My question is as such:

Linux is a great open source product but how is it going to gain popularity when alot of the open source projects lack funding and support for there product. These open source project are dependent on donations and programmers that want to help the cause. From what
I have seen linux is limited to a certain extent because of it lack of funding and being able to maintain the projects. Example go to souceforge.net and do a search on a piece of software and most of them that you will find do not have a technical number that you can call or lack funding and thus you a very limited to what you can do and can spend hours or days fumbling around at trying to get something to work.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Every open source project has its own support mechanism, often via email or forums. I've never found the lack of a phone number to be important.

The corporate side of things often does have phone support. If you pay to have something like Suse or Redhat you can get phone support. So, do you mean end users? Even there I'm not sure it's a valid comment. I won't be calling a phone number in the US from Australia to get support for a proprietary windows program - I go to google and get what I need there. Same for open source stuff.

Both, small open source projects and small closed source projects have problems generating cash - their revenue models are just different. Where open source tends to get its revenue from the things that happen around the software, closed source makes some of its money from the software itself. It's a different approach and although it can be difficult for startups it's still a valid approach.

There isn't one Linux project with a bunch of small products - there are many projects. You could contribute with code or money, I'm sure they'd appreciate it. Similarly, there isn't one Windows project (Microsoft doesn't own all Windows apps) and although you can contribute with money by buying their products, you usually don't get the satisfaction of working with the code. That's fine, each to their own.

If you're saying that it's hard for new Linux users to learn the programs they have and that that is the barrier for Linux acceptance, I have to ask: How many of your family members and friends call you with problems about their Windows setup? I know I have plenty...

gilead,

You have made many valid points including your comment from my previous post about riding the patty wagon and etc.I respect you position on linux and am grateful for enlightening me. I have using linux for severals years now and it just seems that it is very difficult to find support for linux other than forum like this and a plethura of linux documents off the web. I just wish that many of these samller projects would just fall under a few bigger projects to be better organized and maybe be a little more customer friendly. An example I used to use squidguard from squidguard.org. what happen to it and if I did need support for it from what I can tell so far it is only documentation that you have to piece through. Help me see the picture. Thanks

LUGs, they are the local support groups for linux, and are not distro specific.

and check the driving concept behind Linux as opposed to Windows in the Linux != Windows link in my signature.

I see the big picture, and I agree in the sense that some FOSS projects should be merged to make something better (like KDE + GNOME with 2 main desktop themes: KDE classic and GNOME classic). This is happening in some way. SuSE and Ximian merged into SuSE. Mandrake and Conectiva merged into Mandriva. And now, Madriva is collaborating with HP and will provide Linux boxes in Latinamerica first, and then in other emerging markets. See, not all hope is lost ;P

Hi metallica1973, support for open source projects tends to use different models - as you say, forums and the web are common. Partly because they're cheap and partly because they have a high exposure among the people who traditionally use the software. I'm not disregarding what you say. The debate, suggestion, even argument that happens here is useful because it forces us to examine and defend our viewpoints.

Alright, it's difficult for open source projects to get funding and some projects struggle to combine that with providing user-friendly support. But if the software is good, it gets used. If it fills a large enough niche it becomes popular. From there its direction may well change because the group of people involved has changed from developers and traditional open source users to a more mainstream (user? corporate managers? whatever) and their needs are different.

The key word though, is involved. People becoming involved created new needs. People being involved address those needs. Be involved.

one thing to keep in mind is -- money often means large corporations. software corporations have a rather bizzare track record when it comes to both product usefullness and motives. The last thing Linux needs is to become a part for instance of the war between IBM and SUN. So when you wish for consolidation and monetary support -- be carefull what you wish for.

Ooooh, deja vu all over again! I think we had one of these last year in the General forum. Now we have this one in the General forum.

I have a better insight. thanks

How many windows users need to phone you to ask how to compile application X or how to install those drivers for that fancy new piece of hardware(Because we all know patching a kernel & recompiling is in the grasp of most users!). If you are comparing ease of use of Linux to Windows i would have to call you dillusional.

Ever seen a Windows installation with slightly-unusual hardware? Maybe an older machine? Getting a new operating-system up and running is difficult work, which is why most of the time a Windows user never actually has to do it. It's pre-installed. (Which is as it should be, of course.)

I grant you that Linux still needs to make itself easier and easier yet to install, but when a person can go a lifetime without ever actually "installing" one system, and s/he encounters the task of doing so with Linux, well, that's going to feel "difficult."

And just look at what Microsoft is openly saying about Vista: "older systems are s**t-outa-luck?" Uh huh. The problem is, naturally, the installer... trying to avoid making the process difficult or error-prone to the thousands of red-shirted teenagers in Best Buy stores who have to do it in less than hour. Now, if you want to run that new OS on the hardware that you have, which presumably you do, then you too are going to encounter "installation difficulties."

So we need to just keep things in perspective here . . .

Installing windows is click click click. Installing linux is click click oh crap it doesn't support X by default. Time to google forever. Then again if you think it's easier to use Linux let me know how easy setting up that WiFi card is in Windows vs Linux.

What about simply installing programs? Have you ever had problems with dependancies or packadges not having the options you want compiled in? Yeah that is something a windows user won't have to deal with because on windows you have nifty programs like install shield...

Just seems to me like your whole argument is Linux is easy to use till you actually want to do something with it.

The problem is the installer? Ok so doom3/half life2 have high system requirements because of the installer? Sure makes no sense to me...

Oh yeah let me know when windows asks me to recompile my kernel so i can add support for hardware X? Yeah i thought not... Windows will simply let me download my driver install sanely with install shield putting the files in one logical place and set me on my merry way.

Just curious but um how is it that you can keep your head so deep in the sand?

Those are very goods points. The reality of linux is that you really have to know your hardware and that nothing is handed over to you on a silver platter like windows. Many thanks to all of you for your comments. I had to step back and look at the over picture and I truly do understand. Keep up the good work.

Ever stop to wonder how easy it would be to run wifi in Windows if the users had to write their own drivers? Or if the manufacturers just tossed the card out there and gave you the finger when you asked for support?

Oh, and I'm sure the trojan/virus/spyware authors love that ease of installation as well.

When was the last time your trojan/virus/spyware used install shield to install WiFi drivers? If you think trojans/viruses/spyware are related to ease of installing drivers well you are crazy.

Second I fail to see how having user written drivers thus means you can't have an easy way to install them. I mean nothing is ever written on windows by the user and nothing ever has an easy install.

Setting up WiFi is needlessly cryptic and has nothing to do with the fact that the drivers are open. Just try installing + connecting to a WiFi network using WPA-PSK one of these days on your Linux box... Let me know how that process is easier than windows.

Get your heads out of the sand please.