Ubuntu Won’t Be Reaching Its Goal Of 200 Million Users This Year

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Shuttleworth had hoped for this particular milestone four years ago, but current estimates suggest that the OS still has a long way to go.

Back when Mark announced the 200 million goal, he likely anticipated Ubuntu on phones and tablets being common place by 2015. There was also the short-lived Ubuntu TV plan and perhaps even on his mind then was Ubuntu for cars. Sadly, those dreams haven't come to fruition. This goal is reminiscent of GNOME's failed 10x10 plan of having 10% of the global desktop market by 2010.
 
The markets are so entrenched now. iOS and Android rule mobile. There are tons of TV devices and options. Windows dominates the desktop and is the only classic desktop OS that's made any headway into tablets. Servers are a different story but Red Hat is the option I've seen most in the enterprise, well that's what we use at any rate.
 
Ubuntu Server seems like another popular choice, but Ubuntu Desktop isn't what I would call the best experience. I outlined what I thought could contribute to them having the best Linux OS in the Linux subforum, which is basically keeping server, getting rid of unity in favor of having the Mint team take over the desktop. Then use a profile system ala Gentoo to take all of the variants and bring them under one roof. All of the pieces are there to do it, but obviously you'd need to have people who would want to work together to create something that is better than the individual parts.

I wonder what kind of numbers there would be if you include all of the distros that are using Ubuntu underneath their skin? Obviously no where near 200M but it seems like there is a significant amount of users that could be considered Ubuntu users if things were a bit more unified.

I'd agree with heatless though that it's a pretty tough sell if desktop is not a growing platform, and they don't have anything to offer mobile devices. There is probably still room to grow in the server world since it works well for stripped down VMs to host services.
 
Ubuntu has become the defacto distribution for desktop and server. It's popularity is much higher than even red hat. It may not be 200M but with so many people using it, it's on the right path
 
What is an "Ubuntu user"? If you hit a website running ubuntu server are you an Ubuntu User?
 
Ubuntu has become the defacto distribution for desktop and server. It's popularity is much higher than even red hat. It may not be 200M but with so many people using it, it's on the right path

Of those 200m 180 million installed it as a secondary OS and use it twice a year.


Just being realistic.
 
Of those 200m 180 million installed it as a secondary OS and use it twice a year.


Just being realistic.

Is there a visual linux console?, one with tabs/menus?
I tried some quick searches and found nothing.
I swear, the day that comes out (well done), linux would have more users.
Its just that in linux, even installing stuff can be weird.
I have used Zorin enough to understand how advanced linux has become,
but when dealing with drivers and console, I start hitting walls that are discouraging.
I am not upgrading from w7, so Zorin will be it for me after this one... regardless of console.
 
Is there a visual linux console?, one with tabs/menus?
I tried some quick searches and found nothing.
I swear, the day that comes out (well done), linux would have more users.
Its just that in linux, even installing stuff can be weird.
I have used Zorin enough to understand how advanced linux has become,
but when dealing with drivers and console, I start hitting walls that are discouraging.
I am not upgrading from w7, so Zorin will be it for me after this one... regardless of console.

Try screen.
 
Xubuntu is what I gor for a fast, full featured, good compatibility, no frills experience.

The Ubuntu interface sucks, but I thank them for building the base that Xubuntu runs on. After all, it's the most compatible distro out there.
 
I think Ubuntu's UI is awful and their distro is super-slow on old netbooks. Ubuntu has done lots of good stuff, but I think their UI is holding them back from gaining further growth when compared to other distros like Mint.
 
I think Ubuntu's UI is awful and their distro is super-slow on old netbooks. Ubuntu has done lots of good stuff, but I think their UI is holding them back from gaining further growth when compared to other distros like Mint.

From what I understand, Mint is based on Ubuntu, right? If that is the case, then Mint would not exist with Ubuntu since Mint is just a snazzy KUbuntu anyways. Also, I prefer the Ubuntu Unity Interface because it is fast and lets you link only what you need off the the left.

I like hitting the Windows key, typing what I need and hitting enter, nice and fast. The Mint desktop is unintuitive and crowded on the menu.
 
From what I understand, Mint is based on Ubuntu, right? If that is the case, then Mint would not exist with Ubuntu since Mint is just a snazzy KUbuntu anyways. Also, I prefer the Ubuntu Unity Interface because it is fast and lets you link only what you need off the the left.

I like hitting the Windows key, typing what I need and hitting enter, nice and fast. The Mint desktop is unintuitive and crowded on the menu.

Yup, that's true that Mint is an Ubuntu fork with the basic difference being its use of Cinnamon (a GNOME fork) or MATE as it's UI instead of Unity. I know I'm drastically oversimplifying, but that pretty much sums it up.

Unity is pretty good about stuff being accessed in a "type and get it" way. My problem with it is that you need a relatively fast system to get results back out of it while you're typing. An Atom n270 is horribad slowness. While Ubuntu pulls up results based on each successive keystroke, it means there's like a 2-4 second delay from the time you press a letter key until the system is free again to accept a second letter of input and really slow processors bring out that kind inefficiency in the Unity model by making the process painful to deal with. On the same hardware, Mint is a lot quicker to launch an application. You click the menu button and hover over the relevant category to see a slide out list, then click the icon which is never more than one layer deep. In my opinion, that's a lot more intuitive than having to remember the name of the program you're accessing and gives you a broad overview of your entire system's software capabilities at a glance.

I do think Unity would work better on a tablet (though I haven't tried it since I don't own an x86 tablet) and the difference between contemporary Ubuntu and Mint is sort of like the difference between Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 with respect to their individual UI design choices. I'm not saying Unity is wrong, but when you're throwing really old hardware at it, Mint gets you into your program more quickly (once you turn off the stupid login screen slide show of ultra high def images that make typing in a password as painful as calling a program in Unity).
 
blog: More people use Ubuntu than anyone actually knows

“It Doesn't Look Like Ubuntu Reached Its Goal Of 200 Million Users This Year”, says Michael Larabel of Phoronix, in a post that it seems he's been itching to post for months.

Why the negativity?!? Are you sure? Did you count all of them?

No one has. And no one can count all of the Ubuntu users in the world!

Canonical, unlike Apple, Microsoft, Red Hat, or Google, does not require each user to register their installation of Ubuntu.

Then goes on to make several citations of Ubuntu usage. In short, it's everywhere.
 
And then goes on to claim that a free upgrade from Microsoft is them try to "sell" you something. :rolleyes::D

In Microsofts case it is different because they give you the OS for free so they can sell you Apps instead. Oh, and then there is the data they snoop off you too. :p
 
In Microsofts case it is different because they give you the OS for free so they can sell you Apps instead. Oh, and then there is the data they snoop off you too. :p

Except it is not different but you would like it too be. Sorry dude, free desktop Linux has a cost I am sure but what, I do not know. Oh well, enjoy. Mere Christmas 🎄
 
Reading this thread, I'm like, "So what?" If someone wants to use Linux distro, whichever one, why not? If someone does not, sure, it's his right to decide that way, Either way, it's a free country.

So what am I missing here? :confused:
 
Reading this thread, I'm like, "So what?" If someone wants to use Linux distro, whichever one, why not? If someone does not, sure, it's his right to decide that way, Either way, it's a free country.

So what am I missing here? :confused:

I completely agree. The only thing I take with issue with is the idea that Linux is some panacea on the desktop because one can control each and every update and "no spying". I can't install Linux right now and do all the things I do with a PC. Some Linux advocates spend so much time thinking about the OS but forget that tons of people actually use a PC for any number of things and much more concerned about what it can do and not so much about controlling an infinite list of details around the OS.
 
Except it is not different but you would like it too be. Sorry dude, free desktop Linux has a cost I am sure but what, I do not know. Oh well, enjoy. Mere Christmas 🎄

The "cost" is one of the following two options. It is either 1. a complete lack of timely support and subject to the whim of a few developers doing things on their free time, or 2. charged exorbitant amounts of money to use and support the software in a professional situation, and have a complete lack of support for free users. An example of 1 is Zoneminder. Development is slow, things can be broken without notice, and there is a complete lack of support from the developers. Documentation is sparse, and what documentation that does exist isn't reliably updated. Examples of 2 include Red Hat, Ubuntu, and Teamviewer. They're free to use for home users, but don't expect timely responses from the developers as a free user. Sign up for Red Hat's or Ubuntu's yearly support subscription, and you're paying more per year than a Windows license.
 
Except it is not different but you would like it too be. Sorry dude, free desktop Linux has a cost I am sure but what, I do not know. Oh well, enjoy. Mere Christmas 🎄

The cost is to Microsoft in lost users, that is why Linux exists, it is just a free alternative with no hidden cost. But I digress, I actually run Win8.1 and not Linux.
 
The cost of desktop Linux is lack of support.

I have only ever contacted Microsoft support once in over 20 years for an issue with Windows Update not working and they assumed it was because I was using a pirated version. Had to figure out the fix by myself and it was because the DSL modem I was given by the ISP needed a higher MTU setting in the registry.

There is plenty of Linux support on forums anyway.
 
I have only ever contacted Microsoft support once in over 20 years for an issue with Windows Update not working and they assumed it was because I was using a pirated version. Had to figure out the fix by myself and it was because the DSL modem I was given by the ISP needed a higher MTU setting in the registry.

There is plenty of Linux support on forums anyway.

I meant 3rd party hardware and software support, aka the ecosystem. There's just no way to use Linux has a host desktop OS and have access to the bulk of the latest and greatest hardware and software. If Linux had this then it would rule the desktop.
 
I have only ever contacted Microsoft support once in over 20 years for an issue with Windows Update not working and they assumed it was because I was using a pirated version. Had to figure out the fix by myself and it was because the DSL modem I was given by the ISP needed a higher MTU setting in the registry.

There is plenty of Linux support on forums anyway.

Whether or not you use it is irrelevant. Plenty of other people do use Windows support system. Then there is the entire ecosystem that Microsoft spends a lot of money maintaining.
 
I meant 3rd party hardware and software support, aka the ecosystem. There's just no way to use Linux has a host desktop OS and have access to the bulk of the latest and greatest hardware and software. If Linux had this then it would rule the desktop.

In general I find more commodity hardware "just works" (at least with a newest kernel version) in Linux than windows.

YMMV of course.
 
In general I find more commodity hardware "just works" (at least with a newest kernel version) in Linux than windows.

YMMV of course.

Perhaps. I'm sure there are setups that do have better driver support in Linux but that's generally not the case with the latest and greatest hardware as new stuff often doesn't get first party Linux support from OEMs.
 
Whether or not you use it is irrelevant. Plenty of other people do use Windows support system. Then there is the entire ecosystem that Microsoft spends a lot of money maintaining.

It was not irrelevant, my point was that Microsoft support is generally useless.
 
It was not irrelevant, my point was that Microsoft support is generally useless.

You're tech savvy enough to figure out all but the most difficult problems on your own, and Microsoft's support people are primarily catering to those that are not tech savvy (like those that don't know what the Program Folders is). 99% of them won't have any knowledge of intricate network details, if they did, they would be at a higher paying IT job. Once again, your point is irrelevant.
 
Microsoft support is irrelevant. The only times I've ever needed it was to make the activation calls and even then someone with a very bad accent, in a different language from mine, usually answers.

Aside from activation, I don't know even a single case professionally or at home that someone would bother to call MS support. It's taken for granted that you won't get any help from there and even if you did you would have to pay an arm and a leg more for your already expensive OS.
 
It's not like professional linux support does not exist. There are several companies that provide it.

Now here's the part where we either complain about support costs, or deflect back to how no linux distribution will work on a Microsoft Surface Book/Pro 4 and/or something about OneNote.
 
It's not like professional linux support does not exist. There are several companies that provide it.

Now here's the part where we either complain about support costs, or deflect back to how no linux distribution will work on a Microsoft Surface Book/Pro 4 and/or something about OneNote.

Sure but once you go that road even linux stops being free. I guess that's the biggest issue (aside from having the whole legacy ecosystem based on Windows).

The operating system market has become poisoned with a monopoly. It's a bit like electric/hydrogen cars. They're vastly superior to the oil based alternative but the distribution and service network just isn't there.
 
Sure but once you go that road even linux stops being free. I guess that's the biggest issue (aside from having the whole legacy ecosystem based on Windows).

The operating system market has become poisoned with a monopoly. It's a bit like electric/hydrogen cars. They're vastly superior to the oil based alternative but the distribution and service network just isn't there.

While true from a beer stand point, you're still free in regards to the software. I'm sure we can all agree that it's reasonable to compensate someone for providing professional support service, be it a corporation, or the locally owned computer shop down the road. Should you need it, it's available and can even be included as a consideration in your choice of distribution, or computer purchase.

There was a news story not too long ago about a group putting on a Linux install party at a senior center (my search-fu couldn't find it in a timely manner.) IIRC, there were several poo-poo posts about "Good luck getting support." I'd be shocked if the persons putting it on did not provide an outlet for the ongoing support part of the equation, be it services provided by a local business or reoccurring Linux User Group get-togethers. Ideally a combination of the two.

By and large, online forums, IRC, and area Linux User Groups are happy to help you with issues for free and are quite sufficient provided your attitude is correct. However, there is certainly a market for paid support offerings that would be a differentiator for many support shops.
 
Now here's the part where we either complain about support costs, or deflect back to how no linux distribution will work on a Microsoft Surface Book/Pro 4 and/or something about OneNote.

Whatever specific hardware or software one wants to mention the lack of support for top tier hardware and software is by far the biggest obstacle for desktop Linux.
 
Whatever specific hardware or software one wants to mention the lack of support for top tier hardware and software is by far the biggest obstacle for desktop Linux.

Software is an issue but hardware is generally fine as there's usually some common driver that just works.

It was a long time ago but I had more issues installing Win 7 on a system than I did installing Ubuntu on the same box. I'm sure Win 8/10 is better though. It was also nice that I could completely replace a different system (Socket 939 Opteron, so 2005ish, to Sandy Bridge) and Ubuntu would boot without any problems at all. Though I think Windows has caught up in that area too.
 
Whatever specific hardware or software one wants to mention the lack of support for top tier hardware and software is by far the biggest obstacle for desktop Linux.

That's actually true mostly for gamers. General desktop work rarely requires top tier hardware anymore and on software side, trends are moving to cloud based and OS agnostic solutions. It's not the bad old days with apps built on outlook, excel and *gasp* IE.
 
Whatever specific hardware or software one wants to mention the lack of support for top tier hardware and software is by far the biggest obstacle for desktop Linux.
Microsoft_LOVES_Linux.jpg
 
Whatever specific hardware or software one wants to mention the lack of support for top tier hardware and software is by far the biggest obstacle for desktop Linux.
Let's name three: Dell, HP, Lenovo

Dell:
http://www.dell.com/learn/us/en/555/campaigns/xps-linux-laptop
http://www.dell.com/us/p/inspiron-15-3551-laptop-ubuntu/pd
HP:
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/ubuntu/index.html
Lenovo:
https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/documents/pd031426

There exists top tier hardware (and software) manufacturers who support Linux, therefore you're wrong.
 
The Dell site is selling last gen XPS machines, the HP and Lenovo sites, how exactly do you buy a Linux machine from those sites? Clicking on shop takes you to Windows devices.
 
The Dell site is selling last gen XPS machines, the HP and Lenovo sites, how exactly do you buy a Linux machine from those sites? Clicking on shop takes you to Windows devices.
Ok, I was wrong. You are right. Dell, HP, Lenovo, and Microsoft offer no hardware or software support for Linux. Lack of support from top tier hardware and software manufacturers.
 
Back
Top