As Novell re-introduces its Linux desktop, more open source advocates are beginning to believe that the call for widespread Linux desktop adoption is leaving the realm of zealotry and entering the mainstream. Whether this will be a watershed moment for the Linux desktop remains to be seen but, already, advocates for the open source OS are clamoring to explain why now – not in times past – the moment is right for enterprise-level corporations to begin migrating to Linux.
Why do people keep referring to some magical point where Linux is finally right for the desktop, as if there is a point in time when *POOF* half of people are going to switch. These things take time. In my mind widespread Linux adoption is not a question of when, it’s a question of how much so far.
Your question is completely valid, as many people ask these questions all the time.
Linux has generally been ready for the desktop for quite some time. A couple years after the release of the first window managers, and when KDE and GNOME were accepted by te general public. That’s when.
Linux is more than ready for the desktop. It just requires some user choice, openness to freedom, and a willingness to contribute.
Edit: Seriously, doesn’t this look cool to you? http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/flight6
Edited 2006-04-01 16:56
The issue goes beyond window managers and desktop environments. Applications are also critical. So, as has been said many times before, it can be desktop ready for anyone as long as it meets their needs.
The continuing maturation and evolution of window managers, desktop environments, and various other projects including Firefox, OpenOffice.org, the Gimp, and even WINE has helped Linux meet the needs of far more people than it did even two years ago.
Regarding why people so often bring up “the year of desktop Linux,” oftn there comes a point of critical mass when what is offered meets the needs of a significant portion of consumers that wasn’t being met previously. Firefox was able to do this in the browser market where some very competent alternative browsers hadn’t been able to significantly challenge the dominance of IE. The use of alternative browsers went through a relative explosion after the stable release of Firefox. There are those who hope the same could happen for Linux.
Or rather a question of why.
Slow and steady isn’t sexy.
Linux is ready for the desktop. Try Ubuntu for instance. The problem is that people prefer sticking to what works for them, they don’t see why open-source matters, and they don’t want to try another system. It’s gonna take time for things to change, this involves a lot of work installing Linux on computers, talking with people, explaining, giving support, not leaving people alone with Linux when they have problems, etc…
An awesome point! There should be some sort of advertising campaign for open source, outside of the major Linux vendors (i.e. Red Hat).
Linux is as ready as it’ll ever be, but it’s all pointless. No matter how much money you’ll put into advertising, advocacy, or free CDs: as long as people don’t get Linux pre-installed on their computers, it’s all wasted money.
Linux is as ready as it’ll ever be, but it’s all pointless. No matter how much money you’ll put into advertising, advocacy, or free CDs: as long as people don’t get Linux pre-installed on their computers, it’s all wasted money.
For consumers, I agree.
But the article is about enterprise desktops, that’s something different. Most large companies don’t roll out desktops with stock OEM installs of Windows, they generally image them anyways. My own company was overwriting default installs of XP with our corp-standard 2K before we were ready to migrate. Coupled with the existence of management/deployment tools (such as Novell is pitching), rolling out linux in enterprises would really be no different than migrating to a new version of Windows; in both cases you need to test and ensure compatibility with your existing hardware, and you’re not leaving it up to your users to handle themselves.
Any growth in linux as a desktop OS will occur within the enterprise space, because that’s where the real opportunity is for ISVs and vendors in terms of profitability. If linux can gain traction there, then there’s the opportunity for that growth to migrate to the consumer space, much as it did with Windows originally.
Without traction in the commercial space, I can’t see linux becoming overly relevant as a consumer OS though, it will remain in the fringe.
Having said all that, although linux is ready for the enterprise desktop, the software makers still need convincing before they readily port and support apps natively. Until that hurdle is overcome, it’s all an academic exercise for now.
Having said all that, although linux is ready for the enterprise desktop, the software makers still need convincing before they readily port and support apps natively. Until that hurdle is overcome, it’s all an academic exercise for now.
I agreed with everything you said until this paragraph. There is enough free and other software that runs on Linux to support a basic corporate desktop. Anything extra can be run on Windows servers and be supplied by Rdesktop or Citrix etc.
As an example take my desktop at work. I work in the chemical research laboratories of a small global corporation with about 5000 desktops globally. For the lab stuff our Windows based laboratory data systems and laboratory information management systems are already running on Citrix with the Oracle back ends running on RHEL. Our mail and groupware is Lotus Notes, when the Hannover Notes client comes out there will be a native Linux Notes client. We in R&D use some Filemaker Pro databases, this is obsolescent for us and in the long run they should migrate to Oracle, in the interim the ability of Filemaker to deliver data through web based intranet access would suffice. Our corporate ERP uses Oracle on a Unix server and Firefox with Java will happily replace IE and be supported by Oracle. The only leap of faith required is to replace MS Office with Openoffice/StarOffice or the IBM Productivity Editors.
So a Linux desktop migration is possible in the face of the almost equivalent and more expensive disruption of migrating to Vista and Office 2007. Is the corporate will to do it there – unlikely. But it might be for some.
But note our major corporate software applications are dependant on IBM and Oracle who would happily grind MS’s face in the dust. I think some support and influence for a move to the Linux desktop could come from there.
I agreed with everything you said until this paragraph. There is enough free and other software that runs on Linux to support a basic corporate desktop. Anything extra can be run on Windows servers and be supplied by Rdesktop or Citrix etc.
As an example take my desktop at work. I work in the chemical research laboratories of a small global corporation with about 5000 desktops globally. For the lab stuff our Windows based laboratory data systems and laboratory information management systems are already running on Citrix with the Oracle back ends running on RHEL. Our mail and groupware is Lotus Notes, when the Hannover Notes client comes out there will be a native Linux Notes client. We in R&D use some Filemaker Pro databases, this is obsolescent for us and in the long run they should migrate to Oracle, in the interim the ability of Filemaker to deliver data through web based intranet access would suffice. Our corporate ERP uses Oracle on a Unix server and Firefox with Java will happily replace IE and be supported by Oracle. The only leap of faith required is to replace MS Office with Openoffice/StarOffice or the IBM Productivity Editors.
So a Linux desktop migration is possible in the face of the almost equivalent and more expensive disruption of migrating to Vista and Office 2007. Is the corporate will to do it there – unlikely. But it might be for some.
But note our major corporate software applications are dependant on IBM and Oracle who would happily grind MS’s face in the dust. I think some support and influence for a move to the Linux desktop could come from there.
Fair enough, I was a little too generic in my statement. In reality, I actually use my linux laptop at work because our core apps are thin-client via Citrix, so I agree with your point. My IT department tolerates it because I never cause any support issues for them.
Your organization is in an ideal position because of your backend, you’ve already overcome one of the biggest hurdles organizations face in breaking from MS lockin. Having Oracle/IBM running your groupware/ERP/middleware etc. makes a migration much easier, and even MS has acknowledged the trend towards server based applications with desktop-agnostic frontends.
So deploying linux desktops with the proper backend infrastructure is much easier than deploying them with legacy backends. Even Novell and IBM, among others, ran into problems when trying to move to purely linux desktops. I had a buddy at Novell that until recently was forced to use a dual-boot laptop because despite their push to OSS desktops, they still had legacy sales reporting spreadsheets that used embeded macros that could not be handled by OOo (and you’ll notice that macro-compatibility was one of the big pushses Novell made is SLED). Something as little as that can stave off a migration.
So linux is ready for the enterprise desktop if enterprises have the will to make that migration, and particularly a desktop-agnostic backend. I do think though that most organizations will be hesitant to until there is better native apps support, or server-based thin-client apps become even more prevalent. I don’t think either objective is too far fetched or unobtainable, but I do think there’s still some time to go before we get there.
In my own case, I have to sit quietly by while our organization entrenches Sharepoint deeper into our organization and is evalutating a migration from Domino for our global messaging platform to Exchange. Even our server-based browser-front end apps like Business Objects seem dependent upon IE.
*Heavy Sigh*
In my own case, I have to sit quietly by while our organization entrenches Sharepoint deeper into our organization and is evalutating a migration from Domino for our global messaging platform to Exchange. Even our server-based browser-front end apps like Business Objects seem dependent upon IE
We too have a heavily MS orientated IT. Locally our IT was forced to use RHEL by the NA IT people who were running the NA ERP on AIX on a P-Series and who would be providing oure people with support. Our guys wanted to run Oracle on Windows and were told run it on a unix-like OS or no support.
More recently when they installed new Domino servers as part of a Notes upgrade they ran them on Windows rather than Linux. Finally we just retired all of our Netware systems as part of a global migration to AD.
But still they haven’t embedded MS any further into our desktop, no Access or Sharepoint and they have stuck with IBM in a Notes upgrade path.
IBM may be the key if they bundle the IBM Productivity Editors with the Hannover client, when you upgrade to Notes to 7.5? or 8 you will have a complete ODF compliant office suite bundled with your email/groupware client. This will happen just about the time MS will be pushing us to upgrade to Office 2007. Why spend the money? Then when you’ve kicked the MS Office addiction why upgrade to Vista why not migrate to Linux.
I expect only a few corporations will migrate in 2006, more in 2007 and a lot more in 2008. 10% of corporate desktops migrated to Linux by the end of 2008 does not seem to me to be a totally unrealistic target.
* Cough * Dell * Cough *
http://linux.dell.com/
Preinstalling RHEL on desktops
Dell offers a LIMITED selection of desktops (and laptops?) without Windows preinstalled, with a copy of FreeDOS in the box. They do NOT preinstall RHEL on anything as far as I can tell, except possibly for large enterprises.
I got a $100 discount on my Dell laptop by contacting Dell’s legal department before purchasing my laptop. I simply told them that I would not be running Windows on the laptop, as I will not accept the terms of their EULA. The terms of Microsoft’s Volume Licensing Agreement for Windows say that Dell cannot license a copy of Windows if they know that the end user will not accept the EULA. It also states that the licensee cannot disclose the per-license cost of Windows. So, they had no choice but to refund an amount that’s higher than their volume unit cost. Basically, if you point out that what they’re doing will be illegal, then they will give you money.
Linux is as ready as it’ll ever be, but it’s all pointless. No matter how much money you’ll put into advertising, advocacy, or free CDs: as long as people don’t get Linux pre-installed on their computers, it’s all wasted money.
Not quite true – there are those of us who are used as the ‘family IT resource’; we’re in a position where we can influence change; if every ‘geek’ here provided free IT service to 10 family computers; if you do the math, you’re look at a decent conversion rate.
Linux is ready for the desktop. Try Ubuntu for instance. The problem is that people prefer sticking to what works for them, they don’t see why open-source matters, and they don’t want to try another system. It’s gonna take time for things to change, this involves a lot of work installing Linux on computers, talking with people, explaining, giving support, not leaving people alone with Linux when they have problems, etc..
Personally, if Linux is going to take a signficant share of the desktop space, the first thing that needs to be dropped from the market agenda is this ‘freedom’ and ‘opensource’ – maybe for the amatuer philosopher out there, they might find the whole thing interesting, but for the end user, they couldn’t possible care less.
What is even more urgent are more commercial software vendors from the big names like MYOB, Quicken, Corel etc. Until that occurs, Joe and Jane user will be confused, they want to go down to the local software shop and purchase a boxed product off the shelf and know that they can get support, its from a reputable company and that they also know they’ll get updates.
As for Novell, for them to take the corporate desktop, they also need to target the end user with something equalling Microsofts Select licencing, which allows employees to use the same software licenced at their work place at home – get the corporate desktop, and the end users will follow; and when the end users follow, companies will wake up, unhook themselves from the opiate enduced haze of Microsoft marketing, and start using some of those profits to port their software to Linux.
!!!
“Personally, if Linux is going to take a signficant share of the desktop space, the first thing that needs to be dropped from the market agenda is this ‘freedom’ and ‘opensource’ – maybe for the amatuer philosopher out there, they might find the whole thing interesting, but for the end user, they couldn’t possible care less”
—
Guy… You do not get it!
If it was not for the ‘freedom’ and ‘opensource’, Linux (and all the free OSs and Free-openSource software) would not be where it is now…
It would not exist, to start with!
This progress has been made by people who believe in that. If not, they would not have make it, and Linux distros would not exist!
If many of this software had had to be paid out of the pocket of corporations, it would have never been programmed. They would not have wanted to, in first place. And in second place, firms need financial ‘motivation’ and to generate revenues to ceate or maintain a product. At least in the current socioeconomic model in which most of us live now.
Even if you find people with the talent to program, something commercial, that is good, but is not the main stream software, you have scarce possibilities of sucess. Remember BeOS ?
Linux, BSD, OpenSource software etc. is where it is, thanks to the ‘freedom’ and ‘opensource’!
(well, BSD a little bit less because of that, and a little bit more because is the Operating System that JesusChrist uses himself…
)!
There will be time so people and companies try to corrupt and rotten it ….
But let it success in the right way first, and let’s see who win in the future…
!!!
Edited 2006-04-02 11:19
Babe, how about reading my reply before firing off a post; we’re marketing a product to the end user, from the end users perspective, they couldn’t give a shit about freedom, source code or any of the philosophical or technical justifications.
An end user purchases software so they can do practical things with their computer, not because of some overwhelming urge or aultrusitic motives relating to some philosophical idea developed by Stallman and his fanbase.
As ‘marketers’ we need to promote the positive things of Linux – hell, I’ve been using Fedora for the past few days and I can come up with some good things – clean, and easy to use GUI, quality bundled applications, easy updating application which actually works rather than in the case of Windows update, which freezes the whole browser because Microsoft pushes out some half baked ActiveX update module.
I could go on and on about the really cool things that end users would be interested in, but rather than that, we have people, devoid of human relations skills pushing software in a way that would make the most tolerant person become quickly board and disinterested.
!!!
I have read your post, thats why I answered what I answered…
Sorry but I still think that you do not get it. You talk of promoting linux.. But as I told you, most things in Linux have been developed, precisely, because is free-opensource software, if not they would have never been produced… Read again my las post and, think of the GPL licence and try to relate and understand it.
You talk about promoting Linux, whithout the open source????
Well, most of its software is written under GPL or similar licences, so you con not get rid off this ‘openSource licence’ if you want to modify that software…
Sorry, but I am not sure that you really understand what free software is, or what linux is, and how it is constructed…
What you are asking for is simply to program propietary software and use it on top of the Linux distro.. Well, you can do it.. Nobody prevent you from doing that, if you respect the GPL software inside…
What you can not do is to take a piece of open source software an create with it a closed source propietary program software
— You say: “As ‘marketers’ we need to promote the positive things of Linux”. Well, precisely being openSource is the most positive thing of Linux..
Ask Red Hat… thats how they became big.. because they realised that their customers wanted the possibility of modifying the source of the programs…
— You say too. ” I’ve been using Fedora for the past few days and I can come up with some good things…”
“I could go on and on about the really cool things that end users would be interested in, but rather than that, we have people, devoid of human relations skills pushing software in a way that would make the most tolerant person become quickly board and disinterested”
Sorry , again , but it seems to me that you are new to Linux and free software and you still do not fully understand its technical and legal aspects, if is not the case, then I can not really understand your reasoning…
— As for the “end user purchases software so they can do practical things with their computer, not because of some overwhelming urge or aultrusitic motives relating to some philosophical idea developed by Stallman and his fanbase”.
Yes you are right, in general it is like that… But, ther is not contradiction between OpenSource and ‘practical things’ or practicity… On the contrary open Source software is more practical than Closed source software! That’s why stallman started it all, for practical reasons…
!!!
Which you’ve failed to address again by drivelling on about opensource and other irrelevant side shows – you’ve failed to address why an end user, with no technical knowledge, or desire for technology knowledge, should give a brass wazoo about opensource and the philosphical arguments behind it.
Sorry, if you haven’t realised, computers do not sit at the centre of 95% of the general publics life, and they have even less of a ‘give a shit’ factor in regards to the philosophical rantings of a few obscure programmers who think that everything should be decided base don ‘freedom baby, yeah!’ regardless of whether the end customer has any interest in those arguments.
What the end user wants to know is this; what can your software do better than what is already out there; stick to that, and keep the amatuer philosophy long nights on the turps after a long day at the IT salt mines.
!!!
NoW I get You.. You do not understand because you do not want to understand … LOL
You do not want to understand what you read because you do not agree with the free software movement. OK, guy, you can still use the free-open source soft, but stop f****ng arround!
you said:”you’ve failed to address again by drivelling on about opensource and other irrelevant side show why an end user, with no technical knowledge, or desire for technology knowledge, should give a brass wazoo about opensource and the philosphical arguments behind it”
No I havent, I answered your points clearly. I have never said something like that. It is all in your fanatic anti GPL-Stallman-Free-opensource thinking.
In fact I have said the opposite. What is, that you can do almost what you want with open source sofware an you do not need to give a damn about philosophy…
So, You can use it, modifiy it an sell it, add it to other software… but always according to the GPL Licence.
In case you haven’t realisedn the propietary-closed software has also a licence in general, and you do not acuse it of having its particular legal aspects and philosophy too, … (strange 😉 )
— You said again (on and on…):”What the end user wants to know is this; what can your software do better than what is already out there; stick to that, and keep the amatuer philosophy long nights on the turps after a long day at the IT salt mines”
And I awnser you again, like in my former posts: The user does not need to know about that, if the soft is free in both meanings, he/she can just use it… Its easier and quicker than with the propietary soft.. LOL
If is commercial you have to pay for it like the commercial closed source one etc.
The legal aspects are in both open an closed source software and nobody needs to know about philoshofy to use it…
The legal aspects count only if you want to modify it and use it publically or sell it etc.
Do you know that propietary software have also a philosophy and legal status??
Maybe you do not know it, or you don’t mind because you just simply make pirate copies and use it illegally…
You do not need to make pirate copies and use most of the Free-Opensource software illegally…
All that is in your paranoia anti Stallman, anti Free-open source…
Your acussations are pointless, and paranoic. Base on your own bias, a,nd could be applied to any kind of software. The law, economy, marketing are there for any kind of software…
About the quality, it’s ok, That is a basic thing. Many FLOSS is as good or better than the propietary-closed software. Ther are also applications for specific use, that do not have an equivalent in free-opensource soft, but this is a question of time and evolution of the market…
!!!
Jesus Christ all bloody mighty! And again, you miss the point entirely <shakes head> where the hell did you get that I’m anti-stallman or anti-opensource? Angel–Fr@gzill@, are you one of those ‘children left behind’ which the ‘no child left behind policy’ missed?
> In case you haven’t realisedn the propietary-closed
> software has also a licence in general, and you do not
> acuse it of having its particular legal aspects and
> philosophy too, … (strange 😉 )
Unlike the GPL and other F/OSS licenses, these EULAs are illegal and thus pointless in many countries. People ignore them anyway.
> And I awnser you again, like in my former posts: The
> user does not need to know about that, if the soft is
> free in both meanings, he/she can just use it… Its
> easier and quicker than with the propietary soft..
The user can also ‘just use’ proprietary software. Which one is easier and quicker must be decided on a case-by-case basis. I have made the experience that the quality of F/OSS varies heavily (to both extremes) – just as proprietary software does. It helps a lot though if you don’t confuse quality with the license, especially because normal users tend to choose software by quality and in addition by need, but much less by license.
> Do you know that propietary software have also a
> philosophy and legal status??
> Maybe you do not know it, or you don’t mind because
> you just simply make pirate copies and use it
> illegally…
Yes, people do ‘pirate’ good or needed programs, that’s why file-sharing programs were so successful. (BTW it still confuses me how the reproduction of information can be compared to murder, rape and destruction).
You say: “As ‘marketers’ we need to promote the positive things of Linux”. Well, precisely being openSource is the most positive thing of Linux..
Ask Red Hat… thats how they became big.. because they realised that their customers wanted the possibility of modifying the source of the programs…
No, Red Hat became big because they provided a 1-800 number customers could dial if something went wrong with their linux installation, not because their customers could modify the source code. I’d be willing to bet that very few Red Hat customers modify the source code because they’d be breaking the support contracts they’ve paid significant dollars for.
I think the point is that grandiosing about the importance of GPL and OSS makes linux a political statement instead of a viable alternative, and companies tend to be very conservative in their approach to software deployment.
Red Hat packaged linux as a realistic alternative for the datacenter that gave customers a cost-effective, stable and reliable platform alternative to *nix and Windows. Because Red Hat succeeeded in making linux a viable commercial platform, commercial vendors started offering big ticket server apps (security, network management, application platforms etc.) for Linux. We’re not talking about desktop packages here, we’re talking about server apps that run into several thousands, or tens of thousands, of dollars.
And when you look at the system requirements for any of those big-ticket linux server apps, 99 times out of 100 they will list RHEL specifically, not LSB-based linux.
Red Hat gets it. They embraced the OSS model as an alternative to closed-source proprietary development, and built a successful services model around it to generate the appropriate revenue to keep that model suceeding.
Red Hat provided a working solution, not a political statement. Red Hat itself is OSS, but many of the big ticket packages running on it are closed and paid for.
If desktop linux continues to be associated with hippies and geeks, with everybody screaming “freedom” and “open source”, the software vendors will never see it as a viable revenue-generating platform for development. If the community values freedom at the expense of commercially available closed applications, then so be it, but you can’t argue at the same time that linux is ready for widespread desktop deployment because it is not in that case.
OSS has proven itself a powerful and effective development model, but it’s not all-encompassing. Desktop linux will prosper when a balance between OSS and closed-source is found that delivers effective solutions to customers. As you pointed out, Red Hat proved it in the server room, now we need to prove it on the desktop.
!!!
— “No, Red Hat became big because they provided a 1-800 number customers could dial if something went wrong with their linux installation, not because their customers could modify the source code. I’d be willing to bet that very few Red Hat customers modify the source code because they’d be breaking the support contracts they’ve paid significant dollars for”
No, sorry, No, Red Hat became big because they provided, because the gave the OS for free ( the opposite as everyother was doing), and because their customers could modify the source code (many companies are interested in particular adaptations for them, that could not be done with closed-propietary software), and also, as you say because they provided a 1-800 number customers could dial if something went wrong with their linux installation.
— “If desktop linux continues to be associated with hippies and geeks, with everybody screaming “freedom” and “open source”, the software vendors will never see it as a viable revenue-generating platform for development. If the community values freedom at the expense of commercially available closed applications, then so be it, but you can’t argue at the same time that linux is ready for widespread desktop deployment because it is not in that case”
This is an opinion. Your opinion. Freedon does not have to be associated with hippiess. I am not a hippie.
You can cry freedom and sell millions of whatever.
Don’t you mind about freedom? Well, as everybody else.
Actually, almost everything that is sold and marketed is associated with freedom, and beautiness, and sex…
The association of the free software with the hippies is mainly an USA thing. In the rest of the world is not exactly like that. Actually for many youngsters is something poshy, and to show off…
Anyway, the fact that is free does not prevent the commercial use of it, neither the commercial sucess…
This has more to do with a certain image of the USA citizens with many things, than with the reality.
I understand, nevertheless, that the fact that is free in the 2 meanings, does not interest to much to those who are for the culture and economy of greed…
But even in the USA Marketing and MBA studies you are taugh about the Win-Win theory.
That allows making commercial reataions and profit as much or more than the the Winner-looser one…
Think about it!
!!!
I tend to agree. After all, that’s how Windows has achieved and maintained dominance, by coming pre-installed on PCs. The vast majority of computer users have never had to install an OS (they ask me to do it instead…grrr…)
Well, actually Windows first became dominant in the corporate realm, home users started using Windows because it was what they had to use at work and already knew the Windows UI. If (and that’s a big if) Novell manages to get enough corporate migration, the end-users will come. They probably will use Ubuntu instead of SuSe, though.
IF Linux ever takes hold of some desktop space it will certainly be in the Corporate World first… Just like Windows NT did.
All the classic arguments against Linux on the desktop don’t apply in the corporate world:
1) No games….well, duh. Get back to work.
2) Hard to install, configure yadda, yadaa. What do you think all the trained monkeys in the IT department are for?
Just like Windows initally, I believe it will happen first in the corporate world where they can take advantage of the strenghts, zero cost, high customibility etc, long before it is ever loaded onto the latest E-Machines in BestBuy.
I think you are correct. Actually the reason why Windows is so wide spread is because people got used to using it at work and when they finally got a computer at home they stuck to what they already know. Only the same strategy is totally wrong for Linux because people already have a computer at home and this time I think Apple will win because they treat the PC as a whole package and not just an OS ot a pile of hardware. It is getting to the point where people use their home pc as an entertainment center and Apple’s strategy is very successful in this case. Only they need to get game programmers and content providers onboard. Otherwise Windows will stay where it’s at even though it really stinks. As far as Linux goes, well it stand no chance as an entertainment system because the entertainment industry like strict rules and very solid guidlines with a solid way of contolling money flow ( read patents and DRM ). Linux can never offer that. It goes against the very nature of the OS.
As far as Linux goes, well it stand no chance as an entertainment system because the entertainment industry like strict rules and very solid guidlines with a solid way of contolling money flow ( read patents and DRM ). Linux can never offer that. It goes against the very nature of the OS.
Unless of course a distro like Linspire starts making some deals with Hollywood and offering protected content and such. They already have a legal DVD player. They could keep going in that direction.
!!!
Good Comment. and also the other comments related to your comment.. I agree with you.
But now there are still a big difference and a point to consider… Now a PC is like a TV, there is a PC in almost avery home, (or it is starting to be, worldwide). It is not like 20 years ago where PCs were being deployed in companies and almost nobody had one at home…
Because of that, the deployment of Linux in the entreprise market is very important, but not definitive, and not necessary ultimately for Linux to gain adepts over the years…
Now a lot of people have a PC at home, and as important as the entreprise market is/will be the games and multimedia market.
Now people is more computer literate than before. Little by little, Linux or other systems can gain users. Users that find that Linux now is easy, secure, and free (in both senses. I mean.. We are mean
Isn’t it ?).
The “word to mouth” marketing is a very powerfull weapon too!
And now Linux is “Desktop ready”, even more than Windows in many aspects. People will realise of that, and, slowly, but firmly will be using more and more Linux or other distros…
The release of Linux binaries of many Windows software and games (or same quality equivalents) would help enormously too, But is not that easy to achieve!
And is there also, where Linux distros, that do not have the financial means to compete in the entreprise market (like novell, Red Hat, or Mandriva) have to punch, and can get a big share of the market.
But the article is right, Linux will not pentrate in the enterprise market more than 10% in the next years. That is millions of computers anyway!
And for the home market it will be more or less the same…
Anyway, a 10 % in 5 years, for instance, is a victory, and means that the share of Linux in the Desktop will only get bigger (in corporations, and home users).
This change will mean actually the “year of the Linux Desktop”! And it will bring also the appearance and use of other OSs.
People shouldn’t get it wrong. The year of the “Desktop Linux” does not mean that in one year 50% or 60% of the PCs will be using linux. This is impossble and irrational.
But, a Linux percentage growth and evolution, similar to the one that Firefox is having in the Internet browsers, is perfectly possible in only a few years…
!!!
Just my 2 cents, but I don’t think it helps when there is this constant stream of Novell-inspired articles pitching Novell vs Microsoft. For a start, their stuff is now all called SuSE. And there is more to Linux than Novell. If for any reason Novell catches a cold, all of Linux will look bad.
This “battle royal” scenario is grandiose and a little pretentious; it is not the Linux style, imho. The pre-Novell SuSE did it better, with an emphasis on solid professionalism, a good community of users and no drama, just results. I wish to heck Novell would get a new marketing department. SuSE’s new offerings sound fabulously good, but I wish this person called Novell would stop boasting and get their elbow out the way.
It would be nice to hear in simple, direct, jargon-free terms what SuSE Linux can give me, and what it can give me that Windows cannot.
Just my 2 cents, but I don’t think it helps when there is this constant stream of Novell-inspired articles pitching Novell vs Microsoft. For a start, their stuff is now all called SuSE. And there is more to Linux than Novell. If for any reason Novell catches a cold, all of Linux will look bad.
Pardon? SuSE still operates, but at the same time, they want to transition their customers from SuSE to Novell Linux products; from what it appears, SuSE will Novell what Fedora Core is to Red Hat – a core name for their community product on which their commercial products will be based upon.
The reason for Novell vs. Microsoft is historical baggage; Novell is put up as the rebirth of a company to take back ‘whats rightfully theirs’ from Microsoft.
As for marketing, you are right; what can Novell Linux offer you which Windows can’t – something that distro’s don’t understand; speaking jargon to technical people in companies is ok, they know the lingo, but for the average consumer, they know there is going to be a bit of bumpiness in the transition, and they want to know if they’re going to experience a little pain, when they come out the otherside, will there be enough benefits to justify the transition.
That’s a good point, however I remember that Windows 95 was as much marketed to the home user (who at that point was often still a bit of a hobbyist) as it was to the corporate world.
Windows 3.1 was a home product as well…I think the business and home desktop actually developed sort of simultaneously. The IBM PC was the machine of the corporate desktop, indubitably, but many people who used Windows 95 at home were still using Win 3.1 at work…just like most of our PCs at work are still running Windows 2000.
I think we can agree on the fact that Windows 95+ coming pre-installed was a factor on home usage, as was the fact that the corporate desktop also run on MS OSes, from DOS to Windows 3.1 and up.
I think that might be a chicken-egg question. It was a different scenario from what Linux is in to now.
Microsoft DOS was the popular corporate OS. Hence, people tended to get that at home.
Since DOS was popular in the workplace and gaining traction in the home, Windows had the opportunity to target both audiences.
Currently, Linux has the opportunity to target geeks (an easy win), businesses, and philosophically inclined home users who are willing to make a stretch. That’s a pretty good scenario, but it isn’t the same as the fortuitous scenario had by Microsoft in the early 90s.
Does anyone know of attempts to create a Mac-like pc (in the sense that the hardware and OS are fixed), based on Linux (maybe even a specialized distro) and well-known hardware? This would solve a lot of problems Linux currently has: the need for disk partitioning (no need for that), complicated installation (dito), distro choice, hardware issues, …
I’m not talking about a cheap standard pc with some random distro installed, but something that works as an integrated product with a nice user interface that *completely* hides the details.
(of course, BSD-based would be interesting too)