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 used windows since back in the Win 3.1 days. 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... and I had JUST built a new Athlon 1500+ system. So I switched to Linux and haven't had any problems since. Linux is great because you can run it on just about ANY THING.. and you have CHOICE.. something you don't have much of in Windows or Mac.
I'm fairly certain that pound-for-pound, there are more computers running Linux than MacOS (Servers & Desktops), but... the numbers seem a bit fishy if they are saying that Linux outnumbers MacOS on the desktop...
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?
"Operating Systems Used to Access Google - July 2002"
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.
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
you run linux on a macintosh? Or if you dual boot between linux or MacOS, or even if you run Mac-on-linux? Is the author comparing PPC vs Linux on x86 or what?
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
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
The study's data is skewed because most Linux systems dual-boot with Windows, whereas MacOS systems typically ONLY boot MacOS (X or otherwise). I personaly will dual-boot Debian and MacOS X 10.2 when my new PowerBook arrives. (Woo hoo!)
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."
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."
You mean that Dan Kusnetsky? The "world's most prominent Linux analyst"? Well, that's good enough for me.
You seem to be forgetting that, for whatever reason, many people using Linux (or even alternative browsers for Windows) have their browsers set to "spoof" as Internet Explorer. For instance, my roommate can't access online banking unless he has Mozilla report itself as IE. Last time I installed Opera, it *defaulted* to spoofing as IE. In Konqueror there's a pulldown menu right on the menubar that lets you spoof as pretty much any browser (even Lynx, wcm, and WGet).
... seems to me, the whole thing is a waste of time.
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
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.
but, heck, I'M using Linux, and I am a certifiable computer moron. I haven't ever seen a Mac running outside of Circuit City. I have Linux on a would-be useless old Presario 1210 laptop that I still manage to use because Linux lets me. OS-X is great news, but the constant pony-up you have to do to stay Mac-plausible is a bit much. My next door neighbor has an old box that I will probably put Drake on inside of a week. Try to do that with the Macs. One thing Microsoft has done for the Linux community: they've made it easy to target what hardware to run on (howl at me, yellowdog fans!). By the way, with the successful supermounting of my digicam, I now boot over to my XP partition only to, um, well, hmm.... I don't anymore! You're telling me this stuff is FREE? WOOOO!
Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
Better yet. I'm a 22 year old quasi-geek (few geek friends) and I've never SEEN linux--ever. Now, I don't have a lot of geek friends, which makes this easier. But I sure as hell run into Macs all the time.
;-)
Granted, I probably haven't had many web pages served by Macs either
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
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.
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.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
She sat down in front of it, commented on how pretty it looked (Gnome2 + Aqua themes ;), and I showed her the apps she wanted to use - a web browser (galeon), aol instant messenger client (gaim), limewire to download mp3s, and xmms. I told her that there were no "drives", the cd was /cdrom, and basically told her what the /home directory structure was as far as she was concerned.
Well what did she do? She fired up gaim to start chatting with her friends, checked her yahoo mail with galeon, downloaded a couple of songs she was looking for with limewire, loaded up nautilus and played the mp3s. It is NOT hard to do normal, everyday stuff with the modern linux desktop environments. Anyone who claims otherwise is a whinger that hasn't really thought through these things.
Admittedly, there are many places that need quite a bit of work - most notably, the application integration side of things. And they are improving incredibly quickly. There are two real reasons people aren't switching to linux:
1. They are quite happy with Windows and don't want to learn another way to do the same things, even if the paradigms are mostly the same.
2. You *cannot* buy off the shelf software for Linux. The reasons my girlfriend doesn't use Linux is basically because she can't go and buy "You don't know Jack - the video game" from best buy and then pop the CD in the drive and play it without wondering if it will work or not, or the sound will be screwed up, or having to check transgaming.com to see if the game is supported. Obviously this isn't the fault of the FS/OSS community, but it is a major hitch none-the-less.
Oh, and configuring the X window system is another big headache. Sure, if it is automatically configured that is OK, but having to edit a text file to change screen resolution is pretty stone age. ctrl-alt-+/- just don't cut it as far as I'm concerned. Sure, editing a text file is okay for a web server, but joe user isn't going to be doing that...
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.
I had a geography professor that used Linux. Totally surprised me too. All I did was tell him the margins of my paper were off a bit because of the Linux print driver. We then got into a discussion about Linux. There are more Penguins than you think.
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
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?
In what way is this mythical Athlon you talk about "better"
My 1 GHz Athlon system cost me exactly $410 and it had an uptime of 350 days before being rebooted due to a power failure. Not exactly flaky.
The problem with this statement is, that you cannot expect that with Windows either. Not because the installer will not work, but because that "normal user" we just talk about will have the drivers of the hardware that came with his machine. Those are probably the first versions that came out when the hardware was still new and the drivers are poorly optimized (ever ran the first-gen NVidia drivers?)
Thar's not the only problem: he will put the CD into the drive and be baffled it actually doesn't perform as advertised because you "normal computer" users thinks that his 4 year old machine will run Return to Castle Wolfenstein or Neverwinter Nights without any problems. System specifications on the box do not say a damn thing to him.
Don't laugh, I have been there... I was waiting in the queue at the local computersuperstore to pay a replacement modem for a family I support in computing matters, and the lady and her son before me were complaining to the salesman that the computer game he bought two days ago didn't work "as advertised". Well, the salesman could only calm them by trying to explain that their 2 year old computer couldn't play that game, and no that the shops policies didn't allow to take the game back.
That, my friend, is what normal users are like.
Anyway, I don't understand what your problem with Linux on the desktop is. The folks at Gnome and KDE have done some incredible work. They have copied things they like from Mac and Windows, and added things they thought should be added, and just basically improved upon everything that's been done in GUI development over the last 20 years.
You know what I have to say about Apple spending $60M on developing the OS X GUI? Waste of fucking money! I really like the OS X GUI, it's very very pretty. But to be perfectly honest, IT'S NOT THAT GOOD. It is MUCH less intuitive than I expected from Apple after developing a new OS. It is very un-customizable. While working on OS X, I thought of a million tweaks that would have made me much more productive, but the OS X GUI is very restrictive. And window cycling? WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING?
So, is the OS X GUI good, or rather, excellent? Yes, HELL YES. Is it what should be expected after spending $60M? Fuck NO! Another poster had it right, Money != Success.
But it seems to me you are simply a troll. Have you tried the latest KDE beta? It's already fairly stable, and it has most of the nice features of OS X, plus about 100 million more. It's just as easy to use(and if I do say so myself, it's actually easier and more intuitive), and it didn't cost $60M!(well, the developers' time may have been worth that much, but money doesn't buy everything...)
And then there's Gnome. Gnome is still lagging behind KDE, but they have made some great acheivements of their own. Personally, I like Gnome better, because they tend to work on stabalising current features instead of adding new ones. Which makes development slower, but overall more polished(imvho, v=very). I really like both projects, and would feel perfectly comfortable switching between KDE and Gnome.
And finally, who the hell do you think you are to tell the Gnome/KDE guys what they should do? You, who apparently isn't even up to speed with the latest Gnome/KDE releases.
But hey, that's ok, you're entitled to your arrogant pig-headed opinions, as I am with mine ;-). At least your using a decent OS...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
As someone who maintains around 100 Dell workstations for a couple of my clients, I have to say that you are full of it. One client - a non-profit that doesn't have money to throw away on a regular upgrade cycle - has the old white-box Dell Optiplexes from 1997. The failure rate among them is very, very low. I don't have the exact figure handy, but we've had to replace a 5-10 drives in the last 2 years. There have also been a couple of 'normal attrition' incidents: boxes getting dropped by users, coffee damage, the usual sort of wastage that happens over time. (AFAIK, Macs aren't drop resistant either!)Also, their current firewall (FreeBSD) used to be a whitebox (no brand name) "server" they purchased in 1994. It still hasn't suffered a hardware failure. Neither has the Dell server they replaced it with in 1998.
Conversely, I've worked at two schools whose iMacs are disaster areas (so bad that they are migrating away from Apple). Several have developed heat problems (reliable air conditioning in rural schools is a problem), there have been multiple drive failures, video failures, some CD-ROM drives with busted eject systems. In every case, repair is tricky because the iMac isn't really designed to flip open and replace the innards with readily available commodity parts; Apple dealers charge more, Apple service/repair people charge more, and the iMacs' reliability is a joke. (That contrasts with the favourable experience I've had with Apple's workstation range, which is quite reliable if overpriced for what you get).
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
I worked at a school with about 400 iMacs, and 400 Dell Optiplex workstations. The iMacs were 266 RevB's, and the Dell's were Optiplex 600Mhz PIII's. Our school moved away from Dell because 1) Their failure rate was so high, and 2) in the event of failure, support from Dell was constantly frustrating (the insisted on getting the machines back for routine part replacements, unlike, ANY OTHER REASONABLE company, who'd let you do the install yourself. This was despite the fact that we had two Dell certified tech's who's main priority was maintaining the dell's). They actually moved to Gateway, but I'm gone now, and I can't imagine what their current situation is like.
Sure, we had some optical drive failures in the iMacs (they are laptop parts, and thus have high failure rates.. but just look what PC mfr's are doing with their home systems), but our NT guy was in the lab 3 days a week fixing floppies and other schenanigans, and reinstalling NT. So, my number's are bigger, haha. Seriously, people's experiences vary widely with hardware failure, and it's mostly just the specific batches of goods people get from the vendors. Macs have in the past 6 or so years used drives from IBM, Quantum, Western Digital, and Seagate. Their optical drives are from Sony, Panasonic (matsushita), and LiteOn. These are generally all first-run, very reliable companies. The same stuff a good PC shop uses. Yet, some people's legitimate experience with macs is "we bought x00 iMacs, and 11 of them had to go back because of drive failure," and theirs no reason that wouldn't happen to a batch of PC's from any vendor.
--
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
Here's a pointer to my bio on IDC.com
0 00 199
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jhtml?containerId=PRF