Very Computer

Yes, this is a troll.  Please read on.

This article is inspired by the following URLs:

   http://www.stateandlocal.org/report.html
   http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/index.html
   http://www.opensource.org/

Ver 0.1

Microsoft has been directly harming the consumer by overcharging for
its operating system and Office software.  These costs are hidden from
the consumer by the falling prices of hardware.  This is a proposal to
replace the Microsoft Windows operating system on the desktop with
Linux.

Linux is a free operating system distributed under the GNU General
Public License <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>.  Those of you
not familiar with the Linux operating system should visit the
following URL:

   http://www.linux.org/

Microsoft Windows is a commercial operating system using several
different names now.  Those of you not familiar with the Windows
operating system should visit the following URL:

   http://www.microsoft.com/

There are enormous technical differences between Microsoft Windows and
Linux.  There are also differences in the distribution, pricing, and
support models between the two operating systems.  I don't intend to
cover the technical issues in this article.  The purpose of this
article is to describe a means by which Linux can be preinstalled on
PCs from major vendors.  I will also cover why the major vendors
should sell computers with Linux preinstalled and some of the
obsticals that need to be addressed.

Why Linux?

The simple answer is cost.  OEMs like Compaq, DELL, Gateway, etc pay
about $50 USD for each copy of the Microsoft Windows operating system.
Consumers have to pay about $90 USD for the Windows 98 upgrade.  To
actually run Windows 98, many consumers need new hardware.  When
Windows 2000 comes out, the cost is sure to be higher.

Linux, on the other hand, is free.  There are no per CPU or per user
licensing fees to be paid.  Further more, Linux doesn't waste computer
resources like Windows does, allowing the consumer to keep his current
hardware and upgrade hardware less frequently.

Why a free OS?

Hardware is a commodity.  The consumer can buy hardware from anyone.
What is the real difference between the companys I mentioned earlier?
They all sell basicly the same hardware and the same software.  The
only thing that may differentiate them is service.  Service is one
area where controling costs is most difficult.  The OEMs can also shop
around for hardware.  They are assured of getting the best prices
possible for various peripheral components.  However, they must get
Windows from Microsoft.  They are stuck with whatever price Microsoft
deems appropriate.

The OEMs are responsible for providing support for the Microsoft
software that they ship.  Microsoft won't do it.  This software is
generaly considered unreliable at best.  Most computer users are
intimidated by the complexity of the software, so they need hand
holding when something goes wrong.

The OEMs are stuck paying whatever Microsoft demands for the OS, plus
the costs to support their customers.  This is not a happy situation.

Kinks in the road.

Linux is not a silver bullet.  At present, Linux is primarily being
developed by volunteers.  The major distributers of Linux, SuSE, Red
Hat, et al, do pay people to create a package that can be installed by
someone who is fairly literate.  However, many people do have
installation and setup problems.  Also, there is a lot of hardware
support missing in Linux that Microsoft is able to get for Windows.
If that isn't bad enough, there is also a lack of popular software for
Linux.  This is mostly in the area of games, but not limited to it.
Many people are not aware of StarOffice or ApplixWare as providers of
Office replacements for Linux.

Dealing with the kinks.

Installation and Setup.

Preinstalling Linux makes the installation problem go away.  OEMs can
provide a CD with a mirror of the installation in case of a disc
failure.  Setup and maintainance can be vastly simplified with better
administration tools plus support from the OEMs.

Hardware support.

People are working in their spare time to support the newest
hardware.  What needs to happen is the OEMs need to pay programmers to
develop Linux drivers for the hardware.  These drivers should be GPLd
so that everyone can benifit from them.

Didn't you say Linux was free?

Yes.  But that is free in the sense of the GPL, not cost.  How much
money did the aformentioned OEMs pay Microsoft in 1998?  I will make
up a conservitive estimate and say that it was one billion USD.
(Remember that US billion is 1,000,000,000.)  Assuming that you paid
programmers $50,000 USD per year sallery to work on the Linux
operating system and drivers, you could have paid 20,000 programmers
to clean up the 2.2 kernel and produce drivers for USB and other new
hardware.  You don't need that many programmers to do that.  Other
work could have been directed at administration tools for Linux, KDE,
GNOME, and other Linux related software.

All this software would be released under the GPL.  This means that
the OEMs would be cooperating on the commodity stuff.  This reduces
their costs.  This also would not be a recurring expense.  In reality,
only a few dozen people are needed to maintain a distribution.
Writing drivers for new hardware would also be inexpensive.

The bottom line is that it would cost OEMs far less money to ship
Linux instead of Microsoft Windows.

So what about support costs?

Support costs will be lower too.  The support personel hired by the
OEMs (or the firms that provide the support for the OEMs) will know
exactly what is on the system and how to support it.  This is more
difficult to do with Windows.  On top of all that, the supperior
reliability of Linux will reduce the need for support.

It's the applications, stupid.

For first time computer buyers, this is a non issue.  Even for games.
Game writters will probably love to forgo the expense of the MSDN fees
to keep up with the latest and greatest Microsoft moving target API.
They can write their games for Linux instead.

For long time users, this is a problem.  They want to continue to use
Quicken or Microsoft Money and other Windows only software that they
have gotten used to.  There will have to be a transition period where
ISVs can write equivilent software for Linux.  I'm sure that ISVs will
want to support Linux if it means making money.  They can be assured
of that if the OEMs start shipping more Linux machines than Windows
machines.  Since it is cheaper to ship Linux machines, there is no
reason for the OEMs not to do that.

Disclaimer.

This is a first draft proposal.  Only a few of the important points
have been touched.  Many issues have been addressed by the URLs and
other documents on the sites referenced.  However, I am sure it would
be worth while to get a lot of the information into one place to
convince the OEMs that they need to ship Linux instead of Windows for
the sake of their bottom line.

All other standard disclaimers apply.

Any responses and responses to responses may be incorperated into
future versions of this document.

--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com
s/trashcan/david/ to reply by mail

"Hackers penetrate and ravage delicate, private, and publicly owned
computer systems, infecting them with viruses and stealing materials
for their own ends.  These people, they're, they're  terrorists."

-- Secret Service Agent Richard Gill

The argument that Linux is free and MS costs a 50$ per copy is completely
pointless. You will have training costs, installing and servicing costs with
Linux, just as with Windows. The setup time alone for ths OS costs a
multitude of the 50$ you mention. You should read a bit about the discussion
flagged "total cost of ownership". This is not necessarily an argument
AGAINST Linux, however, but may be in some cases. In others, it may be an
arument AGAINST Windows.

Rene.

On 10 Jan 1999 19:41:20 -0500, David Steuber

An interesting start to a posting.....

<actual post snipped .... although read and largely agreed with....>

A constructive suggestion for the Linux community - Concentrate some
effort on developing programs aimed at children.

Why, well the primary reasons for home computer purchase are games
playing, childrens education and home office applications.

The games market will either adopt Linux as a platform or not, but the
decision will be based solely upon commercial grounds, i.e. is there a
market. (there will of course be some free games developed by personal
interest groups).

The education market at the moment is totally Windows based, there is
very little available software suitable for children. If Linux is to
grow into the home market, supporting the eductaional needs of future
users is important. If some killer edutainmnet applications were
developed then there would be a stronger argument for Linux in the
home.

Other componenets of a home computer suite are already present, eg fax
/ voice mail, internet browsers and email. The requirements for home
use are considerably less than for serious business use, although file
compatibility with MS products would IMHO be necessary.

From a developers point of view, childrens educational packages are
easier to develop than heavy-weight office apps.  A distribution that
included a large number of free pre-school and primary school level
packages could kick start the acceptance of Linux into the home. The
massive advantage to the consumer is the cost, no expensive DK et al
software to purchase. The kickback for the Linux community is that
they really are doing a 'public' service (and IMHO it stands a better
chance of popularising Linux.)

Just my 2p worth.
regards John B.

On 10 Jan 1999 19:41:20 -0500, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy David

Microsoft is *not* overcharging for it's software.  When you consider
the cost of developing complex applications, and consider what you get
for your money from Microsoft applications, those apps turn out to be
a very good deal.

Quote:>This is a proposal to
>replace the Microsoft Windows operating system on the desktop with
>Linux.

Linux will never be able to replace Windows because the Linux
community is out of touch with the average user.  Linux applications
generally have a much higher learning curve.  In fact, the learning
curve for Linux itself is unacceptably high.

As far a support, Linux will, most likely, have as large a support
issue, if not larger than, Windows does now.  Simple application
integration issues, such as printing, will now become a problem
whereas with Windows it's rarely a problem.

The Linux community will see an incredible range of issues that they
never thought could happen to Linux, once millions of average users
start using it.

Quote:>A couple of things here...
>Linux from everything I've seen is, by and large, a great OS...but that is
>also largely dependant on which distribution you get.
>IMHO, Linux being an alternative for *residential* desktops is not likely to
>happen on a large scale in the near future.  Linux is catching on in leaps
>and bounds in the commercial sector from what I hear, which is great, but in
>terms of the
>home user...Linux is UNIX...It might have a nice GUI built over the top of
>it and a reasonable install routine in the case of Red Hat, but at the end
>of the day, it's still a UNIX...Which means that while being possibly the
>most powerful operating system in existence, it's also equally as possibly
>the least user friendly.

<snip>

Quote:>.... as an operating system for end users (read: dumb newbies) is
>majorly stretching credibility.

Perhaps Linux cannot be as 'user friendly' as MS products. Does it
have to be? Consider, Linux is effectively free, all that can be
charged for is distribution costs and support. Does this not suggest
that a new paradigm may be possible for home users. Rather than going
into PC superstore, shelling out serious money for a new piece of
software or hardware and then having to cope with any installation
problems (and there always will be problems regardless of how many
beta testers you have - because there are always more combinations of
hardware and software than you can test against!), why not have the
following scenario.

You decide that you want to install XYZ on your Linux PC. You either
a) take your PC to your local Linux support centre (previously known
as a PC superstore - where it is installed for you)
b) get a Linux Guru to install it remotely for you (maybe all you do
is put a CD in the drive and connect the modem)
c) you get a travelling Linux guru to visit your home (like washing
machine repair)
d) you do it yourself.

Because you are not paying for the software, all of these scenarios
are affordable. You have choice and you could benefit from having a
Linux guru with real experience install on your system.

In other words, the home user could always remain just that - a user,
and the system administrator could be a trusted third party. You can
easily imagine an ISP taking up this kind of activity, where they
maintain and upgrade your home PC software for you for a fixed cost.

It is much more realistic to imagine a remote administer home PC
solution based around a free unix than around commercial SW.

regards John B.

Quote:

>A constructive suggestion for the Linux community - Concentrate some
>effort on developing programs aimed at children.

hehehe, i have not laughed this hard since forever !!

we have grown boys who can't figure how to use Linux, you want little
children to use it too????

yes, I see it now, a 5 years old little kid sitting there and reading
the options on some command using the man pages and using vi to edit some
application configuration file.

how amazing.

it will be a cold day in hell before children will figure how to use
a Unix system, never mind "play" games on it.

and thanks again for the laugh.

Bob

Quote:

>Linux will never be able to replace Windows because the Linux
>community is out of touch with the average user.  Linux applications
>generally have a much higher learning curve.  In fact, the learning
>curve for Linux itself is unacceptably high.

Bravo!!!!

Exactly my point !!!

The few Linux geeks who has been using Unix for long time, think it is
easy to use because for them it looks easy.

and when you tell them look how hard to so this, they answer with some
20 lines script and some cryptic commands to do it, and then ask you
why you can;t do it too.

they really have no clue about the average user or what a friendly OS
is all about. they think the kernel is all that is important in an OS.

Quote:

>The Linux community will see an incredible range of issues that they
>never thought could happen to Linux, once millions of average users
>start using it.

Exactly.

the minute Linux becomes popular, its fault will start showing, becuase now
real average users will start to give it a try and they are finding how
hard it is to use. This, the Linux crowds never had to deal with before,
becuase before only Unix geeks used Linux. Now when Linux becomes exposed to
normal users, you are seeing all this scream come from them, and many who try
it, go back to Windows.

Bob

On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:48:04 +1100, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy

You're the one that needs a clue.  Here are a few:

Win98 is architected like NT with it's own Hardware Abstraction Layer.
This is why Win98 is more stable than Win95.  It also allows hardware
manufacturers to write a single device driver that can run in Win98 or
WinNT.

For 90 bucks you get a lot of stuff in Win98 and Microsoft created it
all.  In contrast, Red Hat is charging 50 bucks for a CD full of stuff
they got for free.

So who's overcharging?

Quote:>Consider, Linux is effectively free,

If I hear the word "linux is free" one more time, I think I'll scream.

after spending close to $300 last year buying Linux distributions from Fry's
and elsewhere, and that is $300 more than I spend on Windows (which I got
free with my PC and been using it for 4 years now), I am amazed what these
people are talking about.

BeOS costs $70 to buy.
Linux red hat that I bought from Fry's (extra version) costs me $60.

so, practically there is no difference.

the other point, is that if you count the extra time you spend to figure how
to use Unix system for home use, and your time is worth anything, you'll
find out you actually spend much much more on Linux.

(have you not seen the notes from users spending all the weekend to figure
how to do PPP on Linux which on windows you can do in 5 minutes by clicking
few buttons?? does this wasted time not count??)

Bob

Quote:

>I don't want to dampen the Linux advocacy/users crowd at all, and personally
>I think it's high time Microsoft got knocked off their perch...but IMHO
>touting an implementation of UNIX even if as I said it's a very nice
>implementation, as an operating system for end users (read: dumb newbies) is
>majorly stretching credibility.

Exactly !!

No one is saying that Unix is bad as an OS (it is good). But as you say, it
is the wrong platform for home use and for your average
"bob doe" and "jane doe" type of users.

I dont think NT as an OS is that great, but I put up with it and use it becuase
it is easier to use and does not ask me to become an Admin person just to
start an application.

Bob.

I'll give it to you that Linux is a bit more difficult, but if you can
install Windows, you can install Debian 2.0:

1. Boot Debian CD
2. Partition Hard Drive
3. Tell it what devices you have
4. When it loads for the first time, it asks you what system you have
5. You're done. If you told it correctly, all you have to do is run
   XF86Setup and your in a window environment.
--
/----------------------------------------------------------\
|               http://www.veryComputer.com/                    |
|                                                          |
| Brain: It must be inordinately taxing to be such a *. |
| Pinky: You have no idea.                                 |
\----------------------------------------------------------/

From LSL.com

Debian 2.0.2 (Official) i386 (Intel, 3 CD Set) Binary, Source, Non US
Contrib L000-059 $2.95

--
/----------------------------------------------------------\
|               http://www.veryComputer.com/                    |
|                                                          |
| Brain: It must be inordinately taxing to be such a *. |
| Pinky: You have no idea.                                 |
\----------------------------------------------------------/

I contend Windows98 is no more stable than Windows95.  I have problems
daily with both.  Yesterday, I went over to install some software for my
brother and his wife (they are new to computers so they asked me to do all
the techie stuff :-) ).  As soon as I touched a button on their machine, I
got a message that something had happened to SYSTRAY, and none of the
icons would respond.  It wouldn't even shutdown properly, and I ended up
having to power cycle the machine.  This is supoosed to be user
"friendly"?  If I hadn't been there, they would have had no clue as to
what to do.

Quote:>For 90 bucks you get a lot of stuff in Win98 and Microsoft created it
>all.  In contrast, Red Hat is charging 50 bucks for a CD full of stuff
>they got for free.

>So who's overcharging?

Yes, but with Red Hat, you get an industry standard C compiler, an
industry standard web server and an industry standard mail transport
agent, on top of the operating system, X, ftp and telnet facilities,
several web browsers (which aren't integrated into the OS and not
required for the OS to run), graphical utilities and a robust SQL database
server. How much would one have to pay for the equivalent under Windows?

--
Brett W. McCoy          
                                        http://www.lan2wan.com/~bmccoy/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected."
   -- The UNIX Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12


------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

I've only seen you complain about not being to set up PPP.  Everyone knew
how to use netcfg or linuxconfig and be able to click-click-click their
way onto the Internet.  Oh, yeah, one guy had trouble for a few hours
because he had his IP addresses switched, but that would have happened
under Windows also.

--
Brett W. McCoy          
                                        http://www.lan2wan.com/~bmccoy/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected."
   -- The UNIX Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12


------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------