Linux Outpacing Macintosh On Desktops 796
An anonymous reader points out this article in the International Herald Tribune about corporate acceptance of computers running GNU/Linux, which includes this snippet: "Linux is already outpacing Macintosh on desktops: "Dan Kusnetzky, an analyst for International Data Corp., said Linux had a 3.9 percent share of desktops worldwide, outpacing Macintosh's 3.1 percent." The article does not specify from where Kuznetsky draws either figure, but can it be true that Linux systems currently outnumber Macintoshes?
Just what I wanna see.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Just what I wanna see.... (Score:2)
Of course, OS X Server would have been a nice choice, but I didn't feel like warezing it or talking my boss into plunking down money on the darn thing.
Re:Just what I wanna see.... (Score:2)
Re:Just what I wanna see.... (Score:4, Interesting)
And how old would the debian package in question be? For some things, a newer version of software will be better.
<RANT>
I'm getting sick of seeing Mandrake written off as a desktop distribution. When I think desktop distro, I think Lycoris, Lindows, or even SuSE (SuSE doesn't seem to really emphasize server use). Mandrake aims to be a sort of Win2k for Linux: graphical (though all the GUI config tools can be run in ncurses) and adept at both server and desktop roles. For evidence of this, consider that Mandrake's build of Apache (AdvancedExtranetServer) is the fastest growing webserver brand on the Internet.
Odd (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Odd (Score:5, Insightful)
For one thing, Apple just isn't taken seriously by most IT departments I've had experience with. The graphics or desktop publishing people might "demand" an Apple in some cases, but the geek population (which outnumbers the graphics/publishing people) will usually have better luck getting a Linux workstation. I would also suggest that most geeks will PREFER a Linux workstation. OS X has a high cool factor, but it still doesn't have anywhere near the acceptance level among the hardcore users that it needs to displace Linux.
What surprises me is that this figure didn't come out last year.
Ease of upgrading (Score:2)
* Ok, in fact it's sometimes difficult *not* to upgrade your Windows machine to Linux :-) In particular, it's often easier than upgrading to a newer version of Microsoft Office (I've found recent upgrades of the Windows operating system seem to work pretty well, if your hardware is fast enough, but the real reason for upgrading is usually driven by Office.)
Upgrading a Windows machine to Linux doesn't quite require negative capital expenditure - eliminating bloatware makes the machine a lot faster, but some of the recent window managers get amazingly doggy on less than 64MB RAM, and some of the installers do really stupid things with disk drives smaller than 4GB, and some of the distribution systems really don't netinstall well unless you've got a large spare disk to copy all their CDs into, but desktop machines that don't hav e CDROMs in them are usually too old to bother with. The Register [theregus.com] recently reported that many businesses ppear to be moving to a 4-year upgrade cycle for PCs rather than 3-year cycles - Linux makes it easy to do this, and makes it easy to do low-cost bandaid upgrades like adding bigger disk drives and more RAM rather than replacing a whole machine.
Re:Odd (Score:2)
Re:Odd (Score:2)
Re:Odd (Score:4, Insightful)
I paid $600 for my wife's laptop (used, same processor but slightly slower) last year.
I am also running a PowerComputing box from many years ago (MacOS 9 for the kids' use, soon to be Darwin and a server) and a Linux box (email server and such).
None of that is relevant. The company where I now work buys laptops from IBM for $1400 each, and desktops from Sun for $1000 or so or from Dell for $1000 or so. These boxes are typically underconfigured, and about comparable to the $800 iMacs (which are not "stripped" or "feature-poor" in any reasonable sense) in features. The only difference is the OS. If the company I work for now bought Macs, given its purchasing methods and preferences, it would probably be getting the $1200 iMacs and the $1000? iBooks. In all, they'd break about even.
I certainly spent more for Macs, and it has been very, very worth it. I didn't have to spend more for Macs, though, which is my point.
Re:Odd (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope. Consistently, and REPEATEDLY I have saved money using Macintosh machines.
My web server is a 9500 I bought for $75 running OS X... runs rather well (And faster than I'd expect for such an old machine.)
Truth is, every study ever done of the total cost of ownership shows Macs to be 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a Windows Box. Probably more like 3/5 to 4/5 the cost when compared to Linux boxes.
The hardware is cheaper to begin with (Yes, you can buy lower end PC hardware, but when you compare low end and mid range machines, you get more for less with the macs.)
Its interesting that comparisons on slashdot always compare the highest end mac to a low end fly by night crippled pc.
Its unfortunate that people cannot advocate your platform without basing it on lies about the Mac.
Re:Odd (Score:3, Interesting)
the hardware lasts longer (usually much longer) and is usable longer
No, the hardware doesn't last longer. I'm happily running Linux on a P75 as a router at home. I have a copule of P133 and P166 running not so complicated tasks at work. I don't know where you got that statement but it keeps comming up from the mac camp. Do you think X86 hardware magically dissapear one day or something?
Re:Odd (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but an $800 iMac would kick your $600 computers' butt -- AND Still be working two years later.
People who say stuff like this think that an XBOX is the same as a PowerMac.
Every time I do a comparison of quality machines, the Macs come out cheaper and faster.
The low end, internationally. (Score:2)
These people, who expect a good 5 years of use out of their computer at least, are not likely to move to MacOS, indeed are probably not likely to spend much money at all if they can help it. It's not a big stretch for me to think of these sorts of places as a good part of the expanding Linux desktop sector.
Well... maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well... maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you should invest in a data backup drive instead.
Bleep happens regardless of the OS, sometimes due to hardware failure, user error, application bugs, cosmic rays, spilled Mtn.Dew, etc.
Re:Well... maybe (Score:2, Funny)
I think I'll tell Ford Pinto owners that they should just invest in some automatic fire extinguishers.
Logical... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Logical... (Score:5, Informative)
YDL [yellowdoglinux.com]
oh, and that's not the only distro...
Re:Logical... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Logical... (Score:2, Redundant)
In all honesty... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm running whatever Ellen Feiss tells me to.
Re:In all honesty... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:In all honesty... (Score:3, Insightful)
(IMHO)
Probably (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets look at some real data... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Operating Systems Used to Access Google - July 2002"
Mac 4%
Linux 1%
Other 4%
the rest being windows.
Of course this data is rounded, google is probably the best place to get this sort of data anyways - as google is the best search engine around right now.
Apples and oranges (Score:3, Insightful)
So I think that the IDC is right, and so are you, but they are different markets.
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:2)
Linux 1%
Other 4%
the rest being windows."
Yeah but how many of those 'other windows machines' are actually linux users using opera faking itself as MSIE or, perhaps some other user agent morphing tool?
Why, just recently, according to my useragent, I was using the miniature-giant-spacehamster-browser-v0.26 on on WheatonixOS [thinkgeek.com].
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:2, Interesting)
Mac 4%
Linux 1%
Other 4%
the rest being windows.
This gives the totals, but I suspect that once you remove the school and home users, and are left with corporate users, then the figures in the article are probably correct.
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:5, Insightful)
One great advantage of Linux, besides being free, is that when correctly tuned it works on very cheap hardware. Even if you just have a 386 or 486, you can still use thousands of decent console applications (including stuff like MP3 players and web browsers -- heck, you can even use mplayer with an EGA graphics card [mplayerhq.hu]) and get drivers for modern hardware. An old Pentium is fast enough for a simple X11 setup with small desktop aps like WindowMaker, LyX etc.
That being said, I don't buy the 3.9% number without some supporting evidence. Even in developing nations Windows is only slowly being replaced by Linux desktops, with relatively few major rollouts in recent months, and while Linux can run on low cost computers, the problem is that it's not exactly easy as pie to tune and configure properly. Internationalization is another issue ..
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:2)
The other part to that is that IT labor is often very cheap in other countries. While computer hardware prices are (I assume) approximately equal worldwide, IT labor for the same skill set can vary widely in price.
In countries like the US, especially in the last few years, labor is a dominating factor in the price of corporate computing. In some other countries, this is definitely not the case, IT workers may get paid a tiny fraction of the cost of hardware in a company IT budget.
So to the people who argue "Linux is only free if your time is free", now that statement gets turned around on you, because in a lot of countries, the labor is very cheap compared to license costs or Mac hardware costs.
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:2)
Linux isn't actually that hard to tune for the low-end, because the core system (kernel, libraries, and such) are actually generally more efficient than they were 8 years ago, not less. Since they ran fine then, they'll run fine now. There are a lot of programs which are just too big and complicated for old hardware, but the old programs run better than they ever did.
Internationalization isn't actually as big an issue as you might think, because people tend to understand a bit of English, and it's mostly jargon anyway (knowing the English words "shell", "prompt", or "window" won't help you understand the computer terms, and having these terms translated into your native language doesn't help either). The issue is really documentation, but if you have an active local user's group, that's better than most of the documentation in any language (for most software, really).
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) What applications are you going to run if you get a cheap machine with a Windows license? Microsoft Paint and WordPad? Linux comes with thousands of free, powerful apps, many of which run on low cost hardware. Besides the fact that you will have to pay for them, apps that can be bought today will typically not run on low cost hardware, and older apps are often deliberately taken off the market. (Piracy is obviously an option, but in the long term only increases the dependence on a software oligarchy.)
3) If you decide to use a cheap Windows (95/98) license anyway, you're stuck with an unsupported operating system that's still based on DOS, horribly unstable, wide open security-wise, and that will neither work with future hardware nor future software (regular forced upgrade cycles are necessary to keep the OS market running, you know).
Aside from that, even the claim that Win98 will run faster than a light X configuration is debatable (I actually compared both when a P166 was damn fast -- applications under X would typically take longer to load, but work faster and multitask better once loaded). Certainly, recent scaled down versions of Linux for embedded devices will give Win98 a run for its money.
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:2)
-
Many people change their browser identification as IE in Win* to be able to read moronic web pages (they shouldn't do this BTW)
-
It is likely that given the variety of browsers and Linux flavors, many Linux visitors to Google are not counted properly
-
People using computers in wealthy countries have both the money to pay M$ licenses and surf the web more frequently. Google's stats give a higher statistical weight to these users.
I still think giving a figure for Linux' market share with no data to back it up is vapor. But I am pretty sure Google's figure is an underestimate.And by the way, the article gives a very nice overview of Linux on the desktop today, success stories included, from a mainstream media point of view. By far, the less interesting bit of the article is this 3.9 Market share figure for Linux ...
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:2, Interesting)
The point being, your "reliable" data is nothing of the sort. I'm suspicious of pretty much ANY data that tries to quantify things like this -- it just doesn't work. Assemble ten legitimately unbiased researchers, turn them loose on the web to gather this same data, and I bet you end up with 10 hugely varied answers. Assemble 10 *biased* researchers and the "data" can be manipulated to represent the "facts" in whatever light the reasearcher desires.
In other words, the Google data is only reliable if every browser in that sample was truthfully reporting itself to the server. Not to mention the fact that there is such a thing as dual booting, after all.
My roommate is just as likely to boot Windows as Linux (depends on his mood, so he claims). So which is he? Does his computer add to the 90%+ Microsoft tally? Does it get added to the Linux tally? It is certainly not *likely*, but suppose 40% of those "Windows" users were dual booters who just HAPPENED to have booted into Windows that day. Like I said, that's *highly* unlikely, but who's to say? Who has the REAL numbers? No one. So MY number (40%) probably strikes everyone as incredibly unrealistic -- but only by virtue of being so *obviously* wrong. But in the end, that doesn't mean I'm any more wrong than anyone else since the data itself isn't reliable
The Article says *Corporate* and *Worldwide* (Score:2)
Google, on the other hand, collects data from every type of user, including home, small business, and student, as well as large corporations. It's not surprising that for this much broader cross-section, Macs have higher usage than Linux. I think we're dealing mainly with a sample space issue here. Both sets of numbers probably equally "real" within their respective sample spaces.
The article also said worldwide. I suspect there are many countries, particularly some European contries and China, where the percentage of Linux usage in large companies may be higher than here in the US, and certainly higher than Macs, which must be even more expensive relateve to PCs in those countries than here in the US.
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:2)
I've done it, for sites that only accept IE or Netscape....
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:2)
Not to troll, but the only real shifts have been which version of windows people are using. The increase in W2K also suggests that this is representative of corporate desktops as well...
No, Lets look at some REAL data... (Score:2)
OS X 10.*, 14%
OS 9, 1%
Linux, 32%
I think it's obvious where they got the data from.
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:5, Funny)
I suspect these numbers indicate that Windows users are generally complete nincompoops that require 91 times as many google searches to get the same data as a GNU/Linux user gets in 1 search. Mac users, bless their souls, rate much higher at 1/4 the intelligence of a GNU/Linux user.
-Paul Komarek
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:2)
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lets look at some real data... (Score:2, Insightful)
I want OS X, but I have... (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, my situation has to be fairly typical. Older 400-800Mhz PC's running Linux make for very nice desktops once they are configured.
I have to believe the numbers are close.
Whoa! (Score:5, Funny)
Advantages of Linux vs. Macintosh (Score:2)
In order to use OS X, you need to have apple hardware. If you'd like to try out Linux, you can usually do it using your existing hardware. This is the main reason I haven't explored OS X is that, though I think it could be cool, I'm not willing to drop the money on hardware just to try out an operating system.
If I want to have multiple installs of OS X, I have to maintain licenses just like I do with Windows. If I've got Linux, I just install Linux and then if I need support I can pay for a support contract that's not tied directly to the exact number of installs I have. So, I save myself a lot of hassle in the auditing of software.
Depends on your definition of Desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging what from what I have seen, Linux is taking the workstation market, hands down. They already have Unix pros running the networks, so integration Linux is no biggie. If you taked that into account, it wouldn't be infeasable that Linux has a higher "Market share" than Mac. I wouldn't be suprised at all.
This being said, I suspect Linux's "desktop" market is coming from people jumping the SGI/DEC ships for their big jobs. Not exact what most envision as a desktop. When I walk into a shop, the Linux machines are doing custom jobs, the Windows machines are fancy typewriters, and the Macs are doing graphics and playing the music to the rest of the room.
Re:Depends on your definition of Desktop (Score:3, Informative)
unlikely (Score:3, Funny)
cheak out googles web logs (Score:2, Insightful)
I trust these numbers far more then some hear say
Re:cheak out googles web logs (Score:2)
Re:cheak out googles web logs (Score:2)
I have different home pages for each machine I'm on.
At home: Yahoo, because it gives me the first few headlines of the day and it loads faster than cnn.com. (I don't actually use the my.yahoo.com services or search with Yahoo, though).
At work: Google, because I'm normally surfing to find something specific.
At work, machine #2: Drudgereport.com, because I'm normally slacking off at that point and that's be best way to find out what the buzz is right *now*.
When I set up a new computer for a friend of mine, I almost always set it to Yahoo.com. Fast, easy, and above all, *quick loading*.
Cheaper Platform (Score:2)
Switching to Linux involves downloading an ISO, burining it onto a CD, and installing on the same hardware. Going to Mac involves buying a whole new system, as well as the software to go with it.
This survey makes sense. I'm suprised that Linux didn't blow Mac's share out of the water.
Ohh well... (Score:2, Informative)
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=1706
So what's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do we insist upon parading Linux around as the "spokesmodel" for the open-source movement? Wouldn't the advancement of open-source efforts be better served and made more visible by combining the efforts of Linux, *BSD, Darwin/OS X, and other open-source O/Ses, and comparing their collective advance against the Evil Empire?
isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, GNU/Linux systems are 100%(usually) open source/free. Everything from the kernel to GUI's runs on super computers to PDA's.
There's a HUGE difference between OS X and Linux.
Personally, I like Apple more than MS, but mostly because Apple doesn't control 95% of the market and is less dangerous to the future of general computing for the masses. Plus OS X runs on top of a Unix... and is prettier... ;-)
So, what I'm saying is that everyone has different goals. Some just want to topple Microsoft, some want to push open/free computing. Of course, there's plenty of room in there for these two groups to work together, and I personally believe that Apple can co-exist with Linux a lot better than Microsoft can.
What if... (Score:4, Interesting)
It really doesn't matter who's winning the desktop market. They're both (hopefully) beginning to carve out a section out of Window's dominance. When the sum approaches 20%, then good stuff is going to start to happen... then again, I'm assuming linux and mac users numbers continue to grow (I guess no necessarially simultaniously).
Linux takin market share from windows is good; Macintosh taking marketshare from windows is good. Both situations leads to more competition, more developers, better software, etc.
I just wonder - how is the market share of Mac users now compared to a year or two ago. Same for linux. How many people have stayed, how many have switched from windows, how many have switched from mac/linux, how many have switched from *nix. That data would be pretty interesting.
Also (and I should have read the article), does the account for what's happening globally? I don't think Apple has much of a chance gaining marketshare in countries where price is of up most importance.
F-bacher
Re:What if... (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point, the only market share comparison that matters is Windows vs. Everything Else -- especially since at this point, Everything Else is some flavor of Unix. As a Mac guy, of course I'd like to see more people using Macs, but I don't have any particular desire to see Apple take over the world. (Steve Jobs may be a brilliant nutcase, but he's still a nutcase.) I cringed at the "Send other Unix boxes to
Obvious Flaw With Study (Score:2, Interesting)
The same Dan Kusnetsky who said .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Who said about Microsoft: "It's an amazing machine. I admire these people, who were far sighted enough and bold enough to do what they have done," "Microsoft is not afraid of change. It will cannibalise a weak product to launch a stronger product." [bbc.co.uk]
Who said about Windows 2000:"The general trend for client operating environments continues to be consolidation around 32-bit operating systems and applications," "Unfortunately for competitors of Microsoft, this consolidation also means a general movement to Windows platforms." [idc.com]
You mean that Dan Kusnetsky? The "world's most prominent Linux analyst" [turbolinux.com]? Well, that's good enough for me.
Re:The same Dan Kusnetsky who said .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well THAT Dan Kusnetsky just responded to my pointing out that these numbers are made up, on this very same thread, claiming that they are, well, made up.
But he hasn't dared to respond to your catching him in his blatant hypocracy. Too bad.
Yeah, he says what he's paid to say. That's actually ok for PR flacks. There's honor in *that* position.
Foisting it off as *research* or having any quality of *fact* however, is a fraud and lacks honor.
Re:The same Dan Kusnetsky who said .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, that is not what you said. What you said was you print what people tell you to print-- and you check it with them before you print it!
In other words, you are a PR agency, who masquerades press releases as "Research"
You have failed to provide a SINGLE example of actually doing any research. Asking CEOs what percentage of market share they have is NOT research.
If the quotes are misquotes, then why are you defending them?
Rebut them if you are being misquoted. Lord knows its obvious that most computer journalists don't know squat about technology-- but you are FEEDING Them misinformation, not disputing it.
I've pointed out this issue to numerous writers for eWeek, Upside, CNET, etc, etc. Yet they all claim that you have shown these things to be facts.
Therefore, you ARE responsible for this misinformation. Retract it or defend it, but stop dodging the issue.
NONE of the "research" You talked about even addresses the question, let alone is a source for hard facts. SEC filings tell you part of the picture-- if you were making stock recommendations it would be relevant. But they tell you nothing about market share because market share is more than just what was sold this year.
Hell, why am I even responding-- you refuse to respond on the issue, you just insist that you do research. Yet you provide no reason to believe you.
I have OS X and Linux. (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, Linux as a desktop sucks and blows. The guys at Gnome, KDE and the app writers REALLY need to rip-off Apple's GUI Guidelines [apple.com] and get something consistent and usable into user's hands.
The desktop is no place for the ignorant and its no place to try to re-invent the wheel because users don't fuckin' want it, okay?
Apple spent sixty million bucks developping the GUI. If you think you are going to come up with some thing so overwhelmigly better that it will blow the old order away, then you are an arrogant ass-hole.
Be that as it may, I an NOT buying a windows box.
But lately, I'm thinking that I could run my server on an OS X box.But then again why throw away a perfectly good Athlon.
Re:I have OS X and Linux. (Score:3, Insightful)
I do, which is why I use Fluxbox. Don't tell me what I want.
Apple spent sixty million bucks developping the GUI.
Apple spent millions, as did Microsoft on a different desktop. If $$$ are the only criterion, which desktop is right? The one which cost the most?
If you think you are going to come up with some thing so overwhelmigly better that it will blow the old order away, then you are an arrogant ass-hole.
Then what does it mean when the company that spent millions makes wholesale changes to the desktop, as Mac did in the transition between 9 and OS X? Does that make them their own arrogant assholes? This argument from the authority of cash never washed and never will. Ironically, Apple's solution looks like the XFCE, FVWM or Afterstep dock with a finder, each themselves a spin-off of Job's NextStep desktop, developed without the benefit of millions of research dollars.
Do the Apple GUI guidelines contain valuable information? Undoubtedly. Does it mean the Mac desktop is the world's best? Only for the Mac Faithful.
Is this just business desktops? (Score:2)
I could very easily believe the Linux market share for office desktop computers is bigger than at home, while, as has been pointed out, the Google stats place overall usage at 1%.
Makes sense. Linux will run on Intel (Score:2)
Which is cheaper?
$50 for a Red Hat box or $1,200 for a new iMac?
Case closed.
As long as they're tossing M$ for anything better...
The Apple number might be OK (Score:2)
3.1% for Apple is 20Mu+- and assume same life span corrected for no real unit growth over last 6 years, gives approx 4Mu / year or 1Mu/ Qtr. That is exactly what Apple is reporting.
Now using the knowledge that Linux as been in the "mainstream" for only 3 years or so. That means the 3.9% equates to 27Mu users or 9mu added each year. That sounds high to me. Remember we are talking people using Linux as Desktop not Servers of various kinds.
Obvious (Score:2)
It's about price. (Score:2)
He just ordered a KVM so he could run a PC alongside his mac, in his office.
Why? Web browsing. We got a 10MBit line a few months ago. IE on mac blows. It's SLOW and buggy. Performance of the network in IE degrades from 800K/sec down to 35K/sec (reproducible).
This, of course, doesn't happen in OSX, but it's going to cost us a lot of cash to buy new versions of all the Adobe and Macromedia software we need all over again (we have OS9 stuff now). When those machines need upgrading, we'll prolly go PC. Why? Price.
Meanwhile we're gradually phasing out our Windows boxes (registry rot) and I've been taking every opportunity possible to make the switch to Linux (servers).
OSX is expensive to upgrade (classic mode is slow). Mac hardware is far from "cheap". That's the bottom line.
S
Apple's numbers (Score:2, Informative)
And that's on top of an installed base of at least 25 million.
Anyone have similar, hard numbers on Linux installations? I realize it's substantially harder to extrapolate (multiple vendors, free to download, etc.) but physical media sales might be a decent indicator.
Have you ever seen a regular person with Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that no one's mom runs Linux unless someone set it up for them. My mom can't install a plug-n-play modem on Windows. My dad is an Mechanical Engineer, and he has trouble with his computer all the time. There's NO WAY regular people like this, who are very smart, will ever install Linux of their own volition.
Macs on the other hand are almost universally seen as "easier than Windows" by everyone, including Windows and Linux users. Regular people buy Macs for lots of reasons (creative people, geeks who like the UNIX OS and neat hardware, soccer moms who want to use AOL, computer phobic people who want to see what the fuss is about, college kids who like to edit video and rip MP3s).
It's just absurd to think that Linux could be overtaking MacOS at this stage of market share on the desktop. I like Linux a lot, but I run MacOS X on my laptop now, because as a desktop OS it's just better.
I've never seen a regular person using Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd love to hear from someone at a company other than the Burlington Coat Factory, from a department other than IT, who is using Linux.
I simply find it hard to believe that there are more Linux desktop users than Mac desktop users. For one thing, what are all those supposed Linux desktop users *doing* with their machines. I'm not saying this as flame bait, but while I love Linux for server and development work, most people simply equate Linux with "geek stuff".
It's hard enough to get most users to even entertain the notion of converting to the Mac, and that is an OS that runs plenty of Microsoft software, is oriented squarely at consumers, and has a reputation for being easy to use.
In any event, I don't buy the argument that Linux and Mac OS X are enemies. To me, they're part of an array of options to Microsoft, and in my book, options are good.
Re:Have you ever seen a regular person with Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
Granted, I probably haven't had many web pages served by Macs either
You're missing the largest market share (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the market where linux will gain it's market share and it could quite easily surpass Macs in the near future. The home market will be niche for linux for quite a while but it'll still be there for geeks and family/friends of said.
Re:Have you ever seen a regular person with Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
True -- but no one's mom runs Windows unless someone sets it up for them, either.
Re:Have you ever seen a regular person with Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
price comparison... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wisdom from Homer Simpson... (Score:3, Funny)
Hard to believe, but possible (Score:3, Interesting)
My main machine at home runs Linux, with KDE for the desktop.
I've also got a WinXP machine for when I do Windows programming for work at home, and, or course, for Everquest. I'm reasonably good at using all these from a user's point of view, although I've never done much RTFMing for the GUIs, just experimented.
I was an exclusive Mac user at home from 1985 to 1994, and a Unix user at work from 1981, so am reasonably familiar with them.
Here's what I've found. OS X is beautiful. However, it is full of little annoyances because Apple is stubborn, and won't admit that anyone else ever did anything better. E.g., little things like not allowing windows to resize from any side.
There's no doubt that KDE has a steeper learning curve, and is not as beautiful, but it is not that steeper, and once I've learned something, it generally works better on KDE. Basically, at the cost of being a little clunkier at some things, KDE gets in my way a lot less.
So, among technical users, I certainly have no trouble believing Linux is beating Mac on the desktop. However, among home users, I don't see it. It's just too hard for the average home user to acquire a Linux machine, compared to a Mac.
that's consistent with web browser statistics (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not surprised either. KDE and Gnome are easily set up to behave almost indistinguishably from Windows--non-techies often can't tell the difference. And Linux comes with a complete suite of applications--OpenOffice and Mozilla really do satisfy the needs of most users.
The biggest problem with Linux, in my opinion, is the excruciatingly painful way in which drivers and other kernel extensions are installed--often involving recompiling the kernel. Even the most painless driver distributions (e.g., nVidia) require much more computer know-how to install than the average user can muster. In corporate settings, this doesn't matter that much--the IT department probably likes it that people can't just plug things in. But in the small business and home market, it matters big time.
Not really a good question. (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying "Linux system" has become some sort of misnomer and masks the fact that there is no single "Linux System". There are probably more than 20 different operating systems using the Linux kernel, many of which are incompatible with each other on some level, or at least present the user/admin with significantly different interfaces and tools. And yes you get the source, and can "fix" it, but that's a lot of cost in time and skills that never seems to get added in to the TCO of the system.
Until THAT get solved (even within the same CPU family) no distro will ever challenge the major two desktop OSes. Both of which offer standard package management, user interface and administration to every user that installs them.
To look at the larger picture for a second:
The overall percentage of open-source (at least partially) based OSes seems to be growing, what with *BSD, Linux, GNU, and OS X (darwin). If more companies are seeing the light of non-Microsoft and open Unixy systems, then who benifits the most? Apple it seems.
With MacOS you can write an app for OSX in the text console with all the Unix features you like, or compile most exising stuff. You can also take your base code and evolve it in to a Carbon app that will run on OSX and OS9 with all the "bells and whistles" of a standardised GUI that you know will be the same across all installations. None of this "do I have the KDE library installed, oops, I've got to install the BZip developer libraries".
These numbers are fabricated. (Score:5, Informative)
The penetration rates given by IDG and Gartner are, essentially, made up numbers.
I've been in a position to deal with these analysts, give them information, and observe how they work. They are no different from Wall Street Soothsayers who predict whether a stock is going to go up or down-- except that the Wall Street types are MORE scientific.
For instance, when counting mac hardware sales, they do not count mail orders sales, sales at the apple online store, sales at local apple retailers or sales at independent apple dealers. When they say "Apple has 3.1% of the market" they are really saying "Apple has %3.1 percent of the Retail x86 Market" which is pretty absurd since apple doesn't seel x86 machines. They only look at the distribution channels that x86 manufacturers use, they ignore the majority of Mac sales.
And that was the case in the one instance where they actually gave the source for their data... usually they never provide a backing research, or any explanation where they get their numbers.
As a reasonably scientific person, this data is bunk. It is unsupported, unreviewed (peer review? Ha!) And, of course, it comes from companies who are paid by Microsoft to create a marketing perception that supports Microsoft's' agendas.
I'm not going to say I know for sure what the market share is for Apple or Linux machines, but its worth pointing out that Apple machines have a service life of 2-4 times that of the average x86 PC-- the quality is better, and its shocking what the 2 year failure rate is for the average PC.
Furthermore, I suspect Linux boxes are kept around a lot longer as well -- though we have no way of knowing which ones are used on the desktop and which ones in the server room.
So, these fabricated "annual sales" numbers are irrelevant on the face of them-- the TAM (total addressable market) is going to be much different because people don't replace their computers every year.. but they do buy software every year. IF you're a mac software maker, you know that there are far more customers out there, as people tend to keep their macs for years. Annual sales figures aren't that relevant.
Anyway, I think all of us should make sure we don't take these numbers seriously. And we should not repeat them, and should write to every (idiot) journalist who quotes them pointing out that they are false. Just as %95 of the computers out there are NOT x86, these figures for linux adoption are wrong as well.
These numbers are not scientific, they aren't even "facts". They are, essentially, fabrications.
Sir, I salute you. (Score:4, Interesting)
My window on this? In my job I have been approached many many times by these "number inventors" trying to sell their product to companies I have been working for. You know the names. Everytime they release a "report" you get that awkward phone call where the guy tries to convince you that your company will go bankrupt if it doesn't know what percentage of users use Visa as compared to Mastercard online, or something equally stupid.
Occasionally I have tried to ask how they collect their data, even told one guy I would buy his report if he would make available to me the survey method, but that stuff is hidden carefully because, as you point out, it is utter utter non-scientific shite.
I remain firmly convinved that these numbers would be more accurate if someone literally pulled them out of their arse. Don't feed these people - don't buy their reports.
Re:Sir, I salute you. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep, it was an eye opener for me. I was employed in the online gaming industry (think quake, not gambling) in the early days and they were predicting adoption rates for the online games going forward. By this point, it was supposed to be larger than hollywood... wow, it was 6 years ago. Anyway, the tellign thing was their numbers for what was currently being done-- they were literally based on what the CEOs of the companies in question told them. The CEO of MPATH would tell them that they have x active members and the CEO of TEN would tell them that they have Y members, and they'd just add x and y and go from there.
Just now I was reading the press release from apple talking about going to all OS X macs in 2003... and they said that %75 of the people who get OS X on the new machine keep it, rather than switch to OS 9.
What struck me about that fact is that in every assesment of Windows adoption, it is assumed that every box MS sells and every computer that ships with Windows runs Windows. That means that there are literally tens of millions of computer out there that have been counted as running windows 5 of more times.... Because business are often buying boxes to upgrade the OS, so it gets counted when it ships, it gets counted with the first upgrade, then there's a site licens and it gets counted again, and then there's another upgrade and it gets counted again....Hell, I'm sure there are almost as many computers that have been decommissioned but are still on the books and counted when the company buys its site licenses....
Like the dead voting in Chicago elections, its a sham.
Treat market research numbers with scepticism (Score:5, Informative)
Why? Because I used to work for a market research company.
We were a bunch of 22 year old kids, a year out of university working to such tight deadlines that we just made up the numbers. And guess what? Management had no problems with us doing that.
My favourite story was when I was reseaching a certain market in South America. Because I don't speak Spanish, I decided the way to work out the size of the market was to use some (probably wrong) number for the US, divide by the number people in the US, multiply by the number of people in Venezuela, and apply - say - a 80% discount.
Unfortunately, some where in my Excel formula I had managed to multiply the market size by 10. So, Venezuela appeared to have the largest market in South America.
When I realised weeks later, did I bring this to my boss's attention and risk a telling off? No, I just forgot about it.
Anyway, four months later I had left this job and got myself a proper one, and was reading a magazine. *Another* market research company was touting that "Venezuela [x] market biggest in South America!..."
I was astonished. We hadn't done any real work, and another market research company had just copied our 'work' verbatim.
And here ends my tale as to why Slashdot readers should avoid paying to much attention to market research.
Re:Possible. (Score:2)
In dorm rooms is another story. What that story is, I have no idea, since I'm not involved there. I'll ask some of the resnet folks, but I bet Apple has a much better share there (and much better than the general market).
Re:Or specifically (Score:2)
Probably Not (Score:2)
Since if a program is available only for Windows, a Mac user would need to buy another computer to run it (costs around $1000-$2000 for a mid-range system), while a GNU/Linux user using a PC only can make his/her machine dual-boot (cost of Windows $329 (?), less if you're a pirate... arr, mateys! ). Since the GNU/Linux users have a feasible way to run the program, companies won't consider a port necessary.
Re:Great News (Score:2, Insightful)
First, LINUX is free. What CFO is going to approve spending any cash on people who love free software? He may be wrong, but he'll assume you-all'll buy one copy and pirate it 300,000 times.
Second 95% of the LINUX market is x86 hardware. x86 hardware that came with Windows. x86 hardware that can already run his program. Why port? No new sales.
Third, LINUX is used mostly by people who don't buy software unless they really want it. Macusers paid a $300+ Apple Tax. Who's more likely to buy a software package, somebody who cheers when a free product clones a commercial product, or people who are willing to pay a premium for hardware?
Anyone who uses GIMP stand up. You try to run Adobe out of business, and then you complain that Adobe doesn't like you enough to port Photoshop. Come on now.
You all might get games, but that's doubtful. Your hardwre is typically too old and crappy to run them; and you could just use WINE/re-boot anyway. You give software companies no new revenue.
Especially if... (Score:2)
Re:well... (Score:2)
It is possible that spiders and spambots get tallied as "desktops" some of the time.
I bet spambot servers send more email than real people.
and of course... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple is even more proprietary than M$. (Score:2)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly, "Linux" (all distros combined) can have more desktop shipments (which is probably what the numbers quoted represent) in a given amount of time than OS X, while OS X remains "the most widely-distributed UNIX-based operating system [apple.com]" (again, by shipments), if Apple sells more copies than any single Linux distro vendor.
Or maybe the Linux figure includes free downloads? Including free downloads of Darwin in the Apple numbers wouldn't bump them up much. :)
Then there are the Macs that run Linux, and the PC's that run Darwin, and it all gets so confusing...
On the one hand, Linux having a greater overall desktop market share than, say, OS X, is impressive, just since it doesn't have the big marketing dollars behind it on the desktop.
On the other hand, Linux has been around for 8 years, and could run on nearly 100% of the desktop systems out there today. OS X has been around for 2-3 years, and can only run on maybe 5% of the desktop systems out there today.
A 3.1% overall share out of a 5% possible overall share is, in some ways, more impressive than a 3.9% overall share out of a 100% possible overall share. :)
Ah, screw it, they're both great.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
I myself am involved in web publishing and multimedia
I have no doubt that their are a LOT of linux box in the world today. Yet, you really have to look at what they are doing. Are folks coming home to a linux box to manage their digital photos, surf the web, check their email, do their homework, etc? I image quite a few people are, however I imagine that a LOT more people are coming home to Macs to accomplish these tasks.
Comparing Linux boxes to MacsOS boxes is like comparing a cheep, hard-working, utility trucks to plush SUVs. Sure, there may be a few more utility trucks on the road, but remember, they serve a different purpose in life.
PLEASE stop trotting out this pipe dream (Score:3, Insightful)
Why can you not understand that Apple's main strength is the tight integration of their hardware and software? They can't deliver that if they have to support 20,000 different Ethernet, video and sound cards of varying levels of quality. Hell, *Microsoft* still can't do it, and they've thrown *millions* of dollars and man-hours at the problem over the last decade and then some.
~Philly
Re:OS-X is NOT *BSD! (Score:3, Informative)
OSX's use of BSD a bit stronger than that. Darwin (the core of OSX) is based on both the Mach kernel and the BSD kernel. Here's a quote from The Evolution of Darwin [apple.com]: