To be honest there are plenty of articles on this topic. I am sharing my conclusions because they seem to be fairly unique to this fairly common question.
Most of the people that use Linux are professionals. This is true to an extent; many are -- or start as -- hobbyists. Though this is less to do with Linux itself and more to do with the fact that these people know what works, or just prefer to do things themselves.
This is not to say that all distros are built with the new user in mind -- this is because they are built by the community -- they just reflect what the community feels is the right approach to a given use-case. If the community has more new users or someone sees and opportunity to gain users (ie. "do it my way!") by making certain changes to an existing distro/s (this happens arguably more frequently than it should.), then you will see a fork that goes in that direction. Many of which have worked our really well. Ubuntu, Mint, and Puppy Linux are great examples of this. They saw and need or had a vision, and went with it -- to everyone's benefit.
At the base level, the Linux kernel allows you, to do what you need to, without writing all the code, just the bit you need. Allowing you to focus on you're data, and not how much money and time you have. It is the operating system and tools that say, " you know what you are doing, now go out there and do it; your way!".
In the last 10 years some distros have seen lots of new users, and we have seen them start to mirror the community that is using them, that supports them. This is also a common attack point during 'holy wars'. The more automated something is the more that older Unix/Linux users despise it. Luckily some talented programmers have seen fit to still provide tools for the incompetent among us.
The primary reason that I use Linux is because I like to be completely in control of my system, and I want to be able to change things at will. This is much easier to do on Linux then it is on proprietary systems. Yes, it is that simple.
The primary reason that I think you should use Linux is to avoid lock in, and because it just works. That is not to say that you cannot manipulate other operating systems to achieve the same goals (ie. Turing paper on computable numbers and the Church-Turing thesis on Computable Functions) That is to say that Windows confines what it tells you, to what it feels you should know, and decides what you should be doing with your machine without taking your feelings into consideration.
Some would say this is a good thing -- I say "here's 5 cents, go buy a real computer...". This is not to say that Windows is a bad operating system, use it for a whole bunch of things -- or just because it is the one available. Much of the Linux structure and software direction is dictated (in the truest sense) by the community. Since they can install what they want after all -- and most of the software components are compatible across distros. Another reason, is the lack of one central group or committee. This enables projects to fork and be remade or altered in a more organic way. This also means that innovation moves faster. This type of environment causes software that is not made well, or less useful to be disposed of quickly, and the better bit seem to rise to the top naturally. Not to say that Linux doesn't have software that doesn't work well; it is that we prefer to say, "... it doesn't work well in certain circumstances..."
Because the community also personally depends on the software, there is less of a chance of contamination. Software sources are vetted, unless you alter the source configuration, you can be as certain as one could be that everything is secure.
The side effects of this reach dynamical into the business sector -- since companies can have the technical ability of larger companies regardless of their physical size or available capital by using free software. So this is where free software makes you money. This is why 95%(ie. alot) of servers run Linux and it largely controls the embedded and specialized use case markets (tooling, robotics, etc.). In these areas, speed of implementation is key.
Most people are not aware of how many things they own that are running Linux. If the consumers were aware of this fact, one would imaging that they would be much more receptive to using it on the desktop, and support for open-source by vendors would increase overnight.
The fact is, FOSS saves you money by allowing you to do computable tasks for the price of the hardware. This means you can just go out and buy components and then use them with out having to write the software yourself, or purchase that software from a company. In the last decade this has gotten far easier than it had been. Even though, since the beginning of Linux, most people would have been able to install it, though configuring it was a different story.
Most of the criticism that Linux receives on the desktop market is related to the look and feel of the operating system, or compatibility with proprietary standards.
As far as the look and feel goes, that is just a policy of the productivity minded; since award winning graphics are not something needed to get work done, and really just take up system resources. Though there are a few graphic implementations that will help in some instances with productivity -- this is rare and mostly a result of doing graphic type work(video editing and graphic creation). Still most of these tools use a simple 'chrome' interface and extend the functionality of the space; putting more in less space, causing overall resource usage to go up. Similarly, some ''tab' switching' interfaces use a bit more resources to show you a preview and some extra information, and can be useful in some cases.
Compatibility will continue to be a nagging issue until there is a high-level of overall adoption in the desktop market. This is simply business, not software related. If people aren't buying it, then the company isn't going to spend money making it. Very few companies are concerned about Linux on the desktop since it doesn't have a large enough hold on the consumer community. The companies that do support it, do so because it produces market share in some way. Take Nvidia for instance -- they have been very lax in their support for Linux until they saw that it was worth what they would spend to support it. It is not an engineering decision -- just economics.
All these problems virtually melt away when you work with a professional to install the software. If there is a headache, we fix it, not you. So that remove the primary argument that people have with Linux. This especially is true with businesses, schools, and government offices. These people aren't responsible for their own system administration, so you should have the most secure, most fungible, most stable software running on these systems. Since you have 'professional support' this shouldn't be a problem. Though it will cost you a bit more for the professional that can do this, since you aren't paying the same amount of licensing fees, you are actually saving money.
This is also true for consumers, since in the end, you really aren't fixing your computer. You may install a program, or run something that fixes a problem -- though this is not the most productive, accurate, or generally proficient way of doing things in the long run. One is spending thousands on something that you could have spent a couple hundred on to have a pro do it for you. The fact that all people don't have someone that facilitates all their technology purchases is astounding as well. Especially if they can afford to do so.
Ninety-five percent of the installs that I do go are done in 2 to 3 hours depending on the amount of software the person needs. This comes to about $50.00 to $100.00 in cost to the customer. Every once in a while some things have a bug in them for some particular device. Because Linux allows me to see the source code and get verbose information about what is happening with both the software and the hardware, I am able to either fix, or go around these bugs until an official fix can be found. I basically eat that cost, because this is not something that is the customers fault, and I have already bid the job. Though this seems like it would be a problem in some industries, I actually enjoy doing it. It is a journey of discovery, and builds my skills, so this is technically a benefit to me. I also commit what I learn back to the community, as others do, so this also benefits the community. So each problem that is solved actually builds in tangible value to the software.
This allows customers to have a more flexible, dynamic environment then with a standard install of proprietary software. Though I do provide the same services for proprietary software, since I have no reason not to -- the reason for giving people the option of open source software is simply because they should be presented with all options, and not necessarily because of functionality differences.
This brings me to perhaps my favourite reason for doing work on Linux. Because it allows me to support all systems. Even if you don't choose Linux for your system, it is very easy for me to still use it to work on your system/s. This allows me to be more productive, spend less, and do more then I would otherwise be if I had to work solely within the confines of closed-source software.
So I guess in the end, everything is about choice; which is probably one of the most human qualities found in such an artificial space.
Most of the people that use Linux are professionals. This is true to an extent; many are -- or start as -- hobbyists. Though this is less to do with Linux itself and more to do with the fact that these people know what works, or just prefer to do things themselves.
This is not to say that all distros are built with the new user in mind -- this is because they are built by the community -- they just reflect what the community feels is the right approach to a given use-case. If the community has more new users or someone sees and opportunity to gain users (ie. "do it my way!") by making certain changes to an existing distro/s (this happens arguably more frequently than it should.), then you will see a fork that goes in that direction. Many of which have worked our really well. Ubuntu, Mint, and Puppy Linux are great examples of this. They saw and need or had a vision, and went with it -- to everyone's benefit.
At the base level, the Linux kernel allows you, to do what you need to, without writing all the code, just the bit you need. Allowing you to focus on you're data, and not how much money and time you have. It is the operating system and tools that say, " you know what you are doing, now go out there and do it; your way!".
In the last 10 years some distros have seen lots of new users, and we have seen them start to mirror the community that is using them, that supports them. This is also a common attack point during 'holy wars'. The more automated something is the more that older Unix/Linux users despise it. Luckily some talented programmers have seen fit to still provide tools for the incompetent among us.
The primary reason that I use Linux is because I like to be completely in control of my system, and I want to be able to change things at will. This is much easier to do on Linux then it is on proprietary systems. Yes, it is that simple.
The primary reason that I think you should use Linux is to avoid lock in, and because it just works. That is not to say that you cannot manipulate other operating systems to achieve the same goals (ie. Turing paper on computable numbers and the Church-Turing thesis on Computable Functions) That is to say that Windows confines what it tells you, to what it feels you should know, and decides what you should be doing with your machine without taking your feelings into consideration.
Some would say this is a good thing -- I say "here's 5 cents, go buy a real computer...". This is not to say that Windows is a bad operating system, use it for a whole bunch of things -- or just because it is the one available. Much of the Linux structure and software direction is dictated (in the truest sense) by the community. Since they can install what they want after all -- and most of the software components are compatible across distros. Another reason, is the lack of one central group or committee. This enables projects to fork and be remade or altered in a more organic way. This also means that innovation moves faster. This type of environment causes software that is not made well, or less useful to be disposed of quickly, and the better bit seem to rise to the top naturally. Not to say that Linux doesn't have software that doesn't work well; it is that we prefer to say, "... it doesn't work well in certain circumstances..."
Because the community also personally depends on the software, there is less of a chance of contamination. Software sources are vetted, unless you alter the source configuration, you can be as certain as one could be that everything is secure.
The side effects of this reach dynamical into the business sector -- since companies can have the technical ability of larger companies regardless of their physical size or available capital by using free software. So this is where free software makes you money. This is why 95%(ie. alot) of servers run Linux and it largely controls the embedded and specialized use case markets (tooling, robotics, etc.). In these areas, speed of implementation is key.
Most people are not aware of how many things they own that are running Linux. If the consumers were aware of this fact, one would imaging that they would be much more receptive to using it on the desktop, and support for open-source by vendors would increase overnight.
The fact is, FOSS saves you money by allowing you to do computable tasks for the price of the hardware. This means you can just go out and buy components and then use them with out having to write the software yourself, or purchase that software from a company. In the last decade this has gotten far easier than it had been. Even though, since the beginning of Linux, most people would have been able to install it, though configuring it was a different story.
Most of the criticism that Linux receives on the desktop market is related to the look and feel of the operating system, or compatibility with proprietary standards.
As far as the look and feel goes, that is just a policy of the productivity minded; since award winning graphics are not something needed to get work done, and really just take up system resources. Though there are a few graphic implementations that will help in some instances with productivity -- this is rare and mostly a result of doing graphic type work(video editing and graphic creation). Still most of these tools use a simple 'chrome' interface and extend the functionality of the space; putting more in less space, causing overall resource usage to go up. Similarly, some ''tab' switching' interfaces use a bit more resources to show you a preview and some extra information, and can be useful in some cases.
Compatibility will continue to be a nagging issue until there is a high-level of overall adoption in the desktop market. This is simply business, not software related. If people aren't buying it, then the company isn't going to spend money making it. Very few companies are concerned about Linux on the desktop since it doesn't have a large enough hold on the consumer community. The companies that do support it, do so because it produces market share in some way. Take Nvidia for instance -- they have been very lax in their support for Linux until they saw that it was worth what they would spend to support it. It is not an engineering decision -- just economics.
All these problems virtually melt away when you work with a professional to install the software. If there is a headache, we fix it, not you. So that remove the primary argument that people have with Linux. This especially is true with businesses, schools, and government offices. These people aren't responsible for their own system administration, so you should have the most secure, most fungible, most stable software running on these systems. Since you have 'professional support' this shouldn't be a problem. Though it will cost you a bit more for the professional that can do this, since you aren't paying the same amount of licensing fees, you are actually saving money.
This is also true for consumers, since in the end, you really aren't fixing your computer. You may install a program, or run something that fixes a problem -- though this is not the most productive, accurate, or generally proficient way of doing things in the long run. One is spending thousands on something that you could have spent a couple hundred on to have a pro do it for you. The fact that all people don't have someone that facilitates all their technology purchases is astounding as well. Especially if they can afford to do so.
Ninety-five percent of the installs that I do go are done in 2 to 3 hours depending on the amount of software the person needs. This comes to about $50.00 to $100.00 in cost to the customer. Every once in a while some things have a bug in them for some particular device. Because Linux allows me to see the source code and get verbose information about what is happening with both the software and the hardware, I am able to either fix, or go around these bugs until an official fix can be found. I basically eat that cost, because this is not something that is the customers fault, and I have already bid the job. Though this seems like it would be a problem in some industries, I actually enjoy doing it. It is a journey of discovery, and builds my skills, so this is technically a benefit to me. I also commit what I learn back to the community, as others do, so this also benefits the community. So each problem that is solved actually builds in tangible value to the software.
This allows customers to have a more flexible, dynamic environment then with a standard install of proprietary software. Though I do provide the same services for proprietary software, since I have no reason not to -- the reason for giving people the option of open source software is simply because they should be presented with all options, and not necessarily because of functionality differences.
This brings me to perhaps my favourite reason for doing work on Linux. Because it allows me to support all systems. Even if you don't choose Linux for your system, it is very easy for me to still use it to work on your system/s. This allows me to be more productive, spend less, and do more then I would otherwise be if I had to work solely within the confines of closed-source software.
So I guess in the end, everything is about choice; which is probably one of the most human qualities found in such an artificial space.
No comments:
Post a Comment