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 550207
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Marketshare"
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[10]: Marketshare
by Valhalla on Thu 24th Jan 2013 05:32 in reply to "RE[9]: Marketshare"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

End-users don't pay patent royalties.

Yes they do, it's baked into the price they pay when buying Windows/OSX and other commercial operating systems which supplies licenced 'technology' out of the box.

They are not carrying that cost for you if that is what you imagined, they offload it onto the customer through the asking price.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 08:06 in reply to "RE[9]: Marketshare"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


Actually, it doesn't apply to Linux. Linux distributions do solve this issue. It is entirely possible to run a fully functional Linux desktop system wherein every single package that you use on the system is covered by the Linux package management software.

You see, when developers collaborate to develop open source code, they vet each other. They pour over one another's code constantly. It is effectively impossible for one of them to slip in malicious code because the other developers will simply reject it.

Here is the development team for VLC:
http://www.videolan.org/videolan/team/

The development team is made up of developers from all over the world. You can rest assured that their collaborative output is free of malware.

Now large and popular Linux distributions such as Ubuntu have an extensive and public, transparent, auditable system of compiling such code, placing it in repositories, and allowing it to be securely downloaded (yes, it is signed code) and installed on end users systems. These signed-code package management systems for the major distributions have been in use for decades, for tens of thousands of packages, for millions of users making hundreds to thousands of downloads each, with never a failure.

Here is the comparable situation for Windows, which lacks effective system-wide package management:

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

Malware can get in to a Windows system via a trojan horse package, even though there is no malware at all in the original source code of VLC made by the FOSS development team.

Furthermore, once VLC is in the repositories of a major Linux distribution with signed package management ... if the VLC project discover (or is made aware of) a security vulnerability, the VLC team will fix the source code with a security update. The Linux distributions will recompile VLC from the fixed source code, and place the updated binary in their security updates repository. Linux systems worldwide will run scheduled updates of their package management software (say every two days), and automatically detect that a security update for VLC is available, and notify the users of the system.

Since VLC is not Microsoft software, there is no equivalent process for VLC on Windows. Windows update won't cover security updates for VLC for Windows.

Edited 2013-01-24 08:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1