Snit wrote:

> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model for it to
> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
> product away.
>

it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.

Snit wrote:

> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model for it to
> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
> product away.
>

it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.

Snit wrote:

> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model for it to
> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
> product away.
>

it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.

"Gordon" stated in post
foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux
>> model for it to
>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
>> product away.
>>
>
> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
> they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
> NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
> Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.

That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
a wrench, but you get the idea!)


--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.

Snit wrote:

>
> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
> well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
> that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
> well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
> away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
> a wrench, but you get the idea!)
>
>

Macs already had a niche market because there was no desktop publishing
software available for PC's.

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:35:31 -0700, Snit wrote:

>
> -----
> Linus Torvalds: Well, I don¹t know about broader adoption,
> but the Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first
> place. I mean, I have never, ever cared about really anything
> but the Linux desktop.
> ...
> But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don¹t
> even want to; it¹s not what I¹m interested in. I¹m more of a
> desktop guy. I¹ve always used Linux as a workstation person.
>
> So * and I think I see that as not just me. I think a huge
> amount of the developers see Linux the same way because it
> turns out that while, yes, maybe servers is a huge market,
> when you actually look at developers, what developers
> interact with all the time is their workstation, their
> desktop and that¹s the area where you really eat your own dog
> food and where you really end up seeing the fruits of your
> labor.
> -----
>
>
> ------
> The BBC had to prioritise building the service around PCs
> because, according to BBC figures, around 90% of computers
> use Microsoft's Windows operating system, he added.
>
> Macs account for 9% of the market while the open source
> system Linux accounts for 0.8%.
> -----
>
> If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is not
> doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he struggles to get
> 1% of the user base.
>
> His explanation (from the same link as above):
> -----
> The desktop is special. Everybody has a different idea of
> what the desktop is going to be. You have lots of people
> coming from Windows who just * they know what a desktop is
> supposed to be - Windows, right?
>
> You have people coming from Mac and they know what a desktop
> is supposed to be and it has to have that menu bar at the top
> and if you don¹t have the menu bar at the top, it¹s not a
> desktop, right?
>
> So, everybody has a different idea. Everybody also has
> different hardware. The desktop is also where all the
> hardware really exists. Servers have 1% of the hardware that
> the desktop has in terms of different drivers and things like
> that. You don¹t find webcams on servers generally. You don¹t
> find oddball IDE drives on servers.
>
> So, the desktop is just much more varied and, at the same
> time, the desktop is also the thing where people get really
> upset if something changes, so it¹s really hard to enter the
> desktop market because people are used to whatever they used
> before, mostly Windows. And if you act differently from
> Windows, even if you act in some ways better, it doesn¹t
> matter; better is worse if it¹s different.
> -----
>
> While there is some truth to what he is saying he is simply missing the big
> picture. I know I would jump ship if an OS came along that handled my
> desktop needs better than what I currently use. When talking about Linux
> distros Linux folks seem to get this - they talk about jumping from distro
> to distro to find the one you like (the distro dance). Sure, a number of
> people will just stick with what they know - Windows. But look at Apple:
> they do not sell to the low end of the desktop market and they still have
> managed to get 10% or so... and Apple insists you use their hardware,
> clearly a big impediment to their getting a bigger user base. All Linux
> distros *together*, most being *given* away and running on almost any
> hardware (to at least some extent) is - if the BBC is to be believed - at
> less than 1%.
>
> I have been talking about usability / UI issues... *that* is a huge part of
> what keeps Linux from being adopted - that and the lack of strong support
> from major software venders (Adobe, MS, Apple, etc.) Other have been noting
> that the fractured nature of Linux also plays a role - and it surely does:
> with Linux at less than 1% it is a big detriment to have people who use it
> have obstacles to helping each other.
>
> For Linus to focus on Mac users only considering the a desktop to be a
> desktop if the menu is at the top is just silly... most Mac users *also*
> have some experience with Windows... and many Mac users, myself included,
> understand the pros *and* the cons of the menu at the top. Heck, with
> greater screen resolutions and (especially) dual screens becoming more
> common the pros of the menu at the top might not counter the cons. It
> simply is not a big deal with today's computing hardware.
>
> And his comments about Windows: again he is wrong. As he notes the Mac is
> very different and many people who use the Mac quickly learn to prefer it...
> imagine if Mac OS were free - it would easily double its user base (or more)
> very quickly. There are good reasons why Apple does not do this - market
> share / user base is not the be all and end all of success... but clearly
> there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model for it to
> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
> product away.

Pretty much true from what I can see.
Notice the less than 1 percent number for Linux.
No matter where you go, that number keeps popping up.
Except on Linux blogs of course where you will read that Linux is taking
over the desktop.

There is some truth that Microsoft stifled Linux but then Linux is free,
totally free.
if Linux were a decent enough desktop alternative to Windows it would be
destroying Microsoft.

It's not.
And there is no indication that this will change in the near future.

The bottom line is that when something free can't take over a commercial
products market, at least in a decent way, then something is seriously
wrong with the free product.

The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix it.
Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

* Gordon peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
>> well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
>> that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
>> well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
>> away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
>> a wrench, but you get the idea!)
>
> Macs already had a niche market because there was no desktop publishing
> software available for PC's.

Not to mention that Mac is advertised on TV.

(IBM advertised Linux on TV, but for servers.)

Snit doesn't realize that people:

1. Need to know about a "product".

2. Need to download the "product" (and it isn't a small package
download, it is a download that can be gigabytes in size).

3. Need to know how to burn an ISO image of the "product".

4. Need to feel comfortable about potentially voiding their warranty.

5. Need to feel comfortable about fixing computer problems, should
they occur.

Each item is ever more restrictive.

None of these items would hold /if/ Microsoft didn't have the
stranglehold they have over most OEMs. The situation is changing, of
course, but will take time to become more open and effective.

--
Men shrink less from offending one who inspires love than one who inspires
fear.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli

Snit wrote:
> "Gordon" stated in post
> foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux
>>> model for it to
>>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
>>> product away.
>>>
>> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
>> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
>> they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
>> NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
>> Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
>> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.
>
> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
> well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
> that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
> well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
> away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
> a wrench, but you get the idea!)
>
>
Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are as
high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
"boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.

--
Rick

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:21:31 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:35:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> <http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/...valds-part-ii/
>
>> -----
>> Linus Torvalds: Well, I don¹t know about broader adoption, but the
>> Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I
>> have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop.
>> ...
>> But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don¹t even
>> want to; it¹s not what I¹m interested in. I¹m more of a desktop
>> guy. I¹ve always used Linux as a workstation person.
>>
>> So Â* and I think I see that as not just me. I think a huge amount
>> of the developers see Linux the same way because it turns out that
>> while, yes, maybe servers is a huge market, when you actually look
>> at developers, what developers interact with all the time is their
>> workstation, their desktop and that¹s the area where you really eat
>> your own dog food and where you really end up seeing the fruits of
>> your labor.
>> -----
>>
>>
>> ------
>> The BBC had to prioritise building the service around PCs because,
>> according to BBC figures, around 90% of computers use Microsoft's
>> Windows operating system, he added.
>>
>> Macs account for 9% of the market while the open source system
>> Linux accounts for 0.8%.
>> -----
>>
>> If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is
>> not doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he
>> struggles to get 1% of the user base.
>>
>> His explanation (from the same link as above):
>> -----
>> The desktop is special. Everybody has a different idea of what the
>> desktop is going to be. You have lots of people coming from Windows
>> who just Â* they know what a desktop is supposed to be - Windows,
>> right?
>>
>> You have people coming from Mac and they know what a desktop is
>> supposed to be and it has to have that menu bar at the top and if
>> you don¹t have the menu bar at the top, it¹s not a desktop, right?
>>
>> So, everybody has a different idea. Everybody also has different
>> hardware. The desktop is also where all the hardware really exists.
>> Servers have 1% of the hardware that the desktop has in terms of
>> different drivers and things like that. You don¹t find webcams on
>> servers generally. You don¹t find oddball IDE drives on servers.
>>
>> So, the desktop is just much more varied and, at the same time, the
>> desktop is also the thing where people get really upset if
>> something changes, so it¹s really hard to enter the desktop market
>> because people are used to whatever they used before, mostly
>> Windows. And if you act differently from Windows, even if you act
>> in some ways better, it doesn¹t matter; better is worse if it¹s
>> different. -----
>>
>> While there is some truth to what he is saying he is simply missing the
>> big picture. I know I would jump ship if an OS came along that handled
>> my desktop needs better than what I currently use. When talking about
>> Linux distros Linux folks seem to get this - they talk about jumping
>> from distro to distro to find the one you like (the distro dance).
>> Sure, a number of people will just stick with what they know - Windows.
>> But look at Apple: they do not sell to the low end of the desktop
>> market and they still have managed to get 10% or so... and Apple
>> insists you use their hardware, clearly a big impediment to their
>> getting a bigger user base. All Linux distros *together*, most being
>> *given* away and running on almost any hardware (to at least some
>> extent) is - if the BBC is to be believed - at less than 1%.
>>
>> I have been talking about usability / UI issues... *that* is a huge
>> part of what keeps Linux from being adopted - that and the lack of
>> strong support from major software venders (Adobe, MS, Apple, etc.)
>> Other have been noting that the fractured nature of Linux also plays a
>> role - and it surely does: with Linux at less than 1% it is a big
>> detriment to have people who use it have obstacles to helping each
>> other.
>>
>> For Linus to focus on Mac users only considering the a desktop to be a
>> desktop if the menu is at the top is just silly... most Mac users
>> *also* have some experience with Windows... and many Mac users, myself
>> included, understand the pros *and* the cons of the menu at the top.
>> Heck, with greater screen resolutions and (especially) dual screens
>> becoming more common the pros of the menu at the top might not counter
>> the cons. It simply is not a big deal with today's computing hardware.
>>
>> And his comments about Windows: again he is wrong. As he notes the Mac
>> is very different and many people who use the Mac quickly learn to
>> prefer it... imagine if Mac OS were free - it would easily double its
>> user base (or more) very quickly. There are good reasons why Apple
>> does not do this - market share / user base is not the be all and end
>> all of success... but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux
>> system and the Linux model for it to have so much trouble breaking into
>> a large market where it *gives* its product away.
>
> Pretty much true from what I can see. Notice the less than 1 percent
> number for Linux. No matter where you go, that number keeps popping up.
> Except on Linux blogs of course where you will read that Linux is taking
> over the desktop.
>
> There is some truth that Microsoft stifled Linux but then Linux is free,
> totally free.
> if Linux were a decent enough desktop alternative to Windows it would be
> destroying Microsoft.

It would be in a truely unfettered market, byt Microsoft has had a
stranglehold for decades that is only now just barely loosening.

>
> It's not.
> And there is no indication that this will change in the near future.

Vendors need to port some apps.

>
> The bottom line is that when something free can't take over a commercial
> products market, at least in a decent way, then something is seriously
> wrong with the free product.

Or something is seriously with the market place.

>
> The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix
> it. Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.

Break up Microsoft 10 years ago.
--
Rick

"Gordon" stated in post
foi5bf$fom$4@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 11:00 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>>
>> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
>> well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
>> that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
>> well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
>> away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
>> a wrench, but you get the idea!)
>>
> Macs already had a niche market because there was no desktop publishing
> software available for PC's.

Sure: having good apps pulls people to an OS. There are some good apps on
Linux but not sure about any killer apps.

--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley

"Rick" stated in post 13qpf4p8e2jh030@news.supernews.com
on 2/8/08 1:13 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> "Gordon" stated in post
>> foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux
>>>> model for it to
>>>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
>>>> product away.
>>>>
>>> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
>>> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
>>> they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
>>> NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
>>> Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
>>> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.
>>
>> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
>> well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
>> that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
>> well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
>> away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
>> a wrench, but you get the idea!)
>>
>>
> Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
> 2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are as
> high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
> "boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.

So now, as you suggest, is not "during the high days of the MS monopoly."
During that time Macs actually *did* cost more than comparable PCs and yet
Apple maintained a 2-3% market share (so you say... I would love to see
where you get that figure in terms of desktop share). Now, when MS is no
longer in its "high days" of its monopoly, Linux struggles to get 1% while
*giving* away free products that, unlike Mac OS, can be run on almost any
hardware.

You keep trying to tell me that ho many people use PCLOS and what grand
reviews it gets. Care to re-think that?

--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:14:58 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "Rick" stated in post
> 13qpf4p8e2jh030@news.supernews.com on 2/8/08 1:13 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "Gordon" stated in post
>>> foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the
>>>>> Linux model for it to
>>>>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives*
>>>>> its product away.
>>>>>
>>>> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
>>>> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem
>>>> - they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's
>>>> been NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs
>>>> - Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
>>>> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that
>>>> freedom.
>>>
>>> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at
>>> how well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific
>>> hardware... hardware that you cannot even get low end. Even in
>>> Apple's darkest days they were well above the 1% Linux has been able
>>> to achieve by *giving* their products away and letting it run on just
>>> about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as a wrench, but you get the
>>> idea!)
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
>> 2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are
>> as high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
>> "boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.
>
> So now, as you suggest, is not "during the high days of the MS
> monopoly." During that time Macs actually *did* cost more than
> comparable PCs and yet Apple maintained a 2-3% market share (so you
> say... I would love to see where you get that figure in terms of desktop
> share). Now, when MS is no longer in its "high days" of its monopoly,
> Linux struggles to get 1% while *giving* away free products that, unlike
> Mac OS, can be run on almost any hardware.

AND AGAIN, go look up herd mentality, inertia and network effects.

>
> You keep trying to tell me that ho many people use PCLOS and what grand
> reviews it gets. Care to re-think that?

Not necessary.

--
Rick

On 2008-02-08 18:35:31 +0100, Snit said:

>
> If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is not
> doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he struggles to get
> 1% of the user base.

Clearly the top 1% then
--
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken

http://titancity.com/blog/

"Peter B. P." stated in post
2008020900485716807-spamtrap@SPAMMERSMUSTDIEduh on 2/8/08 4:48 PM:

> On 2008-02-08 18:35:31 +0100, Snit said:
>
>>
>> If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is not
>> doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he struggles to get
>> 1% of the user base.
>
> Clearly the top 1% then

Ah, of course.


--
I know how a jam jar feels...
.... full of jam!

On 2008-02-08 19:21:31 +0100, Moshe Goldfarb said:

> The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix it.
> Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.

I agree. Fewer distros and more efforc behind each. This shoudl mean
more drivers, more software, more quality.

--
"A casual stroll throug the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

http://titancity.com/blog/

On 2008-02-08, Snit wrote:
> "Gordon" stated in post
> foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux
>>> model for it to
>>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
>>> product away.
>>>
>>
>> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
>> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
>> they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
>> NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
>> Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
>> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.
>
> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
> well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware

Oh yeah... because they are just "doing so well".

They started out with a commanding lead. Hell, they pretty much
invented their part of the industry. What happens? Someone with a pretty
trademark (pretty to an MBA that is) comes in and steals all of their
thunder overnight.

Having dramatically better product didn't help.
Having dramatically better product for more than 10 years of
Microsoft and IBM sandbagging didn't help.

> that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
> well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
> away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
> a wrench, but you get the idea!)

Linux never started out as "the industry". Apple did.

They aren't some scrappy underdog that has fought to scrape
out a niche for themselves. They are the previous market leader
that got their asses whopped. They are a has-been that's trying
to get back on top.

That's nothing compared to Linux. It started from nothing.
It was never a consumer product even if you consider the
progenitors it is decended from.

Apple's position still remains precarious. It probably will
deteriorate again if Jobs loses interest. At this point they
haven't even built back up to the position they were in 20 years
ago.

--


The average IT manager is a less effective mentor than a
Spongebob Squarepants cartoon.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On 2008-02-08, Snit wrote:
> "Rick" stated in post 13qpf4p8e2jh030@news.supernews.com
> on 2/8/08 1:13 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "Gordon" stated in post
>>> foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux
>>>>> model for it to
>>>>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
>>>>> product away.
>>>>>
>>>> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
>>>> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
>>>> they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
>>>> NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
>>>> Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
>>>> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.
>>>
>>> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
>>> well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
>>> that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
>>> well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
>>> away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
>>> a wrench, but you get the idea!)
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
>> 2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are as
>> high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
>> "boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.
>
> So now, as you suggest, is not "during the high days of the MS monopoly."
> During that time Macs actually *did* cost more than comparable PCs and yet

Apple's STILL cost MORE than comparable PC's.

They are 2x more expensive on the low end.

> Apple maintained a 2-3% market share (so you say... I would love to see
> where you get that figure in terms of desktop share). Now, when MS is no
> longer in its "high days" of its monopoly, Linux struggles to get 1% while
> *giving* away free products that, unlike Mac OS, can be run on almost any
> hardware.

That may comfort you but in truth the only place that number can
come from is out of your ass. One problem with Linux is that it isn't
conventional. You can't count boxes and know what the market penetration
is.

This Vista box won't be counted as a Linux box. It is though.

The same goes for the "MacOS" box in the family room.

>
> You keep trying to tell me that ho many people use PCLOS and what grand
> reviews it gets. Care to re-think that?
>

You're the one that needs to put some thought into his position.

--


The average IT manager is a less effective mentor than a
Spongebob Squarepants cartoon.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

* Peter B P peremptorily fired off this memo:

> On 2008-02-08 19:21:31 +0100, Moshe Goldfarb said:
>
>> The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix it.
>> Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.
>
> I agree. Fewer distros and more efforc behind each. This shoudl mean
> more drivers, more software, more quality.

How so?

What you say makes no sense.

GNU/Linux dudes do what they want. A guy who just wants to collect
existing applications, change some configuration items, maybe tweak
a few things, might not /want/ to add his efforts to an existing
project.

Next you'll be telling people who make themes that they should instead
be working on improving OpenOffice's ODF<--->MS Office conversions.

More drivers? The vendors should be helping.

More software? It is happening all the time.

More quality? Always a good goal. Let the people vote with their feet.

--
Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working together and
motivating them, the teacher is the most important.
-- Bill Gates

"Rick" stated in post 13qpmc018fcjc4f@news.supernews.com
on 2/8/08 3:36 PM:

> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:14:58 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Rick" stated in post
>> 13qpf4p8e2jh030@news.supernews.com on 2/8/08 1:13 PM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> "Gordon" stated in post
>>>> foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the
>>>>>> Linux model for it to
>>>>>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives*
>>>>>> its product away.
>>>>>>
>>>>> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
>>>>> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem
>>>>> - they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's
>>>>> been NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs
>>>>> - Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
>>>>> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that
>>>>> freedom.
>>>>
>>>> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at
>>>> how well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific
>>>> hardware... hardware that you cannot even get low end. Even in
>>>> Apple's darkest days they were well above the 1% Linux has been able
>>>> to achieve by *giving* their products away and letting it run on just
>>>> about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as a wrench, but you get the
>>>> idea!)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
>>> 2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are
>>> as high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
>>> "boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.
>>
>> So now, as you suggest, is not "during the high days of the MS
>> monopoly." During that time Macs actually *did* cost more than
>> comparable PCs and yet Apple maintained a 2-3% market share (so you
>> say... I would love to see where you get that figure in terms of desktop
>> share). Now, when MS is no longer in its "high days" of its monopoly,
>> Linux struggles to get 1% while *giving* away free products that, unlike
>> Mac OS, can be run on almost any hardware.
>
> AND AGAIN, go look up herd mentality, inertia and network effects.

They are all under the definition of things you will try to use to excuse
the fact that Linux distros are hardly used even when they are given away.

>> You keep trying to tell me that ho many people use PCLOS and what grand
>> reviews it gets. Care to re-think that?
>
> Not necessary.

I agree - it is not necessary for you to make reasoned comments... but it
would be nice!

--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.