Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 21:28 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Linux "If you consider NetApplications' data set, then Linux owns only about 1 percent of the desktop OS market and Windows has almost 92 percent. But if you consider all computing platforms, including mobile, than Windows has only 20 percent and Linux has 42 percent - and that would be in the form of Google's Android alone." No more or less legitimate than claiming Windows owns 92% of the market. It's all a matter of perspective.
Order by: Score:
Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 21:49 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

1% for the desktop is way invalid too.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Deviate_X on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 07:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

1% for the desktop is way invalid too.


Lol yes, the monopoly never existed. Windows has a monopoly on machines designed to run windows!

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Comment by shmerl
by kurkosdr on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 10:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by kurkosdr on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 10:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

Sorry, most users and OEMs are willing to pay for not having to tolerate X.org (and PulseAudio, which is not "obligatory like X.org, but is gradually infesting more and more distros), and the upgrade breakages X.org and PulseAudio bring.

I will say it again: The Linux community doesn't get warranties.
When users by a PC, it comes with a warranty for the hardware and the software. Of course, the "warranty" for the software consists of little more than the OEM reformating the harddrive for you, but users don't care, as long as they don't have to do it, aka as long as somebody fixes it for them. So, no average user is going to throw away Windows and install Linux, and lose the software warranty and have to support themselves from that moment on.
OEMs on the other hand won't preinstall Linux because they are afraid of upgrade breakages every six months (courtesy of X.org and PulseAudio). I will keep saying Linux has LESS than 1% unless I see Ubuntu PCs popping up in US and EU stores (no, China dooesn't count, Ubuntu is sold with PCs in China so users can wipe the HDD clean and install pirated Windows and save a couple of bucks, and even there only geeks by them).

http://tmrepository.com/trademarks/marketshareisanmslie/

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

OEMs on the other hand won't preinstall Linux because they are afraid of upgrade breakages every six months (courtesy of X.org and PulseAudio).


I have updated my desktop Linux distribution every six months for over five years now, on many different machines, re-formatting the root partition but not the user home partition every time, with never a single breakage.

Besides:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/ubuntu-consid...

Edited 2013-01-23 11:12 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 11:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I have updated my desktop Linux distribution every six months for over five years now, on many different machines, re-formatting the root partition but not the user home partition every time, with never a single breakage.


You wipe the OS and then fully re-install it every 6 months and deliberately avoid in-system upgrading? Do you realize how much that sounds like a negative comment, with even you not trusting the system enough to just get by with in-system upgrades? I mean, OF COURSE it works if you wipe the OS and then install a new one!

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 11:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I have updated my desktop Linux distribution every six months for over five years now, on many different machines, re-formatting the root partition but not the user home partition every time, with never a single breakage.


You wipe the OS and then fully re-install it every 6 months and deliberately avoid in-system upgrading? Do you realize how much that sounds like a negative comment, with even you not trusting the system enough to just get by with in-system upgrades? I mean, OF COURSE it works if you wipe the OS and then install a new one!
"

It isn't a new OS, it is the same OS, updated. Since I replace the older version by booting from a LiveCD of the newer version, I effectively pre-test the newer version before I commit to it. It costs nothing to move to an updated version of the OS, and it is more than twice as quick to re-format the OS root partition and install all updated files (takes only about twenty minutes in total) than it is to remove and replace most of the files file-by-file.

You are simply too mired in Windows-think to appreciate this. Even the most minor of updates to Windows are far more painful than a complete re-install of my desktop Linux distribution and all associated applications that I use. Finally, since as you say "of course it works" ... then please explain to me exactly why I shouldn't use this reliable, quick and painless method? Hmmmm?

Edited 2013-01-23 11:49 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

You are simply too mired in Windows-think to appreciate this.


How is doing in-system upgrading in this case related to Windows at all?

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 11:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"You are simply too mired in Windows-think to appreciate this.


How is doing in-system upgrading in this case related to Windows at all?
"

Any kind of maintenance to a Windows install, even the most minor of updates, is far, far more painful than even the most far-reaching of updates to a Linux system. If you upgrade Ubuntu desktop Linux every release cycle, then every six months you get new improved versions of your OS, your desktop and all desktop applications, at no cost, as a bonus. This is kind of anathema to the Windows-think world, it is completely outside Windows users experience.

Yet the myth would have it that Linux is supposed to be harder, go figure.

Here is a bit of an amusing tongue-in-cheek take on it:

http://www.brankovukelic.com/2013/01/on-state-of-windows-on-desktop...

Edited 2013-01-23 12:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by henderson101 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Even the most minor of updates to Windows are far more painful than a complete re-install of my desktop Linux distribution and all associated applications that I use.


Since when? Windows 7 just installs updates. It does this at shutdown/boot time. I has *yet* to get in the way of my using my system. But reinstalling the entire OS and packages (which seem to be what you're implying you do - forgive me if I've misinterpreted) sounds like a heck of a lot more work to me. Do absolutely nothing (including having to download anything manually) vs download a live CD, vet it, decide if an upgrade is warranted, format/wipe root, reinstall (which even with the fastest DVD drive is still going to take at least 10 minutes.) Yes, absolutely simple to use your method - if you are insane or Lemur2, not for a regular user.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by uucppc on Thu 24th Jan 2013 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
uucppc Member since:
2013-01-24

And there is the problem: At shutdown. While it has been years since I have used Windows (other than to help someone with their computer) I seem to remember that any major update requires a reboot to actually be installed. I also seem to remember that when many programs are installed they also require a reboot. That's just lousy (and not necessary).

And as for upgrading the OS versus wiping clean. Well, yeah - you CAN do it by booting off some medium but you most certainly do not have to. For example - while Fedora recommends you do that the reason is simple: that's what they test (which makes sense because they want it to be as fine as possible for NEW installs). That really is the only reason they do not "support" live upgrades. But the fact it does work and if the user knows enough then they will be able to fix problems that show up, anyway. That is in regards to new releases of the entire distribution and not just software updates (see below).

What is also somewhat amusing is you talk about updates to programs/kernel/whatever as it is the same as the entire OS. Sure, your updates to Windows 7 at shutdown don't need to be put on an external media. Mean while with Linux you not only don't have to do that you don't have to reboot (even if it's a program that is loaded it generally works fine). The way you word it sounds like the updates are along the lines of 'Windows 7' to 'Windows 8' (or whatever). That would be more like the releases of Linux distributions (as I mentioned in previous paragraph) but as I said above you don't have to boot off a dvd/cd either. Of course the other part is that (iirc) Windows actually has some of the tasks to do during shutting down (instead of when the user could be working on something and simply reboot after).

But actually none of that really matters. You should use what works for you. As others have said if Linux is too difficult for the average user (which I would agree it is) then there is no point in them using it. I think Dennis Ritchie himself worded it nicely (it's about Unix but what would Linux be without Unix?). I'm not sure of the exact quote but it is something along the lines of "Unix is basically a simple operating system but you need to be a genius to understand its simplicity." Obviously genius is loosely defined. Another similar one is that Unix is user friendly but it's particular about who it is friendly with. Bottom line: there is no "better" software, programming language, ..., especially if one is not something that the user can use.

And fwiw: why would I even bother writing all of that when I then say it does not matter as everyone should use what works for [whatever they need]? I just wanted to clear up the fact that it is not necessarily replacing the OS and normal updates are not the same as what the other person was referring to (the new releases). I may be wrong about some of the Windows stuff (it changed or I remember wrong, etc.) and while I realize it is a common thing for people to not accept they are wrong, I actually am willing to (no one is perfect and if I thought for any amount of time that I could never be wrong then I would never learn anything new and I would never better myself either). Maybe some here think similar.

Regardless, have a good day (or afternoon, evening, night ...).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

When users by a PC, it comes with a warranty for the hardware and the software.

A "warranty" that is the "software should work most of the time" is not really a warranty. There is no other warranty.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by TemporalBeing on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

The Linux community doesn't get warranties.
When users by a PC, it comes with a warranty for the hardware and the software. Of course, the "warranty" for the software consists of little more than the OEM reformating the harddrive for you, but users don't care, as long as they don't have to do it, aka as long as somebody fixes it for them. So, no average user is going to throw away Windows and install Linux, and lose the software warranty and have to support themselves from that moment on.
OEMs on the other hand won't preinstall Linux because they are afraid of upgrade breakages every six months (courtesy of X.org and PulseAudio).


I'm pretty sure that my HP Laptop that came with SuSE Linux has a full hardware+software warranty on it. Mind you the software side might only cover SuSE's SLED that came on it, but it's still nonetheless a warranty for the software too.

No, I wouldn't expect them to support the Kubuntu install I put on there - especially since it's not an LTS version. Nor would I expect them to support Linux on my wife's HP laptop when it gets converted over (after she gets an upgrade); or for Dell to support my 2003 era D600 with Gentoo Linux (though it was out of warranty before I put Gentoo on there).

I would also say that Windows users don't tend to think about warranty's on their software either, though they do expect support for the general warranty period of the system from when they first received it.

All-in-all, I think you comment is rather off-topic and rather invalid or at least moot.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by Lennie on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 11:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Well they don't count that, they only count real user agents, the ones with real users.

It uses a small Javascript.

More likely they'll be under counting Linux users, a larger share of Linux users are more technical users. They know how to disable javascript (even if temporarily or per domain).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by saso on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

but the PulseAudio nonsense was clear evidence the geeks behind Linux care more about bragging rights ("me has network transparency") than making usable stuff.

It's not network transparency that hurts PA, it's the shitty design and implementation. Network transparency done right degrades to a shmem implementation when local and works just as well as if it were designed that way from the start.

Reply Score: 2

Marketshare
by Nelson on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 21:50 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Marketshare is about giving context to a situation. When you lump everything together with everything you lose context.

What is Linux having "double" marketshare really telling you? That Android is popular? We already knew that because Android is popular in the mobile space.

Its only function, is to mask Linux's deficiencies in other core markets.

Its just a twisting of numbers to make a headline. This is like using Windows 92% marketshare to inflate their numbers in mobile. Doesn't really make sense.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Marketshare
by galvanash on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 22:07 UTC in reply to "Marketshare"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

What is Linux having "double" marketshare really telling you? That Android is popular? We already knew that because Android is popular in the mobile space.

Its only function, is to mask Linux's deficiencies in other core markets.


So is the 5% marketshare of Windows in mobile an indication of its deficiency in the mobile market? I personally don't think it is indicative of a "deficiency" any more than the 1% marketshare of Linux on the desktop is. It is a matter of popularity and where the broad corporate backing is - no major players are backing Linux as a desktop play (with the minor exception of Ubuntu, for what that is worth). If anything, Windows Phone has even less of an excuse for its poor showing in mobile, because at least it has the might of Microsoft behind it...

Its just a twisting of numbers to make a headline. This is like using Windows 92% marketshare to inflate their numbers in mobile. Doesn't really make sense.


I do get your point, sort of... But your saying that there is no context... There is context, i.e. Linux is on more devices across the broad market - that is the context. It isn't about making a headline, it is a relavent statistic as long as you take it for what it is. It is telling you that a hell of a lot of companies are using it for a wide variety of things, granted desktop isn't high on the list...

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Marketshare
by Nelson on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Marketshare"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


So is the 5% marketshare of Windows in mobile an indication of its deficiency in the mobile market? I personally don't think it is indicative of a "deficiency" any more than the 1% marketshare of Linux on the desktop is.


Deficiency meaning a lack of popularity, not any functional impediment. For the record, yes, I do think that Windows' 5% marketshare is a problem, and if Microsoft were twisting statistics in this way it would be equally wrong.


It is a matter of popularity and where the broad corporate backing is - no major players are backing Linux as a desktop play (with the minor exception of Ubuntu, for what that is worth). If anything, Windows Phone has even less of an excuse for its poor showing in mobile, because at least it has the might of Microsoft behind it...


The Desktop and Mobile markets are very different (as you seem to allude to) but then you try to make a direct comparison which I think is wrong.

The mobile market has many dynamics that the PC market does not, including more "Gate keepers" so to speak with interests that sometimes run contrary to that of Microsoft's and creates friction at the sales channel.

I am not convinced that most people who try Windows Phone hate it or reject it on its merits, I think rather, it is a big problem in the sales channel that Microsoft has made recent strides towards addressing.



I do get your point, sort of... But your saying that there is no context... There is context, i.e. Linux is on more devices across the broad market - that is the context. It isn't about making a headline, it is a relavent statistic as long as you take it for what it is. It is telling you that a hell of a lot of companies are using it for a wide variety of things, granted desktop isn't high on the list...


Sure, but why is it there? Mostly for one reason. Android. That is the functional equivalent of saying that Android is dominant in the mobile space. There is no new information, and crucial context is lost.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Marketshare
by galvanash on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 22:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Marketshare"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Deficiency meaning a lack of popularity, not any functional impediment.


Ok. Well that sounds a bit less insulting that way.

For the record, yes, I do think that Windows' 5% marketshare is a problem, and if Microsoft were twisting statistics in this way it would be equally wrong.


I still don't think it is twisting statistics - it is just a _different_ statistic...

The mobile market has many dynamics that the PC market does not, including more "Gate keepers" so to speak with interests that sometimes run contrary to that of Microsoft's and creates friction at the sales channel.


You think Microsoft doesn't similarly act as a gatekeeper in the desktop market? The difference is Linux has no one to act on its behalf in that market...

I am not convinced that most people who try Windows Phone hate it or reject it on its merits, I think rather, it is a big problem in the sales channel that Microsoft has made recent strides towards addressing.


I am not convinced that most people who try Linux on the desktop hate it or reject it on its merits, I think rather, it is a big problem with lack of vertical integration and corporate backing. Unfortunately, there is no one that has _really_ tried to address it, so it has never had a real chance to gain any footholds.

Sure, but why is it there? Mostly for one reason. Android. That is the functional equivalent of saying that Android is dominant in the mobile space. There is no new information, and crucial context is lost.


But it isn't a mobile statistic... So why try to bend it into one? It is simply "marketshare across all device types" - the mix in each product category or the relative number of devices is not the point. Of course the high number is because of Android, but that doesn't invalidate anything.

I would wager quite heavily that if the combination of Windows and Windows Phone ever crossed 50% in such an "across all categories" type of statistic they would be trumpeting it all over the place (and have in the past). I don't blame them...

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Marketshare
by Savior on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 09:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
Savior Member since:
2006-09-02

Nelson, galvanash:

But it isn't a mobile statistic... So why try to bend it into one? It is simply "marketshare across all device types" - the mix in each product category or the relative number of devices is not the point. Of course the high number is because of Android, but that doesn't invalidate anything.


I think this is exactly the case where Stallman's otherwise pretentious "GNU/Linux" wording is useful, as it shows the difference between your reasonings clearly.

GNU/Linux, the operating system, stands at 1% on the desktop. It is a context we are well aware of.

Linux, on the other hand, is the most widely used kernel with 42% market share. That is also a context, because it means that it won't go away easily, and we may even expect it to improve if every (mobile) HW vendor now has to write drivers for it. This wasn't, and perhaps still isn't, the case for regular PCs.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Marketshare
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 09:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Marketshare"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


I think this is exactly the case where Stallman's otherwise pretentious "GNU/Linux" wording is useful, as it shows the difference between your reasonings clearly.

GNU/Linux, the operating system, stands at 1% on the desktop. It is a context we are well aware of.

Linux, on the other hand, is the most widely used kernel with 42% market share. That is also a context, because it means that it won't go away easily, and we may even expect it to improve if every (mobile) HW vendor now has to write drivers for it. This wasn't, and perhaps still isn't, the case for regular PCs.


But no one says "Linux" referring to the kernel alone. The everyday use of the name refers to GNU/Linux.

Linux == GNU/Linux != Android or the vast majority of the embedded devices out there.

Edited 2013-01-23 09:22 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Marketshare
by Savior on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 10:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Marketshare"
Savior Member since:
2006-09-02

I don't, either. It's just that in this particular case, it is exactly the difference.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Marketshare
by cdude on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Marketshare"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

GNU is just one possible component of the stack. There are many many more. That RMS thinks his baby is the most important component, even more then the Kernel adding GNU in front of Linux when saying GNU/Linux is his view. Reality looks different. Wayne?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Marketshare
by TemporalBeing on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Marketshare"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

But no one says "Linux" referring to the kernel alone. The everyday use of the name refers to GNU/Linux.

Linux == GNU/Linux != Android or the vast majority of the embedded devices out there.


Don't think I agree.

The normal Linux desktop does typically include the GNU user-space. However, the vast majority of Linux installations do not necessarily. In fact, there's probably many more Linux installations that use the BusyBox userland instead - e.g. embedded systems - not to mention the now large set of installations that use the Android user-land.

So Linux === (GNU/Linux && Android/Linux && BusyBox/Linux && etc.); however, GNU/Linux != Android/Linux != BusyBox/Linux != etc.

Please note the congruency operator in that previous statement.

Personally, when I talk of Linux I typically mean the kernel or all various distributions of Linux - Android included - depending on context.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Marketshare
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Marketshare"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Linux, on the other hand, is the most widely used kernel with 42% market share. That is also a context, because it means that it won't go away easily, and we may even expect it to improve if every (mobile) HW vendor now has to write drivers for it. This wasn't, and perhaps still isn't, the case for regular PCs.


Well, it is exactly what I'm saying. That all this data says, is that Android is dominating, and mobile is growing. It does so in a less clear manner than just saying "Android is dominating" would do it.

When you frame it as you've framed it, yes, it makes a lot more sense, but let's be honest, this is lemur2. This isn't the point he was trying to make at all.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Marketshare
by cdude on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Marketshare"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

It is telling that you are talking of the mobile market and exclude tables, notebooks like the Chromebook on the way. Fact is all of them are computers and it doesn't become more personal then a smartphone. The shift of customers away from workstations to thinner devices is telling us that there is no hard border. Its all computers, the categories are blur and it makes more sense tro include all computers in a statistic then defining fake borders to make a point.

Edited 2013-01-23 08:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Marketshare
by Lennie on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 11:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Yes, this is all gonna blur, more and more.

Where do netbooks fit in ? What about the Chromebook ?

Do you distingues by it having a touchscreen ?

Or by it having a keyboard, is that the criterium ?

There are laptops on the market with touchscreen now (partly thanks to Microsoft no less).

So where do these devices all fit, what are they ?

Even Gartner is making prediction as if it is one market:

http://www.zdnet.com/android-to-overtake-windows-in-2016-says-gartn...

Edited 2013-01-23 11:38 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Marketshare"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yes, this is all gonna blur, more and more.

Even Gartner is making prediction as if it is one market:

http://www.zdnet.com/android-to-overtake-windows-in-2016-says-gartn...


Gartner's prediction of Linux to overtake Windows by 2016 is for installed base.

In this thread we are talking about current market share, which is a different thing entirely. Linux's current market share is over twice that of Windows, but Windows has a very large installed base, and it apparently will take until 2016 for Linux to overtake it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Marketshare
by Lennie on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 12:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Marketshare"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

What I meant is:

that even Gartner also started to look at it like one big consumer- and business end-user device market or whatever it is.

It was more like an example.

Edited 2013-01-23 12:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Marketshare
by zima on Tue 29th Jan 2013 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Marketshare"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

In this thread we are talking about current market share, which is a different thing entirely.

The terminology seems a bit flawed. It could be better called... sales share.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Marketshare
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I didn't come up with the numbers, I merely commented on them. If you're trying to make a point, then make it.

Chromebooks do not yet have an appreciable impact on these numbers, and I'm not yet convinced they will. Its nice that you like Chromebooks, but it would be nicer if you presented a situation in where they could conceivably come to dominate, then we could argue on those merits.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Marketshare"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Sure, but why is it there? Mostly for one reason. Android. That is the functional equivalent of saying that Android is dominant in the mobile space. There is no new information, and crucial context is lost.


Actually, Linux is dominant in the mobile market, the embedded market, the server market, the "cloud", virtualization, network infrastructure, the real-time market, the cluster and distributed computing market, mainframes and supercomputers.

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linuxuniversal/

In other words, everywhere except the desktop. Linux is indisputably the most widely used OS today, by far.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Marketshare
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


In other words, everywhere except the desktop. Linux is indisputably the most widely used OS today, by far.


Another mainstream OS that blows chunks. Popular != good.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Marketshare
by cdude on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 15:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Taken the shift away from desktop-workstations as mass-consumer devices and understanding them as legacy that is transforming its plausible no bigger changes happen there anymore. May the localized power-eating fat-boxes rest in piece while the new-age transportable identities replace them. Bye betamax, high digital world.

Edited 2013-01-23 15:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Marketshare
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Actually, Linux is dominant in the mobile market, the embedded market, the server market, the "cloud", virtualization, network infrastructure, the real-time market, the cluster and distributed computing market, mainframes and supercomputers.

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linuxuniversal/

In other words, everywhere except the desktop. Linux is indisputably the most widely used OS today, by far.


I take nothing away from Linux in that regard, I was commenting on the misleading nature of the figures cited in the article you submitted.

What you say may be true, but can you show me a break down of how all those sectors contribute to the chart you submitted? You cannot string loosely coupled facts together without some reasoning.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Marketshare
by henderson101 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

The LINUX kernel, yes. But a full LINUX distro? Kind of. But where does LINUX start, and a derivative work stop? Is Android a LINUX, or and OS using LINUX as a platform to run apps? The fact that Android Apps run (mainly) in a VM and that VM has been ported to countless other OS (Other LINUX distros, QNX, Mac OS X, Windows, etc) and those Apps run happily, with or without the underlying Kernel and OS services - what does that tell us? I know what you think as you've made that fairly obvious, but I'd say - LINUX was just a convenient platform to build Android upon. But really, it might have equally have been BSD or another OS, had one existed in a form that was useful and fitted the profile. Is WebOS LINUX? Is Meego LINUX? Not as most desktop users would consider the OS. I mean, some parallels can be drawn, but it's more of an analogue rather than an exact correlation. I think it's very easy to point at any project that uses the LINUX kernel and shout "another LINUX OS", but for me there's more to it. Or can we start pointing at the Dreamcast, XBOX, XBOX 360 and all of the Windows CE based devices (including Windows Phone 7 and 8) and say "Windows"? Can we look at all of the iOS devices and say "Mac OS X"? After all, it's a very similar situation. Cherry picking your definition is just a convenient way to cheat the figures, in my opinion (obviously.)

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Marketshare
by abraxas on Thu 24th Jan 2013 00:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Marketshare"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

The fact that Android Apps run (mainly) in a VM and that VM has been ported to countless other OS (Other LINUX distros, QNX, Mac OS X, Windows, etc) and those Apps run happily, with or without the underlying Kernel and OS services - what does that tell us? I know what you think as you've made that fairly obvious, but I'd say - LINUX was just a convenient platform to build Android upon. But really, it might have equally have been BSD or another OS, had one existed in a form that was useful and fitted the profile.


You're right that the kernel could have been anything else. I think that's the point. It could have been anything but they chose linux.

Or can we start pointing at the Dreamcast, XBOX, XBOX 360 and all of the Windows CE based devices (including Windows Phone 7 and 8) and say "Windows"? Can we look at all of the iOS devices and say "Mac OS X"? After all, it's a very similar situation. Cherry picking your definition is just a convenient way to cheat the figures, in my opinion (obviously.)


It's not exactly the same. The windows CE kernel and the Windows NT kernel are not even close to being the same thing. Despite drastically different userlands, linux system share the same kernel.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Marketshare
by WorknMan on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Marketshare"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

So is the 5% marketshare of Windows in mobile an indication of its deficiency in the mobile market?


Yes, absolutely. Despite the merits of each OS, Windows on mobile sucks ass for the same reason that Linux on the desktop does... there are much better apps/games (and a wider variety of them too) on other platforms.

Edited 2013-01-22 22:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Marketshare"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"So is the 5% marketshare of Windows in mobile an indication of its deficiency in the mobile market?


Yes, absolutely. Despite the merits of each OS, Windows on mobile sucks ass for the same reason that Linux on the desktop does... there are much better apps/games (and a wider variety of them too) on other platforms.
"

This is a myth. The selection of commonly-used desktop applications (mail client, web browser, file manager & utilities, office suite, say photo management & editing, etc) for Linux, along with the lack of malware and crapware and the need for anti-virus, make desktop Linux a far better choice for most people, since most people by far are not gamers.

Ubuntu Linux alone comes pre-installed on five percent of PCs globally now:

http://www.zdnet.com/shuttleworth-talks-up-ubuntu-12-10-growing-acc...

It is an utter myth that desktop Linux is deficient, except for the fact that most people are not offered a convenient and cost-proportionate way to purchase it pre-installed on decent hardware. That alone is the reason why it lacks more market share than it has (which is significantly more than 1% BTW).

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Marketshare
by Nelson on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 23:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


It is an utter myth that desktop Linux is deficient, except for the fact that most people are not offered a convenient and cost-proportionate way to purchase it pre-installed on decent hardware. That alone is the reason why it lacks more market share than it has (which is significantly more than 1% BTW).


I agree. While Linux has rough spots, they're no more rough than the roughest spots on Windows. That alone isn't impeding it. The desktop market has forces beyond the control of the various Linux initiatives similarly to how a lot of Windows Phone's marketshare woes are attributable to market conditions that outweigh the merits of the product.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Marketshare
by WorknMan on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

This is a myth. The selection of commonly-used desktop applications (mail client, web browser, file manager & utilities, office suite, say photo management & editing, etc) for Linux, along with the lack of malware and crapware and the need for anti-virus, make desktop Linux a far better choice for most people, since most people by far are not gamers.


I didn't say Linux didn't have any commonly-used desktop apps. I said there are BETTER ones and a WIDER VARIETY of them on other platforms.

it is an utter myth that desktop Linux is deficient, except for the fact that most people are not offered a convenient and cost-proportionate way to purchase it pre-installed on decent hardware.


And if they were, you could kiss that 'no crapware' sales pitch goodbye. Need proof? Just look at all the vile shit that is done to Android. If you want a decent Android phone without somebody putting crapware all over it, you basically have one model a year to choose from, and even that one is nearly impossible to get at the moment. Oh, I have that phone btw, and it is awesome ;)

Edited 2013-01-22 23:26 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Marketshare"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"This is a myth. The selection of commonly-used desktop applications (mail client, web browser, file manager & utilities, office suite, say photo management & editing, etc) for Linux, along with the lack of malware and crapware and the need for anti-virus, make desktop Linux a far better choice for most people, since most people by far are not gamers.


I didn't say Linux didn't have any commonly-used desktop apps. I said there are BETTER ones and a WIDER VARIETY of them on other platforms.
"

There are indeed a wider variety of desktop applications on other platforms, but they are not any better.

"it is an utter myth that desktop Linux is deficient, except for the fact that most people are not offered a convenient and cost-proportionate way to purchase it pre-installed on decent hardware.


And if they were, you could kiss that 'no crapware' sales pitch goodbye. Need proof? Just look at all the vile shit that is done to Android. If you want a decent Android phone without somebody putting crapware all over it, you basically have one model a year to choose from, and even that one is nearly impossible to get at the moment. Oh, I have that phone btw, and it is awesome ;)
"

Actually, as it happens, I am typing this message on a consumer laptop machine that came pre-installed with Ubuntu and no crapware. I purchased it via a customisation page similar to the one linked below, by selecting "Ubuntu" and failing to select any version of Windows.

http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/products/configure.asp?c1=3&c2=1...

Installing "crapware" is normally a way that OEMs use to offset the cost of Microsoft software they install on machines. If the OEM does not have to pay for Microsoft software, there is no need to offset such costs, and they can deliver a desktop/laptop machine with no crapware and the consumer can still save $AUD109 for the desktop & OS software alone compared with the exact same machine pre-installed with Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium or Microsoft Windows 8. An additional $AUD235 can be saved by not using Microsoft Office 2010 Home and Business Edition as the office suite. This is a significant saving, considering that the hardware itself is $AUD599.

... and it will have BETTER desktop software, and be far easier to maintain and keep running well, as a bonus.

The only real problem is that consumers are forced to shop online & really hunt around to find a great desktop Linux deal such as this, it is not commonly available in bricks & mortar stores.

Here is a glimpse of the desktop & OS software I am running right now, as I type this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ-JOo-tF_Y

"It is a delight to use KDE right now".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNQWVJPLjig

"Kubuntu 12.10 - Fun and Flashy Linux" - "I really like what I see".

Edited 2013-01-23 01:03 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Marketshare
by WorknMan on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 03:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Marketshare"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

here are indeed a wider variety of desktop applications on other platforms, but they are not any better.


Of course they are. If you go and look at websites sporting Linux alternatives for commercial software, they are mostly inferior knock-offs of their commercial counterparts. This, of course, isn't ALWAYS the case, but is so the majority of the time.

Installing "crapware" is normally a way that OEMs use to offset the cost of Microsoft software they install on machines


How do you explain then the crapware on Android devices (and seeming lack of it on Windows Phone)? I know a lot of people blame carriers for this, but even wifi-only tablets like the Asus Transformer models come with it as well.

In other words, crapware is not strictly the domain of Windows. It is also possible to get Windows machines without crapware if you shop around (Including Microsoft stores). It's not like crapware comes preinstalled on a vanilla Windows disc, Metro on Windows 8 not withstanding ;)

Edited 2013-01-23 03:24 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 05:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Marketshare"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"here are indeed a wider variety of desktop applications on other platforms, but they are not any better.


Of course they are. If you go and look at websites sporting Linux alternatives for commercial software, they are mostly inferior knock-offs of their commercial counterparts. This, of course, isn't ALWAYS the case, but is so the majority of the time.
"

How do you define "better". If we talk about functionality alone, I strongly dispute this claim. Take as an example desktop CAD software, an example which is often used in this context. For Linux, the most functional available application here would be Bricscad.

http://www.bricsys.com/en_AU/bricscad/

This is not a knock-off, this is the same software (with a different OS interface layer) for Linux as the version which is sold for Windows.

If we are talking Photoshop, another example which is commonly used, the best option for Linux is to split the functionality between digikam (for working with digital photos) and Krita (for working with creating raster graphics).

http://www.digikam.org/about?q=about/features
http://krita.org/

This is by no means inferior software just on functionality. It certainly isn't a knock off, because it is two applications rather than one.

Another example of cited is Microsoft Visio and One Note. The best alternatives here, for the Linux desktop, would be Calligra Flow and Calligra Braindump:

http://www.calligra.org/flow/
http://www.calligra.org/braindump/

Once again, these are not knock-offs, they are merely applications which perform similar functions. The Linux desktop applications here are not as functional as the ones from MS Office, but for the average consumer of desktop software they are more than adequate. As a bonus, the Linux desktop applications output files in the OpenDocument drawing format (.odg), so the files can be used directly in many other desktop applications. This is not something one can normally say for Microsoft desktop software, as a general rule Microsoft software saves data in the most obscure formats possible.

Now seriously, as a consumer, you must consider value-for-money as at least part of the criteria for determining which software is actually better.

When you factor in even a small consideration of value-for-money, for a normal average consumer the Linux desktop software wins hands down.

"Installing "crapware" is normally a way that OEMs use to offset the cost of Microsoft software they install on machines


How do you explain then the crapware on Android devices (and seeming lack of it on Windows Phone)? I know a lot of people blame carriers for this, but even wifi-only tablets like the Asus Transformer models come with it as well.
"

Out of up to fifty devices/machines I have bought over time, I have never purchased any computing device, other than a couple of Windows machines, which have come with crapware installed. This includes a number of Android phones.

In other words, crapware is not strictly the domain of Windows. It is also possible to get Windows machines without crapware if you shop around (Including Microsoft stores). It's not like crapware comes preinstalled on a vanilla Windows disc, Metro on Windows 8 not withstanding ;)


It is, OTOH, far more common to get a crapware-free offering if one avoids Windows. In my own experience, it is infinitely more common.

Edited 2013-01-23 05:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Marketshare
by unclefester on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Marketshare"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

I had a look. The Pioneer laptop seems to be extremely poor value at the current price of AUD600 (including GST).

You can readily buy a high quality (Acer, Asus, Toshiba, HP etc) Windows 7/8 model with much better hardware for equal or less money from a number of Australian retailers eg Officeworks, JB HiFi or Dick Smith.

My Acer V3-571G absolutely shits on the Pioneer hardware wise. It was cheaper and came with Windows 7 and Office preinstalled. It also has excellent Linux support.

ps I use Linux and Windows.

Edited 2013-01-23 08:11 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Marketshare"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I had a look. The Pioneer laptop seems to be extremely poor value at the current price of AUD600 (including GST).

You can readily buy a high quality (Acer, Asus, Toshiba, HP etc) Windows 7/8 model with much better hardware for equal or less money from a number of Australian retailers eg Officeworks, JB HiFi or Dick Smith.

My Acer V3-571G absolutely shits on the Pioneer hardware wise. It was cheaper and came with Windows 7 and Office preinstalled. It also has excellent Linux support.

ps I use Linux and Windows.


I am not touting the Pioneer laptop per se ... I am using this site to demonstrate the cost of Windows. A lot of people seem to think that because it comes pre-installed that Windows is free. It simply isn't.

If one could avoid the Windows tax that retailers such as Officeworks, JB HiFi or Dick Smith force upon you and buy from them the Acer V3-571G laptop with a blank hard disk (and say a free Linux LiveDVD), I am sure that it would be a wonderful value-for-money purchase. Since you can't buy it like that, it simply isn't.

Edited 2013-01-23 08:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Marketshare
by Lennie on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Marketshare"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I actually have installed Ubuntu on my ARM Chromebook it costs US $249, it does everything most people need from a small laptop.

The video driver for 3D acceleration, Flash and suspend isn't there yet but I'm sure it will. And the installation procedure and information how to do it is still a bit scattered around the web.

But these are the only problems.

The Acer C7 Chromebook which has a Sandy Bridge Celeron chip is only $199. Maybe the batterylife is a bit short though, only 4 hours.

The performance is even slightly better as the ARM Chromebook I'm using. A Linux distribution should be fine on these devices. And I think hardware support for the Intel-based Chromebook will probably be better than the ARM-based one.

Here is a review:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6476/acer-c7-chromebook-review/5

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Marketshare
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Marketshare"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

There are indeed a wider variety of desktop applications on other platforms, but they are not any better.


Right, we'll just take your word for it. Because it's certainly not as if Linux advocates have a illustrious history of dishonest exaggerations, or doing absurd things like claiming that GIMP is on par with Photoshop...

Actually, as it happens, I am typing this message on a consumer laptop machine that came pre-installed with Ubuntu and no crapware. I purchased it via a customisation page similar to the one linked below, by selecting "Ubuntu" and failing to select any version of Windows.


Too bad that small online-only OEMs like that typically don't include crapware on their Windows PCs, either. So if we apply your reasoning, then in looks like Linux is irrelevant to whether or not a PC has crapware - it's the size of the OEM that matters. Or at least that's the way it looks when you don't conveniently leave out relevant details.

Installing "crapware" is normally a way that OEMs use to offset the cost of Microsoft software they install on machines. If the OEM does not have to pay for Microsoft software, there is no need to offset such costs, and they can deliver a desktop/laptop machine with no crapware and the consumer can still save $AUD109 for the desktop & OS software alone compared with the exact same machine pre-installed with Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium or Microsoft Windows 8. An additional $AUD235 can be saved by not using Microsoft Office 2010 Home and Business Edition as the office suite. This is a significant saving, considering that the hardware itself is $AUD599.


You'd have to be hopelessly naiive to actually believe that. Take any big OEM that currently bundles crapware with their Windows PCs - there's no way in hell they would stop bundling crapware if they switched to selling Linux PCs. Instead, they would look at like this: "Hey, if we bundle crapware with Linux PCs, then we'll make even MORE money from it."

But I guess it's easier to believe some simplistic myth where OEMs would stop bundling crapware AND pass the savings on to customers, if it weren't for big mean Microsoft.

"It is a delight to use KDE right now".


"Kubuntu 12.10 - Fun and Flashy Linux" - "I really like what I see".


What, you couldn't find any more generic-sounding hyperbole? You left out "tour de force" and "rollercoaster thrill ride of excitement." And I assume, of course, that it has an ending that will leave me breathless.

Edited 2013-01-23 17:54 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Marketshare
by WereCatf on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Marketshare"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Right, we'll just take your word for it. Because it's certainly not as if Linux advocates have a illustrious history of dishonest exaggerations, or doing absurd things like claiming that GIMP is on par with Photoshop...


At least lemur2 fits perfectly the description of an irate Linux-fanboy with blinders on both sides. Have you noticed how he constantly tries to portray non-Linux OSes -- especially Windows -- in a negative light by comparing the price of Linux+F/OSS-software to e.g. Windows+MS Office+expensive DVD-players+expensive AV+whatnot, always carefully presenting things as if most of the same F/OSS-software wasn't available for Windows at all. When he claims some software isn't available for Windows at all and he's proven wrong he conveniently "forgets" that the whole discussion ever took place or claims that software only works properly when run under Linux, he completely ignores any and all use-cases where F/OSS-software just simply isn't up-to-notch or where there doesn't exist an alternative at all, goes on to explain how re-installing the whole OS is somehow a proof of superiority when it doesn't break and so on?

Rabid fanboy-ranting does more harm than good and he completely refuses to see that. Hell, I use Linux on my server, in a VM on my desktop, on my Pandaboard and on my Nokia N900 and yet lemur2's incoherent ramblings and exceedingly annoying holier-than-thou - attitude makes me want to stop using Linux just to spite his face. An Average Joe would definitely be put off by him and most likely would avoid Linux altogether if he thought all Linux-users are like that.

As for the article in question here: yes, the Linux - kernel is in use all kinds of devices, ranging from wrist-worn clocks to room-filling supercomputers, but... well, it's just a kernel. By itself the kernel isn't really terribly useful, it needs userland to actually become something, and Android is seemingly the dominating userland - package in use nowadays. The problem with that is that neither the kernel used by Google or the Android userland are actually F/OSS, so the comparisons to Linux - distros and the likes is totally bogus and misleading. The adoption of the Linux-kernel for use by Android-powered devices hasn't really boosted the relevancy of Linux-distro, for example, or the development-efforts of even the most popular F/OSS - applications.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Marketshare"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Right, we'll just take your word for it. Because it's certainly not as if Linux advocates have a illustrious history of dishonest exaggerations, or doing absurd things like claiming that GIMP is on par with Photoshop.


Personally, I wouldn't advocate GIMP, I would use digikam for digital photos, and krita for creation of raster graphics such as comics.

For a tablet, I would advocate krita sketch, which is available for Windows too.

http://krita.org/item/124-krita-on-the-go-krita-sketch

Now as for your claims of dishonesty ... what exactly can I do with Adobe CS6 Photoshop for Windows, costing $AUD965, that I cannot do with some combination of FOSS software costing nothing?

As an ordinary non-professional consumer and a private individual with a limited budget, please recognise that value-for-money is indeed a part of my decision-making process here, and I would include value-for-money as a part of my assessment of being "on par".

Edited 2013-01-23 23:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Marketshare
by zima on Sun 27th Jan 2013 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Marketshare"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Take any big OEM that currently bundles crapware with their Windows PCs - there's no way in hell they would stop bundling crapware if they switched to selling Linux PCs

Additionally... Android phones often already include what is essentially crapware! (UI "enhancements" would be counted as crapware on Windows PCs...)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Marketshare
by zima on Tue 29th Jan 2013 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Marketshare"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

a consumer laptop machine that came pre-installed with Ubuntu and no crapware [...] Installing "crapware" is normally a way that OEMs use to offset the cost of Microsoft software they install on machines. If the OEM does not have to pay for Microsoft software, there is no need to offset such costs [...] The only real problem is that consumers are forced to shop online & really hunt around

There is a category of Linux computers which are very popular with consumers, chiefly responsible for large Linux sales share: Android smartphones. Certainly no hunting around is necessary.

And guess what... they typically include crapware (UI "enhancements" alone would be counted as crapware on Windows PCs...). In the appstore, also a lot of essentially malware/spyware.

PS. Generally, understand what your posts accomplish; nobody better than you, lemur2, unites Windows and Linux users that frequent here - even Nelson gets upvoted ( http://www.osnews.com/thread?549981 ). As for me & KDE... http://www.osnews.com/thread?550536

Edited 2013-01-29 23:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Marketshare
by Lennie on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 11:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I've actually seen the video where Shuttleworth mentions this.

This article says:

"He claimed Linux comes pre-installed on five percent of PCs globally now."

But I think he said: "will come pre-installed on five percent of the global PC-market".

This suggests to me, it hasn't happend yet.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Marketshare
by henderson101 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

This is a myth. The selection of commonly-used desktop applications (mail client, web browser, file manager & utilities, office suite, say photo management & editing, etc) for Linux, along with the lack of malware and crapware and the need for anti-virus, make desktop Linux a far better choice for most people, since most people by far are not gamers


Really? I don't think so. Any serious musician will come up with little on LINUX that can rival Reaper, and that is probably the lowest tier DAW software. There are no half decent video editors - not with the features in apps like Avid and iMovie... both of which do a better job on iOS than a full blown LINUX distro. Where is the port of Photoshop these days? And Illustrator? GIMP is a plaything and Inkscape was still very lacking last time I looked. Where are the specialised drawing tools, such a Manga Studio (which I use on both Mac and Windows regularly)? If you only word process/uses spreadsheets, edit a few basic digital photos and make extremely simple movies I might agree. But no.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[3]: Marketshare
by lapantz4less on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 09:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Marketshare"
RE[4]: Marketshare
by cdude on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Because Microsoft is caught in its legacy win32 desktop-workstation world. Caught in there own prision that is rapidly shrinking while they are not present in any other market, in any of the growing future markets. They try to expand to that markets. Bing, Azure, WP. Its failing. Not since yesterday. If that doesn't change fast they are done and gone. Look at there key-partners hit first. Nokia, Intel, Dell, HP. All suffering huge. At least some of them have a strong stand in alternate markets. Microsoft doesn't. Microsofts business was always the mass consumer market and the mass of consumers already left and still leaves there markets.

Edited 2013-01-23 15:20 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Marketshare
by zima on Tue 29th Jan 2013 19:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Marketshare"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

You still don't manage to notice Xbox...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Marketshare
by pandronic on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 06:36 UTC in reply to "Marketshare"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Nothing to see here, just Lemur's trolling at its finnest. It's sad that Thom publishes his garbage on the homepage.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Marketshare
by przemo_li on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:46 UTC in reply to "Marketshare"
przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Marketshare is about giving context to a situation. When you lump everything together with everything you lose context.


And gain ANOTHER.

What is Linux having "double" marketshare really telling you? That Android is popular? We already knew that because Android is popular in the mobile space.


1) That MOBILE is bigger than IBM PC as Personal Computing solution for consumers.
2) That MS lack flexibility for fighting in new markets.
3) That there are MORE phones than IBM PC's out there in the world.
4) That for some people PHONE is only PC they have.
5) That MS do fine job on IBM PC.
6) That MS to stay as dominant player need to push for MOBILE.
7) That FLOSS model of development is technically superior to proprietary one, in terms of gaining market share. (With all else been equal)
8) That CHEAP solutions are in demand.
...


Its only function, is to mask Linux's deficiencies in other core markets.


If we take those numbers as true, then Linux deficiencies on IBM PC DO NOT MATTER. ITS NO BIG DEAL ANYMORE. MS deficiences on MOBILE are (small) deal. Cause as those stats show MOBILE is more relevant.

Its just a twisting of numbers to make a headline. This is like using Windows 92% marketshare to inflate their numbers in mobile. Doesn't really make sense.


Come one. BREAKING 10y of solid grip on consumer personal computing solutions IS NOT WORTH HEADLINE?


Less emotions more thinking.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Marketshare
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Marketshare"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Come one. BREAKING 10y of solid grip on consumer personal computing solutions IS NOT WORTH HEADLINE?


Less emotions more thinking.


Exactly.. more thinking. This is trying to claim a whole bunch of different operating systems are one when they're not. Android is what is winning marketshare, not Ubuntu/Red Hat/Debian, etc. and in markets where Windows hasn't even existed until very recently. It's not as if Android had to claw back the marketshare from an entrenched Microsoft OS. Lets see ChromeOS takeover for Windows on the PC and then it would mean something. Until then this is a completely ridiculous and bogus use of statistics at best.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Marketshare
by przemo_li on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Marketshare"
przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Nope. You still stubbornly insist that ONLY IBM PC is relevant. Even when given stats indicating that MOST people use phones not IBM PC's....

Consumer PC's are run by Linux.

You just ignore statistics because of your bias (1) Linux is only Fedora/Ubnuntu,etc. 2) Only IBM PC matter).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Marketshare
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Marketshare"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


1) That MOBILE is bigger than IBM PC as Personal Computing solution for consumers.


We already knew where growth was, and who to attribute it to. This article could have just said "Android is popular" and have conveyed the same amount of information, in a more honest way.


2) That MS lack flexibility for fighting in new markets.
3) That there are MORE phones than IBM PC's out there in the world.


Then why not say there are more phones out there? Why not say MS lacks flexibility. If that's the case, then the point should be stated in the article, and be focal points around which a discussion can be had.


4) That for some people PHONE is only PC they have.
5) That MS do fine job on IBM PC.
6) That MS to stay as dominant player need to push for MOBILE.


Again, this has been known. How many articles has OSNews not had in the past stressing this fact? How hasnt' Windows 8's power play clued you into this already?

There is no new information presented here, only old information, with less context.


7) That FLOSS model of development is technically superior to proprietary one, in terms of gaining market share. (With all else been equal)


I disagree on your conclusion. It MAY be true, but these numbers don't show that. Android isn't developed using a FLOSS model.


If we take those numbers as true, then Linux deficiencies on IBM PC DO NOT MATTER. ITS NO BIG DEAL ANYMORE. MS deficiences on MOBILE are (small) deal. Cause as those stats show MOBILE is more relevant.


This is where I can agree. It largely doesn't matter, except apparently, to lemur2, who uses Linux's mobile numbers to inflate their overall numbers and paint a misleading picture.



Come one. BREAKING 10y of solid grip on consumer personal computing solutions IS NOT WORTH HEADLINE?


Less emotions more thinking.


No. This is similar to claiming the unemployment rate has gone down without saying why. Yes, it's gone down. But its a meaningless statistic if labor participation also went down.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Marketshare
by henderson101 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Marketshare"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30


"
7) That FLOSS model of development is technically superior to proprietary one, in terms of gaining market share. (With all else been equal)


I disagree on your conclusion. It MAY be true, but these numbers don't show that. Android isn't developed using a FLOSS model.
"

This actually borders on delusion. I'm sorry Lemur2, but Commercial use of FLOSS works in a very specific niche. That niche is where one of two factors come in to play:

1) The (parent) company has a lot of money to burn from other sources (e.g. Google)

2) The company has little or no assets and they are trying to rub magic beans together and bootstrap their business using the work of others (i.e. FLOSS developers.)

All other scenarios are pretty much based on one developer, or a very small collective, working slowly on a project and making progress that to most outsiders looks minimal and pretty much brings in zero cash (Haiku, Syllable, FreePascal, Lazarus, etc.)

Yes you might also get a driven development team that make amazing progress - but those projects have a very high burn rate. Very high.

Edit - added clarification "...Commercial use of..."

Edited 2013-01-23 17:18 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" I disagree on your conclusion. It MAY be true, but these numbers don't show that. Android isn't developed using a FLOSS model.


This actually borders on delusion. I'm sorry Lemur2, but Commercial use of FLOSS works in a very specific niche.
"

You have made an incorrect attribution there. I did not post the words to which you are replying.

That niche is where one of two factors come in to play:

1) The (parent) company has a lot of money to burn from other sources (e.g. Google)

2) The company has little or no assets and they are trying to rub magic beans together and bootstrap their business using the work of others (i.e. FLOSS developers.)

All other scenarios are pretty much based on one developer, or a very small collective, working slowly on a project and making progress that to most outsiders looks minimal and pretty much brings in zero cash (Haiku, Syllable, FreePascal, Lazarus, etc.)

Yes you might also get a driven development team that make amazing progress - but those projects have a very high burn rate. Very high.

Edit - added clarification "...Commercial use of..."


Actually, you completely miss the main economic impetus behind Linux and FOSS. Linux and FOSS is the best solution for ANY area where the actual product being sold is not the software itself.

A good example is the car industry:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/20/linux-foundation-forms-automotiv...

"The Linux Foundation sees it differently and wants our cars to embrace the same notions of common roots and open code that we'd find in an Ubuntu box. Its newly-formed Automotive Grade Linux Workgroup is transforming Tizen into a reference platform that car designers can use for the center stack, or even the instrument cluster. The promise is to both optimize a Linux variant for cars and provide the same kind of years-long support that we'd expect for the drivetrain. Technology heavy-hitters like Intel, Harman, NVIDIA, Samsung and TI form the core of the group, although there are already automakers who've signaled their intentions: Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan and Toyota are all part of the initial membership."

None of the companies Intel, Harman, NVIDIA, Samsung, TI, Jaguar, Land Rover, Nissan or Toyota sell software. It is therefore in their best interests to collaborate on developing code (thereby sharing the development costs) that they can all then use in products they do sell.

Edited 2013-01-23 23:13 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Marketshare
by henderson101 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 11:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Marketshare"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Actually, you completely miss the main economic impetus behind Linux and FOSS. Linux and FOSS is the best solution for ANY area where the actual product being sold is not the software itself.


Not really. As I said, in the industry developing the FLOSS, that is pretty much how it works. Most of the companies you mention fall in to category (1) - they get money from else where and therefore can justify investing in FLOSS, because a big chunk of the work (R&D etc) for sections of their product line is done by someone else. The fact that they pay for some of the work to be completed is simply because they need someone to customise the FLOSS for their specific use, and to reuse code that is a partial fit. It's a total back-scratching scenario, but much of the development exists on a very precarious basis and the whim of the product line.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Marketshare
by zima on Tue 29th Jan 2013 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Marketshare"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

7) That FLOSS model of development is technically superior to proprietary one, in terms of gaining market share. (With all else been equal)

"Technically superior" and "gaining market share" might be and often are a bit unrelated things...

Besides, only one open OS (Linux) does really well in the market share...

Edited 2013-01-29 15:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Marketshare
by bert64 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 10:41 UTC in reply to "Marketshare"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Desktop is the only market in which linux is deficient...

Doing well in mobile (and tablets) thanks to android.
Doing well in servers.
Dominant in supercomputing according to the top500 list.
Doing well in embedded devices (tv sets, set top boxes etc).
Doing well in networking (Routers, firewalls, appliances etc)

About the only area where linux isn't a major player is desktops

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Marketshare
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 16:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Marketshare"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Ok. I get your talking point. I saw it the first five times lemur2 pasted it in the comments.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Marketshare
by Valhalla on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 21:00 UTC in reply to "Marketshare"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Its only function, is to mask Linux's deficiencies in other core markets.

When you say 'other core markets' you must mean solely the pc desktop, I can't think of any other.

And this is a Microsoft monopoly in which not even Apple with all it's marketing and popularity could make a real dent, which incidentally is likely what made them (very successfully) shift their focus onto tablets.

Reply Score: 2

Who would've seen this coming?
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 21:51 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

It's the year of Linux on the computer*!

* Where computer is generic for all commonly-used computer systems.

Reply Score: 5

Amazing
by darknexus on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 01:31 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

It's incredible how much some Linux lovers will try to fudge any number they can. First it was "desktop Linux," and when those of us point out that desktop Linux will go nowhere, they suddenly want to move it to "Linux" in general regardless of the market. Look, I know this guy loves Linux (any comments on here will tell you that). But, and this goes for all Linux fans out there, you do yourselves no favors by fudging the numbers in this way and, in fact, you appear quite dishonest when doing so. By your logic, I can prove that Windows is the most dominant player in the marketplace as well. For once I agree with Nelson (and that doesn't happen often) that a statistic such as this is meaningless and removes all context. Hell, by this logic I could also prove that OS/2 has a decent market penetration due to its presence on a good number of ATMs and other kiosks. I won't, because doing so is dishonest in intent if not in fact, but I could easily slant the numbers that way.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Amazing
by galvanash on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 01:51 UTC in reply to "Amazing"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

It's incredible how much some Linux lovers will try to fudge any number they can. First it was "desktop Linux," and when those of us point out that desktop Linux will go nowhere, they suddenly want to move it to "Linux" in general regardless of the market.


Ok... How about "Linux has 80%+ global marketshare in mobile". Is that moving the goalposts or fudging numbers? Would Linux fans pointing out that Windows Phone or iPhone will go nowhere in mobile be fair to you?

I'm being facetious of course, but I really don't get the problem with this... It is a relevant statistic, it doesn't indicate anything other than what it says it does. Its certainly a incredible turn of events over the last 5 years or so, doesn't that make it noteworthy?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Amazing
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 03:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Amazing"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Ok... How about "Linux has 80%+ global marketshare in mobile". Is that moving the goalposts or fudging numbers? Would Linux fans pointing out that Windows Phone or iPhone will go nowhere in mobile be fair to you?


Except it is a meaningless statistic.

You can't take an app that runs on Ubuntu / Red Hat, etc. and run it on Android, but they are using the same kernel (even that isn't 100% true, Android's Linux based kernel is derived from stock Linux but it is heavily modified).

Just as you can't take an app that runs on iOS and run it on OS X but they are using the same kernel.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 04:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"
Ok... How about "Linux has 80%+ global marketshare in mobile". Is that moving the goalposts or fudging numbers? Would Linux fans pointing out that Windows Phone or iPhone will go nowhere in mobile be fair to you?


Except it is a meaningless statistic.

You can't take an app that runs on Ubuntu / Red Hat, etc. and run it on Android, but they are using the same kernel (even that isn't 100% true, Android's Linux based kernel is derived from stock Linux but it is heavily modified).

Just as you can't take an app that runs on iOS and run it on OS X but they are using the same kernel.
"

Actually, you can make apps that are OS independent. Doing this with Qt/QML/Qtquick as a basis is exactly what they are trying to achieve with this initiative:

http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/13/01/10/1513251/plasma-active-sai...

Jolla's Sailfish, Canonical's recently announced Ubuntu Phone, and KDE's Plasma Active environments are all using Qt5's QML for interface design. Unfortunately, the set of UI components provided by each, although similar, are incompatible with the others. After a chat on IRC between developers of all three platforms, they've decided to discuss the reasons behind each implementation, in the hopes that they can work toward a common architecture.

http://aseigo.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/qml-component-apis-to-come-to...

If they manage to achieve this "holy grail" of a common architecture, the same QML code will work on all platforms.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Amazing
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Actually, you can make apps that are OS independent. Doing this with Qt/QML/Qtquick as a basis is exactly what they are trying to achieve with this initiative:


At the source level not binaries and that's not what I was talking about at all. Doesn't change what I said and it doesn't make Android anymore Linux in the traditional sense. Seriously you try really hard to troll.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"
Actually, you can make apps that are OS independent. Doing this with Qt/QML/Qtquick as a basis is exactly what they are trying to achieve with this initiative:


At the source level not binaries and that's not what I was talking about at all. Doesn't change what I said and it doesn't make Android anymore Linux in the traditional sense. Seriously you try really hard to troll.
"

Distribution of binaries is not a problem. If you have source level compatibility, then a developer need only write source code for an app once and have it immediately ready for distribution on multiple platforms.

That is the crux of the matter.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Amazing
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Amazing"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Distribution of binaries is not a problem. If you have source level compatibility, then a developer need only write source code for an app once and have it immediately ready for distribution on multiple platforms.

That is the crux of the matter.


Distribution of the binaries isn't the issue. You can't take a binary from Ubuntu/Red Hat, etc and run it on Android. They're different OS's. Trying to imply they are one and the same is nonsense.

Edited 2013-01-23 09:15 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 10:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"
Distribution of binaries is not a problem. If you have source level compatibility, then a developer need only write source code for an app once and have it immediately ready for distribution on multiple platforms.

That is the crux of the matter.


Distribution of the binaries isn't the issue. You can't take a binary from Ubuntu/Red Hat, etc and run it on Android. They're different OS's. Trying to imply they are one and the same is nonsense.
"

However, you can take source code for an app and compile a binary for Ubuntu and another for Red Hat with the exact same source code. Although the binaries are different, the app itself isn't. Developers don't have to re-write the app for every single Linux platform, in the vast majority of cases a simple re-compile is all that is required.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Amazing
by cdude on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Sure not on binary level. ARM and x86 are incompatible. Has nothing to do with Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Amazing
by bert64 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 12:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

You can indeed take stock linux apps and run them on android, there are only 2 issues:

1, android does not include all the same libraries by default as a standard linux distro, but you can copy those on with the app.
2, android typically runs on arm cpus so you will need arm binaries (again not much of a problem as most linux apps come with source that can easily be recompiled)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Amazing
by yester64 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 02:35 UTC in reply to "Amazing"
yester64 Member since:
2012-07-28

Well i think Windows is still the major player if it comes to desktops.
In that sense if one put anything Linux related in basket it is tainted.
There is no question that Windows is insignificant player in the mobile world.
Still, i can not see that Linux will ever replace Windows. Maybe one day.
All these statistics are only good for those people that want to bend them to their purpose.
As for crapware, if you buy any cellphone from any telco you have already crapware on it. Only if you cut the middle man out you are getting the real deal. Isn't that expected?

Anyway, i always thought that these statics are kinda lame. Maybe a guidance of how a market trends but nothing more.

Reply Score: 1

Linux is a kernel
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 01:45 UTC
0brad0
Member since:
2007-05-05

Except Linux is a kernel not an Operating System. Ubuntu/Debian/Red Hat, etc. are Operating Systems and are not the same thing as Android. The various other embedded devices that are based on the Linux kernel are their own unique Operating Systems. Trying to lump them all together is ludicrous at best. There are hundreds of Operating Systems which are referred to as "distributions" based on the Linux kernel.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Linux is a kernel
by galvanash on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 01:56 UTC in reply to "Linux is a kernel"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Except Linux is a kernel not an Operating System. Ubuntu/Debian/Red Hat, etc. are Operating Systems and are not the same thing as Android. The various other embedded devices that are based on the Linux kernel are their own unique Operating Systems. Trying to lump them all together is ludicrous at best.


Unless you are trying to measure the marketshare of Linux... Which as you quite clearly pointed out, is a kernel and not an Operating System. So how do you measure the marketshare of a kernel? You count all the Operating Systems using it...

Do you consider statistics of marketshare by browser engine "ludicrous"? Knowing the total number of browsers using WebKit is far from useless information... Same exact thing.

Edited 2013-01-23 02:03 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Linux is a kernel
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 03:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux is a kernel"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Unless you are trying to measure the marketshare of Linux... Which as you quite clearly pointed out, is a kernel and not an Operating System. So how do you measure the marketshare of a kernel? You count all the Operating Systems using it...

Do you consider statistics of marketshare by browser engine "ludicrous"? Knowing the total number of browsers using WebKit is far from useless information... Same exact thing.


But that is comparing marketshare of an OS vs a kernel. Apples vs oranges. Doesn't make any sense.

When someone says Linux they're implying it is a Operating System which it is not. Android uses the Linux kernel but it is NOT a Linux "distribution" or what is really an Operating System.

No, I don't consider it ludicrous. But when measuring marketshare like that it is quite clear that they're referring to the engine or the browser and not spinning the numbers to mean something they're not. Browser marketshare is measured for each browser as in Chrome / Safari, etc. not WebKit even though they're all using WebKit.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Linux is a kernel
by cdude on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux is a kernel"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

See, Linux isn't only a Kernel but also a set of API's provided by the Kernel. The term Linux refers to both AND to construction kits on top. That is your common base.

You can add, combined, exchange the Kernel itself (compile features in/out, modules, patches). You can add, combine, exchange the stack on top up to the applications. Linux is by no means static on this like Windows is. Linux is highly dynamic and there exist 1001^1002 possible combinations.

You will not find a single distribution shipping exact the same like another (even if you leave apps out). This is a key-point of Linux.

That's why its all "one Linux" since it describes a construction kit. Android is one implementation but even there different Android versions utilize the Kernel very different (eg Android 4.2 includes SELinux). This is VERY different from Windows.

So, if you like to break that numbers in pieces then what criteria would you use to cut when even Android 4.1 and 4.2 have so different kernels?

Your suggestion seems to be to cut into the smallest pieces possible. Why? To make your point that the largest smallest piece is smaller then all the pieces of Windows together (and I am not only talking here about CE-based WP7 and NT-based WP8, or SP's, or home/pro/enterprise but also drivers/localization/etc which are NEVER separate counted)?

Edited 2013-01-23 15:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Linux is a kernel
by Valhalla on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux is a kernel"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


When someone says Linux they're implying it is a Operating System which it is not.

Says who? You?

It's clearly inaccurate, Linux is just the kernel. So when we say a Linux based system all that means is that it uses the Linux kernel.


Android uses the Linux kernel but it is NOT a Linux "distribution" or what is really an Operating System.

Android is an operating system which uses the Linux kernel. What is 'really an operating system' in your world?

Browser marketshare is measured for each browser as in Chrome / Safari, etc. not WebKit even though they're all using WebKit.

But this article didn't measure web browser market share, nor did it measure operating systems, it measured the market share which uses the Linux kernel.

The title should probably have been Linux now has double the marketshare of Windows NT

Reply Score: 2

RE: Linux is a kernel
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 02:39 UTC in reply to "Linux is a kernel"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Except Linux is a kernel not an Operating System. Ubuntu/Debian/Red Hat, etc. are Operating Systems and are not the same thing as Android. The various other embedded devices that are based on the Linux kernel are their own unique Operating Systems. Trying to lump them all together is ludicrous at best. There are hundreds of Operating Systems which are referred to as "distributions" based on the Linux kernel.


Linux (the kernel) and GNU/Linux (the operating system) Has over 90% of the supercomputer OS market share.

http://www.unixmen.com/linux-share-in-supercomputer-os/

Linux accounts for as much as 94.2% share as Supercomputer OS!

Linux has a near-monopoly in embedded devices, such as TVs, DVD players and the like:

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linuxuniversal/

Linux is dominant in the server market (60%) and also the cluster and distributed computing market (66%).

Linux is dominant in every market except the desktop. None of these operating systems are the same (as complete operating systems) ... the machines involved in these markets are nowhere near as homogenous as the desktop market.

Nevertheless, a significant majority of the world's computers run Linux. Globally, over all computers, as a rough estimate Linux would run on over 65% of machines.

The fact that the OSes running are different on different machines does not mean that we cannot make this statement.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Linux is a kernel
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 03:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux is a kernel"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

People call me a Microsoft shill, but I can only hope to be half as good as lemur2 is at shilling for Linux and KDE.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Linux is a kernel
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 04:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux is a kernel"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

People call me a Microsoft shill, but I can only hope to be half as good as lemur2 is at shilling for Linux and KDE.


Compared to your good self I am merely an amateur ... I don't get paid at all. Did you see the link I provided earlier to an example of costs of a consumer Linux desktop versus a Windows desktop:

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?549963

Here we saw that the cost (to a consumer) per machine for a Windows desktop OS and Office suite installation was $AUD344 more than a Linux desktop and office suite installation for the exact same $599 hardware.

I'm sure that your commission for shilling, coming out of a percentage of $AUD344 per machine, amounts to a much better income than my "commission" out of $0 per machine.

LOL.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Linux is a kernel
by WereCatf on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 05:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux is a kernel"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Here we saw that the cost (to a consumer) per machine for a Windows desktop OS and Office suite installation was $AUD344 more than a Linux desktop and office suite installation for the exact same $599 hardware.


An ingenuous comparison. LibreOffice works just as well under Windows as it does under Linux, yet under Windows you always compare the prices as if only Microsoft Office was available for that platform.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Linux is a kernel
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 07:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux is a kernel"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Here we saw that the cost (to a consumer) per machine for a Windows desktop OS and Office suite installation was $AUD344 more than a Linux desktop and office suite installation for the exact same $599 hardware.


An ingenuous comparison. LibreOffice works just as well under Windows as it does under Linux, yet under Windows you always compare the prices as if only Microsoft Office was available for that platform.
"

I do not need to include the exorbitant costs for MS Office to make the point. My distribution for desktop Linux has 62,000 zero cost packages available for it, it comes pre-installed with a comprehensive suite of applications, and every single required package can be updated quickly and securely, guaranteed malware free, via the same updater. Windows cost $AUD109 more out of the box and comes with almost no actual, useful applications. Firstly, one needs to add a lot of additional security software to make it even part-way safe to use. One then needs to spend a great deal of time finding equivalent desktop software online, hoping that the source of each package that you chose has not added malware:

http://www.osnews.com/story/24934/VLC_Suffers_from_Companies_Spread...

Here is a 50 second video of someone using the muon package manager to search for a package, view a screenshot, read user reviews, download, install and test run a package:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKIw8O5WEp0

You can't do that with Windows. If your time is worth nothing, then by all means use free software on Windows ... but what is the point when the same free software is available for Linux, and far easier to find, download securely and install, and subsequently keep up to date with security updates?

Even then, there is quality Linux desktop software which one simply cannot get for Windows:
http://www.digikam.org/about/overview
http://www.calligra.org/
http://www.kde.org/applications/education/cantor/

There are other quality applications designed for Linux which one can get for Windows, but which do not work nearly as well on Windows:
http://www.blender.org/

Edited 2013-01-23 07:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Linux is a kernel
by WereCatf on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 09:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux is a kernel"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

My distribution for desktop Linux has 62,000 zero cost packages available for it


If only quantity equaled quality..

One then needs to spend a great deal of time finding equivalent desktop software online


Why would one? Most of the same stuff works under Windows just fine.

Here is a 50 second video of someone using the muon package manager


Yes, I know what package managers are. Personally I prefer Gentoo's Portage, but each to their own.

but what is the point when the same free software is available for Linux


Not all the same stuff is available for Linux.

Even then, there is quality Linux desktop software which one simply cannot get for Windows:
http://www.digikam.org/about/overview
http://www.calligra.org/
http://www.kde.org/applications/education/cantor/


Digikam: http://sourceforge.net/projects/digikam/files/digikam/2.2.0/
Calligra: http://www.calligra.org/news/calligra-packages-for-windows-released...
Cantor: "If you have windows, then you can use The KDE on Windows Project, please note that there is already a Cantor.exe ported to windows, so is not necesary build the application. Otherwise, you can build and install kdelibs from sources."

So, uhh, your point...?

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Linux is a kernel
by winter skies on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 10:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Linux is a kernel"
winter skies Member since:
2009-08-21

"Even then, there is quality Linux desktop software which one simply cannot get for Windows:
http://www.digikam.org/about/overview
http://www.calligra.org/
http://www.kde.org/applications/education/cantor/


Digikam: http://sourceforge.net/projects/digikam/files/digikam/2.2.0/
Calligra: http://www.calligra.org/news/calligra-packages-for-windows-released...
Cantor: "If you have windows, then you can use The KDE on Windows Project, please note that there is already a Cantor.exe ported to windows, so is not necesary build the application. Otherwise, you can build and install kdelibs from sources."

So, uhh, your point...?
"

So please try to start Digikam 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 3.0RC on Windows 7 64bit and report back your results, I'm sure we're all gonna have fun.
Just to say that developers providing executables or installers for Windows does not mean that applications just a click away on Linux work equally well on Windows, or work at all.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Linux is a kernel
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 05:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux is a kernel"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It is impossible to have a discussion with you without your incessant link spam and a thicket of rhetorical bullshit.

Seriously, you plug Linux, KDE, and Qt in every single comment you post.

I know less about your own personal views than I do about the views of the various (often misleading, inconclusive, or downright incorrect) links you spam every comment with.

Maybe you think you have one up on most people because you can fatigue them in this manner, but it doesn't make you insightful at all.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Linux is a kernel
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux is a kernel"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It is impossible to have a discussion with you without your incessant link spam and a thicket of rhetorical bullshit.

Seriously, you plug Linux, KDE, and Qt in every single comment you post.

I know less about your own personal views than I do about the views of the various (often misleading, inconclusive, or downright incorrect) links you spam every comment with.

Maybe you think you have one up on most people because you can fatigue them in this manner, but it doesn't make you insightful at all.


Actually, providing links backs up my point, whereas independent backup for what you are saying is something that I notice your posts utterly lack.

Ad-hominem attacks will get you nowhere ... and you make absolutely no point (pertaining to desktop software) here anyway.

Ad-hominem. Deflection. Troll. General douche-bag behaviour.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Linux is a kernel
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux is a kernel"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

They don't drive a point home, they just take up space. Just look at your posts, man. No one who has done it before, bothers even addressing your bullshit anymore because you're so obviously biased that a productive conversation is an exercise in stupidity.

I don't care if you can cite a million applications that Linux has that Windows doesn't, or if you can make another million excuses as to why your pet operating system, desktop environment, or UI toolkit is better than Windows.

You are this annoying, pedantic little troll, and it is a wonder that your red meat, empty articles get posted here.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Linux is a kernel
by cdude on Thu 24th Jan 2013 09:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Linux is a kernel"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

> bullshit
> biased
> stupidity
> annoying, pedantic little troll

Please stay polite even in your self-reflections. Thanks.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Linux is a kernel
by zima on Sun 27th Jan 2013 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Linux is a kernel"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Nelson, you know what is the funniest thing in all of this? Your posts are often seemingly downvoted just because they are from you - but lemur2 even manages to unite ~against him some of the Windows and Linux users that frequent here: your posts rarely get upvoted to 5 like that (nice summary of lemur2 in those two posts of yours above, BTW)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Linux is a kernel
by pos3 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 10:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux is a kernel"
pos3 Member since:
2010-06-25

I don't think anyone can come close to you ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux is a kernel
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux is a kernel"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

The fact that the OSes running are different on different machines does not mean that we cannot make this statement.


And that is creating bogus useless statistics. Yes, they're all using the same kernel but they're all different Operating Systems.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Linux is a kernel
by winter skies on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 10:25 UTC in reply to "Linux is a kernel"
winter skies Member since:
2009-08-21

Except Linux is a kernel not an Operating System. [...]
Trying to lump them all together is ludicrous at best. There are hundreds of Operating Systems which are referred to as "distributions" based on the Linux kernel.


So what about Windows CE vs Windows NT, which don't even share a kernel?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Linux is a kernel
by henderson101 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux is a kernel"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Let's be honest here - is Windows 95 really Windows? It doesn't use the NT kernel. It uses a similar API, but the actual underlying code base is not the same. Is Win 3.1 Windows? Same. Is Windows CE Windows? Again, same deal - however the kernel was implemented, the programming interface is extremely identical. Porting code to CE is more about the fact the device is lacking specific hardware one might expect in a full desktop, rather than anything overly dramatic.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Linux is a kernel
by cdude on Thu 24th Jan 2013 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux is a kernel"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

WP8 doesn't even have win32 or posix. Linux has both (wine) and a window-manager with Windows. So?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 02:28 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

Just wait until we all have PCs that can run windows and the most popular linux. It has been a while, waiting for this future to come true.

Reply Score: 3

I demand MS Office!
by wigry on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:07 UTC
wigry
Member since:
2008-10-09

It is interesting to see how users adapt. All mobile users can dial their phone numbers on iOS, Android or any other mobile platform even if the applications look a bit different on every platform. They are able to browse the web on any browser given to them so the really don't mind what platform is underneath. However when it comes to desktop, they are totally lost when they cannot find those familiar Word and IE icons on their desktop or when they are presented with non-Office suite.

Thats why on mobile, the platform does not matter and Android wins and why on desktop the Windows is the king.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I demand MS Office!
by zima on Sun 27th Jan 2013 16:00 UTC in reply to "I demand MS Office!"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06
Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:25 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

Let's add ALL devices and see how much marketshare Windows has than. Probably less than 1%.

After that I'm sure we can figure out more useless exercises in math 'n' statistics yielding meaningless results.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by przemo_li on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Win still have nice enterprise presence.

Though others point out that Android outsold all Windows devices put together in 3Q 2012, and will have bigger installed base than Win by 2014 ;)

So we should buy some popcorn, as there are coming THE interesting times ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I don't mind popcorn!

But even if every man, woman and child on this planet and beyond will have 2 or 3 Android phones in his or her pocket I don't see how this would be any influence on the Windows on desktops marketshare.

I know some Linux extremists say you should run Linux on your PC, because your VCR probably runs it too, but I fail to see the connection or advantage.

On the Windows platform there are a number of professional applications, a number of free/open source ones and loads of games. Why would any developer drop Windows and switch to Linux because there are so many Android phones around?

It's not like anyone would want to get rid of their Office running Windows PC if they could run Office on Android?

The Android version of Linux isn't in the same league as desktop/server Linux. The reasons why the masses don't like/want Linux on their desktop doesn't change, because of the number of Android handsets.

The integration power of Android lies with its connection to the Google services and for those you can use Linux, Windows or OS X.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 09:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


The Android version of Linux isn't in the same league as desktop/server Linux. The reasons why the masses don't like/want Linux on their desktop doesn't change, because of the number of Android handsets.


There is no such thing as "Android version of Linux".

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 09:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Well, the modified Linux kernel Google uses for their operating system they call Android.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 10:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well, the modified Linux kernel Google uses for their operating system they call Android.


http://www.androidauthority.com/android-linux-kernel-64871/

The Android kernel is a part of the main Linux source tree.

"developers will be able to use the latest released version of the Linux kernel to run an Android system, without having to apply any Android specific patches. Second, the burden (and cost) of maintaining independent patches from release to release for Android kernel developers will be reduced and, eventually, eliminated. The unification is also good news for driver writers and component manufacturers, as it will now be possible to develop drivers and board support features against either an Android kernel release or a mainstream kernel release."

Edited 2013-01-23 10:27 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by henderson101 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Kernel yes. But does the Kernel make it LINUX? If so, every Windows mobile phone ever used a version of Windows kernel. As do the XBOX (360). Your gaze is very, very narrow and extremely suspect.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by Valhalla on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Kernel yes. But does the Kernel make it LINUX?

Since Linux is just a kernel then obviously it does.

I don't see how anyone can argue this, Linux can't magically mean more than the kernel, a 'Linux distro' means an operating system distribution consisting of the Linux kernel and a configuration of < insert other software here > which together functions as a full operating system.

There is no 'Linux operating system', there is only the 'Linux kernel'.

There are however operating systems like Ubuntu, Android, Meego, Tizen, Raspian, Debian, Arch, Gentoo etc which uses the Linux kernel.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by cdude on Thu 24th Jan 2013 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

It already has effects. The Windows-desktop market is crashing. Lesser people are buying Windows and desktop-workstations. Android, iPhone, Chromebook, all taking the marketshare over while Wintel-workstations lose. Fast, rapid and still accelerating.

The other thing you missed is that its not only phones but also tablets, notebooks, tv's, hybrid-devicea, etc. which grow faster and faster. Android is on them too. From super-computer and server over consumer electronics to embedded. All Linux. While Windows is stuck in a rapidly shrinking market and fails since years to expand to anything else then fat desktop workstations.

Remember in what timespan Android raised and got double as much market share as Windows. So fast that just months ago people like our own Nelson denied that the Wintel marker is shrinking. Today its commonly known and all the Windows-workstation partners are crashing huge. Its also known that this transformation still accelerates faster and faster. This all is happening so fast that the time Windows9 comes out its a niche-OS for a niche-market.

All who are a bit older know how fast this can happen. Betamax, C64, Windows. The world moves on.

Edited 2013-01-24 09:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 09:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I think, in one part, people are buying less desktop, because they don't have to. It's not like before when upgrading Windows required new and faster hardware. Desktops have become very powerful and I guess most are already overkill for what the user really needs.

And yes, mobile devices allow us to do more and more, needing our desktop less and less. But there are a lot of tasks where a desktop excels (pun perhaps intended) at.

So the time need to use one decreases, but its presence is still very much needed. And probably some people don't need one at all anymore.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Win still have nice enterprise presence.


Yes, but even there Microsoft is having such a hard time selling its TCO FUD that these days it is even refusing to publish it, lest it get disputed:

http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/open-source/3421844/microsoft-r...

Reply Score: 2

thegman
Member since:
2007-01-30

But are just not based in fact.

It's not like I can think, "I know, I'll upgrade my office PCs", and order 100 PCs from Lenovo. Then I change my mind, and think "Wow, I can save a fortune by just buying 100 Android phones! In your face, Windows!"

They are different markets, completely different, incomparable. They are different products. Sure they both have operating systems and microprocessors, but RVs and Superyachts both have engines and hot water systems.

They are not the same, they don't compete, sure people get tablets instead of netbooks, there is overlap in the areas where people don't need to do anything, but in most places, if you need a PC/Mac, you need a PC/Mac.

Reply Score: 3

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

But are just not based in fact.


But this is based on facts. Your just looking for an answer that isn't in them and then complaining when you can't find it...

It's not like I can think, "I know, I'll upgrade my office PCs", and order 100 PCs from Lenovo. Then I change my mind, and think "Wow, I can save a fortune by just buying 100 Android phones! In your face, Windows!"


I completely agree! These particular marketshare numbers are of no use to anyone who would use them as the basis for cost comparison of different hardware products... Isn't that completely, mind-numbingly, f*cking obvious though?

Just because a statistic is useless in a certain context does not invalidate the existence of every other context. If your a young guy studying CS in college, and you want a good idea of where to spend the bulk of your effort getting trained up for a future in development, well this might really be interesting to you. Linux seems to be taking over the world! Maybe I should learn a bit about this stuff...

They are different markets, completely different, incomparable. They are different products. Sure they both have operating systems and microprocessors, but RVs and Superyachts both have engines and hot water systems.


... and if it just so happens that the study showed that 80% of all RVs and Superyachts used the same engine, you might be inclined to research a bit more as to why that is, no? This is information that would never come to light in individual market research studies... Doesn't that make it useful? Granted, it in no way helps you choose between buying an RV or a Superyacht, but that isn't the point.

They are not the same, they don't compete, sure people get tablets instead of netbooks, there is overlap in the areas where people don't need to do anything, but in most places, if you need a PC/Mac, you need a PC/Mac.


This is the same tired argument that everyone else is making about this, and it is completely missing the forest through the trees... It isn't useful for competitive product analysis - but it isn't supposed to be... Stop complaining about it - it is what it is. Stop trying to turn it into something else...

Edited 2013-01-23 21:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Smartphones and Tablets have all what is needed. The only limiting factor to use them as 100% replacement for workstation-desktops are input (keyboard/mouse) and output (Monitor). That will be solved in 2013/2014.

There is just no good reason for having a huge fat tower under your desk you cannot easily take with you, cannot use without being connected to power-plug, cannot use without static internet-cable. The raise of laptops was just the first step. Notebooks and Tablets are the logical consequence. A smartphone in your pocket or a watch on your arm the goal. The have enough power, have so much advantages. Only thing missing are input- and output devices. Say hello to Google Glas, to projector-technology, to flexible keyboards you can roll together.

Edited 2013-01-24 10:00 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Cast your gaze wider
by r_a_trip on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 11:07 UTC
r_a_trip
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'll admit that the article and graph paint with pretty broad strokes. Nevertheless, all the people railing against lumping together all the incarnations of Linux together fail to realise one thing.

42% of all consumer devices currently use a Linux kernel and therefore they are dependent on software surrounding the Linux platform. This is bad news for Microsoft, who currently only command 20% of consumer devices with the NT kernel. It means NT as a platform and ecosphere is shrinking. Assuming the majority of the NT kernel installations are on traditional desktop type machines, a market that is shrinking itself, this can only get worse if MS fails to crack their mobile conundrum.

This can have far reaching consequences. Broadly speaking 42% (Linux kernel) + 24% (Apple XNU) = 66% of current consumer devices are powered by kernels in the Unix ecosphere. This means that having knowledge of the NT ecosphere is becoming far less important than knowing your way around Unixy platforms. If MS can't stem the tide and get the NT kernel to be at least 30% of this market, this could bring about a shift in which platform family is targeted first for development.

Reply Score: 6