The true reason for this article is to point out some sensitive points and to start a discussion. Hopefully, this discussion will produce some useful outcome and if some people in the Linux community are willing to listen to them, I would already be very enthusiastic. Let's start, shall we?
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Linux on the desktop, in developed countries, does not make any economical sense. The only way people will use Linux is if it is a better desktop/workstation product. For some technical users doing certain tasks, it is. For the vast majority of other people, it is not.
Not true for some businesses, governement and educational organizations have switched on Linux for desktop/workstations already. You don't hear them as they quietly do transition. It depends of the need from people thus nothing do with the operation systems. The only problems are many people don't know there is alternative for the current economic model.
Member since:Ya missed it. When that $30 is a significant chunk of someones wages for a year, it makes a difference. When the computers that are being used are 1st world cast-offs, paying retail for the current OS so that they can use a current Office is out of the question.
And that $500 Dell is a 5 year system...since when!
Having admined several large networks that have bought these type of systems, they genrally last 3 weeks before someone screams about the slowness of the system and you start the upgrade cycle. Go from 128MB of RAM to 512 or a 1024, add a decent sized HDD as not every one has massive NAS or SANS. Nor is the processor up to the load of Office (generally Word, Excel and Outlook) plus LOB (usually a ERP client and a some Java apps). Make sure that the periphals do not off load to the CPU (Ethernet, graphics and Modem).
We cannot even spec a system that will handle those demands for under $800 (we cannot build white boxes do to business contraints).
Member since:"Business can buy an extremely powerful XP machine from Dell, with an LCD monitor, with XP Professional for $500. This system will easily serve the majority of business for 5 years. They will have guaranteed support and free security updates. They will be able to install 99% of all software written."
I'm a little skeptical about them being able to install 99% of all software written, but unfortunately it is close enough to the truth.
Unfortunate because...
There are too many cases where software doesn't work and much time has to be spent or someone has to be paid to figure out that that something additional needs to be installed or updated for it to work correctly.
Too many cases where it doesn't work because it needs an update to work with something else that was updated.
And too many cases where it updates something that causes another software program to have problems.
All of which could be avoided if Windows used a system that tracks dependencies and refused to install if something was missing or a conflict would be created and the person installing the software was informed of what is missing or conflicting so they could deal with the situation accordingly.
I would much rather spend some extra time looking for some missing peices or updating some outdated software than spend time attempting to find out how to repair some damage that was done by some "easy to install" software.
I don't really view bunches of applications including their own versions of the same supporting libraries and eating up megabytes of space and adding megabytes to my downloads being viewed as normal instead of the exception being a good solution either.
Member since:
Business can buy an extremely powerful XP machine from Dell, with an LCD monitor, with XP Professional for $500. This system will easily serve the majority of business for 5 years. They will have guaranteed support and free security updates. They will be able to install 99% of all software written. To top it all off, within 3 years, they will be able to completely write off the expense. That computer and operating system will be free for the business thanks to tax savings.
Home users are in a similar boat. They can buy a Dell machine, with an LCD monitor, and XP Home Edition for $500. They won't be able to write off the purchase but they won't care that a machine with Windows cost $30 more. They will pay the extra money and get a better machine.
Linux on the desktop, in developed countries, does not make any economical sense. The only way people will use Linux is if it is a better desktop/workstation product. For some technical users doing certain tasks, it is. For the vast majority of other people, it is not.