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?

Comments

Lets look at some real data...

[jpt.d]

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.

Re:Lets look at some real data...

[Eloquence]

Desktop usage != web usage. US web usage makes up the largest share by far of international web usage: 42.65%, followed with considerable distance by China (6.63%). Since Microsoft is ultra-dominant in the US, this skews the data. A lot of threshold nations have a large amount of PCs but relatively little Internet use, mostly for cost reasons. And let's not forget censorship -- China recently censored Google, for example.

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) 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...

[Eloquence]

1) You may not have noticed it, but not all computers come with Windows licenses, although Microsoft does everything they can to make sure that this changes. Buying a new machine without Windows can easily save you $100, and used machines are often blanked before they are sold.

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:Odd

[EvilAlien]

Its not odd at all, really.

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.

I have OS X and Linux.

[crovira]

I use OS X and Macs on my desktops and Linux on my server.

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.

Re:Yes

[dbirchall]

I might run in slightly different circles than Shamash... most of the Alpha Geek sorts I know have at least two Unix flavors on the desktop, with OS X being one of them. I've got multiple Linux laptops (different distros, even) and an OS X iBook, other friends tend to have Linux or *BSD and OS X.

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.

Have you ever seen a regular person with Linux?

[Arkham]

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.

Re:Have you ever seen a regular person with Linux?

[Jeremi]

The fact is that no one's mom runs Linux unless someone set it up for them.

True -- but no one's mom runs Windows unless someone sets it up for them, either.

price comparison...

[Snuffub]

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.

isn't it obvious?

[Ender Ryan]

OS X is not open source. While Darwin is open source(with the exception that Apple supposedly keeps parts of it locked up from developers on x86), the Apple GUI is not. It's completely closed and proprietary, with Apple being the gatekeeper. You want OS X, you HAVE to buy a computer from Apple.

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.