Why Linux? (was: Red Hat's Bluecurve)

[pll at lanminds.com]

In a message dated: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:47:28 EDT
bscott at ntisys.com said:

>On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, at 3:24pm, pll at lanminds.com wrote:
>>> Apparently, it is a friggin' *stated goal* to remove many configuration
>>> options from Gnome.
>> 
>> So where's the value add to switch from MS?  Sure, there's the "it's free"
>> argument, but for most users, they don't care.
>
>  Define "users".

Since we're specifically discussing the desktop configurability of 
Gnome2, I thought it clear that we would be also discussing the
end/home user.  However, that is not necessarilly so, as you've 
pointed out.  But I'll get to that in a moment.

>For most home and small office users, "free" (gratis) makes a *HUGE*
>difference. 

Agreed, however, the realistic difference is nothing.  The only place 
I know of where the "average" home user can purchase a computer for 
less because it either has no OS, or has Linux, is Wal*Mart, and even 
then, it's at WalMart.com, not in the stores (or so I'm lead to 
believe, please correct me if I'm wrong).

If the end-user can only get a discount for not having an OS or 
having Linux on the system by purchasing on-line, is it safe to 
assume they already have a computer through which they have access to 
the net?  If so, then, what are most likely to buy:

	a) something with no OS on it
	b) something they've barely heard of
     or c) something which they're very familiar with and use every day,
	   but costs an extra $89-100?

I'll bet on option C.  They need a *very* compelling reason to choose 
A or B.  I don't think $100 is enough in *most* cases. (It is for me, 
but I'm not your average user, and neither is anyone else on this 
list :)

>Where I work, we get a number of customers this way.  "Here is
>the Microsoft-based solution; it will cost you $20,000, most of that in
>software license fees.  Here is the Linux-based solution; it will cost you
>$5000.  Any questions?"

How many of them are asking you to outfit the entire office with 
desktops?  (I'm not being facetious or a p.i.t.a, I have no idea what 
you're business model is, and therefore no way of knowing what types 
of customers you have or even what you do.)

I'm making an assumption here that you primarily install servers and 
infrastructure vs. desktops.  In which case, I'll agree, that the 
lower price tag of Linux is incredibly attractive to those signing 
the check.  Especially so, since they're getting all the same, if 
not, more functionality out of the Linux-based solution than they 
would from the MS solution.  Additionally, a "server" is something 
they don't sit in front of all day long and have to use for daily 
productive work.  A server is some machine in the back room or closet 
that the IS group deals with when it's broken.  Otherwise, it's just 
a shared drive or a web site, etc.

In which case, the "attraction to the user" of Gnome2 has absolutely 
no applicability and is not the conversation we were having.

On the other hand, if you in fact do install entire offices with 
desktops, and people are choosing Linux over Windows because of 
price, then this does have relevance to our discussion.  In this 
case, the purchaser wants to know that Linux is going to look and 
feel just like whatever they're used to using in other jobs or at 
home.  By removing features and configurability from Gnome2, they'll 
accomplish that!

I don't agree with the practice, and think Paul I. is on the right 
track when he says "hide don't remove" the features and 
configuratbility options.  But for the most part, people think 
computers are a very specific set of interfaces with a very specific 
set of configurable options.  Giving them more will confuse them, and 
therefore lead them to conclude that "more != better", rather,
"more == difficult, complex, confusing".  Which is bad.

Corporate customers do not, under any circumstances, want to slow 
down or inhibit the productivity of their people.  Giving them a 
limited number of configurable options on the desktop is actually a 
good thing from a productivity point of view.  That's what they're 
used to, and they've come to accept that.

Keeping in mind that the average person is a sucker for eye-candy, 
and not more interested in "Functionality over form" like myself.
Now put yourself into the management role, with an eye on employee 
productivity for a moment.  Imagine if eveyone could endlessly 
customize every possible aspect of their environment.  Let's just say 
that each person spends just one half of one day perfectly tweaking 
their desktop to suit them. (I've seen some people spend an entire 
day or more doing this under Gnome and E ;)

That's a tremendous amount of time wasted on not being productive at 
all, which is a huge amount of money wasted for absolutely no 
business gain.

One thing I have to credit MS with is the amount of usability testing 
they've done with their interfaces.  They're not perfect, but they do 
spend an inordinate amount of resources on discovering "what do users 
want".  I give the Gnome people credit for following that lead in 
this sense.  From a corporate sales perspective, that's where the 
money is.  If we really want "World Domination", then we have to give 
the "user" what they want.  The "user" in this case, being Joe 
Average, and those sitting in corporate environments who sign the 
checks.

Most people purchase a computer and get MS because that's what they 
use at work or at school.  If Linux can penetrate the corporate 
environment and people get used to that at work or school, they'll start 
getting it at home as well.

>  But if the Linux computer costs $200 less than the one that includes
>MS-Windows for "free", which one do they buy?  :)

In most cases the Linux computer isn't $200 less, it's only $100
(I just checked WalMart.com, and w/ LindowsOS it's $199, for Windows 
XP it's $299).
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
--
	It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
   but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.

	 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!