Mint as the alternative to windows

[snoopi]

One of the best ways I can think of is a marketing campaign to get Mint installed on new machines from the major manufacturers for a small fee to the developers of course. The incentive to big companies is the cost savings over Microsoft installs.

And the way to do that is to promote what I see as the one true, out of the box, alternative to Windows. Mint is almost there with the look and feel of a windows product but it runs better. There will always be far more point and click (newer linux/windows) people then there will be programmers (old linux). So Mint should play to it's strength, it's practically dummy proof for your average Windows user already. And I am assuming as time goes on it will get even more so.

The biggest fear in switching for the majority of people is the "new/unfamiliar" factor that all Window users have. Second is that they want to know that Mint will play all their favorite programs and games, web based or otherwise. Mint has taken care of the unfamiliar problem as it looks close to Windows, so now the compatibilty issues should be next.

Once you have that taken care of, there is no reason Mint cannot take its place as the number one install on new out of the box systems.

[xenopeek]

The incentive to big companies is the cost savings over Microsoft installs.

This is a bit of myth. Installing Windows costs almost nothing; they'll use pre-built images so only the initial image build and test has significant costs. The cost of the Windows license (heavily discounted to them) is offset by all the bloatware they install with it. They get paid for each piece of bloatware.

[snoopi]

Point well taken.

The basis of my suggestion still stands up. The best alternative to Windows. It has the look and feel, point and click, plus it runs better using less resources. These are all plus's even for the most simple computer user.

[DickBowman]

I just posted a lengthy rant in another thread (file-sharing).

To the effect that I think the main problem for Mint (or any other Linux - why so many?) is that there doesn't seem to be a management setting strategic direction.

Someone to say "these are the issues that need to be addressed - they're not glamorous, but they are essential".

What I see is an amorphous bunch of geeks implementing whatever comes into their heads and sowing confusion in the potential end-user.

Joe Soap doesn't want to type a load of command-line instructions, and Joe Soap's manager certainly isn't going to allow him to.

[xenopeek]

What do you think Clem does all day? What is the roadmap for? Shees. Get to know Linux Mint a bit more before you criticize it so.

[duneelliot]

What do you think Clem does all day? What is the roadmap for? Shees. Get to know Linux Mint a bit more before you criticize it so.

+1 for this
When I first installed Mint I didn't need to open the CLI once for configuration...or anything for that matter! I do now as there are certain things I prefer to do that way, but it certainly wasn't and technically isn't needed even now for me.
Does Mint have some work to do? Sure, but while I advocate for it, I am more than happy to keep it less-mainstream. Windows and MS got too big for it's britches; I like Linux, in part, because it isn't some big corporation.

[Fragezeichen]

Joe Soap doesn't want to type a load of command-line instructions, and Joe Soap's manager certainly isn't going to allow him to.

I don't know about Joe Soap, but I think his manager would actually want him to learn at least the basics of CLI since it's way more efficient in a lot of situations. You can do tasks that take hours using the GUI in a couple of seconds/minutes with some easy commands or a simple shell script. And come on: Which manager doesn't want their workers to be more efficient? Efficiency = $$$ = happy manager.

[Habitual]

it's practically dummy proof for your average Windows user already.

Windows used to be "idiot proof",
until they built a better idiot.

[z31fanatic]

The incentive to big companies is the cost savings over Microsoft installs.

This is a bit of myth. Installing Windows costs almost nothing; they'll use pre-built images so only the initial image build and test has significant costs. The cost of the Windows license (heavily discounted to them) is offset by all the bloatware they install with it. They get paid for each piece of bloatware.

Yep, manufacturers only pay something like $30 or $40 for a Windows license.
Windows does not raise the cost of a computer. Dell for example offers some models with a choice of Windows or Ubuntu and they are priced exactly the same.

[Fragezeichen]

The incentive to big companies is the cost savings over Microsoft installs.

This is a bit of myth. Installing Windows costs almost nothing; they'll use pre-built images so only the initial image build and test has significant costs. The cost of the Windows license (heavily discounted to them) is offset by all the bloatware they install with it. They get paid for each piece of bloatware.

Yep, manufacturers only pay something like $30 or $40 for a Windows license.
Windows does not raise the cost of a computer. Dell for example offers some models with a choice of Windows or Ubuntu and they are priced exactly the same.

30$ - 40$ is actually quite a lot. If you sold 100,000 computers that would be 3-4 Mio. $ in additional costs.
And if you assume an average computer costs around 500$, 30 - 40$ is almost 10%..

[z31fanatic]

30$ - 40$ is actually quite a lot. If you sold 100,000 computers that would be 3-4 Mio. $ in additional costs.
And if you assume an average computer costs around 500$, 30 - 40$ is almost 10%..

As Xenopeek said, manufacturers recoup the cost of Windows with the crap they add into it. Antivirus makers for example pay the manufacturer to install the trial versions.

[Habitual]

so now the compatibilty issues should be next.

What compatibility issues are those?
Every I-just-converted-yesterday, Johnny-come-lately has a brain fart about how Linux could be better.
snooze fest.

To all of you, I say "Talk is cheap, code something".

[snoopi]

Feeling irritable there Habitual, need a midol?

Compatibility issues as in running non-linux products like MS stuff. I thought it was fairly obvious but was happy to simplify it for you.

Some of us are learning and will be coding soon enough. Every coder started with suggestions and questions. Some good, some not so good.

Since Marketing is my game, and I'm very good at, if the makers of Mint really wanted it out there, then my advice would be good to follow. I can sell ice to an Eskimo.

[Habitual]

I thought it was fairly obvious but was happy to simplify it for you.
I can sell ice to an Eskimo.

What you think is obvious, isn't. But I knew where you were heading...

So, not being able to run, oh, I don't know Photoshop is a Linux compatibility issue?
I think not.

I could sell blue ice cube to blind Eskimos.

Why install Linux at all if you're just going to load it up with MS products?
I never understood that.

Ditch the sexist references.

[Habitual]

I apologize for my brashness.

Your enthusiasm is commendable, even if I don't agree with your statements.

[DrHu]

It is not a downer to recognize the market realities
--windows OS dominates in the computer side (desktop, Gaming, notebooks); less so in the smartphones, where they are outpaced by Google's Android or Apple's IOS

• They also get a large percentage of their profits from the Office suite(s)

So any competitor, unless offering substantially more service or value would have a very hard time even competing
--you won't see Apple try and take over Ms office market for example

• Linux OS (any distributor), excepting servers, has little or no chance
  --in the case of servers it is IBM (if you use their very good ZOS system with a Linux

RedHat is the USA preferred Linux OS choice, and Ubuntu is coming on fast (servers)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_on_z_Systems

• At the start of IBM's involvement, Linux patches for System z included some object code only (OCO) modules, without source code.[4] However, currently Linux on System z is completely free software under the GNU General Public License.
  As of May 2006, according to IBM, over 1,700 customers run Linux on their mainframes.

All despite the fact that a Linux OS could be the system to use for a SMB group either as a drop-in replacement or as the new choice
--these days business have had to use heterogeneous environments, where each part is presumably the optimum for that function, unlike the old days where each company wanted only their own products in place

• Microsoft still tends to wards that tactic
  --smart businesses ignore the advertising and decide for themselves(hopefully); even though it is often very hard to ignore

[snoopi]

Why install Linux at all if you're just going to load it up with MS products?
I never understood that.

I get the why bother argument. But think of it this way since this is the promotion thread....

Customers/users want a platform that is all things to all people. They can run all their fav's no matter what their OS is. Not practical, but it is the way things are going. Some great games don't have a Linux version, thus you play the MS based version.

The Linux that will out do MS and Apple will be the flavour that can do it all without any hiccups. And I do think someone in the Linux community is going to make it happen sooner rather than latter. I really see Linux Mint as better than a great start in that direction.

$100,000 and six months we could give Apple a run for their money and six months later MS.

[z31fanatic]

$100,000 and six months we could give Apple a run for their money and 6 months later MS

It won't be that easy. Apple sells 20-25 million Macs a year and Windows 10 is on 110 million computers already. Do you think you can get 20 million users to switch to Linux every year?

[snoopi]

I think everyone who has ever succeeded has been asked that same question. Can you do it better then the guys doing it already?

And the answer is yes. Not easy, but not impossible.

[duneelliot]

Customers/users want a platform that is all things to all people. They can run all their fav's no matter what their OS is. Not practical, but it is the way things are going. Some great games don't have a Linux version, thus you play the MS based version.

As my mom would say: " You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time...but you can't please all of the people all of the time!"