User perception towards Open Source Operating Systems with special reference to GNU/Linux A chi-square analysis on user expertise and its influence on technical factors Kamakshaiah Musunuru Assistant Professor, Department of Academics, Symbiosis Centre for Distance Learning, Pune – 16. Maharashtra, India.
[email protected] +91-9561723634 Abstract – It is almost twenty years after GNU/Linux has been overblown. Still the market figures of Linux use are at very abysmal levels. In spite of the maturity and adoption, Linux is still remained as a second hand option for many users across the world. Linux has many advantages compared to its counterparts in the market and unlike any other proprietary operating system; some of the distributions are available for users as full featured software (wholesome OS). Even though Linux is proved to be best software in server market, the desktop market remained feeble. The market share of Linux is only laying less than 2% but rest is shared by all other operating systems. Windows alone attribute to approximately 85% of market share. Under the common marketing tenet that if a product is not adopted by market then it might be that, the users in the market either might not be aware of it or if they are aware, might not like it, or if they like it and still don’t use then it is the problem of availability, but this is not the problem to Linux. It is available freely (as a source code) from the respective websites and users across the world are familiar. Then where is the problem? Exactly here the need for this study arises. User perception is one of the important attributes which characterizes market share. Methods - In this study a survey was done to know if expertise of individuals influences their perception towards Linux. A hypothesis was formulated to test if any dependency exists in between these two variables (namely individual expertise and their perception towards Linux). Conclusion - it was found that the two variables are not significantly different; which means expertise of individuals significantly influences their perception towards Linux.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Although at the beginning people talked about stillborn Linux and about its failure of major desktop efforts, certain major projects like GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice.org and Mozilla could give a second chance to convince the entire world about its power. In deed, it became customary that whenever people talk about open source software (OSS), it is Linux that lingers in mind, and obviously Microsoft will be on the other side of the brain. In fact, despite of its advancements in Linux, it is still viewed as second alternative by users only after Microsoft. Reasons might be aplenty; one such reason could be Microsoft’s pioneering advantage and its time to time decisions to keep as per trends and expectations of the market. Now the trends in markets are changing as the use of operating systems and expectations of users are changing very dynamically. A significant portion of market studies shows that the recognition and adoption of OSS across the countries is moderately high. Some extent it is not extraneous to state that the awareness and use of Linux is overblown. It is damn truth that Linux is slowly outperforming the existing top players of the operating systems market, and with in no time could become leader in the market. The belief is that the initial adoption of Linux was majorly by software professionals, students and transactional workers, but now Linux is pervasive every where not only in desktops but mobiles, tabs, airplanes and also at manufacturing setups in different forms. The most potential problem with Windows is of booting; Linux is observed to take very less time to boot and setup itself ready when compared to Windows. Linux is acclaimed by almost all users that it requires less hardware resources apart from being more versatile and robust. 1 Now almost it is
Keywords-user satisfaction, user perception, user attitude, operating system, open source software, proprietary software.
1
Windows is regarded as one of the sluggish boot loader in the industry, even after booting it takes several minutes to set itself study upon the desktop. As one of the students in
1 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1995233
two decades after Linux is born, but is present almost every where right from computers which were used in primary schools to a very gigantic commercial Hollywood entertainment projects2. DreamWorks of Hollywood deployed almost 2000 Linux based CPUs by the summer of 2001. Although, Pixar has bought only 15 workstations and 25 in software development, but it has gigantic future plans to deploy Linux all over her production vicinity. [1] Hollywood has labored on these Linux machines and brought many famous animations movies like Shreik, Toystory and etc. Superiority of Linux also can be adduced in repairing Windows NT machines, as an image server in bulk installations, used as serial port server, and network monitoring. Apart from this Linux is also faring well across industries, Rick Peng, a business development manager in Moxa Inc. in U.S., give a luminous description upon advantages of using Linux in industrial automation (Peng, R., 2010). As he exhorts, apart from possessing several general advantages like, security, stability, reliability, and costeffectiveness, the Linux also advantageous by reducing development workload with code libraries, front-end intelligence to reduce CPU load on embedded systems.[2] II.
CUSTOMER PERCEPTION TOWARDS
distributes installation disks freely to various enthusiasts all over the world.3 A. What matters in adopting Linux? Although this section is not directly linked to perceptual matters of open source and Linux, some abridgement on various factors could give a brief idea about what is expected by the users from Linux. Habin et al, (2010) carried on experiments in user perception with the help of a model (EDM) and observed two vital findings that the perception shaping process go through two important stages they are; (1) expectancy information stage, (2) perception shaping stage. The information and perception are two essential aspects which influences market performance of any product. Linux is always up to date being trendy and fulfilling time to time expectations of the market. West and et al, states that open source is a key to achieve objectives of a business thorough open innovation. And now open innovation is altogether became a separate model playing significant role in the field.[4] When a product has some innovative appeal it always can convince the market. In fact, Michel Baker of Mozilla says, the success of Firefox Web browser is the result of open innovation tactics rather than development efforts, and she also affirms that a traditional software company could have not achieved such a success in such a competitive browser market.[5] Kamseu and et al (2009), indicates that software quality factors have significant effect on its adoption and the adoption may depends on three factors they are; quality of product, quality of community and quality of the process.[6] The integration of these three factors of quality eventually leads to software adoption. Decrem, B., (2004), in his report, affirms that Linux had become fully matured so that it could be a better option to substitute Windows. Of course it might be true that Linux not only cater to all general and commonly expected user needs, like office suites, e-mail clients, network supports and etc., but also offers so many specific services which Windows and MacOSX can not fulfill. In fact, Decrem foresees that in coming few years the Linux market share is expected to rise 10%. (Real, Mark, 2006) there are other view as Linux apart from getting matured could not prove itself effectively competing with other proprietary software in the market.[7] For instance, Real and Mark in their report states that selection or adoption of software in corporate setups is a matter top level management decision and at this level usually a vigorous and meticulous selection process is done, and while doing so, managements tend to think pedantically towards efficiency and operability of software towards fulfilling the business goals. They also listed out certain important factors which may act as drivers to their business viz. ease of use,
OSS
Most of the research in OSS domain is mainly done on software development, growth and community participation, but a very less is done on users and their influence on market share or growth. This paper attempts to delve information from consumer point of view and its influence on respective market growth. User perception is an important issue in nowa-days context that every firm is worried about. As Perter Drucker, a leading management thinker of his times quotes, few decades earlier, that it is the customer who determines the fate of a business but not the proprietor. [3] Hence for all businesses it is the consumer who is more important than any other for without him there is no meaning in having a business at all. Linux is turned out to be a product by the involvement of very big and world famous corporations. Indeed, this corporate involvement has brought enormous reputation and awareness to Linux. Redhat, a commercial Linux distributor and virtualization and cloud computing player, for example, had a whooping amount of $ 282 mn by the end of August, 2011. Perhaps, Ubuntu is other operating systems, which is, apart from shipping operating system for a price, also
Massachusetts bemoans as “the NT servers were the bane of our lives…half of the time the network just wouldn’t just let you log on…..because images weren’t available”. Retrieved from http://www.linux.ie/articles/industry/.
3
Ubuntu is a free operating system developed and distributed by Canonical Limited found by a software entrepreneur and philanthropist Mark Shuttleworth. Canonical develops various types of flavors of GNU/Linux meant for different users across industries. Some of the varieties are Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Mythbuntu, Ubuntu Studio and etc. Visit http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu for further information.
2
David Howe, chairman of National Parent Council of primary education supports the view that Linux can be a best option for all primary educational institutions to keep the cost and expenditure sleek and slender. He also quotes how and why open source is encouraged by time to time mandates by various governments in Europe.
2 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1995233
resource management, ensuring competitive differentiation and etc.
customer
satisfaction,
(Anderson, Zeithmal, 1984) While it is difficult to define and comprehend, the issue of quality is assumed to be very important factor in determining market share. [11] Another important aspect of quality is that it is the function of perception, which means a latent trait that needs to be perceived by the user. (Crowston, Howison, 2005) In OSOS arena comprehension of quality is a typical aspect. Users generally take it granted for comparison while assessing the quality of OS. Market share is one of the important (success) measures used widely in the industry in order to track down trends of systems use.[12] Apart from market share, there are also other types of measures that are tightly connected to various OS success, they are namely; system creation, system quality, system use, system consequences. As far as systems use is concerned one of the most important parameter is market share.[13] Meng and Lee, suggest that if the OSS provider’s intention is to capture market share, then there needs to be compatibility for both OSS and proprietary software (two-way).[14] In this respect Linux is in full compliance to two way compatibility, for some of the distributions do allow binary libraries which can accommodate non compliant platform software. For instance, Wine for Debian based distributions.6
In line with above facts, a question appears at our view that, who is the user or consumer? In open source arena, the distinction between a user and a developer is very narrow. B.
Market share
In deed, doing research on consumer behavior with respect to open source software is a typical task. Linux is mostly free, which could be downloaded from the respective websites for installations. Hence, it makes difficult to track market statistics as how many users are really using Linux. Even though, Linux is rising predominantly abreast of cut-throat competition from Mac and Windows. The market share of Linux is only 1 to 4% where as Windows possess almost 85 percent of market share. In fact it is very difficult to make a note on market share of operating systems. Different operating systems tend to have different shares in different markets. Here the term market needs to be defined clearly. Suppose, computers are used differently for different uses, it can be a server, a desktop, a laptop, a mobile or also might be a piece of code in an electronic machine in operations set up. For example, Windows is widely used in all desktops and Linux in super computers. In other categories, suppose in mobile phones there are diverse set of operating systems, android OS is one of the successful Linux mobile OS which turned out to be third largest OS meant for Smart phones, with an 850% of growth in market share.4 Kapor, M., (2003) states in his report that Linux is expected to achieve 10% of market share at least by the next decade. [8] Dough Robers, (2011) reports as he got the data from statcounter.com, shows that Linux could not cross more than 1% market share against its counter parts like WinXP, WinVista, Win7, MacOSX and etc. 5[9]
Market share and usability appears to have infallible connection in between them, for every use can be counted to have certain purchase which again engenders growth in market share. Hence, usability of software always triggers market share which in turn influences growth of software performance. As per ISO 9241-11 (1998) the term usability simply means that the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals which effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use.[15] The report also enunciated software quality attributes in certain categories, they are; functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability and portability. From the software point of view, the term usability is defined as “the capability of software product to be understood, learned, used and attractive to the user, when used under specified conditions.” Understandability, learning and attractiveness are appears to be important quality characteristics with respect to software products. These three characteristics again tends to depend on various other variables like user computer back ground, expertise, and level of education (understandability). Hence, an effort is made in order to know whether there exist any relationship in between non technical factors and their respective counter parts. Expertise is one of the important variables which might influence users perception of software performance.
The quality is one of the parameters which describe the market share (Parasuraman et al, 1985), users need to have feel of quality in using a software. [10] Defining quality is one of the challenges in business arena, owing to its impalpability. 4
Android is developed by Google Inc., and continues to update till date. The entry into mobile phone operating system market is a strategic decision by Google to clear the way for it future software market plans. In deed, Android is a product of joint labor of few firms like eBay, Motorola, HTC, Samsung, Intel and etc. which are referred as open handset alliance. The base for Android is Linux (kernel). 5
Although Mr. Dough could not depict exact figures in his graph, he could reveal a trend which he got by certain methodology (of tracking down market share), where he finds WinXP’s market share dropped to 56% from it 70% in 2009, Win Vista’s market share slightly fell down being in between 28% to 14%, where as Win7 had shown significant growth from 0% to more than 15%. The fourth OS is MacOSX for which market share is observed to be approximately 5%.
III.
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
A. Statement of the problem For several years now, many people involved with computing and the Internet have harbored hopes that Linux might become 6
3
for further information please visit http://www.winehq.org/
a viable end-user operating system for a broad population. There has been great frustration with problems and limitations of commercial offerings, especially to the extent that the original goals of computers as tools of empowerment for individuals seem to have lost momentum. In turn this frustration has fueled the wish for an alternative which could evolve through the inclusive and open-ended dynamics of open source development.
organizations. A customer denies a product due to two main reasons that are; either he/she must not be having a need; or dissatisfied about services. In case of Linux disregarding need there must be gaps in user perception, whereby remaining at very abysmal figures of market share. Hence, it can be found as why Open Source, in spite of so many advantages remaining at very poor levels of market share, through customer or user point of view. There are abundant of factors which contribute to perception. In this study it is decided to measure and test perception of respondents who has expertise in computers. Expertise in this context could be awareness or knowledge about computers and software and its use in practice. B. Objectives
At the same time, it is an undeniable truth that while Linuxbased server software has matured to become an integral and vital component of the global information infrastructure, Linux on the desktop has remained at a very stark levels. While the appearance and performance of GNU/Linux is able to convince far better than Proprietary operating systems and other operating systems in the market, the total market share of Linux remained at only 1% while huge chunk of the market is enjoyed by other proprietary software, in spite of steady market growth. One of the main strengths of Linux is that it is absolutely free unlike Microsoft or any other commercial software. In one of the studies it is found that on an average for a small enterprise the total cost of acquiring and maintaining cost per annum for Windows will be USD 53525.00 and the same for Linux will be USD 247.00. 7 Hence, this cost factor happened to be one of the key strengths to Linux. By a recent study conducted by DataPro, it was found that for every 100 users of Linux 31 % of users interested because of lesser cost, which is followed by reliability 21 %, performance 10 %, access to source code only 7%, as motivations to their interest in Linux. In the same Datapro survey respondents opined that 94% of respondents are very much satisfied with Linux and it is a right choice for them, and when respondents are asked regarding their continuity, approximately 96% responded that they would increase the use of Open Source in future, and only 1% opined in contrary to that. The main problem here arises as in spite of all above facts the total market share of Linux remained at only 1% in desktop systems (PCs), and 16 % in desktop server systems. Why it remains at such a stark levels? Where is the problem? Are users are not sufficiently aware about Linux? Does Linux need to do more than Windows to beat competition? The aim of this research is to analyze user perception towards GNU/Linux. The customer perception is one of the important indicators of market growth for any product. Operating Systems are important products processing huge amount of information from small individual user to very big commercial organizations, after all acquiring, analyzing information and finally taking important decisions are common business activities ranging from individual to big business
The following are the objectives of the research. The objectives are drafted in coherence the above problem statement. 1. To elicit users opinions towards different factors of Linux 2. To know about users understanding towards Linux. 3. To ascertain about the level of expertise and its relationship with various technical factors of Linux. 4. To analyze and study the relationships in between these variables under study. C. Research design The type of the study is basically exploratory in nature. This study does not advocate any solution as how market can be increased, since, the research of user perception and satisfaction is in initial stage in this area of open source software. It is only an ambiguous situation that whether users think about Linux in contrast to other proprietary OS. Hence, trying for conclusive evidence could prove premature evaluation of the situation that is why; it requires further analysis and research to come up with a brief course of action. As far as the data needs are concerned, both primary and secondary data is used for this study. There are so many secondary data sources, like IT magazines, journals, News Papers, and some of the documents like both cross sectional and longitudinal studies across various institutions and organizations in the field. Regarding primary data, a contact instrument like Questionnaire is used to gather the data for the study, which comprises of both open and closed end questions. The questionnaire is designed so that it is possible to gather categorical data, and which in turns necessitates highly sophisticated statistical techniques like multiple correspondence analyses, hierarchical cluster analysis, which is generally difficult to handle and requires sufficient amount of intuitive capabilities. Hence, it is decided to use FactoMineR and EnQuireR of Rcmdr which are suitable to carry out the said analysis.[9][10][11] A very essential aspect of marketing research is sampling procedure. Simple random sampling technique is used for this study. Since the study is in twin cities (Hyderabad and
7
A research done by Cybersource Pvt. Ltd, which is funded by open source Victoria and this document is freely available on their website under open licensing system, in which it is clearly shown as how Linux is viable in terms of cost to individuals and small scale organizations than Windows. This cost is only for maintenance and training but not about acquisition.
4
Secunderabad), it needs to know the population of the state and then after about twin cities to determine sample size. Hyderabad and Secunderabad are normally called as twin cities in the state, serving as headquarters. Andhra Pradesh is the largest state in the southern peninsular region, with an area of 2, 75, 100 Sq. Kms and a coast line of 974 kms. The population of the state as per 2001 census stands at 76.21 millions, this constitute 7.42 % of total population of the country. According to Rajendra S.B., (2005), less than 1% population in India own PCs[12]. Taking it as a general finding; it will be approximately 0.76 million of population in AP owns personal computers. But in case of Twin cities the total population is only 4.2 millions, so making the figure around 0.04 million. The total amount of literacy in Twin Cities is 73.5% of the population only; hence same amount of population may be aware of computer but may not know much about it. Even taking into consideration of computer literates is also not much rational to the study. So, better to carry on study on those who owns computers, who may be knowing intricacies of Operating Systems, since they use systems. If this 73.5% (3.08 millions) is population for the study, then 1% (0.03 million) can be sample frame for the study. Then population parameter will be perception towards Open Source Operating System. Since, we are talking about percentage of people interested in OSOS; determination of sample size will be under the question of Proportions [13]. So, the formula will be pq N= _____ σ p2 Where, N= Sample Size, p=the proportion of population that has a given attribute, q=proportion of the population not having the attribute, σ p =standard error of the population. Substituting below data; p=0.2 % (proportion of the population using OSOS, q=0.8 % (proportion of the population not using OSOS, σ p=0.025 (0.05/1.96) => standard error of the proportion, (0.2 X 0.8) N= _____________= 256 (0.025)2 Which means; the researcher can be 95% confident that 2% of the respondents would like to use OSOS in contrast to Windows, with an error margin of 5 %, (0.05 used in above calculation). In concise, only 256 respondents from 0.03 million users in Twin Cities are contacted randomly to elicit responses about their perception towards Linux. D. Formulation of Hypothesi s Chi-square analysis is known as test of goodness of fit. It tests whether the sample distribution fits the idle or theoretical distribution. This technique is widely used for two important observations, i.e. (1) test of goodness of fit, (2) test of independence. The comparison of sample distribution to its theoretical distribution is the process of goodness of fit, where
as, the second assesses whether the paired observations on two variables are independent to each other. The second scenario is meaningful to the present study. In this study, it is observed whether the variables are dependent or independent, by carrying this test. In other words, it is all about finding whether a respondent’s response to one variable contributes to another variable. In EnQuireR the whole process goes as it returns a description as whether any two variables of two different groups dependent or independent. The returned description is a grid of rows and columns, the rows represents the variables of first group, whereas, the columns represents variables of second group. The cells are colored in light red when the p-values associated are significant, which means, the variables observed to be dependent. The hypothesis can be Ho=the variables under study are independent to each other, H1= the two variables are interdependent.[14] I
J
X2obs=∑ i=1 j=1 ∑
nij -
ni . nj n
2
ni . nj n
X2 is a chi-square static with (I – 1) and (J – 1) degrees of freedom, which is computed out of nij number of respondents with responses i and j. ni is number of respondents with response i, nj is number of respondents with responses j. n is total number of respondents for variables in study. The responses are also called as descriptors, suppose in this study the variable one vendor lock-in is responded as purchased separately, purchased with computer (OEM), provided by retailer or dealer, and obtained from community or others. The following hypothesis is formulated for the study; since, the study is to find perception of the respondents, Ho= the variable expertise does not depend on perceptual factors. H1= the variable expertise does depends on perceptual factors. IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION A. Description to data frame: Certain variables had been identified to study user perception; viz., vendors lock in, security, proprietary drivers, availability, performance, user friendliness, and technical help. The data is organized by developing a data frame, which is essentially a matrix of rows and columns. All columns are variables under study. The idea is to analyze the respondents by their responses towards these variables. All rows represents individuals, whereas, cell possess responses of these respondents. The responses are categorical in nature, if any respondent gives two responses, for example, a respondent one in data frame has given two responses to the variable proprietary drivers, i.e., required and easy, which means the proprietary drivers are required and are easy to obtain from the market. The responses like this are arranged by clubbing both
5
responses. Order of the matrix is 247 Х 10, i.e., 247 individuals and 10 variables.
10.
Variable Vendors lock in
2.
Security
3.
Proprietary drivers
4.
Availability
5.
Performance
6.
User friendliness Technical help
7. 8. 9.
Sex Computer background
High, Medium and Low
There are two types (groups) of variables in the study, they are; (1) variables of sample respondents, (2) variables of software (technical). In bivariate analysis (global point of view) it shows that all most all variables are significantly similar, except few. The Fig. 1 is the significance matrix of (Pearson’s) chi-square results, the cells shows X2 values of respective variables. For example, the overall (global value) chi-square statistic for vendors lock-in and sex is 28.33, the same for security and sex is observed as 15.83 and rest of the values follows as given in the diagram. As far as the color of the cell is concerned, a very light red (pink) denotes significance of relationship, which means whether the variables are dependent or independent.
The following is the description to variables:8 S.No. 1.
Expertise
Description Most of the proprietary software’s are locked by vendors by licenses. Users need to buy the software by accepting license agreement. 9 Descriptors are purchased separately, purchased with computer (OEM), provided by retailer or dealer, and obtained from community or others. Linux is much touted to be more secured than other OS. This variable represents the respondent’s confidence upon their use of OS. Descriptors are high, low and don’t know. Respondents views about acquiring drivers either easily or by effort. Unlike Windows, Linux doesn’t need drivers to be installed (mostly). There are required and easy, required and difficult, not required and easy, not required and difficult. The descriptors are easy, difficult and don’t know Performance of the system itself, there are three descriptors to this variable, they are; High, Low, Don’t know. Descriptors are yes, no and don’t know Easy to get, difficult to get and don’t know Male, female Yes and no
Figure 1: chi-square results for two sets of variables
Source: obtained from statistical analysis
8
The variables sex and computer backgrounds are with held for discussion owing to conformity to objectives of the study.
All variables are dependent on each other and the relationship is significant, except few. Dependency in between sex and proprietary drivers is not so strong with X2 value is being 6.955 and contributions of descriptors are feeble (which can be observed from subsequent analysis). The same situation can be observed in between sex vs. user friendliness and sex vs. technical help, the X2values of which are 4.676 and 3.286 respectively. One important observation from this chi-square analysis is that the variable expertise contributes well with all other (technical) variables, which is followed by computer back-ground, the variable sex could not explain technical variables well. The following discussions and tables show as how these variables are contributing to each other (strength of
9
Efforts of Richard Stallman in 1985 had brought the concept of copy-left licensing system into limelight, in fact he the originator of this type of licensing system. After he found GNU project, many of the software’s had taken shelter under this umbrella. Since, GNU and Linux are inseparable; both obey copy-left licensing system. Vendors lock in is a potential barrier to users, which limits the use either by number of uses or by number of systems. Most of the Linux distributions are available in the market with out vendors lock-in. for that matter, for certain distributions, there won’t be any vendor at all (open source).
6
response, whether respondents from one class could feel or respond to other class). The following table describes the relationship in between expertise and user friendliness10.
obtain, now let us question in opposite way that, how many respondents from the same descriptor holds opposite views? The most interesting observation is that there are hardly any respondent from the same group. This observation is conspicuous from the table as contribution is being 0.0059 (0.001%) which highly insignificant at 5.00 X 10 -01. This proves the reliability of the statistical technique. Regarding availability and expertise, totally there are 43 respondents who attribute their responses in the sample frame. Both the variables are significantly dependent with a p-value is being 8.619 X 10-09. From the table it is clear that 20 individuals who are high in expertise responded that Linux is easily available and their response is significant at 3.417810e08, on the other hand, 75% of respondents whose expertise is low don’t know about its availability, although the number is high, it is insignificant with a p-value 0.05690702 which is slightly is higher than 0.05 (12%). Even in other categories respondents opined that it is not so difficult to obtain Linux.
TABLE 2 CHI-SQUARE TEST RESULTS FOR USER FRIENDLINESS AND EXPERTISE X-squared = 162.4792, df = 4, p-value < 2.2e-16 Contributions Expertise User friendliness High Low Medium Don't know 2.00604723 12.19512195 7.76763091 No 10.19806363 91.23017460 8.59657303 Yes 12.58545032 17.88617886 0.01390952 Probability 1.000734eDon't know 3.286828e-02 9.676061e-08 07 1.920439eNo 2.980991e-06 6.562143e-31 07 4.538799eYes 2.763126e-08 2.437147e-12 01 Source: obtained from statistical analysis on sample respondents
TABLE 3 SUMMARY-TABLES OF CHI-SQUARE RESULTS FOR EXPERTISE VS. IT’S RESPECTIVE TECHNICAL FACTORS Technical Factors
The X2 value for these two variables is 162.47 at 4 degrees of freedom; the p-value is 2.2 X 10 -16 at 5% confidence level, which is highly significant. Out of 247, 162 individuals responses are significant towards these two variables and in which, a maximum of 91 respondents has low expertise responded to be less user-friendly and their responses are highly significant with a p-value 6.562143e-31. 12 individuals out of 162 responded that Linux is user-friendly and their responses show moderate significance. Ultimately both the variables are highly dependent on each other. Regarding vendors lock-in and expertise, there are 74 respondents whose responses are highly significant with a pvalue 7.69 X 10-13. Both the variables are strictly interdependent, for instance, in the sample 58.69% of individuals who have high level of expertise are provided by retailer/dealer, and 74.39% of individuals who out rightly claims as provided by retailer/dealer also characterized by high level of expertise. The most importantly 54.17% of respondents who have low level of expertise are responded as they downloads Linux, and out of 139 individuals 54.17% are low in expertise and they downloads Linux. Regarding proprietary drivers and expertise, there are 64 individuals/respondents who belongs to this category, interdependence is highly significant with a p-value is being 6.498 X 1012. Out of 64 individuals who belong to these two variables 34.51% possess high expertise and who responded that the proprietary drivers are required and it is difficult to
Vendors lock-in Security Proprietary drivers Availability Performance User friendliness Technical help
Chi-square value 74.04 33.52 64.13
Expertise p-value 7.69e-13 8.312e-06 6.498e-12
43.38 37.19 162.5
8.619e-09 1.646e-07 2.2e-16
33.56
9.181e-07
The above table is the summary results of chi-square analysis in between the expertise of sample respondents and its respective technical factors of the study. The factors user friendliness and expertise is tightly bonded together as the value is very high (X2 = 162.5) at 5% level of significance. The dependability in between expertise and security is comparatively less with X2is being 33.52 at 8.312e-06. V.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of chi-square analysis had delved out so many hidden tendencies of sample respondent’s perception towards Linux. As it was stated earlier that two groups of variables identified for the study (out of pilot study), the fist group describes about sample respondents like sex, computer background, and expertise. The second set or group of variables strictly describes about object of the study (GNU/Linux). Chi-square analysis is used in order to find whether the variable expertise depends on other technical variables. This can be ascertained from obtaining X2statistics in between those respective variables.
10
This table has been provided, since, chi-square value for these variables observed to be high. For the rest only description is provided with out tables. And analysis is confined to the study of attributes with respect to expertise.
7
The respondents are observed to be belonging to three types of expertise levels; they are high, medium and low. There are 63 individuals with high level of expertise in computers, 40 individuals who possess low level expertise and 143 individuals are observed to be medium in computer expertise. The following are some of the perceptual tendencies observed from the sample respondents. • There are more (50.76%) users who feel that the Linux is more user friendly than those (41%) who do not feel so. More number of users (75%) whose expertise is low (121 out of 161 in the sample) feels that the Linux is not user friendly, and from the same category those who said it is user friendly is observed to be low. From the medium category there are no respondents who opined that it is user friendly. • Most (58.69%) of the users whose expertise is high tend to obtain Linux from retailers or dealers who sell computers. From the same category only (13.45%) observed to have got it pre-installed in computers. Maximum users with low and medium expertise tend to download rather than getting it in other ways. • Regarding expertise levels and perception towards proprietary drivers, oat of 64 individuals who belong to these two variables 34.51% possess high expertise and who responded that the proprietary drivers are required and it is difficult to obtain. • Regarding ease of availability, users those are high in expertise responded that Linux is easily available and their response is significant at 3.417810e-08. The respondents who belongs high level of expertise did not feel that it is difficult to obtain Linux. Above observations are from bivariate analysis with respect to frequencies, where as inferential observations are concerned, all technical variables of perception highly depend on expertise of respondents. For instance, the chi-square statistic for user friendliness vs. expertise is observed to be 162.4792, which is highly significant at 2.2e-16, where by affirming that the two variables are high dependent on each other, which means respondents perception about user friendliness is significantly influenced by their expertise levels. In fact, the same observation is realized with respect to remaining variables at p-value is being less than 0.05. Hence, there is no significant evidence to accept null hypothesis that the user’s expertise does not influence their perception about Linux. REFERENCES
8
[1]
Hammel, M. (2002). Industry of change: Linux storms Hollywood. Linux journal. Retrieved from http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5472 [2]
Peng, R. (2010). How to use Linux in Industrial automation, Moxa Inc. Retrieved from http://www.neteon.net/PDFFiles/Moxa_White_Paper_How_to_Use_Linux_in_Industrial_Automation.pdf [3]
Peter Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), pp. 64–65.
[4]
West and et al. (2006). Patterns of Open Innovation in Open Source Software. Open Innovation, Oxford University Press. P. 1-5. [5]
Medonka, L. Sutan, R. (2010), succeeding at open source innovation-an interview with Mozilla’s Michel Baker. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/bto/pointofview/pdf/succeeding_open_source_innovation.pdf [6]
Kamseu and et al. (2009). Adoption of open source software: is it the matter of quality? Belgium:University f Namur. Retrieved from http://www.decon.unipd.it/personale/curri/manenti/floss/kamseu.pdf [7]
Real, D. McCarmick, M. (2006). Business intelligences on the selection of Linux vs. Windows platforms: a small midsize market analysis. Crestline partners white paper. P. 3. [8]
Decrem, B. (2004). Desktop Linux , where art thou? Open source application foundation. Retrieved from http://www.osafoundation.org/desktop-linux-overview.pdf [9]
Roberts, D. (2010). Linux market share. Linux journal. Retrieved from http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/linuxmarket-share [10]
Parasuram, A. et al. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 49. pp. 41-50. [11]
Anderson, Carl. Zeithmal, P. (1984). “Stage of the product life cycle, business strategy and business performance”. Academy of management journal. 27 (March). Pp. 5-27. [12]
Crowston, K., Annabi, H., Howison, J., & Masango, C. (2004). Towards a portfolio of FLOSS project success measures. Paper presented at the Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering, 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, Edinburgh. [13]
ibid
[14]
Meng, Z. Lee, S. Y. (2005). „Open source Vs. proprietary software: competition and compatibility”. Retrieved from www.citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.154...pdf [15]
Raza, A, et al.(2011). An empirical study of open source software usability: the industrial perspective. International journal of open source software and processes. 3(1). Pp. 1-16 [9]
Francois Husson, Julie Josse, Sebastien Le and Jeremy Mazet (2011). FactoMineR: Multivariate Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Mining with R. R package version 1.16. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=FactoMineR. [10]
Fournier Gwenaelle, Cadoret Marine, Fournier Olivier, Le Poder Francoi, Bouche Jerome and Le Sebastien (2010). EnQuireR: A package dedicated to questionnaires. R package version 0.10. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=EnQuireR [11]
John Fox , with contributions from Liviu Andronic, Michael Ash, Theophilius Boye, Stefano Calza, Andy Chang, Philippe Grosjean, Richard Heiberger, G. Jay Kerns, Renaud Lancelot, Matthieu Lesnoff, Uwe Ligges, Samir Messad, Martin Maechler, Robert Muenchen, Duncan Murdoch, Erich Neuwirth, Dan Putler, Brian Ripley, Miroslav Ristic and and Peter Wolf. (2011). Rcmdr: R Commander. R package version 1.7-0. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=Rcmdr [12]
Rajender S. B. (2005). ICT enabled development and digital divide: an Indian perspective. India. P.705. Retrieved from http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/dxml/bitstream/handle/1944/1445/702-712.pdf?sequence=1 [13]
Cooper, D. R. Shindler, P. S. (2006). Business Research Methods. 9th Edition. Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi. Pp. 430-436.
[14]
Cadoret, M. and et al. (2011). EnQuireR: Analyzing questionnaires with R, Journal of statistical software, vol. VV. Issue II. P. 6.
