Desktop Linux (fwd)

[Jeff Kinz]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:17:18PM -0500, Chris Brenton wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 19:44, Jeff Kinz wrote:
> > Nothing I love more than someone who decides they know what I'm thinking
> > and gets its completely wrong, 
> 
> Its not what you're thinking but what your writing. You seem focused on
> ignoring posts from people like myself who are trying to tell you this
> stuff _does_ work 

I respond to every one of your posts, but I'm ignoring them?

Some stuff works Chris - Not enough, nor smoothly enough for the general
windows population. I'm not going to provide ammunition for other
platform advocates by listing items that are deficient here (This is
archived on the web after all.) 

The windows population is the target customer for the original question:
"What does Linux have to do to succeed on the desktop?". Farther below
in this email, referring to Linux, you state : "If people choose to run
it, that's cool. If they don't, that's cool too." And: "In the grand
scheme of life, why does it matter?"

Chris, If you don't care which one they run, then you're in the wrong
thread. This thread is addressing "What does Linux have to do to succeed
on the desktop?". In order to do that the idea of using Linux on the
desktop must become a compelling, almost tangible and irresistible idea
for the existing hundreds of millions of Windows desktop user's or they
won't make the decision to switch. That is the whole point of this
discussion.

> not going to happen unless the market is there). When you do acknowledge
> that many of these packages will run on Linux, you dismiss the ability
> with bizarre testing criteria like "the too strange test" or claiming
> installing software is too hard for the typical end user.o

"Bizarre testing criteria"  Sorry it was confusing for you. :) I was
using convenient labels for the reactions people have to these
particular workarounds.  People just want them to work.  Not
"Oh I need more stuff to make it run?"

Having to try to configure WINE is a Linux desktop adoption barrier for
the average windows desktop user.

Having to buy and install extra FOURTH party packages to get their third
party packages to work is a Linux desktop adoption barrier for
the average windows desktop user.

> > "Dude". :-)  (I'm pretty far beyond the
> > "Dell" Generation but I appreciate the "Dude" anyway. Thanks.)

> Ahhhh, this explains a lot. :)

Yes - I've been working with end users for a long time.  Sometimes the
hardest part of the equation is getting the technical folks to
understand that the user isn't supposed to have to do anything technical.
Like having to install a virtual machine environment to get their
checkbook program to work. The computer should just work.


> In the grand scheme of life, why does it matter? 
Continuing your argument to its final conclusion:
And in a billion or so years we'll all be dead and all the stars will be
dark.  So why should we even bother to keep developing Linux?

> is enough market share and $$$ in the system to keep the Linux system
> moving, why should we care if Linux ends up on every computer or not?

Getting Linux onto most desktops was the point of the thread. If you
don't want to be in the discussion about it, you don't have to be. :)

> Despite wide scale desktop acceptance not happening yet, Linux is still
> leaping forward at an amazing development rate.

Yes it is. and that rate is accelerating and will continue to
accelerate especially in developing countries with a smaller or
non-existent Windows desktop installed base.  America may be one of the
last places on the planet to begin moving large percentages of its user
base to the Linux on the desktop.

> Despite all that, I have no interest in seeing it turned into the same
> mass market Borg mentality that Windows has held up till now. What
> matters is we have choices and that Linux continues to be one of them.
> If people choose to run it, that's cool. If they don't, that's cool too.
> 
> > Linux works fine for you, and me and many others but if 
> > you want Windows desktop users to start spontaneously migrating to 
> > the Linux desktop in large numbers, You must make sure that they 
> > deeply desire the change. 
> 
> I guess this is really where we differ. 

It definitely is. I am focused directly on trying to convince
organizations to use Linux and providing them with resources to make it
possible while reducing their total IT costs within the first year.

> > How many organizations have you converted from Windows to Linux as
> > an outside vendor? 
> 
> Ball park guess maybe 30 or so. Probably about the same number that I
> have talked out of moving to Linux because I knew they could never
> support it. 

So these 30 companies are now using Linux as their basic desktop OS?
And have only a small number of Windows systems around?  They are doing
all their spreadsheets, and documents on linux systems?
(Just trying to verify that they are not just using Linux for their
routers etc..)  Congratulations either way, but most especially so if
they do their daily business administration and operations
activities on the Linux desktop.

> If I know Linux is not a good fit I will not push it. It does not take
> many migration failures to start producing bad PR. A good example is you
> sticking to your guns about quicken and tax software not working simply
> because you don't have it running. I've had it running for well over a

No - thats a bad example:
Excuse me, But where did I say that I didn't have it running?  
Thats right - I never said that.  I understand that people have it
working with some of the virtual machine environments
What I'm saying is that the extra steps needed to install and manage
those environments are a barrier to Linux desktop adoption by the great
mass of windows users'.  You know them as "Home users".

The target population for the question is the "Windows Desktop User".  
Not existing Linux Users, who, in this list, are all pretty technical.
(Ok, ok, Very technical! :-) )
> 
> > Its not easy and the perceptual state of the
> > customer's mindset is first last and always the most important piece of
> > the puzzle.
> 
> I don't have this problem. If I'm recommending Linux its not because I
> want to see the whole world assimilated, but because it makes good
> business sense for that organization. I can show them in dollars and
> cents why its a good idea. 

Same reasons I use.  Business will never switch unless there is a
distinct benefit.

> > We (The Linux community) still have work to do in this area.
> 
> I think Linus himself has been the best roll model in this area. He's
> focused on making Linux as cool and powerful as possible. If people dig
> it, cool. If not, it does not really seem to phase him. The man has
> style. :)

Very true and a direct part of the reason that Linux has the quality it
has.  Linus' goal was not "get product out by deadline" but to make
something for himself that he could enjoy building and using.

In the world of software that almost always produces a better result.

G'night all.  

-- 
Jeff Kinz, Open-PC, Emergent Research,  Hudson, MA.  
"jkinz at kinz.org" is copyright 2003.  
Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at
http://www.kinz.org/policy.html.