What do you think would be THE "threshold development" capable to convert 80% of Windows users to LINUX?

[bsobel]

One actual answer I should have added regarding the original question, it would take the vast majority of OEM's (Dell, Compaq, Sony, etc) to ship Linux as the desktop OS for this to occur. I believe even if Linux was twice as good and feature rich and easy to use on the desktop, unless the OEM's shipped the majority of users (albeit, those users aren't Anandtech users for sure) would never make the change.

Heck, we can't switch those users off AOL onto a real ISP because that is what their computer came with in many cases.

Bill

 

[DaHitman]

Seeing as how probably close to 80% of all windows users are "CORPORATE/BUSINESS" Desktop users...then I would say ITS READY NOW..

In that environment all those arguments about being too hard to install this or configure that or whatever don't mean jack because you have paid people who know what they are doing to take care of that for you, and users don't have the rights to do installs or change configurations etc.. Linux works well in a pre-configured large-scale centrally administered environment.

Linux is ready TODAY for corporate desktop use, there are no "missing" applications it can't handle.. ... it will be a little longer before its ready for mommy to email gramma, and for timmy to play shoot-me-up with his buds... but for business use its ready to go.

 

[Samsonid]

This thread grew much faster and much deeper (in context) that I had initially hoped for.

Many times the information passed around was well over my head, but it was good enough to get a general idea of what is the current status of the Linux platform.

I would like to thank all the people that participated and presented their point of view for this discussion.

Thomas A.

 

[Halogen]

if my games were compatible with with Linux, i would installed Mandrake on my puter without a second thought

 

[Louie1961a]

Actually, I think everyone missed the boat on this question. The only thing IMHO that would need to occur to get linux onto 80% of the systems out there is for the US DOJ to force microsoft to port office to linux as part of the settlement of the antitrust case. If office become available for linux, that will eliminate probably the largest objection to linux. Once that happens a cascade effect will occur...new distros like redmond linux will come out aimed squarely at the desktop, and will eliminate most of the "it is too hard to install" or it is to hard to configure" complaints. OEMs such as gateway and dell will once again offer preconfigured linux systems with office all ready installed because it will be cheaper than offering winXX preinstalled. As the OS gains acceptance, it will become economically impossible for equipment manufacturers to not provide adequate linux driver support. Likewise it will be economically impossible to not offer a port of most games for linux. All of these things will happen through free market forces once the demand for linux goes up. I think that demand willspike if MS office for linux is made to happen, especially given MS's latest licensing schemes. It will start off in the corporate world first, and then as momentum increases spread to the home user and gamers, but I believe it would happen.

 

[Samsonid]

Louie 161a

Your thoughts sound quite plausible.
On the other hand though, I was hoping to evade Micro$oft control all together. I would like to see a product where Microsft has absolutely positively no direct power on its success. A product that will dare to compete fair and square and on its own legs. Something similar to the AMD-INTEL thing.

It pains me when I see that Apple has finaly yielded under direct Micro$oft muscular influence, and it pained me when I saw what happened to Corel when their Linux development plans were scraped.

Why does Micro$oft has to become the Monopoly on Office applications as well? Why not put some more effort into StarOffice?

 

[DaHitman]

<< Louie 161a

Why does Micro$oft has to become the Monopoly on Office applications as well? Why not put some more effort into StarOffice? >>




I agree.. I DON'T WANT MICROSOFT OFFICE on Linux... I want a linux program that is JUST AS GOOD...and works fine with all Office documents.

As soon as Microsoft Office runs on Linux, people will stop working on StarOffice, KOffce, AbiWord, GNUMERIC etc... and Microsoft will just have yet another monopoly on another OS.

 

[joecool]

an interesting question. i recently started playing with linux & as much as like it, i won't be switching to that as my main os any time soon for a number of reasons:

- i loved the gnome gui, but it's still not as intuitive as winblows. one thing that was really a pain was trying to change the screen resolution. adding new hardware or updating drivers was similarly intimidating.

- there still aren't enough apps available for linux. much as i dislike ms, the office suite is excellent. internet explorer is similarly impressive. until linux can offer apps of similar utility & power i won't make the switch.

- not enough games. let's face it, half the reason we love pc's is 'cause of the awesome games available. with 3d graphics at the level it has reached pc gaming really rocks. until linux has a large array of games available i'll be sticking with winblows.

so, those are my three "thresholds". to get 80% of windows users to switch there is another issue which nothing can overcome. most folks buy their systems out of the box & never mess with anything as major as an os or hardware update. the thing works & they are afraid of breaking it. therefore most folks simply won't make the switch on their existing systems - they'll only change over if they get a new system with the new os. therefor i think it'll be next to impossible for linux to suddenly steal the desktop from windows. if it does take over it will be a gradual change as it infiltrates new machines.

-joe

 

[CQuinn]

A minor point, IIRC

<< > -*NIX file system was going to be supported.

NT based OSes have support for IFS (Installable File Systemss) so all that
would be needed is for someone to write a driver or module in support of
some other file system. But that begs the question: "Which *NIX filesystem?".
There are several to choose from, many still in beta stages of development.
And it was more likely that MS would write (in-house) an HPFS IFS driver than
one for ext2fs or any of its close companions. I'm guessing that no third-party
developer has tried to tackle it because the file system access has to also
be tied into the security model of the OS, which was still a moving target until
XP was released.

I can't speak for performance in comparison to Win2K, except to note that
it is supposed to be slower than Win98SE in some operations... XP to me seems
faster at file operations thru explorer than my W98SE install, but slower at
navigation and file operations thru the command line.

Think of .NET as a next-generation IIS... It is meant as a plug-in/add-on for
the server class OS, but provides services that cover Pro and Home versions as
well.



<< To further confuse the issue expect to see just about everything coming out of MS called something.net for the next year or two >>



something.NET, something XP, and something 2002 (at least this year). Sometimes
with more than one together. By mid-summer we'll all have that .NET 2002 XPerience.

I'm sure what is being said here is echoed in part in this thread
about what it would take to get people to switch to a Mac.

Insidious,


<< To the "mainstream", giving them Linux is like giving them a car but not telling them it needs gas. >>



IMO, its more like giving them a manual transmission, when all they are used to
driving is automatics (and in some cases, automatics with overdrive).
The frustration is that some of it does work "out of the box", if you know how
to use a clutch... (they just don't explain the clutch part).

 

[Insidious]

*CQuinn*

I like your analogy better than mine....

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< an interesting question. i recently started playing with linux & as much as like it, i won't be switching to that as my main os any time soon for a number of reasons:

- i loved the gnome gui, but it's still not as intuitive as winblows. >>



In what ways is it less intuitive?



<< one thing that was really a pain was trying to change the screen resolution. adding new hardware or updating drivers was similarly intimidating. >>



For people that do not like to tinker/hack then yes, this can be tough.



<< - there still aren't enough apps available for linux. >>



Bull. Freshmeat.net



<< much as i dislike ms, the office suite is excellent. >>



I have nothing but troubles when I use Word.



<< internet explorer is similarly impressive. >>



How? It seems insecure and the fact I have to use it to browse my hard drive is horrible. Also some of the MS standards are annoying.



<< until linux can offer apps of similar utility & power i won't make the switch. >>



Konqueror, Galion, Mozilla, StarOffice, KOffice, etc.



<< - not enough games. let's face it, half the reason we love pc's is 'cause of the awesome games available. with 3d graphics at the level it has reached pc gaming really rocks. until linux has a large array of games available i'll be sticking with winblows. >>



I dont play games.

Some of these may be valid points, but some clarification would be nice.



<< Ohh..ohhh.. I know... what if Apple ported their Linux based OS-X to the PC platform? >>



Its not Linux based.

 

[Samsonid]

n0cmonkey wrote:


<< Ohh..ohhh.. I know... what if Apple ported their Linux based OS-X to the PC platform? >>

<<Its not Linux based.>>

I stand corrected about the "Linux" part. However, I swear I read it in several sources that the Apple platform is on a "UNIX" based OS.

 

[bsobel]

> However, I swear I read it in several sources that the Apple platform is on a "UNIX" based OS.

That is correct, it's based on BSD. Which is a flavor of unix, but it's not the same as Linux.

Best,
Bill

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< n0cmonkey wrote:<< Ohh..ohhh.. I know... what if Apple ported their Linux based OS-X to the PC platform? >><<Its not Linux based.>>I stand corrected about the "Linux" part. However, I swear I read it in several sources that the Apple platform is on a "UNIX" based OS. >>



Its a MACH kernel which is BSD based. Not a big thing there, just wanted to throw out a little more information

 

[Louie1961a]

Samsonid, DaHitman,

I agree withyou, I would love to see a non-MS office suite succeed. My point was that in the corporate world there has been heavy investment in training people for MS Office. Because of that investment, I think Linux has very little chance of succeeding in the corporate environment without a Linux version of MS office. And if Linux doesn't succeed in the corporate desktop arena, then it will never gain wide acceptance on the desktop, where 90% of the windows users are.

Now on the other hand, if someone could develop an office suite that was so revolutionary, offering so much more productivity than the current MS offering, you could make a business case for retraining all your people to a new office suite. However, I doubt if such a thing could be done. Maybe I am wrong. But, not being a primarily technical person, I simply can't imagine what you could put into an office suite that would offer that type of productivity.

 

[DaHitman]

<< Samsonid, DaHitman,

I agree withyou, I would love to see a non-MS office suite succeed. My point was that in the corporate world there has been heavy investment in training people for MS Office. Because of that investment, I think Linux has very little chance of succeeding in the corporate environment without a Linux version of MS office. And if Linux doesn't succeed in the corporate desktop arena, then it will never gain wide acceptance on the desktop, where 90% of the windows users are.
>>




Bah... I don't know ANYONE who has been trained at our company (fortune 50) on Microsoft Office.. so the "INVESTMENT" argument is crap..

Hell.. most people don't even know how to use Office very well at all, but they get by with some fumbling around. eventually they figure it out.. .. ... you can use StarOffice.. or something else too the same way.. eventually they will figure it out... there is nothing startlingly different at all..its all very familiar...

That training argument is bullshit... its very lame... there might be other valid arguments but that has got to be one of the worst I hear.

 

[Louie1961a]

DaHitman,

I respectfully disagree with you. I don't have any idea what fortune 50 company you for, but in my company, the investment is significant. In fact it is very significant given that my company owns Lotus, and most everyone insists on using MS office instead of Lotus Smart Suite. In fact, it is so pervasive that when we create presentations for customers, everything is done in Office. If you ever try to send a freelance presentation it will always get returned with the comment "can you send me this in powerpoint?"

You are correct when you say that most people do not know how to use office very well, but I have always found, especially with non-technical people (secretaries and sales people for instance) that they know one or two things in word, and refuse to learn anything else because the same trick doesn't work the same exact way in word pro (or whatever other word processor you want to discuss).

Also, there are capabilities in Office that do not exist in other suites. I work in pricing for example and our pricing tool is built entirely on excel, because 123 can't do pivot tables. And WE sell 123. Go figure.

 

[Samsonid]

Hey Louie1961a,

Speaking about "123"
Do you, or anyone here, knows what is up with Lotus?

Last I checked, there was an IBM logo on their web site.

Currently I am running entirely on Lotus SmartSuite. Following "Doctor's" orders, since I have developed allergic reactions to M$ products ;-)
(The only thing Microsoft left on this machine is Win98SE and MSVisualBasic6)

An other thing: What are peoples opinion here on the latest StarOffice6 development?

And last... does anyone have an opinion on LindowsOS? What is up with that?

 

[Louie1961a]

Well Lotus has been a wholey owned subsidiary of IBM since 1996. The lotus software division is still churning out products up in Cambridge, MA, although it is a mostly blue suit opperation now. A lot of original Lotus people headed for the doors when the company was bought. I like the lotus suite, but it isn't as powerful as the MS suite in spreadsheets or database applications, sorry to say.

 

[Samsonid]

>>but it isn't as powerful as the MS suite in spreadsheets or database applications, sorry to say.

True !

However, nothing has yet to top my traumatic experiences with M$ Word. That thing was always competing with me and it was trying to "automaticaly mess up my documents behind my back and I had to spend a significant time (each time) trying to locate the Gremlins responsible. And those Gremlins were as small as pins in a heystack.

I am glad there are companies like Adobe to save the day. PageMaker seems to flow very nicely with me. Once I upgrade to Indesign it will be nirvana!

Now in context of this thread I wish there was a company with the calliber and seriousness of Adobe to offer a viable alternative to Windows. I just don't think Microsoft is capable to produce intuitive interfaces no matter how many features they try to add. Their products (although powerful) just don't "flow".

 

[MGMorden]

Give AbiWord and Gnumeric a shot ( I think both are available for windows. I know abiword is). They're not quit up to par with MSOffice but they are completely free and worlds better than StarOffice IMHO. If you're willing to pay for an MS Office alternative then there's always Wordperfect Office. A lot of people here at work use it (though only MS Office is officially supported).

 

[nino]

Here's another way to look at.

I'm a decently informed computer user and have recently switched to linux. I've installed all the OSes on my family's and friend's computers.
I could have just as easily installed Linux BUT what IF they wanted to add programs or install something different.

The problem lies with the various formats of installing software and updating software along with the available software. I would love to
install a non-MS OS on their computer but until the community begins to standardize on the fundamentals I'll never do it. I want
to install the OS and walk away. Linux is great for this in some respects because it would reduce the number of service calls I would make
by a bonehead that screwed up the OS unintentionally (i.e. not logged in as root).

I know for the most part that I could install Linux on their machines BUT I don't want to be called every so often becuase they bought
a program or want to change something but it is too confusing for them to do.

For now, I'll try to persuade users to go to Linux but ONLY if I'll be around to debug the systems if something goes wrong.

 

[DJE007]

A & E

 

[DT4K]

AOL buying Red Hat and Dell, Compaq, and HP selling all their systems pre-installed with AOL/Red Hat

 

[BD231]

Only the wrath of God could break Microsofts grip on the OS industry...