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 550243
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Marketshare
by WereCatf on Thu 24th Jan 2013 03:41 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Marketshare"
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Windows utterly lacks a unified package management, and unsuspecting users are vulnerable to installing malware via trojans.


The Windows Store is an attempt at fixing that; it does handle automatic updating, provides access to a set of software that they vet against trojans and other malware and so on.

[]Compared to running these same FOSS apps under Linux, the ongoing pain of running them under Windows is enormous. [/q]

Hardly. I run F/OSS - apps on my Windows - installation on daily basis and I sure as heck don't see any pain. Sure, finding a safe source for the software you want to install is a hurdle for the non-technically inclined audience, but once they've gotten the stuff installed there is no "pain" as you try to claim.

botnets


Applies to Linux, too, especially on Android - devices.

susceptible to trojans
susceptible to spyware


These apply to ANY OS whatsoever, as long as that OS allows users to run unsigned executables on a local system. It's the end-user that is the problem, and switching to Linux doesn't solve that.

and monitoring by big brother


And this applies to Linux, too.

patent royalties to be paid


End-users don't pay patent royalties.

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.


No, it's still ingenuous. If the end-user really needs MS Office then the cost of using Linux would be the amount of money lost due to unavailability of MS Office. So, either the end-user doesn't need MS Office and you can leave it out of both calculations, or the end-user does need MS Office and therefore Linux ain't a viable alternative any longer.

Reply Parent Score: 3