the current user base that PC's have, can you really blame joe consumer for saying "it's not worth learning"???....i've noticed that most linux enthusiasts get very defensive when anybody compares linux to windows, that's why i stated please no flames at the first ot my original topic post

 

[jema]

Being a hardcore gamer I see the problem as being a bit more basic than unwillingness to learn, there are no games for linux. Atleast non that I want to play (I dont do FPS) and the few that Loki did cost more than the windows versions.

Just as consoles are as good as their games an OS is as good as its drivers and apps so unless the HW & SW makers wants linux to compete I dont see it happening. One way of motivating them though is to ask, ask and ask again.

The linux folk who go "ours dont touch" and think that linux isnt for the masses and even go as far as wanting to keep it from the general public can have their own little corner where they can sit and shout as they get sidelined when things pick up. Something I think could go very fast if m$ upsetts the OEMs or some majors CUs enough to have them go Linux. Just imagine if IBM, HP & Dell decided that they want to sell PCs with Linux on them to home users and put some effort into having a GUI and apps developed. Or if a major corp decides that they want cheaper more effecient client sw. Aha, when I think of the possabilities...

All IMO and with reservation for spelling.

 

[Nothinman]

my point was that with the current user base that PC's have, can you really blame joe consumer for saying "it's not worth learning"

And for most of them it's not worth learning, hell it's not worth learning Windows either. That's why I said if you just want email and web browsing to get someone competent to set it up and maintain it for you, it'll be a lot less hassle. Most people don't buy a car expecting to maintain and fix it themselves, but they do with a computer, why? The computer is just as or more complicated and a lot touchier.

Just as consoles are as good as their games an OS is as good as its drivers and apps so unless the HW & SW makers wants linux to compete I dont see it happening.

All decent hardware works fine, if not better in Linux than in Windows. If you buy Joe's brand Printer you deserve what you get. Software wise most popular Windows applications have Linux apps that do the same thing, the only real notable exceptions are MS Money (there is an app that does this, but I've heard it's still got some rough edges) and games. There's a lack of 'professional' ports of brand name software, but in reality I usually find the open source versions better.

 

[MGMorden]

All decent hardware works fine, if not better in Linux than in Windows. If you buy Joe's brand Printer you deserve what you get.

This is one of the things in the Linux community that I think is severely damaging the effort to bring Linux (and open source) to the masses. Not a personal attack on you, but it seems that many Linux junkies (I'm in that group but don't do this ) say that all decent (or good, or well-built, or other term they choose to use) works in Linux, but they define decent hardware as hardware that works under Linux. It's circular logic. Kind of makes the comparision pointless doesn't it? If a $10 Software modem, or a $50 printer, or a cheapo scanner, or <insert other cheap but perfectly functional hardware here> works flawlessly on Windows but poorly or not at all on Linux then we're not talking about bad hardware here. If it works fine in Windows then it works fine physically and can't be faulted for anything but not having Linux drivers/software.

Things are getting better and better now though with quite a few manufacturer's providing their own Linux drivers or at least mentioning them on their websites.

 

[foocoding]

Most of us, i.e. those already Linux users, don't care about marketshare vs Microsoft we only care that we have a free OS that works great for us.

Well said my man. This is what people don't understand. Of course red hat and mandrake want as much market share as possible, but the average unix user just wants a nice, fast, clean environment to experiment with programming and networks.

EDIT: Grrr how do you quote?

 

[Nothinman]

but it seems that many Linux junkies (I'm in that group but don't do this ) say that all decent (or good, or well-built, or other term they choose to use) works in Linux, but they define decent hardware as hardware that works under Linux

I know not all good hardware works under Linux, but the majority of it does. You'd be hardpressed to find a CDROM, SCSI card, Video card (Kyro is the only one that comes to mind), hardware modem, etc that don't work under Linux. It may take some work to get it running, but it'll run =)

If a $10 Software modem,

Key word being software. What you basically bought is a phone to PCI adapter, all the real work is in the software.

<insert other cheap but perfectly functional hardware here> works flawlessly on Windows but poorly or not at all on Linux then we're not talking about bad hardware here

We very well could be talking about bad hardware. VIA chipsets for example, they have bad DMA timing issues that easily corrupt data and it took a while to figure this out in Linux while VIA released the 4in1s for Windows to cover up the bad hardware.

EDIT: Grrr how do you quote?

Here it's just [ Q ]

 

[pac1085]

For the desktop market? Not yet, although in a few years I feel that it will be. A big problem I think is hardware companies not releasing specs on alot of their hardware so drivers are exteremly hard to write and the ones that people manage to get working dont perform nearly as good as they do in windows. Game companies like id have taken a step forward in releasing Linux versions of their games, and transgaming is doing very well with their WineX. Other problems are things such as macromedia not releasing flash 6 for linux, apple not releasing quicktime for linux ( these can be used with crossover, but thats different ). Once more companies take that step forward, I think things will progress much faster. Right now I think its good for 1) Beginners ( ie grandparents! only want basic stuff net, e-mail, word processing and card games ) and 2) advanced users. People in between wont like it because they like do to things on their own, poke around see how things work, etc. I love it for my grandma though. If she has a problem I just ssh in and figure it out. Much easier than windows bsods reinstalls etc.

For the server market? Definetly. There are tons of articles all over the net about governments, companies and more switching from MS to Linux. MS even admitted that its a threat.

Just my opinion though, so take it FWIW.

As far as the CLI is concerned, I love it. Once you learn about all the programs avaliable, a little shell programming, etc, it can be an exteremly powerful tool.

 

[jema]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
All decent hardware works fine, if not better in Linux than in Windows.

Thats a pretty loose defenition and not the case in my experience but thats a different issue. Until there are "works in linux" logos on HW boxes and in-house developed linux drivers on the CD inside them I dont see linux making it big in the home market.

There's a lack of 'professional' ports of brand name software, but in reality I usually find the open source versions better.

Thats what you do but what about the average computer user who does not know how to find these programs or have the knowledge to configure them? Branding is important, branding sells, logos are worth billions etc. If linux it is to take of into the public it needs support from companies the public knows, trust and can fall back on for support when things dont work.

Not saying that linux should change into something it isnt but it needs a more unified approach towars the public and a broader market acceptance to pass as a viable alternative. Plus a damn good PR department.

IMO

 

[MGMorden]

Key word being software. What you basically bought is a phone to PCI adapter, all the real work is in the software.

And the software is present. My Lucent Winmodem works absolutely fine under Linux and has very frequently updated drivers. If another software modem doesn't work you can't fault the device for being cheap (after all, even if all you have is a phone to pci adapter, it does work under Windows, and when it does that then not only is it very discouraging for them to hear that it's not going to work in Linux b/c it's cheap, but the fact that it is a software modem is saying that windows has software to do tasks that the open source world doesn't. Isn't that what we're trying to prevent?).

We very well could be talking about bad hardware. VIA chipsets for example, they have bad DMA timing issues that easily corrupt data and it took a while to figure this out in Linux while VIA released the 4in1s for Windows to cover up the bad hardware.

If it works fine with a good driver set such as 4in1's then I don't see it as a problem. And as a side note Via wrote a lot of their own code to put into the Linux kernel (IIRC it was merged in at either 2.4.9 or 2.4.13). I commend them for that effort and hope to see other companies doing the same.

 

[hungrygoose]

i don't understand why so many linux junkies get so defensive whenever this topic comes up.....keep in mind that when someone says that they don't think linux will compete at its present state, they are not saying that linux is a bad OS.........there's alot more to it than just being a good OS technically speaking.....think about it......to be competitive, u have to appeal to the mass market......u can't just say to hell with the newbies b/c newbies are who buy OEM computers......and for the most part, OEM computer sales are a large part of OS acceptance

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

first off i agree wholeheartedly with nothinman's first post and pretty much everything else he's said in this thread.

Originally posted by: MGMorden

Key word being software. What you basically bought is a phone to PCI adapter, all the real work is in the software.

And the software is present. My Lucent Winmodem works absolutely fine under Linux and has very frequently updated drivers. If another software modem doesn't work you can't fault the device for being cheap (after all, even if all you have is a phone to pci adapter, it does work under Windows, and when it does that then not only is it very discouraging for them to hear that it's not going to work in Linux b/c it's cheap, but the fact that it is a software modem is saying that windows has software to do tasks that the open source world doesn't. Isn't that what we're trying to prevent?).

you misunderstand the open source community. there IS no one to blame. if specs are available for a piece of hardware, its almost certain someone is going to write a driver for it. if not, then find someone willing, or do it yourself, or whatever. no one is in charge! if specs arent available, then sorry. go talk to the manufacturer. we would like it to work as much as you would, but open source developers can't just boss companies around.

Originally posted by: hungrygoose
i don't understand why so many linux junkies get so defensive whenever this topic comes up.....keep in mind that when someone says that they don't think linux will compete at its present state, they are not saying that linux is a bad OS.........there's alot more to it than just being a good OS technically speaking.....think about it......to be competitive, u have to appeal to the mass market......u can't just say to hell with the newbies b/c newbies are who buy OEM computers......and for the most part, OEM computer sales are a large part of OS acceptance.

but why do we care about OS acceptance? in general, the open source community wants acceptance and market share. we DO care about it. *BUT* (IMO) we care more about good code and good ethics BEFORE market share. sure if linux had 50% market share we would be happy. even obscure/proprietary hardware would get support, more developers might be attracted, etc, but it's not worth it if the original ideals have to be given up. might as well just quit being open source and become a commercial entity which screws consumers SO WE CAN GET MARKET SHARE! YEAH!! (no)

(this part is for the whiners)
just quit complaining. if linux doesnt float your boat, dont use it. if you think it needs improvement, get involved. whatever you do, dont sit on your ass and bitch when thousands of people spend their free time writing tons of amazing software and have to deal with people like YOU, DEMANDING they "improve" things so you can have a replacement for windows.

 

[MGMorden]

you misunderstand the open source community. there IS no one to blame. if specs are available for a piece of hardware, its almost certain someone is going to write a driver for it. if not, then find someone willing, or do it yourself, or whatever. no one is in charge! if specs arent available, then sorry. go talk to the manufacturer. we would like it to work as much as you would, but open source developers can't just boss companies around.

I wasn't laying blame on anyone. I was saying that you can't say hardware is subpar or faulty simply because there's no Linux drivers available. We don't have to write all the drivers ourselves though. The companies that made the hardware understand it best, and are best equipped to write a driver.

 

[jema]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
but why do we care about OS acceptance?

If the originating question will linux ever really move into the home consumer market?. is anything to go by it is quite important.

Just becasue m$ have their customers pulling down their pants and bending over doesnt mean that that is the business policy of every other company. With that reasoning I wonder on what side of the moral line SuSE and Redhat ends up?

 

[Nothinman]

If it works fine with a good driver set such as 4in1's then I don't see it as a problem.

The 4in1s aren't drivers, all they do is slow down the DMA transfers to cover up their sh!tty hardware.

We don't have to write all the drivers ourselves though. The companies that made the hardware understand it best, and are best equipped to write a driver.

Then you end up in a situation like we are with nVidia. Sure they write drivers, but they won't give up the source and while they work most of the time it's impossible to debug when you run into a problem. I'd personally rather have an open source driver with less functionality than a closed source one with full functionality.

Just becasue m$ have their customers pulling down their pants and bending over doesnt mean that that is the business policy of every other company. With that reasoning I wonder on what side of the moral line SuSE and Redhat ends up?

RedHat is trying very hard to stay in the good with the open source community, which is a very hard thing for a company to do, everything they do is GPL'd. SuSe is on the border-line IMO, they do a lot of kernel work but their software isn't GPL'd and they don't allow ISOs to be downloaded any more.

Anyway business desktops are a completely different area. It's completely feasible for some companies to use Linux desktops now.

 

[MGMorden]

Then you end up in a situation like we are with nVidia. Sure they write drivers, but they won't give up the source and while they work most of the time it's impossible to debug when you run into a problem. I'd personally rather have an open source driver with less functionality than a closed source one with full functionality.

I guess this is just an area where we differ. I find nVidia to be the model of how a company should run a Linux division. Sure they're drivers are closed source, but they are some of the best drivers out there for ANY hardware on Linux (compare to the open source ATi Drivers for Linux. sure they work but at half the performance of their Windows counterparts). They've provided their customers with a means to use their hardware to the fullest potential on the platform of their choice. That makes me happy. If they choose not to release the source then so be it (I love open source, but am also very supportive of closed source programs too. to try and say that a company should release only open source is inhibiting their freedom of action and speech). It's just like charity. I think it's wonderful to see the rich people (and generous not-rich people) give money to feed orphans or save the whales and what not, but do I think that all rich people should be forced to make donatations? No. It's their money (and their source) to do with as they please. I think the community as a whole would benefit from more companies using Nvidia as an example.

 

[Nothinman]

It's just like charity. I think it's wonderful to see the rich people (and generous not-rich people) give money to feed orphans or save the whales and what not, but do I think that all rich people should be forced to make donatations? No. It's their money (and their source) to do with as they please. I think the community as a whole would benefit from more companies using Nvidia as an example.

That's a really bad comparison. Open Sourcing your drivers is not even close to giving to charity. Would you buy a Ford car with a sealed black box that only Ford can open and work on it, any time you had a problem you wouldn't know what the real cause is and you'd have to take the car back to Ford and pay whatever price they feel adequate. Ford doesn't lose any money using standard engine parts that people can work on or replace, we just need to get to a point where video cards are commodity and aren't so mystical about how they work. I know nVidia isn't currently charging for driver releases/fixes, but it's not unthinkable. I've heard enough times why nVidia can't release GPL drivers.

Because nVidia ships binary only drivers it's impossible to debug a system with them on it, so when there's a problem, nVidia related or not, you have to boot without it ever loaded and see if you can reproduce the problem. The whole reason kernel tainting was added to Linux was just so they could weed out the possible false positives they can't investigate because of binary only drivers, mainly those from nVidia.

 

[sxr7171]

I thought this article was germane to the topic:

http://www.duntemann.com/VisionThing54.htm

 

[Nothinman]

Linux video is chaos, and nobody seems particularly concerned about it. There is no hardware abstraction mechanism for Linux graphics,

You can't have hardware abstraction for drivers, the whole point of drivers is to drive a certain piece of equipment. There are generic functions for accessing the PCI bus, card registers, etc but you can't expect it the kernel to abstract away the hardware you're writing the driver for. And he leaves out the slightly major detail of whether he means X (and technically not Linux), framebuffer or DRM drivers.

those parts of the system run heavily toward servers, the network layer, and the kernel.

That sentence fragment makes it seem like this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

And he likes grouping all Linux developers together, it makes no sense to blame the kernel developers for Gnome not having an Exchange client.

Margins in the x86 box industry are razor thin. In one swipe, Linux could hand Microsoft's share of the price tag back to the box vendors?who would gleefully accept it, given a standard graphical luser desktop.

If it really was that simple it would have happened already.

 

[MGMorden]

Nothinman: We'll agree to disagree on this one . If you want to hold true to the GPL ideals though (I personally like LGPL and BSD better as OSS liscenses) I'm sure you're aware that Xfree86 ships with it's own open source Nvidia drivers (though they don't work as well). I guess in this instance we can both have our way.

I do agree with your points in the post directly above though.

 

[Nothinman]

If you want to hold true to the GPL ideals though (I personally like LGPL and BSD better as OSS liscenses) I'm sure you're aware that Xfree86 ships with it's own open source Nvidia drivers (though they don't work as well). I guess in this instance we can both have our way.

In general I don't care about the license, as long as I have the source =)