Ubuntu Continues to Grab Market Share 427
slasher writes "MadPenguin.org discusses the future of Ubuntu and confirms Ubuntu's growing market share in the Linux market. Author Matt Hartley writes, "Now, for the biggest question: do high numbers mean that Ubuntu is the best distribution out there? Some will argue that this is an impossible point to make, as each person has different needs from their distribution. But for the sake of this article, we will be considering the average user, not the Slackware crowd, who is obviously much more comfortable within a command line environment than mainstream users."
I just can't wait (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the main reason Ubuntu is doing so well is that it has a consistent and relatively quick release cycle, so it always has the latest drivers/software/utilities and more importantly, it has great package management build on Debian. That was always what I disliked about Debian, that it took way to long for programs to filter down to the stable repos.
Props to you Ubuntu and friends, I look forward to working with you down the road.
My Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it the best distribution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My Opinion (Score:2, Insightful)
Big money advertising.
Average user? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My Opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple: Ubuntu has a charismatic millionaire behind it. That's really all there is to it. Marketing is everything.
Yes, the best distribution. (Score:5, Insightful)
So even if Ubuntu isn't ideal for all Linux users, it has the opportunity to greatly increase the Linux user population, bringing more and wider-ranged development to the OS, which will benefit us all regardless of our distro of choice.
My take on Ubuntu and its derivatives (Score:3, Insightful)
No doubt, the (*)Ubuntus are great distros. One thing continues to baffle my mind in the general Linux world:
Why won't the fonts look beautiful by default?
Why, after all these years Linux has existed, do we have to seek help from Microsoft with its fonts in order to have a desktop that is a pleasure to look at?
Why is it that there is still debate as to whether wizzard like setps would be good for the desktop or the server? On this point, a wizzard like setup routine to handle an application like the Apache web server would make things easier for a lot of folks.
What makes me mad is that those who have the skills do do the needful, still refuse to see what seems to be obvious. Time will tell.
Re:My Opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slackware crowd? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is kind of confusing to me that the excluded the 'Slackware crowd's preferences. If there exist Linux distros that the 'Slackware crowd' prefers (not rhetorical - I really am not aware of Linux user preferences), then isn't there scope for improving the user interface of these distros to make them more accessible to the common user and trump Ubuntu?
Being an Ubuntu user who is also part of the "Slackware crowd" (you insensitive clod!), I think there's also a danger in running too far with the notion that a particular distro suits a particular number of users. I am but one user with multiple tasks to perform; I don't have requirements - my tasks do. I use Slackware on my servers, because I have evaluated it to be the best tool for the jobs I need the platform to do. I use Ubuntu on my desktop workstations because I think it is the best tool for those jobs.
I understand the need for simplification when doing an article like this, and maybe that's why the author just wanted to start by moving pains-in-the-ass like me off the table and stick with ye-average-joes who have perhaps one PC that they use. It drastically limits the complexity of the issue; but it inexorably limits the relevance of the article at the same time.
Re:My take on Ubuntu and its derivatives (Score:1, Insightful)
Why is it that there is still debate as to whether wizzard like setps would be good for the desktop or the server? On this point, a wizzard like setup routine to handle an application like the Apache web server would make things easier for a lot of folks.
Ignoring that, there _are_ graphical programs to install apache on most distros nowadays (adept & synaptic on ubuntu). The really hard part is configuring apache, and as the apache has _bazillions_ of options, no good-enough wizard can be made for that.
What makes me mad is that those who have the skills do do the needful, still refuse to see what seems to be obvious. Time will tell.
Re:My Opinion (Score:1, Insightful)
I have been a RedHat user since 4.0 and have simply been accustomed to the RedHat way. I stopped compiling my own custom kernels when Fedora Core 1 came out and was accustomed to certain types of tweaking to make things work properly. But with each release, less tweaking has been necessary and with F7, I don't even need to locate and install the firmware for my IPW2200 wireless device on my laptop any longer. I still tweak a little... adding MP3 support, DVD playback and proprietary video drivers and I think "out of the box" suspend doesn't work like it did with FC6. But other people with other hardware have had better and worse results than myself with the same distro.
The big picture? Hardware support out of the box makes all the difference. The biggest winner in the "Best Distro" category will be the one that works on the most hardware. There will not be an easy winner to choose from though. If you have seen the problems I have seen with Windows, the OS that 99.999% of these machines were "designed" to run, my conclusion is that the level of hardware support that modern Linux distros currently enjoy is nothing short of miraculous at the moment and beyond miraculous tomorrow.
Still, it would be nice to see some sort of improved hardware support standards project created or something... maybe there already is.
Re:My Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm foregoing modding you (it would have been +1 Insightful) in order to reply.
I used to be a Mandrake "subscriber." I paid my yearly dollars, because Mandrake was really the best distro out there that I had tried. Even when Fedora came around, I gave that a whirl and it wasn't up to the Mandrake level in my opinion.
It is true that Mandrake pioneered most of the user-friendliness that Ubuntu now capitalizes upon. However, in my time with Mandrake there was always something that didn't work right. It changed from release to release, but it was always something. Like they had 98% of everything nailed down, but that one thing just bugged me to death, because it would be something like, oh, printing. I frequently built custom kernels under Mandrake in order to get things to work, and even then there were often a few things that were broken beyond my ability to repair. Now when Ubuntu came around, I installed on a test machine (I do this often with new releases of distros I'm not using just to see how they fare). I was so happy -- there was nothing that didn't work, straight out of the box. No fiddling, no custom kernels. They had closed that last 2% of functionality. It was almost zero configuration for printing and wireless networking, two things that historically have been a problem.
So yes, Mandrake was (and is) a leader in making an easy-to-use desktop distribution. But Ubuntu blew the doors off with its "it just works" quality. That's why people love it, and that's why it's on all my desktops to this day.
Re:My Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Also installing programs was always so easy with XP and a pain with most linux distros.
Now with Ubuntu, I've for the VERY FIRST TIME ran into a distro that is in many respects better than XP! I'm astounded by how much better the usability is.
Not only that, but it's the first distro that's totally agreeable to the "don't click that, computer will explode" -crowd.
Re:My Opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a load of horse hockey.
I started out using Mandrake, back in '98 or so. I wanted a distro that "just worked" and it was fine in that respect...until it wasn't. Once I was comfortable enough with linux I used Gentoo for a few years. Then it started crashing and burning, even on the "stable" configuration. After that, Ubuntu was the choice for a distro that "just worked," and it's served that purpose for me for the last few years. Marketing had nothing to do with my decision to use Ubuntu. Zippo. It has value on it's technical merits alone. Just because it's publicized and wrapped in a pretty package does not mean it's value is decreased. Marketing and technical merit are not mutually exclusive.
Why I use Ubuntu (Score:5, Insightful)
#1: No nonsense software manager. Ubuntu's Add/remove programs system just works. No dependency nightmare, rarely the need for command line, no need to compile/mock around with make files (although I'm comfortable with the process) but if there is the need, the option is there. Don't need to signup to get updates, it just works.
- All of my hardware works. ATI card, LCD (minimum tweak needed to get native res), ipod, firewire card, cellphone through USB, digi cams, cd/dvd writers, etc, etc.
- Relative cutting edge and stable software versions, I don't remember the last time I had x/gnome crash on me.
- Great software selection through their reps.
- Sane directory structure/menus setup.
- Excellent community support / forums.
- Ease of installation (although most distros offered this as well)
Never been happier with a Linux desktop.
Re:My take on Ubuntu and its derivatives (Score:3, Insightful)
What skills would those be? I have the knowledge necessary to host all of my own services (DNS, e-mail, etc) and the one thing that requires almost zero effort on my part is Apache. Why would it be different for someone else? You're making it sound like there's so much to do other than start the daemon.
Re:This Just In: Ubuntu is Not Dying (Score:2, Insightful)
"Welcome to Slashdot!"
Actually, I liked the article (although I would have preferred it if the claims on market share had been backed up with links -- and not just because it would have made a parody "FreeBSD is Dying" easier to write). The author's underlying thesis is correct: if Linux is going to become a viable alternative for Aunt Tillie, rather than just us Slashdotters, it needs to be as easy for Aunt Tillie to administer as Windows and OS X. Ubuntu's the first beginner-friendly distro that's gained significant mindshare (which is why we all accept the claims of Ubuntu's popularity even without links to the numbers), and in so doing, probably has positioned itself as the most likely beginner-friendly distro to take over that segment of the Linux marketspace. That's an interesting development, and reason to believe that Matt's article won't turn out to be as off-the-mark as Netcraft's FreeBSD report.
Re:My Opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, no. For a lot of us, Ubuntu has Debian behind it. It's like the pretty, desktop-oriented version of Debian for people who want relatively recent software without running "unstable". Should Ubuntu cease to exist today, I'll point my sources.list to debian.org and crossgrade back to the parent system.
I like Gentoo and Slackware and FreeBSD and OpenBSD, but Ubuntu is what I use when I want a Debian system with a little bit of polish. It really hit the sweet spot for a lot of people.
Re:The Money Effect (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm posting this from a Mandriva install that shares a drive with a Gentoo install and used to be where I had an OpenBSD install. The other disk has CentOS on it and probably will have OpenSUSE shortly. I try new distros and new releases of old distros on a regular basis. I'll probably try Ubuntu again in a couple months.
Mandrake tried to do what Ubuntu does, but it tried to do it years and years before Ubuntu existed. It did a decent job of starting on the path toward a newbie friendly desktop Linux distribution. Unfortunately, it has had times where the entire system was unstable, where the hardware either didn't work as expected or didn't work at all. I don't recommend Mandriva because I don't trust it to stay as stable as it appears to be in it's current incarnation and also because I know that people have an easier time finding other users with similar questions and issues if they use Ubuntu.
I think that Ubuntu sits where it does in terms of popularity because it came on the scene at the right time with the right goal, make it easy and got the interest because it was new and shiny. It isn't at the top because it is necessarily better in terms of software or functionality, but it is the best in terms of community for the new Linux user right now and that is what sets it apart.
A more important question. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've had a much easier time getting my boss to look at it because when I install it, it just works..
All the distributions are like that these days, despite Bill Gate's best efforts.
What you noticed though raises the more important issue. It's not if Ubuntu is gaining share from other distributions, it's if Ubuntu is gaining users from non free software. Once the user goes free they lose their M$ bad habits and blinders and then can move to other distributions without problems.
What does Ubuntu have that Mandrake doesn't? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more that Mandriva has something Ubuntu doesn't, something that drives people away. RPM-based distributions are not popular with users. That's because in spite of band-aids like Yum, the user experience for RPM still sucks.
Lots of people have been saying so for years, but the denial in the RPM camp is amazing.
Re:A more important question. (Score:3, Insightful)
I will also say that we have supported RHEL, and it certainly does not 'just work' in a lot of ways:) I personally don't care, because I kinda like getting things running with a little challenge and tinkering. It makes me appreciate the simple things in computing so much more, but your average Joe MySpace just doesn't agree, I'd venture.
Re:My take on Ubuntu and its derivatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:good. (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter who wins the market for Linux. Linux is growing at a very good rate. New and advanced users can and do use it and are very happy, even though some aspects of Ubuntu are left wanting. Unfortunately he doesn't indicate which elements of the distro need attention.
All in all though, on a feature by feature basis for most feature sets Linux does what Vista does and more and is better at doing it even with less powerful hardware. No, I don't want to encourage others to throw older hardware at it. If you can throw as much hardware at Linux as you possibly can. You'll make your life much easier.
There are great things in the world of Linux. The Linux industry is very industrious. We are all benefiting from the opportunities that the industry called Linux is providing the world. With an estimated 100 million Linux users there's potential for every kind of development, including commercial proprietary software such as games.
What the Linux community does need is a solid installer that is cross distro and universal and able to install offline. It also needs much better support for gaming. I use Linux to game and when a game is targetted at OpenGL they play very very very well under Linux. They have advantages that even Windows can't provide due to technical limitations that Windows has. As well, developing under OpenGL opens your market to other platforms, not just Linux--OSX, Windows and Linux are great markets for your OpenGL platform.
Granted Microsoft has used its monopoly power to stint the potential growth of OpenGL (and thus Linux), thus attempting to create another monopoly using that monopoly power. We'll see what happens in the future.
So, get those gaming developers working. Get those universal installer concepts down and get developing. We'll all benefit regardless of which distro holds the lead market share.
Good for Linux. Good for competition. Good for choice. Good for the world.
Mo than money (Score:3, Insightful)
But what really did it was the support tools. I tried mandrake, suse, redhat and fedora and ubuntu had the easiest to use support tools. Mandrake's support forums absolutely sucked ass, and the only alternative was to list a request for paid support in their "geek squad." I actually resorted to this once and STILL didn't get an answer.
I rarely use the support forums now, but when I have an issue its usually easy to find help via google. There's this thing called "critical mass" beyond which the money doesnt matter anymore so much as the simple fact "everyone uses it."
Re:My Opinion (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My Opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
On the Ubuntu site, such posts are far fewer and are oft removed/discouraged/beat down upon by the others in the forum.
Also, the free disks, the philosophy behind it, the actual inclusion of 'evil' closed source drivers(though still looked down upon), the fast yet stable pace of development and the transparency of the developers.
These all made Ubuntu what it is. And that it does all these so well made it as popular as it is.
Re:My Opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
Now Ubuntu chose GNOME as default desktop interface (but you can have Kubuntu and KDE, if you want to). When users look at it, they don't see Windows; they realize it is something completely different. Even Mac users don't see a Mac OS there and know they are dealing with a different beast. And that's were they get rid of old habits and learn news things -- and learn that there are easier ways to solve problems.
Ubuntu is popular because it chose to be Linux, not Windows.
Re:But I Thought That Was Pointless? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Slashdot, we made our money so who really gives a shit what ends up on the front page."
Internet Blogs/Reviews/Tech sites are like the sports channels and radio stations of the '90's. Whoever has the largest mouth, wins.