Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
13 Reasons Why Linux Won't Make it to a Desktop Near You
Renegade:
I'm not so sure that I'd say "Microsoft is anti-open source". They're 'embracing' it in their own MS way. :rip:
They've got new licenses that are for open source (e.g. MSPL).
That MS is anti-GPL - that's a given. The FSF is a radical organization with little in the way of moderation. The LGPL is the only usable license for anyone that makes their living in software. The whole "support" thing is a sham. Redhat makes nothing compared to any of the other players. The business model just doesn't really hold up (comparatively).
The biggest impediment to consumer adoption of Linux, is the Linux community itself. They're too busy making uber-geek stuff and focusing on functionality. Functionality doesn't matter if nobody can use it.
How do you install a Windows app? Double-click on the installer... Click "Next"... It's stupid simple. Anyone can do it.
How do you install a Linux app? Login to CVS. Download. Compile. Get 50 trillion required components. Compile again... Realize that you've got the wrong versions of dependencies... OK - maybe a bit extreme, but not far off.
You should not have to install half a dozen different software packages because of dependencies. That's the killer for Linux.
MS on the other hand "gets it". The most that you'll ever need to do is install .NET once.
These all are impediments to consumer adoption which drive developers to Windows where things are easier for people. That makes Windows more attractive for people because there are more options and more software offerings.
When Linux is finally able to attract developers en masse to develop for Linux, that will make it more attractive for consumers.
At the moment, other than run a server, you can get a sub-standard office suite for Linux and, well, not much more (comparatively).
The best thing to ever happen to Linux is Novell. They sponsor Mono and that's the single best thing going for Linux.
The .NET way is simply far superior to anything else out there for general programming. The language you use is no longer important. You can just write it then run it, and with Mono, you can do that anywhere.
Mono is really maturing very well and is going to be the most important thing to attract developers to write for Linux. When that happens, you'll see more software offerings for Linux and consequently, more consumer adoption.
Inside of that there, I see your regular Windows developers writing applications in the Windows tradition of making things easy for users. No more "install these 6 dependencies first, and make sure you have the right version." .NET killed DLL Hell. Your average commercial Windows developer knows that users won't tolerate any of that BS. (Something generally missed elsewhere.) Their livelihood depends on making things simple. That's what people want. That's what will attract people to Linux.
The OS is immaterial. It doesn't matter. The usability of the software offerings matters.
People use software to solve problems - NOT for the sake of using software. Those problems are solved easier on Windows at the moment. Mono is going to help turn the tide there as it opens up Linux to developers with a different mindset. i.e. "I'm writing software to help users solve problems." and not "I'm writing software to show to my developer friends how great a coder I am."
Grorgy:
A few things come to mind, if Linux is to be used more widely then it needs to get into a reasonable number of large corporations, places with 30 thousand or more workstations. This is going to be a hard slog. Those sort of companies are not going to pay huge amounts of money to teach people to use a new operating system when they can employ people off the street who have a basic knowledge of MS windows. After all the cost of training 30000 plus people for a day is quite significant, if enough could be done in a day to make the users feel comfortable doing the work they need to do. The amount they pay for a licenced windows copy is small compared to these costs.
And then there is the the user support areas, and the folk who are going to implement software changes throughout the organization. Lots of training required there.
Then there is compatibility with the people they do business with. Lets face it, a word processor that wont open .doc files is pretty useless, so they all can, and the support these big companies get from microsoft is, or was, when i was involved, quite good.
One company I worked for spent over 1/2 a billion dollars on a system to do their billing for them, all staff had access to this on windows PCs, probably not an insignificant cost in changing it to run on linux.
And i think its safe to say people will buy computers with operating systems they at least feel they know a bit, and those are the ones they use everyday at work.
Cpilot:
Thing is I'm not out to bash Linux, people that are happy with it then all the more power to them.
I just think there are too many obstacles to keep it from becoming a viable alternative to Windows and I just don't see that changing anytime soon.
Renegade:
Thing is I'm not out to bash Linux, people that are happy with it then all the more power to them.
I just think there are too many obstacles to keep it from becoming a viable alternative to Windows and I just don't see that changing anytime soon.
-Cpilot (September 19, 2007, 09:22 PM)
--- End quote ---
I think that one of the major obstacles - the Linux community itself - will be removed once Mono gains favor among developers. That will really open up Linux to more applications.
For corporate concerns, you can have your C# (or whatever .NET language) applications on both platforms, alleviating much of the expenses associated with training.
Yeah - I'm rooting for Mono in a big way! I'd love to develop for OSX & Linux, but I just can't really justify it much unless I'm reusing efforts spent developing for Windows. I see Mono as the answer there. Go Novell! :)
justice:
They've been saying the same thing "linux will get mainstream on the desktop when..." for the last 5 years (and probably the 15 years before it) but the one major kickstart happened when a major company took it up (in the case of ubuntu). So I think the community is too fragmented to kickstart itself. Whether there are enough companies willing to take up linux and kickstart it (like Nokia, Canonical, and Dell) to persuade major software companies to release linux products for the desktop, I don't think it will happen. It's much easier to push Apple's OSX -- Apple does all the work, it's more ready for the desktop, it's already in the shops, it's already being marketed well (and it runs most linux software). It will take a lot less effort if you're looking for a competitor to Windows to become mainstream on the desktop. That's my view. In the time linux could persuade adobe & microsoft to release creative suite and office for linux for example, apple will have persuaded the whole pc gaming industry to release games on OSX.
But then again, it will depend on people who disagree to push these distrubutions so that won't stop them (I hope!! it's probably the next wonder of the world, how worldwide collaboration on such a massive scale works together). Perhaps the pdf in the start of the topic just shows how conservative some marketing companies are -- realising the potential for linux but not their potential role in helping it move forwards and the benefits of that.)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version