Okay, but probably sooner than later, she's clicks, and "breaks her computer." That only happens on MSoft for the most part (at least in my experience). Surely the average computer user knows how frustrating computing can be. What they don't know is how smooth Linux usually operates and how convenient it is in comparison to Windows.

Maybe the next Linux campaign should be small startups, putting out Linux systems, with guaranteed fixes and service at their storefronts for a very reasonable annual service fee. Such as these would have a much steeper "discount" on any software that their customers may need than Microsoft vendors. Just a thought.

lol!

You are STILL missing the point. They don't CARE. They know Windows, and are NOT INTERESTED in learning ANYTHING new. The ones who are, do so, and don't need to be coddled, coaxed, or bribed into doing something different...they just DO IT.
Not thought this out too well, have you? Your idea to put Linux on desktops involves people PAYING for what they can get for free? And how, exactly, are you going to sell someone on the idea of an "annual maintenance fee" on a computer they already own? They don't do that with MS now, do they? They buy the PC, and that's it. And before you troll more about "well, they pay for anti virus! etc.", yes, but the PERCEPTION will be that they don't pay a maintenance fee, and if they need to take their PC to an 'expert', it's more complicated, and complications are scary. Windows is familiar.

And where are the PC's going to come from? Building them from parts isn't a 'brand'...see again, familiarity and comfort-in-whats-known. I buy Vaio laptops..had good luck with them for many years. There may be others that are BETTER, but unless I know someone I TRUST that has one, and I've seen it in action, I won't switch to an 'unknown', any more than most others will do so with no point of reference. And to sell a computer cheap enough to make a profit, you'll have to use crap hardware, which will take the reliability of the OS out of the equation...if the hardware breaks, the computer is down, just as much as it's down if you get a Windows blue screen.

Guess I'm just of the school of thought that believes, "Where there's a will, there's a way."

Also, I'm thinking, "very nominal fee," as in, less than just the cost of your virus upgrade.

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so forgive me if I'm echoing a sentiment that someone else has also stated.....

It largely comes down to the consumer. If the consumer (Be he a corporation or individual) is willing to buy MS products (Whether out-right or by purchasing products that come with MS crap preloaded) , then that is all they need. And they have used nefarious business practices to guarantee that the consumer will be offered practically nothing except for their own products, and even think them "indespensible", no matter how crappy they are.

Someone buys their first computer at Wal*Mart...it comes with Windows....they learn Windows...Windows is all they knoiw...it's familiar....when they have a "computer problem" they don't realize that they are having a Windows problem...they think it's their computer...they eventually get a new computer...with Windows installed...or upgrade to a newer version of Windows if keeping their old computer, because "the current Windows OS is great and all the previous ones are junk"[until the next incarnation is released, then the current one becomes garbage and the newer one is the good one!).

Most don't even realize that there are alternatives to Windows...and even if they did, they'd stick with Windows, because it's familiar.

Thank goodness there's a real alternative for those of us who care.

Exactly! We are all using FOSS. I became aware of Linux; it was available to me- MS did not prevent me from using it...I tried it; liked it and dumped Windows. MS did not send the computer police to my door.

Linux is out there and available to all who choose to use it.

Now, it is true that MS may take steps to insure that the ignorant buy and continue to use their products.....but that in no way stifles Linux. The fact that more people use Windows than Linux is irrelevant- that does not in any way harm Linux. We are all free to choose and use whatever OS we care to. MS gets a bigger share of the market because they cater to dummies who don't know any better nor care.

If Linux were to start catering to the same people, it's quality would degrade. Let the idjits have their Windows....as long as MS does nothing to hinder the availability of Linux or my use of it, it doesn't affect me.

Those who care will come to find Linu, just as I have. The rest...well..they probably shouldn't be using Linux anyway...let them continue on with paying the computer shop $160 to remove viruses and upgrade their OS.... if they are content to do that, then I won't worry about them.

The point I've tried to make though, is not that Windows hinders Linux, but that they create a bottle neck for the setting of standards--which slows down considerably the progress of IT in general.

There are free antivirus/firewall products for windows system. Some of them may nag you to "upgrade to pro version", but otherwise they do their job.

From what I've seen they do their job very poorly.

This doesn't match my experience, and you need to be more specific (although I have zero interest in another firewall/antivirus-related flamewar). Perhaps you've been using different products.

Software I've been using for last years worked fine on all machines where I installed it. So far I had no reason to switch to subscription-based antivirus. Also, although both firewall/antivirus has advanced "pro" version (for businesses or for paranoid people), which isn't free, so far I haven't seen a reason to upgrade.

Let me think back to when I was using Window$, I have use pro/pay versions of all of the following and found them to be quite useless at dealing with anything:

Zonealarm
McAfee Firewall + AV
Norton AV

Free versions of:
Kaspersky AV
Panda AV
Various trojan and virus finding programs that I don't remember

None of these were able to stop viruses and trojans from messing up the system.

Haven't used any of them. As I said, you've been using different products.

Wrong.

MS does not create ANY bottle necks for the setting of a standard...those are done by other organizations, and followed by pretty much everyone BUT MS, who will typically implement 80% or so of a standard. This, IN NO WAY, hinders ANYONE but MS. Again, anyone who knows anything, loads a standards compliant OS and moves on. Again, desktop users don't know or care...those who DO know, it doesn't bother, so how exactly is this a 'bottle neck' for anyone?

You're really saying, as much professional experience as you have, that Microsoft's refusal to conform doesn't slow you down personally as a programmer? Don't you time and again have to 1) use workarounds to make your programs work accross platforms? 2) study and learn new workaround every time a new technology comes out?

Granted I'm totally a newbie, but as such I've already run into these issues time and again. If it slows us down as programmers, certainly MSFT's shenanigans stifle standards setters, and commerce in general (sic).

Ahem... IMO, it is a standard thing for computer programming in general. Nothing is ever perfect, you might run in completely unexpected problem and you might have to use ugly solution in order to fix that, and you might need reverse engineering to actually find that solution.
In my opinion, if you're developer, it is your job to deal with all those situations, all those problems associated with underlying platform, all incompatibilites with standards, and all the unexpected bugs (even if you aren't the one responsible). You can't blame all those problems onto microsoft - they would happen anyway, and you can't avoid that. See "Murphy's Law" for more info.
Also, I'm not sure that you would spend MOST of development time bypassing platform-specific problems (although it may wary depending on your product) if you selected correct framework initially. Normally, demands of the client (or project "designer") and sudden structural changes will keep you very busy, so any standard incompatibility will be a minor annoyance (if you can locate it, identify it, then you can bypass or fix it).

In other words, when you're making a program, you're making it for platform/operating system. Platform/OS might have a set of existing problems that will be beyond your control. Please note that "problem beyond your control" also applies to opensource - even if you fix a kernel bug yourself in order to make your program work, there will be machines that run older kernel. It is a developer's job to bypass all those problems and report them (to platform/OS developers) so eventually those problems get fixed.