Linked by Tony Steidler-Dennison on Mon 7th Jul 2008 18:18 UTC, submitted by Dale Smoker
Linux While I was trawling through Net Applications' operating system share trend data for the past 24 months, something struck me. June 08 marked a big month for Linux. The OS saw the largest increase in market share for the whole 2 year period - a growth of 0.12%.
Thread beginning with comment 321762
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by satan666
by CGI_Joe on Mon 7th Jul 2008 18:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by satan666"
CGI_Joe
Member since:
2008-02-20

Linux will hover around 1% as long as major computer stores continue to sell computers bundled with you-know-who. There should be a law that prevents such bundling. You go to the store, buy the computer and then choose the operating system. It's extremely simple.

I couldn't disagree more. It doesn't have anything to do with bundling, or availability. Linux is free, that pricing is far more competitive that Microsoft's pricing. There's no public demand for Linux because it is an inferior product for the majority of the home user market. Linux is great in a server room, and on an enterprise level, but for someone who essentially wants something to "just work" Linux fails. There have been many improvements in this area over the years but they have not surpassed Microsoft in general usability for the average consumer.

The big shift in computers in the past year has been from Windows to the Mac due in large part to usability and quality being superior to Windows. Also, positive experiences consumers have had with Apple's consumer devices and the availability of some of their software on the Windows platform has advanced their mindshare with the public. Complaints of Microsoft bundling their OS to a HP machine at Best Buy is a cop-out.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by hobgoblin on Mon 7th Jul 2008 19:01 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

in other words, the ipod halo effect ;)

oh, and lets not forget the amount of help microsoft gets in the "just works" department from the third party suppliers. as microsoft os's are the big dog of the industry, not making sure that ones product work on it can be a economic suicide...

Edited 2008-07-07 19:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by Babi Asu on Mon 7th Jul 2008 19:15 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
Babi Asu Member since:
2006-02-11

"Linux will hover around 1% as long as major computer stores continue to sell computers bundled with you-know-who. There should be a law that prevents such bundling. You go to the store, buy the computer and then choose the operating system. It's extremely simple.

I couldn't disagree more. It doesn't have anything to do with bundling, or availability. Linux is free, that pricing is far more competitive that Microsoft's pricing. There's no public demand for Linux because it is an inferior product for the majority of the home user market. Linux is great in a server room, and on an enterprise level, but for someone who essentially wants something to "just work" Linux fails. There have been many improvements in this area over the years but they have not surpassed Microsoft in general usability for the average consumer.

The big shift in computers in the past year has been from Windows to the Mac due in large part to usability and quality being superior to Windows. Also, positive experiences consumers have had with Apple's consumer devices and the availability of some of their software on the Windows platform has advanced their mindshare with the public. Complaints of Microsoft bundling their OS to a HP machine at Best Buy is a cop-out.
"

Although Linux is free, Windows bundled PC is cheaper than Linux bundled PC. So you can see that actually Windows is more competitive than Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by hobgoblin on Mon 7th Jul 2008 19:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

looking at recent netbook prices, im not so sure about windows being cheaper (but for some reason, most multiversion netbooks seems to only put linux on the version with the inferior hardware). still, microsoft seems willing to take a loss on os, as long as they can get people "indoctrinated" on their products for the long term.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by MollyC on Tue 8th Jul 2008 04:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Windows bundled PCs are cheaper than Linux bundled ones because for Windows PCs, the OEM more than makes up the cost of the Windows OEM license with the revenue gained from deals to bundle trialware (aka "crapware"). (Corresponding Linux "crapware" is free to begin with, and is already available via the distro repository, so OEMs can't make money via crapware bundling deals.)

So, cost to an OEM for bundling Linux is zero.
Cost to an OEM for bundling Windows is cost of Windows OEM license offset by crapware revenue, which actually makes it cheaper to bundle Windows than Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by lemur2 on Tue 8th Jul 2008 01:33 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I couldn't disagree more. It doesn't have anything to do with bundling, or availability. Linux is free, that pricing is far more competitive that Microsoft's pricing. There's no public demand for Linux because it is an inferior product for the majority of the home user market. Linux is great in a server room, and on an enterprise level, but for someone who essentially wants something to "just work" Linux fails. There have been many improvements in this area over the years but they have not surpassed Microsoft in general usability for the average consumer.


I couldn't disagree more. After the third time I spent a few days rescuing my sister-in-law's Windows computer from its latest breakdown (due mostly to accumulated malware) I suggested to her to let me put the Windows back on the machine as a "Virtual" machine where it could be protected a bit from the internet, and where I could re-instate it simply by replacing one file. She agreed.

So I installed Kubuntu for her, then Virtualbox, and then her copy of Windows under Virtualbox. It ran pretty well and I showed her how it all worked.

A few weeks later I asked her how it was going ... she told me she didn't use the Windows bit any more because the Kubuntu part was far easier to use and it didn't get malware ...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by CGI_Joe on Tue 8th Jul 2008 02:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
CGI_Joe Member since:
2008-02-20

You still had to install that and set that up for her. Also she had windows in a virtual machine to use while she adjusted to Kubuntu. She wouldn't have done any of that on her own. It's a heartfelt anecdote, but it's hardly the typical consumer scenario.

Reply Parent Score: 2