ESR: 0.75 billion Linux users 5 years from now 96
Mike_Miller writes "In a recent interview with ESR in BusinessWeek, ESR calculates that, in 5 years, there will
be 750 million Linux users (a conservative estimate). Wouldn't that be great!?!
" I think one of my favorite parts is the title: "I want to live in a world where software doesn't stink." But this number should be fairly easy to hit-my cloning project has been doing quite well.
The "reality factor" (Score:1)
What is the truth? We live in a world of change. Linux could easily lose massive amounts to market share (not mindshare) to things like FreeBSD or even BeOS over the next few years.
As much as the truth makes a lot of you recoil, it still stands. For all we know, Linux could die out next year - unlikely, but there is still a chance.
Re:an informed interview (Score:1)
Agreed (Score:1)
Linux growth has centered around servers and networked computers, something which makes its multi-platform support an asset and its price very appealing. Its support for older and slower machines also is appealing in non-USA venues where prices for hardware and software are still higher.
But the home user doesn't care in general about ease of code porting or 100 megabit throughput. What they want is for their computer that they don't understand to work.
As long as Linux lacks support for winmodems, it is locked out of the retail channel (60-70% of retail computers have winmodems now). I expect MS to try and cripple Linux by extending this concept to other peripherals and to the PC99, PC00, PC01, etc. specifications.
So don't count those 750000000 users yet.
Linux is the opposite of this completely (Score:1)
I'm using linux, I've used linux, it is difficult
and time consuming to use. It is not easy to
set up, it does not work with many sound
cards unless you buy the OSS for $30.00, after
you find out you can by poking around. It
does not work well with many newer graphics
cards, has no native open gl support. To get
the support requires tweaking with a 3dfx
I got it to work eventually, then could not
get quake II to work with it right.
Linux is a hobby OS, or a OS you run a server
on. It is not just a home user OS, unless
someone else sets it up for them and all
they want to do is use netscape and email
people. Linux needs installation programs
that set every single piece of hardware up
like 95 or 98 does, holding your hand all
the way. It needs a way to set a printer up fast,
like in 95. It is just not there yet.
Wrong - Linux is this completely (Score:1)
environment, it is easy to use. I can change most things about
my user interface setup and the apps on my desktop without
ever having to edit a config file.
On the other hand, I'm also a programmer. I can pull up a terminal
window and create scripts, work on programs, etc., in this same
environment. There is no inherent incompatibility.
You are right that there is not the best support for some hardware,
but most users don't have to buy the commercial OSS to get
decent sound for mp3's etc., with most sound cards these days
- you do for professional midi work, but then professional musicians
spend much more the $30 on other equipment. But, does
Windoze support non-PC hardware, Mac hardware, Amiga
hardware? Linux supports a lot more hardware than Doze.
Linux is VERY easy to install unless you also want Windows
on the same computer, and then it is moderately easy. Where
have been? I hope you are not still running Slackware version
1.0. Not to knock Slack, Slack's ZipSlack lets Windoze users
install a fairly complete distribution of Linux in a dos directory.
Just unzip and that's it. No partitioning. To add X, just download
the X files from Slackware ftp and install with Slack's simple
package utility and then add qt and kde the same way. Presto.
Compared to this desktop environemt in which I can play the
role of Joe User, Windows is just plain ugly and awkward.
And Linux is getting prettier every week.
Re:750M? You've got to be kidding . . . (Score:1)
has reached that already. But don't forget, hundreds
of millions of people living there struggle every day to
feed their children and themselves.
Clean water for 750M people more than today in
five years is a much more interesting goal than
having 750M Linux users. Unfortunally, it's
probably even less likely.
--- Abigail
Re:750 Million is WAY too optimistic! (Score:1)
I am considered Middle class in Jamaica. I run my own business and I make well below what Entry level Tech workers take home in the US. In developing countries U$900 a year is poverty.
Re:Linux is the opposite of this completely (Score:1)
Oh, and RedHat's printtol is (IMO) a really nice printer configurator that is fast, easy, doesn't involve swapping disks, and works with local, SMB, and LPR printers seamlessly.
Quality and suitability matter, not the name (Score:2)
starting to judge their tools by quality and suitability to the task, and ignore the rest.
Something being Linux doesn't automatically mean
it's the best thing on earth, for everybody, nor
there couldn't be something even better around
the corner.
There are good non-GPL apps, believe me. Even
commercial apps!
750 million? That's a lot.... (Score:2)
10 people on earth. Considering that 1 out of 2 never
have made a phone call, and 2 out of 3 don't have access
to clean water, I'd say it's a bit optimistic.
--- Abigail
750M running copies doesn't seem impossible to me. (Score:2)
A Pentium level machine is going to be embeddable for pocket change pretty soon, if it isn't already (StrongArm??). So let's say you can the equivalent of P166 with 24 megs a memory, a modest persistent memory and a network interface onto a $10 asembly in 2004. What could you do with that? You can make your VCRs smart enough so they can sport a really nice user interface; your home thermostat can get a lot smarter too. My pet project would be to slave all the applicance clocks in my house to a master using the power lines as a network.
Have you ever tried to figure out the temp controls on your refrigerator? How many photocopy machines are there out there that could be smarter and easier to use? If you could embed a reasonable computer for about $10 into an appliance, there's hundreds of places it would be justified on user interface issues alone, not to mention places like the automotive market where it's already done to acheive mechanical simplicity (God I hated working on my 76 Pinto -- literally dozens of tiny vacuum lines).
Think of the applications in sporting goods. Would you buy a pair of skis that adjusted their mechanical properties to snow conditions and speed, if they cost maybe 100 dollars more (mainly for exotic active materials, of course)? I could even see tennis rackets and golf clubs with computers in them. Maybe a golf club with an accelerometer and a network interface for downloading telemetry on your swing. The specific applications are farfetched, but applications _like_ these are inevitable.
Now there's things like routers that it makes no sense to run proprietary OSs on; for that matter if you're designing a printer why buy a proprietary postcript interpreterand some weird embedded OS when you can run Ghostscript and Linux with no licensing? How about alarm systems that can recognize your face or voice. Lab instruments like oscilloscopes which probably already use microprocessors to do things FFTs, but in some oddball proprietary language -- those could all be running Linux. Medical instrumentation like EEGs and robotic drug dispensers is another important nice where reliability and performance is crucial.
Home woodworking tools can get the capabilities of high end CNC milling machines, and the milling machines will probably run open sourced OSs too.
How about advertising displays? Are you going to sit a $50 license out where somebody can pick it up and walk off with it, or it can be struck by lightning? How many billboards are there in your town? How many cardboard foldout kiosks at the local book store?
Then there's the things that we don't ever think about but use all the time like avionics and telephone switching equipment.
If I sat down for an hour, I bet I can think of thousand places where linux would run, none of which are a "computer" per se.
Now, if you're paying $10 for the computer, how much do you want to pay for the OS per unit shipped? Nobody knows what MS gets for CE, but I'd be willing to bet it's north of $25, if not $50 or more.
Also, if you get into trouble in the middle of the project with an OS feature that's broken, are you going to want to wait for Microsoft to fix it?
So, I don't know about 750 million _users_, but I wouldn't be surprised if the average American or European has four or five copies of linux embedded in his home appliances and a like number in the office, and comes into contact with a huge number of anonymous Linux node through various networks he participates in.
Sooo -- Linux is a good thing to get in on the ground floor of -- kind of like becoming a LAN expert in the late 80s, only a lot more so.
Re:Wrong - Linux is this completely (Score:1)
And, yes, Windows does not have good non-x86 hardware support. It does support the DEC Alpha systems, but that's about it.
If you *really* want something with support for lots of different systems, get NetBSD.
Re:Wrong - Linux is this completely (Score:1)
Re:Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! (Score:2)
If somebody's video card is not supported, they are not going to run Linux. Whether it is the OS's fault or not is of little consequence - what matters is that it cannot support their video card, and thus they are unable to run Linux. Whose fault it is doesn't really matter - the fact that the hardware support is not there is what matters.
Re:funny math (Score:1)
So this would be like 2 linux boxes per person? Kewl.
Re:750 Million might not be optimistic... (Score:1)
All I want to say is that a lot of third world country people don't pay for their OS software. So if Linux want to beat out winblows, it will solely depend on techical superiority. I heard that BSD 's very good at handling 2-byte chacaters (chinese, Japanese Character; I read this on
Re: I remember OS/2 having predicted... (Score:1)
In other words there's no good way of estimating the number of Linux users out there?
Sure there's.... charge 90 dollars for every OEM copy for example.
CY
Re:750 Million is WAY too optimistic! Not! (Score:1)
The next thing to remember is that the threshold to spend on luxury goods (including computers) is relative to the local economy, not an absolute. How much does a home cost? A home in small town Iowa, for example, costs a heck of a lot less than a home in San Fransico, or New York. Most of the cost of an item is _labor_- in areas where labor is cheaper, cost of living is cheaper. Supply and demand.
What would they want a computer for? Perhaps they want to join the 21st Century with the rest of us, and plug into the international dialog. Or is the internet and computing only the purview of the very rich?
As for electricity, most of the major cities on the planet have it. No, the Kalahari bushmen don't, but there are a lot people who do. Note that my estimate is based off the assumption that only about 1 person in 4 is economically well off enough to even consider buying a computer, and about 50% of those who could, would. And that the price of the computer would rule out _by_ _necessity_ a Microsoft operating system.
The cold, hard facts are that Microsoft has killed this market because it cannot afford the margins Microsoft wants to maintain. You can't charge $100 for an OS an expect to sell it to someone for which that represents two weeks salary. Why do you think software piracy is so rife in China and other third world countries? Because for most of the customers, it's a choice of pirating the software, or not using it at all.
On the other hand, huge profits await the first company to do this. Consider- if each machine makes $10 profit (a mere 5%, a fairly thin margin) times 100 million machines is a billion dollars.
750 Million might not be optimistic... (Score:3)
The problem is that Microsoft is uninterested in this market- why? Because they want to charge $200 for the OS alone, sans computer. You need an OS that can sell for $10, or better yet $5 per copy, which runs well on a variariety of low-end hardware (ARM chips, low-end PPCs, 68Ks, 486's, whatever you can get on the super-cheap) and small memory foot prints, with internationalization capability, but with a decent user interface.
Linux fits this bill with flying colors. 80% of that 750 million people will probably be people who've never owned a computer before- and who aren't living in America or Europe.
Everything I've said here also applies to BSD, BTW.
Re: I remember OS/2 having predicted... (Score:2)
You are certainly right, but as usual, it's pretty different with Linux. :) Just try to count someone who bought ten CD's and made five of his friends use Linux; also those who bought 3 different Red Hat distributions, and installed it on 50 PC's in a student lab, and made 50 more to netboot from one server; and someone who didn't even buy a single CD since a few years, only downloads updates/different packages, and installed a bunch of Linux webservers throughout the country.
I'd say 750 million is a conservative estimate.:-) (Score:1)
Has anyone who's measuring the growth seen the point of inflexion yet?
Re:750M? You've got to be kidding . . . (Score:1)
Unless something radically new comes along (always a possibility) I think Linux usage is going to go on increasing for some time yet.
Re:750 Million might not be optimistic... (Score:1)
Also, China would provide mass education on how to use Linux and to encourage Linux use if it felt necessary; that would probably overcome a lot of problems.
Re:Assuming 15 million users now, it ain't likely. (Score:1)
Re:$500 PCs (Score:1)
Kinda like WebTV, huh? I don't think they're selling 150 million WebTV units a year... This kind of thing has very limited appeal, due mostly to the limitations of the TV itself. I for one gave up using 640x480 a LONG time ago... Once HDTV becomes ubiquitous, maybe. But that's years away, too.
Re:$500 PCs (Score:1)
How so? You could have an SGI Onyx hooked up to a TV, and it would still suck, because you're limited by the resolution of the display. It doesn't matter if the device has the power to access the web, wordprocess, run Blender, and compile its own kernel in 10 seconds, all at the same time. *I* wouldn't want to do any of those things in fuzzy, not-even-VGA resolution, unless I had a Super-Size bottle of Excedrin handy. Until TV drops its 1950's roots and moves into the digital era, the ubiquitous "set-top appliance" computer will be very limited in its appeal.
Good interview... (Score:1)
See what I am talking about at
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/
Re:ESR wants wearable computers (Score:1)
India's middle class population = pop of entire US (Score:1)
These people have VCRs, telephones, cell phones, and yes PCs. They would love to do business on a network environment.
In addition, the Indian government has opened the ISP market up for competition.
I know I'm scrambling to think of ways of cashing in on this huge market. Yes India is poor, but with a middle class population equivalent to the entire US, that's a lot of growth. If only 12% Indians purchase computers that would be about 120,000,000 new computer users who would choose linux over windows.
I don't know stats about China, but I bet they are not much different.
ESR wants wearable computers (Score:1)
snip
---
What I really want is a machine that unifies my communications at a high level. That pushes us back to something that's more like a small portable or wearable PC [mit.edu]. These appliances tend to grow functions and grow extensions over time, and eventually they end up being full-fledged computers even if they don't look like them on the outside. The appliances in the future are going to be like very small, very lightweight, and very carryable PCs that just happen to have a simple interface [mit.edu] wrapped around them. And yes, I think that Linux will dominate them.
---
snip
$500 PCs (Score:1)
Imagine a future Netwinder type thing, with TV output, pre-configured to connect to the internet by your local dealer, etc., and you have an ideal internet access appliance you can pop into a shop any buy.
Now just sell 750 million similar things in the next 5 years and there you have it.
Re:750 Million might not be optimistic... (Score:1)
Re:$500 PCs (Score:1)
Re:750M? You've got to be kidding . . . (Score:2)
Re:Critical Mass (Score:1)
Re:"750 million" (Score:1)
And here's two clues in exchange: (1) there are still huge unexploited markets for desktop machines. India, China, etc. Mexico is putting Linux in all the schools for the kids. And so on.
(2) Even in the US, the whole market becomes "unexploited" every couple of years or so as new apps and fancier, faster machines become available. New hardware means new OS sales. It's no longer a slam dunk that Windows will be the OS that gets installed on the new hardware -- especially with price margins dropping on the commodity machines to where WIndows represents 20% or more of the price.
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! (Score:2)
Why does everyone assume this is Linux's fault!??!?!? ARRRRRGH!!! Get a freakin' clue, people!! Does Microsoft write every single device driver for every piece of hardware for every version of Windows? NO! The hardware vendors do it! But they don't do it for Linux, because Linux doesn't have enough market share (or market presence) for them to feel it's worth their time to do so.
To date, the majority of the device drivers for Linux have been written by users who thought, "How the heck can I get this stupid thing to work!?!?" FYI, that is a lot harder than a company saying, "Here is the Microsoft driver for our foo card. We now have supplied drivers for 90% of the home computer users. That's Good Enough for us."
Did you ever stop to think at the sheer NUMBER of different cards their are for the Intel platform? It's mind numbing! Now YOU go try to keep up with every Soundblaster rip-off, every bleeding edge graphics card, without any support from the manufacturers (except 3dfx)! Daunting, ain't it?
For those of you prone to misread things, I am NOT arguing that people are stupid because the drivers DO exist. A lot of drivers are missing from the Linux Computing Experience. I'm saying people are stupid because they assume the OS is responsible for providing their drivers. Don't blame the OS, and do not blame the fine folks that have taken the trouble to write the drivers that you already have access to! These people have coded their asses off, and as a result non-coding clods like me (and a lot of other current Linux users) can actually use an OS that works. For them, I have nothing but thanks and heartfelt gratitude.
Blame the hardware vendors, Microsoft, the market, or your grandma's dog. Whatever. Just realize (now say it with me, kids) it's not the fault of the OS.
*whew*
There's that peeve vented.
--
How about a Poll (Score:1)
Re:750M? You've got to be kidding . . . (Score:1)
This is probably the same group that said the
Network Computer Market would be US$5 Billion
by 2001. This is the NC as defined by Sun
and Oracle a couple of years ago. I don't think
either company makes or sells these anymore.
This is just a hype wave that Linux is riding.
The down side of this, is that if Linux doesn't
grow to a 750 Million base when they predict,
it will be deemed a failure.
Re:India's middle class population = pop of entire (Score:1)
I read somewhere that US publishing houses have been shipping computer books to China as fast as they can print them so something is definitly happening in China.
Re:The "reality factor" (Score:1)
The ideal OS, indeed the OS that would be best for the good of computing for the whole planet is one thats: 1) Open Source, so that those who need to can modify it, and 2) Solid and reliable.
There is room in the world for several such OS's to co-exist and compliment each other.
Competition and openness in this market is a good thing and drives overall improvement.
I agree that ESR's 750 million figure for Linux alone is insanely high and unrealistic.
I do believe, however, that Open Source software is the wave of the future. It's already well on its way to establishing itself as such.
Re:Quality and suitability matter, not the name (Score:4)
That is, to the non-hacker, the OS should be easy to set up and configure, then he can just forget about it. It runs solidly with little maintenance.
It should be like the firmware in a VCR. Nobody knows or cares who wrote the code in a VCR. If it works as advertised we just transparently use it and everyone's happy.
I think open source OS's have the greatest chance of achieving this. They are driven by the needs of the people who use them, and clearly, they are the most robust OS's in terms of reliability and resistance to crashing.
I mentioned that the OS should be anonymous. For the non-hacker, it should do its job quietly with minimal fanfare. Windows is the antithesis of this. That stinkin' flying windows logo, or other distinctly MicroSoft icons are in your face with virtually every click of the mouse! And they say open source developers have big egos!
I think this aspect of Linux, will eventually be a huge part of its appeal to a large market.
Partitioning hard in Linux...Try Windows! (Score:1)
That being said, a windows 98 install on a bare computer (unpartioned, unformatted hard drive) is much harder. If you try to run the install without a formatted partion in place you will receive a cryptic message about free space which stops halfway through and freezes the computer hard. You then must format and partition using command line tools fdisk and format which are worse than diskdruid in user friendlyness. All this with no online docs I could find from MS documenting the experience. The actual install is "pretty" and fairly understandable, an experience Linux installs could strive towards. But it does not allow power users to do what needs to be done, requires multiple reboots, and had drivers for less hardware (Matrox Millenium G200, Etherlink 3900) than my linux install.
750 mil? Doubtful. (Score:1)
I have trouble believing that Microsoft will be so easily overthrown. Unless MS puts up
next to no resistance it seems obvious that they'll be able to maintain market share.
Unfortunately, I think coverage like CNN's comparison of Windows and
X could lead to problems. People don't necessarilly *want* a different experience.
Microsft still has many supporters, and many will not be willing to give up what they've gotten
used to over the last 10 years or so.
Someone has to give absolutely compelling reasons for someone to simply switch over
to Linux. Stability doesn't cut it. My Win box has been up for 15 days at a time.
Doing what ESR predicts necessarilly involves converting
incredible numbers of home users who won't really see all the benefits of using Linux.
ESR is right about one thing. Linux will grow. But not enough to surpass Windows.
how to talk to the suits (Score:2)
That's why ESR has the job he has [tuxedo.org]. Whenever you want to say something "sucks," you have to translate it to "stinks" for the press. :-)
Re:Quality and suitability matter, not the name (Score:1)
Obviously to some people nothing else besides the name matters. nothing. Hopefully that will change, but it doesn't seem to be happening yet.
Re:750 Million might not be optimistic... (Score:1)
(I hope I don't get black listed for this post)
Re:Assuming 15 million users now, it ain't likely. (Score:1)
You're right, 100,000 million is more reasonable. Better start having more children people, then develop a computer a 5 year old can use.
Mac OS Toolbox ROM (Score:4)
The Toolbox ROM is practically a thing of the past at this point. Mac OS 8 shipped with a full image of the ROM on the CD, beginning Apple's strategy of "ROM-in-RAM". Mac OS 8 (and later) will boot on some late-model IBM Power Series (800-series) machines.
Apple's latest version of this strategy is known as the "New World ROM", which is a ROM that only contains the essential boot information. The new G3's all read the Toolbox from the boot drive. Most of Apple's new PCI machines are fully Open Firmware compliant.
Should Apple open the Mac OS source, it will be useless without the Toolbox, since for all intents and purposes the Toolbox *is* the Mac OS.
Personally, I find it highly unlikely that Apple will open Mac OS. The primary indicator is Apple's Darwin strategy. Apple is not opening the source for the UI or other higher-order functions; these things represent Apple's technology advantage.
The point of this is that Apple has, for many years now, been steadily moving toward a more open hardware platform. The prevailing opinion in the Mac community is that we will soon see new efforts by Apple to support compatible hardware platforms under conditions that are far less detrimental to Apple as a company than their previous attempts at cloning.
Remember, Apple isn't a software company, nor are they truly a hardware company. What Apple *is* is a *design* company. The fact that Apple frequently has to invent new technologies to support its design vision is the proof of this statement.
750M? You've got to be kidding . . . (Score:3)
Unless, of course, ESR is counting in this total:
Anyone who is running Linux on their desktop
Anyone who is connecting to a network with a Linux server
Anyone who is on the Internet (sooner or later they'll hit a Linux server)
Anyone who knows somebody connected to the Internet
20 million, I might believe. 30 million would be fantastic. But ~3 times the population of the United States? Sorry, but I think not.
caw caw
Re:Linux is the opposite of this completely (Score:1)
Critical Mass (Score:1)
Number choices (Score:1)
- 42
- +INF
- -INF
- 3.14159265359
- 45i + 42
Re:750 Million might not be optimistic... (Score:1)
Yeah right. Something similar to the iMac would be much more conceivable, or a severely stripped down version of Linux that doesn't require users patch their kernel manually, doesn't require users to compile their kernel manually...
Until someone provides Linux-lite, a complete commercialized product that is about 1000 times easier to install, use, and upgrade than Red Hat is right now, there's no way Linux will make the head-way you or RMS are predicting.
I remember OS/2 having predicted... (Score:1)
"So", says I, "what about people like me, who bought 2.0, 2.1, and 3.0 when they came out?"
"Well", says he, "you'd be counted as three people..."
Now, let's see, I've bought: Slackware 1.3, RedHat 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, and SuSe 5.2. Woo-hooo! I'm 5 of that 750 million!!!
Re:Quality and suitability matter, not the name (Score:1)
Now, it's very easy to ramble on and extoll the virtues and wonders of Linux vs foo o/s (and there are many - that's what makes it easy..), but with the present state of the installation, as soon as you begin evangelizing Linux, you begin a new hobby: configuring other peoples systems for them.
There is nothing wrong with this, and I do it all the time, but I don't do it as much or as often as I *could*. Why? I'm lazy. I'm not radical enough. I'm selfish. Who knows?
My point is, when the time comes that one can say "What? You're still using winxx? Here's a cd of Linux - it's free, when you're done give it to someone else", and not worry about the persons 'level' and how much time it's going to cost getting them configured and comfortable *then* we may hit those numbers - and better.
We are getting there though. My first experience with linux was in (I think) 1993 and I installed from slacksware's cd. It took me forever to get X to run - and then I was dissapointed by the 'backwards' interface.
Debian made things worlds better, but I still think dselect bites. However, you never go wrong using mc to install ever after - and Debian's site layout is *the best* for seeing dependencies and recomendations etc.
It took less than 20 min to install RH5.2 on a laptop for goodness sakes. There's a miracle in its self! And now Caldera is in the press with their latest release....
It took me a decade or so to finally realise that not everyone actually *enjoys* playing with an o/s or lang until it works. Most people just want the tool - they're not interested in who made it, its history, naming puns etc. - give me the shovel, I just want to dig a hole for goodness sake.
Once Configured, Linux is a marvelous o/s for the desktop, but as long as it needs all the setup after the install we'll remain in the desktop backwaters.