Slashdot Mirror
Linux Outpacing Macintosh On Desktops
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?
I find it odd that mac hasn't had more acceptance in business as OS X is now well supported and apple seems to have shifted from it's 'colourful' looking green and pink computers to more conservative silver colors more appropriate for a corporate environment. Then again the cost of a good linux based system could easily be 1/3 of that of a good mac system that can run OS X.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
Seems logical to me, x86 hardware is so much more common than the mac stuff. You can make your windows box into linux, but not mac.
http://www.google.ca/press/zeitgeist.html :
"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.
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
(* I finally had had it when Windows deleted a TON of my files for no reason. I looked into getting a MAC but it was just too much money *)
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.
Table-ized A.I.
IDC only looks at corporate desktops, and I think that it is safe to say there are more of these running Linux than Mac. But look at the consumers. Most /.'ers will say "more Linux than Mac" but how many of these are atypical samples.
So I think that the IDC is right, and so are you, but they are different markets.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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 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.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
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" (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.
Not likely.
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.
I love Linux. I ran it for 2 years as my desktop OS for development at work and at home. But I have worked at mega-corporations and tiny companies, and I have NEVER seen a non-geek running Linux. I, like many of you, like to be able to compile my own software from the source.
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.
- Vincit qui patitur.
This is way off topic but Im going to mention it none the less becuase so many of the posts are talking about how expensive macs are so I thought I should at least broach the subject. Just about every major study which comes out points out that macs have about half the cost of ownership to a business than equivalant PCs (usualy compared to windows PCs) this is because 1 tech support costs are dramaticly lower, and 2 macs tend to be used longer opposed to most PCs which companies throw out after three years. This isnt my opinion or a personal anecdote, this is what these same profesionals are saying. so im sure there are many reasons why macs arent used in business (key apps like MS access being one) but if an IT department is looking at cost of ownership its not true that macs are more expensive.
--aiee
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Please, people, don't buy this crap.
Marketing organizations like this one, Gartner, et al, are brain damaged. They use poor methodologies and frequently draw almost comical conclusions from their lazy research.
Don't be duped.
Example: Software Sales.
Go into the software section of a typical computer store and grab a software title: Zaboomafu, a kid's title, or maybe a game like You Don't Know Jack.
Both games come one a hybrid CD, meaning that the CD contains versions for Windows and the Mac OS -- on the same disk. But when your purchase is recorded, it is classified as a Windows software sale, not a Macintosh software purchase.
Bogus.
Another example... consider the figures that these shithead research companies quote on Linux deployment... They're based on sales.
Linux Sales != Linux Deployment
So, file this lazy-ass info into the shitcan where it belongs.
--Richard
But saying that X percent of desktop systems run Gnu/Linux is not a very valid statement. There are at least three major distributions of Gnu/Linux that are fairly incompatible with each other, given different directory layouts, package managment systems and the like.
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".
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
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
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
I think that until we will continue with a kind of "fight club" Linux vs Mac there will be someone named Bill laughing more and more ...
As great as Linux is, it seems likely that the data provided isn't really what people are interpreting it as. How many nerd-wannabes have downloaded Linux and followed an online FAQ to dual-boot, only to return to Windows for Quake 3 and forget about it? I'd like to see a number for people who use Linux 90% of the time on their computers, or even more than half. Furthermore, does "Linux" mean strictly that, or does it include BSD or other Unicies? The article doesn't say.
Basically, those numbers are meaningless. As is the vast majority of statistics in this industry.
(IMHO)
"Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.
With respect, I don't think you and your friends are the people the ariticle is talking about! You say they are all developers, not office workers (I know developers work in offices, but we don't outnumber the suits - unless you work in Software Development {unless of course we're talking about IBM} or some other "IT" thing).
There is simply no way the auther has hard numbers like this from any credable source. Linux is classically difficult to track, I download a copy, cut it onto CDs and install it on 50 machines, how many installations does that look like? 1? 50? None at all?! Who knows, and who can know?
These figures are bogus nonsense! Also numbers tend to be rather meaningless. For example, consider the "known" number of PCs ( I think it runs at something like 2 for every man, woman and child on the planet ) but what does this number mean? Are we including all those Windows3.1 boxes? Are they "Windows" as we understand it today? Or come to that Macs, do original 68000 Macs qualify? Just PowerMacs? Just G3s or better? Only those running OS X? Talking about total numbers makes no sense at all!
Sorry but I can't see Linux boxes outnumbering Macs (especially if we're talking about on the desktop).
PS. I have 4 Macs, oh and an old SE on a shelf, but we're not going to count that are we? I used to have a Linux box (at home, at work the whole shebang) but I've defected.
ohh come on. :) This is Slashdot, we're all geeks... of course we know lots of people with linux boxes.
...most of the people I know use MacOS. It's a different demographic. I tend to hang out with publishing folks, not SysOps or applications programers ;). The only linux boxes I ever deal with run our web server and mail server.
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.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
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.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I've pointed out repeatedly that the numbers IDC publishes are based upon either supply or demand side research and are not plucked out of the air.
Another point is that what you see in print may only have a small relationship to what I actually said.
Scepticism is healthy when market research is considered. It's really important to know what's being counted, how it's being counted, how it was analyized, who funded the research, etc.
My success (or lack of it for that matter), is not at all gaged by what's said in the media. It's gaged by what subscribers say and what they purchase. Media coverage only is tangentially related to subscribers' interest. Helping them make more money, save money, or in some way making their lives better has a much stronger connection with success in this business.
As an aside, it's often true that a journalist calls me up out of the blue, partially listens to what I have to say on a topic, edits it down to fit the space available, and then presents it as if it were exactly what I said. I have to be willing to go on record even though that opinion, as printed, may look silly or flat out wrong a day or so later. It's part of the job. I just live with it.
IDC does its best to be as accurate as possible and all opinions that it publishes are based upon research its conducted. If better data becomes available, we will respond to that change and publish something to update the previous position. Since the net never forgets, the old comment often comes up again and again even though it has been replaced with a new comment when better data becomes available.
I believe that it was Einstein who said "Not everything that counts has been counted, and not everything that has been counted counts."
Please continue to question analysts, consultants, journalists, and anyone else in the public spotlight. In the end, you may agree with them and find their data and opinions useful. If you don't, simply ignore them and go on with life!