Slashdot Mirror
Linux On the Desktop: 0.24 Percent?
Canyon Rat writes: "According to this story, less than a quarter of a percent of desktop users have adopted Linux. The survey was based on web surfers so it may be accurate." Anne Onymus adds a link to an
interesting reaction over at lowendmac.com.
The survey was based on web surfers so it may be accurate
Er, or it may not. Does the web surfing population necessarily represent all computer owners? I would suggest that web surfers are slightly more likely to be tech-savvy and therefore web-surfers will have a higher percentage of Linux desktop use than non-web users. So the figure may be even lower.
Maybe cmdrTaco should post the Slashdot stats of it's users OS
Damn, that's much better then I would have guessed. Think about it, that means, one out of every 400 users is using linux as a desktop system. I'm impressed, honestly, I didn't know there were that many clued lusers out there.
Wow!
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
The other problem that may drive *nix browsing market share is that there is a gazillion browsers who all have different identification strings. Very often, poorly designed stats system will not even notice that a given browser is actually a linux one, and will classify it as unknown.
Also, many poorly designed sites ony lets people with Ms IE 4 or Netscape 4 visit the site. Opera, mozilla, konqueror users have to fake the identification strings to be able to see the site. And, as a matter of fact, I know several people who have set their browsers' id string to be IE like, to avoid troubles.
There's no arguing that Linux's desktop market share is far lesser than that or windows and mac, but I do think and hope it's above 0.24%
!
^_^
From time to time I take a look at the pie chart on Google's Zeitgeist page, where they display the relative proportions of operating systems used to access Google. I figure it is a pretty good rough benchmark, as I know they get a lot of traffic from Linux users, so I would expect the representation of Linux on that chart to be high, but we are reading one percent!
It is sobering to see how much the Microsoft browsers have really taken over on the internet. One thing that does make me rest a litte easier about it though is the Mozilla project, and how AOL basicly forces people to use their gecko-based browser instead of IE, so the web is not in too much immediate danger of falling into a MSIE-only club.
I understand that it isn't really reasonable to expect that there would be a large proportion of Linux users though. I agree with some of the other posters that measurements like this are probably more likely to move our way once more people begin to access the internet through Linux embedded devices like cellphones and PDA's, set-top boxes, etc. "Linux on the desktop" probably won't seem like such a big deal as the desktop paradigm begins to fade. I imagine a future where the only people who even use a PC like we do now would be developers or scientists. Regular types will probably surf the web with all manner of specialized devices, and maybe not even think of it as 'surfing', but 'checking the weather', or 'looking something up'.
I host web sites. Here's a webalizer chunk on User Agents from a piece of November I called up just to see if it was close:
Top 15 of 5486 Total User Agents
# Hits User Agent
1 200870 9.80% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)
2 169779 8.29% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98)
3 161822 7.90% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; Win 9x
4.90)
4 73991 3.61% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)
5 72181 3.52% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)
6 70011 3.42% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)
7 63082 3.08% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98)
8 54560 2.66% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Win 9x
4.90)
9 46702 2.28% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)
10 43299 2.11% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
11 41167 2.01% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 4.0)
12 37536 1.83% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Mac_PowerPC)
13 33620 1.64% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 95)
14 29224 1.43% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98)
15 28778 1.40% Mozilla/3.01 (compatible;)
Ok, #12 says it is Mac, and #15 doesn't say at all. I host the primary site for the UNIX Socket FAQ, which you would expect to bring in a significant chunk of Linux users, but it isn't even in the top 15. Maybe users are masking their user agent? Maybe some, but not many.
Take from this what you will, I just thought it was interesting...
Total sample: 10000 hits
Windows 98 is way in the lead with 46.5%.
ME comes in at 15.9%
95, 2000, MacOS and NT are all roughly equal at 9.1, 8.8, 7.4 and 6.1 respectively.
XP has 3.6%.
Linux has 1%.
(there are a few others, including "Unknown" so those won't add up to 100)
Considering the differences between some of those Windows OS's, that's fairly diverse. What's more disturbing to me is the following:
IE has 81.3% of the browser stats, Netscape has 16.8%. "Unknown" and Opera together have less than 2%. WebTV brings up the rear with a measly 8 hits (0%) and that's it. No other browsers.
Considering that desktop OS is largely irrelevant to the Internet whereas browser is VERY relevant, this points out a disturbing trend: Microsoft Owns The Client-Side of the Internet.
324006
The problem is that Linux relies on X, and X sucks as a desktop for the masses. We all know that, and don't try and convince me that an almost 20 year-old architecture is going to bode well these days with my 62 year-old Dad who asks me "Hey, should I use this Linux thing since you like it so much". Let's face it, its klunky.
I told Dad to stick with his Mac...
Here are the problems as I see it (my opinions, I've got about 20 years into this stuff, so I atleast I get to spew my opinion, heh. )
First and foremost:
- No killer desktop application: Yep, thats right. There is no compelling reason for people to use Linux on the desktop. Why switch or even start there? If there isn't an application they can only run on Linux (or run *better* on Linux). BeOS talked about this, never got one... Mac had Photoshop/Quark etc. Windows had Word/Office/IE... Linux needs a similiar app.
Now maybe this application isn't really a desktop application but something like a content creation product, media/video/audio, who knows, but Linux doesn't have one now.
- X Windows: Relying on a HUGE layer for your graphical underpinnings is a big mistake. Remove X. Its too complicated to install, too big and too slow. I could give a hoot about all you so called "Linux Hackers" who say that Linux is for the elite. I look at it as I see it -- it shouldn't be this damn hard, and this damn big! Windows 98 installs in 10 mins -- nice goal to shoot for. Xfree86 my ass, move off that clunker and have a nice thin layer at the bottom... sheesh.
- No Office platform worth caring about: OpenOffice is pretty good, but its NOT MS Office, lets be honest. If OpenOffice started inching more towards the MS side of the world, it wouldn't be such a bad thing -- hey, why not include Evolution in OpenOffice, come on Ximiam, that might help things?? An installable *complete* solution with a good e-mail product. Hmmm... I think OpenOffice is getting there, but its about half the way there... It needs more time and a lot more MS compatibility.
- No good browser: Konq. Nice start. Opera, getting better (although, I could without all the added poop). Mozilla -- please. Netscape -- please. Those two suck on Windows too.
Linux needs a completely IE compatible browser. 100% compatible (there I said it, hate me for it). From a Web designer perspective, to a developer -- the browser choices on Linux are horrible -- we need IE, or an IE clone. I think our best bet is to have Konq. lead the way...
- Fonts suck: Every default font on KDE/GNOME that I've seen pales in comparison to a Mac or Windows desktop/environment. We need good fonts. Freetype2, ok, now we're getting someplace. But thats only recently...
- KDE and GNOME desktop's look like crap: I find every GNOME and KDE environment I try, just looks like junk compared to a Mac or Windows experience. Things just seem patched together, and not completely thought out. Now, I'm not saying Windows or the Mac is the best GUI's around, but boy, didn't anyone learn ANYTHING from those GUI's?!?! I don't see anything in the KDE or GNOME desktops that I would say "hey, thats better than windows", or "wow, I like this better than the Mac".
Personally, I think Linux GUI developers should steal the hell out of both and create a GUI thats even better!
- No good printing: Yeah, yeah, theres CUPS, but you have to GET that and its a pain and driver support is fairly weak. I like the Mac: You plug a printer in to the USB port, click print... boom! printout. No futzing around.
- There are two competing graphical platforms. GNOME and KDE. Thats not helping the overall cause.
- No Desktop "Champion": We need someone (thought we had it in Eazel) that can champion the desktop and create that "killer desktop" that everyone has to have. Linux needs a Linus of the Desktop.
Here are the solutions as I see it:
1. Remove X, standardize on one low-level graphical kernel -- DirectFB anyone?
2. Standardize on one API layer for the GUI, much like Win32, we should have a set of API's that are "God" when it comes to writing GUI under Linux. None of this, Bonobo vs. Qt vs. blah, blah, blah. One standard API thats small, easy and well maintained -- I vote for an API that uses XML/XSLT as its abstraction layer.
3. IBM. IBM should step in and see this as a chance to re-kindle the OS/2 vs. Windows war that was waged from 90 - 92 (which they got their asses kicked).
By dumping some money into the Desktop side of the world (not just the server side), they could create a platform that can beat Windows and Mac.
Hell, I have an idea: Why not port the Workplace Shell right over to Linux, Open Source it and then simply support it as a business platform replacement for OS/2 (if you work at a big company, you know how HUGE OS/2 got during the mid-90's)? Well, in my mind, this could happen again, but only with a platform like Linux under it.
Sure, this is a task, but I bet it would start making believers out of people. Plus, since the Workplace Shell already has a decent amount of applications for Business (3270/5250 emulators), it wouldn't be hard to start eating away at that Fortune 500 companies spending money on XP Professional. IBM could say "hey, why buy that when you can simple get Linux installed on an IBM Desktop for free, oh and we run those same applications... Believe it or not IBM still "kills" at the business level over Microsoft.
3. Gain critical mass with that killer application. Linux need a Photoshop or MS Office.
Anyone got one out there?
4. Stop battling between desktops, choose one or create a new one and settle on that -- but don't use X.
In fact, the only people I know that use Linux on the desktop are all developers (myself included) except for one guy.
Not that this is a problem. For us developers, Linux/KDE is a wonderful system to use. It all comes down to needs. Does the average user need multiple tabbed sessions in Konsole? No. Does he need to be able to play Dark Reign? Yes.
Unfortunately, the "games" problem is not one that can easily be solved. Most software you buy at the store is only for Windows, and I've heard more than one person say that Linux can't succeed with normal users without it being able to run Windows programs. IMO, making it a requirement of Linux to run Windows software (a la Lindows) is too much to ask. Not only is reverse-engineering difficult, but companies these days are making it harder to pull off. And sometimes, it can even be illegal (see DMCA).
So is all hope lost? What can anyone do? Linux is basically done.. Linus said so himself. Now the focus is on the user. Well, what is left for KDE? It is already more configurable than Windows. Ok, so that's done. Now what? If we're done, but we have no users, there is obviously a problem somewhere.
It's the apps. Linux is not scary anymore. The "one guy" I mention above knows nothing about coding, but uses Redhat just happily. But why can't he play his games? And where is Adobe?
We've done all we can do. I think it's just a waiting game now. I'd like to see some improvements with more general (non-distribution specific) software installation. And for video drivers to be kernel controlled, and have X just ride on the framebuffer. But issues like these won't stop average users from using Linux. Just ask a normal Windows user why he would not want to switch to Linux. It will come back to the apps.
Linux has only become more popular, not less. More companies join in the game as time goes. Sure, some have left, but at the end of the day the number is bigger. The general computer user will get his games and his apps.
In the meantime, everyone just continue doing their thing.
Opera pretends to be IE5, doesn't it?
:)
Besides, the numbers will lie. I use Linux and BeOS at work, and I use Windows at home because of technical reasons (winmodem in a laptop....). I also use Linux at home, but as a part of my stereo, not as an internet PC(an old p200 with a decent CD-ROM drive makes for a terrific MP3 and CD player, and I can access it remotely through either telnet or an X-server -- p200s are quiet!) so every one of these OS's will hit the logs. Not to mention Atheos and QNX, which I tried recently, and I even log in using Arachne in DOS sometimes.
The point of all this? I forgot. I think it had something to do with misleading web logs.
It's been a long time.
Hitbox does nothing of the kind. It uses JavaScript included on the site pages. Every time the page is opened in a browser, information about the visitor is returned to Hitbox.
Because it uses JavaScript, it can get exactly the same useragent information that would show in the server logs -- and more.
This method of retrieving information is an accurate reflection of what web browsers are doing at a particular moment, with caveats. They must have JavaScript enabled in the browser and usually they must accept cookies. (About 4-5% of browsers disable JavaScript and 10-15% disable cookies.) The kinds of sites that are using Hitbox and its competitors are likely to be commercial and windows-centric. Also, I think it is worth noting that an estimated 40% of web browsing is done from work, where people have access to high-speed connections not available at home. This naturally skews the results, since offices are presently far more likely to be Windows-based.
This type of traffic analysis is rapidly becoming popular among the major enterprise-level sites, such as Major League Baseball, Ticketmaster and so forth. If you have a Windows machine, you can run bugnosis for a while and see what I mean.
mp
"The secret to strong security: less reliance on secrets." -- Whitfield Diffie
I use Junkbuster and alter the browser info headers to fool sites into thinking I am using IE 5.5, instead of Opera on Linux. I do this because lots of sites have the annoying practice of thinking that a non-Microsoft browser won't render their pages correctly, but it usually works fine.
--It's Pimptastic!--
I wonder what the ratio of linux users is after 5pm, as opposed to during working hours?
I know my daytime hits are usually Mozilla/NT (or Lynx/Solaris if the boss is looking -- or the animated gifs get too annoying.) Of course, at night I'm usually working on something, so I don't have time for Slashdot.