4 ms·

Unless the "Linux Desktop" provides what costumers want, no OEMs will pre-install it (or those that do will lose money / go out of business). While "what costum

by pyre 14y ago

Unless the "Linux Desktop" provides what costumers want, no OEMs will pre-install it (or those that do will lose money / go out of business). While "what costumers wants" might not be as complex as power users might imagine, it is not something so easily swept under the rug as "no big deal."

shmerl 14y ago
And what does Linux not provide, that the common user needs? The most common use cases are covered by modern Linux desktop more than enough. When you are starting to go to more specialized use cases (gaming, publishing, etc.) then Linux will fall behind. But they are arguably not the majority. So the common reason not to give an option of Linux (or no OS) is not because Linux is really lacking in functionality, but because of either deals with MS (i.e. reduced Windows price), or because of lack of demand (i.e. the same "network effect"). But demand is hard to build if such option doesn't even exist as an option for an unaware customer. So it's a vicious cycle, which is of course well fed by MS to persist.
- Steko 14y ago
  "what does Linux not provide, that the common user needs" Office, Outlook, most AAA games, itunes. Don't tell me that because you can run them today on your machine (well maybe) that that somehow translates to what common users have experienced over the last decade.
  - shmerl 14y ago
    Arguably, the majority of PC users don't care about heavy gaming. While gamers are an important factor, they aren't the blocker for any OEM to provide an option of Linux preinstalled. There are lot's of people who use their computers merely for browsing, reading e-mails and some minimal document editing and multimedia like audio/video. Many don't even use desktop office applications, using some web services for that. And Libre Office or Calligra are decent options as well. The age of immature office options on the Linux desktop is gone. Outlook is a rather heavy monstrosity. There are better e-mail clients out there, including those on Linux.
    - liedra 14y ago
      Having tried to use Open/Libre Office as a MS Office replacement I can say it's definitely not on par with MS Office (sadly). So many little things that you take for granted on MS Office either aren't implemented or are incompatible with others who are using MS Office. For collaborative documents in an academic setting, using track changes, extensive bibliographies, stupidly large wordcounts etc., it's far, far easier to just use MS Office. I'd love to move these people on to google docs or something but old habits die hard in academia - emailed word documents is still where it's at. As for Outlook - while I've set up my home computer to not use it, for most it's just easier to use it. Convenience has a lot going for it. For non-tech-savvy people it's also a lot easier, since then calls to tech support at work will actually get you help. :)
    - josteink 14y ago
      > And Libre Office or Calligra are decent options as well. I use Linux machines for what they do well, and pretty much all my machines sans the "main" Laptop are Linux-driven. That said: This statement cannot be refuted enough. Libre Office and its forks are merely bad imitations of previous versions of MS Office while offering few to no benefits once you exclude cost. They are not "decent" alternatives. They are free, but noticeably sub-par alternatives. They are in no way drop-in replacements. If I want to take the cost of working with a low-end Office-suite which covers the bare basics and sticks to a late 90s design-paradigm, I'll go with Google's online-offering because it actually provides some benefits to weigh up for the cost. And sometimes I do just that. But you'll never find me meddling with the desktop Linux office-suites. They're simply not worth it.
      - shmerl 14y ago
        How many users use 100% of functionality of MS Office? And what part of functionality most users use? We were not talking about drop in replacements, were were talking about satisfying enough needs of a common user. There always can be cases of some functionality lacking. But for common needs - Libre Office is way more than enough already. Google's options are way too limited comparing to desktop applications, but they work well for some use cases. I find Libre Office more than satisfactory for above average complexity document editing. And while it can lack some obscure functions of MS office, I just probably never needed them in the first place.

by pyre 14y ago

shmerl 14y ago

And what does Linux not provide, that the common user needs? The most common use cases are covered by modern Linux desktop more than enough. When you are starting to go to more specialized use cases (gaming, publishing, etc.) then Linux will fall behind. But they are arguably not the majority. So the common reason not to give an option of Linux (or no OS) is not because Linux is really lacking in functionality, but because of either deals with MS (i.e. reduced Windows price), or because of lack of demand (i.e. the same "network effect"). But demand is hard to build if such option doesn't even exist as an option for an unaware customer. So it's a vicious cycle, which is of course well fed by MS to persist.

Steko 14y ago
"what does Linux not provide, that the common user needs" Office, Outlook, most AAA games, itunes. Don't tell me that because you can run them today on your machine (well maybe) that that somehow translates to what common users have experienced over the last decade.
- shmerl 14y ago
  Arguably, the majority of PC users don't care about heavy gaming. While gamers are an important factor, they aren't the blocker for any OEM to provide an option of Linux preinstalled. There are lot's of people who use their computers merely for browsing, reading e-mails and some minimal document editing and multimedia like audio/video. Many don't even use desktop office applications, using some web services for that. And Libre Office or Calligra are decent options as well. The age of immature office options on the Linux desktop is gone. Outlook is a rather heavy monstrosity. There are better e-mail clients out there, including those on Linux.
  - liedra 14y ago
    Having tried to use Open/Libre Office as a MS Office replacement I can say it's definitely not on par with MS Office (sadly). So many little things that you take for granted on MS Office either aren't implemented or are incompatible with others who are using MS Office. For collaborative documents in an academic setting, using track changes, extensive bibliographies, stupidly large wordcounts etc., it's far, far easier to just use MS Office. I'd love to move these people on to google docs or something but old habits die hard in academia - emailed word documents is still where it's at. As for Outlook - while I've set up my home computer to not use it, for most it's just easier to use it. Convenience has a lot going for it. For non-tech-savvy people it's also a lot easier, since then calls to tech support at work will actually get you help. :)
  - josteink 14y ago
    > And Libre Office or Calligra are decent options as well. I use Linux machines for what they do well, and pretty much all my machines sans the "main" Laptop are Linux-driven. That said: This statement cannot be refuted enough. Libre Office and its forks are merely bad imitations of previous versions of MS Office while offering few to no benefits once you exclude cost. They are not "decent" alternatives. They are free, but noticeably sub-par alternatives. They are in no way drop-in replacements. If I want to take the cost of working with a low-end Office-suite which covers the bare basics and sticks to a late 90s design-paradigm, I'll go with Google's online-offering because it actually provides some benefits to weigh up for the cost. And sometimes I do just that. But you'll never find me meddling with the desktop Linux office-suites. They're simply not worth it.
    - shmerl 14y ago
      How many users use 100% of functionality of MS Office? And what part of functionality most users use? We were not talking about drop in replacements, were were talking about satisfying enough needs of a common user. There always can be cases of some functionality lacking. But for common needs - Libre Office is way more than enough already. Google's options are way too limited comparing to desktop applications, but they work well for some use cases. I find Libre Office more than satisfactory for above average complexity document editing. And while it can lack some obscure functions of MS office, I just probably never needed them in the first place.