Old news (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-11 21:45 (#2SA8) Indeed old news. I have been using Linux (SuSE) on the desktop since 2005. On the server sinc 1999. I am not alone. Re: Old news (Score: 1) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2014-09-12 06:05 (#2SA9) Sure, lots of individuals have used Linux as their desktop for years and years, but many companies assume they can't function with Linux. The company I worked for, until very recently, ran Linux since at least 2005 when I joined up, and from what I could tell, about a dozen years before that. (They got a new CEO who now assumes that all of the problems the company has had since 2008 are Linux's fault, hence why I, a systems developer, left.)A big problem most people seem to have with Linux is the assumption that "you get what you pay for." Many people also assumed that it was "old technology" because we used FVWM (which is very, very old indeed), so the whole system must have been "outdated."If I knew some magic way to get people to realize that Linux is worth the learning curve, I would get everyone I knew converted over in a heartbeat. The only places Linux seems to shine are the places where it out-competes on the full experience, not just price: servers (especially lots of servers) are easier to manage than Windows and Android is more accessible, and has more features people want, than an iPhone. If price were the only factor everyone would have switched to Linux on their desktops in the early 90's, but they didn't because Linux was extremely difficult to use/install at the time. The times, they are a changin', but I think for the average Joe, they need to keep a changin' for many years to come. Re: Old news (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-12 14:15 (#2SAY) Minor disagreement -- price CANNOT be a factor because MS has managed to continue "invisibly" bundling the cost of Windows licenses in 99.82324% of PC sales. It has never been a level playing field and is still not a level playing field.If people could choose a fully functional desktop with Windows for $500 versus the same fully functional desktop with Linux for $350, you're damn right price would be a factor. But it is NEVER that clear due to the continued OEM bundling/coercion force of Microsoft.Only system builders get to see the economics of this first-hand when they have to decide whether to spring for a Windows license (and which one).In short, Microsoft didn't stop being evil just because Google and Apple started. Re: Old news (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-09-12 14:43 (#2SB3) OK, you're right. But it /did/ cost them, in a way. While Microsoft was continuing to be jerks about their OS and while they were simultaneously ruining it in the form of Win8, Google was able to build ChromeOS and OEMs were able to deliver decent quality laptops running it for no cost. Guess which segment is the fastest growing sector in the laptop market these days?So Microsoft didn't stop being evil, but that decision hurt them strategically, as it opened up the door to a competitor that has made real inroads into markets they previously considered theirs alone.Nelson: ha ha!
Re: Old news (Score: 1) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2014-09-12 06:05 (#2SA9) Sure, lots of individuals have used Linux as their desktop for years and years, but many companies assume they can't function with Linux. The company I worked for, until very recently, ran Linux since at least 2005 when I joined up, and from what I could tell, about a dozen years before that. (They got a new CEO who now assumes that all of the problems the company has had since 2008 are Linux's fault, hence why I, a systems developer, left.)A big problem most people seem to have with Linux is the assumption that "you get what you pay for." Many people also assumed that it was "old technology" because we used FVWM (which is very, very old indeed), so the whole system must have been "outdated."If I knew some magic way to get people to realize that Linux is worth the learning curve, I would get everyone I knew converted over in a heartbeat. The only places Linux seems to shine are the places where it out-competes on the full experience, not just price: servers (especially lots of servers) are easier to manage than Windows and Android is more accessible, and has more features people want, than an iPhone. If price were the only factor everyone would have switched to Linux on their desktops in the early 90's, but they didn't because Linux was extremely difficult to use/install at the time. The times, they are a changin', but I think for the average Joe, they need to keep a changin' for many years to come. Re: Old news (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-12 14:15 (#2SAY) Minor disagreement -- price CANNOT be a factor because MS has managed to continue "invisibly" bundling the cost of Windows licenses in 99.82324% of PC sales. It has never been a level playing field and is still not a level playing field.If people could choose a fully functional desktop with Windows for $500 versus the same fully functional desktop with Linux for $350, you're damn right price would be a factor. But it is NEVER that clear due to the continued OEM bundling/coercion force of Microsoft.Only system builders get to see the economics of this first-hand when they have to decide whether to spring for a Windows license (and which one).In short, Microsoft didn't stop being evil just because Google and Apple started. Re: Old news (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-09-12 14:43 (#2SB3) OK, you're right. But it /did/ cost them, in a way. While Microsoft was continuing to be jerks about their OS and while they were simultaneously ruining it in the form of Win8, Google was able to build ChromeOS and OEMs were able to deliver decent quality laptops running it for no cost. Guess which segment is the fastest growing sector in the laptop market these days?So Microsoft didn't stop being evil, but that decision hurt them strategically, as it opened up the door to a competitor that has made real inroads into markets they previously considered theirs alone.Nelson: ha ha!
Re: Old news (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-12 14:15 (#2SAY) Minor disagreement -- price CANNOT be a factor because MS has managed to continue "invisibly" bundling the cost of Windows licenses in 99.82324% of PC sales. It has never been a level playing field and is still not a level playing field.If people could choose a fully functional desktop with Windows for $500 versus the same fully functional desktop with Linux for $350, you're damn right price would be a factor. But it is NEVER that clear due to the continued OEM bundling/coercion force of Microsoft.Only system builders get to see the economics of this first-hand when they have to decide whether to spring for a Windows license (and which one).In short, Microsoft didn't stop being evil just because Google and Apple started. Re: Old news (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-09-12 14:43 (#2SB3) OK, you're right. But it /did/ cost them, in a way. While Microsoft was continuing to be jerks about their OS and while they were simultaneously ruining it in the form of Win8, Google was able to build ChromeOS and OEMs were able to deliver decent quality laptops running it for no cost. Guess which segment is the fastest growing sector in the laptop market these days?So Microsoft didn't stop being evil, but that decision hurt them strategically, as it opened up the door to a competitor that has made real inroads into markets they previously considered theirs alone.Nelson: ha ha!
Re: Old news (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-09-12 14:43 (#2SB3) OK, you're right. But it /did/ cost them, in a way. While Microsoft was continuing to be jerks about their OS and while they were simultaneously ruining it in the form of Win8, Google was able to build ChromeOS and OEMs were able to deliver decent quality laptops running it for no cost. Guess which segment is the fastest growing sector in the laptop market these days?So Microsoft didn't stop being evil, but that decision hurt them strategically, as it opened up the door to a competitor that has made real inroads into markets they previously considered theirs alone.Nelson: ha ha!