Why Vista Is Not 'The Best Argument For Linux'

[tino]

 

Most people who go from one OS to the other make a habit of comparing the two. It's inevitable. If you have a choice of what to run, you want to have some idea of what you're gaining and losing. It's only normal to compare Linux to Windows or the Macintosh and make it clear what you're gaining and losing by switching from one to the other. Linus Torvalds himself said this in the recent, oft-quoted interview he had with the Linux Foundation: "If you act differently from Windows, even if you act in some ways better, it doesn’t matter; better is worse if it’s different."

That's a big part of why Vista probably won't drive the masses into the arms of Linux. Flawed as Vista might be, it's still Windows in some form, and that in itself has a lot of retention power. Give up Windows and you also give up the support structure that goes with it -- the gurus you go to when things break, for instance. All of that has to be traded in, too.

The author brings up some very valid points with this statement, people who can't use Vista will just use XP or another varient of windows after all that is all they know and where the majority of the support is. Linux is for those who wish to try something different or save money. After all I switched to *nux as it was free. An all I needed it for at the time was a word processor and a place to store my important files.
 
Read the full article

[Connor]

I think most people know that, just a few Windows or Linux Missionaries would have us believe otherwise.
Even with WINE running apps transparently people arent going to be happy with the comlication of getting hardware working.
I still have high hopes for ReactOS once it reaches Alpha Stage but Progress is too slow at the moment - it will be good OSS because it can use closed source XP drivers and Hardware suppliers should be happy producing those.
What might be interesting is if they get DX10 (or an equivalent) working under it allowing DX10 games to run without VISTA.

[JQPublic]

The view http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=444944&cid=22332332 from Bag End.

[VorLonUK]

With the sales/usage figures I don't think you can ever compare Windows with Linux. Last time I looked Windows had 95% of the desktop market, that's a staggering amount and imo puts it into a unique league entirely of it's own.

I sort of see it as currently windows has 4 varieties with Vista and if this were compared to say cars, that would be for argument sake 4 "Ford" models based on the same shell.
Then i see Linux as Buses in how ever many subtle variances they have.

All in all they do a similar job (ie an OS or in the analogy a way to ferry people), but the amount of cars far outstrips the amount of buses and you don't need an uprated/special license to operate it.

If we saw something other than "Ford" (windows) though as we do when it comes to cars then we'd have some real competition and MS wouldn't be able to inflate prices to suit themselves.
I'm sure if Ford were the only car manufacturer that car prices would be double, at least.

[Reflex]

Just going to point out that Windows pricing hasn't inflated, in fact its deflated when one considers currency devaluation.  DOS+Windows in 1991 for an upgrade was $99, Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade can be had for $99 on Amazon(and full OEM versions for $109 via Newegg).  Thats remarkable price stability despite inflation and the continually increasing development costs.

Not trying to defend anything, I'm just saying that you get a whole lot of Windows today for the same price you paid for Win3/DOS6 back in the early 90's...

[VorLonUK]

Just going to point out that Windows pricing hasn't inflated, in fact its deflated when one considers currency devaluation.  DOS+Windows in 1991 for an upgrade was $99, Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade can be had for $99 on Amazon(and full OEM versions for $109 via Newegg).  Thats remarkable price stability despite inflation and the continually increasing development costs.

Not trying to defend anything, I'm just saying that you get a whole lot of Windows today for the same price you paid for Win3/DOS6 back in the early 90's...

I see what you are saying Reflex, but MS didn't have any real competition back when WFWG's 3.xx was out and even now regardless of that, there is simply no Native windows competition.
As for development costs, well, how much money does MS want to make. Also there are considerably more windows customers now than there was back then, so development costs have no doubt been covered 100's of times over - hence MS's ridiculous profits.

I remember when Intel was the only real PC CPU on the block and it costs the earth (because there wasn't any real competition) £500/$1000 for a PIII-450 and this was just when AMD was getting it's act together. Not that long after AMD took a slice with it's XP series, which brought all of Intel's pricing down - massively.

Imo MS makes too much money for OS's that we cannot compare, so they can artificially raise the price. Retail prices are ridiculous over here and whilst OEM versions are reasonable when taking into account the overall hardware costs, we still have no comparison, no competition - so we don't actually know what we are getting could be 100% better and cheaper.

[Reflex]

Well I won't post on this further beyond this one or we risk derailing the topic.  But to respond specifically:

1) There was far more credible competition in 1991 than there is today.  Amiga, Apple, Commodore, Atari and many others all had viable products with significant market share.  Even OS/2 was on the chart at that point.  Post Windows 95 is when MS reached the 90%+ level and they've never relinquished it since.  The fact that as they have edged closer to monopoly their prices have not risen says a lot.

2) Thier profits are in most divisions besides Windows.  Windows itself is nearly break even due to the massive test overhead it entails.  Windows Technologies, often lumped together with Windows revenue and cost wise, are what make the real money, for instance the Server division gets to look ridiculously profitable but most of its money is based on the fact that it piggybacks on main Windows development, if they had to move thier costs and profits to where they were really generated, the picture would change significantly.  The same goes for a lot of groups.  Basically without other groups making money on the core Windows dev investment, Windows would be a loss leader, not a profit center.

[ScutMonkey]

Most people who go from one OS to the other make a habit of comparing the two. It's inevitable. If you have a choice of what to run, you want to have some idea of what you're gaining and losing. It's only normal to compare Linux to Windows or the Macintosh and make it clear what you're gaining and losing by switching from one to the other. Linus Torvalds himself said this in the recent, oft-quoted interview he had with the Linux Foundation: "If you act differently from Windows, even if you act in some ways better, it doesn’t matter; better is worse if it’s different."

That's a big part of why Vista probably won't drive the masses into the arms of Linux. Flawed as Vista might be, it's still Windows in some form, and that in itself has a lot of retention power. Give up Windows and you also give up the support structure that goes with it -- the gurus you go to when things break, for instance. All of that has to be traded in, too.

The author brings up some very valid points with this statement, people who can't use Vista will just use XP or another varient of windows after all that is all they know and where the majority of the support is. Linux is for those who wish to try something different or save money. After all I switched to *nux as it was free. An all I needed it for at the time was a word processor and a place to store my important files.
 
Read the full article

I have tried over and over and over again to switch to linux and I end up back on windows.  I would love to use a free alternative, but unless linux can compete with windows in the gaming arena, it's just not going to happen.  So vista can suck out loud and I really won't have a choice but to use it.  I've tried wine and I've never gotten it to work with any of my video cards.  It's just a pain.

[Timster]

Well I won't post on this further beyond this one or we risk derailing the topic.  But to respond specifically:

1) There was far more credible competition in 1991 than there is today.  Amiga, Apple, Commodore, Atari and many others all had viable products with significant market share.  Even OS/2 was on the chart at that point.  Post Windows 95 is when MS reached the 90%+ level and they've never relinquished it since.  The fact that as they have edged closer to monopoly their prices have not risen says a lot.

2) Thier profits are in most divisions besides Windows.  Windows itself is nearly break even due to the massive test overhead it entails.  Windows Technologies, often lumped together with Windows revenue and cost wise, are what make the real money, for instance the Server division gets to look ridiculously profitable but most of its money is based on the fact that it piggybacks on main Windows development, if they had to move thier costs and profits to where they were really generated, the picture would change significantly.  The same goes for a lot of groups.  Basically without other groups making money on the core Windows dev investment, Windows would be a loss leader, not a profit center.

1)  There used to be an saying, "no one gets fired for choosing IBM," and choosing IBM at the time meant choosing MS-DOS and eventually Windows in the business market.  Apple tried to win hearts and minds in the schools and colleges, but when those students graduated they were shoehorned into the IBM / MS-DOS world.  By the time OS/2 came out, MS-DOS had enough of a foothold and IBM could no longer throw it's weight around.  MS has taken over where IBM used to be in the past except MS isn't as overly arrogant.

2)  I agree that MS made more money off applications than it's OS's.  During the late 80's the software of choice was mainly Lotus with products such as 123 and cc:Mail.  Lotus Symphony was the MS Office of it's time, and MS did a better job of product integration.

[Sparbag]

Hello all,

My answer to the opinion expressed in the 'blog' would be more along the lines of: many people have bought their Microsoft operating system with a new shiny computer. They have used Microsoft operating systems previously and have become quite happy with the way it seems to work. Most of these people have also purchased much more software on which the Microsoft operating system will need to run. The cost of this software will far outstrip the cost of the OS in which case people are very unlikely to choose an OS that is incompatible with their already large software collection.

I recently completed an assignment for Uni to explore the statement "Open source software is never a realistic choice for a small business with limited IT expertise". It was researching this statement that taught me that platform dependence is quite irrelevant when considering how you are to finance your IT infrastructure but the level of IT expertise you have at your disposal. This continues to marry itself to the Linux/MS discussions that prompt such passionate displays. Once you have strategically committed to a platform it is very difficult to commit to another.

MS has a wonderful games platform to sell to people who wish to get the maximum functionality from their computers but the amount of dedicated hardware to play games has allowed Linux to take its place as a real alternative for those individuals/businesses that see computer gaming as excessive and wish to just use their computers for database/internet/serving computers.

Following this assignment I see Linux at the current level of Windows 98 where most things would work and you had to allow a level of expertise needed to get the rest to function if it ever could. To add I also see Linux accelerating its levels of performance in comparison to MS simply due to having something to aim for.
I am also aware that MS are working with SUSE, to the point of purchasing 1000 licenses per year, which I believe are for producing a working .NET framework for Linux. As we do have a Java framework that works with Windows it would be a great accomplishment to have the .NET working in Linux, although I have no evidence to support this statement. Suse running aspx files and novell.com.

Mind you I do remember a discussion where some people within this forum were most distressed to find IE7 available to all, please understand that IE7 uses open source software to allow the tabbing of pages, first released under Mozilla Firefox, which is open source under the GNU public license.

Kind regards

Steve

I will add that I am studying in a Microsoft Accredited University where I receive all of my software free from MS in the same way I receive Linux free from downloading.

[Reflex]

Good observations, you are correct that platform lock in is a major issue, and while most people tend to tie it to MS games, that dosen't explain the small and large business angle, where it actually has more to do with their Office sales(small biz) and Exchange(big corp).  Once you commit, its VERY hard to switch, regardless of the platform.

Couple notes I"ll make -

- The licenses MS is buying of SUSE are per a patent and marketing agreement, MS has an arrangement with Novell to immunize thier users against any potential patent infringmement cases MS or its partners could bring.  A lot in the Linux community view that as a 'hostage' situation, but the reality is that its standard practice for most such business arangements, and a sign of maturity of the SUSE platform.  MS is no longer working on their own version of .NET for Linux/OSS(their target platform was BSD, btw, due to its license) since the Mono project has stepped up.  MS is instead supporting the Mono efforts and has contributed technical knowledge to that project as well as had their developers visit the Unix labs at MS.

- IE7 does not use any OSS code.  Tabbed browsing in IE7 is an evolution of a tabbed browsing feature that used to be in the MSN Toolbar add on for IE6.  Firefox did not originate tabbed browsing either, and IE7 did not add it due to Firefox, it originated with Opera, a closed source browser that is quite excellent IMO.

Anyways, I'm glad university is giving you some insight, the issues really are not as simple as the MS zealots or Linux nuts would have anyone believe.  There are very good reasons to use either platform, both business and personal reasons, but ultimatly a computer is a tool, nothing more and nothing less.  The arguments oftentimes amount to people arguing the benefits and drawbacks of a flathead vs phillips screw.

[pony-tail]

I switched from Mac to Linux when they went from OS9.22 to OS X - I just did not like X , it took too much control away from the user . I tried Windows 2K (which to a degree I still use and XP which I did not like and even tried Vista (Home Premium) which I removed after less than 24 hours - hated it - I mostly use Debian based distros but for a while used SuSe I particularly like Mepis - For me it is not a matter of price but one of control - 3 of my machines came with Windows licences (2 x XP and 1 x Vista) none of which are installed .
 But I think that a majority of average people will just use whatever their box ships with whether it is good or bad !

[fall-apart]

But I think that a majority of average people will just use whatever their box ships with whether it is good or bad !

That's what it boils down to, I think - I only know one person who bought Vista retail - everyone else I know who's using it has the OEM copy that came with their new computer.  I'd be interested to see how many of the people who bought Dells with Ubuntu kept Linux ('course, that being a self-selecting group will have some bearing on the results).

[ScutMonkey]

I switched from Mac to Linux when they went from OS9.22 to OS X - I just did not like X , it took too much control away from the user . I tried Windows 2K (which to a degree I still use and XP which I did not like and even tried Vista (Home Premium) which I removed after less than 24 hours - hated it - I mostly use Debian based distros but for a while used SuSe I particularly like Mepis - For me it is not a matter of price but one of control - 3 of my machines came with Windows licences (2 x XP and 1 x Vista) none of which are installed .
 But I think that a majority of average people will just use whatever their box ships with whether it is good or bad !

I think there are two ways they decide on what to use:

1.  Whatever is put in front of them first.
2.  Whatever they use at their job.  

If companies were using Linux and people were comfortable with it, I can't imagine how this wouldn't drive people to buy a computer with linux on it that's going to be cheaper to buy because you don't pay the OS costs.

[ScutMonkey]

Hello all,

My answer to the opinion expressed in the 'blog' would be more along the lines of: many people have bought their Microsoft operating system with a new shiny computer. They have used Microsoft operating systems previously and have become quite happy with the way it seems to work. Most of these people have also purchased much more software on which the Microsoft operating system will need to run. The cost of this software will far outstrip the cost of the OS in which case people are very unlikely to choose an OS that is incompatible with their already large software collection.

I recently completed an assignment for Uni to explore the statement "Open source software is never a realistic choice for a small business with limited IT expertise". It was researching this statement that taught me that platform dependence is quite irrelevant when considering how you are to finance your IT infrastructure but the level of IT expertise you have at your disposal. This continues to marry itself to the Linux/MS discussions that prompt such passionate displays. Once you have strategically committed to a platform it is very difficult to commit to another.

MS has a wonderful games platform to sell to people who wish to get the maximum functionality from their computers but the amount of dedicated hardware to play games has allowed Linux to take its place as a real alternative for those individuals/businesses that see computer gaming as excessive and wish to just use their computers for database/internet/serving computers.

Following this assignment I see Linux at the current level of Windows 98 where most things would work and you had to allow a level of expertise needed to get the rest to function if it ever could. To add I also see Linux accelerating its levels of performance in comparison to MS simply due to having something to aim for.
I am also aware that MS are working with SUSE, to the point of purchasing 1000 licenses per year, which I believe are for producing a working .NET framework for Linux. As we do have a Java framework that works with Windows it would be a great accomplishment to have the .NET working in Linux, although I have no evidence to support this statement. Suse running aspx files and novell.com.

Mind you I do remember a discussion where some people within this forum were most distressed to find IE7 available to all, please understand that IE7 uses open source software to allow the tabbing of pages, first released under Mozilla Firefox, which is open source under the GNU public license.

Kind regards

Steve

I will add that I am studying in a Microsoft Accredited University where I receive all of my software free from MS in the same way I receive Linux free from downloading.

I would only say that platform lock is only an issue on the small business level for the most part.  Working with the mid and large size companies I've worked with the last few years, they make massive platform shifts which take anywhere from three months to two years already and while it's hard to call a transformation which takes a year or more "routine," they certainly aren't adverse to doing it if it gets them to where they need to be.  I was involved in scrapping an entire backup infrastructure which serviced 700 clients, five enterprise sized backup servers, a complete backup network overhaul, and millions of dollars worth of licensing (in six months no less).  Why did they do it?  To get the features they wanted to drive their business.  I'm about to be involved in an even larger infrastructure overhaul in it gets approved.  50+ backup servers, 1800 clients, 30+ sites.  It will probably take over a year to do, but they want certain features and a better Disaster Recovery plan which means they'll have to use different software and hardware to get it done.

This is where linux is not responsive because of their scattershot and questionably supported software methodology.  You can't tell me that a company couldn't roll out all new OS desktops with apps in around a year.  They do it every time MS upgrades.  We can patch over 1000 MS servers and desktops in a weekend at this point.  You can't tell me a company can't roll out an entirely new email system from top to bottom if it doesn't want to.  It can be done if the software is robust and up to snuff.  What we still can't do reliably with linux is call a subject matter expert 24/7/365 when something breaks.  There is far too much software that is developed by volunteers at some random university who you could never get a hold of in the middle of the night or on a holiday.  That doesn't fly in business.  

And I never see this changing.  Why?  Because if you want people to go above and beyond, you better damn well pay them for their time.  But the linux community has shown no desire whatsoever to protect the IP rights of software makers so they can make a buck and pay folks.

Also, every software company I work with has detailed roadmaps on what features are coming down the line.  They invest large sums of money in making sure their customers are aware of all the things their software can do and they put this information in front of them.  You don't have to go out to the internet and read a bunch of goofy webpages and blogs to figure out if this is right for you.  They go in, make a presentation, and if it sounds interesting the software company comes in and does an eval of your site to find out how it can help you.  HP, MS, EMC, Oracle, Sun, IBM, all of these guys don't wait for business to come to them.  They go out and get it.  The linux community is so smug, self assured, and over confident about their product that they never bother to do any of these things that I've ever seen.  And even if they wanted to, how can they afford to?  They don't make any money off their software?

And when a new software product lands on a floor somewhere, guess what else we get for free?  Training.  Every backup software product I've ever seen purchased gets at least one, if not two weeks, of intensive training by a certified professional and I'm here to tell you, my backup software is far more difficult to install (because it's cross platform for Unix, Linux, and MS) and use than training someone on the basic functionality of using their new desktop OS, office application suite, and email.  That's 40-80 hours in a lab with all of the hardware and software with training books and a subject matter expert for free.  Can linux offer this?  No and again how could they afford to?  Is the Linux community willing to setup classes to train all of the service desk personnel who are going to need to be brought up to speed at all of these companies in order to address issues which will always come up?  Is Ubuntu or Fedora or SuSe going to create and keep an organized repository of their problem solutions that isn't some ad hoc forum full of thread pieces?

"The Devil is in the details" and the Linux community doesn't understand that the way they approach and deal with these details is very Mickey Mouse - that is to say, childish.  I'm sorry, but they don't act professional and moreover, they have no desire to.  Their philosophy frequently flies proudly in the face of professionalism.

[Intuit]

Customer complained his new $900 Quad-Core PC is slower than his old S939 Athlon64 PC.  Told him they used an old motherboard and he's being ripped-the-f*-off.  Despite still having the receipts, box and it still being within 30 days he's still hesitant to take it back because "he has all his applications setup".  People are willing to deal with sub-par functionality in the face of saving hassle.

[ScutMonkey]

Customer complained his new $900 Quad-Core PC is slower than his old S939 Athlon64 PC.  Told him they used an old motherboard and he's being ripped-the-f*-off.  Despite still having the receipts, box and it still being within 30 days he's still hesitant to take it back because "he has all his applications setup".  People are willing to deal with sub-par functionality in the face of saving hassle.

Right but in mid and large sized companies that guy has no say whatsoever on what he runs.  He is handed a generic PC with a stock set of apps which have been decided by an architecture division who's members he's never going to meet.  Ever.  And that PC is going to be completely locked down and scanned to make sure he puts absolutely nothing on it.  The last two companies I've worked for hand to a corporate windows image with all of the applications you are allowed to run.  If I install AIM or Trillian on my desktop and try to use them I get a popup message saying I'm violating corporate policy and the next morning I get a scan which tells me to remove it or else.  If I want to install an app that's not approved I have to submit it to the architecture group for approval.  If I get it then it goes on the corporate image or on the install repository.

Small companies don't invest like that and control their software and hardware because it makes no sense financially or logistically.  Larger companies are a different animal altogether.  And you could do this with Linux in a large company while saving millions of dollars if only they were up to snuff.  All of these applications are managed by third party install apps from what I've seen.  I don't see how this would be a problem for linux.  Someone would just have to lock down apt-get, point synaptec package manager at a corporate repository, and lock down outside repositories.  Done.

[Connor]

I switched from Mac to Linux when they went from OS9.22 to OS X - I just did not like X ,it took too much control away from the user . I tried Windows 2K (which to a degree I still use and XP which I did not like and even tried Vista (Home Premium) which I removed after less than 24 hours - hated it - I mostly use Debian based distros but for a while used SuSe I particularly like Mepis - For me it is not a matter of price but one of control - 3 of my machines came with Windows licences (2 x XP and 1 x Vista) none of which are installed .
 But I think that a majority of average people will just use whatever their box ships with whether it is good or bad !

I only tend to use OS9 for classic apps that won't run under OSX. So you'll have to forgive my misunderstanding of the above line. In my mind the ability to access the BSD subsystems under OSX allow the user to have far more control over the OS than they could want. The UI perhaps simplifies their interaction with the OS  rather than removing their ability to control it.
The same is true of XP there are few differences between it an 2K and many of those differences are settings that can be turned on/off. Like you I do use 2K , but that's down to my dislike of the activation process  and XP for a long time  not being fully compatible with my Video Capture Card drivers.

[hugh]

just to say, about a month back i tried to dual boot suse 10.3 and vista and it failed, so yesterday i opted to just intall suse 10.3. installed it, it broke etc. i spent 4 hours just trying to get a version of linux running with drivers for my 8800gt.

needless to say, i'm once again back on windows. the initial learning curve is just way to steep for a first time or unskilled user imo

[rrussell]

Derailed even further: Are there even linux drivers AVAILABLE for the 8xxx and higher cards yet?

[tino]

Yes there are I think rrussell.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=781&num=1

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nvidia_16912&num=1

[VorLonUK]

Derailed even further: Are there even linux drivers AVAILABLE for the 8xxx and higher cards yet?

Yep, the Spring RC1 release of Mandriva One has the 169.25 incorporated, so it supports even the latest G92 chips - I've used it and it works very well.

[Intuit]

Customer complained his new $900 Quad-Core PC is slower than his old S939 Athlon64 PC.  Told him they used an old motherboard and he's being ripped-the-f*-off.  Despite still having the receipts, box and it still being within 30 days he's still hesitant to take it back because "he has all his applications setup".  People are willing to deal with sub-par functionality in the face of saving hassle.

Right but in mid and large sized companies that guy has no say whatsoever on what he runs.  He is handed a generic PC with a stock set of apps which have been decided by an architecture division who's members he's never going to meet.  Ever.  And that PC is going to be completely locked down and scanned to make sure he puts absolutely nothing on it.  The last two companies I've worked for hand to a corporate windows image with all of the applications you are allowed to run.  If I install AIM or Trillian on my desktop and try to use them I get a popup message saying I'm violating corporate policy and the next morning I get a scan which tells me to remove it or else.  If I want to install an app that's not approved I have to submit it to the architecture group for approval.  If I get it then it goes on the corporate image or on the install repository.

Small companies don't invest like that and control their software and hardware because it makes no sense financially or logistically.  Larger companies are a different animal altogether.  And you could do this with Linux in a large company while saving millions of dollars if only they were up to snuff.  All of these applications are managed by third party install apps from what I've seen.  I don't see how this would be a problem for linux.  Someone would just have to lock down apt-get, point synaptec package manager at a corporate repository, and lock down outside repositories.  Done.

What are you talking about Scut !?  There's absolutely no difference between professional and amateur level users.  ;-P

[rrussell]

Derailed even further: Are there even linux drivers AVAILABLE for the 8xxx and higher cards yet?

Yep, the Spring RC1 release of Mandriva One has the 169.25 incorporated, so it supports even the latest G92 chips - I've used it and it works very well.

Suh-WEET!

Thanks. Carry on!