Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
This is the year of the Linux Desktop! Oh, um, so was `expr ${THISYEAR} - 1`. No, wait. It was `expr ${THISYEAR} - 2`. Just kidding. Next year is the year of the Linux Desktop! Of course, many continue to dream and hope, cajole, and demand that one of these years be the year of the Linux Desktop. I'm a big fan, and I'm pulling for Linux's success, but it's a complex formula that determines if and when. It's a puzzle with many pieces. I think Linux is close, but the pieces of the puzzle need to come together.
I have been using a Linux desktop now for 10 years. I switched from Windows as I saw the advantage of Linux for my work. I am a social/evolutionary scientist, and many of the most active scientists around the world use some version of Linux or Unix. They don't call it a "desktop." They call it a "workstation," and it has been here, active, and effective for decades. This style of computing fits the needs of thousands of people much better than the Windows style. Linus has said that he envisioned Linux primarily as a desktop operating system. It is a grand one for certain people.
The Linux evangelists don't see this as a success because they want to sell Linux, but Linux isn't for sale. Selling Linux to people who really don't want, or perhaps don't need, a computer is the problem. The evangelists see that Microsoft has made billions doing this. Microsoft has taken advantage of human psychology. Once people have struggled to learn something they don't want to change. It is almost impossible for any operating system (read GUI) to complete in this market.
However, what ordinary people seem to want more than anything is a communication device. A computer operating system may be a poor way of providing this, and Linux can move into an niche if it becomes a device operating system. It won't really be a computer operating system anymore. It will be a Linux derivative and I hope the evangelists will be happy with that.
Meanwhile, there are people who need a real computer, such as engineers, scientists, professors, etc. They really do need Linux and perhaps the evangelists should start doing something for these people who really need it.
The Linux evangelists don't see this as a success because they want to sell Linux, but Linux isn't for sale. Selling Linux to people who really don't want, or perhaps don't need, a computer is the problem. The evangelists see that Microsoft has made billions doing this. Microsoft has taken advantage of human psychology. Once people have struggled to learn something they don't want to change. It is almost impossible for any operating system (read GUI) to complete in this market.
However, what ordinary people seem to want more than anything is a communication device. A computer operating system may be a poor way of providing this, and Linux can move into an niche if it becomes a device operating system. It won't really be a computer operating system anymore. It will be a Linux derivative and I hope the evangelists will be happy with that.
Meanwhile, there are people who need a real computer, such as engineers, scientists, professors, etc. They really do need Linux and perhaps the evangelists should start doing something for these people who really need it.
Want something else to ponder, ponder the term evangalism. Do you really want to equate it to religious dogma and intolerance?
Be an advocate, that way you can still slam the door in the faces of the evangalists when they come knocking on the door about $DIETY .
Be an advocate, that way you can still slam the door in the faces of the evangalists when they come knocking on the door about $DIETY .
"I know Linux proscribes selling Linux..."
Well, the GPL v2 (the license under which a person or corporation is permitted to copy Linux) doesn't proscribe selling free-as-in-speech software a'tall. Feel free to sell it for whatever you can get for it -just remember that whoever buys it can share it for free under the same license, so be sure your business model makes sense. IBM, for example, leverages Linux to increase the value of its hardware, which is much harder to share. :-)
Thanks for the interesting and thought-provoking suggestions.
Well, the GPL v2 (the license under which a person or corporation is permitted to copy Linux) doesn't proscribe selling free-as-in-speech software a'tall. Feel free to sell it for whatever you can get for it -just remember that whoever buys it can share it for free under the same license, so be sure your business model makes sense. IBM, for example, leverages Linux to increase the value of its hardware, which is much harder to share. :-)
Thanks for the interesting and thought-provoking suggestions.
Speaking anonymously, one researcher has disclosed a possible divergence in the human genome. Evidence points to one group evolving, and using Linux, while the other group devolves while amusing itself with Windows. Is it possible? Can it be true? Ponder away, my ponderous friends!!
The value of GNU/Linux is not zero even if that is what the licence cost.
The replacement cost is billions of dollars.
It gives the same or better performance than that other OS, so it is more valuable.
100 million PCs use it because it works.
The value of GNU/Linux is greater than that other OS especially if you consider cost of operation. I need more servers if I run that other OS. I need more re-re-reboots if I run that other OS. I need to actively fight malware if I run that other OS. The value of that other OS is actually negative because it keeps costing us for as long as we use it. GNU/Linux has a one-time cost that is reasonable and then costs very little to operate.
Value of GNU/Linux = $0 - ( hundreds of dollars of negatives for that other OS) + huge flexibility + huge reliability = hundreds of dollars per installation.
When OEMs install GNU/Linux the price is hidden just as with that other OS so this is not a concern for the purchaser. 90% or more users of PCs have no clues about installing an OS of any kind.
The replacement cost is billions of dollars.
It gives the same or better performance than that other OS, so it is more valuable.
100 million PCs use it because it works.
The value of GNU/Linux is greater than that other OS especially if you consider cost of operation. I need more servers if I run that other OS. I need more re-re-reboots if I run that other OS. I need to actively fight malware if I run that other OS. The value of that other OS is actually negative because it keeps costing us for as long as we use it. GNU/Linux has a one-time cost that is reasonable and then costs very little to operate.
Value of GNU/Linux = $0 - ( hundreds of dollars of negatives for that other OS) + huge flexibility + huge reliability = hundreds of dollars per installation.
When OEMs install GNU/Linux the price is hidden just as with that other OS so this is not a concern for the purchaser. 90% or more users of PCs have no clues about installing an OS of any kind.
