LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   Why Linux Will never overthrow or compete with Windows (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/why-linux-will-never-overthrow-or-compete-with-windows-75931/)

Nodin 04-22-2004 10:40 AM

That's true that once someone learns all about Linux they seem to like it more than anything they've used in the past.

The problem being is that we have this great system available to us and unless the Linux community can make the OS do more on it's own/or just easier then most people will never have the opportunity to use it at work as a business computer, educational tool, research tool...well I'll take research back since it seems to be popular in research firms.

I'll put it this way, Linux has the potential to rise up and overcome MS, however if things continue the way they are Linux will just continue to be the computer that we like to use and play with at home or the super special application computer.

Linux is great for web services, special research and some new supercomputer stuff that is beginning to pop up. It will just be a matter of time before Microsoft snuffs that out because more people know how to use a MS computer.

As the IT administrator for my company I have struggled to find a place for Linux in our network and the only thing that I can use it for is a file server. There's absolutely no way that I can begin to switch this company over because of the ease of use that our employees require and the special software that requires Windows. I simply cannot sacrifice production time to train employees on using Linux.

Which brings up another point, the more advanced and easy Linux becomes the more software will become available for it and the easier it will be to justify it's use in business. Yes there's software out there for just about everything however lets take Autodesk for example. Our CAD guys know autoCAD and are likely to never use anything else. I simply could not convince them to use a Linux alternative. I would have to get a Linux version of AutoCAD.

dolvmin 04-22-2004 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodin
Happen to come by this post searching for something else. As a newbie myself (as in 4 weeks exposure to Linux) I can see the frustration. I've asked a couple questions orginally here during a very frustrated state and was pleased to get such a cool level headed response from people even though I was probably a bit harsh.

As far as taking over windows well...Linux has the potential, unfortunately I think that most people who use and like linux and have the ability to change linux are so used to doing things via the command line and may not see the value of making things dummy proof that Windows and Apple try to do.

Think about it, what would the world be like if everyone who drove a car was required to get training to become a mechanic? Everyone's life should not start out having to become an expert at using a computer when some people should be learning to do more important things like medicine, law or sciences.

Ever see a Star Trek show where someone just asks the computer to do something and it simply does? This is the direction computers should be going.

I think that Linux more than any other OS out there actually has the potential with the world as it's developer to reach this step before anyone else if everyone would work towards this type of goal. (Not that people aren't, it's just that I honestly feel that ease of use does not always seem like a high priority and research into making easy stuff even easier seems very rare) [/B]
Code:

Cough cough!
Apple??? Let us not forget, OS X (Apple, Mac, whatever) uses the UNIX Kernel, which is from experience, far more command-line then Linux. SunOS, ScoUNIX, Debrian(???) are all examples of this. Point is Linux/UNIX/DOS, what ever it may be can have a very user friendly GUI applied to it. You can throw a nice GUI on it to do everything you want. MS had to step away from DOS for a very good reason. DOS had limitations, UNIX/Linux doesn't. With X on Linux & UNIX, it's Windows that has the limitations now.

Here's an example for people who would like just a sample of how much more powerful Linux is. While you are on your X Window for Linux, run a program that opens a window, but not something that takes your full screen. Do the same thing with Windows.

Now run a 2nd program, this time one that takes your full screen. Again, do the same thing with Windows.

Use Alt + TAB to switch between programs. Seems like the same process found in Windows, doesn't it?

Now, use Alt + TAB so you can see your task-bar on X Linux and click one of the 4 boxes to switch to a new desktop. Wow, nothing in there.

Click back on the box with the windows you had open. Your stuff is back!

Do this on Windows. Oh right, you can't do it on Windows because it's limited!

Now, go back to the program that takes your full screen, do the same thing with Windows.

Assume the program froze, both on Linux and Windows. How will you ever get out of this one?

Windows (push Ctrl + Alt + Del and hope Task Manager will come up)(NOTE: If your video is responsible for why you froze, you can forget about task manager coming up)

Linux (Push Ctrl + Alt + F1, log in, do ps -A, find the process # for X, then type "kill #, wait 10 seconds, X starts back up automatically)

Cool huh? Cheers!:cool:

dolvmin 04-22-2004 03:13 PM

Oh, one more thing. MAC OS X is so simple to use, most people have a hard time trouble-shooting problems with it because they can not understand that it's so simple. They are so used to serious problems with MS OS and confusing modules with Linux, they just can't get a hint. OS X was made for a dummy, so a dummy can often fix it before you! :p

Nodin 04-22-2004 03:54 PM

No arguments there but there's a reason why Apple/Mac made thier stuff so easy. So people will use it!

You gotta remember that the majority of the population still has trouble even learning how to alt-tab! I have literally had a 30 minute discussion with our employees on how to copy and paste.

In the long run who cares how much more powerful something is. If someone has a computer and gets the job done then what does it matter. Obviously this is true because Windows is the dominant OS. They marketed their product better than anyone else and strongarmed their way into dominance not because they have a better system.

It's one thing to sit at home and learn all this great stuff about Linux/Windows/OSX etc., but try doing this in a business environment where all most people care about is doing their job (which isn't IT) and going home.

Sure Linux has some nice front ends like KDE or Gnome but if I got to remotely walk one of our employees through a problem do I want to walk that person through a graphical troubleshooting process or a command line one?

Again just to be repetative - It don't matter how limited windows is compared to Linux/Unix because the general population will not want anything to do with advanced Linux/unix features.

Yes OS X is awesome and easy to use and they are moving well from my perspective to get a good piece of the market. But if you want OS X you gotta buy from Apple and you'll probably spend more than you would on a cheap system from Dell. Most families do not have a computer budget so which one are you going to buy if you are part of the majority population with little to zero computer experience.

Of course you're probably going to get a Dell because you've seen those ads for $250 computers. Most people will ask their computer friendly friends and family for advice but in the end they're going to get something they can afford. Hence they got Windows and that'll be all they will know unless Linux becomes more user friendly.

All most home users want is internet/e-mail/video games. These home users have jobs and are probably comfortable using Windows at work.

It's as simple as that. I get the impression that most computer people hang out with other computer people and don't seem to understand that most people don't know jack about computers.

As an experienced Windows/networking/programming user who had to endure 3 weeks in Linux re-installs, many hours looking at message boards for answers and finding great difficulty installing absolutley any new into the system....heh...yeah I might be able to see why some feel Linux cannot compete with Windows.

Nodin 04-22-2004 06:02 PM

On the drive home I began to think that perhaps my posts were somewhat misunderstood. I don't think anyone would argue about how powerful/useful Linux can be over windows.

At the rate that Linux users are growing it still does not compare to Windows at home or in business. Eventually MS is going to double their efforts to snuff out Linux.

How long do you think it will be until MS begins making deals for hardware that would only run with Microsoft? A hardware manufacturer wouldn't do this if the demand for Linux is great but as it sits now, a company like Dell could make an arrangement like this and would not decrease their sales when you would consider what MS would be willing to pay for such a service.

As you all know MS will do everything they possibly can to dominate the market. It would be foolish to think they wouldn't try something like this.

The only way to combat this is if the Linux community as a whole could rewire their thinking and just simply attack the desktop community in force. The Linux community is bigger and IMHO better than the MS development group because we have no constraints.

Since I'm mainly using KDE now I really think these guys understand this. Although some of the utilities they offer have given me major issues I understand the direction they are trying to go and would do so much better with even more programmers and testers.

If everyone banded together to really come up with some innovative and amazing stuff then maybe one day I'll be able to use a Linux box as my main computer at work. Anyone who's into SciFi should already have an idea of the things we can do with computers.

Otherwise if MS continues to dominate the market then my Linux box at home will be simply for entertainment purposes. What's the point of going crazy learning Linux at home if it'll never be used at work.

Get Linux into the mainstream by making it easier to use or innovative.
When it goes mainstream it'll become supported by non-MS major software developers.
Then suddenly Linux is a wonderful alternative in business.

JaseP 04-22-2004 10:57 PM

I don't think it will ever happen that M$ will be able to buy off all the hardware manufacturers. Don't forget tha tM$ has already been convicted as a monopolist, and it would only take a little effort to re-open the case against them. This is one of the very things that they were convicted of.

Furthermore, Hardware manufacturers are feelig the sting of M$ and their push to make them do things M$'s way. When M$ arbitrarily decides to change a driver model (Which it has done several times in the last several years), hardware manufacturers end up behind the 8-ball. Plus Linux users are always finding new ways to make Linux run on things. Look at the Ecchs-Box. It is made by M$ and yet has been hacked to run Linux successfully.

jaz 04-22-2004 11:16 PM

Microsoft wont go away and its not really because of the reasons you mentioned but because even though there are many people like us who make that switch for whatever reason (love of computers, power users, curiosity, freedom etc) there is still the majority that don't want to learn anymore than they have to. Using Windows is hard enough for some of these people imagine trying to switch to a new platform. Linux will compete with Windows on the business side as it already does but as a home desktop I think Micro$oft will continue to dominate that market no matter how many anti-trust , monopoly suits are filed. They're like McDonalds!! There arent going anywhere no matter how many Wendys, Burger Kings, Hardees, Rallys, White Castles and Fatburgers show up people still want their Mickey D's!! LOL!!!

GoinEasy9 04-23-2004 12:03 AM

Mandrake 9.2 has replaced window$ in my house....we are 99.9% microsoft free....since it was installed in February...i have not had one lockup....not one blue screen freeze....not one virus or trojan horse even though my computer is on hours a day attached to the internet with a cable modem....i have firewalls and routers attached...

Long Live Linux....i will never install another M$ product again.

just my 3 cents.
Tom

dizzy_vee 04-23-2004 12:55 AM

BTW, this is just an observation from many posts in this thread and also others... I'm not sure the argument that "Windows always crashes", or "No more blue screens" is as valid as it was during the win98 days. I used XP everyday from the day it came out until about 6 months ago when I switched for good, and trust me, I stress my computer out... lots. I download lots, do audio and video production, tons of email, etc, etc.... and never once have I gotten a virus (knock on wood, though not anymore with linux) nor a blue screen. The only application that has ever crashed has been IE on occasion. It runs 24/7 with servers and sporadic traffic.

So, this is not a defense of MS, but just my personal experience that crashing and freezing was the stock excuse 3-4 years ago, but XP is quite solid, at least with my experience.

Cheers,
Dizzy V

Mega Man X 04-23-2004 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dizzy_vee
BTW, this is just an observation from many posts in this thread and also others... I'm not sure the argument that "Windows always crashes", or "No more blue screens" is as valid as it was during the win98 days. I used XP everyday from the day it came out until about 6 months ago when I switched for good, and trust me, I stress my computer out... lots. I download lots, do audio and video production, tons of email, etc, etc.... and never once have I gotten a virus (knock on wood, though not anymore with linux) nor a blue screen. The only application that has ever crashed has been IE on occasion. It runs 24/7 with servers and sporadic traffic.

So, this is not a defense of MS, but just my personal experience that crashing and freezing was the stock excuse 3-4 years ago, but XP is quite solid, at least with my experience.

Cheers,
Dizzy V

I agree with that. Although, I hated WinXP always wanting to install all the drivers for me, I place a CD on the drive and it auto-runs, I was tired of tweaking WinXP to do not do things automatically and disabling services. Some global variables works oddly, in a lame attempt of MS blocking Java. The compatibility mode feature does not work. Dos is too slow to be usable. But oh well, it's still a good system. Now Win2k Pro with SP4 is my all time favorite Operating System. It's fast, it's stable, it's "secure" as long as you are behind a good firewall...

You know, the world is full of lame marketings like this: Linux is secure, never crashes. Java runs one every platform, it's 100% portable and Windows crashes a lot and shows the blue screen of death...

Oh well, can't blame anyone for this. You always try to convince the others that your diamond shines more then the others :D.

cjp 04-23-2004 07:11 AM

There *are* still some things that make Linux less suitable as a desktop OS than windows. The most important ones are:

1) Easy installation of applications
2) Easy installation of drivers
3) Compatibility with windows applications and drivers

Of course, we have the RPM and DEB package managers, but you still have the problem of dependencies, conflicts and distribution differences.

An important problem is that the developers of Linux user interfaces are geeks, who have a lot of computer knowledge. It's really difficult to think as a n00b user if you have that much knowledge. Most desktop users don't want to learn how computers work, they just want to use them. Modern Linux user interfaces are GUI programs that really look nice, but in the end they still require computer knowledge. Auto-detection, and some pre-defined configurations for usual situations would help a lot. A good interface should require these things:

1) Everything is possible (for geeks and for people with unusual requirements)
2) All normal things should be easy and should not require any knowledge (for the normal desktop user)

A feature that would really make Linux break through into the desktop market is easy & flexible configuration for multiple workstations on a network. If system administrators decide that Linux is not only useful as a server platform, but also as an office desktop OS, then they will switch very easily. And, as people sometimes want to take their work to home, they also want Linux on their home computers. Windows will only remain a platform for old windows applications and for games, but the games will automatically follow the office apps.

And remember: office use is the big money maker for m$. Take away that, and you will take away their money, and their political power. That will finish the Linux revolution.

Nodin 04-23-2004 08:32 AM

Well said cjp. I get a little passionate about this topic because the only thing keeping linux from really breaking into the desktop market is...well Linux.

The Linux community doesn't have any limitations, it can be absolutely anything the community wishes to make it.

We have here the perfect environment to really take software technology into a new level with Linux....well...I guess it's easier to pay a community of programmers to believe in a vision than say...convince congress to do something just because it's the "right thing".

mjjzf 04-23-2004 10:58 AM

I always think in terms of what one's purpose is. I would not hesitate to use a Linux setup as the working standard in an office. Everything gets complicated if you want to do tricks, but - if you have a setup with KDE/Gnome, OpenOffice.org, Evolution and Mozilla - you do not really have to mess about in any complicated way, right? And the logic of a /home/myname/ -folder is manageable, compared to finding your Windows doc-folder starting from C:\ . I suspect an employer would be more comfortable knowing it requires a very solid portion of knowledge to install a video game in a Linux system...
I got a bit of a laugh when it occurred to me that the reason I could not install a lot of programs earlier was that I had not installed the "developer" bits of Mandrake. Imagine installing Windows XP Home and being asked "do you want to install system developer tools and compilers?" Argh! Heh... but it's necessary even in the bubblegum Linux version known as Mandrake 10.0 with KDE.
Using the console (in this case, the Konsole) again is nice. The old DOS commands come flowing back. One gets to appreciate Tab-completion.
I really feel that a system with such flexibility encourages improving, well, everything. I have a Logitech keyboard. I remapped a couple of function keys, because the Windows shortcuts are labeled on the keys. There is a My Computer-icon on the F9 key - and I mapped it to the console, because, well, they are quite alike. Unfortunately, the Send/Receive shortcut in Evolution is F9. Heaven forbid doing anything with a mouse if there is a keyboard shortcut for it. I found the ui folder, in which all these things were managed with XML files - and edited the relevant file to use F4 instead.
Now, this is not complicated. But I would never have thought of it with Windows. And I like that kind of inspiration.

jaz 04-23-2004 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GoinEasy9
Mandrake 9.2 has replaced window$ in my house....we are 99.9% microsoft free....since it was installed in February...i have not had one lockup....not one blue screen freeze....not one virus or trojan horse even though my computer is on hours a day attached to the internet with a cable modem....i have firewalls and routers attached...

Long Live Linux....i will never install another M$ product again.

just my 3 cents.
Tom


What is the .1% MS product you have? :p

mjjzf 04-24-2004 05:20 PM

Quote:

What is the .1% MS product you have?
That would be the operating system...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 AM.