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

So what's the point?

[pongo000]

At the risk of losing karma points I don't need, I confess to being at a loss as to what the point of this article is...does this mean Linux is better than OS X? Given that both Linux and Darwin are open-source, shouldn't the headline be something like "Open-Source Desktops Gain on Proprietary, Non-Customizable Desktops"?

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?

The same Dan Kusnetsky who said ....

[burgburgburg]

"Palladium is vital for Microsoft to improve its standing as a seller of trustworthy technology."

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.

Re:Odd

[BitGeek]

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.) ... the hardware lasts longer (usually much longer) and is usable longer (the 9500 is 7 years old now.)

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.