Selling Linux to Windows Users

[Mark Haney]

Joel Bryan Juliano wrote:
> It is not anyone's concern if they choose Windows or Linux, it all
> boils down on how it do well helping people to be more productive,
> communicate better, and having a great leisure time.
> 
> A fact that Windows came earlier with a readily usable OS for the
> masses changes everything, and one thing that we learn in history that
> success due to early mass adoption of a product cannot be dissolved by
> method swizzling, monkey-patching or offering any other much greater
> product even if it's free. Unfair but true, history teaches us that
> it's all about who came first..

So, having a sword is better than having a gun?  I mean, the sword came 
before guns.  And I do believe there was MASS adoption of the sword. 
This is not only misleading, it's just wrong.  True, Win95 did make 
computing easier for the masses.  /At the time./  However, the culture 
has changed drastically.  The internet has a lot to do with that, but 
the fact is, people are expecting more out of their systems than 'easy'. 
  They also want it to work, work well, consistently and securely.

This is why (as much as anything) that Vista has killed market share for 
  MS.  It's not usable, it's not easy and it doesn't work well.  So 
people are looking for alternatives.  I mean, if what you say above is 
true, then Vista should be picked up by everyone anyway, since Windows 
came first.

History doesn't teach us about who came first. It's more about the 
victors write the history.  So far, Microsoft has been the victor, so 
their version of history is the 'correct' one.  (For lack of a better 
way to phrase it.  This about having a better mouse trap.  The Romans 
conquered most of the known world, not because they had swords and 
others didn't, but because they were /better/ at using them than others. 
  So it goes with computing.  Once the 'new car smell' wears off, people 
start to really look at what they have and how they use it and find 
faults where they didn't see them during the test drive.

> 
> But there's exceptions, Mac now sells better, iPod sweeps all existing
> mp3 players, Motorolla got beaten by Nokia, but both companies feels
> threatened by iPhone, and all 3 products have one thing in common,
> they have better usability, simplicity, and design, plus very good
> marketing.

So, if you subscribe to the 'who came first' mentality, why is Apple 
selling better?  ( I mean they were first to the market after all, but 
anything post 1988 Apple was CRAP.) Because it's BETTER, not because 
it's first.  Sadly nothing in this post is correct in any sense.  I 
don't know why I spent so much time refuting what is the obvious.



-- 
Frustra laborant quotquot se calculationibus fatigant pro inventione 
quadraturae circuli

Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415

Call (866) ERC-7110 for after hours support