Windows 7 doomed by economic outlook

I agree with the suggestion that Windows 7 will be in for a tough time - especially considering the economic situation. However I have my doubts about the Linux opening this represents.

Linux will win some from the economic malaise, however, to me it is looking more that SAS will be the real winner.

Running a linux environment is not easy - and requires appropriately trained support. Windows is easier, but still requires dedicated support.

SAS, when delivered either through the web or remote consoles takes away the need for local staff. Users require only a netbook type of device.

Linux will win as the best supporting role for SAS, but SAS will be the overall winner.

Elmars

That has already begun to happen. With the release of Ubuntu 8.10 (Intrepid Ibex) people using XP began to adopt the popular Linux distribution instead of Vista, just because you get better performance with less hardware. If Microsoft can't keep up with W7, they will certainly loose a lot of customers, since most businesses would have been able to wait Vista out, but not another OS with its old hardware.

Linux has been gaining ground slowly over the last 3 years. Its just that at the moment people have been loudly saying that they are moving to linux because its becoming somewhat of a trendy thing to do. 

All businesses have been aware for a while now that Microsoft is just lock in junk. Migrating away from the junk has become a priority in IT departments for many years but will take time to be felt in a big way. 

Microsoft is toast and they know it. SA Renewals are at an all time low, guess where they are going?

It's always make or break time for Linux. And has been for the last 20 years.

Linux, the Never ready for prime time OS.

If Linux couldn't make it on the desktop with Windows Vista, then it never will.

Yes, switch to Linux... you only have retrain every member of staff on using a new OS and the software that runs it and every member of tech support. Can't see it happening personally, Microsoft have got us by the balls.

I think that alot more people are going to be at least looking into linux (even out of curiosity) now.

When with Vista (ME II), people are getting fed up with M$ crap.

Companies will only be shelling out money if they have to so this could prove to be an interesting time !

however if this were to happen then the credit crunch could affect even the virus writers (try running viruses under Linux). so this could make the economic downturn even worse. ha ha

I have Vista, and have NO intention of replacing or upgrading it. It simply does what I need done.

But, if businesses are going to buy new machines, they are going to come with Windows 7 preinstalled, and there is generally no other option that actually costs less. They may choose to replace it with Linux in some flavor, but why? What do they save?

I tried to replace Vista with Linux, in two versions and three releases. I could never make all my hardware work under it, and it crashed more often than Vista did. After six months of debugging nearly every day, I went back to Vista, and everything works again. Now I spend time using the machine rather than working on making things on it work.

I just hope they make a Linux which is _actually_ for human beings. It took me two months to get Ubuntu properly running.

I couldn't find drivers for my hardware, when I found them they were actually source codes, which had to be compiled. I had no idea how. Tried double-clicking. soon i realized "double-click, hit next, and you're done" isn't the way Linux works. I tried online support (ubuntu forums). nothing i got worked. tried google. nothing worked. finally a kind soul at ubuntu forums compiled the drivers for my hardware and posted them. I followed his instructions. and... they didn't work. i had to wait for the new release which supported the hardware out of the box.

Why can't they make Linux like Windows is-- why do i need a terminal at all? there's a terminal in windows, but you can do everything without it as well. in linux you need it for almost everything.

Curse Bill Gates and Windows all you like. Windows might not be good, but there's nothing better out there.

I'm putting my money on the 'never will' outcome.

Unless auntie Flo pulls her finger out and learns to compile her own apps from source and operate the whole computer from command line.

The Linux systems that are user friendly (typically, netbooks) are so locked down that they're practically content viewers, not proper computers.

That might be enough to convince home users to switch to Firefox on Ubuntu and use Google for all their email and office app needs, but corporate users are never going to do it and they're who MS make Windows for first and foremost.

I still say that for Linux to take over the desktop, It only needs two things.

1) Hardware manufacturers need to provide proper driver support for they're products on Linux. Some do, others don't I applaud those that do. We can't count on the Linux community to provide EVERYTHING.

2) GAMES!! Face it. If a person can't play their games, They are less likely to move away from Windows. Come on game makers unmarry yourselves from DXwhatever and code em up for Open-GL you can cover both platforms, sell more games, and get near if not better graphics from GL on lower spec'd hardware.

Linux already has applications available to do most anything you want to use a computer for. Most is free (Donation ware) Just sometimes these apps are hidden behind strange names. Ask on any Distro's forum and someone will shoot you back a list of apps that'll do what you are asking.

I've enjoyed most every Linux distro I've ever run. Only downside for me, is I have to set up for dual boot with Winblows so I can play my games.

LoCatus

ssj4Gogeta is hitting the wrong target - it's not as if Microsoft wrote the driver for the Attansic L2 Fast Ethernet. You should check the hardware vendor supports your OS, otherwise buy different hardware. 

The fact you got it to work at all shows the power of the Linux ecosystem. If some of your hardware would not work on Vista due to no drivers, where would you go?

It's always linux time. It has been linux time for many years...

The problem is greed.

How will companies make money out of linux? offering services? alright, how many users are there for linux? what services can you provide a community of techies? not too many I'm afraid.

It takes time, money & experience to write decent drivers, the X-fi driver by creative proves that. 

BEFORE you buy things, find out if they work with what you want!

Most serious hardware vendors have some linux drivers, especially for server hardware.

Server hardware = quality hardware = expensive.

Why is it so surprising to these mouse monkeys that linux doesn't automagically work on the same hardware that windows works on??

When they buy a Windows based computer do they also wonder why it cannot use OSX?? 

You want to make sure linux will run & be compatible? check the hardware lists & look in the fine print of the hardware you buy.

ZOMG !! I iz don't know what the F I'm doing and nuffin worxies OH NOOOOOZ!!!!!!!11

The problem with desktop Linux has been obvious for many years: the lack of support from HW manufacturers. In the desktop world, there are myriads of cheap models of all sorts of hardware components, many of which comply to standards only very lousely. And I understand that producers of these things cannot afford spend time and money to develop software support for minority operating system occuring in dozens of variants and configurations.

I am a Linux fan and have used it for a while.... but until they solve the non double click install platform... i don't see many consumers or companies joining the bandwagon... it would be more expensive for a company to retrain the employees on linux then to just grab Win7 or Vista

As a Network Manager working for a modestly sized school, I decided to bite the bullet and dish out approx' 130 EEE PC 4G netbooks running Xandros. Not XP. Reasons were cost and security. I glad to say that the project has been far more sucessful than we had hoped, and I sleep better at night knowing that netbooks with warez, malware, spyware etc are far less likely to bother my department.

But...

AD, GPO's WDS, WSUS and MMC management tools are incredibly useful to us and I can just about trust IT Technicians to drive them. Until Linux gets decent graphical management tools that 1st line staff can use and a decent AD like system then no thanks.

I would love to see a complete Novell e-directory environment setup on *nix, but haven't the time to properly look into it. I'm also guessing that thanks to M$ educational pricing it'll be no cheaper.

Novell if you're listening then how about some VMWare images to play with that show off your technology!

F/OSS if you're listening then give us some decent management tools. Webmin and similar just don't cut it for 1st line staff. Paying for software is fine, however it does need to actually exist (and be cheaper than Bill/Steve)

Actually I reckon that Novell prolly have everything we would need, they're just doing the usual piss poor job of marketing it.

Even a DVD video download showing how it would all hang together would be a start...

linux is function 
they NEED to make it FUN the main complaint with people who are faced with linux ask games? also make it simpler version or interface for the windowians. the good GPL is also bad any commercial company would sue because no one offers or allows it as a option. 

winblows vista is form over funtion its shiny and new but caused more problems than it solved. while there are good points they are too few. they need to make a NEW OS but they can not do it. they only add more and more crap to old code. they need IMO to make something that works first and foremost. second option to install bloat(auto option as NO) so anyone that does not know gets the base that works. decrease the 20 versions down to 2 make compatibility to 32 and 16 bit under 64 OS. they cannot do it and would not. they are in the business of pushing sales by eliminating options

While I prefer Macs I would like to know what hardware and what flavor of Linux a couple of the posters tried and said they could not get Linux working. Usually the hardest is the WiFi. I had to connect manually (wired) until Ubuntu or Mandriva updated, with a couple clicks of a mouse just like Windows or Macs after that it recommended a non open source driver for my WiFi card and presto my 3Ghz Core 2 system (x38 motherboard) was good to go. It also recommended a non open source video driver for my 8800GTS that worked great, thanks Nvidia for making Linux drivers.
Obviously these couple guys are clueless.

ssj4Gogeta,
Being a fairly new Linux convert, I understand completely what you are saying.

A few things nonetheless: if your hardware doesn't work with Linux out of the box, or with minimal fuss (like adjusting some sound settings), as a newbie, simply forget it. Thats how simple linux is :) You most likely won't get it working, because the hardware isn't supported in the kernel. You can blame "linux" for that, or you could blame the supplier of the hardware that provides Windows drivers, but no support for Linux. Fact is that the vast majority of hardware out there simply works, requires no driver downloads never mind compilation at all. Its right there even during the install process.

When I have to reinstall a Windows machine, I spend more than a day downloading windows service packs, 232 drivers for motherboard, audio, video, printers, RAID, joystick, webcam, even my bloody mouse, then .NET packages, security updates, an AV, office sofware, other productivity software, codecs, flash plugins, etc etc etc. I dont even think I'd manage in a day. 

With ubuntu (medibuntu), I install it fom a cd, and everything works and is right there. Takes 20 minutes, and is absolutely far easier for a newbie than installing a PC and actually making it work, with a windows CD. Provided the hardware is supported.

If not, if you have some hardware or an obscure webcam that doesn't work with linux, then though luck. You can test it with a live cd before instaling. You can check on ubuntu website before buying. If it doesn't work, buy another one that is supported by Linux (or from a vendor that supports linux). Or stick with windows if you must. Its a free world, and you didn't lose any money.

As for the console. I felt exactly like you when I started with it. But now I appreciate its simplicity. Yes. Simplicity. Even a total linux noob can copy/paste the most complex commands from a website, forum or IM and get stuff done in seconds that would take hours to explain through a GUI. Just for laughs, imagine someone would have let you download, compile and install drivers from source on windows using a GUI. How long would that have taken the both of you? Instead you copy pasted some chinese looking commands, and that was it.

Now imagine having to explain anything to someone that uses a French or Korean GUI, and you'll quickly get to appreciate the terminal as an ideal tool for... newbies. I kid you not.

Now Ubuntu is far from perfect, its not ideal for everyone and some things could certainly be made easier for newbies (and I hope, over time will). The file system permission system is no doubt a very good thing, but its a PITA for somewhat more advanced users, not being able to write to most places on your harddisk without typing "gksudo nautilus" A Right click/ "open as root" menu is all thats needed.

Linux has been on the horizon for years. I went through a Linux stage back when Red Hat sold a consumer version of Linux. After they dropped it in favor of enterprise business, I lost interest in Linux. It almost requires the user to be a programmer just to install software. Drivers for your hardware? Yea, right! The real threat to Windows is from Apple. More and more people are buying Macs thanks to Vista's bad press. If Windows 7 doesn't deliver, there could be more Mac users on the rise.

I have trained people to use Ubuntu (7.04 at the time) in 10-15 minutes. The main thing the users have trouble getting their heads round is the concept of a package repository and how it contains most of the programs they are likely to want to use and why not to download random programs off the net.

The only problems people are likely to have is if they have a piece of hardware that uses some obscure closed source binary driver like broadcom wireless cards or creative sound cards.
It is for this reason that Ubuntu (and many other Linux distributions have live CD's, so you can try them out before committing to installation. 
In some cases changing distribution helps to deal with troublesome hardware. I once had an old ThinkPad 560X that Xubuntu couldn't get the sound working, I switched it over to Vectorlinux (a Slackware based distro) and got the sound working fine.

I agree with many of the posts here. The obstacles here are (for a business):
- Business app compatibility
- Staff training
- Tech staff training
- MS will likely lower the cost to compete with Linux at the slightest real increase in takeup across business

A new startup company on the other hand could easily begin with Linux, if they knew anything about IT.

On the personal computing front, for regular 'mums and dads' linux needs to:
- Have the apps needed (which is basically there with firefox and open office), so we can tick that one off.
- have an interesting and compelling interface. Pretty colours, nice icons, etc (some would argue this is coming nearly there)
- 'Click, click, done' to installations This is the biggest problem.
- The 'tech support' member of the family needs to have moved to linux first, for those weeknight 'how do I' phone calls.

Sure, we've been spoilt by the ease of use of Windows, but the fact remains most people are used to it, and people don't like change. Macs are only doing well because they are trendy and fashionable.

Yes Microsoft has us by the balls, and most people will just stay put until the economy picks up.

Get real. Linux had it's chance since the launch of Vista. It sucked then in user-friendlyness and usability and it still does now. That's why normal consumers aren't using it. It still requires lots more technical knowledge, has a steep learning curve and is a disaster to install and keep up-to-date. It lacks decent support for commonly used application and has the disadvantage of being chuncked up in too many flavors.

The cost of desktop PC hardware is neglectable. 
Broken? Just throw away the bloody thing, not worth it to have a second look (if it is a standard office PC).

There is cost involved in installing the system and interrupting the work of a user (or a department). This is more significant, especially when you not only exchange a few PCs but a lot of them.

So it is wise for a company to stay with a working system environment with XP - for now and a bit to come. Because it saves you the cost of the allover system installation and all the mess that goes along with it.

When you convert all existing PCs in a company or an office, you have cost for installation (and re-training/briefing the users). So why not stick with XP, if that buddy and the ol' hardware still works fine? 

Thinking this way, migrating your company to Linux is a fairly costly thing. And why spend money if the old stuff still works ok?

Only for a fixed set of applications (like looking up inventory in a company database in a warehouse or retail shop etc.) you can use Linux without headache, because the OS is more or less irrerelvant, you are only interested in doing this one thing (or those two things) and not more. You can use XP embedded for this as well. Makes no big difference.

And when it is time to (ex)change the hardware, because it has reached it must-retire-or-go-broke-age it really does not matter at all whether you pick XP/Vista/W7. You just get it with box. Everything else is a mess and extra cost.

In one or two years latest we will be done with the current crises. 

Linux is a good and valid choice, but it needs other things in favour of it rather then an economic crises. 


The Linux OS market share is still below the 5% on the market, so it boggles my mind to see people claiming it already has a dent into MS's Dominance.

Truth is at this rate Linux will never gain ground, and if they truly have an opportunity is in the netbooks market and even there they're getting a whooping on the floor by MS.

Maybe if they got their ... together and made sure Average Joe knows it isn't so difficult and incompatible any more they'd have a better chance. Until then it remains an OS for Crafty IT workers and open source spoiled children everywhere.

While I use Ubuntu and find it to be the easiest to install and upgrade distro I've ever used, it will never act as my primary OS simply because I would NEVER be willing to give up the absolutely HUGE assortment of excellent freeware available for Windows-based machines.

Linux is not ready for prime time yet. It has made amazing progress over the last 3 year but it's still not ready.
I'm a user so why do I have to use the terminal to get it to work properly. The OS is a tool. I don't want to have to fix and configure the tool to get work done.
Having said that I would love nothing more than to switch to Linux but it's not for the average user unless you disable most features and give them a limited environment.

A lot of people are fooled into thinking that Linux is cheaper then windows. But, for the enterpriise when you add up all the subscrition fees, TAM (which is needed to get anything done) 24/7 support Linux costs more then windows. 

No such thing as free!!!!

... for well over a year.

It's human nature, people buy what they're used to and what's familiar. When a lifetime truck-driving redneck buys a two-seated red sports car and a motorcycle, other people suddenly have thoughts like, "he must be going through a mid-life crisis". For humans to switch to the heretofore unknown is so uncommon we've even coined semi-psychological terms for it: "mid-life crisis". 

Windows will never be replaced on a significant scale by an OS that doesn't look, feel and act like the Windows they already know. There'll be some pockets of "insanity" but most will come crawling back with their tails tucked between their legs. Or when their backs and knee joints just can tolerate the close quarters of a Miata.

If Linux were going to be a contender, it would have already gotten there by now.

I think windows 7 will still sell well because of that damn inertia that a near-monopoly like Microsoft can impose. I do not see things changing very fast, it might change but I see the time scale at more than 5 years.

I disagree with some of the comments, ubuntu is not hard, it's just hard if your hardware sucks ! Try and install Vista on unsupported hardware... and solve your problems in the terminal on Vista...then come back to me and tell me it's simple. I want to mention that ubuntu now supports more hardware than Vista ! (Check the numbers...it's true.)
I know quite a few people who runs ubuntu without knowing really what a terminal is.

I'm proud to be a Linux user. I've been using ubuntu since 2006 and she has never once let me down. I don't have to wait 15 mins to boot every morning, i don;t have to do a weekly defrag, Oh and i don;t have to pay M$ for it! result in my book. 

"but my drivers don't work" - It's called learning, we all can do it.

But i suppose if you want your data open to the world to see then Windows is the choice for you. Especially if you love DRM.

Microsoft are operating with dishonesty and illegally. 

Why do you think Bill got out when he did, better retiring when your at the top of your game rather than the bottom.

I will continue to laugh at you silly sheep using M$.

How many of your family members do you think could install Ubuntu and get it working. None, which exactly my point!

Come on, it doesn't take a genius to know that if you are selling _anything_ during an economic meltdown, sales are going to suffer. If you are giving something away for free, it's probably not going to suffer during said meltdown. Does the Inq have to do the thinking for us nowadays? Either way that isn't really news.

You also assume that MS is going to magically produce amazing products after the "opportunity period" for Linux passes. That is, er, just a bit myopic as it ignores all the future, inevitable economic meltdowns which are all juicy opportunities for someone to steal the crown from MS. Might be Linux. Might be Apple. Might be an entirely new competitor.

But, Linux has never grown in spikes. It's grown slowly and steadily throughout its existence. It wins over new users one at a time as they find it works well enough for them to switch. The realisation doesn't happen immediately (usually because hardware support for this or that component sucks at the first attempt) but it all gets fixed eventually.

And due to the gradually-evolving nature of Linux, it probably won't do any great thunder-stealing for a while yet. Not unless someone markets the arse off it through just about every medium possible. The only way that will happen will be if a corporation like Canonical gets an ad campaign going. But without this drive, Linux just an open source project that - like most others - the general public will never run into unless they know what they are looking for.

F/OSS isn't (well, shouldn't be) about the numbers of users. It's about participating in something you enjoy or catering to one of your software needs where other rival software could not. If all the people in the world want to use a particular piece of Free Software, that's nice, but it's not the most important aspect by any means.

re "How many of your family members do you think could install Ubuntu and get it working. None, which exactly my point! "

I bet you never tried.

I made a bet with a friend some 6 months ago. I won. My 70 year old technophobe mother installed Ubuntu on a blank laptop, all by herself. Connected to the wireless network, and could surf the web. Took her (computer) 30 minutes She needed help configuring her email account, but thats no different than under windows. Im also pretty sure if I gave her a Windows XP CD, she might manage to install the OS, but would NOT manage to find, download and install the drivers for her network card, for her videocard, for her webcam, her soundcard,..

If your hardware is not supported, then its something else. But at least with Linux you have a fighting chance getting it to work with some effort and googling; good luck getting your non supported scanner or printer or whatever working under Vista when the oem doesn't offer you Vista drivers. You have zero chance. But 99% of the hardware out there works on Ubuntu without installing any drivers whatsoever.

As for the person asking "double click installs", its been available on just about every distro for ages. Want to install Skype? Just download the package, double click, click "ok", and you're done. The only problem is that packages aren't compatible between distro's, and that is something I hope will eventually be cured. Because of that, many programs are not being packaged and require you to compile from source which I admit is daunting for a newbie. Then again 95% of your software needs won't even require you to download the package. Get it from the repository. Browse a list, read the description, see user rating, then check all the programs you want to try, click ok and tested and free apps get installed automatically from a trusted source. This is not Linux' problem, its is probably its greatest asset for new users.

Only on desktop. Spending afternoon to make my tablet button work on my new shiny Ubuntu 8.10 is not cool.

Linux is a very nice nerd toy. Its got some great technology under the hood, wow, yes it does. I love it, but I love it enough to HATE it... HATE!... as in, i want it to be better and suck less. Linux is far from ready for mainstream. From a end-users point of view it is not stable nor secure. Your linux kernel may be untouched after a app has crashed your kde/gnome desktop but you'll still loose all your work you were doing, but whats the difference from a users point of view?. Sure it's difficult for a virus/worm/hacker to get root access, but they can still trash everything your user account has access to - all your data, saved passwords and network shares and other pcs on your network.
I used to work in a store where we'd frequently get requests for linux to be installed, sometimes in dual boot and we'd happily oblige being the nerds that we were. We had such a high rate of returns and dissatisfaction, the more savvy users may have persevered or wiped the partition for space themselves. We quickly as a policy refused to do it unless we had confidence the person was a card-carrying Linux nerd. Linux is utterly not ready for people who want to use computers rather than fix them all the time. Vista is now good at SP1, despite the fact 9/10ths of the problems with Vista were unbelievably sh1tty drivers and people trying to run it on out of date hardware. Vista is a smaller percentage footprint on a typical hard drive than.
Linux is a great nerd toy, that has proven its technical prowess, now actually turning that into. People talk about the gap between the rich and the poor - well how about the intellectually poor? Or smart people who simply don't have the time to learn, and just want technology to work for them? Why should they be excluded because of shitty design and an pathologically abject misunderstanding of the end user from Linux users? You know what open source works, look at what Firefox has done, it's arguably starting driving the web now. Open source is the future, but as a 10 year veteran of (trying to get my head around) Linux I'm really not holding my breath that the linux leopard can change it's spots, it's had years and years and it's just not taking up outrageous market share and shutting down microsoft as I once thought it would. The solution will be something like, get the pimply kernel hackers sidelined, and get the real software engineers, architects designers and digital artists to get stuck in to contributing to opensource. Listen to the end users - they want to be the master, and the technology to be the obedient servant.

I work on linux all day and have for years. All my desktops run windows. 

It's not that I haven't run the linux desktop, I have, many times, and always decided I'd rather use the windows desktop and use putty to control my linux boxes.

Main two reasons, drivers and software. MS office is better than open office, occasionally I need IE because of activex, photoshop is better than gimp, visual studio is better than eclipse, etc. And my windows drivers are way better than the linux ones. It's true. And windows has games though I rarely play them anymore. But that's what I want out of a desktop. 

That's not to say linux is bad, I use it all day and have for years for servers. I can do things with linux because it's open source that I can't do on windows nearly as easily. 

I disagree with people who think it's hard to install software in linux, use a package manager! after 5 minutes it'll probably be easier to install software on linux and keep it up to date than windows which still lacks a standard software update mechanism for third party software..... (honestly microsoft you suck)

But compiling software yourself can be frustrating.

And opengl is way behind directx and has a very different focus. Directx was designed for gaming, opengl was designed for 3d modelling.

As I see it, the main problems for both home and business users are that there isn't "one" Linux and there isn't one supplier to go back to if something doesn't work. In the case of Mac or Windows, both companies offer (usually) good support facilities for the average user and there's only one O/S (until a new version comes along). Obviously in the case of Windows there are variants such as Home, Business, Ultimate etc but essentially they are the same internally and many home users don't know the difference anyway. 
In the case of Linux you've got to first pick the right distro from dozens of variants for your uses and then ask a community of users to help if something goes wrong. Usually this leads to a few helpful comments and a barrage of insults from geeks who think you should just know it. Oh, and installing software often means compiling it for the version of Linux you chose which for Mac and Windows users is a frankly stupid concept.
Sorry to say it but it'll never be ready for desktop use until there's one distro with a single consistent interface, minimal use of the terminal for the average user and an easy software installation/removal process.

"Linux Really?
How many of your family members do you think could install Ubuntu and get it working. None, which exactly my point! "

It's very easy to make statements like that, mostly when you dont know a thing about Linux. 

- You never tried to install ubuntu did you? For most hardware : put the CD in, click click..done.

- Did you know you can get ubuntu preinstalled on a Dell Computer? 

You have no point, just cheap statements. What I just said would take minutes to check. What you said can also be proven wrong within seconds.

It's funny how many of you think Linux will simply just replace windows.. You really are missing the big point. How many of you can say you have really worked in alot of LARGE companies. Do you have any idea what it would cost to port the millions of custom apps companies use? then resources testing and finaly deployment? how about end user support. Sure if all you do is surf the web and check your Gmail account go for linux. what about exchange, what about all the custom code.. you think it's free to migrate to a new platform? give your heads a shake.. Linux may be free but switching to it in any meaning full environment isn't. 
In a tough economic time.. pruchasing stops.. and you make do with what you have.. and if you need something.. you go with what works and has less risk.. period. you don't go with the unknown.

until something is done to control Microsoft's monopoly power (controlling their basically unlimited power to reward and punish OEMs and retailers with so-called "marketing" money), Linux will *never* have it's day in stores.

Yeah, you can buy a Dell with Linux, but it's awfully hard to do so, and the choices are limited, AND the theoretical cost advantage doesn't appear in their pricing. Grandma wants to buy a PC, she's goes to Best Buy or another "big box", and what's there? Windoze and Apples. NEVER Linux.

With Windoze maintaining a total monopoly on "consumer" desktops, it's occasional losses with business/government don't matter. The consumer rules the computer biz, and Microsoft has the consumers locked in a cage.

MS-Office, OTOH looks a lot more vulnerable to me. It's frequently left of from retail PCs, because it's so grossly overpriced, and so easily replaced by something else. MS can't impose a similar monopoly on the Office Suite in retail.

BTW, this computer is: "Linux localhost 2.6.27.4-desktop-2mnb", and the browser is: "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1b2pre) Gecko/20081117 Minefield/3.1b2pre - Build ID: 20081117030825". I know Linux.

@winston - ubuntu intrepid ibex has in its repositories 26,000+ packages which are all 'free'. eat that with your cheerios.

@zelrik, vertigo, regulas - agreed, my roommates are potheads in a heavy metal band, and can barely use windows - this was an advantage, for they now love ubuntu for its simplicity and the 'it just works' lack of malware - its only harder to learn if you have windows shenanigans ingrained in your head (it can be argued that osx or any other unix-like os has the same difficulty for windows users).

@TJ, Dragos, fred, Frank Black, Wandering, etc - you guys are doing it wrong. not sure if you're using an outdated release (you wouldnt try to install a gtx280 or modern wireless adapter on a win98 install would you?) or if you are oblivious to the many many gui tools in a modern linux distro to get these jobs done, but you shouldnt have to use the command line to get hardware working, and the last time i had to use any 'programming' skills to get hardware working was when i had to modify source on a sound driver in suse 6.3, in 1999!!! seriously guys, if my parents can install ubuntu and use it with no other help than being handed the disc and told that if the wireless doesnt work to plug the network cable in and run updates - surely you people can? i regularly order 20-30 ubuntu discs to hand out to people at work and elsewhere - everyone that has *actually tried it* has wondered aloud why they had never heard of it before and why people are still using windows (to which i reply games, and lack of marketing - ubuntu needs commercials and ads to gain wide acceptance, word of mouth only goes so far). 

oh, and emerald+compiz fusion > osx, vista for eyecandy. it looks like an os from the fricken future, so i'd say that part is well handled Mark ;)

"________" doomed by economic outlook.

Fill in the blank with your choice of product, company or industry. 

E.g. "The Inquirer"


Here they come! Put on your anti-spin helmets!

It goes without saying that Fedora, SuSE or Debian would not be a choice for a recovering Windows addict!


Until I can play all my PC games out the box with no hassle on Linux, just go through install wizard and play, I'll be sticking with my minty Windows XP thanks.

Every now and then I end up messing around with Linux because of hearing other people praise it, I usually always end up ranting on some forum over the experience. I don't want to use a bloody terminal just to install Flash; and if there is an alternative that does not need the terminal why was I directed to this version in the first place? 

An OS by tech heads for tech heads, these people are incapable of looking at this from the users point of view. I'll gladly sacrifice a level of freedom if it doesn't mean pulling out a manual to change something. I want to use the OS to get stuff done not fall over stuff that allows me to tweak 'everything', that stuff should be hidden in the background and not hiding the stuff I actually want to use.

Come on people... Linux will never make it big time.. it will always play an important role but will never be "big"

Why? In a real setting you will have advanced users and beginning users... it's MUCH cheaper and easier for support for Windows with such a broad amount of users since they all have it at home...

Example...

Tech Support: Ok! Click Start... click on "Printers and Faxes"... right click on the icon that says "Lexmark" and click "Set as default" - Done!!

as opposed to....

Tech Support: Ok client who has a hard enough time finding "start" in Windows... It's time for us to configure CUPS together over the phone!

Not gonna happen....

The Linux boys and girls need to watch the movie, better still read the book, "The Others". It presents in perfect clarity where Linux is as an OS to be reckoned with.

Oh, by the way, in the movie Nicole Kidman and family are taking the part of Linux.

...for postings on a single article at the Inq? Put the beers down an' get ta' countin'.

PS: The thousandth poster should get a free t-shirt.

I apologise if this has already been mentioned but I only read around 2/3 of the comments.

In some comments, the cost of Windows is being compared to the cost of the training for users and tech support for Linux.

While it is true that the training would outweigh the cost of a Windows refresh, as soon as the next refresh came around you would find yourself saving money by not having to go with Winows once more.

To summarise, the longer the time frame, the more money will be saved by moving to something like Linux instead of yearly Windows licenses (or whatever the business subscription method is). Looking in terms of a single refresh is short sighted.

As to whether or not Linux will become more successful? I consider myself a fairly advanced computer user and I got very quickly frustrated with my inability to get several pieces of hardware working under several different distros. That said, it was quick, and the UI was not all that hard to get used to. Perhaps after a couple more releases and a few UI tweaks to make things more simple Linux may stand a better chance of gaining a more widespread userbase.

In the longer term the platform will be the web and it won't mater what OS you use. Look at cell phones, who knows (or cares) what OS they have in their phone? Once that happens price will be forced down so MS tax will wither down rather than just end with a bang. In the meantime I'm quite happy for a slowish transition as all those Widows machines are a magnet pulling viruses and malware away from my Linux box which does everything I need it to do to run my business. Why would I want to give up competitive advantage?

is that if Linux wants to win over Windows users it will have to work in a way that will not alienate them. Most people don't want to spend hours re-learning things that took them seconds to do in Windows, they want to be productive in their new environment as quickly as possible - so rightly or wrongly, Linux will have to imitate (or improve on) the Windows way of working (I mean, that is what this article is about - Linux becoming prefered over Windows, right?)

Linux will have to find some form of unity to gain any sort of foothold. Sure it is used in some places for the Apache stuff but there are other options that larger companies look to for their solutions. Sun and Novell have a better chance than linux.
Linux has gained popularity as a hobby, not a real OS. There are no "flavors" of M$ Windoze and MaC. Does a company want to use Synaptic, YAsT, RPM, or Portage to handle their updates? When I first started looking for stuff to try on my linux box I didn't know the difference between .tar .bz .bz2 .gz .deb and so on. Linux is like a bunch of small rouge tribes trying to takeover a country. 
Unless someone says "Hey, this is the Linux standard and we are going to submit our code to all hardware companies, and all you distros better copy us," then no one will stray from the hobby that Linux is.

Since we use Linux as a server backend, I am working with linux on a daily basis and have in general a very positive attitude towards Linux. 
However, I would have agreed until very recently, that Linux is in-deed not ready to be deployed 
as a desktop frontend in a small/mid-sized company. Firstly, it requires change, which in business equates to investment into training, updates, software porting, support issues etc. and secondly it requires still too many workarounds to get some essential (and often very specialized) software to run and thirdly, it was still for a non-geek user a bit rough around the corners. 
That is: Until last year. 
Because based on the experiences in our work group, the exact claim could have been made about Vista last year. 
And even the executive level has got their share of key experiences: 
I remember pretty well faffing around a full afternoon until my boss and I gave up to sync his vintage Asus PDA with his new Vista Laptop over USB. In an act of frustration he marched straight into the next outlet and trawled in a Nokia smartphone to replace his PDA. But only to repeat the defeat once again but this time by being let down by the shaky Vista bluetooth driver. 
Kind of jesting he asked how long - if possible at all - it would take to get the Nokia to sync with my Ubuntu powered EeePC, which I had used to debug the Bluetooth link. 

I replied that I would bet the attempt to connect a piece of consumer electronics like that with a linux-based calendar application would not even worth the bother, except you want to make this your principal occupation for a full week. 
Being anyway a bit annoyed about the design changes from XP to Vista (where are the network settings, klickety-klickety-klickety, ah there - man couldn't they leave things where they used to be? klickety-klickety-klickety, what - Do I really want to change? – Klickety -- Guess that why I clicked “ok” in the first place, didn't I? ...) he eyed the rather sober appearance of the gnome desktop over his shiny Vista gloss and suggested: Let's give it a try. 
To my complete astonishment, one hour later his Nokia phone synced with evolution. Yes, it took some reading of user written howtos, installing the required packages like opensync and some by hand config hacking but we got it running. 
Again: Vista had kept us at that point with the same task six hours busy and we were not even half way out of the woods. And by the way: How easy this would have been with XP is a hypothetical question, since XP was on that laptop not an option. 
Finally he said: Look, if you could just show me that MSoffice works half way decent with Ubuntu, I don't really think there is anything fundamentally missing for working on the move that Ubuntu can't handle, and then you can basically wipe Vista off this rig. 
Well, Crossover took care of first request and I took care of the second. He never looked back ever since. 

Anyway, to wind up: It is like like Chris in a posting higher up calmly remarked: 
There will be no spike in the uptake of Linux. 
The dominance of XP will not be replaced by the dominance of Linux, this is nonsense. 
And sure, hardware manufacturers will also in the years to come pre-dominatly support Windows instead of Linux or OSX. 
And yes, no same IT manager would at this point rip out 
But but what WILL happen is that Linux WILL be getting better year by year and will continue to crawl more and more out of the server room, where it is already firmly entrenched, to add to the continous leakage of MS-desktop defectors. 
Two years ago I would have agreed that only geeks run Linux as their desktop. Looking at who asks which kind of questions in the Linux user-forums, this is today clearly not the case any more. That is no prediction, this is an observation of the status quo. 

From my point of view, the desktop OS will go the same way as the server OSs years ago.
The older reader might remember the times before the web. It was very easy to identify the server by the look of the application, client or frontend (someone remember 3270 green screens?).
Nowadays we have more and more web applications (intranet & internet). As a user, I don't bother what server OS is behind such an application.
And with web applications (HTML, Flash etc.) the question of the client OS becomes more or less obsolete. So the more independent the business applications will get from the client OS, the more the companies will ask for cheaper solutions. The question is, can MS provide a cheap solution. I really doubt that. 
Some of you will point out that there are special applications that are client bound (e.g. AutoCAD). Agreed. But this is not the broad mass of business computer users. These guys need email, office and the web and usually nothing more. In such a case, I don't need an OS that requires a 200GB HD and 4Gigs of RAM just for startup. It'll be a small handy nettop.

i'm running the pdc release as my daily driver (as a pre beta, it's that good). linux is really great for file servers and the like. desktop, no. i have a pile of distro releases on my desk. i can say i've tried. not one of them in the last several years has been nearly as stable in a desktop/workplace environment as any of the fairly recent ms os (this includes '95). if ms keeps 7 lean as it runs atm, i believe they have a winner.

Talking with our IT guys it appears that Windows 7 will come with some kind of licensing that makes it completely uneconomic for a corporation like ours -- apparently one box/one fee is so 1990s, the future is component subscription.

Personally I can't wait to dump Windows in the workplace. I've been using Linux day to day for some time now and I've got used to its rather boring persona. Having to work with somewhat unusual applications in XP is an adventure, you never know quite what's going to happen, whether you're going to make it through the day without at least one catastrophic failure.

Oh no, yet another article on this "linux soon dominant" stance read every now and then.
Men, you never learn.

Ubuntu is ready for prime time, it's users who aren't ready for it.

So you maybe have to use the terminal once in a while, so what? It's much more powerful than windows command prompt (and that object shell thing ms did is a joke).

Oh no! There's no wizard to install my driver/software/thing! Here are some lines for you:
./configure
make
make install

Personally I find this much less hassle than "Welcome->next->license agreement->Next->location to install->next->extra bits->next->how are you today->next->Copying files->Next->We're all done->Finish"

As has already been said, the eye candy knocks vista into a cocked hat. It's quite something to see warcraft running in wine being subjected to wobbly windows and rotating desktops cube.

True it's not perfect, but then what is? I have a pesky hard drive controller that refuses to work in linux, but I blame this on the hardware manufacturer only supplying a driver for an ancient kernel version. Linux supporting the hardware it does, I assume without the same level of liaison that M$ gets, should be applauded.

What were we talking about again? Oh yes, Windows 7. Certainly *now* it looks good, but its leanness is relative, and it *will* bloat. The ui will no doubt be changed to one with more "features" that we dont need but will make it appear that it offers more than the previous version. The sooner we realise each version of windows is the same old shite - with a new coat of polish, and something tweaked so something else doesnt work anymore thus justifying the upgrade - the better.

Stop your "waah-waah it's all different and I have to engage my brain" and go for linux. Google has all the answers.

Message Ends

umm are you master_chief?

i do use ubuntu when i need to surf the web. it starts faster than windows. but i've encountered a lot of other weird problems too, which are unrelated to drivers. for example, some setting which works suddenly breaks on the next reboot and starts working again after like a week. sometimes an app just closes and refuses to start until i reboot. sometimes settings start behaving strangely (this happens most with compiz). besides, i don't have any decent game on linux. i tried lg-live dvd but the games on it are too boring and lack good graphics.
i might be wrong in my previous post. but certainly linux can focus a bit more on the gui. just for an example, why isn't there a "run as administrator" option when you right-click a program icon? or why do i have to do "sudo pon dsl-provider blah blah" instead of a double-click on a "connect" icon and why doesn't it notify me when the connection is lost?
linux might be powerful, but there remains a lot to be done.

I now run the big three on my ASUS laptop. I've got the original Vista partition that shipped with the machine which I use for playing games, I've got Ubuntu which I use for all my business needs (web & graphic design, email using the new Lotus Notes 8.5 beta client, Symphony the OpenOffice knockoff by Lotus, movie watching, music listening, etc.), and I have a hackintosh install which I use for my audio production. 

They all have their strengths and weaknesses, but to say that switching to Ubuntu from Windows is downright retarded. For the majority of my adult life I've been a Windows guy. Since Vista, I can't find half the settings I wish to change, the clock refuses to stay set no matter how many times I fix it (VCR's keep better time), shit crashes left and right, there are continuous and unpatched security problems and it's slow unless I turn off all the eye-candy, which lets face it, is the only reason to GET Vista.

Ubuntu and OSX run an order of magnitude faster on hardware THEY WEREN'T BUILT FOR, and they don't try and interrupt me when I'm doing something. When there are updates to install and it does it all on it's own, it waits until I try and shut down the machine before it implements them.... HELLO!? I'm trying to shut down, which means, I'm trying to leave with my laptop.... Morons.

No one other than my geek friends have an easy time installing XP or Vista without intervention or advice. Ubuntu (barring weird or some bleeding edge hardware) is a snap. It may not do everything you want, but what it DOES, it does exceptionally well.

Since I use all three on one machine, I think it can be surmised that they all have uses, but one is definitely the red-headed stepchild with a broken overall strap that isn't good for anything more than being a PC-based X-Box. Woohoo!

Linux has never attempted to "take" the market from Microsoft. Linux is also not in competition with Windows in terms of Ease of Use nor is their marketing campaign (what there is) designed with this intention. While Ease-of-Use is Windows strength (although notably slipping with every release since 2000 and XP), stability, security, efficiency are Linux's strengths. While Microsoft WOULD like to control all these, at the end of the day they know that 1. most people are moron's 2. moron's don't care to learn a new system even if the alternative "Easy" system is hardware crippling, DRM imbedded, and inefficient. Did I mention that EVERYONE accepts that in 4 years their OS will be obsolete for no other reason than Microsoft has engineered it to be so. DX10 can't run on winXP? Absolutely ridiculous, but the reality doesn't help sell Vista...well neither has Microsoft's fantasy, but thats beside the point. We accept that every 4 years microsoft will release a new and completely incompatible OS with promises of improved performance, with either middling results or regression.

BTW to the earlier DX10 reference. The Alky Project was an independent community work to port DX10 to XP,Linux,Mac systems, which is obviously absurd as Microsoft has already told us this is sadly not possible, which is why they are (again sadly) forced to sell us a new inferior OS at the same exhorbitant price. The Alky Project was rapidly met with a cease and desist from Microsoft. Essentially a project with naught more than a procedural outline on how one would theoretically implement DX10 on other platforms and some minor code is IMMEDIATLY nixed by MS.

And yet, as frustrating as MS is, there isn't room for x number of OS's with their own proprietary libraries. Can you imagine the compatability issues and how quickly hardware development would decline if there were even just 3 major marketshare OS giants each with their own proprietary libraries? Be glad that Linux isn't trying to be Windows.

Oh and lastly, Fedora is superior to Ubuntu in every sense. For everything that Ibex does better than Hardy it does at least an equal amount of things worse, which is the reality of ubuntu's 6 month release scheme, and after a while all the fixes and regressions over the many releases sort of melt together. Fedora has a slower release and is honestly more polished and has a longer lifecycle. Heaven forbid that a commercial company should release free software that is AS if not more stable than any other linux distro out there (which we all know is what drives the ubuntu fanboy's anti-Fedora fanaticism) . Oh, and Fedora is more advanced than their redhat enterprise solutions. Jerks...