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.
Permalink for comment 550207
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Marketshare"
Member since:

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?

Oi, fair go. Yes it is perfectly true that a lot of FOSS desktop applications are available for Windows too.

That is the point that Windows apologists often try to put forward, but their doing so misses the point. For Windows, one has to scrounge around all over the place to try to collect a usable assembly of decent FOSS software. It takes ages and ages, and on Windows this process is fraught with potential difficulties:

Windows utterly lacks a unified package management, and unsuspecting users are vulnerable to installing malware via trojans. Then, even when you do eventually get the bona-fide software installed, very often it doesn't auto-update, so you could easily miss security updates.

Compared to running these same FOSS apps under Linux, the ongoing pain of running them under Windows is enormous. Multiple updaters, some apps not getting security updates, IE vulnerabilities, slow-to-update default vulnerable browser that cannot be un-installed completely, anti-virus strictly required, botnets, embedded anti-features, installation keys, DRM restrictions, cost of keeping track of licenses, CALs to access servers, lost drivers CDs, lack of drivers for legacy hardware, cannot backup apps, re-registration required after replacing hardware, single point of failure in the registry, slows down over time, susceptible to trojans, carries legal restrictions, susceptible to spyware and monitoring by big brother, lock-in obscured data formats, patent royalties to be paid, etc, etc, etc.

So why put up will all that pain ... why not just run Linux in the first place?

If your answer is "but commercial apps like MS Office are only available for Windows" ... then you have nicely illustrated my original point ... in order to justify putting up with Windows you have to invoke the commercial desktop apps for it, and in order to use the commercial desktop apps for Windows, there is a $$$ price to pay. Therefore, including the price in these comparisons is a perfectly valid thing to do.

Edited 2013-01-23 23:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1