Re: [Boost-users] Why Linux May Never Be a True Desktop OS

From: Andreas Sæbjørnsen (andreas.saebjoernsen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-25 10:38:32

I am sorry for the unfortunate mistake that I send this e-mail message to
the boost mailing list. It was meant for another recipient. Again, I am very
sorry for this mistake.

Regards,
Andreas Sæbjørnsen

On 4/25/06, Andreas Sæbjørnsen <andreas.saebjoernsen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html
> Why Linux May Never Be a True Desktop OS E-Mail Article<http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/mailit/?id=50091>
>  Print Version <http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html#>
> [image: Why Linux May Never Be a True Desktop OS]
>
> By Rob Enderle
> TechNewsWorld
> 04/24/06 5:00 AM PT
>
> With Linux, the customer often expects to get the product for free and
> wants the retail price of Windows deducted from his/her purchase price.
> There are no funds passed back to the vendor and, because Linux is
> different, customers tend to place more service calls -- at $85 a call. As a
> result, the vendor generally ends up losing money.
>
>
> *The Formula for Total Customer Experience*
> Nothing is more powerful than seeing real users interact with your
> e-Commerce application, Web site, or software. Use Morae, a single,
> collaborative software solution, to identify barriers to conversion, while
> watching real users navigate your site. Free White Paper!<http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html>
>
> This week I'm speaking at the Desktop Linux Summit in San Diego on why the
> PC OEMs don't, and probably never will, fully support Linux on the desktop.
> This is somewhat of a deja vu for me since a decade ago my team made a
> similar presentation at IBM <http://www.ibm.com/> (NYSE: IBM) [image:
> Latest News about IBM]
> <http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=IBM&scope=network> on
> OS/2 and why it wouldn't beat Windows in its time. For the purpose of this
> piece I'm using the word "Linux" as an open source OS catch-all so I don't
> have to call out every distribution or variant.
>
> Now, as it was then, the core of the argument wasn't the technology, the
> strength of Microsoft <http://www.microsoft.com/> (Nasdaq: MSFT) [image:
> Latest News about Microsoft]<http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=Microsoft&scope=network>,
> or anything, really, outside IBM's control. The reason was that IBM would
> simply not do what was necessary to take the market away from Microsoft.
>
> When I look at Microsoft these days I recall something former
> Hewlett-Packard <http://www.hp.com/> (NYSE: HPQ) [image: Latest News about
> Hewlett-Packard]<http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=Hewlett-Packard&scope=network>Chairman Lou Platt once said: "My biggest problem is finding people who will
> tell me the truth." I've never seen Microsoft as weak, from an execution
> standpoint, before, but currently the firm appears weak. Taking advantage of
> that weakness remains elusive for both Linux players and Apple<http://www.apple.com/>(Nasdaq: AAPL) [image:
> Latest News about Apple]
> <http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=Apple&scope=network>,
> however. Let's take a look at the reasons why it's been difficult for them
> to move dramatically into the business or consumer desktop computer spaces.
>  Classifieds
>   Find IT Consultants<http://www.ectnews.com/adsys/link/?creative=3338&ENN_target=http://links.industrybrains.com/click?sid=461&scid=6962&rqctid=4330&pos=1&lid=387866&cid=63143&pr=2&tstamp=20060425102150&url=http://www.eworkmarkets.com/public/userprofile.cfm%3fMember%3dCon%26RefSource%3d622%26GCID%3dC16766x011%26keyword%3dInformation%2bWeek>
> Post Your Project for Free. Get Bids from Thousands of Pre-Screened
> Consultants.
> ------------------------------
> Laptop DC power jacks parts & service<http://www.ectnews.com/adsys/link/?creative=3338&ENN_target=http://links.industrybrains.com/click?sid=461&scid=6962&rqctid=4330&pos=2&lid=387450&cid=46176&pr=2&tstamp=20060425102150&url=http://www.laptopjacks.com>
> Your laptop doesn't power up? You don't have to replace the whole
> motherboard, you can just replace the part. We stock DC power s...
> ------------------------------
> Computer, PDA & iPod Accessories<http://www.ectnews.com/adsys/link/?creative=3338&ENN_target=http://links.industrybrains.com/click?sid=461&scid=6962&rqctid=4330&pos=3&lid=387400&cid=52321&pr=2&tstamp=20060425102150&url=http://www.laptopsforless.com>
> Dell, IBM, Sony, Apple, HP, Compaq, Toshiba, Palm, iPod, and more.
> Factory-direct Prices, Same-day Shipping, 30-day Money-back Gu...
>   Doing What Is Necessary
>
> When it comes to competition, typically you have the folks who are willing
> to do what is necessary to win and the folks who aren't. In my personal
> experience, I've seen again and again scenarios where a team would lay out a
> plan for what they deemed was needed in order to be successful in a market
> and then they'd watch as the executive in charge cherry picked the things
> he/she wanted to do. As a result, the project failed, often disastrously.
>
> People like to put filters over their eyes and ignore important steps they
> don't want to perform on the road to achieving a goal. All of us have seen
> examples of when this derails the plan. With OS/2, the last major challenger
> to Windows, IBM had a list of things it needed to do in order for the
> product to be successful. This list laid out staffing levels, marketing
> expense, structural changes to the company and partnerships, and its
> foundation was one of the most extensive pieces of research that company
> ever did.
>
> However as these recommendations went up the chain of command they were
> changed or in some cases, ignored. The end result? OS/2 failed.
>
> The requirements for OS/2's success included broad third party hardware<http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html#> [image:
> Powerful Yet Simple: HP ProLiant ML110 G3. Just $688 with the Intel(r)
> Pentium(r) 4 Processor.] <http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html>and software [image:
> operating system] <http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html>support, developer support, and Windows 32-bit support. In order to get into
> the hardware, however, OS/2 couldn't come from IBM. This was probably the
> single biggest deal breaker. Compaq, HP and others wouldn't support an OS
> from a competitor and, much like it was with Sun and Java<http://java.sun.com/> [image:
> Latest News about Java]
> <http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=Java&scope=network> and
> Netscape and Navigator, the biggest weakness that OS/2 had was IBM not doing
> what the market required of it to be successful.
>
> After reading up <http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/18/122246>on a subject that speaks to a likely OEM desktop requirement -- strong
> vendor supported drivers -- I deeply doubt whether the folks working on
> Linux will make the difficult tradeoffs needed to assure success. Think of
> the iPod, for example. In order to achieve success Apple had to support
> Windows, as distasteful as that must have been for the firm.
> The OEM Cost of Linux and Windows Windows is free to the OEMs. In fact,
> not only is it free, but Microsoft<http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html#>,
> in effect, pays them to take it. Regardless of the cost, Windows is a
> logical choice, and a straight pass. Dell <http://www.dell.com/> (Nasdaq:
> DELL) [image: Latest News about Dell]
> <http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=Dell&scope=network>pays about $80 for it and typically charges about $80 for it. There is
> rarely much of a mark up. If Microsoft were to lower its price that lowered
> price would be reflected in virtually all desktop hardware immediately.
>
> Microsoft provides a number of services which include development support,
> service support, marketing support, technicians, classes, databases and
> support materials, and it picks up a lot of the service load as well. In
> addition, it provides marketing co-op dollars, incentives for early adoption
> of new products, and ensures a somewhat level playing field (which could be
> good or bad) for the vendors.
>
> Linux, on the other hand, is often viewed as "free." Even when it comes
> with a fee, that fee is also passed through without any mark up. However,
> the hardware vendor must now provide all of the things that Microsoft has
> been providing, too. Particularly painful are services, as customers expect
> a similar experience with open source that they have with Windows and will
> often call the vendor to help troubleshoot. The vendor takes all of the
> related costs; there are typically no dependable (on-site) resources, unless
> the vendor supplies some of its own.
>
> With Linux, the customer often expects to get the product for free and
> wants the retail price of Windows deducted from his/her purchase price.
> There are no funds passed back to the vendor and, because Linux is
> different, customers tend to place more service calls -- at $85 a call. As a
> result, the vendor generally ends up losing money on average with Linux.
>
> This is the primary reason vendors don't want to do desktop Linux, unless
> there is an extremely lucrative services contract tied to it. Given services
> revenue often flows to the services division, the desktop hardware divisions
> still do their best to throw their bodies in front of these efforts.
>  Too Many Versions
>
> An old rule of the desktop is that support costs go up by the square of
> the number of different products you have to support. This may actually
> understate the problem now that much of this support is done in remote sites
> like India.
>
> For each version of a product the support team has to be trained, support
> scripts have to be created and updated; patches have to be collected, tested
> and deployed; and line changes have to be tested against every operating
> system version shipped. This is part of the reason that IBM hardware was not
> competitive in the early nineties; the extra cost of supporting OS/2 was
> theirs and theirs alone while IBM software got the largest portion of OS/2
> revenue (that division was profitable, though OS/2 wasn't).
>
> There is broad diversity among Linux buyers, and Red Hat<http://www.redhat.com/>(Nasdaq: RHAT) [image:
> Latest News about Red Hat]<http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=Red%20Hat&scope=network>,
> which is the closest to a standard Linux OS, isn't yet dominant enough to
> claim victory. The OEMs might be able to handle one version of Linux but
> until there is only one they have to handle they will probably avoid doing
> it.
>  Excessive Advocacy
>
> A few years ago I recall getting a note from an Apple guy who said
> something to the effect of, "I'm sure glad all of the crazy Apple supporters
> moved over to Linux." While I seriously doubt all of the crazy Apple zealots
> moved to Linux, I can say that they were instrumental in getting Apple out
> of large enterprises.
>
> Zealots, regardless of cause, have a tendency to treat very poorly those
> who don't share their beliefs, and, historically, they have been much more
> likely to misuse e-mail [image: Integrate BlackBerry with your CRM
> Solution] <http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html> or take a
> dispute to a public forum. They tend to be human resource nightmares and
> anyone wanting to create a powerful argument against either platform has
> only to take the decision maker to any of a number of fan Web sites to
> create the impression of significant risk.
>
> This can be particularly problematic now with employee blogs starting to
> spread and more internal disagreements being made public. Management
> typically does not want to create an environment where company dirty laundry
> is aired or where employees organize to fight executive orders. Yet zealots
> appear to do this as a matter of course: their beliefs come first, even
> though this is technology, not religion.
>
> With all this in mind, IT executives want to be able to decide to abandon
> a Linux or Apple trial with faith that the employees would follow those
> orders and not revolt. They also want to feel in control with regard to how
> the technology is used and not cede that to an external or internal employee
> advocacy group without conscious thought.
>
> In conclusion, there are a few key requirements for alternative platforms
> to be successful, success being measured by significant market share, in the
> general market.
>  A Reliable Road Map to Linux Desktop Success
>
> The list of clear requirements includes:
>
>    - Clear OEM resources to match or exceed those currently provided by
>    Microsoft. This would include R&D support and co-marketing dollars.
>    - Embrace existing desktop requirements (roadmaps, application
>    support, proprietary drivers, consistent patch releases schedules and
>    documentation, clear escalation lines for support).
>    - Seek out reasonable advocates who will take direction from their
>    executives and not from other advocates.
>    - Make it profitable for the OEM.
>
> Recall that for Microsoft it took about 5 years, US$10 billion and Y2K to
> move the majority of the installed PC base to another kernel -- and they had
> to kill the old one off to do it.
>
> In the end, I look at this short list and still doubt it is reasonably
> achievable. I also wonder if Linux were actually modified to be able to
> comply with this list whether it would even be Linux anymore. That deserves
> a little thought. Generally speaking, you have to give something up in order
> to get something else. However there are times when what you sacrifice is
> actually more important than what you gain.
>