People Would Rather Pay For Windows Than Use Linux.

Linux is free.
Windows is not.
Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with
Windows XP.
Linux is free.
Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.
Linux is free.
Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)
operating system called Vista.
Linux is free,

So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?
Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?

After all, Linux is free.
Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't
so good afterall.

How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,
tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to
Windows?
It's a most common occurence.

So Linux is free, and Windows is not.

Where is Linux hiding?

Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more
arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the
place.
It's not.

Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the
year of Linux"
Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more
and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the
year of Linux will ever arrive.

Why?

<> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> Linux is free.
> Windows is not.
> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with
> Windows XP.
> Linux is free.
> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.
> Linux is free.
> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)
> operating system called Vista.
> Linux is free,
>
> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?
> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?
>
> After all, Linux is free.
> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't
> so good afterall.
>
> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,
> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to
> Windows?
> It's a most common occurence.
>
> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.
>
> Where is Linux hiding?
>
> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more
> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the
> place.
> It's not.
>
> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the
> year of Linux"
> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more
> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the
> year of Linux will ever arrive.
>
> Why?
>


Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it. If
no one is making money no one is selling it. If no one is selling it there
is no mainstream distribution channel. Someone could easily create a
distribution (Ubuntu is one) that could compete with Windows. To become
popular and gain significant market share they would have to spend a lot of
money marketing it. Where would they get a return from that investment? If
there was a great demand for it OEMs would be free to distribute it and not
pay the creator of the distro. The reason for slow linux adoption is not
because it is technically inferior to Windows. It is financial and societal.
The capitalist system doesn't work when trying to market something that is
free.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca

On Sep 8, 10:21 am, "Kerry Brown" <ke...@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m>
wrote:
> <dont.pull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news: ups.com...
>
>
>
> > Linux is free.
> > Windows is not.
> > Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with
> > Windows XP.
> > Linux is free.
> > Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.
> > Linux is free.
> > Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)
> > operating system called Vista.
> > Linux is free,
>
> > So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?
> > Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?
>
> > After all, Linux is free.
> > Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't
> > so good afterall.
>
> > How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,
> > tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to
> > Windows?
> > It's a most common occurence.
>
> > So Linux is free, and Windows is not.
>
> > Where is Linux hiding?
>
> > Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more
> > arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the
> > place.
> > It's not.
>
> > Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the
> > year of Linux"
> > Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more
> > and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the
> > year of Linux will ever arrive.
>
> > Why?
>
> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it. If
> no one is making money no one is selling it. If no one is selling it there
> is no mainstream distribution channel. Someone could easily create a
> distribution (Ubuntu is one) that could compete with Windows. To become
> popular and gain significant market share they would have to spend a lot of
> money marketing it. Where would they get a return from that investment? If
> there was a great demand for it OEMs would be free to distribute it and not
> pay the creator of the distro. The reason for slow linux adoption is not
> because it is technically inferior to Windows. It is financial and societal.
> The capitalist system doesn't work when trying to market something that is
> free.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/Userhttp://www.vistahelp.ca

Linux is already technically superior to Windows however Windows has
the base market share and quantity of users because of Microsoft's
lock in.
It's not easy for Windows, or any other OS using person to just jump
ship and switch. There is a lot of money and time invested in the OS
that they are currently running and the alternative has to provide a
clear and worthwhile advantage.
At the moment Linux does not provide such an advantage which is the
primary reason why even though being free it has been almost totally
ignored by Windows users, especially desktop users.

A good example of where Linux is a worthwhile alternative is in the
movie industry which is moving to Linux by storm.
Why?
Simple, they are moving off their highly proprietary and EXPENSIVE SGI
hardware platforms onto Intel/AMD based generic platforms.
Linux pundits like to use the movie studio example to show how Linux
is gaining ground against Windows but the truth is that these studios
were never using Windows much in the first place with the exception of
the front office.

So now you have average Joe with his entire life on his Windows
machine and Linux has to provide him with a reason to switch.
So what is it?
He already has tons of software and doesn't mind paying for additional
software if he needs it.
His Windows machine syncs to his PDA, his Phone, his mp3 player and
all his hardware and allows automatic updating of calenders, phone
lists, mp3 files and so forth. He likes iTunes and uses day trading
programs. He is also required to take corporate training, much of
which is CBT based.

Can Linux do all of that and do it easily and full featured?
Doubtful.

And THAT is why Linux is going no place on the desktop.

Money CAN be made with Linux by selling services, which is the same
way money is made with Windows. However you need to have people
willing to use Linux first and then start selling them services
contracts.
It's chicken and egg all over again.
I see Linux as a superior system but one that is going to ultimately
fail due to lack of interest.
It's a novelty now but seeing as it has gone virtually no place in 10
years (desktop) I can't see a bright future for Linux.
Devon

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 07:05:47 -0700, wrote:

>Linux is free.
>Windows is not.
>Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with
>Windows XP.
>Linux is free.
>Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.
>Linux is free.
>Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)
>operating system called Vista.
>Linux is free,
>
>So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?
>Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?
there is NO SUPPORT for a FREE program
there are very few programs written for Linux.
Windows OWNS 90% of the computer market.
No one's ever heard of Linux.
The AVERAGE computer user, knows how to use a keyboard, pictures and a mouse.
Linux needs technical knowledge just to set it up.
M$ Support = 24/7 but costly. And severely limited in technical expertise.
--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

<> wrote in message
news: ups.com...

<snipped>

> Money CAN be made with Linux by selling services, which is the same
> way money is made with Windows. However you need to have people
> willing to use Linux first and then start selling them services
> contracts.
> It's chicken and egg all over again.
> I see Linux as a superior system but one that is going to ultimately
> fail due to lack of interest.
> It's a novelty now but seeing as it has gone virtually no place in 10
> years (desktop) I can't see a bright future for Linux.
> Devon
>

For linux to become popular it has to be installed on OEM machines. This is
what initially drives the market. When a new Microsoft OS comes out the
previous is eventually made irrelevant because new computers have the new
OS. Most people don't care what OS they run. They walk into a store and buy
whatever the salesman gets the best commission on. Once they get home or
back to work they try to figure out how to use it. If new computers came
with linux they would figure out and use linux. This model isn't based on
selling a service but selling a product. OEM's aren't going to switch to
linux anytime soon for several reasons. The main one is money. They have a
lot of money invested in the Windows ecosystem. It would be very expensive
for them to switch to a different OS even if the OS was free. That brings up
the second problem. If the OS is free where is the incentive to develop it
into a product that can be sold? Yes, some money can be made selling
services to medium and big business. No, a lot of money can't be made
selling desktop services to the general public. Currently the general public
through OEM computer sales drives the desktop market.

I stand by my original assertion that there is no technical reason why linux
can't compete with Windows. The reason it isn't competing is because of the
way linux is licensed. In a capitalist society a free product can't compete
with a product that has an easy revenue stream. Everyone in the channel gets
a little piece of the pie so you have a very large channel with the company
at the top (Microsoft) controlling the channel. With linux there is no
channel. There is no one at the top controlling how the channel works. For
some one to get to this position would be impossible with the linux license.

I'm not saying this model is a good thing. In my opinion it is the way
things work. Perhaps the linux community should look to Apple as a model.
Someone needs to create a proprietary distro and spend 100's of millions
marketing it :-)

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca

wrote:
> Linux is free.
> Windows is not.
> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with
> Windows XP.
> Linux is free.
> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.
> Linux is free.
> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)
> operating system called Vista.
> Linux is free,
>
> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?
> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?
>
> After all, Linux is free.
> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't
> so good afterall.
>
> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,
> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to
> Windows?
> It's a most common occurence.
>
> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.
>
> Where is Linux hiding?
>
> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more
> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the
> place.
> It's not.
>
> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the
> year of Linux"
> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more
> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the
> year of Linux will ever arrive.
>
> Why?
>

When XP came out, there was no mention of Linux on XP.general. Now even
die hard MS fanboys are starting threads about Linux on this Vista
newsgroup. Why?

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

Kerry Brown wrote:
> <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
>> Linux is free.
>> Windows is not.
>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with
>> Windows XP.
>> Linux is free.
>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.
>> Linux is free.
>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)
>> operating system called Vista.
>> Linux is free,
>>
>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?
>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?
>>
>> After all, Linux is free.
>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't
>> so good afterall.
>>
>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,
>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to
>> Windows?
>> It's a most common occurence.
>>
>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.
>>
>> Where is Linux hiding?
>>
>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more
>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the
>> place.
>> It's not.
>>
>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the
>> year of Linux"
>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more
>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the
>> year of Linux will ever arrive.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
>
> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it.
> If no one is making money no one is selling it. If no one is selling it
> there is no mainstream distribution channel. Someone could easily create
> a distribution (Ubuntu is one) that could compete with Windows. To
> become popular and gain significant market share they would have to
> spend a lot of money marketing it. Where would they get a return from
> that investment? If there was a great demand for it OEMs would be free
> to distribute it and not pay the creator of the distro. The reason for
> slow linux adoption is not because it is technically inferior to
> Windows. It is financial and societal. The capitalist system doesn't
> work when trying to market something that is free.
>


Nail on head, simple as that.

Kerry Brown wrote:
> <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
>> Linux is free.
>> Windows is not.
>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with
>> Windows XP.
>> Linux is free.
>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.
>> Linux is free.
>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)
>> operating system called Vista.
>> Linux is free,
>>
>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?
>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?
>>
>> After all, Linux is free.
>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't
>> so good afterall.
>>
>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,
>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to
>> Windows?
>> It's a most common occurence.
>>
>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.
>>
>> Where is Linux hiding?
>>
>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more
>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the
>> place.
>> It's not.
>>
>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the
>> year of Linux"
>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more
>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the
>> year of Linux will ever arrive.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
>
> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it.

Gosh, I guess this "MVP" hasn't heard of making money from tech support.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

"Alias" <> wrote in message
news:fbugqv$f5v$...
> wrote:
>> Linux is free.
>> Windows is not.
>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with
>> Windows XP.
>> Linux is free.
>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.
>> Linux is free.
>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)
>> operating system called Vista.
>> Linux is free,
>>
>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?
>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?
>>
>> After all, Linux is free.
>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't
>> so good afterall.
>>
>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,
>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to
>> Windows?
>> It's a most common occurence.
>>
>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.
>>
>> Where is Linux hiding?
>>
>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more
>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the
>> place.
>> It's not.
>>
>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the
>> year of Linux"
>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more
>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the
>> year of Linux will ever arrive.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> When XP came out, there was no mention of Linux on XP.general. Now even
> die hard MS fanboys are starting threads about Linux on this Vista
> newsgroup. Why?

Because they like to annoy you!
>
> --
> Alias
> To email me, remove shoes

Alias wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Linux is free.
>> Windows is not.
>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with
>> Windows XP.
>> Linux is free.
>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.
>> Linux is free.
>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)
>> operating system called Vista.
>> Linux is free,
>>
>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?
>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?
>>
>> After all, Linux is free.
>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't
>> so good afterall.
>>
>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,
>> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to
>> Windows?
>> It's a most common occurence.
>>
>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.
>>
>> Where is Linux hiding?
>>
>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more
>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the
>> place.
>> It's not.
>>
>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the
>> year of Linux"
>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more
>> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the
>> year of Linux will ever arrive.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> When XP came out, there was no mention of Linux on XP.general. Now even
> die hard MS fanboys are starting threads about Linux on this Vista
> newsgroup. Why?
>

They are?
I don't think so!
Frank