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

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


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

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

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

botnets


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

susceptible to trojans
susceptible to spyware


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

and monitoring by big brother


And this applies to Linux, too.

patent royalties to be paid


End-users don't pay patent royalties.

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


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

Reply Parent Score: 3

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[11]: Marketshare
by WereCatf on Thu 24th Jan 2013 06:15 in reply to "RE[10]: Marketshare"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"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.
"

No, I meant that end-users do not have to worry about paying royalties or such as lemur2 tried to imply. Since the cost of them is already baked-in the end-users just buy the product and that's that.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

RE[11]: Marketshare
by WereCatf on Thu 24th Jan 2013 08:19 in reply to "RE[10]: Marketshare"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"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.
"

Yes, it does. You're only assuming that end-users will only ever execute stuff that was gotten from official repos, but if they execute stuff that wasn't gotten from those the same problem applies to Linux just as much.

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


Windows Store does work as a system-wide package management system, and yes, a VLC for Metro UI is in the works.

Reply Parent Score: 3