Re: barriers to adopting Linux by newbies -- this is a

["Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@ieee.org>]

On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 15:06, Robert Citek wrote:
> Yes.  But still a barrier to adoption.

What?  That Freedomware companies don't try to bundle-in such additivies
at additional costs?

If consumers are that willing to spend more money so freely, then they
aren't interested in Linux.

Besides, the connection wizards in _every_ modern distro is cake to
setup -- total no-brainers.

> Linux OEMs?

Yep.  There are numerous tier-2 Linux PC OEMs.

> That's a good definition.  But what does that have to do with 
> decreasing the barriers to linux adoption?

Because the costs are greater for Linux distributors and OEMs than
Windows distributors and OEMs.  Especially when you factor in how much
Windows distributors and OEMs are subsidized.

_Everything_ is about economies of scale -- _especially_ software.

> A google for Gartner produces a lot of hits, including the main site:
>    http://www4.gartner.com/Init
> Is there one or a few particular pages that you had in mind?

There are several.

One is on the cost of the Linux desktop.
Another is on both bundled and available support options.
And lastly, one is on "vendor-lock-in" with applications.

> Let's just take one example, you have a friend that is a computer 
> novice and wants to get on the internet.  The Microsoft solution is
>   1) go to local retail computer store

Dumb in the first place, but if they want to.
I don't think we'll _ever_ capture the "dumb consumer."

The same "dumb consumer" buys the cheap hardware, then wonders why they
have to upgrade the next time they install a new Windows version, or buy
a new computer.  They just do it.

Linux will _never_ change that.  And that's why many "cheap" pieces of
hardware don't have drivers, or take years to reverse engineer drivers
for Linux.  This isn't a "Linux adoption" problem, it's a "dumb
consumer" problem -- one that Linux will _not_ fix.

>   2) buy computer with Windows pre-installed

Right.  Nothing other than Microtels at Walmart for Linux.

>   3) set it up at home (plug in keyboard, mouse, monitor, phone, power)

Right.  That can be done with a pre-installed Linux system.

>   4) turn on and follow big "Quick-Start" pamphlet or poster
>   5) agree to EULA

Dumb in the first place, but if they want to.

>   6) connect using MSN or OEM ISP

Right.  And does not Walmart offer an ISP connection too?

> Apple's Mac with OS X is just as simple (substitute .Mac or Earthlink 
> for MSN.)

Of course.  You have an integrated platform -- hardware and OS.
That's why my next portable will be a Mac, period.   

Well, that and the fact that a G5 1.4GHz runs at 1.4GHz on battery,
_unlike_ a 2.x/3.xGHz P4/Athlon that slows down to sub-1GHz on battery.

> In short, Windows and Apple have made it super simple to get 
> a Windows or Mac OS X machine connected to the Internet.

Er, um, I use 695online.COM as well as Earthlink's FREE (for cable
subscribers) services.  Takes *0* effort to work with the "connection
sharing" in RHL/FC (among other distros) as well my IPCop box.

So I have _no_idea_ what your point is.

If you mean the OEMs don't bundle in dial-up for Linux systems, that's
an OEM problem, _not_ a Linux one.  If you go to a Linux PC OEM, then
there is _no_problem_.

> Contrast that with getting onto the internet using Linux or *BSD.
> (I haven't seen the WalMart boxes pre-installed with Linux, so that
> might be dirt-simple, too.  Anyone know?)

I believe Walmart/Microtel has an option.

> Notice the target audience: home users.

Yes, the same users who do _not_ do product research.
So, they deserve what they get.
We cannot help "dumb consumers."

> We can address business users, gamers, enterprise users, and 
> others later.

Er, no.  Linux can and _is_ addressing "business users" _first_.

Once Linux has a sizeable marketshare in business, _then_ home users
will follow.  Why?  Because most people buy computers to work at home,
and they need something compatible with work.

>From 1998-2002, almost my _sole_ platform that I supported at work was
Linux, with some limited MacOSX, Solaris and Windows NT/2000 support as
well.

> Which brings us back to the original question: what are the barriers to 
> adopting Linux by newbies?

Lack of consumer ignorance, pure and simple.

If they want to hit the superstores for their computers, then you've got
_more_ to educate them on than just Linux.  Let them go.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- Engineer, Technologist, School Teacher
b.j.smith@ieee.org



-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.