3 posts • joined Thursday 24th July 2008 20:54 GMT
The obvious reason why very few non-enthusiasts use linux is that Microsoft has abused their monopoly powers since the late 80s. Try to find a vendor who will sell you a dual boot system? You cant find one.
Until recently you could not get a Dell or HP with linux preinstalled. And even now you have to know what you are looking for to find the option.
If a PC arrived with a Vista CD an Ubuntu CD and a checkofflist.
Vista - Install, install drivers, reboot, sytem update, reboot, install antivirus, install anti-spyware, install office software.
Ubuntu -install, update wireless/video drivers, system update and reboot.
On that playing field, Linux would hold more than 2% of the desktop market.
Everyone knows someone who knows enough about windows to get going with it. If the same was true for Linux. Microsoft would be in trouble.
The only problem business would really have, is if their applications would run in a linux environment. Believe me, I would rather train an XP user with Office 2003 experience to use Ubuntu with Openoffice before I would want to train them on using Vista with Office 2007. Vista with Office is just to different from what they are used to.
re: danial and general vista fud..
As far as every new OS needing more stuff. Not true with Linux. I support hardware that is from 4 years old to purchased last week. My low end systems have 512 megs of RAM.
All of them support any version of Linux I toss at them. Be it Ubuntu Dapper Drake (2 years old) to Ubuntu Hardy Heron (2 months old). KDE3 .5 or KDE 4. No problem. I expect that even my old systems will have no problem with the next version (or two) of Ubuntu.
For the most part, Linux has their act together. There has not been a need of getting hardware any better than an "average" system that was sold in 2004.
Microsoft overshot the mark. We are only now getting to the point were low end systems run Vista well. And that is because we now define low end as a system with 2 gigs of ram!
Not RPM vs DEB but Fedora vs Ubuntu
I don't know the details but I am sure it is like with most things in life. Follow the money.
Because saying "We moved to Fedora from Ubuntu to get the advantages of RPM". Is really like saying "We switched from Honda to Toyota to get cooler rims".
They have given up Canonical's support. The popularity and brand namededness of Ubuntu. Ubuntus investment in UMPC and mobile devices. The Ubuntu repositories and the Debian repositories. And the Ubuntu Support Forums.
What do they gain? Because going over the list above what I see is the following.
Red Hat cares about commercial server space. Not the desktop, UMPC's or mobile devices. So the parent company behind the distribution does not seem to be a gain. The name "Red Hat" is hardly a house hold word and "Fedora" is even less well known. (Maybe they think the big sales will be to companies). Again, Red Hat does not seem to show any interest in mobile devices. The Fedora repositories are good. But there is more software to choose from with Debian plus Ubuntu. Ubuntu is even providing a distro with all of the things they need for mobile/UMPC devices. It has been 2 years since I have needed to get help from the Fedora forums. But I don't see them being better than Ubuntu support, and maybe not even as good. It remains to be seen if they will provide better support for mobile devices.
With no offense to Fedora users. It seems that Intel is moving from what looks like a great platform to a "just good enough" platform.
Maybe it is the willingness to accept DRM?
- iSPY: Apple Stores switch on iBeacon phone sniff spy system
- It's true, the START MENU is coming BACK to Windows 8, hiss sources
- Chinese gamer plays on while BMW burns to the ground
- Pic NASA Mars tank Curiosity rolls on old WET PATCH, sighs, sniffs for life signs
- How UK air traffic control system was caught asleep on the job