Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 21:28 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Linux "If you consider NetApplications' data set, then Linux owns only about 1 percent of the desktop OS market and Windows has almost 92 percent. But if you consider all computing platforms, including mobile, than Windows has only 20 percent and Linux has 42 percent - and that would be in the form of Google's Android alone." No more or less legitimate than claiming Windows owns 92% of the market. It's all a matter of perspective.
Thread beginning with comment 550111
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Marketshare
by WereCatf on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Marketshare"
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

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


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

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Marketshare
by MOS6510 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 20:03 in reply to "RE[7]: Marketshare"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12


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


That's how I often felt when I was a full-time Linux user.

Linux has many strenghts, but also weaknesses and these can't be resolved by denying them or by claiming that Windows is worse.

Making stuff up is just embarrassing. Windows users will have no idea what someone is complaining about.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Marketshare
by moondevil on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:36 in reply to "RE[8]: Marketshare"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I used to be a full Linux backer back in the early days, when distributions still came in floppies.

Even doing the typical M$ stuff, open source quotes on email signatures and subscribing to Linux Journal.

Nowadays, I just use whatever operating system gets the work done.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:28 in reply to "RE[7]: Marketshare"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited 2013-01-23 23:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Marketshare
by WorknMan on Thu 24th Jan 2013 00:11 in reply to "RE[8]: Marketshare"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

For Windows, one has to scrounge around all over the place to try to collect a usable assembly of decent FOSS software. It takes ages and ages, and on Windows this process is fraught with potential difficulties:


Really?
http://ninite.com

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Marketshare
by yester64 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 02:44 in reply to "RE[8]: Marketshare"
yester64 Member since:
2012-07-28

i am not sure about that point. Besides all the usual points there is most of the time the issue of accountability.
If a company needs to run software seamlessly but problems arise during implementation there is not much of accountability i can think of. Perhaps if a company uses one of the GNU office packages who will they talk to?
And i really don't buy anymore that free argument. It does cost money to train people (down to the people actually working with programs) to have a staff to ensure operation etc... You do save the licencing cost, the rest is the same.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Marketshare
by WereCatf on Thu 24th Jan 2013 03:41 in reply to "RE[8]: Marketshare"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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


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

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

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

botnets


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

susceptible to trojans
susceptible to spyware


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

and monitoring by big brother


And this applies to Linux, too.

patent royalties to be paid


End-users don't pay patent royalties.

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


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

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Marketshare
by zima on Sat 26th Jan 2013 01:24 in reply to "RE[7]: Marketshare"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Rabid fanboy-ranting does more harm than good and he completely refuses to see that. Hell, I use Linux on my server, in a VM on my desktop, on my Pandaboard and on my Nokia N900 and yet lemur2's incoherent ramblings and exceedingly annoying holier-than-thou - attitude makes me want to stop using Linux just to spite his face.

Yes, similar with me; and more: he basically managed to make me dislike & avoid KDE ...me, who was at some point a sort of supporter of it. Now, I don't want anything to do with it if that means stumbling onto lemur2 from time to time.

Reply Parent Score: 2