The title of the article seems completely wrong to you? Naturally it would, when you daily read something like this. But I do state all this stuff is being a big mistake, if not worse. I am sure, that Linux is now close to extinction, and still is getting closer and closer to the point of no return. Before we enter the discussion, please accept the following: in this article I’m not giving any opinion on topic of software freedom or openness. Neither I discuss the pros and cons of UNIX way and WYSIWYG. All the words concerning these issues are just describing the situation, but never expressing any attitude.
Linux’s success
Now the Linux-based operating systems are rising. Linux is being run on numerous systems from Internet servers to employees’ and home users’ desktops. More and more companies (or even administrative bodies) are moving to Linux. Many well-known software vendors abandon their previous system software projects in favour of Linux (as Novell and PalmSource did) or enter the OS market with new Linux-based solutions (just like Oracle). Many of software developers or even software houses (like Sun) port their core applications and services on Linux. Linux is widely recognized as successful project and reliable business platform.
The Linux advocates are trying to make us think this process shows the success of Linux and respectively UNIXes victory over Windows and fellows. Is it really so?
My answer is: no.
Linux was just one of the numerous projects, which happened to rise due to being distributed as Free Software and supported by FSF. This sort of publicity made it possible to start several commercial projects (namely Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake and some Debian derivatives) based on Linux. The rise of free-of-charge Linux-bases system attracted the views of software vendors who started sharing the benefits of Linux’s publicity by contributing to the project.
Being opposed to Microsoft’s monopoly over the system software market Linux had to keep competing with its rival. While the customers believed the desktop software to be exactly what Windows was, the vendors started to invest the projects that shared theses views. Ever since Linux was becoming more and more like Windows, providing the same user experience and utilities resembling those of Windows and fellows.
The GNOME project is a good example. Being initially intended to provide the IBM OS/2 user experience it gained vendor attention. When the project’s officials started to state that the next goal of the project was the Windows UI, it became the default desktop in some commercial distribution (including Red Hat), and the GNOME adoption fastened when the developers starter to decrease the features amount, making it really no more difficult to customize than Windows’ Shell32 UI.
The situation is fundamentally bad. Do you want to know why? Stay tuned.
The matter of OS choice
The user would never mind the operating system he uses. The computer is simply a tool for completing the user’s tasks, so the only valid factor to be taken in consideration while choosing the operating system is the default set of approaches. That’s to say your system must provide you with the instruments most compliant with your mindset and your way of acting.
This time we have another issue that is taken in consideration by some of us: the freedom, that is delivered to us by the software. Those who believe that the software they use should be easily customizable and modified choose among the open source operating systems. Those, who think that the user must be given the freedoms to use program any way he feels appropriate, to share it without charging the fee for such sharing and to make his modifications of the program accessible to general public, has to choose among the so-called Free Software operating systems.
Currently only several UNIXes are both Free Software or open source ideology compliant and stable enough to be used in mission-critical systems, so no choice is left for the open source and Free Software followers. But this situation is starting to get better: the ReactOS, Haiku and GNUstep projects are being actively developed, so we are about to see the Free Software operating systems in style of Windows, BeOS and MacOS X respectively.
This time we have two different styles of operating available: WYSIWYG and non-WYSIWYG (I can’t recall any good all-known word for it and don’t want to introduce my own term). The first one is the natural domain of Microsoft Windows, Apple MacOS (including OSX) and BeOS (now ZETA). The later once used to be the default UNIX’s style. Things changed dramatically since.
The WYSIWYG and traditional UNIX way to accomplish the task are incompatible. WYSIWYG (acronym for What You See Is What You Get) introduces user to a graphical environment, where the result of every manipulation is displayed as it would be seen in result. For example you are shown the document and you see how it would look like. But there is no room for logical structure of document in the case of WYSIWYG software. The other way puts it different: you are presented to a plain text document with the markup describing both logical structure and formatting, but you are not given any idea about how that all would look on paper.
I don’t know for sure whether it’s really more handy for an average person, or it just has much better publicity, but WYSIWYG is currently widely recognized as the preferable way, making WYSIWYG implying operating systems most popular. As I mentioned above, commercial Linux distributions’ default UIs followed the successful WYSIWYG styles. Being promoted as cheaper alternative solutions they pretend to give user the same level of usability and productiveness as Windows while being similar enough to make user transitions nearly seamless.
So, we are having Linux in position of WYSIWYG-implying operating system. Well, MacOS X in its turn is actually a desktop environment based on UNIX-like Darwin operating system. But the way OSX wraps the underlying OS makes me feel comfortable while excluding OSX from UNIXes list. It would even be reasonable to state that if Apple decides to move OSX from Darwin to some totally different non-UNIX-like platform, the users won’t feel the difference. But Linux is really UNIX, and unlike MacOS X Linux doesn’t really try to hide away the UNIX nature of the system, although the percentage of UNIX-styled software decreases dramatically.
Anyway, the idea of Linux as UNIX-based Windows clone feels optimistic for everyone except for UNIX way zealots. But if we take a closer look, we’ll find that this model leads Linux to ruin.
The unfair race
Why would Linux loose trying to provide the same user experience as Windows, but at lower cost?
First of all, you can’t copy the thing you’ve never seen. Microsoft’s plans are changing all the time, some features are found only at release time, so they would hardly find their way into Linux UI in short term. And if they are technically not so easy to implement, they would be always outdated, just like Mono, which being sponsored by Novell is still a .NET 1.x implementation, having incomplete 2.0 support in development branch, while some of current software depend on .NET 3.0!
The reader could object me that any new feature needs to be adopted before it is used, so this time of adoption will be used by developers to release the new feature right when users would start using it. So true, but the way the destiny of the feature is largely dependent on the developer of the very first version.
The second reason for Linux to loose is that the work needed to provide this kind on Windows-on-top-of-UNIX is close to literally developing two operating systems with different userland. And the further we go, the more trickier the system gets. SysV- and BSD-styled init scripts are being replaced with event-based system in Ubuntu, different other over complicated projects are developed to make the UNIX-like Linux base system resemble Windows.
The amount of work rises, the level of overcomplication rises, the number of layers between user and hardware rises… You don’t need to be a programmer to understand, the more code you have, the less easy it is to maintain it, to update it, to modify it. While no complexity barrier being seen this time, we are still to reach it some day.
The third reason is the user base of Linux. Until some very recent time the most part of Linux userspace developers were working to make some software they needed for their own systems. And they didn’t think about the ease of use for Windows users, about Windows-like interfaces and so on. They were just making the tools for their means in their operating system, which was still UNIX those days.
Now they are getting out of touch. They stop updating their Linux boxes or even migrate to less Windows-ish flavours of BSD. Many of really smart projects that are really needed in UNIX system Linux might be stopped updating. The short term tactical victory of Linux still makes the loss of UNIXes evident.
Nothing could be stopped now. Microsoft promised not to sue Novel’s clients, and surely it won’t, because the more Novell relays on this promise, the further it goes to the Microsoft territory, where no one but Microsoft has the chance. On seeing all of this Novell entered the deal, preferring to gain the short term outcome. The vendors have all decided for us.
Predictions
So, what is coming next?
First of all, the Linux distributions will split in two groups: those relaying on UI and Windows-ish tools and others relaying on UNIX way utilities and command-line interface (which is actually the most powerful interface in most cases). The first group being supported by commercial vendors will continue improving WYSIWYG abilities of Linux, while the second group will instinct, the users will switch to flavours of BSD, Hurd, Plan9 or whatever.
After some time the Linux development will turn too expensive for Linux vendors be competing with Windows. Some of vendors (Oracle for example) will be forced to leave the system software market, some may be die out, the rest will switch to some alternatives (ReactOS has very strong chances to replace Linux).
By this time the small amount of pure UNIX open source systems will occupy some very slow share of OS market, being supported by classic UNIX hackers, geeky communities and FSF. They will take the place of Linux of the early 200x.
This was the optimistic vision, and here we go with pessimistic one:
Windows Vista will appear to be the failure the Microsoft won’t overcome. The Linux quickly becomes the main platform for all sort of commercial software.
After a period of time there would appear different closed source superior substitutes for some of subsystems. Being not too innovative but still incompatible, they would be adopted by different vendors in random order, making the market as divided as it was at the Microsoft time.
Without any valid competition the market will keep stagnant until some new Microsoft-like player won’t defeat the weak Linux vendors one by one and occupy the Microsoft’s place.
Any way, no good news to come from Linux any more.
About the Author:
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff is a Russian intellectual property and insurance lawyer, spending his free time on free software advocacy and UNIXes promotion. OpenBSD user, if you would like to know.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
…and can I have some of that too?
I don’t believe anything he said.
I found one good thing:
… command-line interface (which is actually the most powerful interface in most cases).
Actually, you can view this article as just a rant against the GUI, although he really misses the point by defining Linux by it’s optional GUI.
I don’t understand much of what he said.
Same here.
I’d flame the article if I could, but honestly, I could only understand 5% of what he was trying to say.
(Beside the point that the OP doesn’t seem to know the difference between GNU and Linux – which to me looks like a prerequisite if you’re going to a Linux [or GNU] piece)
Oh well, slow day @OSNews?
– Gilboa
Edited 2006-12-06 06:04
Yeah, I agree…
This is the biggest piece of troll-bait that I have ever seen.
>>I am sure, that Linux is now close to extinction<<
Based on what? Care to back up that extreme assertions?
Can you provide evidence of declining market share? Or anything of that nature?
If you can’t, then why is osnews publishing such obvious FUD?
If you can’t, then why is osnews publishing such obvious FUD?
There are three things you can do when you enounter an article you find rubbish or disagree with.
1) Write a comment why the article sucks, using arguments.
2) Write a rebuttal article which OSNews will be pleased to publish.
3) Ignore the article.
Take your pick. Empty claims like “this is fud” or “it is all nonsense” without any form or arguments is not really what we want to see.
At the bottom of the article, the signature:
“Dmitrij D. Czarkoff is a Russian intellectual property and insurance lawyer, spending his free time on free software advocacy and UNIXes promotion. OpenBSD user, if you would like to know.”
explains it all! There is a reason why I don’t write analytical articles on law!
I really wish I could mod you up Thom.
Like I said yesterday, Linux is about being open. We’re about discourse. We’re about talking. We’re not about hiding our faults and problems.
If we’re going to succeed we have to be able to freely speak our minds.
If we can’t do that, if we can’t talk about what’s wrong or what we feel is wrong, then we become like Microsoft who cover’s up their problems and hides them from customers. When we become like our “enemy” we’ve lost the war, and the war is useless.
Don’t stifle or shut up critics. Let them talk. If what they say is true, take it to heart. If what they say is false, rebut them and show them what is true.
But don’t push away those who might be in the middle–potential customers or users–by crying wolf all the time.
Thom, there simply is no substance to refute.
The article is based on a false premise, acts as if this false premise was a fact and then acts as if the conclusion it draws follows logically from this false premise, though it fails to show how it does.
To add to this the article doesn’t present one single fact to back up its assertions.
So no, this article is clear rubbish and there isn’t anything more to say about it. That it is clear rubbish is obvious to anyone with half a brain and should be obvious to anyone who calls himself an editor, even if he’s working for free.
So no, this article is clear rubbish and there isn’t anything more to say about it. That it is clear rubbish is obvious to anyone with half a brain and should be obvious to anyone who calls himself an editor, even if he’s working for free.
You don’t seem to understand what the role of an editor is. It is my role to properly format the news, and filter out irrelevant stuff. It is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT my job to filter news and articles based on the opinions expressed. If I were to do that, I’d be biased. You think I agree with this article and it’s contents? I won’t reveal my opinion directly; read between the lines of this post and you’ll know.
If I were to filter news based on the merits of its opinions, you’d all get your panties in a twist even more. Attacking an editor JUST because he did not dispose of an article with debatable opinions in it, is just as bad as writing that article.
In other words, comment with arguments, write rebuttal, or ignore. It’s that simple.
You don’t seem to understand what the role of an editor is. It is my role to properly format the news, and filter out irrelevant stuff. It is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT my job to filter news and articles based on the opinions expressed. If I were to do that, I’d be biased. You think I agree with this article and it’s contents?
Then perhaps you need an employee whose job it IS to filter out this stuff. After all, to draw an analogy, you don’t see THE TIMES of London publishing anything that isn’t right wing, or THE SUN publishing anything of substance, do you? And they do that by filtering. They probably filter employees rather than articles, but if you accept submissions from random people then you’ll have to resort to filtering by article, I suppose.
“You don’t seem to understand what the role of an editor is. It is my role to properly format the news, and filter out irrelevant stuff. It is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT my job to filter news and articles based on the opinions expressed.”
Thom, you are supposed to filter them on their quality, not on wether you like their opinion or not. This article simply lacks the quality to be posted on any news site that wants to be taken seriously.
That’s an opinion.
It’a got some serious evidence behind it. The grammar of the article is awfull.
You appear to not know either thom. You abdicate your journalistic responsibility by not holding the article to higher standards, for instances yo should of had him back up his claims. This was very poorly put together and poor standards were used.
You just don’t put up an article just to put it up.
Edited 2006-12-06 04:13
>>Empty claims like “this is fud” or “it is all nonsense” without any form or arguments is not really what we want to see.<<
Maybe you should take your own advise? This article is making assertions based on nothing. Why does osnews considering this pointless ranting newsworthy?
I don’t mind any worthy opinion, pro-linux, anti-linux, makes no difference. But why publish unsupported cr@p?
The article appears to be satire. As such, facts ect. aren’t really a requirement. With some “what if” ideas thrown in.
As far as the term WYSIWYG, I don’t think that is quite the corect term when talking about a GUI centric desktop enviroment as as opposed to using the command line.
What you see is not what you get. It’s what the devloper wanted to you to see or felt you needed to see in order to use the software.
The author did say that he just didn’t have another word to use. I understand what he’s talking about when using the term WYSIWYG in this context.
Personally I’d like to see more integration between the GUI and the command line. Not a split. Not that I think a split would happen. Why would it? Want to use the GUI, use it. Want the command line use it. A split is in no way needed. You know, the whole choice thing.
“I’d like to see more integration between the GUI and the command line”
And you can have it. For example use Konqueror. It looks and feels “Windows Explorer”-ish when you start it up the first time. But it is approximately 10 times more powerful, especially because it does not look like it:
-It is the perfect tool for a beginner who just wants to drag and drop files and folders through his filesystem.
– Then it provides a nice ftp client, without changing it’s behaviour (no relearn).
– Then it is a CD-ripping tool, without changing it’s behaviour (no relearn again).
– Then it is a manual page viewer, or a pdf viewer or a web browser, all that without changing it’s behaviour and without having to have 100 buttons around.
– and last, it is a command line interface (CLI). And this CLI works TOGETHER with the GUI part of Konqueror. Just in existing, Konqueror disprooves the article perfectly. There is no real difference between a CLI and a GUI, the GUI simplyfies the access to often-done things, the CLI gives the user the power and flexibility for more complicated tasks. Konqueror does both, so it is a tool for beginners which grows it’s powers as the user learns to use them. But it does not force the user to learn them!
Applications like Konqueror are the future, on which platform they run is irrelevant.
The entire article assume that classical dev models (i.e pay for the copy) are better than the alternatives models (i.e pay for features or solutions to specific problems).
Has someone deeply analyzed this assumption? Any idea?
“The move is slower for larger enterprises, but the direction is clear.”
If its clear, then he would have posted the numbers.
Both Gartner and IDC show Linux server growth dropping to single digits in the last 2 quarters when it was 30% a year ago. And Linux share of the server market actually dropped from 12% in Q2 of 2006 to 11.8% in Q3 of 2006.
Edited 2006-12-05 19:01
Growth in many areas of IT is most certanily not linear.
In the area where I work, the growth in Linux Systems is far higher that Windows. I’m talking server (Window Server 2003 vs RHEL/SLED). One of my clients who is very .NET centric has admitted that the new Linux Server beats anything that MS can offer (on the same H/W) hands down (by a factor of 5 in terms of Throughput)
We have also started selling lots of Linux Servers into the SME space where once we would have put Windows SBS.
This is just my own view based upon my current (last 6 months) experience and not a statistically valis survey but I am sure that this is being repeated in many other places.
In my business area, the score for systems shipped in 2006 is as follows:-
Windows Server 2003 100
Linux(RHEL/SLED) 367
None of out Windows Customers are even thinking of moving to Vista for at least two years so the ship or not to ship of vista was not a factor.
I am always reminded of the quote about statistics, statistics and damm lies whenever I read a IDC/Gartner report but that is another matter entirely.
Linux server revenue growth is still higher than Windows’ revenue growth.
And Linux share of the server market actually dropped from 12% in Q2 of 2006 to 11.8% in Q3 of 2006.
That’s not Linux’ server market share, that’s Linux’s share of server revenues. Please stop misquoting numbers to support your agenda.
From the article:
“Linux servers now represent 11.8% of all server revenue”
http://www.itnewsonline.com/showstory.php?storyid=6880&scatid=3&con…
See? That’s server revenue – and that only counts those servers with are sold, as opposed to those that are downloaded for free. Linux’ market share in servers could be much higher than what is believed (and is certainly not smaller).
Linux server revenue growth is still higher than Windows’ revenue growth.
In percentage terms by a small amount.
In total dollars, Windows is growing by 3x the revenue as Linux since it has 3x the market share.
See? That’s server revenue – and that only counts those servers with are sold, as opposed to those that are downloaded for free.
You can’t download servers. You have to buy them and have them delivered.
You can download an OS. But you still need a server to run it on.
Gartner and IDC measure intended use of the servers as well as revenue.
Linux’ market share in servers could be much higher than what is believed (and is certainly not smaller).
A Gartner study says that between 40% and 80% of computers with Linux pre-installed are wiped clean and replaced by a pirated copy of Windows.
So yes, Linux’s share could be smaller.
That study doesn’t count OS-less servers (which often will have a Linux installed later) or Linux appliances.
Most Linux growth is in the community distros, not the supported ones.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/12/05/strong_growth_for_debi…
While Linux is a great platform for IT, it’s not as good a platform for making revenues as Windows, since that OS requires higher specs for servers (thus more server revenue) and more servers (the one-server-per-service MS marketing model).
Linux, on the other hand, is most often installed on old or volume-bought clusters/grids, without support, and used to serve up websites via Perl/Java/PHP, database queries, or as a Java app server.
Companies like Red Hat base their business on the fact that as these (usually younger) companies that run community-based Linux like CentOS or Fedora grow to the extent that they start mitigating risk, they will move to a supported version. This would mean they keep their server, not buy new ones, and thus most Linux revenue growth will not be tied directly to server purchases.
Spend some time out in the real world of Linux deployment, NotParker, before spreading brainless marketspeak FUD.
Edited 2006-12-05 19:51
That study doesn’t count OS-less servers (which often will have a Linux installed later) or Linux appliances.
Many OS-less servers have Windows installed later from the Volume License Disk the company owns.
But, IDC and Gartner do try to measure the intended use of the server.
Most Linux growth is in the community distros, not the supported ones.
If you say so.
While Linux is a great platform for IT, it’s not as good a platform for making revenues as Windows, since that OS requires higher specs for servers (thus more server revenue) and more servers (the one-server-per-service MS marketing model).
My impression that Linux is being used to replace low end Unix servers and that market is drying up.
Many Windows shops are using Virtual Servers to run single use server.
Linux, on the other hand, is most often installed on old or volume-bought clusters/grids, without support, and used to serve up websites via Perl/Java/PHP, database queries, or as a Java app server.
Maybe so. But most companies don’r run their businesses on out of warranty old servers when new ones have a lower TCO and a better chance of surviving for a standard 3,4 or 5 year replacement cycle … and if they don’t, the warranty gets them fixed.
Exactly. The company I’m working in as an admin has 5 servers running (file, mail, OTRS etc.) and we all bought them without an OS. So there’s no revenue neither for Windows or for Linux. On all these servers we’re now running Debian – on the 2 newer ones Ubuntu 6.06 – all downloaded for free from the Internet – showing up in no statistics at all, but still adding to the Linux “market” share.
Tom
This is a very common scenario, and it tends to favor Linux (due to Windows’ more restrictive licensing).
This is slightly OT, and I don’t mean to troll, but why run a server on Ubuntu instead of Debian?
Is it ease?
Perhaps Canonical’s support? Release cycle?
Just curious…
Most of our client computers run XP, while the PCs of our developers used to run SuSE. We switched them to Kubuntu several months ago, simply because we (the admins) found Ubuntu/Kubuntu easier to handle and more mature. Using Ubuntu instead of Debian for the servers was simply a question of homogeneity. Also, Ubuntu is simply more up-to-date. But there’s no reason to touch the other three severs which run Debian. They do their job fine.
Tom
The Data-center that we use for CoLo, builds all their own servers onsite, they have a couple of hundred servers, Most of these run linux. We added 8 servers into their racks, each custom-built with Linux. Now tell me that Gartner were able to take these in to account?
Of course some of the other CoLo guys bought Dells/HPs, they all came with Windows licenses and would have been counted into any survey.
The Data-center that we use for CoLo, builds all their own servers onsite, they have a couple of hundred servers, Most of these run linux. We added 8 servers into their racks, each custom-built with Linux. Now tell me that Gartner were able to take these in to account?
Well, out of 8 million servers sold each year, what makes you think your 8 servers would change the stats much?
I had 2 AMD quad core servers built this year and they both ended up running Windows. Maybe IDC and Gartner didn’t catch those this year either.
But they do their best to count as many as they can.
This is one data-center in the corner of England. Work your subtlety and do the math.
Ohh, 80%. I’m wondering if that’s part of the 80% of all statistics that get pulled out of the statisticians nether regions.
I mean.. 40% to 80%. Really. And you don’t see anything wrong with a 100% difference in the variable, eh?
Being one of the people that continually tosses those surveys, I’d say they’re bunk.
I mean.. 40% to 80%. Really. And you don’t see anything wrong with a 100% difference in the variable, eh?
80% in Asia. 40% in the US.
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5388863.html
“The consulting firm issued a report on Wednesday stating that about 40 percent of Linux PCs will be modified to run an illegal copy of Windows, a bait-and-switch maneuver that lowers the cost of obtaining a Windows PC.
In emerging markets, where desktop Linux enjoys wider popularity, the trend is even starker. Around 80 percent of the time, Linux will be removed for a pirated copy of Windows. “
That quote is great, if you believe everything cnet and gartner says !
their next report is about to be posted on the internet…..
“install linux and you will turn into a mass murderer who eats babies”
A Gartner study says that between 40% and 80% of computers with Linux pre-installed are wiped clean and replaced by a pirated copy of Windows.
I’m sure you’ll have a link, so we can see that Gartner was talking about Servers in this particular case, right? Because we know you’d never ever try to misrepresent such statistics, right?
Look at the bright side: you can finally post all of your anti-Linux propaganda in this thread without being considered off-topic! 🙂
(I’ll still call you out when you’re being dishonest, though…)
Edit: I see you’ve posted the link…and as I thought, it’s not about Servers at all, but about Desktop PCs.
In other words, it was completely irrelevant to the point being made about Servers. Sorry, you lose yet again…
Edited 2006-12-05 20:23
Edit: I see you’ve posted the link…and as I thought, it’s not about Servers at all, but about Desktop PCs.
Sure. But there is no valid reason why it doesn’t ahppen to server too.
Do you think businesses in Asia who use pirated Windows on their desktops choose Linux instead of a pirated copy of Windows 2000 server or Windows 2003 server?
I don’t think so!
Sure. But there is no valid reason why it doesn’t ahppen to server too.
Uh, because Linux is a proven Server OS with excellent performance and little overhead?
Do you think businesses in Asia who use pirated Windows on their desktops choose Linux instead of a pirated copy of Windows 2000 server or Windows 2003 server?
Well, it depends on the business for sure, but there’s no reason to believe that this is actually the case either. Remember, businesses that use pirated software can face stiff fines and penalties, even in Asia. Mr. Gates made sure of this when he last visited these countries to push for Windows. Remember, China is already a modern nation, and it likes Linux (it even has its own brand, based on RedHat).
IDC noted very strong growth for Linux back in April:
“According to IDC, China’s Linux market revenue reached $11.8 mln in 2005, up 27.1% over 2004. 2005 saw a steady growth in the China Linux market, brought about mainly by the huge volume of government procurements and large-scale SCO Unix replacement by major banks and industrial projects such as Telecommunication and Internet cafes. IDC forecasts China’s Linux market will grow at a CAGR of 34.0% from 2006 to 2010, and reach $51.1 mln by 2010.”
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=10601
I don’t think so!
That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but since you have no data to back it up, I’ll simply state that I disagree with it. Meanwhile, research firms seem to indicate that Linux’s growth in China is quite healthy.
China’s Linux market revenue reached $11.8 mln in 2005
Thats was 2005. As we well know, Linux growth world wide was still 30% in 2005. Now its down to 5.4%.
How many servers is that? 2300 at $5,000?
There will be 8 million servers shipped in 2006.
Thats what … .02875%. Whoo!!!
As we well know, Linux growth world wide was still 30% in 2005. Now its down to 5.4%.
Can you tell me how you arrived to the 30% figure? I think I know how you did, but I just want to hear it from you so I can better prove you wrong.
Please, tell me how you got the 30% figure…show me the passage in the article which you based this figure on.
I won’t even go into the nonsense figures in the rest of your post. You seem to confuse market share with revenue growth, and so on…you seem to be confusing throwing around random statistics with actual arguments.
In total dollars, Windows is growing by 3x the revenue as Linux since it has 3x the market share.
Irrelevant. Growth is expressed in percentages for a reason, you know?
Not to mention that an overpriced solution like MS will inflate their overall dollar share of revenue, while an (often) free solution such as Linux will decrease it.
Bottom line: Linux is still enjoying growth, despite you falsely claiming that it is “approaching zero.”
Bottom line: Linux is still enjoying growth, despite you falsely claiming that it is “approaching zero.”
Someday, whe you grow up, you will realise that when growth goes from 100% to 60% to 40% to 30% than 6.1% and 5.4% it really does mean approaching zero.
You should quit trolling with your false accusations.
Someday, whe you grow up, you will realise that when growth goes from 100% to 60% to 40% to 30% than 6.1% and 5.4% it really does mean approaching zero.
Except that Linux’ growth hasn’t followed this pattern, therefore you have no logical reason to claim it is approaching zero.
Simply put, there’s no long-term trend that would allow anyone to state that Linux growth is “approaching zero” with a straight face. Is it moderating in the U.S. to more modest levels? Sure, that was inevitable after the explosive growth it enjoyed over the last few years. However, it is still enjoying this massive growth in other parts of the world, so overall the picture is pretty good. HP and IBM don’t look too sad these days, as far as Linux server sales are concerned…
I noticed that you did manage to put an insult in there (“whe (sic) you grow up”). Thanks for once again proving that you are incapable of engaging in logical debate without resorting to personal attacks.
Except that Linux’ growth hasn’t followed this pattern, therefore you have no logical reason to claim it is approaching zero.
I would say 63% in 2003 to 42.6% in 2004 to 20.8% in 2005 to 6% , then 5.4% in 2006 is definitely petering out and approaching zero.
http://news.com.com/Linux+server+sales+show+high-end+trend/2100-734…..
“Linux server revenue grew 63 percent to $960 million from the fourth quarter of 2002 to the fourth quarter of 2003, IDC said.”
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/11/24/HNlinuxserversales_1.html
“Quarterly sales of servers running the Linux operating system topped $1 billion for the first time during the third quarter of 2004, analyst company IDC reported Wednesday. With year-over-year revenue from Linux server sales up 42.6 percent…”
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS20074406
“Linux servers generated $1.6 billion in quarterly revenue, the fourteenth consecutive quarter of double-digit growth, with year-over-year revenue growth of 20.8%
I would say 63% in 2003 to 42.6% in 2004 to 20.8% in 2005 to 6% , then 5.4% in 2006 is definitely petering out and approaching zero.
I find it amusing that you’re actually quoting growth figures here (not to mention on what basis they are arrived at), and you think that they’re painting a picture of what you’d like to see.
Where’s the market share figures or the percentage of server shipments over the last few years that shows a downward trend? Those are the only figures that matter for the sort of general trend you’re hoping to see, which is simply the usual fantasy wishful thinking.
find it amusing that you’re actually quoting growth figures here (not to mention on what basis they are arrived at), and you think that they’re painting a picture of what you’d like to see.
Where’s the market share figures or the percentage of server shipments over the last few years that shows a downward trend?
As I’ve said, over and over, Linux market share growth is approaching zero.
What part of that don’t you understand?
As I’ve also said, IDC put Linux share of the market at 12% in Q2 2006 and 11.8% in Q3 2006.
“Sales of Linux-based servers (including Linux partitions on mainframe and formerly proprietary servers) accounted for $1.5 billion in sales, up only 5.4 percent. Linux machines accounted for 11.8 percent of overall server sales, and its growth has moderated considerably. Linux is now mainstream, but it certainly has not taken over the server market as Unix and now Windows have in the past.”
http://www.itjungle.com/two/two112906-story08.html
As I’ve said, over and over, Linux market share growth is approaching zero.
Growth based on revenue share. On what basis are these arrived at, and where is the market share figure of actual shipments that shows me a downward and reverse trend?
As I’ve also said, IDC put Linux share of the market at 12% in Q2 2006 and 11.8% in Q3 2006.
Again, we don’t know what these figures are based on, but again, it’s based on revenue and not shipments.
Growth based on revenue share.
Growth based on revenue share of server shipments is approaching zero for Linux.
Again, we don’t know what these figures are based on, but again, it’s based on revenue and not shipments.
Yes. Revenue share of server shipments for Linux has dropped.
Don’t worry everyone, the Microsoft share price is approaching zero.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?ipage=qd&Symbol=MSFT
Infact it’s share price is falling at around 250% per year.
As many people have plagarized (sp?): there’s lies, damn lies and NotParker…
Don’t worry everyone, the Microsoft share price is approaching zero.
Its gone up almost 20% in the last 3 months.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?D2=0&C7=12…
And over 30% in the last 6 months.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?D2=0&C7=12…
When you say its approaching zero, are you using a FOSS calculator? Its wrong.
Edited 2006-12-06 03:44
“When you say its approaching zero, are you using a FOSS calculator? Its wrong. ”
NotParker–I agree with your posts (they are also funny!)…Could you post also in the “War for Linux Doesn’t Even Exist; Is Not Lost Regardless” article also?
I posted a anti-GPL argument and could use some backup. Maybe enforcer and MollyC could also start doing more anti-GPL posts. I argued against GPL3…I think you could do a better job than me linking a complaint with the above article…I’m new at OSNews but am a big Microsoft fan so cut me some slack NotParker.
You Microsoft cultists are a laugh. I post a well referenced comment backing up my figures showing that Microsoft is going to crash before the end of the year, and you hate me for it. Did you even check my links or is it just that you hate when I am right. You cultists are so funny.
ironi.
You Microsoft cultists are a laugh. I post a well referenced comment backing up my figures showing that Microsoft is going to crash before the end of the year, and you hate me for it. Did you even check my links or is it just that you hate when I am right.
I pointed out that Microsofts stock had risen 20% in the last 3 months and close to 35% in the last 6 months.
You know, making stuff up isn’t good for the cults reputation.
MSN Money and Google Finance are large, well respected stock-tracking sites.
I’m sorry you don’t like what their results shows.
However, their figures on corporate share price are usually 100% accurate.
You can pretend Microsoft is doing ok. But it isn’t.
What you’re wanting to try and show is that Microsoft share price fall has stopped, or is increasing, but I’m afraid that’s not happening.
No. I’m trying to show:
A) Share Price is approaching zero
B) Microsoft is loosing money, Apple, Linux, Other (OSs) are gaining it.
C) Microsoft on’t catch any of them at a growth rate so low it exceeds zero.
ironi.
btw: http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16636&comment_id=188895
So the figures I an using are about what’s happening now, not what happened Months ago.
MSN Money and Google Finance are large, well respected stock-tracking sites.
I’m sorry you don’t like what their results shows.
But I do like it!
MSN Money. Last 3 months. 20% rise for MSFT.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?D5=0&D4=1&…
“Shares of Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) are up 35% since June to $29 as investors anticipate big upgrade revenues from Vista and Office 2007. ”
http://software.seekingalpha.com/article/21630
Last 3 months, 16% rise.
Last year, 7% raise. (Check out the drop that happened at beginning of May
)
Last 10 days, 2.5% drop!!
Therefore 2.5% drop means that Microsoft stock is approaching 0 (as you are so keen to point out about the Linux ‘market share’)
Moreover, Microsoft’s performance over the last year has been between <0.5% and 7% worse than the Market average (depending on which indicator you choose).
During the last month, it’s trailed the market by between 0.8 and 5.5%.
Over the last 3 years, it’s performed over 11% worse than the Dow-Jones Ind. Average, and about 80% worse than the then Amex Index.
Geez. Bad investment I guess. Shoulda gone with Apple stock. sorry.
Growth based on revenue share of server shipments is approaching zero for Linux.
It’s not. At best it’s leveling at around 5%, which is higher than Microsoft.
Yes. Revenue share of server shipments for Linux has dropped.
A whopping, what, 0.6%? Again, all it takes is for Microsoft to squeeze a little bit more out of its customers to affect this.
Now count all of those free Linux servers being installed on older computers (and by older, I meant two or three years older, tops). There’s bound to be tons of these, since Linux licensing is a lot friendlier than Microsoft.
Now count all of those free Linux servers being installed on older computers (and by older, I meant two or three years older, tops). There’s bound to be tons of these, since Linux licensing is a lot friendlier than Microsoft.
If they are 2 or 3 years old, they would have Windows 2003 server on them. Which will be supported for another 7 years after Longhorn is released.
Why would someone throw that away when they’ve already paid for it and it will be supported for 7 more years?
You don’t make sense.
“If they are 2 or 3 years old, they would have Windows 2003 server on them<…>Why would someone throw that away when they’ve already paid for it …?
Why do you think, NotParker, all servers were Windows2003.
When archiesteel said “older machines”he certainly didn’t say Windows2003 nor WinNT 4.o server machines.
And I know what he meant to say. Even this old Pentium III 600 MHz Dell desktop which came with WIndows 2000 Professional is now among those free Linux servers excluded from Gartner/IDC reports (http://nbcc.servebbs.org apache WEB server on Mandriva 2006 )Sorry,Microsoft OS does not live here anymore!
Even this old Pentium III 600 MHz Dell desktop which came with WIndows 2000 Professional is now among those free Linux servers excluded from Gartner/IDC reports
That will put a dent in the 8 million servers sold in 2006 stats!
If they are 2 or 3 years old, they would have Windows 2003 server on them. Which will be supported for another 7 years after Longhorn is released.
Only if they bought it *with* Windows 2003 (and from the server market share, most of them *didn’t*). OS-less servers, Desktop machines reconfigured into servers (if you think that doesn’t happen, then you’ve never worked in a corporate IT shop)…
What about virtual machines on servers? Do you think you can legally install multiple copies of Windows Server 2003 on all virtual images of a server without any additional costs?
What about a company that finds out that it’s more expensive to buy all those additional CALs than using a Linux-based solution. Remember that Windows Server 2003 requires individual CALs for every individual client in terminal server mode, no matter the OS of the client.
What about Unix servers that are reconverted to Linux?
You don’t make sense.
And you don’t know what you’re talking about.
What about virtual machines on servers? Do you think you can legally install multiple copies of Windows Server 2003 on all virtual images of a server without any additional costs?
Windwows Server 2003 Enterprise allows 4 virtual server per license.
What about a company that finds out that it’s more expensive to buy all those additional CALs than using a Linux-based solution. Remember that Windows Server 2003 requires individual CALs for every individual client in terminal server mode, no matter the OS of the client.
Every XP license owned at the time of the Windows 2003 Server release made you eligible for 1 TS CAL.
Didn’t you apply for yours?
And if you need W2K3 for web serving you don’t need CALS and the web server edition is under $400.
What about Unix servers that are reconverted to Linux?
Gartner hasn’t mentioned any. I’ve seen no studies showing companies throw away an OS they bought (except for the Linux ones).
Windwows Server 2003 Enterprise allows 4 virtual server per license.
What if you need 8? 16?
Every XP license owned at the time of the Windows 2003 Server release made you eligible for 1 TS CAL.
What if you missed it then? What if you didn’t have that many XP licenses to begin with? What if you’re setting up a new shop now?
And if you need W2K3 for web serving you don’t need CALS and the web server edition is under $400.
…or you could get a complete LAMP system for 0$, even if you have dozens of servers (example a SMB web hosting company).
Gartner hasn’t mentioned any.
Oh, if you haven’t seen it mentioned in the Gartner studies you’ve happened to read, then it doesn’t happen? Interesting. I supposed you have read all of the studies, right?
I’ve seen no studies showing companies throw away an OS they bought
So because *you* haven’t seen a study, then people don’t replace Unix by Linux on their own hardware?
What if they don’t want to continue paying for support service, or new licenses, or new versions of the OS, or they bought SCO software and are afraid they won’t be around much longer? What if they want to standardize on one OS for all servers, including the new ones for which they don’t have Unix licenses? Do you think scenarios like this don’t happen?
You know, people are going to start thinking that I *do* have two accounts, and that one of them is *you*, so that I can throw myself these softball arguments using your identity in order to make myself look smart.
Well, folks, I can assure you of two things: I have only one account on OSNews, and NotParker is – incredibly – for real.
So, since Gartner seems the new authority for you (so much that if you haven’t seen Gartner mention it, you’ll doubt its existence), will you then accept Gartner’s estimate of Linux’ desktop market share of more than 2%?
What if you missed it then?
They extended the offer. You can still apply.
What if pigs could fly?
etc etc etc
Edited 2006-12-06 06:46
What if pigs could fly?
Nice reply. I guess you’re all out of arguments by now…well, that’s an admission of defeat if I ever saw one. I guess my work here is done!
Growth based on revenue share of server shipments is approaching zero for Linux.
Based on a survey and a method of estimation which means nothing.
What you’re wanting to try and show is that Linux server usage has stopped, or is declining, but I’m afraid that’s not happening. Like Microsoft all you have is this revenue argument. It means nothing because it’s totally intangible.
Based on a survey and a method of estimation which means nothing.
Gartner and IDC are large, well respected research firms.
I’m sorry you don’t like what their research shows.
However, their studies on server market share are usually published on 100’s of tech websites.
You can pretend Linux is doing ok. But it isn’t.
[/i]What you’re wanting to try and show is that Linux server usage has stopped, or is declining, but I’m afraid that’s not happening.[/i]
No. I’m trying to show:
A) Growth is approaching zero
B) Linux is a distant 4th behind Windows, Unix, Other (mainframes) in server market share.
C) Linux on’t catch any of them at a growth rate so low it approaches zero.
Edited 2006-12-06 21:57
Gartner and IDC are large, well respected research firms.
Funny, in a different thread you argued that they were biased towards Linux, which is why they put Desktop Linux’s market share at around 2.5%.
So, which is it? Are they biased and unprofessionnal, or are they large, well respected research firms.
In any case, Linux Server Revenue Growth is approaching 5%, leveling off as it does, which is more than for Windows. It is not approaching zero, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Don’t you get tired of repeating lies that have already been debunked dozens of times? Do you really appreciate being humiliated in front of the OSNews readership?
I hope MS is paying you well.
Removed.
Edited 2006-12-06 09:27
I would say 63% in 2003 to 42.6% in 2004 to 20.8% in 2005 to 6% , then 5.4% in 2006 is definitely petering out and approaching zero.
Wait a minute? A couple of posts ago you said it was 30% for 2005, and now you say it’s 6%? I think you’re throwing too many statistics around, you’re confusing yourself!
Anyway, I’ll humor you and take these statistics to mean what you think they mean in order to prove how once again you are misrepresenting results and trends.
Indeed, the series of statistics you give here does not ten to approach zero. If we look at the difference between each scores, we get:
63% – 42.6% = 20.4%
42.6% – 20.8% = 21.8%
20.8% – 6% = 14.8%
6% – 5.4% = 0.6%
So, looking at the differences, this would indicate that the growth is *leveling out* and appears to stabilize at around 5%. Hey, look at that, that’s *still* higher than Microsoft’s.
63% – 42.6% = 20.4%
42.6% – 20.8% = 21.8%
20.8% – 6% = 14.8%
6% – 5.4% = 0.6%
So, looking at the differences, this would indicate that the growth is *leveling out* and appears to stabilize at around 5%.
The first 3 sets of numbers are between years.
The 6% to 5.4% drop is between quarters ( Q2 to Q3).
If it contiunes, then it will hit zero soon.
Someday, whe you grow up, you will realise that when growth goes from 100% to 60% to 40% to 30% than 6.1% and 5.4% it really does mean approaching zero.
And someday when you grow up, you will realise that a decreasing growth porcentage doesn’t mean fewer migrations. If I have 1 linux machine and I add another one I have 100% of growth. It’s obvious that this amount will decrease as more machines are set up.
But I find amusing you calling another person “troll”, I should mod you up. No, wait…
Edit: archiesteel beat me to it, sorry.
Edited 2006-12-05 21:53
You also fail to realize that its the growth that is declining, not the actual number of servers being deployed. If in 2004 I ship 50,000 servers, and in 2005 I ship 100,000 servers, thats 100% growth. If I ship 100,000 servers again in 2006, that 0% growth over 2005, but I still shipped 100,000 servers. Also, that says nothing to the number of servers out there that are Windows or Linux. Maybe server sales as a whole slumped between 2005 and 2006. You statistics are pontless without knowing the actual data points. Take a stats class, NotParker.
In total dollars, Windows is growing by 3x the revenue as Linux since it has 3x the market share.
All you’ve told me there is that Windows is more expensive than Linux ;-). Thanks.
Small wonder why Microsoft uses server revenue at every available opportunity, and paints over server shipments and units sold.
A Gartner study says that between 40% and 80% of computers with Linux pre-installed are wiped clean and replaced by a pirated copy of Windows.
And that was purportedly done on the subject of Linux desktops and has no independent corroboration, since it was commisioned and is widely used by Microsoft.
Oh yes. We were talking about servers, weren’t we?
Edited 2006-12-05 23:27
Small wonder why Microsoft uses serer revenue at every available opportunity, and paints over server shipments and units sold.
IDC and Gartner report units sold as well. But revenue gives you an idea what the server is being used for. If someone buys a mainframe with Linux on it, Linux revenue goes up millions. If they buy a 1 CPU 500$ server, that all that is added in.
Same with Windows.
And that was purportedly done on the subject of Linux desktops and has no independent corroboration, since it was commisioned and is widely used by Microsoft.
Three excuses!
1) If theya re pirating desktops in Asia, they are most likely pirating server operating systems too.
2) If you think Gartner lies, so be it. You have no corroberation.
3) Commissioned by Microsoft? Really? Where did you read that? Or is that just an automatic “kill the messenger” statement.
IDC and Gartner report units sold as well.
Then quote them.
But revenue gives you an idea what the server is being used for.
The reason why Microsoft likes quoting revenue is they tend to add in a whole lot more than the cost of the server license itself. CALs and additional licenses can get thrown into the mix, bundled along with a single server. There’s no definition of a server license – all it is is revenue. Key difference ;-). It is utterly meaningless.
Again, all you’re telling me is that Microsoft is more expensive.
If someone buys a mainframe with Linux on it, Linux revenue goes up millions.
Considering that no one buys Windows mainframes I would imagine that Microsoft needs all the help it can get.
Commissioned by Microsoft? Really? Where did you read that?
Along with the other umpteen Gartner and IDC reports commissioned by Microsoft. It belongs in the trash unless it is quoted by others. It isn’t.
The reason why Microsoft likes quoting revenue is they tend to add in a whole lot more than the cost of the server license itself. CALs and additional licenses can get thrown into the mix, bundled along with a single server. There’s no definition of a server license – all it is is revenue. Key difference ;-). It is utterly meaningless.
I’ve posted this many times:
“According to IDC’s stats, which count the factory revenue of the vendors that make servers (and which does not include the revenue generated from the reseller channel)”
“Rather than count factory revenue, Gartner estimates the actual amount of revenue that end users spend on servers, including the portion of sales that go to the channel. ”
http://www.itjungle.com/two/two112906-story08.html
BTW, seeing as how you’re quoting Gartner, I guess you’ll also agree with their 2.5% Desktop Market Share for Linux, right? Right?
Or are you going to insult me again?
Edited 2006-12-06 00:49
I’ve posted this many times:
You’ve posted nothing. What you want to show is a decline for Linux in the server market, but you can’t do this based on the actual number of servers and shipments. It’s all about revenue, which as I’ve pointed out, means nothing.
According to IDC’s stats, which count the factory revenue of the vendors that make servers
Which means that what is bundled with the server, counts. Again, all you’re telling me is that Windows is more expensive.
Rather than count factory revenue, Gartner estimates the actual amount of revenue
Which makes Gartner’s survey so utterly full of the brown stuff it just isn’t funny. Is this what you’ve been proclaiming from the hills as fact?
As usual, your head is so far up your own ass you can’t hear anything. Nothing unusual there.
Congratulations! That is the way to do it. Far more effective than modding down and saying nothing coherent.
Is it Friday already?! That was one of the most abstract articles I have read about concrete matters.
“Linux was just one of the numerous projects, which happened to rise due to being distributed as Free Software and supported by FSF. ”
You should be paying more attention. Linux was never distributed as Free Software or supported by FSF. It’s Open Source software. The only reason Linus chose GPL2 is to force sharing the source of any modifications you do to Linux.
And that is why it has been (and will continue to be) so successful both on servers and desktop workstations.
Very good.
The GNU/Stallman is trying to force Linus into adopting GPL3 when it’s out. Linus and devs have said many times that they are satisfied with GPL2.
Uhh, maybe read up on the GPL (especially GPL2)? Using the GPL implies FREE software as expounded by the FSF, not “open source” as as expounded by the OSF. Since Linux is licensed as GPL2, it is hence Free software. You don’t have to be supported by the FSF to release Free software. Furthermore, what makes it free is the whole reciprocal approach of the GPL that ensures that modifications get shared back. Without that, you have plain open source and not Free software. That’s the whole point, really.
BTW, as bright as Linus can be, he has got the free/open source debate wrong so it is not surprising to see others get it wrong. Lucky for both of us that he still managed to pick the right license.
“You don’t have to be supported by the FSF to release Free software.”
Well, you’re right. Of course Linux is both Free and Open Source. My point was that Linus main priority is that the source is open, and that changes to that code is also open. The GPL2 license was perfect to meet that end, and I agree with Linus that it still is.
BTW, as bright as Linus can be, he has got the free/open source debate wrong so it is not surprising to see others get it wrong.
You speak as if it’s possible for there to be an objectively wrong and an objectively right position to take in the whole “Free Software” vs “Open Source Software” debate. Even describing it as a “debate” is overly generous, when it’s clearly just semantic quibbling by people who know next-to-nothing about actual linguistics.
You speak as if it’s possible for there to be an objectively wrong and an objectively right position to take in the whole “Free Software” vs “Open Source Software” debate. Even describing it as a “debate” is overly generous, when it’s clearly just semantic quibbling by people who know next-to-nothing about actual linguistics.
If it were just a petty semantic difference, it would be only so much hot-air and have no consequence. I believe there are consequences. “Right” and “Wrong” here are not moral assessments but rather are used to indicate which style leads to the maximum group utility. Objectively, there is a right position but it is dependent on what your aim is. If your aim is to ensure that software can be continuously used and developed in a shared manner such that no one can bar another from derivations of the software, then the objective choice of should be clear — Freedom requires the quid pro quo or so-called “viral” clause. It is the same as saying, “We are free because I insist on the freedom of my neighbors”.
Also, if it is just so much talk, why bother to say so?
Linus chose the GPL for his kernel as a gesture of appreciation to the FSF for the GCC compiler suite – which he used to develop the kernel. Such a gesture is just one of many that demonstrate his political prowess.
If you need confirmation of this, you can find it in this interview with Linus:
http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html
Edited 2006-12-06 00:42
Looks like it’s too late to edit.
Of course the GPL2 license makes Linux Free Software, but it looks like because of pragmatic reasons more than ideological. Torvalds shares his source, and wants changes to that code to be shared as well.
The latest GPL v2 vs v3 debate brings this up:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161
Why don’t people take a deep breath before getting emotional over what this guy said? I predict the replies are going to be over 200 for this one.
There will be few that aren’t knee-jerk responses though.
It’s lose, not “loose”(seen on page 2)
Also, the idea of linux flavors splitting over whether it uses gui tools or command prompt based tools is ridiculous. To make that argument you’d have to not be able to have both. Most distros have both. I often use apt-get instead of synaptic in ubuntu, just as an example. Yes the command prompt is more efficient, but it requires a greater learning curve. Why anyone thinks that it would be split into two camps is beyond me. Perhaps the user base could split into two camps, based on personal preference, but I can’t see the mainstream distros doing so.
“It’s lose, not “loose”(seen on page 2) ”
Another typo: it’s “extinct”, not “instinct” (page 2, “while the second group will instinct”) Anyway, typos alone don’t make the message invalid.
WYSIWIG is a paradigm for text edition, not for UI. The term the author is looking for is “point-and-click”. OpenOffice is as WYSIWIG as MsWord. On the other hand, there’s the WYSIWYM paradigm of Lyx, where you get much of the power of LaTex without having to learn the markup.
Point-and-click relies on consistent configuration APIs, that’s why KDE and Gnome are so good with their respective applications. The Windows way of doing this is the registry. The Linux answer to this may well be Elektra. There’s work to do, but nothing to care much about. Package management and shared libraries need some reworking as well. I’m trying Gobolinux and I think they are going in the right direction (but many will disagree).
Reactos is interesting, but most of their work can be leveraged by Wine, as Reactos devs clearly admit.
In the long run, I think the C language and monolithic kernels are doomed. The future of OS may well be Minix3 (microkernel), JNode (Java) or House (Haskell) if they stay open source and become better than GNU/Linux. Oh, and maybe the Hurd if they switch from Mach to Coyotos. More online applications (Web 2.0) are to be expected as well. Of course this last paragraph is just a guess. In any case, FOSS users will win, not lose.
The 90’s called, it wants its hypes back
Seriously, how often have we heard this? Microkernels are going to rule, online web applications are the future, OO is the bomb. Over and over again, kinda like “this is the year of the linux desktop” for the past 5 or six years.
Why does there always have to be an end all solution to all perceived problems of the current ones?
I didn’t know that Linux was doomed! Thanks for opening my eyes!
I wonder – how it’s possible that linux has been getting more and more and more market share – slowly, but steadly – with all that failures?
I also love completely how the author seems to think that “unix” and “desktop” are mutually incompatible. He reduces the design of user interfaces to “the unix way” and “WYSIWYG”. Obviously, if you think that bash shells is all what Unix is about, you may think that. Of course, if you realize that what “Unix” really means is “POSIX”, and that POSIX is just a basic API to do some basic tasks and that posix + qt or even QT alone is pretty much the same than win32 (better actually, but it pretty much delivers the same basic functionality) you may wonder why on earth you can’t build a desktop on top of QT, if microsoft was able to do it in top of win32.
I specially love how the author seems to think that OS X “wraps” Unix because it tries to hide the system and that Linux “doesn’t really try to hide away the UNIX nature of the system”. Indeed, the linux desktop is not the best desktop available in the world, but I fail to see how Linux is inherently doomed. Now that linux has cloned the win9x/xp level of functionality, there’s a lot of work to do, both for windows and for linux. UIs are still a young thing, we’re just starting to get hardware acceleration into the desktop APIs that will allow us to re-do in long term (Core Video and XAML are only getting into the hands of developers THIS year) how the UIs are done and managed, and that there’s plenty of innovation left.
But you’re free to write two pages taking about WYSIWYG-ness (no matter that it doesn’t means that much alone when building a desktop). But the thing I like most are the typical predictions that We Should Listen To: AND LINUX WILL DIVIDE IN TWO GROUPS, A COMERCIAL AND A ENTHUSIAST ONE, AND A DRAGON WITH SEVEN HEADS WILL CAME AND BURN EVERYTHING
Edited 2006-12-05 19:20
Now you’ll see OSNews be reduced to rubble in the aftermath.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/grenade.htm
I say Linux is failing not doomed.
In 1999 I remember Linus and the rest claiming they will have the 10% of market share in 2 years or something like it, its almost 2007 and the market is near zero in the desktop department, in the server I’d say that’s BSD ground.
What is failing?
and I’d say that without any stats (or quotes from ‘Linus and the rest’) to support what you’re saying that you’re talking out of your ass
Oh come on!
A. It was 2003.
B. He said that 2004 will be the year of the Linux desktop.
C. He never said anything about 10%. He just said, and I quote “This year there will be a lot of desktop users, which will impact kernel developers.”
At least get the fact strait before posting them.
– Gilboa
Saying that the market share is near zero is quite pessimistic. I don’t think anybody has any concrete stats about this, as most people using Linux downloaded it for free. However, there is a new music player called “songbird” and it has a neat feature that lets you see how many of its users are running Windows, Mac and Linux. Here are the stats from it as we speak:
Users by Platform
Windows 81%
Linux 10%
Macintosh 9%
So I guess the people who claimed a 10% is not that off the track. Interesting also that the Linux number is higher than the Mac now…
The author really demonstrates that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. From the technical standpoint…. there’s just nothing at all !!!.
Now predictions ??? LOL
Dimitri Nostradamus… I’m sorry but the author really should stay in the scope of his skills… (Russian justice …. LOL).
And please, please, PLEASE stop writing things like “I use this OS and that OS so I have a legitimate right to critic/comment/whatever” this doesn’t give you any credibility at all, quite the opposite.
Das Vidagna Dimitri !
… to even start debunking the false assumptions, half-truths and illogicities of this “article”. That is, if you survive the errors in spelling and grammar. I admit I couldn’t finish it, so perhaps there might be people more determined than me.
Are things going so badly at OS News that you have to resort to this kind of trollish dribble to raise the page click counts? Really really sad …
rehdon
Edited 2006-12-05 19:19
“Why would Linux loose trying to provide the same user experience as Windows, but at lower cost?
First of all, you can’t copy the thing you’ve never seen. Microsoft’s plans are changing all the time, some features are found only at release time, so they would hardly find their way into Linux UI in short term.”
Wow, give me a break!
It almost seems as if the author believed that
a) MS invented the GUI and
b) MS was the only true innovator of GUIs?
And of course, they release products so often that you are always playing catch up!
Sure, buddy…
Would you please tell me how (among others) Linux got multiple desktops and the like long before Windows if they are playing catch up?
(Vista finally has them, right? If not that would be _really_ ridiculous!)
Now if he said the GUI had won that would be a different thing…
Obviously the CLI is not for everybody and not the best tool for every task.
But Linux lost? No fscking way!
I used to check the OS News RSS feed daily for interesting articles, but eventually got disgusted because it seems the majority of articles here have a decidedly pro-Microsoft, anti-Linux feel. I took a break from OS News, but eventually gave it another try. Well, here we go again: I’m sick of the stories this place purports as “news” or truth. I’m saying goodbye for good this time; Slashdot, Digg, Ars Technica, LXer, Google News, The Register, Reg Developer, and Wired News have a large enough variety of viewpoints that I don’t need this Windows hole to keep up-to-date on recent technological happenings.
Well, you forgot that the majority of articles are anti apple too.
hahaha
That was so flippin’ funny!
If your post was serious, which I doubt very much, please take the Mac zealots and OSS fundies with you. We need the ones with emotional problems to stop plaguing this site.
kthx
Stop that. Osnews posts LOTS of anti-Microsoft news. Hell, most of the people here are linux zealots. It also posts lots of anti-Linux news.
It _even_ posts which mix pro-haiku/anti-linux, or pro-BSD/anti-linux sentiments.
If you want a site that talks only good about Linux, osnews isn’t your site. Osnews touches all OSes
I love it. I wish I could show you the emails that come through the crew list. We get called pro-Microsoft, pro-Linux, and pro-Mac, as well as anti-Microsoft, anti-Linux, and anti-Mac every week. Everyone seems to think we are against what they like and for everything they hate.
It’s actually quite comical, since this story was SUBMITTED.
If you’re so angry and feel your opinion is so misrepresented, why do you come to a forum to complain? Why not just submit an article yourself?
PS: I’m OSNews staff, and I have ZERO machines running Windows at my house.
Edited 2006-12-05 21:17
I agree…OSNews has done a good job of staying away from bias.
I’m still not convinced that its comments section aren’t visited by astroturfers, but that’s fair game, as OSNews isn’t responsible for what appears in those comments (and I have absolutely no concrete proof of astroturfing, and so it remains only a nagging suspicion).
I do think the article was especially poor, but hey, at least it has generated a lot of debate!
ok… I take back some of my last posts then. I wasn’t aware of this.
Will Netcraft confirm that Linux is dying too? They could keep doing it for the next 7 years like they have for BSD!
Linux isn’t dead on my desktop or in my home, and that’s good enough for me. Seems like ther are 2 camps when it comes to Linux users. Those who are Windows refugees and want the whole “overthrow MS!!11!” to happen, and those who just use the best tool for the job.
Browser: Links (0.99; Linux 2.6.13 i686; 116×42)
This article falsely assumes that “linux” has the sole purpose to provide a UNIX based “clone” of Windows. Everything else is based on that false presumption, and thus makes no sense at all. What a load of rubbish. What makes people write this garbage, I wonder.
I think the 3 question marks in my subject line say it best.
(ReactOS has very strong chances to replace Linux).
Yeah! When I read that I could feel those three question marks popping up over my head. I really like the concept of ReactOS, but I can’t even think of a metaphor to describe this silly assertion.
More like a secular conflict really.
This is an opinion piece, which is fine, people can have opinons right? We can disagree with this guy without throwing rocks at him right? Hmmm, maybe.
With that said…
I appreciate this guys opinion even if I don’t agree with it. It takes guts to post that “Linux” or the free software desktop will fail. I believe, from my own experience and observation of local trends, world trends, trends I read about online, etc(which seems to be how the author came to his conculsions, which is fine. you do it too.) that “Linux” or the free desktop will gain some market share but won’t achieve desktop critical mass for quite sometime.
GNU/Linux, OpenSolaris, BSD, whatever(they are all similar in that said kernels are free softare.), will continue to gain server share over Windows. As Samba matures to Samba 4.0 the requirement for Windows on the server end will all but deminish as it already has.
As the server space gains market traction, desktops will follow over time now that the “requirement” for Windows deminishes. OpenOffice will also help this adoption quite a bit. Also, now that applications are becoming more web centric and not tied to a OS type. Firefox is helping in this area quite a bit. As those corporate used applications that require IE diminish(and they are), other desktop options will come to light.
Then again, I could be smoking crack as some have noted that this author could be. However, we are dealing in opinions based on observation and experience. Things like this really boil down to if you put stock into the person giving the opinion. “Industry experts” do this kind of thing all the time, read Slashdot for more information.
Again, I applaud this guys tenacity even if I don’t agree. We can have civility in disagreement, even on OSnews right?
Right.
Why it sounds like BSD troll and smells like BSD troll? Because IT IS BSD troll
Questions rised is not that bad, but almost has only one side viewed.
BSD said Linux must die, because it can’t be true – people must choose either “light” – console, or “darkness” – Windows. There can’t be middle way, no way.
Rather than comment on the article itself, I will comment on what seems like a trend here at OSNews. I predict there will be more doom and gloom articles about Linux linked/posted here while the Microsoft articles will be more positive, stomping Linux, etc.
My guess is in the next six months the focus will be almost entirely on Microsoft-centric articles. There is obviously more money to be made from a huge corporation who have a track record of wanting to put themselves on any and all billboards available.
When I became member of OSNews it was with the hope of discussing the technical aspects of all operating systems, Windows, Linux, BSD, BeOS, etc., not the immature slinging of insults.
I am off to greener pastures. I am sure somewhere within the vast internet there is at least one discussion board where the signal-to-noise ratio is higher than that of a grade school playground.
Peace,
desNotes
I am off to greener pastures
Yup. Sure.
See you back here later today, ok?
This article is full of strange predictions with very light backup.
Having heard what Aaron Seigo has to say about KDE4 (http://www.linuxactionshow.com/?p=50), a lot of inovations are coming to the Linux desktop… And these are things that don’t involve several complex layers between the actual desktop and the kernel.
About Vista, sadly, I think that it will be very widely adopted. OS X is very successful with 5% of market share… Linux doesn’t necesseraly need to replace Windows everywhere to be a tremendous success.
Edited 2006-12-05 19:47
Talking about a “war” says more about some people than they might care to admit. If you’re a member of a community (or army) that requires a Beast-666-Enemy in order to define itself, ask yourself what you’re doing. The end of that road is primitive and tribal Taliban-stylee. Nothing good will come of it.
I use Linux because I like it and I want to. Not because it has or will have a 1, 10 or 100 per cent market share. I avoid Microsoft not because I think it is a Great Satan but for the same reason I avoid fast-food outlets and Starbucks shops, most chain stores and the buy-me-buy-me life. I don’t like their one-size-fits-all attitude, I don’t like the way they treat people and often I don’t like what they do to the planet. Oh, and their food is usually disgusting.
Linux is doing just fine so far as I can see, and it will continue to do just fine. Of course it will change and transform because everything in life does. But there will always be room for an alternative to the mainstream. However, imho, the alternative only prospers when people commit to it positively and don’t merely use it as a way of being negative about the mainstream. There’s really not much wrong with Microsoft. Some of us just don’t like what they offer, is all.
I totaly agree with your post.
In my case I use both, Linux and Windows. Everyone agrees that more work is needed in Linux and people should stop this nonsense of a Great Satan (like you say. I’m so tired of this so called “war”.
This is my first post on a forum, don’t think though, that I haven’t read thousands of them all over the internet on different subjects. (God there is a lot of seperated people on this one planet).
Both OS have different things to offer that works for different people. It’s the owner’s of these OS that makes the perceived notion of each.
It’s plain simple. It was conceived as a free operating system. A free operating system is, now. It has achieved all that was needed for its developers to use it everyday as a workstation and server.
KDE developers started coding it back in ’98 to fullfill a need. Today, much of that need is gone. I can use KDE over Linux without any dependence on Windows. Others too. Their developers certainly would agree with this.
There’s no chance Linux or KDE will die or become unsuccessfull, because they are needed today and will be needed tomorrow. That need is what drives Linux.
is full of poop
But the way OSX wraps the underlying OS makes me feel comfortable while excluding OSX from UNIXes list.
But Linux is really UNIX, and unlike MacOS X Linux doesn’t really try to hide away the UNIX nature of the system, although the percentage of UNIX-styled software decreases dramatically.
I agree, it’s because of that Leopard will be certified by the open group as Unix and not Linux, because Mac OS X is not Unix …
Anyway, perhaps that Windows has .Net 3.0 but now the open source has Java.
The WYSIWYG and traditional UNIX way to accomplish the task are incompatible.
This comment shows the level of this article’s “argument”. This guy has obviously never heard of KDE, GNOME, CDE or even the X Window System; this is unforgivable unless he has never heard of Linux or is calling from about 1984 (in which case he wouldn’t have heard of it anyway, because it didn’t yet exist).
SCOX and the Eighties called; they want their Bullshit back.
Why does OSnews persist in publishing this uninformed dross?
Edited 2006-12-05 20:06
Linux != an OS though the author compares it as such
Please read this: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
And then consider revising your article.
Very nice link. Very true.
“Please read this: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
And then consider revising your article.”
This is a nice article (I recall reading it a while ago) but it has a few sentences and implications I strongly disagree with. For instance:
—–
If you really just want Windows without the malware and security issues: Read up on good security practices; [..]Don’t get Linux: It will fail miserably at being what you want it to be.
If you really want the security and performance of a Unix-based OS but with a customer-focussed attitude and an world-renowned interface: Buy an Apple Mac. OS X is great. But don’t get Linux: It will not do what you want it to do.
It’s not just about “Why should I want Linux?”. It’s also about “Why should Linux want me?”
—-
This is tired trash and this kind of attitude clearly hurts the Linux comunity. Accept some criticism, Linux is not perfect. It is improving, that’s what counts. No, users should not have to adapt to Linux, Linux has to adapt to users. Doesn’t it hurt the intellectual prides of developers, to be unable to provide a (new) user experience just as good as (or better than) Windows? What’s this crap about Linux not being for everyone? Learn from Steve Ballmer, and always reply “Linux, Linux, Linux!”
I agree with your points concerning the few failings of the linked article.
I firmly believe that Linux is or will be pretty close to all things to all people because it is made of so many things and can be made in so many ways that you can make it work the way you want it to work.
has every Enterprise project I have worked on over the past 12 years been deployed on Unix servers not Linux! Every Enterprise size project I have worked on, bid on, or seen is running on Solaris or AIX period. And Windows still dominates in the email and domain server markets. Not that Linux is necessarily bad, but I think this article is making a rediculous assumption that just doesn’t hold water and he totally ignores the Unix market..weird…
I need some of the stuff the author has taken… Despite the problems it has, Linux is farther from doomed than ever. What the author describes are hurdles than can be taken, and not the inevitable demise. Anyway, technical issues are not the only issues that determine the fate of a piece of software, and Linux seems to do quite well “politically” at the moment.
Guess what, Windows and OSX are, at the core, not “WYSIWYG systems” as the author calls them. At the core, all three systems provide a programming interface (that no user is going to see anyway) and which even differ only in details (because they essentially perform the same functions). These systems have varying success in hiding the details (with OSX currently at the top), but such things can change very quickly.
Bringing the shell into the game is even more ridiculous. First, Windows and OSX have a shell too. Second, all three systems are designed from the ground in a way that makes the shell an optional component that can be replaced by something completely different (for example, a GUI).
That the Linux world will be split into command-line fans and GUI fans is a valid fear. If and when that happens, its success may very well depend on the skill of the developers to integrate both into a whole, where each user can choose independently between the two. This problem is however solvable.
I have used Windows sinse the days of 3.1 and 386 computers… In the past year, I have moved to Linux on the Desktop. Why? Because Microsoft wants to tell me how and where to run their operating system. I cannot accept Microsoft’s terms, so I moved to a system that complies with my needs.
An OS is a tool to help me use my hardware better, and Microsoft is making it into a tool to control my money.. well no thanks. WGA was the last drop…
(Microsoft has the right to receive payment for every copy of Windows a person uses, but not to control where and when to run it.)
Dear author:
If your only intention was to piss of the GNU/Linux fans of this site, as it seems to be, writing “Linux sucks” is enough. You don’t really need to write so much nonsense disguised as article.
Thanks
Yeah, I know it isn’t much, but mark one desktop Windows replacement and one new server on the Internet running on Linux.
Just like the other two dozen or so systems in this office, I didn’t pay for the OS in any form, nor did I buy the servers as “Linux” systems.
linux has lost a war? May you want to hear that…, but that’s no true.
Who was fighting against who? Linux is no company, as everyone knows. You can’t fight against them – no fight means no war.
But just lets thinking about war.
It it was a war, linux has won it, because it’s the property of everyone and just of nobody, too 😉
but this article is bullcrap.
Author’s name should be Dmitrij Nostradamus P*ssOff
For once we agree.
I think pro-MS advocates should distance themselves from such a poorly-written article, just as pro-Linux advocates should stay away from crap pro-Linux articles.
Seriously.
I’m sorry guys, but I agree with him. Far from being a windows zealot, linux is far from being as usable and user friendly as windows.
The main reason of this assertion is that MS (and Apple) tries to improve the user experience, so as to secure its market. Average joe doesn’t really care about the underlying system, since the top useable interface is able to render its every day tasks.
The X interface is a pain in the ass. It was a smart good thing decades ago, but now it’s really aging bad and not properly suited for any desktop appliance (or server, by the way). On top of that, the most popular desktop suites are suffocating under numerous half working configuration tools (without talking about the ugly rendering).
The author wasn’t criticizing the idea behing linux, which is great. Just that some radical architecture choices should have been made long time ago, and because they haven’t the whole LINUX is not going to do better as its 12 % of utilization. (more by mail…)
I think you should make a distinction between “usable”, “user-friendly”, and “beginner-friendly”. Windows is beginner-friendly. It does as much as possible to make a user productive without requiring knowledge of the underlying system. This approach was a smart decision for Microsoft, as it allows home users to get up and running quickly, and businesses to minimize training costs.
Linux (along with other Unices) is usable and user-friendly for me. I love the fact that it doesn’t constantly hold my hand. I enjoy editing text config files. It allows me to customize my operating environment far beyond the level Windows allows. The command-line interface, while somewhat hard to learn, is amazingly powerful. Oh, and speaking of friendliness to users, I have no DRM or WGA.
The average user should use Windows, if they don’t want to go beyond “average”. I have no problem with that. Meanwhile, I’ll be over here, happy in my little Linux corner, getting stuff done.
Oh, and I love X.
But there is no room for logical structure of document in the case of WYSIWYG software.
To the contrary, I’ve always found that well-designed WYSIWYG software represents the logical structure of a document much better than a hash of markups—in document preparation, for example, where many latex style files are unreadable even to humans who have used latex for years. There’s a reason many publishers prefer Quark XPress and the like.
I agree. This article is a load of bullcrap. Maybe I should hand Dmitrij a roll of toilet paper to wipe off his keyboard.
If anyone has lost – it’s McSoft.
This version of McSoft NT, formerly known as longhorn, will be the last great load of BS to squeeze out of Redmond’s marketing @$$.
Yes, it will make the billionaires a little more cash … but the market will decide how much they want to pay for the Ball-Meister’s and his cowboys old but improved cash cow.
well… in russia… machines own you!
Oh dear..this is now the new Slashdot
1) Businesses and other large enterprises want standardization.
Where I work (unless you’re one of the programmers) you get a “Goatway” running XP Pro. There are 5 standard drive images and I’ve got one of the slightly more exotic ones, meaning I’ve got some programs my office mates do not, but about 40 other people have the same drive image as me. I’ve installed a few extra little programs (like iTunes) but anytime somebody from IT sits down at my workstation, they have a very good idea what to expect.
When I have to walk down the hall to help troubleshoot a co-worker’s computer, I know what what “right” should look like. Same when I have to help a patron on the floor.
Standardization makes life easier.
It’s why I won’t get an iMac with Parallels on it when I get my next work computer. IT agrees that wanting to check for cross-platform compatibility is nice, but they don’t want to make & maintain a unique XP/Vista image for that machine.
It’s why I end up cursing and swearing everytime I have to use a very ancient CLI program that pre-dates the standard of ctrlC for Copy.
2) Yes, there are problems with and some very good critiques of the Windows UI, but the fact that Windows, OS X, Gnome, KDE, XFCE, etc. all share certain similar features helps make them much easier to use and shortens the learning curve. (Goodness knows, these similarities certainly helped get my computer inept DH switched from W98 to OS X fairly smoothly.)
While I’m all for making it smoother, rounder, more refined, etc. much of current UI design/theory builds off the idea that there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.
Plus, due to the use of GUI’s and standard keyboard shortcuts there’s a certain amount of muscle memory now involved in computing. It’s really hard (thinks of non standard Copy commands) to retrain those impulses.
3) The writer has a real bias towards the CLI. He speaks of it’s power and how the GUI puts layers of abstraction between self and the hardware.
He does not seem to recognize that the old way of formatting a document (where one typed in various formatting codes) was also a layer of abstraction. A different kind of abstraction, but abstraction none the less.
Or, to take a sample from my own life, I build webpages. I both hand code and use Dreamweaver.
Ever try to code tables by hand? It’s a frikkin nightmare. Ever finish a page and then preview it and it’s not displaying correctly and then spend considerable time and energy looking at the code and try to find that one very suble mistake that’s borking the rest of things up?
Not fun.
WYSIWIG pre-empts that sort of mistake
And GUI’s generally a much shorter learning curve, meaning that the time between training a worker and making them productive is shortned and since for business time = money …
No tool is right for all jobs, but there’s a damn good reason we have GUI’s.
“I did a simple test using a Toshiba S2435-S255 laptop in an effort to
identify the cause of very slow form loading. This laptop is a 2.4Ghz
Pentium 4 with 512 MB.
When booted with Windows XP sp2 and McAfee antivirus and personal
firewall plus with (name of product withheld) running in IE7 and Sun J2SE Runtime Envoronment 5.0 Update 9 (name of module withheld) loads in 16 seconds.
This same laptop, when running Linux Debian and (name of product withheld) running with Firefox 1.5.0.7 and Java(TM) Plug-in 1.5.0_10-b03 (name of module withheld) only takes 6 seconds to load.
The server configuration, network, SSL etc and platform are the same in
both tests.”
So. Let’s see. We are in a mission critical environement and we mutiply the extra 10 seconds to the total number of times this module is called in in the program.
This is but one example of why many data centers are migrating to a better operating system.
Vista is out and this has money written all over it. Anybody that believes these internet postings is a Sheep following the herd.
Where the hell do you get these percentages? how the hell do you know that joe downloaded Linux last night and how many of them did? YOUR OUT OF YOUR MIND!!! Anybody that takes these reports from the analysts as to how many people are using linux are just ignorant as hell.
This guy doesn’t understand that Linux isn’t really competing with anything. It’s not like Mac, where if it can’t compete, it’ll die. People use Linux because it’s Linux – free and open-source.
I’ll agree with him on one thing; if Red Hat = Linux, Linux = dead. But Red Hat (or Canonical or etc.) != Linux. Community = Linux. The community can’t die unless Microsoft drags them out of their homes and slaughters them or something, but then the courts will have something to say about that.
So no, this article is wrong.
this is the kind of article that defines nonsense:)
My god, I have to smoke more pot, I can’t understand logic behind this.
I bet this was printed by microsoft employees and I bet they knew that OS News doesn’t show the comments to the articles by default and think nobody will even look at it which is the most important part of this article is the responses to it.
He speaks with authority….
The GNOME project is a good example. Being initially intended to provide the IBM OS/2 user experience it gained vendor attention. When the project’s officials started to state that the next goal of the project was the Windows UI, it became the default desktop in some commercial distribution (including Red Hat), and the GNOME adoption fastened when the developers starter to decrease the features amount, making it really no more difficult to customize than Windows’ Shell32 UI.
…but anyone who actually was using the os (or does some basic research) will find…
The GNOME project was started in August 1997 by Miguel de Icaza and Federico Mena in response to licensing concerns over software used by KDE, a free software desktop environment that relies on the Qt widget toolkit. At the time, Qt did not use a free software license and members of the GNU project became concerned about the use of such a toolkit for building a free software desktop and applications. Two projects were started: the Harmony toolkit, to create a free replacement for the Qt libraries, and GNOME to create a new desktop without Qt and built entirely on top of free software.[2]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME#Origin)
This idea is just silly…
Linux was just one of the numerous projects, which happened to rise due to being distributed as Free Software and supported by FSF. This sort of publicity made it possible to start several commercial projects (namely Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake and some Debian derivatives) based on Linux. The rise of free-of-charge Linux-bases system attracted the views of software vendors who started sharing the benefits of Linux’s publicity by contributing to the project.
The success of linux has to do with the distancing from the FSF that the OSF gave it. RMS doesnt even like the stance that Linus takes, and it is very clear that the linux-kernel is more closely allied with open source then with free software.
the difference is made quite clear here
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
This time we have two different styles of operating available: WYSIWYG and non-WYSIWYG (I can’t recall any good all-known word for it and don’t want to introduce my own term). The first one is the natural domain of Microsoft Windows, Apple MacOS (including OSX) and BeOS (now ZETA). The later once used to be the default UNIX’s style. Things changed dramatically since.
First of all, he means GUI(graphical user interface) vs CLI (command line interface). The fact that he doesnt know these basic terms shows a real lack of knowledge related to what he is talking about.
Secondly, he seems to be saying that X is a new thing, which shows a suprising lack of ignorance on the subject. X started mid 1983, while MS Windows started late 1985
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_windows)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_windows#History)
I couldnt get past the first page.
The lack of knowledge of the writer on the topic he is trying to write about is astonishing. He sounds like a windows user who read about linux, was possibly made fun of by linux fanbois, tried it for a week, and gave up because it wasnt windows. You see this all the time in tech forums, but you rarely see something this uninformed in an actual article on a major tech news site.
I think linux is healthy, but is still getting all the infrustructure up to scratch. I think linux based OS’s need to focus on a few things, most notably how to make ANY package install and work on any linux based distro.
Give it 5 years imo, see where Apple goes, how Microsoft does/reacts to Vista et cetera. And how linux fits in, in the picture.
I am an optimist, given that a few bits of tech fall into place.
@notparker you’ve done this once already in the Vista is pretty so its great article.
I’m a little confused by the article. I think it is saying as its linux roots gets watered down, and it becomes a windows clone the *nix faithful will move to a more unix environment. As an aside it says Mac Os X is a screen scraper so can run on anything.
I find the the article surprising when I thought the two *newsworthy* points of Linux *death* is.
1) Fragmentation of interfaces when the kernel is used and nothing else.
2) Interaction with the Web and the web based OS.
What is true is that Hardcore users of Unix will always be attracted to a baremetal approach to an OS, and certainly some will look for a more *nix in there OS.
The reality is though that Linux is a definition is not windows. Windows is evolving to becoming a one vendor end to end solution. The trouble is, is that the definition of Linux is wrong in the article. GNU/Linux is a better term as it describes the kernel and the modular tools and applications that run on top. That can literally come from anywhere.
If you replace the kernel and use a variation of the tools, you may well be able to say proudly this is more *nix.
Where it all goes wrong is that Microsoft is the only company on the planet large enough to provide an end-to-end solution. Apple chose BSD because it was simply too time-consuming and costly to create there own solutions, look at a list of installed *BSD applications any linux user will be familiar with most of them. In reality windows users who have strayed enough from the Microsoft fold will be familiar with packages like OpenOffice and Firefox. If Hurd was finished tomorrow how many would care.
All in all I would argue that this is the age of the distribution for anything but Microsoft, whether the kernel is removed of has an alternative windows manager, the changes are becoming marginal.
If anyone want more *nix in their Linux another distribution will come along for them.
That said the article clearly ignores several things.
1) Graphical interfaces are not new ;X is really old
2) People mix there environment as best suits them, or the job that they do.
3) CLI environment is still important; even for Microsoft.
4) Graphical applications are often built the *Linux way*…modular i.e. K3B built using 10 CLI commands; Windows mangers with pick and choose components; replacement 2D with 3D windows managers.
5) *BSD Linux Solaris has and always will be about first and formost licenses.
6) That change; automation; ease of use is not always bad, and the flexibility and *choice* in linux means that the superior solution will often win out.
Now there is a change in the linux world happening, but its more to do with licenses than it has to do with any old *nix environment. I do see a split between those who accept propriatry software to fulfill there immediate needs, and those who think compromise is not worth it at any price, and licensing is going to make these software environments difficult to mix. So I would be prepared to argue that linux as we know it is Dead.
There were some ideas and observations that could have lead to something in that article, but he didn’t get over the finishing line, instead collapsing shortly after he started. He was certainly absolutely spot on about his observation of software within desktop OS systems taking a great deal of effort and money to produce, and that this would affect the open source and Linux world’s chances against Windows, but he didn’t follow through with it. That has implications.
Instead, he comes up with a lot of ridiculousness about using the CLI over WYSIWYG (graphical interfaces, basically) and the odd comment about how ReactOS might overtake Linux. Hmmmmm, right. I’m not too sure what that is based on, because other parts of his article contradict it.
I could write something that would lay out in no uncertain terms what would be required for Linux to overhaul and leave Windows behind, especially on the desktop, but a lot of people just flat-out would not like it and the whole thing would just descend into bickering shortly after.
He’s right in that the war for Linux is spluttering out, despite the apparent successes that open source software and Linux has that open source proponents believe cements Linux’s place. However, it could all be peeled back over the next few years.
Osnews seems to be posting more and more of these NON stories. And almost all of them have a microsoft slant. Take a look back if you dont belive me.
This has to be the WORST, MOST INSANCE, IGNORANT(in the classic sense), CLUELESS, RETARDED articles in the history of OSNEWS.
OSNEWS -100 points for even having the thought of running this TRASH!
WYSIWYG only appeals to people who don’t deal with complex data or documents. The key thing to realize is that your monitor is in fact not a sheet of paper, or whatever other medium the final product goes on.
Not that this matters. There is WYSIWYG and non WYSIWYG software on almost any platform and both are used by a number of people: For every latex or docbook user on Linux there are probably 6 OOo users…
Bad grammar aside, what in the hell was that all about? Let me just cut to the chase and put this is in simple terms for all. For any Linux (or other OS, for that matter) to succeed they cannot compete directly with Microsoft. The goal needs to be: Make every release the best, most feature perfect product we can. I hate to use the “if you build it, they will come” analogy, but in my mind that’s exactly what needs to be done.
Personally, I believe Microsoft is incapable of achieving a goal like that simply because they rely on the bottom line. Perfection is expensive, and “good enough for now” pays the bills.
Any adoption (i.e market share) of Linux should be considered a success.
All this about Linux “losing” because of emulating Windows’ UI experience, blah blah blah…is basically bunk. If Linux can lose anything it will be from trying to compete with Microsoft on Redmond’s terms.
I also think it’s very obvious from that incoherent diatribe that this guy is a lawyer, no matter what country he practices law in.
obviously if linux companies aren’t making much money, there will be little future investment in linux itself. What would happen if Redhat went broke? Fewer businesses would consider linux as a result.
So I think it is important as an indication of its viability.
Is there any way to censure content like this? It’s obviously flamebait.
Why does it have three recommendations?
[EDIT] Whoops. You censure people, not things. So I meant, can we censure the author?
Edited 2006-12-06 00:52
Yes! linux is doomed!,
oh wait, didnt some maniacs also claim elvis would return at the top of empire state building at exactly newyear 2000?
Assuming that the site owners care about its credibility, the OSNews editorial policy should exercise some minimal level of control on submissions like this.
To more responsibly accommodate diverse views, consider the following compromise. If the content of a submission does not meet some minimal level of plausibility and coherence from a few minutes’ glance, then the submitter should be required to ensure that the title is not disproportionately grandiose like, for example, “War for Linux Is Lost – Almost”. If you have qualms, tell them to moderate the title.
(Of course, comments, with far less prominence, deserve far less control.)
Edited 2006-12-06 01:41
Gnome is trying to become Windows’ UI clone?? Err…I can’t see that. I use Gnome daily, and both the look and feel are completely different. Sure, both have some sort of a panel, windows, app menu…but doesn’t Macs have that too? Or KDE? I wish the author did explain this to me, I don’t see how can he claim such.
And the authors idea of UNIX-style approach…Err. UNIX-style approach is actually: a small tool for a single task. Then you just combine tools to accomplish something more complex. It isn’t at all about GUI versus CLI! And I don’t really get what he is complaining about..I use CLI only when I emerge something..Everything else is readily possible from GUI. Is he complaining about UNIX-style file semantics? Well, Linux isn’t Windows, so why should Linux pretend to be Windows? So in that sense, why should everything work the way it does under Windows?
SysV- and BSD-styled init scripts are being replaced with event-based system in Ubuntu, different other over complicated projects are developed to make the UNIX-like Linux base system resemble Windows
I only see them trying to improve the system. Having a fast, interactive and multi-threaded init has nothing to do with Windows, it just is means of improving the start-up time and improving the base system. This is completely irrelevant whatsoever.
Linux distributions will split in two groups: those relaying on UI and Windows-ish tools and others relaying on UNIX way utilities and command-line interface
It’s Windows style to have a GUI?? Doesn’t Macs have that, too? Err, doh! Besides..most GUIs are just that: front-ends to CLI apps..There is simply no point in choosing one or the other. If you prefer CLI, use CLI. No one is gonna force that to you, no one is gonna create a pure-CLI distro..
As for the author: please stop ranting about BSD’s superiority! It shines very clearly through from your article that you think BSD is superior to anything else. And just so you know: even if all the commercial vendors suddenly went bankcrupt, I can’t see Linux dying away. There are just too many people using and supporting Linux without ever having been paid.
The problem with this article is all the TOTALY WRONG statements about the history of various OS issues.
There are MANY readers of OSNEWS who have been following the OS landscape for many years more than this moron has and I would be that each and every one of those people that frequent this site will tell you that this GUY IS CLUELESS when it comes to historical accuracy.
If you can’t even get the history of these OS Projects, and their evolutions right how can any of your arguments about the future be even worth anything.
OSNEWS is supposed to be a site for people that “digg” the wide lanscape of operating systems, OS history, OS development, OS design etc..
THIS ARTICLE IS A INSULT to anyone who fits that category…..REGARDLESS if they are Apple Fans, Linux Fans, Be Fans, or Microsoft Fans.
Edited 2006-12-06 01:49
This diatribe is the most illogical piece of writing I have read in a long time. It lacks any sense of coherence, it fails to make anything that might look like an argument or a point.
Why was this even published? Oh, yeah, flamewars and ad money, I get it.
Why is a BSD user and lawer writing about the demise of Linux?
But I wish the first part of his second scenario came true
The whole article, however, sounds like someones mumbling in the morning after parting all night.
Go easy on the Vodka Dmitrij.
I kinda agree with the author of the article. When I first used Linux (Slackware 3.3 at the time), I discovered a new way to work. I moved some projects from Windows to Linux because making a few bash scripts and a few curses interfaces was quick, fun and simple. Since then, I always told myself that the only thing missing in Linux was a standalone graphical browser (a true native port of Firefox for the framebuffer for example). By the way, I know about DirectFB->GTK->Firefox, thank you in advance.
Unfortunately, things changed over time. When I install Fedora, Ubuntu or SUSE, I get an incomplete and buggy ripoff of Windows. I know I can still access everything I used before but why would I install Linux for that? Cygwin or SFU give me the best of both world: the true Windows experience and all the commandline tools I ever wanted.
Those who believe that Linux is a good desktop OS need to tell me why they believe so. Is it me or everything graphical under Linux is just 25% of the Windows equivalent. DE like Gnome and KDE have too many open bugs and missing features, not to mention that their underlying toolkits slow down applications developed with them. Furthermore, Software in general are incomplete and buggy. On Windows, I have Winamp for years. It’s stable since day 1 and it has all the features I ever wanted. On Linux, I have buggy ripoffs based on XMMS or slow beasts like Rhythmbox and Amarok, both of them full of bugs. For example, when you use the search field to find a song in the latest version of Rhythmbox, you have to press Tab several times before getting to the playlist to select a song among the matches. Being a developer myself, I can’t believe that the Rhythmbox developers didn’t take care of this already. And this is just one example.
Compare P2P applications that the kids use on Windows (Napter at the time, Kazaa a while ago, Limewire now, eMule, etc) with the Linux equivalents. Well, theres no equivalent except buggy GTK/QT frontends to console tools. Compare Nero, DVDFab, CloneCD, etc to K3B… Compare MS Office to OO.org in term of performance. Compare Windows Linux Messenger to aMSN, Gaim, Kopete. Compare FlashFXP to hrmm… gFTP (buggiest piece of software ever and this is actually the only “featured-enough” graphical FTP client for Linux). Compare Photoshop to Gimp, Visual Studio to Kdevelop, Anjuta, etc. I could go on like this forever. I cant find something under Linux that beats everything on Windows, I can’t.
On Windows, there are new impressive pieces of software all the time. When ripping DVDs became popular, we had at least 5 big software to rip DVDs with 10 zillions options each. On Linux, a few commandline tools with a few undocumented behaviors. Why?
I know I will end up being modded down because I say things that nobody wanna hear. But I’m not trying to be destructive against Linux. In fact, I use tools coming from Linux all the time. All the GNU core tools are very valuable pieces of software. I just want to express my views and I hope you guys will give me answers. I think too many just shut up and use Linux as it is right now. Please, raise your voice…
When I install Fedora, Ubuntu or SUSE, I get an incomplete and buggy ripoff of Windows
That’s why I stick to Gentoo.
DE like Gnome and KDE have too many open bugs and missing features, not to mention that their underlying toolkits slow down applications developed with them
Err..I can’t see any missing features that i’d really need or that are part of Windows (without add-ons, you know). Nautilus has a few rough spots, sure, but I still find it a lot more useable than Explorer myself. Though, it’s just my opinion. But you know, if you didn’t use GTK or QT, what would you use then? Plain X protocol? Besides, GTK and QT are both pretty fast toolkits, and very well documented and easy to program with. If they weren’t high-quality, why would so many people use them?
On Linux, I have buggy ripoffs based on XMMS or slow beasts like Rhythmbox and Amarok, both of them full of bugs
I don’t know of any Winamp clones cos I’m more than happy with Rhythmbox myself. It does exactly what I want, it’s fast, and it’s stable as a rock. So, you see, it all comes down to what you’re used to and what you expect. I myself would never touch Winamp even with a long stick.
As for the apps you talk about..I only use Azureus for my P2P needs, but Azureus is available natively for both Windows and Linux. NeroLinux isn’t as featureful as the Windows versions, but who knows how it’ll turn out to be in a few years. But then again, why need CloneCD or such? As far as I know, they’re usually used to take copies of games or such. Maybe there aren’t clones because no one has seen enough need for one?
Compare Windows Linux Messenger to aMSN, Gaim, Kopete
No, they aren’t equal. But this again is about personal prefence. I for example prefer Gaim over the native Windows Messenger, and if I wanted to use webcam, I’d just use aMSN.
I admit though that Gimp doesn’t come near to Photoshop, but Pixel..Pixel rocks.
Oh, and there are GUI apps for ripping DVDs for Linux. Out of plain memory I can name Thoggen and Ogmrip. Haven’t used either in ages so can’t say much.
…Afftar, ubey sibya ap stenu!
(Author, run into a wall and kill yourself!)
And P==NP! It’s true!
Actually, it is!
Now go and prove it faster than me and win $1,000,000
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/P_vs_NP/
I read the article, and what was the purpose of that 2 page diatribe?!
Linux simply needs three things:
1) Large commercial third party support by software vendors; one can’t expect to ever see Microsoft Office on Linux/*NIX but if atleast if the big names like Peachtree accounting, MYOB, Quicken and other applications, are made available; you’ll find there will be more businesses willing to move.
2) Better support for Linux via third parties; not just drivers, but actually acively maintain drivers; Nvidia has been, so far, the most outstanding company along with Intel in regards to not only supporting Linux, but other operating systems as well.
2) Fixing the niggly small things that piss end users off; I’m running Fedora Core 6, and sure, for me, I could set it up, I spent a few hours getting it setup (http://kaiwai.blogspot.com has the information on how I got things setup), but at the same time, the end user wants to be able to plop it in the drive, install it, then install the drivers without worrying whether the wireless network daemon loads before wpa_supplicant!
That I think is the biggest problem with many distributions; when they test, they’re too worried about the show stop stoppers when waht they should also be concerned about is correcting niggling issues that might trip up an end user for a first install.
I really don’t see the point of OSnews publishing a very one-sided propaganda article like this. A link to an article elsewhere might be ok. But OSnews should try to maintain some level of quality and objectivity, at least in its own articles.
The author really doesn’t get it.
Linux is the kernel. It’s not WYSIWYG or bash and it’s not comparable to windows or whatever he tries to compare it to.
And it’s not like free software was not leading the way in WYSIWYG.
…all I can say is *LOL*
Why on earth did osnews.com post this article???
It has nothing to it bet mere guesses!!
bah, what crap! The author has no idea what will happen, only speculates, and wildly too!!
…I put off reading this article figuring it would irritate me, but it didn’t. It just made me think “what??”
When I started out on my current career path I was able to use Windows 1.0, 2.0 and the very early Macs. I also had a chance (in fact used as m personal workstation) a VMS box running X Windows.
X Windows beat the other two hands down in flexibility and was very useful. Back then I could fire up an X Windows session from a remote machine, making system management tasks much easier.
But I guess my point is that a GUI has been available for the *nixes before the other GUI OS’s took off. I remember the excitement when motif arrived on the scene… but not any excitement for Windows 3.1, which I had to support as well…
I don’t know. It’s just wrong to say that any operating system is not meant to have a good user experience by applying a simplified or complex user interface to it. Also, the GOOD thing about linux is that you have choices as to which user interface suits your needs. AND while there can be terminal maintenance, so what?
I know people get all upset when you say “learn the shell” like it is some unspeakable horror… but frankly it is just another application that allows you to make fine grained adjustments to your files and system configuration.
And, these days, you don’t NEED to use the terminal for 99% of the adjustments you want to make. There are GUI command boxes, or applications that pass your commands onto the shell, should you need to, or you can find (or if you are adventurous) write your own programs using Python or Ruby or some other scripting language… write once use often.
I have 5 macs in my house and work on [this] one all day long. I really appreciate the simple UI and the graphical applications, but I use the command line all the time, not because I have to, but because I actually prefer to. It’s great to compile and test apps, even tho’ my editor can be “programmed” to do it. I also use telnet and ftp with some frequency (from the command line) even tho’ there are graphical applications available.
The terminal is your friend and so is the shell. It is there for a reason, it is a very useful application. Stop with any FUD regarding how linux is being ruined or that it isn’t meant to have a simple UI and that it just deludes or deceives people.
If you are THAT simple a user, you probably have a system administrator at work who can configure your system, and you probably will never need to make changes…
But the road to the current versions of GNOME and KDE have been long and fraught with experimentation… that experimentation has led to good products that allow you to drag and drop your way through linux all you want. I think it is good. And should you encounter a bump in the road, take the opportunity to learn something (not even 5 minutes of your time, likely, by “googling” your problem) new and if necessary, fire up your friend the terminal.
I have RTFA but not read the comments so I guess I will be duplicating what a lot of people have said.
He has no understanding of operating systems, software in general, the history of free software or for that matter how free software works.
His description of the history of GNOME had me LOL.
His use of the term WYSIWYG which applies effectively only to WP to signify a an OS with a GUI is ludicrous.
His failure to understand that a GUI is optional. Necessary for a Desktop/Workstation nowadays but that you can also run at the other extreme of a headless server with Linux just shows his lack of understanding.
I could go on but his ignorance and idiocy have left me speechless.
Linux applications is moving to “WYSIWYG”, pretty cool… But the unix way still there. Who cares with these “facts”?
The WYSIWYG and traditional UNIX way to accomplish the task are incompatible. WYSIWYG (acronym for What You See Is What You Get) introduces user to a graphical environment, where the result of every manipulation is displayed as it would be seen in result. For example you are shown the document and you see how it would look like. But there is no room for logical structure of document in the case of WYSIWYG software. The other way puts it different: you are presented to a plain text document with the markup describing both logical structure and formatting, but you are not given any idea about how that all would look on paper.
All one has to do is fire up any version of WordPerfect for Windows to see you can have both structured and WYSIWYG. ALT+F3 brings up the Reveal Codes window that shows you all the markup tags, and what they do. And right above that is a WYSIWYG representation of the document. Not really rocket science.
Same with any decent HTML editor.
Full ack. And to the rest of the “comments”, selfcriticism isn’t a strength of the open source community. You can come out stronger with criticism or you can fall very deep – and this is the future for the selfish wanna-be-Linux-community!