Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 2nd May 2009 10:23 UTC, submitted by Luis
Linux Yes boys and girls, it's Net Applications time. Sure, their figures are flawed, and sure, they're misused all over the non-scientifically educated media, but that doesn't mean they do not indicate trends. One of those trends was a slowly rising popularity of Linux, which hit 0.93% market share in August 2008, only to sink back again during the following months. Well, it's April May 2009 now, and Linux has finally crossed the 1% market share line!
Order by: Score:
Actually...
by Dolphin on Sat 2nd May 2009 10:27 UTC
Dolphin
Member since:
2006-05-01

It's May 2009 now ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Actually...
by Liquidator on Sat 2nd May 2009 12:51 UTC in reply to "Actually..."
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

If it took 10 years to get 1% market share, how many years will it take to swallow the whole market? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Actually...
by WereCatf on Sat 2nd May 2009 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Actually..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

If it took 10 years to get 1% market share, how many years will it take to swallow the whole market? ;)

With the current growth rate it'd take so long that Linux will not be any relevant anymore.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Actually...
by cyclops on Sat 2nd May 2009 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Actually..."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

If it took 10 years to get 1% market share, how many years will it take to swallow the whole market? ;)

With the current growth rate it'd take so long that Linux will not be any relevant anymore.


LOL that is so funny its frightening. The reality is Linux growth is not Linear its exponential, thats not even covering the factors like Linux could shrink to half with a successful Windows 7, or a mythical tipping point could exist, or Android becomes successful...basically predicting the future is tricky...very tricky. It is fun to consider that Microsofts Marketshare continues to shrink:) or that for every 24 people who installed Vista there is 1 that installed Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Actually...
by gustl on Mon 4th May 2009 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Actually..."
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

I have a cool theory why the "this will be the year of desktop Linux" saying never dies.

I was once (1998) a Linux newbie, and I really had no widely usable system when I first installed it. after 2 years, I recognized that booting into windows had become VERY seldom, and from that I made the experience that you can really do your work using Linux.
I also noticed that installing became less and less onerous.
So it was the happy year 2000 when I formed the opinion that Linux is ready for the desktop, and that from now on the market share simply would explode.

Well, I was right for one out of two: Linux WAS ready for the desktop.

Funny thing was, despite being ready for the desktop, people did NOT start to switch to Linux in droves.

Now for the theory:
The development I went through, regarding the Linux desktop, is typical.
After some time of Linux usage you find it so amazingly useful, that you think everybody else would see that usefulness immediately so that all of them would start switching over.

So the people who say "this is the year of the Linux desktop" are just semi-newbies who misjudge the average user because their own experience was so smooth.

What would be interesting now would be a graph of "time from 'first Linux install' to first 'year of the desktop Linux belief' " versus "time".
That would be some sort of indication for how long it takes a Linux newbie until he settles all issues he might have with Linux.
That curve should get assymptotically close to the "time" axis. The lower it gets, the higher the Linux adoption rate should get.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Actually...
by dylansmrjones on Tue 5th May 2009 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Actually..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually the market share is similar to that of OS X. It's just that this particular service is reknowned for flawed statistics. Not to mention differences between countries. In Denmark we're slow at adopting Linux, yet it is several times higher than that of OS X. Even non-geeks are running Linux.

I used to code, but got tired of it, so now I'm studying as a pedagogue which is a hell of lot funnier (except changing diapers). Anyway, several girls in my class are using Ubuntu, though they can't tell the difference between the off-switch and swizz cheese :p

Reply Score: 2

Linux Desktop
by pclouds on Sat 2nd May 2009 10:44 UTC
pclouds
Member since:
2007-07-13

2009 is finally the year of Linux Desktop!

/me runs away

Reply Score: 3

v FINALLY
by ride01 on Sat 2nd May 2009 10:52 UTC
RE: FINALLY
by autumnlover on Sat 2nd May 2009 10:59 UTC in reply to "FINALLY"
autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

If only they would TRY GNU/LINUX they would be free from BLUE SCREENS but no BILL GATES tricks them ALL!!!!


Since XP SP2 I haven't seen BSOD even once. Get real. It's not "9x" in the Windows world anymore.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: FINALLY
by ride01 on Sat 2nd May 2009 11:08 UTC in reply to "RE: FINALLY"
RE[2]: FINALLY
by kajaman on Sat 2nd May 2009 12:01 UTC in reply to "RE: FINALLY"
kajaman Member since:
2006-01-06

And I had Ubuntu hanged every few hours until I upgraded to testing versions of kernel and drivers on FINAL ubuntu 9.04. This is 2009 and things had changed...

Edited 2009-05-02 12:01 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: FINALLY
by Liquidator on Sat 2nd May 2009 12:49 UTC in reply to "RE: FINALLY"
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

Same here...People keep remembering the notorious Win 98 version that would cause blue screens of death...Things have changed with XP, and I haven't seen a BSOF since then...I'm not backing Microsoft, it's just the truth.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: FINALLY
by Jokel on Sun 3rd May 2009 08:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FINALLY"
Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

Hmm ... Not that strange. You will only see a blue screen if you you change the default settings to do so. WindowsXP just abruptly restarts/crashes without showing a bluescreen when something goes wrong.

So - yes. You might not have seen a blue screen in years, but that does not mean anything I am afraid...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: FINALLY
by WereCatf on Mon 4th May 2009 11:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: FINALLY"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Hmm ... Not that strange. You will only see a blue screen if you you change the default settings to do so. WindowsXP just abruptly restarts/crashes without showing a bluescreen when something goes wrong.

So - yes. You might not have seen a blue screen in years, but that does not mean anything I am afraid...


Is it really so hard for you F/OSS fanboys to understand that WinXP just is NOT as bad as you wish it were? I haven't seen a BSOD in years, and I can't remember when WinXP had crashed either.

God, your all-knowing and arrogant attitudes sometimes makes me want to completely ditch Linux and move back to Windows, just to spite you >_>

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: FINALLY
by r_a_trip on Mon 4th May 2009 14:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: FINALLY"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm almost tempted to say, don't let the door hit you on the way out, but no.

Linux is too good to pass up, even with some uninformed people lurking around.

Windows XP SP2 is a bold step forward in comparison to earlier versions. It actually works pretty well.

Too bad that I got so disgusted with MS's culture and business practices, that considering Windows as a main OS currently is out of the question.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: FINALLY
by Jokel on Mon 4th May 2009 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: FINALLY"
Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

Calm down man!!!!!

Where did I say anything wrong about XP?

I just mentioned a bare cold fact. There is no blue screen to been seen if you do not configure XP to show it. Nothing more - nothing less...

How do I know? I EARN my money working as troubleshooter in big mixed UNIX/Windows networks. I know enough of both systems (and Novell and Cisco and...) to stand above those stupid OS fights.

Jeezz - those fanatic MS drones are really spitting fire about a lousy 1 % of Linux desktop population. Seems even that low rate is unbearable for them. Makes you think...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: FINALLY
by RogerBryce on Sat 2nd May 2009 13:14 UTC in reply to "RE: FINALLY"
RogerBryce Member since:
2008-07-07

Windows XP was released almost 9 years ago and the least one is entitled to expect is that it is now fixed almost properly. I say "almost", because, after my experience with XP_32, I'd rather go back to DOS than use it again. That's just my opinion, of course.

I got a couple of BSODS on Windows Server 2003 SP1 on a Pentium D940 based computer. I think that's much worse than getting them on XP.

One last consideration: even VIA has now gone the 64 bit way. XP is really dead and it's pointless to compare it to any recent release of Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: FINALLY
by Jokel on Sun 3rd May 2009 08:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FINALLY"
Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

Ever tried XP 64 bit professional?

Works very nice. Not all apps are compatible, but a lot of them just work...

Although I prefer Linux, I like to see the comments a bit balanced...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: FINALLY
by EddyGL on Sun 3rd May 2009 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE: FINALLY"
EddyGL Member since:
2009-04-12

That would only be YOUR experience, not indicative of the entire Windows using population

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: FINALLY
by RogerBryce on Mon 4th May 2009 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FINALLY"
RogerBryce Member since:
2008-07-07

I think I wrote it was just my opinion.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: FINALLY
by rockwell on Mon 4th May 2009 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: FINALLY"
RE[2]: FINALLY
by dylansmrjones on Tue 5th May 2009 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE: FINALLY"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Since I got a new computer I've had quite a few BSOD's with Win2K3. It's really a non-Microsoft software/hardware problem, but none-the-less I've got a few BSOD's lately. Blame it on Logitech (well, Labtec webcam) and Asus (I knew buying a mobo from Asus was bad).

Generally Windows is very stable and has been so since Win2K. Poor hardware/software combination can bring down any system.

Reply Score: 2

RE: FINALLY
by WereCatf on Sat 2nd May 2009 11:15 UTC in reply to "FINALLY"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

If only they would TRY GNU/LINUX they would be free from BLUE SCREENS but no BILL GATES tricks them ALL!!!!

Blue screen? Hmm, I've used WinXP for gaming for years and I can't remember the last time I've seen a blue screen. Or well, if we don't count my desktop image.

I use Linux for all other stuff (it still totally sucks for gaming) and as a fellow Linux user I say to you: learn to write coherent and meaningful messages. Ranting randomly and sounding like a total lunatic does NOT in any way make Linux sound like a good alternative. Totally the opposite. Oh, and in case you didn't notice it yourself: you do sound like a bitter, loony fanboy and no one will take you seriously.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: FINALLY
by Jon Dough on Sat 2nd May 2009 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE: FINALLY"
Jon Dough Member since:
2005-11-30

Don't you people recognize a troll post when you see it? Sheech...

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: FINALLY
by Silent_Seer on Sat 2nd May 2009 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE: FINALLY"
Silent_Seer Member since:
2007-04-06

LOL, it's an intentional troll. Just see the video he linked to.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: FINALLY
by cyclops on Sat 2nd May 2009 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE: FINALLY"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

If only they would TRY GNU/LINUX they would be free from BLUE SCREENS but no BILL GATES tricks them ALL!!!!

Blue screen? Hmm, I've used WinXP for gaming for years and I can't remember the last time I've seen a blue screen. Or well, if we don't count my desktop image.

I use Linux for all other stuff (it still totally sucks for gaming) and as a fellow Linux user I say to you: learn to write coherent and meaningful messages. Ranting randomly and sounding like a total lunatic does NOT in any way make Linux sound like a good alternative. Totally the opposite. Oh, and in case you didn't notice it yourself: you do sound like a bitter, loony fanboy and no one will take you seriously.


Just looking at your much moderated point. It is important to note that a multi-billion pound industry geared towards keeping Microsoft OS running on these computers. Many of those people who work here, including myself have made *Good* money from this.

Interestingly the blue screen itself is often useful at fixing errors like incorrectly installed drivers.

The reality is Linux is generally more stable; easier to maintain than any Microsoft OS...but it also has kernel panics etc etc

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: FINALLY
by google_ninja on Sun 3rd May 2009 02:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FINALLY"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

That is hands down the most level headed thing I have ever seen you write here cyclops. kudos

Reply Score: 2

major86
Member since:
2008-04-21

seriously, hope linux will make some more progress on the desktop...
Free "unix" for the masses is our way!!!

Reply Score: 1

The way :)
by drstorm on Sat 2nd May 2009 11:17 UTC
drstorm
Member since:
2009-04-24

IMHO, Linux needs to continue improving itself. They should keep an average user away form the console as far as possible. In many ways, they should look up to Microsoft for ideas, as MS has proven to understand the way an average user thinks.

The statistics is not the issue. Once Linux becomes better, the market share will reflect it.

Please don't tell me that Linux is good as it is. It is a good piece of software. No one denies that. However, it's obviously only 1% of the market good. People supporting Linux should really stop blaming Microsoft for everything and take a good look at themselves. (I believe there was an article about that here recently.)

Reply Score: 5

RE: The way :)
by RandomGuy on Sat 2nd May 2009 11:41 UTC in reply to "The way :)"
RandomGuy Member since:
2006-07-30

MS has proven to understand the way an average user thinks.

You mean the average user is so mindblowingly retarded that they need to be asked the same question a billion times to make sure they didn't click anything by accident?

Excuse me for a couple of hours, I think I need to vomit in terror.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: The way :)
by Drumhellar on Sat 2nd May 2009 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE: The way :)"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

You mean the average user is so mindblowingly retarded that they need to be asked the same question a billion times to make sure they didn't click anything by accident?


Unfortunately, yes, the average user is that dumb.
And, then there are the ones that click through all the UAC prompts, then wonder why their system stopped working.

Excuse me for a couple of hours, I think I need to vomit in terror.


Sorry. This stall is occupied.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The way :)
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 3rd May 2009 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The way :)"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Unfortunately, yes, the average user is that dumb.
And, then there are the ones that click through all the UAC prompts, then wonder why their system stopped working.

Too bad Microsoft's way of asking endless questions does nothing but train people to click "yes" or "OK" whenever a question comes up. In other words: it doesn't work. And as if that wasn't bad enough, for those people who *do* know what they're doing, their computing experience can quickly be turned to shit.

For me, Windows XP is absolutely horrible upon install, and I always immediately went through changing dozens of settings, all over the damn place, often to shut the damn thing up, turn off flashy crap, and make it stop guzzling resources. Quick example: "Are you sure you want to safely send this item to the recycle bin?" then "Are you sure you want to permanently remove this item from the recycle bin?" I doubt Vista is much better, but thankfully I don't run Windows any more...

"Excuse me for a couple of hours, I think I need to vomit in terror.

Sorry. This stall is occupied.
"

Good one. ;)

Edited 2009-05-03 00:31 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: The way :)
by google_ninja on Mon 4th May 2009 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The way :)"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

If all you see is "ok" or "cancel", you are running vista as an admin, which you shouldn't be doing in the first place. If you don't run as a user in the administrators group, then you see a dialog prompting you for the username and password of someone who is in the adminstrators group.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The way :)
by darknexus on Mon 4th May 2009 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The way :)"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

No, you shouldn't be doing it... but then, why is it the default behavior when Vista is first installed? MS either needs to default to creating a limited user plus an administrator password, or require the administrator's password in UAC dialogs even when running as admin. One or the other needs to be done, or UAC is basically useless as a security measure and in fact is harmful by creating a bad habbit of clicking "ok" to any dialog.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The way :)
by shadoweva09 on Sat 2nd May 2009 16:38 UTC in reply to "The way :)"
shadoweva09 Member since:
2008-03-10

They're not going to, they're far too happy living in ignorant bliss.

Restating my stance: I will use whether desktop Linux still uses dependencies instead of self contained single file installs as an indicator for whether it's ready to compete in the market. It really is a no-brainer decision if you look at all the pros and cons of the solutions, but the Linux fanboys would rather restate their scripted responses and not admit usability is a valid issue in OS design. (And yeah, businesses don't matter since they only need to run a small amount of software and are not nearly as demanding as home users.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The way :)
by ichi on Sat 2nd May 2009 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE: The way :)"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

I will use whether desktop Linux still uses dependencies instead of self contained single file installs as an indicator for whether it's ready to compete in the market. It really is a no-brainer decision if you look at all the pros and cons of the solutions


I don't see anything stopping anyone from distributing their software statically compiled with a binary installer. ID and Epic already did so.

I'd like to see how the pros of self contained installers outweigh those of small programs depending on others, considering that the package manager already deals with that.

Package managers provide a way to distribute software, but if it doesn't fit your needs then just distribute your software in any other way you want, and compile it statically if you don't want to rely on installed libs. You can even provide a tarball where the user only has to extract it and run the software right away from the folder he has extracted it to, as does mozilla.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: The way :)
by vivainio on Sat 2nd May 2009 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The way :)"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


I don't see anything stopping anyone from distributing their software statically compiled with a binary installer. ID and Epic already did so.


You don't even need to do that - just bundle the .so's (dll's for those not in the know) in a directory, and set LD_LIBRARY_PATH in the launcher script.

You can even provide a tarball where the user only has to extract it and run the software right away from the folder he has extracted it to, as does mozilla.


Yes, this is probably the next best alternative to package manager.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: The way :)
by shadoweva09 on Sun 3rd May 2009 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The way :)"
shadoweva09 Member since:
2008-03-10

I'd like to see how the pros of self contained installers outweigh those of small programs depending on others, considering that the package manager already deals with that.


Well cost of maintaining repositories for one, that's quite a significant sum of money that would be better used elsewhere. Then there's a ridiculous hope that all software will be open source so we can put it into our repository, which isn't rational (Large complex projects are best done commercially, and small tools are best done with open source and that's just how it is.) Then there's at least 10 reasons why something might not work with dependencies and if it came bundled all of them would go away. Need for broadband to manage software... Once again - it's a no brainer decision. Space isn't that important, and the security is over the top for a desktop system.

Package managers provide a way to distribute software, but if it doesn't fit your needs then just distribute your software in any other way you want


That would be pointless, it's a major distro that needs to change.

Edited 2009-05-03 15:29 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: The way :)
by ichi on Sun 3rd May 2009 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The way :)"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

So the point is repositories should be removed so you can do something that you can already do?

You can install software downloaded straight from the web (be it with dependencies or stand alone stuff) and you can install commercial software distributed in any kind of media (cd, dvd, whatever).

How does removing repositories and the possibility of distributing modular software help in any way?
By the way, you can already install proprietary, stand alone software through the package manager.

On the other hand turning all software into monolithical, non dependant packages would raise other issues like duplicated libraries all over the system, on a wide range of versions, or not being able to take advantage of new features in software A until devs of software B, which depends on A, include the new version in their package.

I'd take the concept of small, specialized apps working together over the typical monolithic windows apps any day. It wouldn't make sense to do that without relaying on dependencies.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: The way :)
by lemur2 on Mon 4th May 2009 02:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The way :)"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well cost of maintaining repositories for one, that's quite a significant sum of money that would be better used elsewhere. Then there's a ridiculous hope that all software will be open source so we can put it into our repository, which isn't rational


I think you have a basic misunderstanding of repositories.

The package manager of typical Linux distribution does not use just one repository ... it uses a list of repositories. The end users can prioritise which repositories will be used ahead of others, and alternatively the end users can elect to install specific packages from a particular repository rather than the default.

There are quite a few applications (open source or otherwise) for which the installation method might be described similarly to this:

"Add the following line to /etc/apt/sources.list

deb http:/someserver.net/pub jaunty someapp

then do

apt-get update && apt-get install someapp"


This procedure, or its equivalent, adds a new repository to the list of repositories in use, and then installs a new application from that new repository.

http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/ch-basico.en.html

http://mirror.atrpms.net/ccrma/man/man5/sources.list.5.html

Packages in repositories can be either source code, or binary executables. There is no requirement that they be open source, and there is no requirement that they be maintained by the distribution.

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/third-party-apt
"ThirdPartyApt defines a file format that ISVs can publish on their web sites and distribute to users to download their software, optionally enabling automatic updates.

This spec makes it easy for users to install third party software and have it update automatically. By doing this in a consistent and standard way, we both discourage the use of difficult custom install methods and encourage better security than is currently practiced."


The reference to "ISVs" in the above quote means "Independant Software Vendors". It says absolutely nothing about the third-party software needing to be open source ... that is because it doesn't need to be open source.

Edited 2009-05-04 02:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The way :)
by dylansmrjones on Tue 5th May 2009 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The way :)"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

One could also download a .RPM-file or a .deb-file and double click on it. This will usually result in the package being installed (if dependencies are met, otherwise it'll crap out on you).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The way :)
by gustl on Mon 4th May 2009 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE: The way :)"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Restating my stance: I will use whether desktop Linux still uses dependencies instead of self contained single file installs as an indicator for whether it's ready to compete in the market.


Well, having the whole distribution to consist of independent files for each app really makes no sense.

Just imagine the update nightmare whenever a security update for a library, which is part of several programs, has to be done.

The package management is a good thing for everything the distribution takes care of.
All other software, which will most of the time only be 1 to 3 closed source apps, can either use an installer like in Windows, or be some sort of self-executing binary like Apple's.

The alternative would be to give up the choice between several desktop environments and programs and supply ONE complete-install base system, and go on from there the Apple or Microsoft way of installing things.
But I sincerely doubt you will ever see a distro emerge which operates like that. Package managers are too painless for that.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The way :)
by cyclops on Sat 2nd May 2009 23:13 UTC in reply to "The way :)"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

IMHO, Linux needs to continue improving itself. They should keep an average user away form the console as far as possible. In many ways, they should look up to Microsoft for ideas, as MS has proven to understand the way an average user thinks.

The statistics is not the issue. Once Linux becomes better, the market share will reflect it.

Please don't tell me that Linux is good as it is. It is a good piece of software. No one denies that. However, it's obviously only 1% of the market good. People supporting Linux should really stop blaming Microsoft for everything and take a good look at themselves. (I believe there was an article about that here recently.)


I noticed your point about the console. I'm not sure if you use the console...a seriouls powerful OS tool that Microsoft is investing time and money in getting an equivalent. I have had a look at my "history" and there is nothing in it I cannot have done though a GUI.

The reality is the CLI is only used for most users to fix a problem through a forum done in a tenth of the time you see Microsoft problems being fixed with its screenshots and click this and click that.

That said X.org up until a year ago was a major problem that is *STILL* being fixed, but for most users they can pretty much get started with no editing though gedit ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: The way :)
by spinnekopje on Sun 3rd May 2009 06:02 UTC in reply to "The way :)"
spinnekopje Member since:
2008-11-29

In many ways, they should look up to Microsoft for ideas, as MS has proven to understand the way an average user thinks.


I think MS has lost that understanding, but because of their marketing in the past they made users think like MS, and not create their products the way people think. The average user is familiar with MS, so it's difficult. The same problem goes for the applications where most users here use MS Office. Those users won't switch to linux unless they first switched to OpenOffice.org. The human being isn't one of easy changing its habitutes..

I've seen it a couple of times before now: learning to use another OS means you have to forget how the other one worked. This is correct for changing to linux, but also for changing to windows, OS X or whatever OS you prefer.

Personnaly I don't care how many or few people are using a certain system, as long as they like it. For the moment I like using ubuntu with my own custom kernel on my aspire one. I know that I won't change back to windows unless windows changes radicaly because in my opinion you have to look in unlogical places for many settings.

Reply Score: 2

Not really
by ahmetaa on Sat 2nd May 2009 11:37 UTC
ahmetaa
Member since:
2005-07-06

Linux, will never make into desktop with its current user space. Only things like android will pull it to end user, but then again, user will not even know if linux is being used. And they should not. Apps matter, not the OS.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Not really
by WereCatf on Sat 2nd May 2009 11:42 UTC in reply to "Not really"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Apps matter, not the OS.

Not quite. Without a good foundation it's tough (not impossible, but tough) to write good apps, and also the without a good OS the security of all your stuff is negligible. I'd say they both matter. Without good OS it doesn't matter what you run in it, and without apps even the Holy Grail of OS-development is useless.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Not really
by ahmetaa on Sat 2nd May 2009 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Not really"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

Apps matter, not the OS.

Not quite. Without a good foundation it's tough (not impossible, but tough) to write good apps, and also the without a good OS the security of all your stuff is negligible. I'd say they both matter. Without good OS it doesn't matter what you run in it, and without apps even the Holy Grail of OS-development is useless.


Well, not quite. just use a secure development platform (use a robust virtual machine). most applications does not need low level capabilities. Hint: Android. Besides, linux is not that secure anyway. But with enoug sand boxing it is ok, just like any other OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not really
by silix on Sat 2nd May 2009 13:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Not really"
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

Apps matter, not the OS.

Not quite. Without a good foundation it's tough (not impossible, but tough) to write good apps, and also the without a good OS the security of all your stuff is negligible. I'd say they both matter. Without good OS it doesn't matter what you run in it, and without apps even the Holy Grail of OS-development is useless.

not quite.
on one hand, for the vast majority of people, the OS is just a mean to run applications that allow them to leverage the workflow that suits them best

without good applications no END USER will be interested in the OS, for as good as it may be -
except maybe as a technology showcase or a toy, or for those who don't care about industry - recognized, professional grade applications, and /or take pleasure in contemplating the exquisite technicalities of operating systems, or fiddling with alternative operating systems for the sake of it...

OTOH, application development is a classic example of a chicken and egg problem: a platform can hardly grow without catering to the widest possible audience (ie without a supply of good and diverse applications)
but development of new applications would require a large and vital user base for the target platform, in order to be a worthy investment, and not a risk...
or, ISVs could take the initial risk, if given enough incentive - in the form of good libraries, development tools and so on, or maybe assistance in writing / porting their app, or actual funding, or even backward and forward compatibility in the platform (an often overlooked key factor in preserving one's investment) ...

catering to third party developers in every possible way can often contribute to the overall success of the platform, for as poorly engineered, implemented and performing it may be, more than allegedly superior kernel implementation features - as it removes one part of the above riddle

providing *good tools*, a "good enough" but *consistent* platform and the assurance the platform worked well for microsoft in the DOS and win 3.1x times, maybe FOSS could learn something...

Edited 2009-05-02 13:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not really
by vivainio on Sat 2nd May 2009 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not really"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


OTOH, application development is a classic example of a chicken and egg problem: a platform can hardly grow without catering to the widest possible audience (ie without a supply of good and diverse applications)
but development of new applications would require a large and vital user base for the target platform, in order to be a worthy investment, and not a risk...


This chicken and egg problem has been surmounted already.

We have Qt under LGPL. ISV can choose win32 as their main sales platform "right now", and provide a Linux version as an almost free bonus. Admittedly, we've had that option for a long time with Gtk+/wx, but they really couldn't cut the cross platform thing as well as Qt (and the pricey commercial license was reasonable option *for some*, but out of reach for many).

If you are a company that is paying for custom software, you'd do well to require that it be cross-platform (to avoid excluding part of your desktops, now or in the future).

Note that LGPL'ing Qt only happenend in 2009.

KDE4 started becoming realistic option in 2009.

We are seeing lots of stuff happening right now. It may be "cheap shot" to ridicule the market share, but those with eyes and ears for what's happening in the industry can't escape sensing the momentum that is piling up.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Not really
by silix on Sat 2nd May 2009 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not really"
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

This chicken and egg problem has been surmounted already.

on windows, yes, it has been solved a long time ago, but on linux, i suspect it is still there ...
otherwise, we'd have plenty of those user-required, industry-recognized applications i mentioned earlier (plus games) on linux, too

We have Qt under LGPL.

for C++ gui development, QT is a wonder, but there's much more to developing and deploying a third party application, than the gui framework, especially on linux
when the few promiment closed source applications that desktop linux users actually install (iirc Opera uses Qt, btw) , are individually packaged not just for every major distribution, but in some cases for *releases* of distributions (to select from long lists), then it means those distributions and sub-versions account for different deployment targets in their own right, with slight differences and incompatibilities - rightly so, since for all intents and purposes of SW development and testing, every variation in the system image (runtime configuration, kernel version, libraries present and their versions, etc) essentially creates a new case to be individually supported (especially inpractical for commercial SW that strives to address the widest audience but cannot afford the user tampering with the program's source or makefiles and recompiling, to make it work on the unsupported distribution of his choice...)
thus the collective "linux" market share becomes less relevant, and ubuntu's / opensuse / fedora /... individual marketshare is what counts

Edited 2009-05-02 17:05 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Not really
by vivainio on Sat 2nd May 2009 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not really"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


when the few promiment closed source applications that desktop linux users actually install (iirc Opera uses Qt, btw) , are individually packaged not just for every major distribution, but in some cases for *releases* of distributions (to select from long lists), then it means those distributions and sub-versions account for different deployment targets in their own right,


Yes, this can be a problem. Still, most of the time it's trivial to repackage a program for different distro version, unless some library went away completely. That's the price we are paying for progress, though; basically, we could urge businesses to choose an LTS version of Ubuntu and stick with that.

rightly so, since for all intents and purposes of SW development and testing, every variation in the system image (runtime configuration, kernel version, libraries present and their versions, etc) essentially


Consider a cross-platform Qt4 program. It's probably not going to depend on system configuration all that much, since it also works on Windows, and important libs like Qt and Gtk generally retain binary compatibility.

I'd urge ISV's to continue making the software primarily for Windows, *but* ensure that they can provide a Linux version if there is demand. This can be accomplished by using a cross platform toolkit. If it appears that they are missing big deals for company-wide deployment because they don't have a linux version available, they can provide the Linux version easily.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Not really
by gustl on Mon 4th May 2009 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not really"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

I think the "problem" of closed source software development for Linux is wildly overrated.

I recently installed a very expensive CAE software on a company's computer.
That particular software officially supports RedHat5. I had no trouble installing it in Fedora9 which is 1.5 years ahead.

Just package all libraries you need into your installer binary, and everything is fine.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Not really
by cyclops on Sat 2nd May 2009 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Not really"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Apps matter, not the OS.

Not quite. Without a good foundation it's tough (not impossible, but tough) to write good apps, and also the without a good OS the security of all your stuff is negligible. I'd say they both matter. Without good OS it doesn't matter what you run in it, and without apps even the Holy Grail of OS-development is useless.


You can argue this point, but Microsoft is currently spending billions to run things in the cloud, and moving many of its bloat onto the internet, both for lock-in...and its not the only one.

That said Linux is looking stronger as nobody can argue that the space between the OS and the apps is looking weaker compared to that of the browser and the internet.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not really
by vivainio on Sat 2nd May 2009 12:43 UTC in reply to "Not really"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Apps matter, not the OS.


On a brighter note, applications are starting to matter less and less as time passes. Once you have a good browser, you have basically covered what most users care about. Running all the warez perfectly is not really that interesting to grand public.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Not really
by bousozoku on Sat 2nd May 2009 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Not really"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

"Apps matter, not the OS.


On a brighter note, applications are starting to matter less and less as time passes. Once you have a good browser, you have basically covered what most users care about. Running all the warez perfectly is not really that interesting to grand public.
"

I think you're really confirming his point.

Applications do matter, whether they're native to an operating system or running in a browser.

It's not the platform, but the application.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Not really
by vivainio on Sat 2nd May 2009 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not really"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


Applications do matter, whether they're native to an operating system or running in a browser.


Yeah, but since this was in context of Linux vs. Windows, it's meaningless to talk about browser applications (unless we are thinking of Silverlight, which has not turned out to be an important concern).

Internet played a dirty trick on Microsoft, robbing from them their most prized advantage (support of legacy apps). Shrink wrapped app market is dead. Kind of makes you think why they were extremely interested in pushing the "web services" concept back in the day ;-).

Well, Windows has still got the games, but apart from that the playing field is more level than ever before.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not really
by Craig on Sat 2nd May 2009 13:43 UTC in reply to "Not really"
Craig Member since:
2009-04-15

Android is as much Linux as MacOSX is BSD. Developers are writing to the Android API.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Not really
by shadoweva09 on Sat 2nd May 2009 16:56 UTC in reply to "Not really"
shadoweva09 Member since:
2008-03-10

Apps matter, not the OS.


Not so much when it comes to Linux though. The apps are a mess of dependencies, people that self taught themselves C and have no idea how to do Object oriented programming, and inappropriate use of GUI designers to through together interfaces. Don't even think about arguing about "the cloud", the best use of that right now is stuff like google docs; and people like owning the apps they run, not renting them and then suffering downtime and connectivity issues. It's a mess and only Linux users would argue the OS is irrelevant (Don't argue, you'll just proving my point in another thread that you're living in ignorant bliss and providing whatever scripted response you learned to defend it.)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Not really
by Jokel on Sun 3rd May 2009 12:20 UTC in reply to "Not really"
Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

My friend - Linux IS already on the desktop! No - not overwhelmingly, but it is here. You cannot wish it away - even if you would like to. Even 1% of the total population using desktop computers is a whole bunch of people. It means 1 of every 100 users is using Linux as a desktop. Think about it... that's a lot of people hm?

Thinking about it.. A few years ago people would say Linux would never make it as a OS in general. It is funny to see that "general" is already reduced to "the desktop".

A few years back Linux would not even be considered because there where so many things missing (as they said). Nowadays almost the only complaint is about very specialist software (yes Paintshop also belongs to that) that about 0.0001% of the total amount of users would use, and some hardware from prehistoric hardware suppliers that refuse to even give the specs to write a good driver.

Anyway - Linux is slowly but steadily growing. It does not "pop up", but slowly flooding the lower regions (low-spec hardware etc.) and climbing slow but unstoppable.

I imagine people using other OS'es see this as a threat, otherwise I cannot explain the harsh and unfriendly comments given on a growth to just 1%. It sounds like these people do not even can bare the idea Linux would grow above 1%. This kind of aggression has a bit fanatic coloring. I mean 1% ? Please - why you even have to respond! And then you have to declare over and over and over again "Linux is not ready"? Feels like it has become a (frantic) mantra or something. Feeling a bit uneasy in some way maybe? ;-)

Reply Score: 3

OEMs
by nickelbackro on Sat 2nd May 2009 12:03 UTC
nickelbackro
Member since:
2009-04-12

While this is impressive for a DIY OS like GNU/Linux the only way to success is to have a couple of OEMs on board selling systems with GOOD distros (No Xandros or Linpus).

Most people I've met who are older than me need instruction on even downloading software from the web. They are incapable of even installing something simple like firefox. I've actually shown someone at my work step by step how to download Avira Antivir when their Mcaffe subscription ran out and when they got home (after taking notes) still couldn't do it. So to expect the general public to repartition or even run a Wubi installer under Ubuntu, sadly, is too much to ask.

Reply Score: 4

RE: OEMs
by eksasol on Sat 2nd May 2009 14:57 UTC in reply to "OEMs"
eksasol Member since:
2009-04-05

Most people I've met who are older than me need instruction on even downloading software from the web. They are incapable of even installing something simple like firefox. I've actually shown someone at my work step by step how to download Avira Antivir when their Mcaffe subscription ran out and when they got home (after taking notes) still couldn't do it. So to expect the general public to repartition or even run a Wubi installer under Ubuntu, sadly, is too much to ask.

I help other people on computers a lot too, but I still choose to believe its not that Linux is hard to use, but Microsoft has such a large culture and people are used it. Since you say they have problem installing the software its more of a universal model than a specific OS. In a supposed example, if Linux has switched place with Microsoft, the "mass" Linux users who never used Windows in their life before could find it difficult to use. And it is with all the hidden and scattered options.

Edited 2009-05-02 15:05 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: OEMs
by tech10171968 on Sat 2nd May 2009 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE: OEMs"
tech10171968 Member since:
2007-05-22

I help other people on computers a lot too, but I still choose to believe its not that Linux is hard to use, but Microsoft has such a large culture and people are used it. Since you say they have problem installing the software its more of a universal model than a specific OS. In a supposed example, if Linux has switched place with Microsoft, the "mass" Linux users who never used Windows in their life before could find it difficult to use. And it is with all the hidden and scattered options.

I don't know why the hell you were modded down, for this is the crux of the matter. I've heard so many people saying "...but Windows is more user-friendly easier to use...". I don't believe that for a second; Windows just seems easier because most people were raised on a steady diet of Microsoft. To these folks Linux seems awfully weird and unfamiliar, so they end up running back to the Devil they know.

If you took someone who was raised on a steady diet of Linux/Solaris/Haiku/etc, and suddenly threw him in front of a Vista machine, he'd have exactly the same complaint. Could you imagine someone saying, "... but Linux is more user-friendly and easier...".

Reply Score: 7

RE: OEMs
by cyclops on Sat 2nd May 2009 23:18 UTC in reply to "OEMs"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

While this is impressive for a DIY OS like GNU/Linux the only way to success is to have a couple of OEMs on board selling systems with GOOD distros (No Xandros or Linpus).

Most people I've met who are older than me need instruction on even downloading software from the web. They are incapable of even installing something simple like firefox. I've actually shown someone at my work step by step how to download Avira Antivir when their Mcaffe subscription ran out and when they got home (after taking notes) still couldn't do it. So to expect the general public to repartition or even run a Wubi installer under Ubuntu, sadly, is too much to ask.


DIY OS...clearly your not referring to the OS that many companies including IBM;Oracle;Red Hat etc make money from and invest heavily in.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: OEMs
by nickelbackro on Sun 3rd May 2009 05:40 UTC in reply to "RE: OEMs"
nickelbackro Member since:
2009-04-12

I meant DIY in terms of installation, i realize the great contributions of corporate sponsors and realize that linux wouldn't be quite as close to being what it is without corporations like Redhat IBM and Sun.

My point though is that so few people even know how to repartition that it isn't practical for mass market acceptance to require it, thats what OEMs are for at least for most people.

Reply Score: 1

Study paid by Microsoft
by kensai on Sat 2nd May 2009 12:51 UTC
kensai
Member since:
2005-12-27

It is common knowledge that this stats are funded by MS and Apple, so they are not to be believed. The Linux markate share in general is above 5% world wide, 14% of servers 98% of super computers and a 100% percent of instant on OS'.

Two years ago it was very hard for me to find anyone that knew or used Linux, now I run into them all the time. Is funny how Linux is now Ubuntu, since everyone tells me, hey I'm trying Ubuntu, that OS is very good. I don't personally use Ubuntu, but welcome the way they are pushing Linux towards. This is only needed in the desktop, because in the corporate market, MS is already very scared of how so many companies are deploying the use of Linux.

But the better news are, MS is at 87% market share, what experts predicted is becoming truth, a drop of 1-3% a year.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Study paid by Microsoft
by Bending Unit on Sat 2nd May 2009 13:25 UTC in reply to "Study paid by Microsoft"
Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

Ooops, seems you forgot to attach the evidence backing up your claims. You do have them right?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Study paid by Microsoft
by kensai on Sat 2nd May 2009 15:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Study paid by Microsoft"
kensai Member since:
2005-12-27

Here you go the market share study is fake:
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/03/net-applications-big-lie/
Linux Servers exceed 13% market share:
http://www.techspot.com/news/31405-linux-server-market-exceeds-13.h...
Linux in super computers market share, this one says 87% market share in supercomputers, but still a lot:
http://www.top500.org/stats/list/32/osfam
Fedora 10 alone has one million users:
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/02/red-hat-fedora-linux-1...

Man, Linux is unstoppable, we are everywhere and rule almost all markets. Just remember the desktop is not MS intended market, if they are left with desktop market alone they would go broke.

Edited 2009-05-02 15:55 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Study paid by Microsoft
by vivainio on Sat 2nd May 2009 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Study paid by Microsoft"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Here you go the market share study is fake:


Yeah, says Boycott Novell. Reader discretion is advised.

Man, Linux is unstoppable, we are everywhere and rule almost all markets.


That sounds excessively optimistic by a long shot. You are spot on about Linux being unstoppable, but we hardly dominate any market where platform is of big importance. Yet. Expect Linux to do absolute killing on mobile phone market in < 3 years.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Study paid by Microsoft
by rockwell on Mon 4th May 2009 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Study paid by Microsoft"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Kensai, you're a deulusional f--kwit. You disdain stats from "pro-microsoft" sources, but trumpet the truth of stats from "anti-microsoft" sources.

What a tard. Keep your candy-ass desktop OS, the grownups have work to do.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Study paid by Microsoft
by Luis on Sat 2nd May 2009 14:05 UTC in reply to "Study paid by Microsoft"
Luis Member since:
2006-04-28

Well, from statistics I have access to from random sites that have nothing to do with Linux or IT in general, I'd say that 1% is a fair guess for Linux. I'm not seeing so much OS X, though: hardly 3%-4%.

However, there is some truth in what you say. Linux is probably the most used OS in the world. You can buy a Pioneer plasma TV and it will be running Linux, you can buy an ebook reader (Amazon kindle, etc..) and it will be running Linux, phones are running Linux more and more, TIVO devices run Linux, it's used in servers predominantly, in supercomputers, in labs, governments and in hundreds of electronic devices out there that you would have never guessed they're actually running Linux.

So yes, conquering the desktop, as slow as it goes, is just the last step for world domination ;)

Reply Score: 5

Comment by Nycran
by Nycran on Sat 2nd May 2009 13:58 UTC
Nycran
Member since:
2006-02-06

Congratulations Linux! This is an excellent Milestone. Whilst 1% doesn't sound like much, 1% of the Millions of computer users out there is still a significant number and worth celebrating.

Reply Score: 6

Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

Well - then do not use Linux and stop complaining here. You are not forced to use Linux and I am not forced to NOT use Linux. Everybody happy..

Now - that was easy ... wasn't it?

Reply Score: 1

1% for free
by crossbones on Sat 2nd May 2009 22:18 UTC
crossbones
Member since:
2009-04-23

Sure some might laugh at the 1% market share but think about it... Linux has 1% market share WITHOUT having a CEO or ad campain. How many 100s of thousands of $ was spent on BeOS or OS/2? What's their market share?

Reply Score: 6

I don't get it you guys
by korpenkraxar on Sat 2nd May 2009 22:22 UTC
korpenkraxar
Member since:
2005-09-10

What is this constant booing and whining about Linux from Windows fanboys really meant to accomplish? Is it real people behind those avatars or just Microsoft droids? Have your Microsoft stocks dropped recently? Why do you care?

Here is yet another metric showing that an alternative and Free kernel and OS developed by a community of enthusiasts and companies is receiving attention and finding users. This project is brought to us in ways that defeat traditional and cynic ideas about how new technologies is meant emerge and find a market through large investments, patent protections, in-house secretive development and fierce competition. Linux development spans all the spectrum from personal itch scratching to community, science and corporate goals and everyone involved is a winner. Linux as a desktop OS is fantastic! Not only because it accomplishes most of what the commercial and proprietary OSes do, but even more so because it does so in such a different way, from developement and distribution to user involvement.

On top of this there are technologies present in most Linux distributions that most of us who actually use them on a daily basis take for granted to be there in a modern OS but are still not matched by any proprietary alternative. You can pry advanced package management, the ability to drop to a console tightly integrated with the whole OS, the possibility to compile, add or remove kernel modules at will, backing up or tweaking whole system configurations with ease through any means of text processing, finding solutions or pointers to almost any problem in a few minutes on the net and switching among specifically tailored distros as one see fit without losing any finacial investments from my dead hands. If you do not understand what these things can do for you, if you computer is not much more than a launcher for World of Warcraft or Photoshop, or if you are not even the least curious about testing a new OS that does things slightly differently, then yeah, you are probably still better off running whatever system your hardware vendor put on your machine. The rest of us are having a ball running Linux and other than enforcing open protocols for data exchange as usage grows most of us could not care less if the rate of Linux adoption is slow or fast. It already works for us and will only get better over time.

The proprietary Windows as we know it today or tomorrow will never be able to make Linux usage drop significantly, only a more appealing Free OS will be able to do that. So until such an alternative comes along, have some fun and join the party if you feel like it or stop whining about stuff you really do not care about. Linux is powerful, social, cool, fund and free. What's not to like about that?

Reply Score: 11

RE: I don't get it you guys
by aacs on Sun 3rd May 2009 03:37 UTC in reply to "I don't get it you guys"
aacs Member since:
2008-12-13

This is by far the most excellent post I have seen on the subject. (Excuse my meta-comment.)

Reply Score: 2

RE: I don't get it you guys
by Jokel on Sun 3rd May 2009 09:24 UTC in reply to "I don't get it you guys"
Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

I can only fully agree with this comment. It seems to be the most balanced I have seen so far.

And 1% ?

Well - you can doubt that, but even if this is a real value just remember one thing ... It is a OVERALL value! If you take this value world-wide it does not mean very much, but if you take the regional values in the equation also a very different picture will been seen.

There are regions in the world where there is a Linux concentration (Asia, Europe etc.). And while there could be 1% world wide, there also could be 80% and more locally. That means making software could be very profitable in those regions. I am sure large software makers are closely looking at this development. There will be a point making software for the Linux platform becomes profitable - starting with named regions. It is just a question of time before the tipping point will be reached. Do not forget Linux slowly but steadily keeps growing.

Linux wont come with a "bang" but merely like a slow bout steady flood.

Last remark - do not forget this 1% only relates to the desktop. For servers (also cheap file servers etc.), embedded and low profile hardware this is lots and lots more than 1%

Reply Score: 3

I'd say the ceiling is about 2%
by GhostOfLinuxPast on Sat 2nd May 2009 22:45 UTC
GhostOfLinuxPast
Member since:
2009-05-02

The average computer user:

Thinks the monitor screen is the computer...
Calls the box under the desk the "hard drive", and has no idea what it does...
Has no concept of right-clicking the mouse - if they see you do it, prepare to spend the next five minutes explaining the mouse to them...
Cannot tell you who their Internet provider is...
Thinks Internet Explorer is "the Internet"...
Thinks their computer is slow when a web page loads slowly...
Has no idea what a "server" is...
Has no idea what an IP address is...
Has no idea how to install a printer...
Cannot configure their POP and SMTP settings by themselves...


Just how do you expect such users to install, learn and use Linux? Ain't gonna happen....

Reply Score: 1

tech10171968 Member since:
2007-05-22

The average computer user:

Thinks the monitor screen is the computer...
Calls the box under the desk the "hard drive", and has no idea what it does...
Has no concept of right-clicking the mouse - if they see you do it, prepare to spend the next five minutes explaining the mouse to them...
Cannot tell you who their Internet provider is...
Thinks Internet Explorer is "the Internet"...
Thinks their computer is slow when a web page loads slowly...
Has no idea what a "server" is...
Has no idea what an IP address is...
Has no idea how to install a printer...
Cannot configure their POP and SMTP settings by themselves...


Just how do you expect such users to install, learn and use Linux? Ain't gonna happen....

Many people who use this argument usually fail to mention that most of those same users:
Can't install Windows, either...
Have never really learned much about Windows (knowing that you have to "click on the blue 'e' for the internet" is not the same as actually knowing what a browser is in the first place)...
Barely even know how to use Windows anyway...

A lot of the very same reasons why people "just don't get Linux" also very much apply to Windows. Bottom line: this prototypical clueless user would probably fare no worse in a *nix environment, despite all the FUD stating the contrary. It's just that, when presented with unfamiliar apps in an unfamiliar OS, these folks will just run back to the devil they know. That familiarity is often mistaken for "ease of use" (or even "superiority" for some folks).

Reply Score: 7

Angel Blue01 Member since:
2006-11-01

The problem is that this clueless user (I know quite a few!) expects everything to work, including his/her apps that havn't been updated since 1998, out of the box. MS makes a ridiculous effort towards backwards compatibility as its a good way to trap people, switching to another OS by definition does not.

As another poster pointed out, apps matter not the OS; but if the OS can't run the apps...

Reply Score: 3

Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

Named clueless user wont even be able to install an application - even if they knew WHAT they want to install.

Makes your point a bit weak hmm?

Reply Score: 1

3rdalbum Member since:
2008-05-26

The average computer user:

Thinks the monitor screen is the computer...
Calls the box under the desk the "hard drive", and has no idea what it does...
Has no concept of right-clicking the mouse - if they see you do it, prepare to spend the next five minutes explaining the mouse to them...
Cannot tell you who their Internet provider is...
Thinks Internet Explorer is "the Internet"...
Thinks their computer is slow when a web page loads slowly...
Has no idea what a "server" is...
Has no idea what an IP address is...
Has no idea how to install a printer...
Cannot configure their POP and SMTP settings by themselves...


Just how do you expect such users to install, learn and use Linux? Ain't gonna happen....


That reminds me of my workmate - she's running Ubuntu 8.10. The first question she's asked me for months is "There's a light flashing on my printer and it won't print" (out of ink). She handles Ubuntu rather well. I installed it for her, but then you don't expect 40-year-old computer-illiterate mothers to install operating systems, they buy preinstalled.

Reply Score: 3

Linux Doubles Marketshare in a Year
by cyclops on Sat 2nd May 2009 23:36 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

Linux Doubles Marketshare in a Year
Linux Doubles Marketshare in a Year
Linux Doubles Marketshare in a Year
Linux Doubles Marketshare in a Year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24


While I am generally in favor of optimism, that is, perhaps, just a bit on the 'Art Linkletter' side.

How about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_curve

Edited 2009-05-02 23:59 UTC

Reply Score: 3

AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

But it didn't double it went from 0.8 to 1%.

MacOS X went From (give or take) 8% to 10%.

"Other" did doubled though, and as we all know that's almost all Amiga styleƩ OSs*, does that mean 2014 will be the year of the Amiga OS Desktop?


*note: humour

Reply Score: 3

Better stats site
by siimo on Sat 2nd May 2009 23:57 UTC
siimo
Member since:
2006-06-22

Slightly off topic, I think this site is better than the one linked for this news: http://gs.statcounter.com

Reply Score: 3

bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

As I've said in the past (and had the word "troll" thrown at me), I don't believe that desktop Linux has a chance in its current form and that it has to grow a lot before it will be acceptable to the majority of computer users.

Before you start banging on your desk, yelling "hell no, we won't go!", remember that you are an enthusiast or a developer and that's not the typical Windows or Mac OS X user.

The typical user wants to use applications and print, scan, e-mail, FAX, browse, and whatever else without having to fix problems and use workarounds.

I want to see Linux and the *BSDs make it big but compromises in attitudes have to be made in order for progress to be made.

If the corporate world wants to pay for software for Linux, let them. Don't tell them "all software must be free and open source" because they need the assurance that a software vendor will fix problems for them. If they want consistent GUI applications, why should they accept the lowest common denominator? They shouldn't.

Microsoft and Apple need to be challenged but banging your fist on the desk, yelling "hell no, we won't go!" isn't going to help.

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Before you start banging on your desk, yelling "hell no, we won't go!", remember that you are an enthusiast or a developer and that's not the typical Windows or Mac OS X user.

"How many people do we really want using Linux?" is a perfectly valid question for us to ask ourselves. It's easy to reflexively say "Lots!", but there is a very real price to pay. Personally, I suspect that by the time Linux reached even 10%, the resulting devolution of culture would cause me to migrate elsewhere.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. Victory is likely to be bittersweet for many of us.

Edited 2009-05-03 02:23 UTC

Reply Score: 4

bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

"Before you start banging on your desk, yelling "hell no, we won't go!", remember that you are an enthusiast or a developer and that's not the typical Windows or Mac OS X user.

"How many people do we really want using Linux?" is a perfectly valid question for us to ask ourselves. It's easy to reflexively say "Lots!", but there is a very real price to pay. Personally, I suspect that by the time Linux reached even 10%, the resulting devolution of culture would cause me to migrate elsewhere.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. Victory is likely to be bittersweet for many of us.
"

I've already been down this road with Mac OS X users. It's part of the reason I stopped being a moderator on a certain Mac forums site.

When you have people who can't open the Preferences/Options/Settings panels to see if there is a setting to fix the problem, it's time to bang your head against the wall. I saw a lot of this as Windows users came to Mac OS X and again when the iPhone users joined.

I still think it would be great to have a Linux/*BSD desktop in every government office, if not every corporate office since many only need OpenOffice and perhaps, a browser, and e-mail client. Every government needs to spend less.

Reply Score: 4

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

"How many people do we really want using Linux?" is a perfectly valid question for us to ask ourselves. It's easy to reflexively say "Lots!", but there is a very real price to pay. Personally, I suspect that by the time Linux reached even 10%, the resulting devolution of culture would cause me to migrate elsewhere.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. Victory is likely to be bittersweet for many of us.

A rather... elitist attitude, but then again I think all of us computer enthusiasts share these feelings to some extent.
I, personally, couldn't give a hoot how many people ultimately use Linux, or what the market shares of the various oses are. Linux being dominant to the point that Microsoft is now would be just as bad, monoculture helps no one. I know what I'm about to say is wishful thinking, but I'll say it anyway. I'd like to see less emphasis placed on which operating systems, applications, or even machines various users are running. In the grand scheme of things, that's unimportant. What is important, and what I believe should be stressed and pushed with everything we have, is open standards. ODF instead of ooxml, Vorbis instead of mp3 or AAC, etc and the proper implementation of those standards. If this were to happen, it wouldn't matter one bit whether I choose to use Openoffice under Linux, or MS Office under Windows, or Koffice on *BSD. If they all read and write the same open format, we'd all be free to use whatever system we wanted to use, and yet interoperate with everyone else. Open standards are the most important thing we can stress in these times, more important than open source IMHO, and we had better if we want to be able to recover our data 50, 100, or even 1000 years from now. If our documents, music, movies, etc are locked away in a proprietary format that died with the company that produced it, we are very likely to lose huge chunks of our own history to digital obsolescence. The storage media is a problem, but that can be worked around as files can be transferred to new media if necessary. But it will do us no good if we can no longer work with them because we foolishly locked ourselves into a once prominant, but later dead format.
I don't care how much market share Linux, Windows, OS X, or whatever other oses currently have. It's irrelevant to me. I use what works for me, and I don't need to validate my choice by trying to force others to follow. What we need to be watching is the adoption and progress of open standards, and how much market share they are receiving. It's time to think long term.

Edited 2009-05-03 03:19 UTC

Reply Score: 6

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

A rather... elitist attitude, but then again I think all of us computer enthusiasts share these feelings to some extent.

It may be elitist, but it is worth thinking about very seriously. There is a lot of truth to GhostOfLinuxPast's post here:

http://www.osnews.com/thread?361459

And the problem is that these people, once established, and stupid as some of them are, start *demanding* things. And then commercial entities start catering to their demands. And the next thing you know our culture has been relegated to a tiny corner, and the Linux world looks perhaps not exactly like, but a lot like, the Windows world does today.

That said, I'm responsible for probably about 80 people using Linux desktops at their work who likely would not be were it not for my influence. And a lot more than that using Linux on point of sale stations, etc.

I guess I'd like to see more than 1%. But where we're at is OK. Sometimes it's good to stop and remind ones' self that these *are* the good old days.

Edited 2009-05-03 04:32 UTC

Reply Score: 3

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

And the problem is that these people, once established, and stupid as some of them are, start *demanding* things. And then commercial entities start catering to their demands. And the next thing you know our culture has been relegated to a tiny corner, and the Linux world looks perhaps not exactly like, but a lot like, the Windows world does today.


They will probably start demanding things like better drivers, so we'll all win anyway. No commercial entity can "subvert" the community totally, and if they did we could always go back in time and fork from non-subverted version of whatever component went bad (X, Kernel, package managers, ...)

So, it's a win overall.

Edited 2009-05-03 10:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

No commercial entity can "subvert" the community totally, and

It's not so much the commercial entities, but the invasion by unwashed masses. There's something to be said for having them segregated off in the Windows camp.

It's kind of like in "Night of the Living Dead". Sure, the zombies are stupid and slow. But there are so *many* of them. At first it seems like you can just outrun them. But next thing you know, you're surrounded and they're eating your liver.

Reply Score: 2

ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

It's not so much the commercial entities, but the invasion by unwashed masses. There's something to be said for having them segregated off in the Windows camp.

It's kind of like in "Night of the Living Dead". Sure, the zombies are stupid and slow. But there are so *many* of them. At first it seems like you can just outrun them. But next thing you know, you're surrounded and they're eating your liver.


Hopefully blowing their heads off would also work in this case ;)

Reply Score: 3

Desktop Linux Suckage Series
by mszl on Sun 3rd May 2009 03:17 UTC
mszl
Member since:
2008-09-11

It's hilarious how after all these years the Linux crowd gets all excited about the Linux "mind share increases." I'll grant that Linux has good traction on the back end but even there the distributions come from vendors like Red Hat. Enterprise wants good support for their OS and that does not come from the open source Linux community. It comes from those "nasty" capitalist vendors.

Now, let's look at delusional insanity in the Linux geek community.

Here they claim that desktop Linux is great, as good or better than Windows, etc. People try it and find it sucks. Virtually no progress happens in getting more people to use desktop Linux. BTW, check out another series of articles on Linux Desktop Suckage:

http://elliotth.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html

The Linux geeks then make up all kinds of excuses why the desktop doesn't "really" suck, how more and more people are using it (i.e, 0 + 0 > 0), how users are idiots, and go back to virtually doing nothing about the Linux desktop. This tragedy goes on for years and has a similarity to one definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting something different to happen.

It's sad but has much in common to a similar attitude found in Silicon Valley with geeks, their start-ups and the users/customers they don't listen to. "Build it and they will come" virtually never works and that's why so many of these start-ups fail.

Edited 2009-05-03 03:20 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Desktop Linux Suckage Series
by DarkMan on Sun 3rd May 2009 06:55 UTC in reply to "Desktop Linux Suckage Series"
DarkMan Member since:
2009-05-03

Enterprise wants good support for their OS


Very true.

and that does not come from the open source Linux community. It comes from those "nasty" capitalist vendors.


I take it you have never dealt with many commercial vendors of just about anything. Over the years I have had far better support from the community and talking directly with developers. I have worked with big banks and government that pay an insane amount of money for support contract that are just about useless. Try getting something patched from any Microsoft products and see how good the contract you paid for is...thing is they aren't even the worst out there. Yeah I'm looking at you CA.

Unfortunatly most managers believe that too, if you can't pay a lot a money for support, then the product must not be good.

Reply Score: 6

korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

It's hilarious how after all these years the Linux crowd gets all excited about the Linux "mind share increases."


Why?

As a user and developer I see new people joining projects all over the place. To many, including myself, the absolute number of new Linux users does not really matter much compared to what kind of users they are and if they contribute back. It is getting increasingly easy for non-coders to contribute to forums, wikis, bugzillas, artwork and translations and it really shows. Users who do these things are the ones that really matter for the linux desktop experience to improve over time. Places like http://www.kde-apps.org and http://www.kde-look.org are absolutely vibrant with ideas and contributions not tied to any particular linux distribution but more so to the community as a whole. Anyone who has been visiting such sites for the last few years will tell you that the speed at which new contributions are added or improved is only going up up up.

I'll grant that Linux has good traction on the back end but even there the distributions come from vendors like Red Hat. Enterprise wants good support for their OS and that does not come from the open source Linux community. It comes from those "nasty" capitalist vendors.


Well, I am not sure what your definition of enterprise is but yeah isn't it nice that there is something for everyone here? I can only speak for my own enterprise, but Linux, be it commersial, community-based or completely customised and non-supported, is huge in academia and science.

The Linux geeks then make up all kinds of excuses why the desktop doesn't "really" suck, how more and more people are using it (i.e, 0 + 0 > 0), how users are idiots, and go back to virtually doing nothing about the Linux desktop. This tragedy goes on for years and has a similarity to one definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting something different to happen.


So lets hear from someone who really has gotten his act together and is filling the room with positive and constructive energy, what are us poor and misinformed Linux users and developers to do to make you happy?

It's sad but has much in common to a similar attitude found in Silicon Valley with geeks, their start-ups and the users/customers they don't listen to. "Build it and they will come" virtually never works and that's why so many of these start-ups fail.


Aha, so which developers and projects have you talked to to reach that general idea?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Desktop Linux Suckage Series
by mszl on Sun 3rd May 2009 15:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Desktop Linux Suckage Series"
mszl Member since:
2008-09-11

the absolute number of new Linux users does not really matter much compared to what kind of users they are and if they contribute back ...



Aha, so which developers and projects have you talked to to reach that general idea?


If these comments are a good indicator of the attitude of the Linux community then they just make my point and speak volumes to the problems inherent in it.

First of all, you have it exactly wrong when you say you want users that contribute back (by coding). Users or customers don't contribute back except by using the item or product and by complaining. What you want is lots and lots of complainers. They give you the information you need to succeed. The vast majority will contribute nothing in the way you want by doing coding because they can't or if they could why should they? They're trying to use the software for something else. Also, you try to respect each any everyone of those complaints and users and act on them. Think of them as your boss and you treat them like royalty. You kiss their ass. It's still called "customer service" even if they don't pay a penny and it generates goodwill.

On the second point about geeks and start-ups. You got that wrong as well. You don't ask developers unless they are founders of successful businesses. You ask entrepreneurs, the people that fund them, read books or take classes on starting start-ups and entrepreneurship, etc. Even though open source makes no money, most of the principles are the same with regards to getting clients to use a potential product.

It appears to me that underlying Linux is a community that is basically to selfish for their own good.

Edited 2009-05-03 15:46 UTC

Reply Score: 1

bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23


If these comments are a good indicator of the attitude of the Linux community then they just make my point and speak volumes to the problems inherent in it.

First of all, you have it exactly wrong when you say you want users that contribute back (by coding). Users or customers don't contribute back except by using the item or product and by complaining. What you want is lots and lots of complainers. They give you the information you need to succeed. The vast majority will contribute nothing in the way you want by doing coding because they can't or if they could why should they? They're trying to use the software for something else. Also, you try to respect each any everyone of those complaints and users and act on them. Think of them as your boss and you treat them like royalty. You kiss their ass. It's still called "customer service" even if they don't pay a penny and it generates goodwill.
...
It appears to me that underlying Linux is a community that is basically to selfish for their own good.


I believe you understand it pretty well, despite being modded down on the other comment.

I think a lot of developers feel that the average user has no clue about using software because they don't develop software and that is magnified in the free software world. Microsoft used to do it a lot. They listen to each other and congratulate each other and complain when the user doesn't get what they meant.

It seems a lot of times, interfaces are created in order of thought, not by thoughtful design. If someone mentions a problem, they might change, but they don't improve, they just change.

Reply Score: 3

korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

If these comments are a good indicator of the attitude of the Linux community then they just make my point and speak volumes to the problems inherent in it.


Lol! And what attitude is that mszl which you managed to read into those statements? What exactly are my and the community members' problem? I am not smart enough to follow you on this one and your points below do not really connect to this statement so please educate me.

We are probably not going to get anywhere in this particular thread and maybe I should not bother but for the sake of the others here who might actually be interested in what I have to say on the subject I will still comment on what you wrote.

So we have different perspectives on the topic and perhaps we are not even talking about the same thing. If you are only talking about commercial success in the traditional enterprise market then well perhaps you have a point somewhere. I do not have any first hand experience about that except from what is going on in universities. I do not care if my desktop system is a commercial hit and unless you are owning stock in or working for the company making it, neither should you. What matters is that the technology empowers you to do what you need or want and that you enjoy doing it.

First of all, you have it exactly wrong when you say you want users that contribute back (by coding).


A typical Desktop Linux project pieces together many parts: the Linux kernel itself + GNU toolchain + a desktop environment + distribution packaging + third party apps and user forums or similar means of communication. This leaves plenty of room for people to help out, and being developed in the open, it is easy to do so. I listed five ways off the top of my head in which people that do not write code are still able to contribute back to the community and that we see more and more of this.

It does not take that much brain power to see that it makes a big difference if only 0.01% of users report their experiences back compared to 10%, especially to small projects. More people contributing back to the project increases the chance of a more diverse use cases being represented in the project pool or "mind share" as you call it. As your userbase reach a certain threshold, be it 10.000 or 10.000.000 or whatever depending on the project, then perhaps you do not need as high proportion of users filing bugs because most of the cases will be represented anyway.

Users or customers don't contribute back except by using the item or product and by complaining. What you want is lots and lots of complainers. They give you the information you need to succeed.


In a FOSS project, all your users are potential contributors. The code is out there for those that like to dig in to that, it is often easy to find other users and ask for help or help others or to contact the distro or upstream developers. In other words, there are most often plenty of channels for you to be useful to others or get help from others before having to degrade yourself to a "complainer".

The vast majority will contribute nothing in the way you want by doing coding because they can't or if they could why should they? They're trying to use the software for something else.


The point is that as many as possible of those users should be encouraged to take part of or at least report back to the project as they stumble across problems. Not everyone will do this of course but those that do fill a very important role to projects which success metric is generally not measured by profit since there often no actual product being sold. These users are really valuable and, as I said above, especially so early on.

Also, you try to respect each any everyone of those complaints and users and act on them. Think of them as your boss and you treat them like royalty. You kiss their ass. It's still called "customer service" even if they don't pay a penny and it generates goodwill.


C'mon is this really how you feel companies like Microsoft and Apple treat you? Shouldn't FOSS development with its tendency to release early and often be just the right kind of development method to cater to a range of complaints, no matter how small, and have solutions to them in incremental upgrades? Even if the core developers themselves are busy, someone else might be able to chip in and implement a solution to send upstream.

On the second point about geeks and start-ups. You got that wrong as well. You don't ask developers unless they are founders of successful businesses. You ask entrepreneurs, the people that fund them, read books or take classes on starting start-ups and entrepreneurship, etc. Even though open source makes no money, most of the principles are the same with regards to getting clients to use a potential product.


Sure you need people that understand the market if you feel like plunging into it, finding clients and your costs for doing so are high, but for the vast majority of projects it is mainly about delivering technology and exchange ideas with people interested in it. My guess is that FOSS projects actually much more often shrink the commercial market instead of generating profit and that this is the main problem for proprietary vendors. But I could not care less.

It appears to me that underlying Linux is a community that is basically to selfish for their own good.


Hahaha! Oh man you really outdid yourself there. We write the code for you, we invite you to join us and we give the code to you free. Last time I checked that was not a good example to describe the word selfish. Stupid perhaps ;-) , but certainly not selfish.

Reply Score: 3

mszl Member since:
2008-09-11

Man have you've got the blinders on. Read my post over and over again until it sinks in. As a quick reminder to focus on, it's about the user/client not you. You "work" for them and it's definitely not about getting them to work for you. People will come to code for Linux anyway but what they want and the rest of the world wants can be very different things.

Now if you just want an OS that some other developers use then stay the course. But for the rest of the world, any comparisons between Windows or Mac desktops and Linux desktops will fall on deaf ears.

Reply Score: 1

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Hahaha! Oh man you really outdid yourself there. We write the code for you, we invite you to join us and we give the code to you free. Last time I checked that was not a good example to describe the word selfish. Stupid perhaps ;-) , but certainly not selfish."

Selfish in the respect that not anyone can submit patches to projects. Bug reports get marked down as "Won't fix" commonly if developers do not feel a want for that item. In order to submit a patch or assist in any way, you must be approved by the project at hand before they will even listen to what you have to say. Basically things fall on generally deaf ears. No, I will not post the emails back refusing assistance since I am not "Known" to the "community".

Linux is good, however this is one attitude that needs to change. At least when I call MS, they fix the bug that is reported, and usually pretty quick if you are a paying customer.

Reply Score: 2

korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

Selfish in the respect that not anyone can submit patches to projects. Bug reports get marked down as "Won't fix" commonly if developers do not feel a want for that item.


I've seen this too but this is certainly not only happening in FOSS projects and could be due to a variety of reasons. It might occasionaly be due to developer "egos" (and I know first hand that they tend to inflate when you work on a project for free) but my guess is that it more often due to limited developer time or limitations in the current code base.

In order to submit a patch or assist in any way, you must be approved by the project at hand before they will even listen to what you have to say. Basically things fall on generally deaf ears. No, I will not post the emails back refusing assistance since I am not "Known" to the "community".


Yeah I guess reputation or credibility helps a lot to break in to bubbles where they exist and some projects are surely easier to grasp than others but there are plenty of communities where your contributions are highly appreciated. The first one that comes to mind is Archlinux. In any case, put the patch out in the open and perhaps others will either help maintaining it or have better success in getting it merged.

Linux is good, however this is one attitude that needs to change. At least when I call MS, they fix the bug that is reported, and usually pretty quick if you are a paying customer.


Good to hear, I have never called Microsoft myself to file a bug and I do not know of the success rate of people filing patches to them.

Reply Score: 2

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"Hahaha! Oh man you really outdid yourself there. We write the code for you, we invite you to join us and we give the code to you free. Last time I checked that was not a good example to describe the word selfish. Stupid perhaps ;-) , but certainly not selfish."

Selfish in the respect that not anyone can submit patches to projects. Bug reports get marked down as "Won't fix" commonly if developers do not feel a want for that item. In order to submit a patch or assist in any way, you must be approved by the project at hand before they will even listen to what you have to say. Basically things fall on generally deaf ears. No, I will not post the emails back refusing assistance since I am not "Known" to the "community".

Linux is good, however this is one attitude that needs to change. At least when I call MS, they fix the bug that is reported, and usually pretty quick if you are a paying customer.


LOL. this is more than a little silly. Only in the Linux world of transparent development has it allowed me direct access to the developers. In fact if you really want I can point you to a vast array of bugzillas and checkpoint of bugs I have had fixed for me. Thats not to say that demanding developers give priory to your bugs, or features.

That said MS Support when I last used it, was very helpful...but did not fix any bugs, but if you have any idea how programming works, or bugfixing in a corporate environment works, fixes can take week, and I suspect your bugs will join the queue like everyone else.

Interesting in Linux there is lots of levels of paid support as well check out Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 4

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

LOL. this is more than a little silly. Only in the Linux world of transparent development has it allowed me direct access to the developers. In fact if you really want I can point you to a vast array of bugzillas and checkpoint of bugs I have had fixed for me. Thats not to say that demanding developers give priory to your bugs, or features.

That said MS Support when I last used it, was very helpful...but did not fix any bugs, but if you have any idea how programming works, or bugfixing in a corporate environment works, fixes can take week, and I suspect your bugs will join the queue like everyone else.

Interesting in Linux there is lots of levels of paid support as well check out Ubuntu.


Interesting. The developers actually answer you? You must be one of the chosen few then. Have you ever actually submitted a bug report to KDE/GNOME/The Kernel/etc?? If it got accepted, and they allow you to submit, then you are known. I get rejection slips...how about the eh? Not anyone can help out with OSS. Maybe your experience is different, mine, the developers never fix a bug or add a feature they themselves do not want. That is my experience. I still use it yes, but am done trying to contribute to it. Contributions are not wanted.

Reply Score: 3

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Gnome, to take one of your examples, is a massive project. I know that for the components for which I've submitted reports, I've at least gotten a response from the developers, though that doesn't mean my request was prioritized as high as I'd've liked it to be. ;) The amount of developers working on projects like Gnome is massive.
It's too bad you've had such experiences but, then again, we have pigheaded fools everywhere and that includes some open source devs--even if they're really smart programmers, they can still be idiots when it comes to their attitude. I've run up against a few like that, but not as many as you seem to have done.

Reply Score: 2

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Interesting. The developers actually answer you? You must be one of the chosen few then. Have you ever actually submitted a bug report to KDE/GNOME/The Kernel/etc?? If it got accepted, and they allow you to submit, then you are known. I get rejection slips...how about the eh? Not anyone can help out with OSS. Maybe your experience is different, mine, the developers never fix a bug or add a feature they themselves do not want. That is my experience. I still use it yes, but am done trying to contribute to it. Contributions are not wanted.


lol. It must be the way you ask questions.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

The link is by Eric Steven Raymond. Its not a linux skill or even on an OS skill its a Life skill. Whatever you think of Eric its an awesome document.

The fact that there are a whole host of large projects with bugs marked fixed submitted by Users is probably a sign that as opposed to me being the chosen one. Its you who simply does not know how to act.

Reply Score: 2

thelastdodo
Member since:
2008-10-07

1% of ~1 000 000 000 desktops (the current desktop market size, you can check that easily) = 10 000 000

Ubuntu only had already more than 8 000 000 users a few years ago.

You guys really need to understand what numbers mean. Sometimes there is not a lot of reading to do to understand what's true and what's not, a good brain is enough.

By the way I have read that Linux runs on 100 000 000 computers worldwide. Anyone can confirm that number?

Edited 2009-05-03 16:03 UTC

Reply Score: 1

I don't get it...
by gdltek1 on Mon 4th May 2009 11:39 UTC
gdltek1
Member since:
2009-05-04

It's amazing how many people speak about desktop Linux like they actually know it and/or use it. I'm not talking about running it in an emulator or booting up to a LiveCD once every few weeks. I'm talking about regular, everyday usage for regular everyday computing.

All these people saying Linux sucks on the desktop and it can't do this or can't do that as if they know what they're talking about without any real knowledge on the subject really need to just STFU. Don't try to demean the whole platform just because you couldn't get it to work for you.

People like myself who actually do use desktop Linux sit back and laugh at twits like this. I'm not saying that there's not room for improvement, because there is and there always will be. However, desktop Linux is very stable and mature and can easily handle the computing needs of the average or advanced user.

If Windows works for you, that's great. As for me, I'll keep my nice Linux desktop and all the great free applications, stable, fast, secure, hassle and worry free system that it provides me.

If my choice makes me a "one percenter", then so be it, I consider that as a compliment. Just because a product apparently only has a small portion of the total market share is in no way relevant to how good it is.

Actually the trend goes the better something is, the less you see of it. Using this canon, Linux must be the best desktop OS of the Big 3; not based on price, but on performance.

Reply Score: 1

Well
by Xaero_Vincent on Mon 4th May 2009 14:51 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

I think Linux is a good platform but the occasional problems we have to deal with on a regular basis, such as updates/upgrades breaking wifi, video drivers, sound, and software packages then waiting for additional updates to fix them is pretty irritating.

These sorts of problems can not occur in the frequency that they do now if Linux were to hold a dominate position in the market.

Reply Score: 2