Re: Why Linux is not getting poplular in Desktop in any Corporate world?

From: Aragorn (stryder_at_telenet.invalid)
Date: 08/07/05 

Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:13:57 GMT

On Sunday 07 August 2005 04:30, GS stood up and spoke the following
words to the masses...:

> Most of the companies are using Linux in Sercer side only, why not it
> is getting popular in Desktop world?.

Okay, I'll take the bait... ;-)

> What was the reason, what is the issue if they accept in Desktop
> side?.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I presume that you're extending
the question from your first paragraph, so I'm going to try and answer
that one.

There are many reasons as to why Gnu/Linux - or other operating systems
- have failed to conquer the desktop market. BeOS and OS/2 were
corporate initiatives - they were not distributed for free - and were
fairly good attempts at creating a desktop OS. Yet, they failed. Be
Inc. had to file for bankruptcy and IBM made the wise decision of
switching to the promotion of Gnu/Linux and their own AIX. Their main
interests don't even lay in the microcomputer market, so their fate
didn't depend on the failure of OS/2.

To understand it all, you must look at a number of facts. First of all,
Microsoft is the unmistaken biggest player on the desktop. They have a
monopoly, and they are doing all they can - except for actually
improving their system - to keep what they have. They even have a
drive to keep wanting *more* than they have too! ;-)

Next to Microsoft, there is Apple. Despite the fact that the MacIntosh
is starting to resemble what Apple calls "a PC" more and more, they are
basically still a company that provides for a "complete" proprietary
solution, i.e. they provide you with both the hardware _and_ the
operating system. Their market share however seems to be situated
mostly in the world of DTP companies.

Specialized graphics companies that wish to invest in serious
visualization systems generally select more specialized IT suppliers,
such as IBM, SGI or Sun Workstations, and those machines typically run
a proprietary UNIX operating system - or Gnu/Linux, in some cases.

The MacIntosh also uses a UNIX clone, but there the system is far more
proprietary in terms of its graphical user interface, while the basis
for the OS is FreeBSD, an Open Source UNIX clone.
(See http://www.freebsd.org for details)

Although the MacIntosh has also made its way to the SOHO (Small
Office/Home Office) market, the majority of the home-based machines is
still composed of /x86/ machines running Windows, and so is most of the
corporate desktop market. The reason is plain and simple: a MacIntosh
is too expensive for the average userbase, whether it be for deployment
as the standard IT platform in companies or at home.

Another factor is that Microsoft has made a deal with most of the
"brandname PC" manufacturers to have each new PC sold with an
OEM-licensed Windows installed. The customer thinks they are getting
this Windows for free, but the truth is that its price has already been
included in the pricetag.

Despite the fact that Windows has a learning curve too, this is what
generally tricks the first time users. In addition, most users are
totally unaware of the legal meanings of a Windows license, and thus
even less aware of the existence of such a thing as the GPL.

> Even I spoke woith many IT guys, they always say, they won't support
> Linux, they do support only Windows.

Exactly, and there are a few reasons for that too. First of all, there
is the monopoly, which is self-sustaining. The majority of the desktop
machines has Windows installed, and so everyone who uses it and can't
be bothered to learning how to use another OS - due to a lack of time
or a lack of interest - will want to stick with what they already know
or what's being chosen /for/ them by their bosses or the hardware
vendors.

Secondly, the side-effect of having the majority of desktop users use
Windows on their machines makes the decision on what to support easier
for the IT guys; they will just support what is the most used system,
period. Less diversity equals less work in their minds.

Thirdly, most of the people feel very conservative when it comes to
decisions they're afraid of, i.e. if you have to make a choice between
something you know by name and reputation - regardless of what that
reputation is - or something that seems a bit obscure, you're generally
more inclined to choose "the devil you know", the demon in question of
course carrying the four-color flag.

To the above, you can rest assured that Microsoft is quite determined in
spreading false information about Gnu/Linux. They started by playing
out the "userfriendliness" card, implying that Gnu/linux has a steep
learning curve, that it's not userfriendly or modern by design, etc.

Then they took all the good qualities of Gnu/Linux - such as stability
and security being part of the system from day one - and attributed
those as being the qualities of Microsoft Windows2000, while at the
same time referring to the security leaks in Windows as being
properties of Gnu/Linux. In other words: downright slander and
misinformation.

The last move so far seems to be the "total cost of ownership" card -
which is again misinformation - although I have seen an animated /.gif/
on a webpage somewhere - I don't remember the link - that states that
99% of the terrorists use Gnu/Linux, and that you /should/ therefore
buy Windows.

I'm not even sure if it was a joke or not since I don't remember the
URL, but if it wasn't, then it shows all the more how demagogic and
stupid Microsoft really is. One could easily argue that message by
stating that terrorists must therefore have good reason to use
Gnu/Linux, as it reduces their chances of having their computers
cracked by the FBI... <grin>

> How Linux can be popular in Desktop world?. Any idea, how can
> it this problem fixed?. Any easy solution?.

I'm not a fortune teller, but I don't think it would be easy to convince
people of their being better off by using FOSS (Free and Open Source
Software) unless you get some reputed advocates in the form of fairly
large corporations and University professors.

The issue isn't even limited to the choice of operating system, as there
is plenty of Free or Open Source software available for either
platform. Just think of OpenOffice or The Gimp, for instance.

However, the business desktop is largely dominated by that same
senseless, snobby tendency for conservativeness, in the sense that
businesses prefer to do business with other businesses. A corporation
prefers to deal with other corporations as their suppliers, again
because of the misconception that Open Source developers are nameless
geeks in dark basements.

The big difference with Microsoft is that the FOSS community is _not_
out for world domination. Microsoft *is,* and that is also why they
will continue to make mistakes, their new licensing policy being one of
the biggest ones. Eventually people won't buy the crap from MS
anymore. It may all just be a matter of time... ;-)

Just my two cents... ;-) 

-- 
With kind regards,
*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!
    ... "hardware mix and match" for home users, where they could slot in any ... that with the PC's delibrately "loose" architecture then machines ... slowness of Windows software to cater for something that no-one seems ... The only advatange of Microsoft stuff; The installs tend to be less ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: I want to migrate to Linux
    ... Microsoft considers the x86 platform to still be what it was when it was ... Dirty Operating System"; not to be confused with the Q-DOS ... 1.x versions had a GUI called Presentation Manager, from which the Windows ... Thompson has stated that GNU/Linux and cousins are all de facto UNIX ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: A question about windoze trolls
    ... Windows users and have what I call "an end-user perspective", i.e. to them, ... Microsoft Windows; it's what came with their computer and they have a naive ... computers, hard disks, the Internet and whatever else. ... some kind of resentment towards GNU/Linux, because it's not Windows, and it ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Apple vs. Newegg
    ... The equivilent to OS X would be GNU/Linux, not Windows XP Pro. ... Their 'kazillion and four' machines have a lot more problem than my run of one does. ... The three proprietary apps you want to run all run on GNU/Linux with Crossover Office. ... Less than the cost difference for buying a Mac, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Universal sound card?
    ... GNU/Linux as an operating system was meant as a Windows replacement. ... invoked by Microsoft, because of everything Microsoft stands for - i.e. ... AFAIK Mandriva is not the only distribution that is this ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)