"Linux and the Undigitized" Ed Stroligo - 3/19/05

"Linux and the Undigitized" Ed Stroligo - 3/19/05
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00747/

Hello Ed,

I would like to congratulate you to take this matter to the front page.

I'm brazilian and i'm one of those who can afford all the modern amenities. At home i have 3 modern working machines, one Windows XP and two Linux. The Windows XP one has a nice graphics card and i do some occasional gaming.

You made some assumptions on the article with which i disagree:

1) "Sounds more than a bit like bait and switch to me. The issue is not "to pay or not to pay." It's "whom and how do I pay.""
The machines will not be installed at corporations, which pay for support for both Linux and Windows. They will be installed at José Sixpack's home. He won't pay for support neither with Linux nor with Windows.

2) "If you don't want to pay for support with cash, you can choose to pay for support with your time. Lots of your time."
That is equally true for both Windows and Linux. Indeed Windows XP gives me more problems than Fedora Core 3, and Windows problems are the kind you just have to live with (or reinstall), while the rare FC3's are solvable.

2) "it's going to be free pirated Windows software vs. free Linux software."
The machines subject of the article will have legal copies installed. A pirated Windows copy could be installed later, but it is not an easy and stress free task for José and his newbie kids.

3) "So the choice isn't between a $400 MS Office vs. a free OpenOffice. It will be between a $1 CD with MS Office on it, vs. OpenOffice."
It is not certain what software will make into the machines. If the government chooses to include an office package in a Windows machine, yes the choice will be between a paid MS Office and OpenOffice although José or his kids could later install a pirated Office if a legal one is not included.

4) "If all the cool games are in Windows, guess what José's kids will put on the system sooner or later?"
Yes, the cool games, with few and notable exceptions, have no port to Linux. But most of them need an expensive graphics card to run good enough. The machines to be subsidised won't have that. So the point is moot.

Regards.

I don't think it will matter to anyone who buys this pc what os or office application will come with the pc, whoever is buying this product will be able to replace the os of office software with pirated copies if they want to, it will matter is if the consumer knows if the software they have is the better option or not, pirated copies are widely available and you get get a windows xp copy for just 5 reais(about $1.50) on the strees. Even if the average user is not able to install windows on a pc, they will learn soon or later, I learned how to format and reinstall windows before I learned how to speak english we I got my pc back in 2000.

Cool article...i liek Jose Sixpack hahaha thats pretty funny. P.S. no offense to anyone about that

Kakao said:

"Linux and the Undigitized" Ed Stroligo - 3/19/05
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00747/

Hello Ed,

I would like to congratulate you to take this matter to the front page.

I'm brazilian and i'm one of those who can afford all the modern amenities. At home i have 3 modern working machines, one Windows XP and two Linux. The Windows XP one has a nice graphics card and i do some occasional gaming.

Click to expand...

One more thing I'd like to point out;

If Jose Seispack has 3 machines, he pays for 3 copies of Windows, or the learning required for 1 Linux install. Seems like he will save money with each Linux install, instead of re-buying each copy of Windows. He won't need to re-learn Linux each time he installs it, but he will need to re-pay Sir William, every time he inststalls Windows.

If Jose has relatives, he will end up being the family computer Geek.

steve

If Jose Seispack has 3 machines, he pays for 3 copies of Windows, or the learning required for 1 Linux install.

Click to expand...

How much does Windows cost to learn?

I've seen enough people be dumbfounded by Windows to not believe Windows costs $0 to learn.

I've had Windows waste enough of my time in the past to not believe that Windows is easier to use than Linux.

skou said:

One more thing I'd like to point out;

If Jose Seispack has 3 machines, he pays for 3 copies of Windows, or the learning required for 1 Linux install. Seems like he will save money with each Linux install, instead of re-buying each copy of Windows. He won't need to re-learn Linux each time he installs it, but he will need to re-pay Sir William, every time he inststalls Windows.

If Jose has relatives, he will end up being the family computer Geek.

steve

Click to expand...

The likelyhood the people getting more then one of these pcs is close to none, if they could afford three of these they wouldn't be buying this pc, keeping in mind that this pc is directed to people with less money to spare. And trust me they wouldn't spend more money on a license of the os. I think that Ms will have to change to adapt to this different market or they will lose some of this market, because Brazils government is not willing to move money from more important things(education, public health) to try and stop piracy.

I use Windows and Linux and I must admit that Linux holds a very special place in my heart, but let's be realistic.

I think Ed is right. Windows is (generally) easier to use, for several reasons, not the least of which is that people often have previous experience with Windows at work or school, or they have relatives/friends with Windows experience, who can show them. Linux experience and knowledge is much more rare.

In addition, the old saying that Linux is free, if your time is worth nothing, is very true. Windows has many flaws, but a steep learning curve isn't one of them.

People with little disposable income for education, training and Internet Access might not be best served with Linux.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope entire countries, and all their citizens see the light of Linux and switch in droves. Microsoft could use some healthy competition (MAJOR loss of market share.) Overall, I think this would be helpful for the industry as a whole. In this particular circumstance, though, I don't think this is likely to happen.

I think what is much more likely is smaller, more specific and controllable groups will switch. The city of Munich ditched Windows for Linux, a while back. This was the government, though, not the entire population.

XWRed1 said:

How much does Windows cost to learn?

I've seen enough people be dumbfounded by Windows to not believe Windows costs $0 to learn.

I've had Windows waste enough of my time in the past to not believe that Windows is easier to use than Linux.

Click to expand...

This is true, but the learning curve, IN THE BEGINNING, for windows, is pretty shallow. With Linux, just to get the machine powered up, it is pretty steep.

I know, I can install 2000 on one of my rigs, after imbibing too many beers, with no problems. Try that with Linux.

steve

I find this article to be quite informative, yet rather far off. First off, as stated in the first post, these are going to a country that is just getting into the general stages of widespread computers in each home. Not like America where everybody, their brother, mother, dog, and houseplant have some sort of affiliation with a computer or computer product. Will they be worrying about getting the latest and greatest 256MB video card with DX9.1 support? No. They are going to get a cheap 32MB video card, that just runs. It will be great. And the kids will love it, and all the 40 billion games that come installed with Linux. Far better then Windows so far.

And, for pirated software, its all a matter of time before they get exposed to it or not. They choice is theirs from then on. What operating system is put on before hand will not affect that at all. I will admit, when I was a computer noob, a friend of mine who knew more showed me how to get 'all these great games for free.' Now, being like 13 at the time, without a job, I was estatic, and found myself wading through site after site for the latest and greatest game which I could download. Did I know any better? No. Knowing now what goes on to make games, how much time and dedication is put into the work, and the affects of pirating, do I take every single given opportunity to support the developers work? Yes.

And, skou, that is a given sterotype about installing Linux. It is not a global thing. The install for Fedora Core 3, Mandrake (and I am sure several others) are more easy then the Windows install is, and take less time (Note: for a typical install, not for an everything install). If the person were to be given a copy of a stage 1 (or even a stage 3 from my experience) install of Gentoo, then I could understand. But, that is not likely at all.

Midnight Dream said:

And, skou, that is a given sterotype about installing Linux. It is not a global thing. The install for Fedora Core 3, Mandrake (and I am sure several others) are more easy then the Windows install is, and take less time (Note: for a typical install, not for an everything install). If the person were to be given a copy of a stage 1 (or even a stage 3 from my experience) install of Gentoo, then I could understand. But, that is not likely at all.

Click to expand...

I haven't tried all of the Linux distros. (Or, all of the Windows versions, either!) But, from my personal experience, it is NOT all that difficult to get a Windows box, up and running, with access to the Internet. Linux, however, takes some serious work.

Like I alluded to, installing windows (at least 2000, and 98SE)(I'm not a fan of XP!), is as easy as crawling home, from the corner pub, after having too many. Might take a few minutes longer, though. Until most distros of Linux are that easy, there will be a steep learning curve.

steve

Like I alluded to, installing windows (at least 2000, and 98SE)(I'm not a fan of XP!), is as easy as crawling home, from the corner pub, after having too many. Might take a few minutes longer, though. Until most distros of Linux are that easy, there will be a steep learning curve.

Click to expand...

What? I find Linux easier to install than Windows.

I guess there's no learning curve!

Or do you mean to say, until they behave exactly like Windows? That seems to be the flaws in most people's comparisons. Doesn't act just like Windows, hence it is difficult.

Just this weekend I had to reinstall Linux on my box at a lan party, and I was glad it was easier than Windows. It's trivial to back up my system configuration, my /home was on a different partition, and all my games are standalone and don't care about some silly registry thing. I backed up /etc on someone else's machine, spent maybe 20 minutes reinstalling, another 10 updating everything and installing a few things I needed, copied a handful of things back from the old etc, and I was ready to go play some Frozen Throne DOTA and CS: Source.

My desktop looked exactly the same as before, no apps on my system knew the difference. That seems alot easier than the disruption of a Windows format + reinstall.

Linux is different. For many people different = more difficult.

But you take someone who hasnt touched a computer ever in their puff and give them a Linux machine and teach them how to start it up, log in, browse the net and type up documents and will probably be as easy as giving them a PC with Windows and teaching them to do the same.

Linux is more flexible, and you have more control at a lower level as to how things work, what starts on startup, what you have installed, how optimised your code is, what desktop environment you use etc etc. I suppose this could make it a little more confusing.

At the end of the day installing something like Yoper or SuSe etc is about as easy as it gets. The only way it gets easier is to remove more flexibility which is one of Linux's greatest strengths.

I don't thing Brazilians would really care for steep learning curve, as long as there is a manual that teaches them how to get online, and do the things that you want to do like opening an application and installing an application. What will matter the most is price, if you can just download linux for free and install it, Brazilians will pick the over Windows since they have nothing to loose with Linux when with Windows they would have to spend some money to get it. From what is happening in China we can see what is going to happen in other parts of the world, if Ms doesn't lower the price of i'ts os most people will resort to buying pirated copies, and there is no protection windows can put in it that will stop piracy once and dor all.

I think this is the one of the main problems though:
Linux is more flexible, and you have more control at a lower level as to how things work, what starts on startup, what you have installed, how optimised your code is, what desktop environment you use etc etc. I suppose this could make it a little more confusing
I've tried a lot of different linux versions but have yet to get the functionality out of any one that I get with windows.
As for install time I put a new hard drive in my laptop saturday and ran the install disks and took all of twelve minutes to get up and running woth XP pro. The other thing is that most people don't do they're own installs.
Video cards? It took me two hours to explain to one of my brothers why I needed seperate memory on the video card, he helps a lot of other people with they're computer problems. What some of us consider needed to run some video games and what is actualy required unless you running Doom III or something can very easily be done with 32meg onboard video.
Might be missing the point on the office suite, just because you run windows does not mean you have to run MS-Office. I run win xp with Open Office, works great!
I would realy like to be able to use linux, but the support as far as games goes just does'nt cut it, period... The ability to buy another program to be able to run my games puts me right back to "paying" so I just pay up front.
Gret article though IMO!

As many have already pointed, many Linux distributions are easier to install than Windows.

But the point is not important to the brazilian "digital inclusion" program. Whatever OS is choosen will be already installed in the machine.

The user presented to a Gnome or KDE desktop will have the same learning curve as with the Windows desktop. Gnome 2.8 (I'm not acquainted with KDE) is amazing and is in the same league as Windows. First timers can't tell the difference from the 3 desktops.

All the linux flexibility is still there but the user does not need to know it is there. He can use the system for his whole life without ever knowing about the existence of a shell or a command line. He don't even need to install anything since all the good quality applications are already installed. No need to buy and install those US$1 CDs (Actually here in Brazil they cost about US$ 3.5). No need to call the next door guru to get rid of spyware. I can't see a simpler life with Windows.

I have seen Josés confused when upgrading from NT to 2000 and to XP. So all the migration difficulty resumes to the Office package and if the user has never used an Office package or uses only its very basic functions MS Office and OpenOffice are the same thing.

One general thing I have always considered, but never brought up to fact, is that (most) of all of us started off on Windows. We had to learn the system, we grew proficient with it, learning everything there is to know, becoming gurus for the most part. That is what allows things like (as Skou mentioned) the ability to install it after having a few too many.

Now, take in retrospect, what would of happened if we all started on Linux? We would have to learn the system, we would grow proficient with it, learn everything there is to know, and essentially become gurus.

What would be the statement then, if somebody was to say make a choice between Linux and Windows? I would rather imagine it would be something like "Windows has a steep learning curve. Linux is much easier to install, and can do almost all the things that Windows can do."

One general thing I have always considered, but never brought up to fact, is that (most) of all of us started off on Windows. We had to learn the system, we grew proficient with it, learning everything there is to know, becoming gurus for the most part. That is what allows things like (as Skou mentioned) the ability to install it after having a few too many.

Now, take in retrospect, what would of happened if we all started on Linux? We would have to learn the system, we would grow proficient with it, learn everything there is to know, and essentially become gurus.

What would be the statement then, if somebody was to say make a choice between Linux and Windows? I would rather imagine it would be something like "Windows has a steep learning curve. Linux is much easier to install, and can do almost all the things that Windows can do."

Click to expand...

Quoted for Truth.

I've run them both. As have many others here. Either way, you are going to spend money and time to learn about them, and to use them. I know there are many people on here that knee-jerk every time they hear someone support windows and go off on a rant about how bad it sucks.... but i believe they are in the wrong. I do believe they have had bad experiences with it, which would attribute to thier hatred of Windows and all things Microsoft. I'm sure we all have had bad experiences with it. However, we have all had good ones as well. We cannot deny one fact: Brother Gates made one hell of an Operating System (aside from accusations of he stole this or that), and if it wasn't as good as it is, it would NEVER have taken hold like it did. Apple could have been just as dominant today and made microsoft the whipping boy, but they screwed up in the early 90's. However, Bro Gates stays one step ahead, and with his immense installed user base, has a huge advantage.

Windows: EASE OF USE. Sure, its not as stable as linux. However, YOU write bajillions of lines of code and tell me you aren't going to make a mistake. But it is EASY to use. You don't HAVE to know basic command prompt to make it do what you want done. You don't HAVE to know program switches. Mr. Joe Sixpack can do something known as 'double click' on an exe and his software is installed. His drivers are installed. Everything is configured for him. IT IS EASY. Screw all worries about viruses and security. Once you learn some really basic methods of avoiding the most common problems, you don't need spy/adware tools, you don't need to worry about an antiviral. It just takes a handful of steps to protect yourself from common pitfalls of windows. YOU DON'T HAVE TO THINK TO USE

Linux: Stable. I have yet to crash it other than FC3 refusing to init 3 and having a kernel panic every time i tried. Much steeper learning curve. Most of that steepness is having to learn upwards of tens of dozens of commands and switches you have to type in and knowing how they work. No simple point and click, even on the noob-friendly distros. It is very flexible, if you have the time to spend to tinker with it. Yes, you can run SOME, not all but SOME windows programs on it with emulators, but they don't work as well, and are prone to crashing Linux the same way they crash Windows. However, until Linux can do for the average user what Microsoft has done with Windows, there will not be an overwhelming demand for it. Until it becomes as brainless to operate as does Microsoft Windows, it will not take control.YOU HAVE TO THINK TO USE

Remember, Joe Sixpack wants EASY, and wants it NOW. Joe Sixpack doesn't care about 'mount\dev\hd0' this or that. He just wants his computer to work, and doesn't want to learn all these little commands. He wants it easy, and nothing is easier than the Windows Interface.

However, after you take as long as it takes to learn how to really make Linux hum, I do believe Linux is the better choice, but until it becomes as EASY to learn as Windows, I do believe the average Joe Sixpack-wants it easy and wants it now- will prefer a windows interface.

However, after you take as long as it takes to learn how to really make Linux hum, I do believe Linux is the better choice, but until it becomes as EASY to learn as Windows

Click to expand...

But he doesn't have to learn it. If the gov't gives him a pre-setup computer, it's just as easy/hard as Windows.

Windows is just as confusing as Linux when it breaks, either one can be set up to be easy within boundaries.

Look, I double click on my Linux desktop and it launches CS:S. Thats easy.

You don't have to know what mount does or what /dev/hda is (/dev/hd0 doesn't exist).

Do you know what Windows uses for it's internal device names? It's alot messier. But if you mess with the system on that level, you'll bump into that notation also.

I think Linux is great for those little boxes AMD put together.

My problems with linux are:
support for hardware is lacking.
installing software. I dont want to worry about dependancys. I just want to download the program and install it. not worry about libblah.c.