On 5/4/07, Jim Kissel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Harrison wrote: > Ian Pascoe wrote: >> One question that's been missed off all of this valuable discussions is: >> >> "Why should I try this Linux thingy?" >> > PROLOGUE - I'm going to be contentious. > > I ought to explain that TheVeech and I exchanged emails offlist last > night, in which we agreed that a bit of "violent discussion" would both > lead to a better result than any individual could come up with AND > hopefully spark contributions from people who have sat on the sidelines. > > BTW - if you want to carry on sitting on the sidelines and just reading, > that's absolutely fine with me. However, I do find that many more people > say nothing because they (wrongly) don't believe that they know enough > than say things when they they are actually misunderstanding the issues. > We generally get to better answers if more people join in. > > On that basis, if you all join in to tell me I'm wrong in what I'm > writing below - that's FANTASTIC - it's the kind of thing I can use to > improve my understanding and arguments in the future. > > > > MAIN ACT - I don't like "free" as a selling point unless I'm talking to > someone where I know I have a minimum of 5 minutes to run through the issue. Let's get the free as in gratis our of the way quickly. The cost of acquisition of OSS/FS software is near zero. You can download it if you have sufficient bandwidth (which you pay for) or you can purchase an inexpensive CD/DVD, or you can buy a "boxed set" which may/may not come with a manual. In all cases your cost of acquisition should be less than 100 GBP. Note: Some "Enterprise" versions cost much more, but you are purchasing multi-year support and that costs. You want 7x24 support, you've got to pay for it. > > "Free" works very well in a longer format, like the recent BBC radio > programme mentioned on the list a week or so ago. > > However, in a "moment of truth", one of the hardest problems to overcome > is what happens to potential users when you mention the word "free", and > most people will make a "snap decision" inside a ludicrously short > period of time, rather than bothering to listen to the arguments. > > When most people hear the "free" word, they think "zero cost": Since we are pouring petrol on the fire, here is another take on what "most people" think when they here free. Free == Crap An attitude nurtured by PC World/PC Pro/PC Format.....'et al' and 25 years of floppy/CD/DVD cover disks of "free" useless crapware or at best crippleware. An attitude reinforced by the crapware loaded on the hard disk by PC manufactures. > > So for people thinking about an existing PC, it's a non-issue. They > already have a copy of an O/S and continuing to use that is "free" in > the money sense. The "no money" issue only applies if people were > thinking of changing to Vista [1] or thinking of getting a new PC [2] It also applies to the existing installed base that "needs" to subscribe to an anti-virus application or two just to keep their system running on a day to day basis. "Switch to OSS/FS and this type of problem disappears" > > Note 1: I suspect that another few months of horror stories about people > who try to upgrade from XP to Vista will stop people wanting to do that. > Note 2: Oh for a UK "household name" manufacturer who could ship Ubuntu. > See other thread(s) about why we need to keep the pressure on Dell to > offer this in the UK as well as the States AND why we need to make > D*&mned sure that the price of a PC with Ubuntu is less than the price > of a PC with Vista. > > > The problem with saying "free" and meaning "freedom" is that you then > have to explain the difference. There are two issues that arise with this: > > Firstly, some people get put off and think "that you're deliberately > misusing words", and all the other things that _I_ get accused of :-) > > Secondly, most people aren't programmers, and therefore don't understand > (short of a long conversation) why freedom to modify source code is > overall good for them EVEN IF THEY THEMSELVES NEVER DO IT. > > Most people think "I'm not a programmer, I'm never going to change the > code, so it's of no benefit to me" rather than "Because lots of > programmers can see what's really going on, the total community of > skilled people available to fix bugs and add new features is far bigger > than any single company, even one as big as Microsoft, could ever afford." > > > Personally, I always like tables that say "When should you use X, when > should you use Y" that deliberately come up with circumstances when > using a competitor's product is better - they come over as honest (even > if they are always self serving.)... and you also make the reasons to > use the competitor sound very niche. > > > Why Linux? > > - It's stable - most of the world's web servers and email servers run > Linux because it crashes much, much less. Good point, but not exactly germane to individuals/SOHO/SMBs > > - It's more secure - Linux was developed with a sophsticated security > model from the ground up, and Ubuntu applies a set of defaults that mean > that, even if a user clicks on a virus by mistake, they won't make it > infect the PC. (As an aside, most viruses are written to only work on > Windows - because it's a lot easier to write a virus that attacks Windows.) Don't just single out Ubuntu for praise. All *nix's share these attributes. > > - There are a huge number of applications specifically designed to work > together. In the Windows world it's very easy for a programmer to write > one program that accidently causes another program to stop working. On > Linux, because of the way that the code used to write programs is almost > always available, it's very, very hard for a program to have these > problems. Indeed, one of the things the Ubuntu community does is > specifically check that things won't interfere with each other before > they are included in a distribution. Consider: "I can update all the applications installed on my PC with a couple of mouse clicks" Try that with any MS product + third part s/w Consider: "My system unobtrusively informs me of software updates, every time I log in. Updates are are made available when they are ready, not on 'Patch Tuesday'. The same application can be used to upgrade (to a new release/version) my entire system." > > > Why Windows? > > - At the moment, more PC vendors ship machines with Windows > pre-installed than have Linux as an option. (However, many small local > manufacturers offer Linux - it tends to be the big US multinationals > that are pro-Microsoft, and Dell have recently started shipping Linux as > an option, though today that's only available in the US.) > > - Some applications are written to only work on Windows. In most cases > (email, web browsers, spreadsheet, word processing, audio editing, video > editing, blogging, web-site creation) there are either versions that run > on Linux, or Linux alternatives that work as well. However, quite a few acquistion > Games are only available for Windows, so if you're a hardcore gamer, > then you may be better buying an £800 Windows "gaming specification" PC > than a £300 Linux "work, homework and web browsing PC". Add my vote to that opinion. > > - If you use NTL cable broadband in some areas, then only Windows > software will be provided. It is possible to get this working with > Linux, but quite fiddly and you may need to find a local linux user to > help (there are Linux user groups in all parts of the UK.) Please educate me as to what software NTL/cable broadband supplies that is Windows only. While I will agree, you need to be a little bit more independent/knowledgeable, I cannot envisage needing and ISP supplied software. > > - If you are on a company email system that uses the Microsoft > "Exchange" server, then this is designed to work with Windows only. If > you use email from the likes of Google, AOL, Hotmail, Virgin or the like > - these email servers actually run Linux (though they do work with > Windows machines.) There are more alternatives for e-mail than you mention and it is possible e-mail through an MS Exchange server with Linux based software. > > > Reasons why you could you use either? My totally non-scientific survey of computer usage shows the top tasks "most users" preform are: Surf the Web/Search the Internet Send/Receive E-mail Word Processing and sometimes use a spread sheet or create a presentation and very occasionally a personal database Additionally the "home" user want to edit/manage their photos, playback CD/DVD
Yes, you're absolutely right and please go on saying so. Both groups mentioned Skype and Video Conferencing and IM/IRC
Where OSS/FS is weak. Games, "the Print industry" as they "need" a Mac and many/most graphic designers are Apple based. > > - Linux and Windows both run "OpenOffice.org" - an application that can > edit "Word, Excel and Powerpoint" files. > > - Both surf the web equally well. Indeed, the Firefox web-browser, > originally written for Linux, has now been made available for Windows. > This includes audio and video playback, as well as things like "Flash" > and "Ajax" that some websites use for more sophisticated effects. > > - Audio-editing, graphics and video-editing packages are available for > each. Generally, the Windows versions cost a few hundred quid and the > Linux versions are free. > > > Reasons why you should "pirate" a copy of Windows instead of using Linux? > > - Because you like breaking the law and being prosecuted. > -- Simple effective migration to Open Source based computing Jim Kissel Open Source Migrations Limited w: http://www.osml.eu e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +44(0) 8703 301044 m: +44(0) 7976 411 679 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
-- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
