Call to Action: The Linux Internet Desktop

If you think things have the chance to break open soon, good. Between now and then, among your friends you'll find those more likely to "go off" and froth at the mouth, etc. - so send those people to me, I can use their help. :)

"Unfortunately once people have a pre-installed MS computer, what's the incentive to switch?"

Peace of mind (versus being invaded), and most useful software is free. Forever, including system upgrades.

The bundling of an OS with a PC is a long-standing unethical-if-not-illegal tactic that our government hasn't made Microsoft stop. We have to FORCE the overt payment of dollars above and beyond the cost of the hardware ITSELF so that people can see what their money does. So if Dell said "we'll sell you our model X with Vista installed for $N", I would say "and how much do I save if I don't want Vista?" If the answer is ZERO, then this is DUMPING ON THE MARKET and is AGAINST THE LAW and SHOULD BE STOPPED. Such criminal tactics may make business sense, but they are ciminal tactics and should not be rewarded. I want an honest answer from Dell et. al.: our HARDWARE will cost you $N, and if you want Vista that will be an additional $159 - or if you want Linux it will be an additional $8. Then people could see the truth behind what they're buying.

I also think we agree on a lot of things, one of which is that the PC market is a long way from being competitive and buyer-friendly!

I also agree with your comment on the role of advocacy in all of this; if you have a bully pulpit like this then you have a societal obligation to try to use it for the public good.  But I spent quite a few years in the civic action world and I've come to understand that moving the public with rhetoric or reality isn't an easy task.  Once in a while, the world offers a window of time when the stars align to permit massive change.  I believe we're entering one of those windows now, created by the revolution of the Internet.  The trick will be to take advantage of this in some tangible way and change the dynamic forever.  I hope we can all combine to make that happen!

We're not disagreeing about much. I object to referring to "market as a whole believes (anything)" because it implies that the state of affairs is necessary and justified. There are many reasons to impeach Dick Cheney, but people in key positions to make that happen aren't cooperating - for their own reasons and in spite of its being a necessary public service. In the same way, Microsoft rests on the belief engendered in the public that Mircosoft EQUALS computing - and I have written a few polemics underscoring that this is the same phenomenon. The computing world is dominated by a player who has reduced the internet to half-garbage and whose product is inferior and pedestrian. And I see no "key players" sounding an alarm to that effect. Well, I am making that call, and it remains to see how many brave people will pitch in. In summary, "we" have to convince the "market" that the market has been swindled, and to figure out the new paradigm that's been lying before it now for years. The people who will fight that tooth and nail are those who profit from the current state of affairs, so we should identify them and boycott them.

Intel abuses itself to be pro-Microsoft. For example, they use IIS to serve web out, with the result that they'll force you to use MSIE to access certain functions on their site. I've complained bitterly to them about world standards - but they don't give a damn, not one damn. So, I leave them alone as much as I can. Similarly, Adobe et. al. could have led the way to open-source if attacking Microsoft was useful to them, and are we hearing an intelligent explanation as to why Adobe won't support Linux? I repeat the earlier suggestion, which is to boycott them until they support your desired platform, and let them know that's what you're doing. They've already pissed people off enough to have them write an open-source replacement for Photoshop (the Gimp), so if they want to keep their heads in the sand until all their products have had open-source equivalents written, let them - I would make that plain to them: either you address this large emerging market, or you'll be locked out of it (and if we have to go so far as to rewrite Adobe's products so we can use them since Adobe won't, then good ridddance to Adobe anyway.)

If "the market doesn't know that it should dump Microsoft ASAP", then it's up to "us" to tell the market so. Since nobody "drives" the market on their own, I have no reason to acquiesce to "market decisions" - the market isn't "thinking", it's just "behaving" and on automatic pilot. Like cows at a feedlot. The only people whose argument that the "market must be obeyed" makes sense (for them) are the ones making money by exploiting the status quo and the market's ignorance. "We" have a PR exercise to accomplish - and I've been arguing that those who know better Must Advocate for our position - "the market" be damned. If we leave anything to "the market", we're leaving it in the hands of the dominant market players - the same ones relying on 15 years' worth of propaganda, disinformation, misinformation and lack of information, to bring us to this point. Not attacking "the market"'s attitudes means Microsoft wins - as they have for about ten years too long now. I may not be able to sell into a Microsoft-friendly market - but that's okay, I don't want to make money selling software to run on garbage platforms anyway. I can afford to stand aside the market and shout at it. If enough of us do that, we will be able to influence "the market"'s attitudes. We have to start somewhere. So, I'm adding my name to the growing list of people calling for Microsoft to GO AWAY. All I can ask is that you and others help.

You may be too polite to "call for Microsoft's destruction", but you've said as much, so I think we're in agreement as to what's next, if not how to do it. 

People have been forecasting the "death of the desktop" for years.  The premise of an internet appliance hasn't caught on and probably won't.  Every security lapse, blackberry outage, DOS attack drive home that you might have to do things on your "box" without a net attachment.

I use Ubuntu on my home network, works on my laptops.  The only MS program I have to have is "Money" as I have many years of historical financial data on it and am a little bit lazy about migration.

I got into computers when there were organizations like "Homebrew" and the Boston Computer Society who had users groups that mentored people.  Then Bill Gates and Steve Jobs sold us packages and like sheep we bought into it.

Microsoft survived ME it will survive Vista.  We will all continue to stir the Open Source vs Microsoft pot.

If you want Linux to thrive become an evangelist.  Start a LUG, do install days, bring the social back to social engineering.  Unfortunately once people have a pre-installed MS computer, what's the incentive to switch?

Dave 

I understand your goals and views, but I don't think the industry as a whole can be said to have a mandate to replace Microsoft any more than we can say that the market as a whole can "think".  The behavior of a mass market is the sum of the behaviors of its members.  If the market, as a whole, believed that Microsoft should be replaced they'd set up a counter-movement (or support one with their buying).  I would submit that most people don't feel strongly about the issue one way or the other to do something about it.

My suggestion in the article I posed was to use the public's love of the Internet to create a force for change, admitting that whatever the forces that already exist today, they have demonstrably not been enough to change the market.  The truth is that neither my arguments nor yours will move the average buyer of a PC one way or the other.

Adobe recently announced its AIR platform.  It's available for OS-X and Windows but not for Linux, according to the current information on Adobe's site.  It's hard for me to believe that Adobe would forego Linux versions of their products if they believed they could, in the net, make money on them.  Commercial vendors aren't readly to jump on Linux yet, which means that either open source would have to provide competitive versions of all commercial applications, users would have to try to run non-Linux applications on Linux (some work, most don't work well--I have tried), or Linux has to become attractive.  My suggestion is the latter; jump on the Internet as the solution because it has a chance of turning the tide.

I don't agree that the mass-market "thinks" anything in particular, and if the mass-market thinks Microsoft is the first and last definition as to what computers look like, that is a serious problem to be overcome - not catered to. I have seen window managers that emulate OS/X, so I don't see the interface as an insuperable problem. As I said, if the average teenager could figure Linux out in a few minutes, there is nothing particularly special about Microsoft-anything.

I wonder what issues of support there can be. How to use the system? How do people now figure out how to do what they need to do? By asking those around them. If the person you turn to for the answer to a question is a Linux user, they can help as easily as would be the case for Windows. A more serious problem? Then you call "Microsoft Technical Support", and pay money to get help. That also is easily replicated, and I can even say I am in that business. There may not be any centralized "one place to call", but that's genuine grass-roots capitalism, besides which there will be an endless stream of high-end consulting companies to assist Fortune 2000 companies to migrate, once the business is there. What is your list of "missing" software for Linux? That list becomes a call to develop such software for use on Linux, for profit or not. It is exactly people like you and me who sit down and say "what did I want to use that is missing on my preferred platform?" who go on to write things like Joomla and Wordpress and OpenOffice and turn them out for others to use.

I am describing a partial rebirth of personal computing - a revisit to that phase where PCs had become fairly standard and now the action was in the application sphere, and people were saying "look at all the things you can do with them." As much as I prize the free nature of most open-source software, it's fine with me for companies to sell products they support, and if we break the Microsoft monopoly, there will be room to do so. If you threw down the challenge that OpenOffice is too slow, on the one hand I'd imagine the developers would take it to heart and try to fix it, and within a cycle or two we might see big improvements - or if LittleCorpCo writes a commercial variation on an open-source theme under the right license, they can be first to market with a "fast version" and charge for it. Amazing what the spirit to innovate to meet demands will do when as competition you will not be stomped out by MegaFatCo nor ignored by the public thanks to MegaFatCo (and its fifteen-year propaganda campaign to the effect that computing == MegaFatCo.)

For years, Adobe had the opportunity to help open-source along to bother its rival Microsoft. They had/have a version of Photoshop available for Solaris, so there was no reason not to make a version for Linux, but they didn't. These are their errors, and we have to get them to correct them. Now that they own Macromedia especially, I would tell them: I will buy your version of whatever - Acrobat, Flash Development. Photoshop et. al. written to run on Linux - but not Windows - so when you want to get back in the game, let me know. That goes for every other commonly used program. If the great unwashed masses will not make these calls, it is up to us "who know better" to get that ball rolling.

Many Windows applications can run under Linux in any case.

We have, in my opinion, crossed the line past which Microsoft's issues are no longer tolerable: the Internet is under threat thanks to Microsoft's endless vulnerabilities. It is therefore urgent to disassociate "computing" and "Windows OS" in the public's mind, however 'convenient' the Windows world seems to be. I really like your chocolate brownies, Mrs. Gates, but it's the lead, mercury and arsenic in them I can't really tolerate any longer (being ingredients Mrs. Gates never intends to replace.) It is not acceptable to be forced to use insecure garbage merely to get access to "a computing platform". Schools can as easily teach Linux to children as Windows and more cheaply - and if we press to create the Linux User Base, business will follow. Instead of saying "the Linux development community has to find a way to produce commercial-grade software without a profit motive", I would say: let freeware reach all who are satisifed with its use, and there will emerge a service layer to support your "power users" - and they will charge money - and all will be restored as it is today, except there won't be one behemoth company calling bad shots for everyone.

It won't be quick or easy to displace Microsoft, but it is necessary.

I'm afraid I can't agree with all of your points.  I like Ubuntu Linux myself; I have it installed on a server and a laptop and I do Java development on it.  But I'm a former software engineer.  Personal computers have gone mass market and with that they've moved to a place where all that matters is what the mass market thinks.  Linux isn't objectively as easy to use as either OS-X or Windows, and it is also harder to find applications for it.

The big problem Linux has, and has always had, is support.  Retailers don't want to stock it because they don't want to support the average PC buyer who tries to use it.  I'm not a big fan of Windows, but it's still my primary OS because my clients use it and because the applications I typically run are supported on it.  I can't get Adobe products on Ubuntu and for all the value of the Open Office suite it's still hard to switch to it from Office for power users, and almost all implementations are slow.

A lot of the issues you raise are solved in commercial software by the profit motive.  If open source and Linux want to step out of the professional data center and onto the desktop they'll have to figure out how to provide what users want without that motive. 

Check out Ubuntu Linux. I would recommend this version (flavor) to any "ordinary user" who wanted out of the Microsoft rat-race.

I don't agree that there should be any "one standardized desktop", and Linux is not the only freeware system available - there is also FreeBSD (and OpenBSD and NetBSD), and a free version of Solaris. One nice aspect of (X-)Windows on Unix is the ability to choose the window manager, and there are perhaps a good half-dozen variations on these, with different looks/feels/behaviors, each with its long list of stalwart adherents. But I do agree that ''Linux'' (read Unix) should displace Windows, that operating system with a great future behind it (to rip off a line from Max Headroom.) When people learn about computers in this new world, they will learn that they have choices - and can be given a standard window manager to start with (KDE, Gnome) - but ones who delve deeper will wish to explore the variations.

I've written elsewhere on this site (misplacedly in the 700MHz thread) that we need to GET RID OF MICROSOFT SOFTWARE because it is too insecure for this world. We are daily drowned in SPAM, thanks to Microsoft's never-ending inability to secure their systems from being invaded (HACKER OWNS YOUR BOX) and turned into spam/crime engines for pirates and other scumbags: BOT NETS. We need to END the monopolistic dominance of Microsoft so the whole consuming public can be "turned on" again to computing - when computers are your friend, rather than a sick weakling needing daily injections of antivirusware in between crashes and reboots. Where there are multiple methodologies for doing things and you get to choose the one that suits you; and where standards are respected, as opposed to companies like Microsoft adding proprietary extensions which they then make their defaults; witness Microsoft trying to sabotage Netscape and Mozilla by "pretending" that Mozilla didn't understand, when in fact Microsoft threw it a Microsoft thing, instead of a W3C-compliant thing.

People aren't hearing about Linux because (a) there's no megabucks to advertise it - a downside of its being largely free; and (b) people are resistant to change, especially "in production". Mr. User might like to get rid of Windows, but all his friends use it, so he's concerned for interoperability; and he doesn't want to risk downtime and data loss just to experiment with another system, so he'll be reluctant to proffer his work workstation for the experiment. You have to convince people to switch, and then they should become new advocates. With so many users reluctant to "just stop" using a system they can use, no wonder takeup is slow. My strategy is to load Ubuntu on a hand-me-down machine and make the machine a loaner with some hands-on for the user to start with - show them how to log in and how to find things, show them how it is intuitive and easy "just like Microsoft", and let them play with it. Show them all the software they can get for FREE! (!!!)

You have to offer them the sweet and show them how to leave the sour behind. That's one reason I like Ubuntu - quickly I got the system set up to watch videos and copy DVDs (no purchase required); I can do anything with it I would do on Windows, except play videogames written for Windows (so far.) I think it is a seriously easy system to learn, all the software to do all what I wish has been FREE so far, and the best part is: I DO NOT HAVE TO WORRY AT ALL ABOUT VIRUSES OR SPYWARE.

So if you line up the expenses, advantages and disadvantages in columns, you should be able to convince people that switching to Linux is a winning move: OS cost: microsoft, $100, Linux $8; software you must also purchase or else your OS will get croaked: Microsoft, $80 (virus+spyware), Linux $0 (no software needed); Photoshop for Windows: Microsoft, $200 (?), Linux $0 (The GIMP is free); ''office'' programs, Microsoft, $159 (?), Linux, $0 (OpenOffice is interoperable with MS Office and is free); and on and on, until you end up with: Microsoft, $700 and may get hacked in 2 hours anyway; Linux, $8 and won't get hacked any day. Linux is so efficient that you can use a PC two generations old and still get excellent performance, so you don't have to ditch your 2.4 GHz machine for a 3.6 GHz just to run a new version of the OS - save a procurement cycle (and $1500.)

The way to get Linux out there, I suspect unfortunately, is for 'professionals' to push locally for people to switch, and then show the success stories to everyone else. There will be a hysteresis curve where, at some point, a critical mass will be reached and the users will themselves line up to get switched. Our job is to convert enough people to push the curve along to that point. Therefore, make an effort to publicize the conversions you do. Assuming they're successful, of course. :( Ask your converts to spread the word. I would also suggest holding an "Installathon" in a public place (or at a block party): advertise that you will install an OS on the machine of anyone who brings one, and show them how to use it. {Some motherboards aren't compatible, so make no promises.} I came to these as a FreeBSD installer, but you can choose: either you give them what you want to, or you give them what they want. If they express a preference, then let them have that, and explain any problems you know if their choice is poor - but let them have whatever unless it's really stupid - like a version I ran across that didn't provide a ping program. Otherwise, you get to choose. My landlord turned me on to Ubuntu, which as I understand it was written with ease in mind, and it is trivial to upgrade the system. Very pleasant to use. {Microsoft never did provide for multiple windows as Unix has. On FreeBSD I prefer Afterstep with a 4x4 matrix of screens. How nice to choose your own style and layout.} If you want to see the world change, go out and help make it happen. I'd like to get our City Hall (saving important scarce $ mind you) and Libraries cut over.

Our company is looking at doing Unix Conversions for businesses - we advertise we can replace the back-end, the front-end or both, and make all the same points: software almost all free; software works great; machines don't crash for nothing; machines don't waste CPU extravagantly like MS does; when a program craps out badly, it was that program that died and you won't have to reboot the whole system to "cure" it; you don't have to reboot your server when you patch services, you just restart the service in question; and your computer is secure, without needing to buy and apply anti-malware-ware. So the next talking heads talking about $billions of damage from the ever-next virus aren't talking about YOU, aren't you lucky you switched to a real operating system that works better for almost free, and can upgrade yourself 'forever' for free?

I would call the new standard and era, the "open-source" phenomenon. The future will be various versions of Unix, however dressed up for the user, and having put Microsoft out of its misery, we won't have to keep sharing its misery.

DUMP MICROSOFT NOW

You will want Linux to be viable for the desktop soon.

Microsoft has lost it's edge and leader. It has not yet become an entity sucessful without it's originator. As much as I dislike Gates, he is the driving force of MS. They have to overcome the generational barrier and grow well into the future and the necessary carisma is missing. To 'create' a new desktop OS they canabalise a recent server OS, it has, this time, made for a really sad product. Vista is proof that they are lost.

The open source model works well for business as well as nerds.  It allows you to 'own', be a part of and contribute to the growing and unstopable suite of applications which make up Linux or BSD or any other OS which can use the open application source code. Linux isn't the core, try BSD. Some prefer BSD because of it's license or because it is better? 

Don't be disuaded by FUD, try it for your own organisation for whichever tasks you use computers for. It might be useful and save you a truckload of cash, or you might have to continue with your existing commercial applications. Ask your application providers to port the code over to Linux.