I agree on both points. I can see both sides to those arguments. I am in the camp that for me personally, Windows cannot be replaced by linux. However, the average user does not do much on there machines. They do the basics, email, web, photos, videos, etc. so they are completely fine using something like Ubuntu or even zorin (more familiar). My mom runs ubuntu and does fine with it.
Alejandro85, Thank you for explaining open source better than I can.
Andrew129260, I never could get Zorin to install. I more of a windows 98 theme person myself.
Here my lubuntu xfce4 desktop
Last edited by groze; 02 Nov 2014 at 17:23.
I used Zorin for a while. I found it very buggy and restrictive in functions. I am a Mint Mate fan now. Here is a little demo I made so you understand what I mean. Look at the beauty of that start menu.
I read an article citing a study that indicated that too few choices (or too many choices) causes consumer/user dissatisfaction.
IMO, the Linux Distro GUI tools lack features compared to the Windows GUI tools.
One of the issues with Linux is that peripheral manufacturers are reluctant to write Linux Distro drivers.
If there are too many distros sharing the market, manufacturers won't bother to write drivers.
If a distro (let's say Ubuntu) has say >50M users, they would seriously consider providing drivers & GUI tools.
For example, I have an ATI graphics card.
Linux Mint 17 has a "generic" driver, but I also have a choice of 2 ATI drivers.
Using the "generic" driver, I have some minor compositing issues (so I have to turn compositing off).
If I install the ATI proprietary drivers, they underscan by ~10%.
Since there are no ATI GUI tools, I can't adjust the settings.
My friend and I spent many hours fixing display issues in my previous install (Ubuntu 10 with an NVidia graphics card), as a result, I can't be bothered searching for instructions on how to fix it, so I use the generic driver instead.
Don't people have trouble with NVidia graphicas drivers in Windows? Now with Dell working with Ubuntu, this may change the landscape but it is going to take time. I think Dell is using the lindows proprietary dvd driver for their Ubuntu systems to play dvds legally.
"Opensource" software model is not practical. Nobody own anything in the opensource world. If you put a lot hardwork and time to code a peace of software, it won't pay your bills. That is what happened to the developer of "Parted Magic". He is forced to make "Parted Magic" as a commercial software, which was open source and free for a long time.Really? How can being open source be a drawback?
Let's see how 'Canonical" ( developers of "Ubuntu" ), pays salary to it's employees.
canonical - How does Ubuntu make money? - Ask Ubuntu
No open sources project will survive without enough fund to back it. Without the financial support of billionaire Mark Richard Shuttleworth , there won't be Ubuntu at all. Without Ubuntu, there won't be Mint, Zorin and other countless distros based on it.Firstly a lot of people work on Ubuntu in their free time (many of them programming, but also those of here for instance answering people's questions). Also some people donate to Ubuntu.
However there is more to the story. Canonical Ltd. is a private company that created and continues to pay for Ubuntu. We know Canonical hadn't been making a profit, but Canonical was initially founded by millionaire Mark Shuttleworth which meant it didn't have to focus on making money right away.
However Canonical is now looking towards to making Ubuntu profitable. (After all, they have 600+ employees to pay every month!) There are some indications this has been successful. Their key revenue streams offer services around Ubuntu:
Support services (mostly to business) alongside which they sell Landscape
Contracting services to businesses (for instance working with OEMs such as Dell, or helping Google with Chrome OS). As Ubuntu makes its way onto mobile phones and TVs then this will grow.
Ubuntu Software Centre's paid section (Canonical takes a cut of purchases)
The Canonical Store (selling physical Ubuntu branded items)
Closed-source projects wishing to use Launchpad.net can purchase a license
Ubuntu One (online file storage and syncronisation service - discontinued) and Music Store (selling music from within Ubuntu - discontinued)
All of these are areas that Canonical hopes will grow.
Compare that to proprietary software (like Windows). If you don't like newer versions, so sorry, you can't do anything but stay in the older. If you find a bug you can only report it and pray that the developer cares to fix it, the same as for new feature request or even if newer versions remove working features. And if the developer decides to not further offer the program, the community can't do anything about it but to stay with the latest possible version and hope it works while searching for a replacement.
A lot of peoples are unhappy about the "Unity" crap in "Ubuntu". Then why "Canonical" is not using old good "Genome" with their newer versions of "Ubuntu" ?. Since open source softwares are free ( most are ), basically a user has no right to compliant about quality or lack of features. Nobody is responsible to answer anyone in the open source world.
In case of commercial software, a user has the right to complain about the product and they can optionally choose not to buy it. That is what happened with "Windows 8". It is the users who forced "Microsoft" to bring back a modern style start menu with their upcoming Windows.
Another drawback of Linux is the proper support for hardware - even if the hardware manufacturer supports Linux. One particular example is printers. Just check the documentation on how to install Cannon LBP 2900 printer on Ubuntu.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CanonCaptDrv190
How many average computer users will be able to follow those CLI stuff posted there ?. Then compare it with the simple "Click -Click" driver install of "Windows" - even a kindergarten child will be able to do that.
Red Hat does OK though.
Just like in the original Robocop movie, the money is in Service Agreements.
Red Hat is not free software my dear friend. As i like said earlier, it is not practical to put your time and money to develop a OS and give it for free. "Red Hat" is just a perfect example.Red Hat does OK though.
Whether a peace of software is free or not, people are not going to use it unless it fits their needs. GNU project started even before Microsoft is born. Then why GNU/Linux doesn't became the number one OS ?. No it is not Microsoft's money and power. Even after spending millions to advertise about Vista, it was still a flip. Neither Windows 8 didn't meet Microsoft's expectations. Unless "Linux" developers understands why "Windows XP" is still the most successful OS ever created ( and why Vista flopped ), Linux is not going to overthrow Windows.
You don't need a millionaire to fund open source projects. Have you ever heard of Puppy Linux? This was created out of his home and in his spare time. There still is a current distro available.No open sources project will survive without enough fund to back it. Without the financial support of billionaire Mark Richard Shuttleworth , there won't be Ubuntu at all. Without Ubuntu, there won't be Mint, Zorin and other countless distros based on it.
Canonical and/or Gnome developers did listen, they now how Gnome classic as well Gnome unity, believe it or not some people like unity. The complaints were about the Amazon search being installed without notice, now there is a notice and there is a way to disable it (Actually there always been a way to disable it). The other complaints was them about the contract to develop Unity. That why there are several forks, like xUbuntu, lUbuntu and many others. I use lUbuntu with xfce4 desktop installed.
If you read the linux forums most developers are volunteers and do not get paid.
Some people thought it was illegal to use. Not everyone likes using the command line and a lot people don't like entering passwords every time a root/sudo function is needed. Most computers are pre-installed with Windows not Linux for contractual reasons. Hardware drivers was hard to find until companies like Intel started using open source drivers. I think I am actually using a open source graphic driver on my Windows 7 system. There are some programs that won't run on Linux even with wine installed. I dual boot (I triple boot right now.) Also Wine 32 bit software can run windows 16 bit programs even if a 64 bit linux distro operating system is install without secure boot.Then why GNU/Linux doesn't became the number one OS ?
The big money behind Linux isn't the OS but in it's use and I'm not referring to enterprise or enthusiasts desktop users but in the server realm. Lets face it, that's where the OS has found it's niche because other than mainframes and iseries systems big businesses have a choice in either Unix based systems or Windows and the windows server isn't as useful or friendly, and it is also expensive. The only real value in having a windows server is for active directory, building applications on asp.net, or running Microsoft proprietary software. There is some enterprise software only on windows but not much. Now on the desktop side the user may not have much of a selection other than open source but on the enterprise side all of the major software companies have their database or application hosting software available for linux. However the big bucks isn't even in selling the OS since it is open source but in supporting it. Companies will pay big bucks to have their servers built and supported so that their applications are always available to their users. The desktop world is dominated Windows and by companies that develop software for Windows. Second to that is Mac and linux will always take a back seat to those 2 partly due to demand, partly due to lack of software support, but mostly because those companies can't make any money off of it. Due to the open source patent the distros can't sell the OS but can only sell their customizations, tools, programs, and support. Linux isn't as friendly as windows for your typical desktop user either.
Quote