linux not recognised 3

[garwain]

The main reason that I've found for linux not being recognised is not a lack of publicity, but because M$ makes deals with computershops to provide ONLY M$ OS's. Living in the middle of nowhere there are very few computer shops, and if you ask at any one of them they do not support/distribute anything but m$. Some have contracts where M$ will provide them with lower-cost products that they can sell for the same price as other stores and other stores either don't realize there are alternatives or the don't see enough demand to change their way of buisness.

If computer stores started to promote Linux, MAC OS, OS X, BSD, BEOS, etc there would be more demand in the area for support and products for these systems and thus it would then become justified to have technicians and sales people experianced in these OSs. However the regular users will always take what is in front of them with support available, and it's in the end up to the computer stores to start the new trend by promoting alternatives to their customers.

 

[MDXer]

Having done a number of types of IT work I have seen this arguement applied to almost everything. I like to think of it as the It Sucks Debate.

In hardware it was
Mac Users: PCs Suck
PC Users: Mac sucks

When in reality they both have areas they are best suited for. I doubt many would disagree that Mac is great for desktop publishing and some forms of graphics work, but I don't know many database people that would want to work in the Mac enviroment.

In 3d Graphics and Animation
Amiga (lightwave) Users: PC Sucks
SGI (alias wavefront) Users: PC & Amiga Sucks
PC Users after the release of PC: SGI To expensive for my budget. Amiga not powerful enough and well where are they now?

The reality was that the PC Platform did establish itself in the 3D market with application such as Softimage, and 3D Studio Max and a Lightwave port. This caused The release of Maya (PC Based Alias release) and SGI got into the PC market.

Networking
Cisco Users: Nortel Sucks
Nortel Users: Cisco Sucks

Novell Users: MS Sucks
MS Users: Novell Sucks

Having known a few Novell engineers who also knew MS they said Novell was becomming more Like MS to set up (true or not I don't know)

Now we have
Linux Users: Windows Suck
Windows Users: Linux makes things to complicated for the masses.

The truth is that people are always going to have some stupid baseless reason for hating the compitition.

The true Zen of IT comes from not knowing why or how much others suck but to what degree and why they temselves suck.

"Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!"
- Daffy Duck

 

[Stevehewitt]

I agree with that post!

The only thing is that points such as I haven't got a clue how to use and compared to Windows its got a much higher learning curve is actually a big thing when there are 2 IT guys support nearly 1000 users. Windows will be the only choice in those situations as some people enjoy IT and the challanges it bring all the time. Thats where having labs at home and even hosting your own websites at your home server.
As much as I like IT, when I get home I don't want to have to spend another 4 hours learning how to get a driver to work in something that to me looks like an advance DOS.

Things like Stupid name obviously don't come into the software, but it does marketing.

I don't think Linux sucks. From what everyone is telling me I really want to try it out - and I believe that Linux is almost certianly a better OS (you heard it hear first kids! ;-)) but that isn't the issue for this thread. The question was why it isn't recognised - and we should try to stay with that, not a Windows Vs Linux debate.

 

[venkman]

On July 30th I wrote:

My point is this, because the corporate sector determines the future, it is the decision makers in that arena who non-MS advocates must advertise and market towards. Who are these decision makers? IT specialists. For this reason, I disagree with Ocean14 who said "It doesn't matter squat what techs like us think ". Yes it does matter!

to which bakeman countered:

It really doesn't matter what techies like us think. It is those same people (i.e. managers) that come into the local PC shop to buy a home PC that make the decisions in the work place on what systems to buy. When was the last time you had anyone who actually knew what they were doing make a decision in your company?


After reading a recent article linked to from slashdot, I have changed my mind. I now agree with ocean and bake. Here's a link to the article:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=164838

In particular, here's the quote that made me reconsider:

The need to reach a diverse audience is growing, as studies show that technology buying is more frequently decided by business managers rather than technical specialists.

My apologies ocean and bake, I stand corrected.

As to the IT sucks argument, it makes very good sense. However, you cannot deny that there are points at which one technology becomes dominant. Apple and PC (x86/"IBM Compatible&quot is a good example of this. Everyone who owns a Mac, says that PCs suck. Many techies who like PCs say the same thing about Macintoshes. Yet, PC is overwhelmingly the dominant technology here. The key that I think Linux enthusiasts like myself are looking for is for Linux to become dominant the same way PCs are. I almost positive the Windows vs. Linux argument will last a long time, and in particular the arguments over what should be open source and what should not be, but the question is who is going to be the winner in terms of market share in the long run, not in terms of some abstract concept of better or worse.

-Venkman

 

[MDXer]

I think in the IT industry or even in just hardware or software specific markets it isn't really a matter of 1 company or product becomming the winner because of market share, but rather the consumer who is the winner. Diversity in offerings allows a users specific needs to be more easily met. The less a users efforts and frustrations are minimized the better their experience will be.

I believe what we will see in the future is not that much different than what we currently see, but it will be more clearly defined. By this I'll refer back to the PC v Mac debate where Mac is by far the better choice for Desktop Publishing. I think Linux will continue to solidify it's market and eventually will be looked at a definitive answer for a given need. I think what is holding linux back at this point is many people trying to make it be the Solution for all needs, when clearly there is no one solution for everything. Is redhat better suited for Servers or Personal systems? The one thing MS has accomplished is targeted markets, you don't install w2K or XP home and expect it to be a server, while at the same time most people except developers probably don't run MS server OS on a personal machine.

If linux flavors targeted niche markets and optomized for that market then gaining marketshare would be less of an issue. For example if Redhat targeted database servers and then not only would they gain market share from MS but would also gain marketshare from other more costly and proprietary UNIX OSs such as Solaris and HP.

In todays vast product offerings Targeting a Market is probably going to be the best if not only way to develop a significant Market share.

"Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!"
- Daffy Duck

 

[jurgen36]

I like to give my two bits as well. About one year ago we changed about one third of our Pc's to the Linux OS. This included 3 servers etc. Since that time we had not a single instance of virus or worm attacks on the Linux operated systems. At first our students did not like the new system as they had to get used to it. However our last survey showed that they would not be prepared to go back to MS. The simple fact is that the system does not crash at all. Since we installed the new OS we did not even switch a single machine off they are on line 24 a day for now over one year, We are a major university in Thailand and had a recent staff discussion about it. It was decided that for the next semester all our workstations will be changed to Suse 9 Linux. The main reasons are cost and security. MS found out about yje plan and offered us free software for all our machines. But this is not the major issue. We like to be crash proof and also have a secure system. Regards.

Jurgen

 

[MDXer]

I think whenever a school or University is married to a single platform they do a disservice to the students. Many students comming out of schools and universities have a hard enough time trying to find a job much less a job when their exposure to technology is limited. Yes as developers we must be able to adapt, but the ability to adapt happens during our career. A student who has studied DB design and programming comming out of a school married to Oracle will have a difficult time in either finding a job or performing well at a job if the market in their area demands MS SQL or Sybase. Yes the skills of design and how the data flows can carry over but their ability to make the jump from PL-SQL to T-SQL can be difficult. Yes many of us say well it is only a difference in Syntax and Functions but for someone just starting out this difference can be significant.

Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!
- Daffy Duck

 

[Stevehewitt]

Hi Guys.

This thread has been going on a fair while, but I'm going to throw a spanner in the works with my 2pence worth.

People say that Linux is a viable alternative to Windows based on reliabiliy and security.
Although there are many more viruses on Windows, and there are more exploits discovered on Windows systems.

But, if Windows installations and configurations are done according to networking principles then I can nearly guarentee you that it is as reliable and secure as practically any other OS out there.
Firewalling, IDS, Good AV Policy, through testing of applications before implementation, project planning for hardware/software specifications, checking MS HAL, Regular Patching - All of this should be done as standard on any OS, no matter is it's Mac, UNIX, BeOS, Linux, Windows or Solaris.

If all of this is done reguarly, and you following the guidelines of the vendor for both software and hardware then regardless of OS, you will almost certianly have a smooth ride.

Steve.

 

[NOPOPNOSTYLE]

A quick History lesson.

I'm a web developer who uses mainly Windows Platforms for our pages. I've heard a lot of good things about both Windows and Linux. At the end of the day I feel that Windows will never lose its Market Share.

The reason for this is that my erstwhile forefathers were at the centre of the Industrial Revolution, which we all know really caught on in England and well the rest of the known world. The key to our success was to forge disparate industries under the wonderful banner of STANDARDISATION. That’s what the Victorians did for us and once everything was standardised the revolution could take place. One American told me once "there's the way it ought to be and the way it is." Wise words, let Bill Gates Standardize the computing world and let the true revolution begin.

Regards

Lord Exell

 

[ricecomputersolution]

While I agree with almost everything that has been stated so far I feel the biggest roadblock that a standardized desktop version of linux faces is comsumer fear, in general the average consumer is afraid of change, and for most users the Windows brand name is all that they have ever known. Having said that I think that Linspire is the best suited to challange M$. Best and most like Windows GUI, consumer friendly appz. But time will tell

 

[Stevehewitt]

I agree - everyone knows the Windows platform. Where to find applications and administrative functions is a doddle - it's all based on real people chosing what applications are called.

The main reason i have had problems with Linux is because I can't find the 'Control Panel', or because there isn't a 'add/remove programs' or 'network connections' window.

The reason I can't find them is because they are called something irrelevant to what the application does!!!

Linux will have to be a lot more logical in it's GUI construction for both admins and users to acecpt it's use.

Steve.

 

[sicktrick]

linux on the desktop is difficult to setup and X is almost unusable. linux on a server is a lot more flexible and stable and easier to admin.

once you people who just started learning to use computers learn the diff. between what's appropriate for a desktop that needs a graphical shell versus what's appropriate for a server, then you can spend your energies on non-political nonsense.