A good way of getting linux into mainstream...

P

priteshvarsani

New Member
Linux down below its skin is a very good operating system (definate best os in the world if they could just make a little bit more effort), but it still has problems with the dopey user who does not want to use the terminal, and does not want advanced crap!!,

If somebody could flood some effort just finishing of linux, for making it easier to use it could be a deffo windows and OSX killer!!!,

also it would help a lot if the was a commercial company willing to support its chosen distro and improve it FOR HOME USERS!!!.

Linux in the enterprise\business is also very bad too, as at the moment i only use sun solaris and windows 2003 servers as they are very stable, reliable and do theyre job very well ( itried linux fo a while but it was WAYYY TOO HARD TO USE, AND THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DECENT APPS FOR IT YET, AND IT KEPT ON CRASHING TOO!!!)

So if a large company took on a linux distro, optimised it for easier use, and mass produced and supportted it they would be a very rich company, and with the help of other companies making commercial applications for linux, and all of the open source linux products, LINUX WOULD BE A KILLER!

This is the main reason microsoft have such a big market share!!
 
I see this thread turning into a gruesome battle between windows and linux.
I personally i get most ppl involved with linux and i explain them how it works and which distro swill suite them.
A few learn and a few complain that they can't carry out their task like they would do in windows.
This mean Linux needs to build a strong software foundation.

I use Linux only as a web server, and home also.
Linux is missing some decent apps and like you said missing commercial software.
If Linux had support from all software vendors trust me, nobody would be using windows.
But hey somewhere along the lines in IT one has to use linux
 
Some distributions do have big companies behind them, look at Ubuntu - Canonical Ltd (http://www.canonical.com/aboutus)

That's why Ubuntu is evolving so quickly, every six months we see great improvements with each new release.

Now for the first time ever (that I know of) one of the worlds largest, if not the largest computer systems company, Dell are offering a Linux distribution (Ubuntu) pre-installed on some of their machines. That is a huge step for Linux and shows how far it has come.

I don't know when you last used Linux, priteshvarsani, but there are more applications available than on any other OS.

I think the problem is (no offence) people like yourself who may have used Linux in the past and either didn't think much of it or had a bad experience, so then that puts you off and you tell your friends how difficult it was to use and how nothing worked and they tell theirs, etc. etc. 6 Months later (or sooner) the problem you experienced may have been fixed, but you've given up on Linux and don't know that 6 months in a Linux life cycle is a fairly long time and much has changed.

The reason MS has such a big market share is simply down to pre-installing.
You buy a pc, up until recently you didn't even get a choice as to what came on it, it was usually the latest Windows version. That automatically means MS has the market and software developers have to make their application compatible with Windows.

I'm not saying that Windows is crap, it is fairly easy to use and works but it comes at a cost - cost of software, cost of support, cost of upgrading your machine to use the latest Windows version, cost of paying some tech to fix your pc after it became virus ridden (not everyone is technically minded) etc.

Linux offers a much cheaper alternative, that is (usually) more stable than Windows, viruses, spyware and malware do not affect it and it's free.

The way to get it into mainstream is to talk about it more. I'm trying to get my dad to try it at the moment as I'm about to upgrade his machine, so he'll be reinstalling his OS anyway but he's scared of the unknown. He's not very technically minded and isn't in any kind of IT loop, so the first he heard of Linux was through me. If he could walk into PC World and see machines offered with Windows OR Linux and see free Linux CD's and books on Linux etc. then he would feel more at ease. He is one of those people with the mindset that you get what you pay for, so how can anything free be any good?
 
I agree

I love linux, i am just saying that windows has a lot more commercial applications on it.

I have no preference between the two, but i am saying that linux is not user freindly enough YET.

I use ubuntu on my main desktop, and i love it, yes it does have a LOT OF APPLICATIONS, but the apps are NO MATCH to the commercial alternatives, e.g, look at office 2007 vs openoffice, openoffice is still making changes that MS made in office XP.

There are some good open source apps, such as GIMP and firefox, but compared to commercial software they are only a small minority. If linux can attract the best developers, and attract the enterprises, home users will undoubtly follow
 
I'm sorry but OS X > Linux from and end user perspective. Apple did a super awesome job of masking Unix in Aqua. The UI is the most intuitive I have seen with a *nix distro running in the background. With things like fink commander, crossover, boot camp, etc make the Mac platform the most compatible there is. I can run just about any package on my mac from Linux, Unix, Windows, and of course OS X.

Also, ubuntu is not all that great IMO for any kind of main stream OS. I am assuming you are talking about enterprise solutions where a company would deploy 1000s of linux desktops to it's users. Ubuntu would not be my first choice at all deploying in that kind of environment. Mainly for how it handles root users via /etc/sudoers, though apple does the same thing but OS X has the unix side masked so end users never have to deal with it. Ubuntu is okay, I don't hate it but I think it is way over hyped, I'd rather just run debian instead of its bastard child ubuntu.

MS has such a big share because there is no competition for them. You have to realize that even though there many Linux and other open source based alternatives to windows based software there are also a lot of times no open source alternative. Quickbooks comes into mind here. there are other obvious examples of where linux falls short on the application lists but lets just keep the conversation about that simple, it needs more support.

There are some big companies behind Linux. Novell, purchased SuSe some time ago which is a redhat based distro. Now, don't get open suse and SLED confused they are two different breeds of Linux. SLED is highly supported, developed, and is not free. it is a pay for distro by Novell. Open suse, is their open source project that novell has nothing to do with other than tossing it money every year to keep the project alive. They basically just help fund it, nothing more nothing less. When you use a pay for Linux distro you notice that things tend to work a LOT better out of the box. The downside is, Linux users wine and pout if they have to fork over a dollar for a license. We are talking pennies on the dollar too comparing the cost to lets say windows vista ultimate, because really Linux already has all those features.

Linux also lacks standards. If you are going to implement something on a large scale there has to be standards, because you need some sort of system of control. otherwise it becomes a support nightmare and your support staff get over worked, frustrated or just can't keep on top of the 1 million different applications and package managers your users are using.

Don't get me wrong, Linux has a lot of things going for it, but there is also a lot left to be desired. The advantages Linux boasts too are great but again they still then even lack features i think should be standard in an OS.
 
Thats what i said in my first post, that linux needs commercial support now, once they have some money in they can concentrate on doing things that microsoft and apple were doing a long time ago, like making the OS easier, and getting away from the command line!
 
tlarkin said:
Also, ubuntu is not all that great IMO for any kind of main stream OS. I am assuming you are talking about enterprise solutions where a company would deploy 1000s of linux desktops to it's users. Ubuntu would not be my first choice at all deploying in that kind of environment. Mainly for how it handles root users via /etc/sudoers, though apple does the same thing but OS X has the unix side masked so end users never have to deal with it. Ubuntu is okay, I don't hate it but I think it is way over hyped, I'd rather just run debian instead of its bastard child ubuntu.
Click to expand...

very very strong point tlarkin.
os's such as Blag,ubuntu,Mepis won't make an Enterprise OS. They don't have strenghten security.
Debian,RHEL and SLED can make an enterprise OS
 
priteshvarsani said:
Thats what i said in my first post, that linux needs commercial support now, once they have some money in they can concentrate on doing things that microsoft and apple were doing a long time ago, like making the OS easier, and getting away from the command line!
Click to expand...

It needs more than commercial support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top