The Ultimate Linux vs. Windows Competition

[general]

"What linux needs is to be as easy as Windows, and yet be able to be as configurable as it currently is."

The first part will take work and the second will always be there. Putting a graphical front end on a config file doesn't change that the config file is there and someone can manually edit it. The issue really is that those people most comfortable with linux and linux based distros are perfectly happy with hacking things manually and get off on it and don't care to make it easier. That's the problem and its why even with linux distros being free, few normal people use them.

The linux community has passed up on a huge opportunity with everything that MS has gone through over the years from massive security problems in the 90's to everyone's distaste from activation, Palladium, etc. What they need is a central body with marketing prowess to make decisions such as ONE mainstream front end, a file structure that can be made sense of without 30 mins of research, one file install format and one syntax (which should never really be used except for servers admins as normal desktop users shouldn't ever need the command line).

The sad part is none of the above will ever happen. Some distros will make good efforts at the desktop, but they will always have the hardware issues and support issues caused by a fragmented community. That is not even to mention the mammoth waste of so many development resources re-inventing the wheel with dozens of distros, applications, front ends, etc. I'm sure if anyone ever did research on how much time is wasted duplicating things by the linux community it would be scary.

The linux community is too fragmented to really ever do anything useful on the desktop. It is far too developer savvy and doesn't really have any marketing expertise. You can picture of the reaction of a CIO when you tell him/her that you should be putting dapper drake or edgy eft on the staff desktops.

In the meantime, linux will always be something for geeks and servers with a few distros making a go at the desktop, but as I mentioned, they'll never really be successful due to hardware issues and issues caused by a fragmented community. It's sad really.

 

[Theli]

Lies and flame baits is all I hear. There are two imbecilities that constantly plagues discussions such as these.

1. Shortcomings inherit in an application or an operating system are not always a direct result of the programmers intentions. There has been development into making some Linux distributions more user friendly and to add graphical interfaces to edit configuration files. The fact that some may still have to edit a config-file here and there is unlikely caused by any sexual perversion (getting off as you put it), or contempt of the general public.

2. I would say that out of all the members on this board, not a single one is qualified to speak for the majority of computer users (and it's nothing unique about this board). Still I always read statements like: "MOST people want...", "90% of the population thinks...", "normal people does..." with absolutely nothing to back them up.

 

[B. W.]

2. I would say that out of all the members on this board, not a single one is qualified to speak for the majority of computer users (and it's nothing unique about this board). Still I always read statements like: "MOST people want...", "90% of the population thinks...", "normal people does..." with absolutely nothing to back them up.

That's not really true. You can't deny that "90% of the population wants something easy to use". It gets in the gray area once you decide what exactly "easy to use is".

Yes, I'm going to agree with a lot of the people who have said both in this thread and on this forum that I would not want a Windows clone. If I want to use something that's just like Windows, I might as well just use Windows.

What I don't agree with is the claim that Linux needs to compete for the desktop. Why? What would the Linux community get with more market share? The fact the Linux kernel isn't going anywhere anytime soon. You'll still have that choice.

To reiterate on what general said, the developer mindset is deplorable in certain cases. Have any of you ever read documentation for a specific feature in an operating system or application? Everything's written by the people (or person) who make the software or the community behind it, not whole departments in gigantic companies. Most developers don't give a crap either way if their software is used or not.

In my opinion, Linux is meant to be an alternative, not the solution. There's always going to be a place for commercial offerings.

 

[Stellar]

Lies and flame baits is all I hear. There are two imbecilities that constantly plagues discussions such as these.

1. Shortcomings inherit in an application or an operating system are not always a direct result of the programmers intentions. There has been development into making some Linux distributions more user friendly and to add graphical interfaces to edit configuration files. The fact that some may still have to edit a config-file here and there is unlikely caused by any sexual perversion (getting off as you put it), or contempt of the general public.

2. I would say that out of all the members on this board, not a single one is qualified to speak for the majority of computer users (and it's nothing unique about this board). Still I always read statements like: "MOST people want...", "90% of the population thinks...", "normal people does..." with absolutely nothing to back them up.

i thought his post was 100% spot on

your #1 was just blather

your #2 is flawed because the truth is _most_ of the people here have at some point spent years supporting the "other" 90% of desktop users either at work, at home, or both.. and thus have a pretty grip on their general attitudes and needs

 

[jimmyb]

The issue really is that those people most comfortable with linux and linux based distros are perfectly happy with hacking things manually and get off on it and don't care to make it easier. That's the problem and its why even with linux distros being free, few normal people use them.

You say that those comfortable couldn't care less about making it easier. I agree. So if the people using the OS think it's fine, why is there a problem? Why should we start catering to people other than ourselves? There are already OSes that serve that market. There's no reason in perverting something perfectly good so that other people (already well provided for) will be able to use it.

Certainly there's nothing wrong with distros attempting to appeal to the mass market (in fact I use Ubuntu on my home PC right now), but there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to appeal to a smaller market of computer proficient individuals as they are doing now.

 

[markt435]

i thought his post was 100% spot on

your #1 was just blather

your #2 is flawed because the truth is _most_ of the people here have at some point spent years supporting the "other" 90% of desktop users either at work, at home, or both.. and thus have a pretty grip on their general attitudes and needs

joe consumer wants their shit to work with the least amount of effort to get it to do so. you can't argue with that fact. and i know a little about what its like to support those ppl...teachers at a school district anyone?

on this forum, we like to tinker with stuff so for us, sitting down to customize an OS, be it Vista (as I did for an hour last night fixing reg keys and disabling services) or maybe Ubuntu (which I did not too long ago getting nvidia drivers installed along with Beryl).

 

[duby229]

You say that those comfortable couldn't care less about making it easier. I agree. So if the people using the OS think it's fine, why is there a problem? Why should we start catering to people other than ourselves? There are already OSes that serve that market. There's no reason in perverting something perfectly good so that other people (already well provided for) will be able to use it.

Certainly there's nothing wrong with distros attempting to appeal to the mass market (in fact I use Ubuntu on my home PC right now), but there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to appeal to a smaller market of computer proficient individuals as they are doing now.

Again I agree 100%.

I got to give you credit man... When I sya things like that, I tend to come off as being a fanatic.... But in the end what you said is exactly how I feel.

Thanks for putting it into words that are so kind. I cant seem to do it.

 

[Catweazle]

Quite agree with the "Well said!" applause for jimmyb's comment. I enjoyed reading it also. And it leads well as an introduction to the comment I've been considering making since this topic first appeared.

Certainly there's nothing wrong with distros attempting to appeal to the mass market

I've emboldened the relevent word there. It's the word which is omitted from a lot of discussion, and it's that omission which leads to threads like this where the "contest" is being analysed.

Simple fact is that the "contest" doesn't really exist. If there ever was such a "contest" conducted then Windows won it long, long ago. The existence of consumer-friendly Linux distros represents and effort to create a contest where one doesn't currently exist. Not in meaningful terms, anyway!

In the absence of a cheaper (or freebie) 'Windows clone' upon which Windows software can be installed and run, the only competitor a Windows distribution realistically has is another Windows distribution.

 

[GreNME]

I think I'll skip the multiple pages of predictable arguments, and just quote this:

Linux is not for everybody, hell, its not even for a majority at this point. But it is a viable alternative if you can be compelled to learn something new. And for your trouble you will be rewarded with free as in beer software and free as in speech software, the stability and security of a *nix based operating system, and a new skill subset that you can build upon.

++

I agree with this on so many levels it isn't even funny. I'd even go so far as to say that it is even more viable in the workplace, depending on the apps being run. Anecdotally, I'm working on an Ubuntu / CrossoverOffice workstation for deployment in my intern area, to see if I can have a cheap(er) alternative. Things are looking positive, but AutoCAD LT 2002 may kill it for us.

I'd like to see more from Linux, but the dev teams for those need to focus less on the Windows world and more on the Apple world. Apple showed everyone how to take a *nix OS and make it "just work" enough to make a dent on the mainstream. That proves it can be done, but Apple is way ahead of Linux companies. Part of that is because Microsoft and Apple have worked together for maximum compatibility (yes, believe it or not they did and still do collaborate... MS has a whole Mac department), but that can't be the only reason, and not all of the ways in which it's done is closed-source.

So, to sum up:
nigerian_businessman ++;
Ubuntu, Fedora, RH-- take a long look at Apple;

 

[general]

"You say that those comfortable couldn't care less about making it easier. I agree. So if the people using the OS think it's fine, why is there a problem? Why should we start catering to people other than ourselves? There are already OSes that serve that market. There's no reason in perverting something perfectly good so that other people (already well provided for) will be able to use it."

Hardcore linux people will always be able to hack away at the core of any distro and modify it how they want. Creating so many variants is just chaos. Leading to...

"Certainly there's nothing wrong with distros attempting to appeal to the mass market (in fact I use Ubuntu on my home PC right now), but there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to appeal to a smaller market of computer proficient individuals as they are doing now."

The two don't go along hand in hand. It is easy to find relevant advice about windows or OSX online. There are currently two active desktop generations of windows. Yes, they do have different variants, but they are essentially the same. The same can be said for OSX. For linux, you have various kernels, being run with various front ends, using various management tools with different syntax and all it does is create confusion. You say that there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to appeal to that smaller audience, but there is. The two groups don't co-exist well. When an average computer user goes to google a linux problem, they might find an applicable answer, but instead of just finding the answer like they would for Windows/OSX, they have to find the answer, make sure it is for the right version of the right distro using the right front end with the correct syntax. That is, of course, if they can avoid the ineviable, I prefer Gnome so I don't know and you should have used XXX distro answers. That is not even touching the fact that they have to figure out exactly what file they might need to download to install something from the web.

The linux community and resulting products are too fragmented to ever have a large footprint no matter how good the products ever get. You can argue all you want, but it is true. Also, note how nobody tried to argue my point about the waste inherent in duplicated efforts in the linux community. So many people making so many things in so many ways with no coordination. Linux distros could be so much more if there was some central body guiding things even just a little.

 

[duby229]

And with various purposes behind them.

I certainly would NEVER want to run Gnome on a PVR... I would NEVER want to run MythTV on a apache server.

Different distro's exist to fill different needs. So far just about every need has been filled... Decide whjat your need is, then finding a distro to fill it, will only require 2 maybe 3 distros to test for preference.

Deskops? 3 good ones that I can think of. PVRs? 2 good ones. Servers? 3 good ones. Embedded? 1 good one.

See finding a distro for your needs is just a simple matter of deciding what your needs are. This is where Windows fails miserably. It is a good desktop, but horrable at pretty much everything else. It consumes way too much resources to be an effective server. You dont need a desktop to be an effective PVR. It is waaaaayyyy too big for an embedded device such as a router.

See Windows has its use. Which it fills nicely. Linux also has its uses which it fills nicely... But only becouse it was designed to be as modular, and customizable as it is. If it wasnt for the choices provided Linux would have died years ago.

 

[general]

"I certainly would NEVER want to run Gnome on a PVR."

Why not? It's a front end. Usually PVR's are far more driven by the software that you use to run them anyways. Just think of MythTV. Does it really matter what OS it is if you're using that software? As for MythTV on an apache server, plenty of advaned home users want to have web server functionality in their home NAS/HTPC/etc.

"Different distro's exist to fill different needs. So far just about every need has been filled... Decide whjat your need is, then finding a distro to fill it, will only require 2 maybe 3 distros to test for preference."

Yes, and each of those has various versions, file formats, syntaxes and desktops which makes supporting things as an end user This merely proves my point. Distros in and of themselves are fine, but given that they nobody can agree on what file format should be used or what front end should be used it just makes things confusing.

"Deskops? 3 good ones that I can think of. PVRs? 2 good ones. Servers? 3 good ones. Embedded? 1 good one."

That's fine. The problem is, there is 6 versions of just Ubuntu let alone someone trying to figure out what the hell and Edgy Eft is and why they have a 6.10 version and a 4.07 version.

'See finding a distro for your needs is just a simple matter of deciding what your needs are. This is where Windows fails miserably. It is a good desktop, but horrable at pretty much everything else. It consumes way too much resources to be an effective server. You dont need a desktop to be an effective PVR. It is waaaaayyyy too big for an embedded device such as a router."

Windows makes a horrible server? Ever have a look at what Server 2003 Enterprise goes for? Plenty of corporations only want Windows servers because they are a standard and easy to administer. Sorry, but you're naive if you think that MS doesn't put out enterprise products. You may not need a desktop to be an effective PVR, but setting up and administering that PVR is a hell of a lot easier if you have more than a ******* command line.

See Windows has its use. Which it fills nicely. Linux also has its uses which it fills nicely... But only becouse it was designed to be as modular, and customizable as it is. If it wasnt for the choices provided Linux would have died years ago. Your points really just give evidence to what I said.

Without the flexbility, linux would be an open source operating system that would have its development resources would be far more focused and it would be much more powerful and relevant than what it is today. Currently, most linux distros are free and they have a hard time even giving it away.

 

[duby229]

Opinions vary.

I use Server 2003 on a daily basis. We use it as a terminal server at work. It fills that need nicely, but that is literally the only use I can think of... It is my opinion that a server shoulde --never-- --ever-- have a local user interface, let alone a GUI... To me that is the ultimate sin. MS has broken the sacred rule.

I dont see how you think it would be so much better if people stopped trying to fill the needs they have. If I need a PVR, I certainly dont need a a GUI to go with it. Unless if I wanted to run it on my desktop, but in that case I would run a desktop application like tvtime.

Like I said... Different needs.

 

[Godofdestrcution]

Here's the problem alot of linux users don't get. COMPETITION.

What killed OS/2? Not competing.

What almost killed Apple in the past? Not competing.

Hell, let's bring it further, what almost killed Nintendo? Not competing.

If you don't get the word out and compete, your product WILL eventually fail, no matter how good it is. Somebody, somewhere, will make a better product that people will actually hear about, and you'll be SOL.

It's not about other OS's filling a need. You don't compete, somebody will eventually make a better product.

Like it or not, you live in a money driven world, where people fight over products.

If you don't understand that and want to live in a hippy go lucky free free world, your gonna quickly find out what a dog eat dog world it is.

With all this said though, the people talking against Linux have it wrong too.

Linux users may seem unorginzed, but in reality, they are... Each distro actually uses the same kernels!

Pretty much at least... Some slight differences, but alot of the things in alot of versions of Linux are exactly the same.

Ubuntu is a huge step in the right direction, if Linux users would make it easier and learn to compete... They don't hafta beat Microsoft, the point is not to be another OS/2.

And one final thing. Why does Windows=easy?

If I look up easy will I find Windows Vista?

Jeez, if you want it to be good, easy, and configurable, then have the compiz team make the next beryl be a complete 3d desktop instead of some spinning cube, with everything 3d, and you control the 3d objects with voice commands :-X

 

[markt435]

I use Server 2003 on a daily basis. We use it as a terminal server at work. It fills that need nicely, but that is literally the only use I can think of... It is my opinion that a server shoulde --never-- --ever-- have a local user interface, let alone a GUI... To me that is the ultimate sin. MS has broken the sacred rule.

so you'd rather make it a pain in the ass to administer if things go down? maybe its just me, but i'd rather have a gui to work with than a command line interface. we got past that point with dos... i know you linux guys use the terminal all the time, but i left that behind years ago....well, until i wanna run defrag with a couple extra switches.

 

[Catweazle]

markt435, (and anybody else arguing similar inanities) could you please restrict the comments to stuff you're familiar with and have some degree of competence at arguing.

I don't think I've ever come across somebody responsible for administering a server who didn't prefer to use a command line interface wherever possible, for its power, flexibility and speed of operation.

 

[Theli]

your #1 was just blather

I think there is a tendency for 'wishing makes it so' mentality when it comes to discussing operating systems. People sometimes forget that things need to be programmed and tested, and that takes time.

your #2 is flawed because the truth is _most_ of the people here have at some point spent years supporting the "other" 90% of desktop users either at work, at home, or both.. and thus have a pretty grip on their general attitudes and needs

So have I, but it has not led to to know for instance which method of installing software is the one the average Joe wants. From my experiences, the people who I help with their computers never install any applications or hardware themselves (I do it for them), so it doesn't matter to them if the process is easy or not. As long as there is an icon on a desktop or an entry in a menu to start their program, they are happy. Also, add the fact that without comparisons, people will accept almost any conditions thrusts upon them.

I think that apart from obvious, vague and lets face it useless suggestions like "it should work", one cannot really use the average Joe as a guideline for how anything should work.

If you don't get the word out and compete, your product WILL eventually fail, no matter how good it is.

As many have pointed out earlier, Linux already covers a certain niche, one that neither Windows or OSX touches. So it will survive in that niche unless a new player arrives to compete.

But on the other hand, I do hope that some distributions pick up the fight against Windows as it sparks competition and innovation. Keep in mind that Internet Explorer didn't get tabbed browsing until Firefox started eating up its share of users.

When an average computer user goes to google a linux problem, they might find an applicable answer, but instead of just finding the answer like they would for Windows/OSX, they have to find the answer, make sure it is for the right version of the right distro using the right front end with the correct syntax.

Personally, I don't think this is that big of a problem. It has to do with identification.
Take Ubuntu for instance, if you enter Ubuntu.com you will see that it is very rarely referred to as "Linux". It says that it is "Linux-based" but that's about it. "Linux" is not part of the distributions logo, nor is the word common inside the operating system itself. So, if a person is running Ubuntu and runs into a problem with an NTFS partition, for instance, I think they are much more likely to Google for "Ubuntu NTFS" then they are to Google for "Linux NTFS". I think the distributions will less and less be openly referred to as "Linux".

That is not even touching the fact that they have to figure out exactly what file they might need to download to install something from the web.

It appears that your concerns predates package managers.

 

[Dark_Legacy]

I agree with what you are trying to say, bar two specifics

1) Most commonly accepted 3D Game development platform by developers
if by that you mean DirectX... then afraid that is wrong, OpenGL is (due to all the playstation varients, all the nintendo varients, all the operating system and even the Xbox).

2) Most developed driver database/API
what do you mean by that? the fact that the kernel is open means that makers can make their drivers (if htey want) really easily

1. Most video game developers try to market to Windows, there are very few Linux, Macintosh, or other OS games developed because Windows is the most popular - hence most commonly accepted 3D Game Development Platform for computers. Consoles are seperate.

2. Most developed driver database/API, there's literarilly thousands of devices that in Windows's driver database. Practically anything you plug in works automatically, as for Linux you require to manually dig and find drivers for the hardware that is not in the database. Sometimes if the driver or hardware is particularily shoddy, you might have to compile it yourself, change configuration settings, and have the hardware crap out on your for no reason. For a regular desktop user (a person that expects shit to just WORK) this is a very daunting experience. I just summed it up easily as "Most developed driver database - containing the largest amount of drivers."

 

[Stellar]

markt435, (and anybody else arguing similar inanities) could you please restrict the comments to stuff you're familiar with and have some degree of competence at arguing.

I don't think I've ever come across somebody responsible for administering a server who didn't prefer to use a command line interface wherever possible, for its power, flexibility and speed of operation.

er.. i'm partially responsible for 150 W2k3EE servers in my department and I _completely_ prefer a GUI for one very simply reason... multitasking.

I can't tile windows together at the physical console using a CLI. You have to do everything linearly. That's not very productive if you ask me.

Having a GUI does in no way negatively affect the stability of our servers. As I stated before we have a 5 9s SLA. The only thing affecting uptime for us is hardware failure.

_My_ opinion is CLI is fine for a router, switch, or firewall since it does one thing only, but for our servers that is not the case.

 

[jimmyb]

When an average computer user goes to google a linux problem, they might find an applicable answer, but instead of just finding the answer like they would for Windows/OSX, they have to find the answer, make sure it is for the right version of the right distro using the right front end with the correct syntax.

The problem here is not that the OS is broken; the problem is that the person is using the wrong OS. As I said earlier, I see no reason in altering something that works perfectly well for me when there are already alternatives which serve that demographic quite well.

If I'm reading your posts correctly, you think that the end goal of Linux should be acquiring as much overall OS market share as possible. This is where I disagree. I am quite content with a 2% market share. In fact I couldn't care less about what the market share is. I think the end goal should be serving its already established (and admittedly niche) market, which as far as I'm concerned is being accomplished reasonably well.

 

[djnes]

If I'm reading your posts correctly, you think that the end goal of Linux should be acquiring as much overall OS market share as possible. This is where I disagree. I am quite content with a 2% market share. In fact I couldn't care less about what the market share is. I think the end goal should be serving its already established (and admittedly niche) market, which as far as I'm concerned is being accomplished reasonably well.

You and I have disagreed many times in the past, but I have to say, this is an excellent post, with a very good point. I've always said (and been flamed for it) that in order for Linux to compete with Windows, it would have to become more Windows-like, which goes against the very reason why many use Linux. I've called Linux a niche-OS, and been flamed for that as well. I don't mean that as an insult to Linux. I just installed Ubuntu 7.04 on a spare machine, and it runs great. I know very little about Linux, but it's giving me a chance to learn. Linux definitely isn't for everyone, and that's why I don't understand all the debating....it shouldn't be competing against Windows. Each have their purposes and places.

 

[Sovereign]

This is nothing new and why Linux has yet to replace Windows.

it does have a learning curve especially when people are used to Windows, people dont like change and tend to fight it (why people have vista over xp even)

Linux does require some patience.

QFT.

Yes, Linux might be "better" from a programming standpoint on how installs work. Yes, many people go into the Linux world with expectations that it will "work like Windows." See, there's the problem in and of itself. Most enthusiasts know that Linux != Windows. BUT the average consumer, when pressed to switch to Linux, is like "Why does this require ____ when on Windows I do ____?" That's why Linux isn't gaining market share. I'll freely hold that in many ways, Linux is "better" than Windows; it however is not "better" in many ways that make it easy for someone who knows next to nothing about computers to use! For it to be widely adopted, Linux needs to be "just like Windows," IMO, when it comes to installing (one click, either autodownload whatever you need or download everything in one big file) because frustrating cryptic messages will just drive Joe Public back to Windows.

The core reasons Linux is "better" are mostly invisible to Mom and Dad, they don't know a whit about C++, .NET or anything like that. All they know is that their apps don't run the way they expected and they keep getting weird errors.

Point: Linux, in order to be widely adopted, needs to be "enough like Windows" so that new users (I'm not talking about enthusiasts here) are not scared off by a few strange error boxes or an app that doesn't run without the package manager. Of course, if Linux starts becoming more like Windows, then what's the point of Linux? Do Linux and Windows really have to butt heads? Most of the time, if you know enough to tell that Linux can benefit you, you probably are the type who can handle its not-so-Windows-like behavior.

 

[B. W.]

Here's the problem alot of linux users don't get. COMPETITION.

And why should Linux compete? It's been around for over a decade.

If the operating system wasn't free, then you'd have a valid point, but what is Linux competing for? For me, some things work better in Linux than the do in Windows, and vice-versa.

We "get" it, we really do.

 

[Langford]

And why should Linux compete? It's been around for over a decade.

If the operating system wasn't free, then you'd have a valid point, but what is Linux competing for? For me, some things work better in Linux than the do in Windows, and vice-versa.

We "get" it, we really do.

While I don't want Linux to resemble Windows or Mac, one might argue that having a larger market share would help in gaining support of hardware makers and software designers. More driver support is a good thing.

 

[Sovereign]

Linux is kind of a paradox. On one hand, some complain that driver and hardware support is poor. But with a 2% market share, what smart company is going to invest a large amount (comparable to what they invest in Windows)? On the other hand, if Linux wants to be better supported, it's almost imperative (from an economics standpoint) that it gain more share, because that's the only way to make the companies notice it more. Linux right now serves a special niche. A niche that is known to make its own solutions (Linux itself is part of this tradition). But for Linux to gain market share, it might have to lose some parts of its "Linux-ness" and become more Windows-like. The very reason most people won't run Linux is because of this:
Average User: "Is Linux like Windows? Will all my things that I use on Windows run on Linux too?"
Enthusiast: "No and no."

While some things can be made to work (like Wine, for example), the average Joe user does not want to have to deal with that. If Linux wants market share, it will have to attract more average users, because that's who, in the end, the big companies make their money off of (regardless of us and our $1500 all the way to $5000 or more systems, how many of those do you see versus, say, generic Dells?)

 

[eeyrjmr]

Linux is kind of a paradox. On one hand, some complain that driver and hardware support is poor. But with a 2% market share, what smart company is going to invest a large amount (comparable to what they invest in Windows)?

proof of that 2%?

 

[Catweazle]

March, 2007 research figures accord Linux a 0.57% market share.

 

[As I Lay Dying]

Ok what I may say seems contradictory but here goes, now I am not interested in linux taking over windows, however, I do refute the claim its not for everyone. A pre-installed linux configured and setup and a pre installed windows configured and setup, I think anyone can use.

Like I said before, I moved my dad over to linux due to poor windows performance and malware, he has had no problems using linux. He is able to send email and browse. And if he needs to learn something new, say how to rip a cd he will call me, granted he couldn't do the same in windows unless I taught him. The problem here I think is many of you enthusiasts and power users have used windows for so long you expect the same behavior, because thats what you are accustomed to. Now my dad has no issues using linux though he could not even use windows, compared to my little brother who is a more experienced user has had more difficulties grasping the nuisances of using linux.

Though I will admit, gaming, commercial apps (like photoshop) you should dual or use windows for that, though matlab for example is on linux ^___^

 

[Theli]

March, 2007 research figures accord Linux a 0.57% market share.

What is your source on that?

The numbers I've seen lists Linux around 3.5% - 3.8%.
I've also seen the number 2.8% for 2005 in a lot of places. It's arguably difficult to get reliable numbers on this.

Though I will admit, gaming, commercial apps (like photoshop) you should dual or use windows for that, though matlab for example is on linux ^___^

Portable versions of Photoshop will run under Linux using Wine. I've been using CS2 some time under Kubuntu. No hassle needed to get it to run, just click the .exe. It did have some problems with the main window though, so I had to reduce its size at the first start-up. screenshot

There's still nothing in Linux that compares to Office 2007 though, and that won't run under Kubuntu. Kind of a typical situation, I think.

 

[Catweazle]

What is your source on that?

Net Applications regularly reported web analysis.

 

[duby229]

What is this market share argument?

Who cares? It does not matter. I couldnt care less how much market share it has as long as it can fill my needs. I need something, and there is a linux to do it. That is what matters. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Catweazle]

To be honest I couldn't care either, duby. I just answered a question that was asked.

But you gotta admit. In the context of a thread about why Linux doesn't catch up, or replace Windows, or whatever, your question was a rather odd one

 

[Theli]

On the subject of market share, I think Windows owes the majority of its market share from OEM, and very little to any specific differences between the operating systems.

 

[markt435]

markt435, (and anybody else arguing similar inanities) could you please restrict the comments to stuff you're familiar with and have some degree of competence at arguing.

I don't think I've ever come across somebody responsible for administering a server who didn't prefer to use a command line interface wherever possible, for its power, flexibility and speed of operation.

er.. i'm partially responsible for 150 W2k3EE servers in my department and I _completely_ prefer a GUI for one very simply reason... multitasking.

I can't tile windows together at the physical console using a CLI. You have to do everything linearly. That's not very productive if you ask me.

Having a GUI does in no way negatively affect the stability of our servers. As I stated before we have a 5 9s SLA. The only thing affecting uptime for us is hardware failure.

_My_ opinion is CLI is fine for a router, switch, or firewall since it does one thing only, but for our servers that is not the case.

exactly why i said what i said. having a gui makes it easier to get things done plain and simple. its kinda stupid to tell me i don't know what i'm talking about as well. gui happens to be easier to use for me. a CLI might be easier to use for the ppl you know catweazle. good for them...but for me, its a pain in the ass. it sure as hell made my job easier considering i had to do minor server admin duties while doing a majority of desktop support for a school district. if i had to use a CLI, i would have been there all day, considering i knew nothing at the time about being a server admin at the time. but since i knew windows like the back of my hand, i could do everything a lot faster. if i didn't know something, i could just let one of the other techs handle it, but otherwise i could do it on my own.

 

[duby229]

To be honest I couldn't care either, duby. I just answered a question that was asked.

But you gotta admit. In the context of a thread about why Linux doesn't catch up, or replace Windows, or whatever, your question was a rather odd one

I looked at the name of the thread, and thought it was supposed to be about the technical merits of the two. I like Windows as a desktop OS. Or a gaming OS, or even just a general purpose OS. It has its uses that it serves, which happens to be what the vast majority of users want.

Linux also has its uses as well. Many of which Windows is capable of filling in a much more generic way. But when I need specifically something taylored to my needs, there will most likely be a linux for it. Somewhere, somebody has the same need that I have, and they already did most of the work filling it. That in my mind is the greatest strength that Linux has to offer.

 

[dot_Zen]

The problem here is not that the OS is broken; the problem is that the person is using the wrong OS. As I said earlier, I see no reason in altering something that works perfectly well for me when there are already alternatives which serve that demographic quite well.

If I'm reading your posts correctly, you think that the end goal of Linux should be acquiring as much overall OS market share as possible. This is where I disagree. I am quite content with a 2% market share. In fact I couldn't care less about what the market share is. I think the end goal should be serving its already established (and admittedly niche) market, which as far as I'm concerned is being accomplished reasonably well.

This is probably the best sentiment, regarding the entire OS market, that can be shared or expressed.

If more ppl ( and in that sense, technically apt people) were to understand this simple truth there would be a lot less flaming, mudslinging, conspiracies, monopolies, and frustrated end-users.

There is no way, nor will there ever be a way, for every user-designed interface (OS in this regard) to be intuitive or functionally optimal for EVERY user. It's just not ever going to happen.

The best approach is to try, and when you are are faced with not being able to offer accessibility to every group -- you try some more and if that fails then accept defeat and just do what you do best - better.

 

[Godofdestrcution]

So what exactly happened to netscape?

I'm going to say this, if Linux doesn't compete, it WILL go down the path of OS/2 and netscape. Microsoft will eventually make something to the tune of it. With their money...

This argument the linux hardcore is giving is the SAME idiotic argument every person gives when they think what they love is infallible.

It's the same way Nintendo fans acted during the N64 and Gamecube days, when Nintendo nearly died.

In fact, exactly the same, as Nintendo fans thought Nintendo would always feel a niche. It would always sell to kids, while Xbox and PS would sell to adults.

They never realized, most kids wanted Xbox and PS though >_<

What happened to Nintendo? Was their niche infallible? Their 'niche' was cut in half every gen, and would've disappeared had they nt competed and come out with the Wii.

Its the same way Apple users acted when Apple didn't compete.

What happened to Apple? Was their niche infallible? They were nearly dead if they didn't start competing with the Ipod, and the Imac.

It's probably the same way people thought of Rome.

Nothing is infallible.

 

[eeyrjmr]

So what exactly happened to netscape?

I'm going to say this, if Linux doesn't compete, it WILL go down the path of OS/2 and netscape. Microsoft will eventually make something to the tune of it. With their money...

what you mean go open-source? linux cant go anymore open source

Those products existed in direct competion to windows or in a market MS really wanted and as a product produced by a company who's purpose is to make money, once it was un-profitable to continue then they stop. Linux existed before companies started ploughing money into it and it will continue to exist IF companies stop, it's not going away
So it is either going to take over MS's place as the #1 operating system or it's growth/developement will slow down.

They are the two extreams, what is really going to happen is somewhere between the two

 

[Godofdestrcution]

The problem is, people saying it will always feel a niche, exact same argument as people who have come before you.

And what happened to what they thought was going to stay a niche?

It either competed or died.

This is free software, so it couldn't have the same fate, eh?

So lets give a scenario.

You already have bad drivers, because companies don't feel that linux is profitable.

Lets say you dont compete and people begin to migrate away.

Because you have less marketshare, now companies decide linux is even LESS profitable and decide to give less drivers... or none at all.

Eventually you'd hafta write your own drivers.

It would be back in the early days.

 

[eeyrjmr]

Who says it isn't competing?
it is getting adopted by gov'n all over the world
GNOME & KDE are advancing in usability
it is holding onto the server market

--EDIT--
and I really wish you wouldn't always go back and edit yr post