Same old bad argument
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cabreh Jul 13, 2012 2:40 AM EDT |
Linux is free and Windows costs you a lot of money! Ask anyone who went to a computer seller and bought a Windows computer how much they paid for Windows. The answer will ALWAYS be "it was free, because it was included with the computer". As long as this is the perception you will NEVER convince the common user that Linux is cheaper. |
| r_a_trip Jul 13, 2012 5:41 AM EDT |
Ubuntu is free of cost. The chances are you are using unauthorized software (which some people also called pirated) on your machine. It is really expensive to run a Windows machine. If you want to work in the language of your choice such as English, or Bengali, or Hindi, you need Windows 7 Ultimate license which costs ₹ 11,448 on Flipkart. I wholehartedly agree with cabreh. People willing to buy it, get it with a heavy discount preinstalled on their computers. Besides, when your not a Goody Two-shoes, a pirated Windows and MS Office has exactly the same cost as a Linux distro. So the Linux is cheaper than Windows "sales pitch" in this case is bunk. You have to be more than for free and equal to Windows. You have to be significantly better and that needs to be in very visible things. Promises of less crashes and less malware don't cut it. We need shelfspace with Linux machines in brick and mortar stores. We need the opportunity for people to play with a fully configured machine for themselves and get a feel for what Linux really is. Right now the word Linux still conjures up erroneous images of the bad late '90s, when most configuration was CLI till you drop. Exposure is the only thing that can break that image. |
| helios Jul 13, 2012 11:51 AM EDT |
Trippster, I mod you up, I can't tell you how many service calls I make where the Win7 screen is black and the bottom right hand corner announces that the computer has an unauthorized copy of the OS running. They don't care. They don't care that Microsoft Security Essentials won't work any more. They just uninstall it and install AVG. They don't care that regular updates don't work....as long as they get the security updates, all is well in the world. There seems to be no limit to the aversion people have to learning something new, and especially with their computers. Which for me is fine. I have one more child to put through college and they are single-handedly allowing me to do so. Laziness has it's price and that price is paying Mr. Starks 75 bucks an hour to fix their broken, malware-infested computers. Out of obligation, I do take the time off the clock, to show them Linux. Maybe 1 out of 15 show an interest. The rest of them rather wrestle in the mud with their broken systems....it's what they know, it's all they know. And for that, both myself and my daughter thank them. |
| BernardSwiss Jul 13, 2012 2:50 PM EDT |
Quoting: You have to be more than for free and equal to Windows. You have to be significantly better and that needs to be in very visible things. Promises of less crashes and less malware don't cut it. Unless, of course, you have a significant advertizing budget. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 13, 2012 3:12 PM EDT |
People have to give a crap about their computing environment. I can't imagine giving up the ease of the "distribution model" we have, with a repository full of legitimate, working software, for the chaos of Windows. |
| BernardSwiss Jul 13, 2012 3:39 PM EDT |
In a very real sense, Microsoft drove me to Linux -- I'd heard about it, but it was Windows and Microsoft that motivated me to actually knuckle down and actually try, and get familiar with, Linux. But it's true that most people I know consider the deficiencies, insults and abuses perpetuated by corporate entities to be "just life" and accepted as an inevitable (even natural and justifiable) facet of modern life. I'm actually considered a little odd for doing more than just complain a little about such things. |
| caitlyn Jul 14, 2012 9:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:We need shelfspace with Linux machines in brick and mortar stores. We need the opportunity for people to play with a fully configured machine for themselves and get a feel for what Linux really is. Right now the word Linux still conjures up erroneous images of the bad late '90s, when most configuration was CLI till you drop. Exposure is the only thing that can break that image. I agree with this 100%. I've written essentially the same thing for years. Of course, most people don't have an image of Linux from the '90s. Most have no clue what it is and many have never heard of Linux even if they are using an Android phone. We need Linux preloaded, in stores and visible. Quoting:We need shelfspace with Linux machines in brick and mortar stores. We need the opportunity for people to play with a fully configured machine for themselves and get a feel for what Linux really is. Right now the word Linux still conjures up erroneous images of the bad late '90s, when most configuration was CLI till you drop. Exposure is the only thing that can break that image. bbbbut... Ken, learning something new is HARD. Anything is better than that. Quoting:People have to give a crap about their computing environment. Oh, they do. They really do. Their concerns boil down to: If I know it then it's good. If my friends use it then it's good. If it's unfamiliar then it's bad. Quoting: But it's true that most people I know consider the deficiencies, insults and abuses perpetuated by corporate entities to be :just life" and accepted as an inevitable (even natural and justifiable) facet of modern life. Yep. |
| helios Jul 15, 2012 11:42 AM EDT |
I really shouldn't be telling tales out of school but it's probably something we know deep down to be true anyway or at least we believe it to be true. I have confirmation. There is a guy liviing here in Austin who sits pretty high up in the Canonical structure and a couple of years ago at the Linux Against Poverty event, I came out and asked him if Canonical purposely avoided the use of the name "Linux" on their website or any official website that is owned by Canonical. He didn't hesitate to confirm what we've all thought all along. "Linux" as a market name is poison... at least as far as Canonical is concerned. Their market research has led them to believe that the name Linux, as used when describing a desktop OS, carries negative connotations. The public perceives it as geeky, and difficult. They go well out of their way to avoid the front page use of the term Linux, as can be witnessed on the Ubuntu Website. I can only believe that Google has found this to be true as well, as they seem determined to distance themselves publicly from using Linux in most anything. Just so you know. That would mean that "shelf space" would probably carry a different name, then the fistfight with the FSF and the community starts....or continues, depending on how well you've been paying attention. |
| Fettoosh Jul 15, 2012 2:04 PM EDT |
Quoting:Their market research has led them to believe that the name Linux, as used when describing a desktop OS, carries negative connotations. I do believe that good serious marketing research is usually fairly accurate. Such perception is also plausible simply because of the major effort by MS and its lackeys to generate bad publicity against Linux and for a long time. It is only conceivable by MS users, and there are many of them, who just believes whatever MS tells them. The question is, has that helped Canonical and/or Google? We don't know for sure, but what we know is, if it did help, sooner or later, those users will eventually realise what they are using under the hood. That will only be a good thing. |
| BernardSwiss Jul 15, 2012 8:02 PM EDT |
I lot of "market research" isn't very good, and merely creates an illusion of knowing what the facts on the ground are. For example if the "market research" was essentially a survey of ZDNet/CNet readers/commenters (or something roughly equivalent) you can be relatively sure the results concerning attitudes towards Linux would be negative. Even the people who are genuinely good at it (market research/public opinion) can be badly misled by seemingly inconsequential factors. I've heard of focus group studies that produced diametrically opposed results, when conducted by the same people, the same way, with apparently similar (indistinguishable) subject groups. |
| Fettoosh Jul 15, 2012 9:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:I lot of "market research" isn't very good ... I don't consider ZDNet/CNet and such to be professional marketing research entities and weren't on my mind when I made the statement. There are highly professional companies who are specialized in doing marketing research for large firms (ex. IBM, MS, etc.). To conduct a survey, they actually purchase pools of addresses for pre-determined samples and pay each individual respondent if they qualify and satisfy a screening questionnaire. I assume that Canonical hired such a firm to do their marketing research. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!