| |||||||||||||
Free is too expensive (Economist)Free is too expensive (Economist)Posted Apr 6, 2012 7:31 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: Free is too expensive (Economist) by rqosa Parent article: Free is too expensive (Economist)
>But if that's why Linux has less usage share, then backwards/forwards compatibility doesn't matter — it's because of lock-in, not lack of backwards/forward compatibility.
That argument is growing old. Mac OS X started from basically the same position as Linux. I.e. no native software and a crufty compatibility layer (Classic Environment vs. Wine) with another major OS.
Yet Mac OS X captured more than 10% of the market, even though it requires overpriced proprietary hardware.
Android gains more users each month then the total number of Linux Desktop users. Even the frigging Windows Mobile has more users then Linux Desktop.
>Sure, many users want programs to "just work" without needing to tinker with them.
>But users like those are unlikely to contribute to the development of the programs they use, and the entire purpose of FLOSS is to make it possible for every user to become a developer.
>For example, it's better to have 10000 users where 1000 of them contribute to the software, than to have 1 million users where only 50 of them contribute to the software.
Nope, it isn't. Because 1 million users would be able to sponsor (say) 100 full-time professional developers, artists, testers, help writers. Who are going to produce software that these users really like.
Of course, if your target is to create a playground for developers, then I suggest looking at OpenBSD ( http://lwn.net/Articles/449697/ ):
Well, the only problem is that one day you might find yourself without open hardware capable of running your OS. And nobody would care about you.
(Log in to post comments)
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 6, 2012 8:24 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] That argument is growing old. Mac OS X started from basically the same position as Linux. I.e. no native software and a crufty compatibility layer (Classic Environment vs. Wine) with another major OS. Situation there is quite different. MacOS was basically frozen when MacOS X was introduced and no new releases were expected. Ever. Some programs were abandoned as a result, some were ported to new platform but it was never the case that you an access to the new version of a program - but you needed to abandon MacOS X to have it. Well, you had the ability to switch to Windows, but while it had lots of new goodies it also was unable to run lots of old MacOS programs, too. Wine, on the other hand is always playing catch-up. And the attitude of Linux pundits does not help. Even if someone releases some software for Linux using winelib the reaction is OPEN SOURCE IT UNDER OSI APPROVED LICENSE!!!. Later the developer does the logical thing: abandons Linux altogether. This is typical response and it creates vicious cycle: some company releases something for Linux, public outcry is “gimme source”, program is withdrawn, Linux is added to blacklist as “don't try this: money sink without any gratitude”, users continue to switch to MacOS X (well, some go back to Windows).
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 0:25 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > > But users like those are unlikely to contribute to the development of the programs they use, and the entire purpose of FLOSS is to make it possible for every user to become a developer. > Wrong. I can download VisualStudio Express (for free!) and start developing Windows Phone applications in 3 minutes. With nice tutorials, great help system and one of the best IDEs. But that doesn't let you develop Windows Phone itself, nor the platform API libraries bundled with it, nor the majority of applications for it. And it really is true that the core purpose of FLOSS is to let every user become a developer of the software that they use. As a consequence, in FLOSS, "user-friendliness" doesn't just mean making it easy to use the software, it also means making it easy to develop the software. Because (in all but a few of the biggest projects) no one is being paid to work on the software, the project needs to recruit new volunteer developers from its user base, or else it will die. That's why having a Windows-like situation of "you must support old technology (often decade old technology) thus development is nightmare" in the name of easy backwards compatibility would be bad for FLOSS, even if it did succeed in attracting more users. > 1 million users would be able to sponsor (say) 100 full-time professional developers, artists, testers, help writers. I won't believe it's possible for a FLOSS project to fund 100 full-time professional developers with donations from end-users until I see it, and I haven't seen it yet. (The project that's closest to what you describe is probably Linux itself, which has hardware manufacturers employing developers, but that business model won't work for the vast majority of projects.) > one day you might find yourself without open hardware capable of running your OS. That's a real problem, but the fundamental cause of it is that the majority of users don't see why locked-down hardware is a bad thing for them — it prevents them from developing the software they use, but that's not something they would do anyway, so why should they care? (They actually should care, for reasons such as avoiding lock-in, having a larger base of developers, having the possibility that the developers may fork the software in case of a bad mantainer, … but these reasons aren't readily apparent to someone who doesn't know anything about software development.) You seem to be suggesting that attracting users who don't care about being able to develop the software they use to Linux will help ensure the future availability of open hardware, but I don't believe it — I think it would more likely lead to a locked-down hardware platform that runs Linux (and maybe this even already exists, in the form of locked-down Android devices).
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 11:26 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] That's a real problem, but the fundamental cause of it is that the majority of users don't see why locked-down hardware is a bad thing for them Of course not! It's good for them! This is what they want! Let's forget about FOSS for the minute and think about consumer devices. Radio, TV, phones (mobile and not mobile). Once upon time all these decides were combined from parts which were easy to replace and it was easy to tinker with them. Some even included principal schemes in documentation! Today they usually have undetachable connectros (components are soldered on using surface-mount technology instead of sockets) and in general are non-serviceable (usually you need specialized tool to even open the cover). Why is that? Well, these are cheaper. They are more robust, they rarely need fixes and if one of them will break it's usually simpler to replace it rather then to fix it. Some people need/want to tinker with electronics - and we have specialized shops and devices for them. But these devices usually sell some of the same parts (sometimes differently packaged)! If you'll try to create separate ecosystem "just for tinkerers" you'll quickly find out that it's not sustainable - there are just not enough of them! They actually should care, for reasons such as avoiding lock-in, having a larger base of developers, having the possibility that the developers may fork the software in case of a bad mantainer, … but these reasons aren't readily apparent to someone who doesn't know anything about software development. You asking users to give up concrete advantages for nebulous freedoms (which they don't want and don't need). It just does not work. You seem to be suggesting that attracting users who don't care about being able to develop the software they use to Linux will help ensure the future availability of open hardware, but I don't believe it — I think it would more likely lead to a locked-down hardware platform that runs Linux Sorry, but this is the only choice. Most of hardware in the future will be locked - simply because users don't case. This battle is already lost: smartphones outsell PCs already - and you can not replace OS on most of them (even if the bootloader is not locked you often don't have an image to use with it). Now we are at the next battle: make sure there are some unlocked hardware which can be used if you want to tinker with it. If most devices are locked yet use FOSS-friendly components then there will be some unlocked (or unlockable) devices for tinkerers. If devices are build around proprietary standards then there will be no FOSS-friendly devices at all. Maybe this even already exists, in the form of locked-down Android devices. Android is good example. Before Android most phones were tightly-locked and it was basically impossible to run your own OS on mobile devices. Openmoko tried to solve this problem in the fashion you suggest, but failed miserably - and it was obvious it'll fail from the onset. Android gave us CyanogenMod and plethora of the devices you can use it with. Sure, you may argue that some imaginary world where all devices are free will be better, but this is not in the cards. Today Linux desktop survives on coattails of server market (where "freedom to tinker" is still important and will be important for foreseeable future), but it looks like Microsoft is finally wising up to the problem. If Microsoft will split standards for the desktop (fully locked up with some concessions to the enterprise - see how Apple does this with iOS) and server then this will be the end of desktop Linux (and Intel will be very happy indeed because people will finally stop using cheap desktop components for servers).
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 13:47 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > Of course not! It's good for them! This is what they want! If someone actively prefers (rather than just doesn't care) general-purpose computing hardware to be locked down, like the iDevices are, then that person is fundamentally opposed to the core ideology of Free Software: users deserve to have complete control over the software and hardware that they use. The FLOSS community shouldn't be trying to bring those people into the userbase, unless they first convert to the FLOSS ideology. (And if you actively prefer locked down devices, which it sounds like you do, then you are obviously an enemy of this community!) > You asking users to give up concrete advantages for nebulous freedoms (which they don't want and don't need). That's what the FSF has always done, since the very beginning. > It just does not work. If it didn't work, then FLOSS would never have gained any significant amount of users in the first place. Clearly that's not the case. One reason why it does in fact work is that the freedoms aren't "nebulous" like you say, but instead there are real concrete benefits to them. For example, back when I used Windows 3.11, often something would not work (or would mysteriously stop working), and I would have no idea how it might be fixable, but now that I use Linux, I'm more often able to fix problems on my own. > Sorry, but this is the only choice. Most of hardware in the future will be locked - simply because users don't case. It sounds like you're trying to convince the FLOSS community to accept Linux-on-locked-down-hardware, because it's more important to have Linux gain lots of technically-illiterate users than it is to preserve user freedom. But we'll never accept that, because we don't care about "Linux" as such; freedom is all that matters to us. Also, "Most of hardware" doesn't matter — what matters is that enough unlocked hardware remains available on the market, at low enough prices. And right now there seems to be plenty of such hardware, including desktop/notebook/server PCs (as they always have been) as well as the likes of the BeagleBoard, PandaBoard, IGEP, and the upcoming Vivaldi tablet.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 15:45 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] > You asking users to give up concrete advantages for nebulous freedoms (which they don't want and don't need). Sorry, but facts don't support your claims. First release of GCC supported VAX and SunOS. Later Cygnus developed extensive system which brought GNU tools to users of proprietary OSes and it was enthusiastically endorsed by FSF. And even when Linux finally made GNU/Linux OS usable support for users of other platforms continued. RMS and FSF may sound like stuck-up zealots at times but they are very practical when it's important. > It just does not work. See above. All the FOSS “success stories” (server, embedded, Android, etc) are in places where people care about normal users and not just about FOSS lovers. On desktop, where distributions reject such people Linux is confined to aforementioned 1% and lives at mercy of proprietary brethren: most (if not all) hardware for desktop is created without Linux in mind. Linux support is added later if at all. Compare support for server-related hardware (CPUs, NICs, etc) and for Desktop-oriented one (GPUs, WiFi, etc) This is dangerous situation to be in.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 16:39 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > First release of GCC supported VAX and SunOS. Later Cygnus developed extensive system which brought GNU tools to users of proprietary OSes and it was enthusiastically endorsed by FSF. And even when Linux finally made GNU/Linux OS usable support for users of other platforms continued. None of which negates my point. Using free software has always involved giving up certain "concrete advantages" (in the early pre-Linux days, the disadvantages would have been forgoing first-party support from the system vendor, and spending extra effort to installand keep up to date a bunch of third-party software across all systems in the administrative domain) but getting other concrete advantages (such as the ability to fix problems yourself, the "with many eyes, all bugs are shallow" effect, the likelihood that a project with a bad maintainer will be forked rather than killed off entirely, etc.) in return for the ones given up. > All the FOSS “success stories” (server, embedded, Android, etc) are in places where people care about normal users In the examples you cited above (Cygnus, GCC on VAX and SunOS), how did "Joe Average"-type users matter at all? The people who decided to switch over to GNU tools on those minicomputer/workstation platforms were developers and system administrators, not technically-illiterate end users.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 17:20 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The people who decided to switch over to GNU tools on those minicomputer/workstation platforms were developers and system administrators, not technically-illiterate end users. “Joe Average” != “someone dumb and stupid”. “Joe Average” is Joe, you know, Average. VAX and SunOS users typically knew how to compile things and for them Cygnus solution was “good enough”. In fact it was easier to use them many alternative commercial offers. Today Joe Average no longer knows or cares about compilation of programs from scratch. Thus the same solution is rejected. In the early pre-Linux days, the disadvantages would have been forgoing first-party support from the system vendor, and spending extra effort to install and keep up to date a bunch of third-party software across all systems in the administrative domain. Bullshit. GNU software was always parallel-installable and never required “forgoing first-party support from the system vendor”. But getting other concrete advantages (such as the ability to fix problems yourself, the "with many eyes, all bugs are shallow" effect, the likelihood that a project with a bad maintainer will be forked rather than killed off entirely, etc.) in return for the ones given up. Bullshit again. Most users of GNU software in these days cared about additional features, not about source availability. The fact that bash included nice command-line editing facility was more important then the fact that it included sources. The fact that GCC was free (while SunOS compiler was expensive) was the driving force, not the code availability. Sure, at some point a lot of users have “looked under the hood” (because they had the ability) and some even become contributors, but it was never (or almost never) the motivation for the initial installation of GNU tools.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 18:55 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > VAX and SunOS users typically knew how to compile things I know firsthand that many VAX users didn't have anywhere close to that level of technical expertise. For example, people used to use dumb terminals on a VAX (or other minicomputer) for email at work (I remember one such place that used Pine on VMS, for example), or for using their employer's in-house applications, or even for searching public library catalogs. These users knew less about computers than most people today, and yet they probably outnumbered (by far) those who did know how to compile things. > Bullshit. GNU software was always parallel-installable and never required “forgoing first-party support from the system vendor”. Yes it did — the more that someone was using GNU software (or other third-party software, generally), the more they'd have to rely on other sources of help than the first-party system vendor. It's just that back then they were still using plenty of software from the system vendor, whereas with GNU/Linux on commodity hardware now, the proportion of non-system-vendor software has increased to almost 100% — though of course, some high-end server hardware vendors actually have first-party support for GNU/Linux now. > Most users of GNU software in these days cared about additional features, not about source availability. […] it was never (or almost never) the motivation for the initial installation of GNU tools. But that just goes to show that it's entirely possible for FLOSS to compete against proprietary software on practical features, and win. And it's not just a coincidence, either — the greater functionality of GCC and coreutils was a direct consequence of the ability of skilled users to join the developer-base, thus giving them a larger and more meritocratic developer-base than their proprietary counterparts had.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 9, 2012 23:03 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Yet Mac OS X captured more than 10% of the market, even though it requires overpriced proprietary hardware. Yes, but that's not because people specifically want OS X and therefore need to buy a Mac, it's because they want a Mac in the first place, which is a different ballgame altogether. People would buy Macs even if they came with a GUI version of CP/M, as long as there was a big-enough Apple logo on the computer. This is because for many people, buying Apple stuff is a life style decision, rather than a technical decision. Sort of like being vegetarian. If Apple wasn't manufacturing its own PCs and OS X was an after-market OS to be installed on generic PCs like Linux is today, it would be just as (un)popular as Linux, simply because most people can't be bothered to change the OS on their computer. It would also have the same hardware support/developer buy-in issues, only worse because there would be less free stuff available and fewer hardware manufacturers would be interested in supporting with drivers or using it for their own products.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 0:08 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
Is there any OS that doesn't come pre-loaded on systems that has achieved any noticeable market penetration?
I would go out on a limb a bit and say that Linux is probably 100x as popular as the next closest competitor if you were to exclude pre-loaded OS installs.
That says a lot of good things about Linux, and you have to wonder where it would be if it wasn't for the Microsoft shenanigans.
and no, I don't consider the "distro that nobody has heard of" shipped pre-loaded on the early netbook machines to qualify as Linux being pre-loaded.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 9:20 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I would go out on a limb a bit and say that Linux is probably 100x as popular as the next closest competitor if you were to exclude pre-loaded OS installs. Yup. Linux desktop is large fish in this aquarium. But there are the problem: master of said aquarium can displace it at any time. The question: can Linux desktop survive in the ocean? and no, I don't consider the "distro that nobody has heard of" shipped pre-loaded on the early netbook machines to qualify as Linux being pre-loaded. Why not? It was the first time Linux desktop was seriously pitted against older contenders. It was eaten alive. I hope people who'll try to do that next time will be better prepared. But it looks these preparations will require complete divorce from the world of traditional Linux distributions. Which is sad because said distributions did many things right.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 10:42 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] But it looks these preparations will require complete divorce from the world of traditional Linux distributions. Which is sad because said distributions did many things right. A computer manufacturer could do a lot worse than team up with somebody who will provide support for one of the major long-lifecycle distributions like Debian or Ubuntu (LTS). That would ensure a reasonable time between upgrades (which are usually seamless) as well as timely security patches, and a wide, easily-accessible selection of software from the get-go. Also these distributions are unlikely to go away anytime soon. So far this hasn't been seriously tried AFAIK. It is important to emphasise that these distributions already come with lots of software that people would otherwise have to obtain, possibly at very considerable expense, from the open third-party market or an »app store«. So it's not as if one would immediately need lots of buy-in from third-party software developers (as in OS X). Certainly somebody who uses their computer mainly to surf the web, to write e-mail and letters, even to deal with holiday photographs, to catalogue books or DVDs or a stamp collection, and many other things that occur in the usual home or SOHO use, could go a very long way without having to install anything from outside the distribution's repositories. Of course if the prime purpose of the computer in question is to run the newest Windows games, a Windows machine is likely to be the better bet – but that isn't going to change however much Linux is modified. It may not actually be worth the trouble.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 14:34 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] A computer manufacturer could do a lot worse than team up with somebody who will provide support for one of the major long-lifecycle distributions like Debian or Ubuntu (LTS). That would ensure a reasonable time between upgrades (which are usually seamless) as well as timely security patches, and a wide, easily-accessible selection of software from the get-go. Also these distributions are unlikely to go away anytime soon. So far this hasn't been seriously tried AFAIK. This will never be “seriously tried” because of poor ROI: if there are no lock-in then how can you recoup your expenses? This is the case where Linux's greatest strength becomes it's greatest weakness. Of course if the prime purpose of the computer in question is to run the newest Windows games, a Windows machine is likely to be the better bet – but that isn't going to change however much Linux is modified. It may not actually be worth the trouble. Of course direct attack is hopeless! Linux must do something which MacOS and Windows just can't do and then grow from such niche to the full-blown desktop. There are some ideas about what exactly this niche can be - different companies play with different niches. The problem is that it looks like all such attempts will happen with something like Android or webOS: Linux which has nothing to do with traditional Linux desktop.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 15:07 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] This will never be “seriously tried” because of poor ROI: if there are no lock-in then how can you recoup your expenses? If you're a hardware manufacturer such as HP or Dell you're not interested in lock-in – you're interested in moving boxes. Anything that looks like it might move more boxes is worth looking into. The problem is to get things going in the first place; once you have a system set up, there is no reason why supporting Linux would need to be any more expensive than supporting Windows. (In the long run it may even be cheaper.) »Lock-in« doesn't enter into it from a hardware manufacturer's point of view because nobody is »locked into« generic PC hardware that you can get from dozens of manufacturers. Even if you're into high-end kit you can always get that from any of half a dozen manufacturers. (Apple is an anomaly here because Apple is no longer a computer maker, it's a life style. People are hooked on Apple in a way that they never get hooked on Dell or Asus. However, to a large extent OS X suffers from the same uptake problems as Linux; it just doesn't matter because Apple makes three quarters of its money selling stuff that isn't running OS X in the first place, anyway.) There is nothing in principle to prevent someone like HP or Dell from offering Linux als a pre-installed alternative on all of its machines other than that the margins you get from moving boxes do not lend themselves to experiments. Microsoft has a nice little positive-feedback loop going that will ensure that as long as 95% of PC buyers buy Windows pre-installed, the hardware makers aren't keen on being the first to sink investment money into something new – and Microsoft is trying to keep things that way: The real reason Linux isn't preinstalled more is that Microsoft provides kickbacks to hardware manufacturers like HP or Dell to »recommend« Windows.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 16:48 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Yeah, sure.
Microsoft doesn't provide kickbacks in Russia, Ukraine and lots of other countries. You can easily buy laptops and computers running FreeDOS there. Guess what's the first thing people do after they buy them?
Hint: it generally involves a CD with pirated Windows.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 17:14 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] OK. So Microsoft doesn't waste money on kickbacks to manufacturers in countries where people won't pay for Windows in the first place. What does that prove? It certainly doesn't prove Linux couldn't compete with Windows on a level playing field. What is easier to come by for non-geeks in Russia and Ukraine, a CD with pirated Windows or a CD with Linux? What about CDs with pirated Windows games? Also, Microsoft could easily crack down on pirated copies of Windows if they wanted to. However, that would be utterly counterproductive because it would just make Linux look more attractive in comparison. Microsoft knows very well that hanging on to their 95% market share is worth a bunch of pirated CDs in Russia.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 17:29 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
I often hear laments: "Oh, if only Windows wasn't preinstalled. We'd rule the world with Linux, surely!"
They are definitely not true as I see a counter-example with my own eyes.
>It certainly doesn't prove Linux couldn't compete with Windows on a level playing field. What is easier to come by for non-geeks in Russia and Ukraine, a CD with pirated Windows or a CD with Linux?
A CD with Linux - broadband access is ubiquitous and cheap. I have 100mbit Ethernet connection for $8 a month, so I can download Ubuntu install CD in about 30 seconds. Of course, I can do the same for a Windows install DVD.
So I'd say they are on a level footing.
>What about CDs with pirated Windows games?
Actually, they are becoming quite rare. Why would you bother with buying CDs when you can download anything you want for free?
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 18:28 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
and how many computer manufacturers build systems exclusively for those markets?
and what slice of the overall computer industry are these markets?
I suspect that the answers to both are very small numbers.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 20:43 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] These both are wrong questions. The answers to both are: there are more then enough computer manufacturers and they represent huge slice of computer industry (China alone is large enough), but in places where Windows is free and Linux is free Windows wins hands down. It's not even a contest. And since you can not attach any non-zero price to Linux (this will immediately make your Linux offer non-noncompetitive) the end result is that there are still no chance for “serious try”. People somehow expect that “serious try” will be “identical push for Windows and Linux” but it just does not work: Windows in incumbent, identical push will always favor it, you need bigger push to succeed - and where money for said push will come from? You can not even use typical bundling strategy (where producer of demo version of commercial program pays you dollar or two) because Linux distributions are typically designed to repel any and all proprietary commercial developers as we are discussing here.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 21:12 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
where linux and windows are both 'free', windows will win due to the network effect.
but if microsoft didn't allow for the piracy of windows to maintain this, they would not both be free.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 21:57 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] This is exactly what I'm saying. It's not up to the Microsoft to determine if given country has high piracy or not. But in both cases Windows wins: if piracy is high the Windows wins because of network effect, if it's low then Microsoft makes good money and spends some of it via kickbacks to promote Windows. Windows wins in both cases. Q.E.D.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 20:35 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] There is nothing in principle to prevent someone like HP or Dell from offering Linux als a pre-installed alternative on all of its machines other than that the margins you get from moving boxes do not lend themselves to experiments. Ever wondered why systems with Linux preinstalled are always separate models (often with the same hardware but still with separate nomenclature article)? Apparently there are just this little teeeny agreement. The problem is to get things going in the first place; once you have a system set up, there is no reason why supporting Linux would need to be any more expensive than supporting Windows. Not enough. You need bigger margins, not the same margins, or else the whole exercise is pointless. For that manufacturer need some kind of lock-in - that's what I'm talking about. And indeed when nettop story started vendors tried to produce such lock-in - but unsuccessfully. In the long run it may even be cheaper. PC business is very low margin business. Companies just don't have luxury to think about long term: if they'll start producing losses then the end can come very fast. »Lock-in« doesn't enter into it from a hardware manufacturer's point of view because nobody is »locked into« generic PC hardware that you can get from dozens of manufacturers. Sure. But why start expensive and complex program which may jeopardize your relationship with Microsoft if the end result are the same tiny margins you already have?
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 22:48 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] You need bigger margins, not the same margins, or else the whole exercise is pointless. For that manufacturer need some kind of lock-in - that's what I'm talking about. As a PC manufacturer, you can't »lock in« people to your hardware (unless you're Apple, but we already said that special rules apply to Apple). If anything, a desire to create lock-in would be an argument in favour of preinstalling Linux as long as your Linux distribution is good enough and supports your machine well, because as long as you're the only one selling such a machine people will continue being your customers. This works for Apple – Macintoshes could just as well run Windows but people tend to stick with the OS X that comes with the machine. The margins on Macs aren't quite like the ones on iPhones, but we don't see Apple complain. In the same vein, if a good computer came pre-installed with a good, supported mainstream Linux like Debian (rather than the low-end boxes with weird Linux distributions that hardware manufacturers tend to offer if they offer anything at all), most people would probably stay with that because putting anything else on it would be more of a hassle than it was worth.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 11, 2012 6:05 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] If anything, a desire to create lock-in would be an argument in favour of preinstalling Linux as long as your Linux distribution is good enough and supports your machine well, because as long as you're the only one selling such a machine people will continue being your customers. Nope. Others sell similar machines, too. Both tiny firms with full selection of models (tiny selection because firms are tiny) and large companies like Dell, HP, or Lenovo - but with few models (again: Linux is not large enough to support the large range of models). This works for Apple – Macintoshes could just as well run Windows but people tend to stick with the OS X that comes with the machine. Some actually install Linux and/or Windows, but that's not the point. The point is that MacOS works poorly on anything else and Apple vigorously ensures that there will be no machines with Hackintosh preinstalled. This is where lock-in scheme starts to work and this is what you can not do with Linux. In the same vein, if a good computer came pre-installed with a good, supported mainstream Linux like Debian (rather than the low-end boxes with weird Linux distributions that hardware manufacturers tend to offer if they offer anything at all), most people would probably stay with that because putting anything else on it would be more of a hassle than it was worth. This was tried many times. It does not work. People find something deficient with tiny selection of “Linux preinstalled” offers and buy something else instead. And it makes no sense to create as many models with Linux as you create models with Windows if you expect 10x-100x less buyers.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 11, 2012 7:53 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] This was tried many times. It does not work. People find something deficient with tiny selection of “Linux preinstalled” offers and buy something else instead. When I bought my current computer (an HP business notebook), HP did offer one configuration with Linux preinstalled. That was the bottom-of-the-line configuration with the slowest CPU and GPU, the lowest screen resolution, the smallest hard disk and half the RAM of the one I eventually got. It does not come as a big surprise that under these circumstances buying the machine with Linux preinstalled is not the option most customers will take. On the »plus« side, the machine I bought in the end is also very nice for Linux, with basically everything working out of the box using Debian (I've so far not missed the fingerprint reader, and somebody like HP could probably get that supported by leaning on the chip manufacturer). It does make one wonder why HP does not offer a Linux preinstall for the top-of-the-line configuration rather than the bottom one. In my experience, installing Linux on notebooks has become a lot easier over the years. Whether this is due to improvements in Linux itself or the manufacturers moving towards supported components is difficult to tell (probably a mixture of both), but the presence of any configurations of a model with Linux preinstalled is a good sign because it indicates that Linux will probably work well on the other configurations, too. There is certainly nothing technical that prevents manufacturers from offering more Linux preinstalls – the reason why this doesn't happen more often is mostly to do with Microsoft's sleazy business practices.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 10:57 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the distros selected for the early netbooks were not any of the bigger name, well supported distros. They were ones that virtually nobody had heard of, that had no significant community around them, and then the vendors provided no updates for them on top of that.
That's hardly justification for saying that such installations will require "a divorce from the world of traditional Linux distributions", In fact, it's more a matter of showing that if you do make such a divorce, it's going to take a lot more effort on your part to make things work.
|
|||||||||||||