- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Does Linux need to change to attract more users?
While I can appreciate the spirit and attitude of the author in wanting to draw more people to Linux, I must disagree with the idea that Linux needs to change. We already have OS X and Windows aiming to draw in as many users as possible to generate profits for Microsoft and Apple. I'd rather that Linux didn't go down the same commercial road as those other two operating systems by trying to appeal to the constantly shifting tastes of consumers. |
|
|
Comments (20)
I think the two biggest reasons more people are not trying/adopting Linux are:
1) Most people do not like, and even fear, change.
and...
2) Many business people still think software is crap if they are not having to sign a contract and pay big $$$ for it. They believe blindly that they get what they pay for, by default. There is a lot of this thinking behind Mac adoption as well, unfortunately.
1) Most people do not like, and even fear, change.
and...
2) Many business people still think software is crap if they are not having to sign a contract and pay big $$$ for it. They believe blindly that they get what they pay for, by default. There is a lot of this thinking behind Mac adoption as well, unfortunately.
Which brings to mind a simple, yet very divisive, quote: "You can't fix stupid."
(FYI: I think Seatex points are very valid.)
(FYI: I think Seatex points are very valid.)
Change what?
The Linux kernel is constantly changing. Distributions are constantly changing.
The cooperative, distributed development model works very well, and does not need to change since it is working.
If someone thinks something else will work better, go for it. If it does, then people will move to it.
That is choice.
The Linux kernel is constantly changing. Distributions are constantly changing.
The cooperative, distributed development model works very well, and does not need to change since it is working.
If someone thinks something else will work better, go for it. If it does, then people will move to it.
That is choice.
Last night I "upgraded" my "coffeeshop" laptop from Ubuntu 12.04 LTS to 14.04 LTS.
(I was looking forward to being able to put the application menus back in the application windows, again)
The spur to this decision was that the 14.04.1 release was out, so naturally, I figured that the basic, inevitable new-release bugs would be all ironed out .
I was wrong -- and it took me less than 15 minutes to identify a couple or more bugs -- at least one of which (*) apparently dates back to the original 14.04.0 release.
(*) The Shortcut Hints Overlay feature (which, when one taps the 'Super' (ie. 'Windows' key) brings up the basic desktop shortcuts that make Ubuntu so convenient on a small laptop) breaks if one turns on the multiple desktop mode.
It really felt very reminiscent of my experience of using Windows... In the end, the only reason I didn't promptly blow it away, to experiment instead with the new Zorin or maybe the Mint Xfce, was that Ubuntu is still the distro relied on by the local Free Geek, and so I feel some pressure to maintain some practical familiarity with it.
- + - + - + -
My point?
The issues which have held Linux back in the market, have nothing to do with the technology, but rather, with industry/market structure and corporate power. Attempting to "fix" the problem by abandoning the perspective, values and approaches that allowed Linux to achieve superior quality, and to survive and grow despite this disadvantageous "free market" environment is probably a fundamental error. Marketing values are no substitute for Quality -- especially as the world (read: consumers) is/are learning that they do in fact have actual, practical, accessible options.
Oh -- and about Firefox? Most of those "consumers" that I help with their computers are using Firefox -- and some are actually returning to Firefox from Chrome. If people perceive a real choice, they eventually do notice the difference between glitz and real usability/value.
.
edit: added emphasis, for clarity
The spur to this decision was that the 14.04.1 release was out, so naturally, I figured that the basic, inevitable new-release bugs would be all ironed out .
I was wrong -- and it took me less than 15 minutes to identify a couple or more bugs -- at least one of which (*) apparently dates back to the original 14.04.0 release.
(*) The Shortcut Hints Overlay feature (which, when one taps the 'Super' (ie. 'Windows' key) brings up the basic desktop shortcuts that make Ubuntu so convenient on a small laptop) breaks if one turns on the multiple desktop mode.
It really felt very reminiscent of my experience of using Windows... In the end, the only reason I didn't promptly blow it away, to experiment instead with the new Zorin or maybe the Mint Xfce, was that Ubuntu is still the distro relied on by the local Free Geek, and so I feel some pressure to maintain some practical familiarity with it.
- + - + - + -
My point?
The issues which have held Linux back in the market, have nothing to do with the technology, but rather, with industry/market structure and corporate power. Attempting to "fix" the problem by abandoning the perspective, values and approaches that allowed Linux to achieve superior quality, and to survive and grow despite this disadvantageous "free market" environment is probably a fundamental error. Marketing values are no substitute for Quality -- especially as the world (read: consumers) is/are learning that they do in fact have actual, practical, accessible options.
Oh -- and about Firefox? Most of those "consumers" that I help with their computers are using Firefox -- and some are actually returning to Firefox from Chrome. If people perceive a real choice, they eventually do notice the difference between glitz and real usability/value.
.
edit: added emphasis, for clarity
Does Linux need to change to attract more users. In a word, no. Next.
I'd like to add a reason why a lot of businesses stick with Microsoft and won't change to Linux. No, it's not just the lock-in, it's that most systems administrators of Microsoft systems would be overwhelmed by the amount of administration needed under a Linux system to provide all the things that they currently do with Windows when dealing with a fairly large user base.
What am I on about? Well, I tried to convince the organization I work for to move to Linux for about 13 years and finally gave up. With Active Directory plus Exchange plus Sharepoint you basically administer a user in one (maybe two) places in total and they are totally set up. Everything works for them. Try doing that in Linux and you soon find it's not possible. Your user has to be set up in the OS, and in the mail package, and in your collaborative system and so on.
Having to work in such an environment does show that neither Linux OR OS X will function well under a totally Windows environment (I am the Linux and Mac support person in my region).
What I stated above is from the other administrator's viewpoint. From my side I will happily retire in about 2 years and end my use of Windows totally.
What am I on about? Well, I tried to convince the organization I work for to move to Linux for about 13 years and finally gave up. With Active Directory plus Exchange plus Sharepoint you basically administer a user in one (maybe two) places in total and they are totally set up. Everything works for them. Try doing that in Linux and you soon find it's not possible. Your user has to be set up in the OS, and in the mail package, and in your collaborative system and so on.
Having to work in such an environment does show that neither Linux OR OS X will function well under a totally Windows environment (I am the Linux and Mac support person in my region).
What I stated above is from the other administrator's viewpoint. From my side I will happily retire in about 2 years and end my use of Windows totally.
@lcafiero,
>> Does Linux need to change to attract more users. In a word, no.
OTOH, Do USERS need to change to Linux? In a word, probably.
@cabrej
>> What am I on about? Well, I tried to convince the organization I work for to move to Linux for about 13 years and finally gave up. With Active Directory plus Exchange plus Sharepoint you basically administer a user in one (maybe two) places in total and they are totally set up. Everything works for them. Try doing that in Linux and you soon find it's not possible. Your user has to be set up in the OS, and in the mail package, and in your collaborative system and so on.
OTOH, I see that individual departments in many of the bigger companies have ALREADY moved to Linux. Same for many if not MOST startups, along with all their Macs and iDevices!
2c + 2c
>> Does Linux need to change to attract more users. In a word, no.
OTOH, Do USERS need to change to Linux? In a word, probably.
@cabrej
>> What am I on about? Well, I tried to convince the organization I work for to move to Linux for about 13 years and finally gave up. With Active Directory plus Exchange plus Sharepoint you basically administer a user in one (maybe two) places in total and they are totally set up. Everything works for them. Try doing that in Linux and you soon find it's not possible. Your user has to be set up in the OS, and in the mail package, and in your collaborative system and so on.
OTOH, I see that individual departments in many of the bigger companies have ALREADY moved to Linux. Same for many if not MOST startups, along with all their Macs and iDevices!
2c + 2c
Quoting: With Active Directory plus Exchange plus Sharepoint you basically administer a user in one (maybe two) places in total and they are totally set up. Everything works for them. Try doing that in Linux and you soon find it's not possible. Your user has to be set up in the OS, and in the mail package, and in your collaborative system and so on.
Linux has superior tools for single-sign on, systems management, messaging, and documents management. Active Directory, Exchange, and SharePoint are ugly inefficient GUIs layered on top of kludgy, buggy code, and larded with silly proprietary protocols that function poorly. A proper Linux infrastructure handles several times more users and is many times more reliable. The smart approach for any enterprise is to use Red Hat, SUSE, or Canonical to get paid support contracts. They all use admin tools that rely on standard protocols and tools like Kerberos, LDAP, and PAM. Microsoft also relies on Kerberos and LDAP, but with their own "special" add-ons.
Use Puppet or Chef for systems management, ownCloud to replace the gawdawful Exchange and Sharepoint, and you have a good basic backoffice all ready to go. And save a ton of money, and have a system that actually works. I know it's hard to get past the AD trained monkey mindset, but having admins who actually know what they're doing is a measurable cost-saver.
You know, TC, that sounds like the beginning of a good article. :)
" You know, TC, that sounds like the beginning of a good article. :) "
Hear! Hear!
Hear! Hear!
@TC: >>I know it's hard to get past the AD trained monkey mindset, but having admins who actually know what they're doing is a measurable cost-saver.
The problem is we are a charity and the administrator positions are not well paid jobs. So finding people who know something other than Windows and getting them to come on-board is anything but easy. My personal background is Unix. I used to work for AT&T many years ago. But, I'm not at the head office where most of the IT/IS staff is located. And they don't want to hear about it.
I add my vote for TC to do an in-depth article on how to replace all the Microsoft crud. But it would have to be detailed enough that even MS trained staff MAY see the benefit.
As far as costs go, it would have to be very cheap since in the US territories we have a charity license and the Europe, Africa and Asia regions are all under an Enterprise license.
The problem is we are a charity and the administrator positions are not well paid jobs. So finding people who know something other than Windows and getting them to come on-board is anything but easy. My personal background is Unix. I used to work for AT&T many years ago. But, I'm not at the head office where most of the IT/IS staff is located. And they don't want to hear about it.
I add my vote for TC to do an in-depth article on how to replace all the Microsoft crud. But it would have to be detailed enough that even MS trained staff MAY see the benefit.
As far as costs go, it would have to be very cheap since in the US territories we have a charity license and the Europe, Africa and Asia regions are all under an Enterprise license.
By gosh, that would make a good article. I shall pitch my linux.com overlords.
> I shall pitch my linux.com overlords.
Pitch all teh overlords!
Pitch all teh overlords!
> By gosh, that would make a good article.
You might even find that you could expand it to a full book, TC. It's not like there isn't a need for it.
You might even find that you could expand it to a full book, TC. It's not like there isn't a need for it.
I believe there has already been at least one book on the subject,
"Defenistrating Windows"
defenestration (diːˌfɛnɪˈstreɪʃən) n 1. the act of throwing someone out of a window
"Defenistrating Windows"
defenestration (diːˌfɛnɪˈstreɪʃən) n 1. the act of throwing someone out of a window
@Bob_Robertson
That was written back in 2001 and was about the desktop. I'd really like to see one about replacing the infrastructure with simple to use administrative tools where you can set up a user in Linux for everything they need to do in an office environment using one or two screens (after the infrastructure is set up of course). The way our current Windows only admins are now doing in the MS only environment.
That was written back in 2001 and was about the desktop. I'd really like to see one about replacing the infrastructure with simple to use administrative tools where you can set up a user in Linux for everything they need to do in an office environment using one or two screens (after the infrastructure is set up of course). The way our current Windows only admins are now doing in the MS only environment.
Cabreh, I wouldn't dream of disagreeing. A very laudable goal.
@TC
I would also add my vote for a comprehensive article on moving a Microsoft SME shop to Linux: the common software replacements and a process for doing it.
Here's a good start for MS-admins: https://wiki.zentyal.org/wiki/En/3.5/Presentation#SMBs_and_I...
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
If the clowns from the proprietary world can't figure out how to make money in an open source world, perhaps they should try something else. That is the prescription of capitalism, isn't it?