KCB wrote:
> Caitlyn Martin said:
>> I'm going to tackle this from two angles: First, 90% of computer users
>> can't install *any* operating system. They buy their system with the OS
>> preinstalled. This is why getting Linux-based systems into stores is so
>> critical. IMHO, the semi-savvy non-geeks who actually try to install an
OS
>> are a small fraction of the market, and therefore not vital.
> This bothers me, I guess because I belong to that small fraction that
you're
> dismissing.
Ouch! I guess I should repost what I said to James once: English is not
my native language and sometimes things come out way wrong. I don't mean
to dismiss anyone, and I apologize if I offended you. I sure didn't mean
to.
You are tremendously important to the community because you want to learn,
and you are the type of person who, if you have a positive experience with
Linux, will likely praise it to other non-geeks. Non-geeks can say to me,
"Yeah, but you do this for a living." With someone like you, who can
honestly say you were not a geek when you started with Linux, that
objection disappears. You are living proof that Linux is for mortals.
Besides, since you're here and you want to learn, we'll make a real geek
out of you yet :) Seriously, I do not want to underestimate the importance
of people like you.
Having said that, you are part of a group that may not be statistically
significant enough to matter when it comes to mainstreaming an OS. To
compare, I really enjoy the music of the group Earthstar. Only one of
their albums was reissued on CD. I understand it had a run of 500 copies
two years ago, and new copies are still readily available. The record
company, though, is about out of business. If someone asks me if I think
their other albums should be reissued, well... of course I'd love to see
that happen. The problem is, I am statistically insignificant. How many
people even remember Earthstar, let alone would buy CDs?
> Is it really true that most people can't install an operating
> system?
The estimates I've read are 90% to 95%. I believe it.
> Of course, I'm trying to remember the last time I might have done
> that without the support of someone who *knows* what to do sitting right
> next to me. I can't. So maybe I can't do it on my own either.
Are you willing to learn? Does it interest you? If so, I'd say you are
way ahead of most users. To me, the fact that you are on a list like this
says your are way more interested than most.
> Right now you can walk
> into a computer store or go to Dell online (not that I recommend this)
and
> buy a computer that comes all preinstalled. All you have to do is follow
the
> color-coded system to plug the keyboard, mouse, and monitor in. That kind
of
> ease of use is what is needed for Linux (sacrilege!) before the average
> computer user will consider it.
It may be sacrilege, but I think you are 100% right.
> I have never, in 12 years of
> working in corporate environments, worked anywhere that didn't use
Windows
> and/or Office. That may have more to do with where I live (Seattle area)
> than anything else, so I'd like to hear if that experience is not usual.
Errr... I have. Six or eight years ago there were a lot of OS/2 shops out
there. The US government agency I support still does not use MS Office.
They use the Lotus SmartSuite except for word processing, where we use
Corel WordPerfect. Most law firms use WordPerfect still, as do most
government contractors (including my employer). The freight forwarder I
worked for used the Lotus SmartSuite until they were bought out in 1997.
The majority of their apps ran on HP-9000s running HP-UX, and they used
Reflection/X to display them on the Windows desktop. Again, at the agency
I support, many of the scientists have UNIX workstations, either SGI or
Sun. A good friend who recommended me for my current job came here from a
shop that used either Linux or Irix on the desktop, not Windows.
Burlington Coat Factory threw Microsoft completely out in 1999 and uses Red
Hat Linux on Dell PCs for their desktop, with ApplixWare as their office
suite. Racal was studying the same idea last I heard. Need I go on?
The vast majority of companies do use Windows on the desktop, but I think
with Microsoft's new, greedy licensing scheme for Windows XP, that will
begin to erode rapidly. Office has been losing market share slowly for the
last two years. The last numbers I saw had it at 84% (still way dominant),
with Corel up to 15%.
I think right now there is a crack in the mighty Microsoft armor, for two
reasons: really poor (arrogant) public relations on their part, and the
big one: cost. Linux has a narrow window of opportunity, much as OS/2 had
in 1994 and 1995. If IBM hadn't caved into Microsoft blackmail
(threatening to withhold all Windows licenses from Big Blue) and dropped
OS/2 marketing in 1995 the IT world might be different today. According to
the accounts that came out after the IBM te
