Kloofvreter
Honorary Master
Nobody was forced to use Microsoft, so you cannot really call it a monopoly. I believe Linux was also around in the 80's and early 90's? And wasn't it also always free? So I wonder why it never took off.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever been to an airshow?
Game up for Linux?
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Nobody was forced to use Microsoft, so you cannot really call it a monopoly. I believe Linux was also around in the 80's and early 90's? And wasn't it also always free? So I wonder why it never took off.
In Defence of Linux... I really don't believe its Dead or Dying, just VERY far behind! If 0.5% of the people are using Linux, 0.8% Mac, and the balance MS... Makes you wonder what's wrong with the Linux bunch! Cudos to all you Linux boys for being so faithful to your Beloved OS! 
Kloofvreter
Honorary Master
In Defence of Linux... I really don't believe its Dead or Dying, just VERY far behind! If 0.5% of the people are using Linux, 0.8% Mac, and the balance MS... Makes you wonder what's wrong with the Linux bunch! Cudos to all you Linux boys for being so faithful to your Beloved OS!
I agree, Linux is certainly not dead and will never die. I reckon it's case of different strokes for different folks!
Le^stat
Senior Member
There is really only one base question @ the end of the day...
To pay or not to pay...
yes i'm cheap...i like linux... so what?
To pay or not to pay...
yes i'm cheap...i like linux... so what?
I agree, Linux is certainly not dead and will never die. I reckon it's case of different strokes for different folks!
exactly. Nobody said it will disappear, failed but still trying perhaps. There will always be a following. Who knows, maybe one day. But for now, Perhaps Linux is best suited for the few who's willing to put up with it despite its reputation for being user unfriendly, however a solid stable platform!.
Not like Linux and its Leet kids will go bankrupt... its free after all
Last edited:
adrianx
Expert Member
Of course there is another reason why MS does better than Linux, and unfortunately a lot of it is down to sales technique. I went to a linux conference once, and most people I spoke to talked about "free" and "alternative".
When MS announces their products they tell you why you need it, the benefits, and what it offers. The average user wants to send email, surf the net and watch movies. They very easy to fool. Corporate customers want support, and somebody to blame if it goes wrong. They also very easy to fool ;-)
Linux sells itself as a "free alternative". What does Joe Public do with a "free alternative"; he can't plug it into his XBOX. Does he care that its faster, more stable, technologically superior and uses fewer resources? No. He wants to surf porn when the laaitjies finished playing games.
Show people what Linux can do, based on its own merit, and maybe then people will look at it....
When MS announces their products they tell you why you need it, the benefits, and what it offers. The average user wants to send email, surf the net and watch movies. They very easy to fool. Corporate customers want support, and somebody to blame if it goes wrong. They also very easy to fool ;-)
Linux sells itself as a "free alternative". What does Joe Public do with a "free alternative"; he can't plug it into his XBOX. Does he care that its faster, more stable, technologically superior and uses fewer resources? No. He wants to surf porn when the laaitjies finished playing games.
Show people what Linux can do, based on its own merit, and maybe then people will look at it....
Linux is installed on more devices than Windows will ever be.
Linux was not intended for the PC and it is only entering that market now.
Linux has always been to do work without much user input and it does that great, for years if the hardware does not fail.
Linux will always be there, it is not trying to win microsoft .
It just doing what is meant to do work and be as user friendly as needed.
Probable 70% of users who work on Windows PC's know what the OS is called and how to install any kind of HW that is not Plug and Pray. They are just there to type docs and read email.
Linux was not intended for the PC and it is only entering that market now.
Linux has always been to do work without much user input and it does that great, for years if the hardware does not fail.
Linux will always be there, it is not trying to win microsoft .
It just doing what is meant to do work and be as user friendly as needed.
Probable 70% of users who work on Windows PC's know what the OS is called and how to install any kind of HW that is not Plug and Pray. They are just there to type docs and read email.
DGremlin
Well-Known Member
I have been playing with Ubuntu and a few derivitives , MintLinux (8/10), GoS Linux (8/10) and they really great, ubuntu as it is looks a bit drab but what I do enjoy is the fact that if I need something I search synaptics and find what works and it is so flexible, I have 2 computers at my desk, one is a MS machine the other an Ubuntu machine. I noticed that I am working less on the MS XP machine and more and more on the Linux machine, it so much easier, printers are setup in seconds, drivers are easy to install, flash drives, wireless etc have been really easy to setup and where I did have hassles the online forums cleared problems with little hassle.
Oh and if you want fun and extra functionality try Gos (multimedia orientated) or Mint Linux both are really good with extra fun features.
guess I am now one of the 0.5 users
Oh and if you want fun and extra functionality try Gos (multimedia orientated) or Mint Linux both are really good with extra fun features.
guess I am now one of the 0.5 users
Flint
Well-Known Member
I agree completely with Duncan's view on Linux for the average desktop user.
I'm using Ubuntu for dev work at home and I'm happy with it. I did end up having to dual boot with XP for gaming though (support for older NVidia notebook cards is lousy in 8.10).
On the other hand, after my wife's XP machine slowed to the point of needing a reinstall, I rather installed Xubuntu on it (for xfe's speed), all she does is browse, chat and use (Open)Office, but the quirks in those apps alone are enough that she's begging me to reinstall XP and MS office.
Ubuntu just isn't ready for the average user. It still requires a certain amount of technical know-how just to deal with all the quirks.
I'm using Ubuntu for dev work at home and I'm happy with it. I did end up having to dual boot with XP for gaming though (support for older NVidia notebook cards is lousy in 8.10).
On the other hand, after my wife's XP machine slowed to the point of needing a reinstall, I rather installed Xubuntu on it (for xfe's speed), all she does is browse, chat and use (Open)Office, but the quirks in those apps alone are enough that she's begging me to reinstall XP and MS office.
Ubuntu just isn't ready for the average user. It still requires a certain amount of technical know-how just to deal with all the quirks.
adrianx
Expert Member
I believe that Windows requires an equal amount of technical know-how. To me, Linux was very intimidating at first. Like most people, I became used to Windows' many quirks because Windows was all I knew. I'd been using it since version 3.1. Linux, to me, was a huge "culture shock", but now, more and more things are becoming second nature. In fact, when I'm forced to use Windows, I look like a complete n00b for the first few hours, until I start getting used to the MS Way™, again.
It's a bit like people that emigrate and b!tch about oversees people being unfriendly. They forget that they had been making friends in SA throughout their high school/University/College/Work careers and now they expect to make equally close friends within less than a year.
LOL - funny ; ) - but i noticed a couple of bugs pop up during that demo! LOL!!!
adrianx
Expert Member
LOL - There have been quite a few famous BSODs at Windows presentations. LOL. And even at the Beijing Olympics. LOL.
Edit: Besides, that video isn't exactly what I would call a demo. I don't think that those two "geeks" are getting paid by the Linux® Corporation©™
Last edited:
You believe wrong. Linux only popped up in the mid 90s. Unix was around in the times you mention, in some other guises too, including M$'s xenix (wonder how many people remember that).
buffalobill
Senior Member
Precisely. I really tried to convert to Linux (forget which) a few years ago and the learning curve is steep, especially when you're used to the DOS/Windows way of doing things. Bought a book on linux, even, and I can see that once it's setup, it's fine for the average office worker if you can get them trained on a different word processing program (a big expense BTW).
For me as a home/small business user who likes to mess around it's extremely hard to work with and I dumped it. This is where Windows succeeds. Of course, if you want totally idiot-proof, go Apple.
My opinion is you cannot really compare Windows to Linux because they serve completely different markets. What I would like to see is someone write a paid for Kernel that can compete head on with Windows. So you can install Windows apps on it. Then we will see real competition.
adrianx
Expert Member
Banish the thought! Mac runs a few Windows applications, and believe me, they make you pay.... Give them a try. <sarcasm>They are expensive, so they must be good.</sarcasm>
chiskop
Executive Member
Open Office is closer to Office 2003 than Office 2007 is, imo.
At the risk of being flamed, my take on Linux & M$
Linux is great for the file server & web server market. Its mature and stable. I have 14 linux file servers installed at various clients and they are all satisfied clients.
Unfortunately I don't recommend Linux to my clients as a desktop solution yet as they have been brainwashed by M$. They are so used to the visual experience and usability of XP and I find computer users in a corporate environment are resistant to change.
However, should there be an out-of-the box Linux Desktop solution to appease the M$ brainwashed crowd which appears visually similar and easier to use, I would happily recommend Linux as a desktop solution. (I am not interested in addons and tweaks to make it look like XP, out-of-the-box is what I want. [applying flame retardant cream here]. Why would I want to make Linux look like XP? Because people are used to M$ desktops and are resistant to change. )
Interestingly when a person who has never used XP before, uses Linux as a desktop, there is no resistance and the learning curve is easy. When an existing M$ user tries Linux as a desktop, there is a steep learning curve and resistance to the new environment.
In my opinion, Linux developers should develop a desktop solution to appease the M$ brainwashed folks and then only will their share of the desktop market increase.
That is the only way I believe Linux will grow in the desktop market .....
Give the brainwashed their daily fix and they will follow you.
BTW. I use 4 Linux servers and 12 XP Machines as desktops in my office.
EDIT : Just had a look at KDE 4.2 screenshot, very sexy .... definite potential there.
Linux is great for the file server & web server market. Its mature and stable. I have 14 linux file servers installed at various clients and they are all satisfied clients.
Unfortunately I don't recommend Linux to my clients as a desktop solution yet as they have been brainwashed by M$. They are so used to the visual experience and usability of XP and I find computer users in a corporate environment are resistant to change.
However, should there be an out-of-the box Linux Desktop solution to appease the M$ brainwashed crowd which appears visually similar and easier to use, I would happily recommend Linux as a desktop solution. (I am not interested in addons and tweaks to make it look like XP, out-of-the-box is what I want. [applying flame retardant cream here]. Why would I want to make Linux look like XP? Because people are used to M$ desktops and are resistant to change. )
Interestingly when a person who has never used XP before, uses Linux as a desktop, there is no resistance and the learning curve is easy. When an existing M$ user tries Linux as a desktop, there is a steep learning curve and resistance to the new environment.
In my opinion, Linux developers should develop a desktop solution to appease the M$ brainwashed folks and then only will their share of the desktop market increase.
That is the only way I believe Linux will grow in the desktop market .....
Give the brainwashed their daily fix and they will follow you.
BTW. I use 4 Linux servers and 12 XP Machines as desktops in my office.
EDIT : Just had a look at KDE 4.2 screenshot, very sexy .... definite potential there.
Last edited: