This is a huge business opportunity for someone with the know-how. They should offer a consulting service that does the following:
Catalogs the software your company is using.
Identifies which ones have native Linux versions, which ones work well under WINE, and which ones will need to be replaced with either a different native application or an online equivalent.
Installs and configures Linux with a Windows-like UI on your old systems, and gets them set up with the replacement software.
Offer a support contract that severely undercuts anything Microsoft is gouging selling. Offer basic training, too.
Would also need to get a burner phone number w/ answering machine to take calls from 240 million grandmas, cheapskate businesses and cash-strapped public schools for any & all tech support questions until the end of time, because if there was an issue with system stability in any way whatsoever, or if the router went down or the printer stopped working, they’d assume it was the fault of ‘the guy who changed everything’.
Linux is great & everything, but this sounds like a recipe for utter disaster, not a way to make an easy buck.
I can’t agree with this more. People like to sell Linux as a magic bullet, but it does not and will not everything everyone needs without maintenance and people really like to hand wave or downplay that need.
Sure, you could find a solution for what they’re using now. What happens when they need something else and they’re so tech illiterate that they don’t even know what you did to their machine? They wouldn’t even know how to install new software, and if they did, they wouldn’t know they need to click the Linux version, etc. It’s not always about feasibility and available options, it’s often about the fact that people just won’t fucking know what to do. Even if you assume there are enough options available, they won’t know how to do so.
And every step Microsoft takes to shoot themselves in the foot, and every step Linux takes to make this easier, everyone comes screaming about how much this could change things.
But until Linux has a HUGE market share - like in the 30-70 percent range - developers are not going to take it seriously and alleviate this process. Even with how well MacOS does, this is not even a solved problem entirely there - there are still hang ups and still software that doesn’t get released for mac. Linux would have to pass where Apple is today for this to become remotely accessible to an every day person.
And even THEN there’s the question of different Linux distros.
While I don’t really disagree, look at the market share of Chromebooks. If “most people” only needed internet access, “most people” would be on Chromebooks by now. It’s not like they’re unknown anymore.
Not really how the market works. Inertia is huge, brand image (Apple) is huge, social pressure (Apple) is huge, simply not knowing is huge. The newcomer always has the disadvantage to get converts. (Not to mention many of the people that only need internet have iPads only.)
Yes, but Chromebooks are far from “newcomers” these days. They’ve been out a while. Many people who grew up using them in schools are now making their own purchasing decisions, etc.
Comparatively they are the newcomer by far. Remember when they first came out they were considered failed, then it took what 8 years later for them to start to become adopted much at all.
Yup their own purchasing decision and over half will have had bad experiences with the cheapest, slowest, pos Chromebooks their school bought. And they will want that sex appeal, look at me, luxury, Apple.
I lived in this town and there was this"computer and pawn" place. They did this to people’s computers. I constantly had people come into the computer place I worked at very confused. Not knowing why they needed a password to install things, where is Microsoft office, how do I print, etc. Most of these people didn’t have the money to put windows back on, but, those that did, did real quick. All this did was scare people away. If we started replacing Linux on people’s computers it needs to come with a intro tech support plan and a short intro class explaining the basics.
At this point the people that benefit the most easily are those who only need email, Web browsing and or are old. People who work off their machine are going to use Windows and that former demographic usually just use their phones or a tablet now. At least in the US
Will I take advantage of the heavily discounted used market this causes? Maybe. (Assuming they manage to actually convince people they should move to 11, which also sucks.) But there’s good reason not to be IT for people who can’t manage it themselves. It’s a huge headache.
See, the key flaw in your plan is expecting companies to shell out to upgrade their systems. Putting aside organizations who’s infrastructure can’t realistically transfer to a new system without scrapping it entirely, pretty much every business will run their systems until they have literally no other choice (ie it is functionally unusable/affecting sales) instead of “losing money” upgrading. MS stopping updates won’t push them over that line, at least not for a while.
I mean, yeah, if ethics are no barrier, you could probably make it work, hah. That said, there are much better money makers at that point than being tech support for businesses to switch to Linux.
That’s actually a decent idea if people are using boilerplate windows software. Unfortunately institutional software is unlikely to cross over, and even if similar software can be found to replace private users’ needs, there is going to be resistance to change. This doesn’t even touch anyone using specialized software. The resistance will be commensurate with the differences in workflow and usage between the windows and Linux software.
I mean, the whole point is people don’t want to change. The only way you’d win people over easily is directly cloning their windows setup.
Yeah, and it’s likely way less costly to the company to just buy a new win 11 computer than it is to pay an employee to train on new software. Not to mention the cost of paying someone to find someone to do a Linux conversion, paying the person doing the conversion, and the loss of productivity as the person learns. Not to mention the cost of changing IT infrastructure, hiring new IT people to manage those machines, etc.
There’s a reason companies don’t just switch at the drop of the hat. There’s too much commitment and institutional knowledge already and moving is not a simple change.
I feel the issue is if you’re successful with this idea and get on radar of Microsoft, they will make sure to snatch away all deals from you by bidding even lower. They have money to lose. Small firms generally don’t.
This is a huge business opportunity for someone with the know-how. They should offer a consulting service that does the following:
Offer a support contract that severely undercuts anything Microsoft is
gougingselling. Offer basic training, too.Anyone who does that can make bank.
Would also need to get a burner phone number w/ answering machine to take calls from 240 million grandmas, cheapskate businesses and cash-strapped public schools for any & all tech support questions until the end of time, because if there was an issue with system stability in any way whatsoever, or if the router went down or the printer stopped working, they’d assume it was the fault of ‘the guy who changed everything’.
Linux is great & everything, but this sounds like a recipe for utter disaster, not a way to make an easy buck.
I can’t agree with this more. People like to sell Linux as a magic bullet, but it does not and will not everything everyone needs without maintenance and people really like to hand wave or downplay that need.
Sure, you could find a solution for what they’re using now. What happens when they need something else and they’re so tech illiterate that they don’t even know what you did to their machine? They wouldn’t even know how to install new software, and if they did, they wouldn’t know they need to click the Linux version, etc. It’s not always about feasibility and available options, it’s often about the fact that people just won’t fucking know what to do. Even if you assume there are enough options available, they won’t know how to do so.
And every step Microsoft takes to shoot themselves in the foot, and every step Linux takes to make this easier, everyone comes screaming about how much this could change things.
But until Linux has a HUGE market share - like in the 30-70 percent range - developers are not going to take it seriously and alleviate this process. Even with how well MacOS does, this is not even a solved problem entirely there - there are still hang ups and still software that doesn’t get released for mac. Linux would have to pass where Apple is today for this to become remotely accessible to an every day person.
And even THEN there’s the question of different Linux distros.
Most people only need internet access. Look at Chromebooks.
While I don’t really disagree, look at the market share of Chromebooks. If “most people” only needed internet access, “most people” would be on Chromebooks by now. It’s not like they’re unknown anymore.
Not really how the market works. Inertia is huge, brand image (Apple) is huge, social pressure (Apple) is huge, simply not knowing is huge. The newcomer always has the disadvantage to get converts. (Not to mention many of the people that only need internet have iPads only.)
Yes, but Chromebooks are far from “newcomers” these days. They’ve been out a while. Many people who grew up using them in schools are now making their own purchasing decisions, etc.
Comparatively they are the newcomer by far. Remember when they first came out they were considered failed, then it took what 8 years later for them to start to become adopted much at all.
Yup their own purchasing decision and over half will have had bad experiences with the cheapest, slowest, pos Chromebooks their school bought. And they will want that sex appeal, look at me, luxury, Apple.
I lived in this town and there was this"computer and pawn" place. They did this to people’s computers. I constantly had people come into the computer place I worked at very confused. Not knowing why they needed a password to install things, where is Microsoft office, how do I print, etc. Most of these people didn’t have the money to put windows back on, but, those that did, did real quick. All this did was scare people away. If we started replacing Linux on people’s computers it needs to come with a intro tech support plan and a short intro class explaining the basics.
At this point the people that benefit the most easily are those who only need email, Web browsing and or are old. People who work off their machine are going to use Windows and that former demographic usually just use their phones or a tablet now. At least in the US
Yeah hard pass.
Will I take advantage of the heavily discounted used market this causes? Maybe. (Assuming they manage to actually convince people they should move to 11, which also sucks.) But there’s good reason not to be IT for people who can’t manage it themselves. It’s a huge headache.
Easy fix: don’t offer support
More expensive easy fix: contract with a call center in India to do “support” for you.
See, the key flaw in your plan is expecting companies to shell out to upgrade their systems. Putting aside organizations who’s infrastructure can’t realistically transfer to a new system without scrapping it entirely, pretty much every business will run their systems until they have literally no other choice (ie it is functionally unusable/affecting sales) instead of “losing money” upgrading. MS stopping updates won’t push them over that line, at least not for a while.
Cousin Vinny gives them a little taste of ransomware and reminds them your upgrade plan is actually a great deal
Meh, ransomware won’t really drive an upgrade plan. That’s what backup is for.
Any business incompetent enough to get owned by ransomware without a recovery plan isn’t exactly the type with $ to spare for a migration.
I mean, yeah, if ethics are no barrier, you could probably make it work, hah. That said, there are much better money makers at that point than being tech support for businesses to switch to Linux.
That’s actually a decent idea if people are using boilerplate windows software. Unfortunately institutional software is unlikely to cross over, and even if similar software can be found to replace private users’ needs, there is going to be resistance to change. This doesn’t even touch anyone using specialized software. The resistance will be commensurate with the differences in workflow and usage between the windows and Linux software.
I mean, the whole point is people don’t want to change. The only way you’d win people over easily is directly cloning their windows setup.
And there’s a cost to that change. Reduced performance. Could easily be measured in lost $ or increased costs.
Yeah, and it’s likely way less costly to the company to just buy a new win 11 computer than it is to pay an employee to train on new software. Not to mention the cost of paying someone to find someone to do a Linux conversion, paying the person doing the conversion, and the loss of productivity as the person learns. Not to mention the cost of changing IT infrastructure, hiring new IT people to manage those machines, etc.
There’s a reason companies don’t just switch at the drop of the hat. There’s too much commitment and institutional knowledge already and moving is not a simple change.
Companies won’t pay. Even SMB.
There’s way too much stuff that only runs on windows, their users are used to windows.
You’re telling them to spend a lot of money to transition, and take on a lot of risk.
It just ain’t gonna happen.
Look at the current VMware issue to see what companies will do.
I feel the issue is if you’re successful with this idea and get on radar of Microsoft, they will make sure to snatch away all deals from you by bidding even lower. They have money to lose. Small firms generally don’t.
ROFL, and for a half of that cost and none of the risk, companies will just drop in new windows computers and keep the status quo…