For the Linux User's!!

[MossRoad]

Re: For the Linux User\'s!!

<font color="blue"> Since all this software is free, how do these companies support themselves? </font>

Linux is free if you don't value your time! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[Holzster]

Re: For the Linux User\'s!!

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( OK, I have a few questions............

Since all this software is free, how do these companies support themselves? Where do they get their earnings to stay in business and support their product?

Most of these comapnies support them selves by selling there product also - Almost all of them if you buy it you get support with it also. Like the Suse if you Buy it for $60.00 you get a Hard copy of the manual, install CD's, & 90 days of support. You can get the exact same software if you download it from them but you do not get the hard copy of the book (you can download load it though). & no support & you have to make your own install CD's

Speaking of, how do they support their product? If you have a question, can you go to them for answers (in English, not geek-speak) or do you have to go to a support forum or something?

Same as above - although you can get help if you buy it I get most of my help online if I "google" a problem & ususally get the answer real quick.

And, will they still be in business in 2, or 5 years?

Other than cost, are there other reasons why you choose this over Bill's Best? Does it do things easier or better, and if so how/why?

As most people that use Linux will tell you the big reason for not using Micro$oft is the cost (free), a LOT more secure, almost no viruses, no spyware (well almost none), FASTER, you can load it on an old machine that Windows XP will laugh at if you try.

I'm not putting them down, I'm just trying to learn.......

I am glad you are asking these because I bet there are other that want to but do not!!.

You can look for different Distrabutions (a Distrabution is like differant flavers of Linux) But if you see a "LIVE CD" this is a CD you can put in your CD Rom drive & boot up fromit & it will load Linux without doing anyting to your Windows setup so you can check it out. Good for looking test running one.
)</font> <font color="blue"> </font> <font color="blue"> </font> <font color="blue"> </font> <font color="blue"> </font> <font color="blue"> </font> <font color="blue"> </font>

 

[BamaRob]

Re: For the Linux User\'s!!

Excellent questions, Jagmandave. I'll provide answers from my perspective:

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Since all this software is free, how do these companies support themselves? Where do they get their earnings to stay in business and support their product?)</font>

The answer to this is going to vary. But, I think, for the most part, contributors to Open Source software make their living selling services rather than products. Their services may be a support contract, or software development, or security enhancements, etc. Many of the kernel developers and developers on GNU software work for large corporations (HP, IBM, Novell) that are committed to OSS solutions. The large corporations offer services around open source solutions. They develop solutions for customers, and in many cases (but not all) the results of their development is contributed back to the open source community. A very large number of OSS developers are volunteers that get no monetary benefit whatsoever from developing free software. They do it because they enjoy it, or for the respect of their peers, or who knows (I'm just glad they do).

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( And, will they still be in business in 2, or 5 years?)</font>

I think the real question here is whether or not Bill will still be in business in 2, or 5 years. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I think he will, of course, but his company will be very different than it is today. The growing robustness, security, popularity, etc. of Linux/BSD/other free unix OS's is commoditizing the OS market. When you can get a better (my opinion, of course) product for zero cost, why pay Bill for his? I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft out of the operating systems market entirely in 10 years. They'll still be around, but they'll be a software/services/content delivery company.

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Other than cost, are there other reasons why you choose this over Bill's Best? Does it do things easier or better, and if so how/why?)</font>

Freedom. Choice. Security. Privacy. Opportunity to contribute to and participate in true innovation. Controlling my work environment rather than letting it dictate how I do things.

Suggested reading:

The Debian Social Contract
Eric Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar
The GNU Operating System

 

[Holzster]

Re: For the Linux User\'s!!

Rob

You said it a lot better than me!!

 

[MossRoad]

Re: For the Linux User\'s!!

<font color="blue"> more secure </font>

There was just an article on ZD.NET regarding linux and security....

In a nutshell, it says:

Windows Server had fewer critical vulnerabilities in 3 years than Red Hat Linux ES 4 in 10 months.

Here's a link to the full article.

I played around with Linux for a year or so on my desktop a couple years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then the average home user would look at it and start crying in about 45 seconds. Face it, users want something that works right out of the box and don't want to have to configure anything. The demise of the command line interface and the rise of the GUI has led to the dumming down of computer users. The only thing good about the GUI is they had to build big honkin' computers to run it and it made the command line even faster. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I admire anyone that wants to learn this OS, but don't think it is a good choice at all for common home users or small businesses without software support contracts and no IT staff.

 

[BamaRob]

Re: For the Linux User\'s!!

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I hear this a lot, also. Usually from someone that's never tried Linux or has a single bad experience and never tried it again.

Part of this misconception comes from the fact that when you buy a computer, it has an operating system installed (usually some flavor of Windows, unless you buy a Mac). You don't have to spend any time installing/configuring the OS. Getting Linux installed used to be quite a feat. It's nothing now. Much simpler to install than Windows XP if you're starting with a freshly formatted harddrive.

If you bought a PC with a pre-installed Linux OS on it at the same time as you bought that Windows box and connected them both to the internet and used them both equal amounts. That'd Linux box would still be purring along years down the road. How many times did you have to reinstall Windows because some virus completely made crap of it? Or, how much did you have to spend on the Windows box to get the antivirus software and keep the virus signatures up to date? Or, how many times did Bill tell you that they're no longer going to support that version of Windows and you must pay out the nose to upgrade to the new version? Oh, and by the way, the new version of Windows won't run on that antiquated hardware you bought 6 months ago.

I value my time so much that I refuse to use Windows when I don't have to.

BR

 

[BamaRob]

Re: For the Linux User\'s!!

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Windows Server had fewer critical vulnerabilities in 3 years than Red Hat Linux ES 4 in 10 months. )</font>

Stop spreading FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt). You can make these "unbiased" studies appear to say whatever the highest bidder (M$) wants them to say. Define "critical vulnerabilities" as defined in the study. Who determines whether or not it's critical? Microsoft? Or, me whose data or private information is vulnerable? Since Windows is proprietary, closed source, we only know about those vulnerabilities they choose to tell us about. All the others that they don't deem "critical" are there, they just don't tell us about them and hope that they get them patched before some bad guy discovers them. Since Linux (and other Open Source operating systems) are open for everyone to see the code, vulnerabilities, when discovered, are quickly fixed. Code is going to have bugs. I'd much rather know that there are 10's of 1000's of eyes looking for bugs/vulnerabilities in my chosen OS than a few 100 programmers at a software company who, really, don't have it in their (financial) best interest to be telling the world about all the bugs/vulnerabilities in their product.

BR

 

[Holzster]

Re: For the Linux User\'s!!

All though I use Linux at home I am a Windows Tech all day long so I see both sides. If you research the Author he is a Windows guys (networking) & that does not know Linux very good (to his admision)

One more thing he forgot to say that ALL the security Flaws in RedHat were resolved. I say that because MS still has to fix 9 Serious Security Flaws that they know about BEFORE it was released 3 YEARS AGO!!

MS will have the market share for a while but with the ease of the distrebutions out there, the home user's will start to switch.

If a User just goes online, does e-mail, plays a few simple games, & does there finance they will start up right away on a new linux box & really not know the differance.

And as Rob says installing it is easiere then XP - I installed mine without having to reboot during the install - it found ALL my hardware - TV Card - MP3 Player, USB Hard Drive - MS could not do that.

I hate to preach here so I will stop.

 

[MikePA]

Re: For the Linux User\'s!!

I have installed all the major Linux flavors; Red Hat, SUSE, Lindows (it's since been renamed to Linspire), and Xandros. I've run Win4Lin as well. They all installed fine, recognized my hardware, including my DVD drive. In fact, I still have VMWare images of all of them, but went back to Windows. Why? Being as good as Windows isn't reason enough for me to switch. In almost all desktop cases, we're not talking about clean installs of Linux, we're talking about Linux displacing Windows.

None of them will displace Windows on the desktop in my lifetime, particularly in the business world. Why? Two reasons; Applications and Cost. I've been involved in more studies than I can count and it always comes down to these 2 reasons. Businesses do not look at the Linux versus Windows debate with the same religious fervor as individual users. It's a money question. The time I am willing to spend converting at home does not translate at all to the business world where time is money.

1. Applications
We could not find Linux versions of all the software we run on our desktops. This results in not being able to convert all desktops.

2. Cost
Linux, in the business world, is NOT free. Never has been, never will be.
It costs money to switch to a new OS, no matter what it is. Then it costs money to support it. The cost to convert is a one time expense and if the on going costs for Linux on the desktop are low enough, you can get a decent ROI. However, see Reason 1. We, and most other companies, can not completely convert resulting in having to maintain 2 infrastructures; one to support Windows on the desktop and one to support Linux. Bad business decision.

Until the desktop Linux vendors provide a solution to address these 2 issues, the Windows OS will predominate on the desktop.

 

[riptides]

Re: For the Linux User\'s!!

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="green"> more secure </font> )</font>

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="blue">There was just an article on ZD.NET regarding linux and security....

In a nutshell, it says:

Windows Server had fewer critical vulnerabilities in 3 years than Red Hat Linux ES 4 in 10 months.</font> )</font>

Yes. One thing that is sorely lacking in any secure computing environment study is the due diligence of the IT and Security staffs. Face it, any computer can be made secure or unsecure by a variety of factors.

It takes a conscientiousness effort by people to keep it all together. That effort is hard to measure.

-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif