What flavor of Linux are folks running?

It's not a case of sticking with what I'm familiar with
Don't get me wrong, I am not a person that thinks MS is pure evil, and windows is the worst thing ever made, and there is and for a long time will situations in which windows is necessary. However, for the everyday user, whom use computers for email, internet, and word processing this could be accomplished on linux or many other OS. There are certain high level stuff that on excel can do, for example, which can't be found under other OS. But the average person uses excel to make graphs or do simple calcuations. In that situation something like open office would work fine.
I wouldn't dare to try to encourage them to save money by inflicting Linux on them at this stage though!
I wouldn't think of giving them Linux and expect them to be able to use the console to install programs, but with Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, Lindows, and RPMs linux is near the stage of windows usablity in many causes. Even PDAs, digital cameras, mp3 players are becoming more and more compatible.
Not servers...15000 PCs, with around 600 servers to support them in one way or another.
You wrote that correct the first time, my mistake :oops:

Chris

However, for the everyday user, whom use computers for email, internet, and word processing this could be accomplished on linux or many other OS.

Long post…go fetch a coffee now before starting to read!

[Rant]

I’d put that a slightly different way. For an everyday user who has been on Jupiter for the last 20 years and has never used a Windows PC then the learning curve of using Linux is starting to approach that of Windows.

However, the average non-techie person who has struggled part way up the learning curve of Windows is likely to find Linux a bit of a culture shock with a long re-learning curve. This will put many people off.

One of the biggest battles I have at work is walking the fine line between providing the super-geeks with the bleeding edge technology that they want when we’ve got many thousands of users who are struggling to use their PC for simple tasks despite the slow rate of change we try to adopt. Many of us in this forum could make the jump to Linux without too much difficulty, but there are millions of Windows users who would find it frustratingly difficult.

One of the big problems I see with Linux, from an end user perspective, is the fragmentation of the distros. RPMs are great in RedHat…if you can work out where to find the matching set you need to install the latest security patches and don’t end up having to type in 3 mile long command lines to recompile Apache from scratch! If you look at Fedora you’ll find YUM waiting in the wings to make life easier. If you look at SUSE you’ll find APT-GET sitting in the same spot. All three systems work differently. As a techie I could probably make all three work the same way, or install YUM or APT-GET on any of the distros. The average user doesn’t want that kind of choice though…they just want to be able to turn on the PC, create a letter, print it out…and when they get stuck be able to speak to someone who knows their system environment well enough to know how to fix their problem. The different tools available on each distro make the Linux support person’s job much more difficult than for a Windows support person.

I believe that this fragmentation is mainly brought on by the Open Source culture. Source code is available, so anyone can download it and fix their own problems or develop new functionality that they need. Hmmm…how sensible is this? Most code is fairly inpenetrable unless you’re the author and I wouldn’t like to have to try to understand the millions of lines of code that make up a Linux distro! I’m a coder (although not that much lately), and I’d find it difficult. The average user wouldn’t stand a chance.

Open Source brings a bigger problem though…forking (and I’m not swearing!). For example, Team ‘A’ write Hokey-Cokey and it’s a pretty good product. Unfortunately some of Team ‘A’ start to lose interest in adding new code and flatly refuse to add code to allow it to integrate with a new printer that a lot of people are starting to use. Part of Team ‘A’ (lets call them Team ‘B’) take the existing code (which is allowed under GPL/Open Source) and fork it, i.e. modify it creating SonOfHokey-Cokey. They add new functionality and it slowly drifts away from the original package functionality. However, now Team ‘B’ refuse to add bits of code that Team ‘A’ are adding to Hokey-Cokey. The poor end user is stuck trying to weigh up which of the diverging packages suits them best. Worse still the split of Team A/B has diluted the coding effort of the overall project which then slows down both projects and you end up waiting for years for updates to either package.

If you want a good example of this, just look at PHP-Nuke, PostNuke, Xaraya, Envolution, and the myriad of other Nuke related CMS/portal packages! PHP-Nuke forked to make PostNuke. Postnuke then had a bust up and forked into Xaraya and Envolution. There are now four different incompatible packages under development all trying to address a similar need.

Whilst this kind of activity persists it will be difficult for the typical user to find a package which will be supported into the future by a reliable group. Of course at this point the Linux evangelists will say ‘develop your own package or provide your own support’. Yeah…right…Joe Public is going to spend decades learning to code and then writing their own package?

[/Rant] :wink:

Of course the easiest way this could happen would schools/workplaces not wanting to pay $$$ to MS and go linux to save money. This would force people to use linux and get used to it. Chris
Hmmm, the Apple strategy huh? Let's see, 50% market share in schools, low single digit market share in the real world, that's a winner :wink:

Servers are a whole different ballgame, but there the actual software purchase cost is only a small component of the total cost and purchase decision. Linux has to bring something else to the party. There are very few totally cost driven purchase decisions, otherwise we’d all the driving Yugo’s :lol:

Ah, I see we were both typing at the same time. You are on the money, I was going to hit on fragmentation but I couldn’t spell it :lol:

Hmmm, the Apple strategy huh? Let's see, 50% market share in schools, low single digit market share in the real world, that's a winner
Really? I guess I was just sheltered. I went to public school(I guess private in UK, whatever) and I never saw any. We used the solid reliability of win98, and thats the way we liked it(i sound like a 70 year man 8O ).
However, the average non-techie person who has struggled part way up the learning curve of Windows is likely to find Linux a bit of a culture shock with a long re-learning curve. This will put many people off.
The majority of that is cosmetic and could be made to look like windows. Except for the file system structure for example most people wouldn't need to know the difference. I have never used Lindows so this could be wrong, but I thought that is what Lindows did just made everything look like windows, as much as possible?

I guess the solution to forking, and I know I am putting myself into a corner, but that some of the big names should standardize themselves, agree on rpms, etc… (which will get more users and raise all their market shares). So I guess I am saying Linux needs to be more MS like 8O If you get some standard distros, the distro can do the hard work of selecting what to include, for a fee? (so now I am wanting a MS in linux :oops: ) Let those “brave” enough to “go it alone”. And if hardware makers start to write linux drivers like they do windows and mac drivers, it would solve a lot of issues(of course hardware makers willl not do that until there are more than like 5% linux users, which may not occur until they do (no a circle of logic :x ))

walking the fine line between providing the super-geeks with the bleeding edge technology that they want when we've got many thousands of users who are struggling to use their PC
That will occur no matter what.

It is nice to be part of a linux vs windows conversation that doesn’t led to “windows sucks” or “linux sucks” :smiley:

Chris

The majority of that is cosmetic and could be made to look like windows. Except for the file system structure for example most people wouldn't need to know the difference. I have never used Lindows so this could be wrong, but I thought that is what Lindows did just made everything look like windows, as much as possible?

From the distros I’ve seen it’s got a long way to go at the moment. I must also admit that I’ve never used Lindows, so it’s possible it’s a lot closer than I think. It’s still not easy though. You might be able to get Linux to look fairly like Windows. Then you’d need to make an Office product that looked and behaved just like MS Office…and a mail client like Outlook Express, and a browser like IE. You’ll also need to build in all the same kind integrations, like scanning and printing to/from Office, MAPI type operation, etc. Most users never see this stuff, but use it every day without thinking about it.

I’m not saying this is impossible, and some of it is already available in some Linux products/distros, but all you’ve done when you achieve that is to build a different kind of Windows. There’s another issue brewing though. MS can research and add new product features because they make money from selling their product. If the product is ‘free’ at point of use, who will drive the feature additions/bug fixing? Maybe you’ll jump from a ‘pay per purchase’ model to a ‘pay per support fix’ model. I’m not sure it will save you any money. If there’s no money to be saved, how many people will still be interested?

Also if there’s little money to be made in selling product then you’ll see increasing fragmentation (that word again!). I might decide to write a full Outlook Express clone one weekend. I don’t make money from selling it and if it’s bug free, simple to use and does what it says on the box I can’t make much money from supporting it. I still need money to live in this world, so I’ll go and find some paid employment…and possibly ignore the clone. If I’m too busy to re-write it when MS bring out the latest OE then it will fall by the wayside and be overtaken by someone else’s world beater. At which point you will probably find that there isn’t a migration path between the two Linux products. You’re stuck with either using an old product for ever, or with carrying out an expensive/complex migration of your own (or taking the old code and supporting it yourself!)

I know about some of these problems because I’ve already been bitten by them in the Linux world (home not business).

I guess the solution to forking, and I know I am putting myself into a corner, but that some of the big names should standardize themselves, agree on rpms, etc...

If all the distros standardise then what differentiates them. Linux already has a common kernel. If you make all the apps standard, then what makes RedHat different from SUSE? The only difference can be the level of (paid for) support that they offer. How many people are deserting RedHat now that they’re effectively charging for their distro (I know of at least one person…me!) RedHat and SUSE obviously believe that they can make enough money from the corporate world to survive, but only by dumping the ‘freeloaders’ (home users like you and me). Linux has always been seen as the ‘free’ or at worst low cost option, so how many people will stick with it once it becomes a ‘cost’ (for support) option? Sure, the techies and die-hard MS bashers will, but if home users find that the cost of a PC+Windows is pretty much the same as the cost of a PC+annual Linux support agreement is pretty much the same, which way will they jump? Interstingly the cost of the annual support for RedHat EL is preety much the same as you pay as a one off purchase of MS Windows. Assuming Windows lasts three years between versions, RHEL is now around 3 times more expensive than Windows!

The same issues about purchase v support costs apply to all the other Linux packages to a greater or lesser extent. So you’ll probably end up paying support charges for your OE/IE clone, your Office clone, etc!

What about the big picture? Is the whole linux / free software thing reducing the perceived value of software and computer services in the eyes of the non-techie world? I’ve been trying to think of a parallel situation where an industry has shot itself in the foot this way.

Is the whole linux / free software thing reducing the perceived value of software and computer services in the eyes of the non-techie world?
I don't think that the linux/fs thing is that big yet that many people know about it. Many people are still paying $500 for Office 2003, so I guess not yet.
MS can research and add new product features because they make money from selling their product.
Still I would say that it is good for everyone to have a strong non MS OS. It stimulates competition, which stimulates innovation. If OSX or Linux was stronger, that would force MS to try to makes windows more secure for example, out of a fear of losing users. A MS with little to no competion does not need to add new product feature as much, because "where else will user go:?". They can sit on the "heap of money" and try to increase there monopoly.
and a browser like IE
Remember a few years ago Netscape had like 70% of browser market, so people can change.

<I am getting “beat” bad, Open Source users help me :oops: > :slight_smile:

Chris

I don't think that the linux/fs thing is that big yet that many people know about it. Many people are still paying $500 for Office 2003, so I guess not yet.
Sounds like you are thinking of someone going to the store and buying Windows/Office as the market, but I don't agree. My guess is that the volume is driven by business users who either get the OS and windows as a package with the hardware, or have a volume license deal with MS, and individuals who buy packaged PC's from eg Dell. In either case I doubt the OS sale has a real value of more than about $50, and even at the consumer level Dell sells basic office for about $100 with a system.

I read your post a few times, nikoshepherd. I must be having a bad day, because I don’t know what we are talking about now :oops:

Chris

Let me try this again. Are you saying the reason why so much software is still pay based, is because of companines paying for software and coming preloaded on pc when the are bought at many places, rather than people actually thinking that software writing/making is “hard” and is worth paying money for(which it is).

And I just remembered the best reason to use Linux. The ladies love it. Nothing like a shirt that says “I am root, bow before me” to get you some dates. :roll:

Chris

And I just remembered the best reason to use Linux. The ladies love it. Nothing like a shirt that says "I am root, bow before me" to get you some dates.
Lancaster, Ohio must be nothing like Lancaster, Lancashire (about 20 miles from me). Wearing a shirt like that would probably get you thrown in the canal :silly:

Chris
I am root, bow before me :wink:

Actually, I think it would get your thrown into a river here too. I get hit by friends for being a nerd and drawing the gnu cow(or whatever it is) in class. I am scared to see what would happen if I actually owned that shirt.

You couldn’t photshop that image, it has to be real.

Chris

Let me try this again. Are you saying the reason why so much software is still pay based, is because of companines paying for software and coming preloaded on pc when the are bought at many places.

Sorry, what I was trying to say is that you need to use the much lower price at which most copies of windows/office are sold rather than the over-the-counter price when thinking of “paid” vs. “free”.

And I just remembered the best reason to use Linux. The ladies love it. Nothing like a shirt that says "I am root, bow before me" to get you some dates. :roll: Chris
Ah, I see you are a man of taste and distinction. :roll:
What about the big picture? Is the whole linux / free software thing reducing the perceived value of software and computer services in the eyes of the non-techie world? I've been trying to think of a parallel situation where an industry has shot itself in the foot this way.
Hmm, seems there might be some support for this point of view from someone who might actually know what he's talking about [http://staff.newtelligence.net/clemensv/PermaLink.aspx?guid=8fe41294-a988-4c73-948a-1bfab622fcce](http://staff.newtelligence.net/clemensv/PermaLink.aspx?guid=8fe41294-a988-4c73-948a-1bfab622fcce)
Hmm, seems there might be some support for this point of view from someone who might actually know what he's talking about http://staff.newtelligence.net/clemensv/PermaLink.aspx?guid=8fe41294-a988-4c73-948a-1bfab622fcce
Which part are you pointing to?

Chris

I guess he sums it all up at the end

"In the end, Aiden, it

Long rant :smiley:

That is assuming that getting the house/family/new suv is the highest goal in life one can have. I will admit that nearly all open source programmers will not get rich or even make money on Linux, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have a purpose.

[quote]The good looking, intelligent girl over there at the bar that you

Long rant :D
You can say that again :D there's a lot I don't agree with.
Doctors without borders will never be able to save everyone, should they stop because there dream on no unneeded deaths in the 3rd world may never come true.
For this to be comparable doctors without borders would have to be setting up next door to the Cleveland Clinic offering free heart surgery and claiming that doctors, hospitals and drug companies shouldn't be paid for their services.
I don't want to go into a political argument, but a software developer whom writes a program and gets paid 10,000 for his time, while the company makes one million dollars is still being exploited.
Do you have an actual example of a software company where the total cost to develop, market and support the product is only 1% of sales? (I'd like to buy some of their stock :wink: )
or this to be comparable doctors without borders would have to be setting up next door to the Cleveland Clinic offering free heart surgery and claiming that doctors, hospitals and drug companies shouldn't be paid for their services.
I was more thinking of his argument that because free software is a "pipedream" and will never come true, it is pointless to work on it.
Do you have an actual example of a software company where the total cost to develop, market and support the product is only 1% of sales?
I wasn't including market and support because if they used some free software and sold it for profit, they would still have to pay the cost for the market and support. The only difference between if the software was free or written by someone at the company is the wage of the software writer, althought I do grant those numbers are a little "wild". :oops:

Chris