Slashdot Mirror
Ask Nicholas Petreley About Linux Usage Statistics
This Slashdot discusssion, about a story Nick wrote, is already going (and heated). I did a NewsForge interview with a SuSE rep who quotes an IDC study that says Linux desktop use will double by 2004. Sounds nice, but how reliable are all these statistics? Nick's been studying Linux use in depth lately, so let's ask him directly what all of these numbers mean, if anything, and how IDC, Evans Data, and other analysts get and massage them. We'll post Nick's answers to 10 of the highest-moderated questions as soon as he gets them back to us.
Read what that oGALAXYo guy has to say about G2.2.1 and I fully agree to this person. Looks like we need to back this person a bit.
I commented about this article two days ago here. In it, you could find references to the Evans Data Corporation (EDC) he based his story. Check Primary OS Prior to Mainly Targeting Linux OS or How Important Are 64-Bit Architectures? pages before arguing about Nicholas Petreley's article.
How about if it didn't look like shit. That picture's just one example of the kind of screenshots Linux fans get all excited over (although they're usually a little less colourful than that and with far more ugly flashing lights and terminal windows). Can't you see that it's ugly? Look at the icons -- the spacing is wrong, the font is wrong. Look at the small, unlabeled buttons in the web browser. See the way the bar at the bottom doesn't fill the screen, yet feels the need to duplicate icons from the desktop. That wouldn't be so bad, but it leaves barely any space for the taskbar (with the app titles). Look at the titles of the sections on that page showing in the web browser? They're screwed up and squished. Look at the huge number of pointless menus and other assorted bits everywhere, and compare it to the amount of completely empty unused space. Minimalism in buttons and clickable things (not necessarily in graphical design) is better -- for example, Windows XP's Recycle-Bin-only-by-default desktop and customisable Start menu. I won't even start on the time I tried to change the positions and groups of apps around on the KDE and Gnome graphical menus. No drag-and-drop? No right-click? But I'm getting off the point, so I'll stop. To conclude: Linux distros, especially their GUIs, are big, ugly, slow and needlessly complicated. That's why Linux is not yet ready for the desktop.
Now that's just unfair.
Just because you can't figure out how to customize your X window manager doesn't mean we should condemn the kernel that it happens to run on. If nothing else, XPDE. The default Gnome/Sawfish desktop has three icons. One is a shortcut to your home directory under Nautilus (read: A file manager superior to explorer), one is your recycle bin/trashcan/what-have-you, and the third is something I don't remember that I always delete.
If you increases resolution to something reasonable, it's not "screwed up and squished." Plus install your 100-dpi fonts, and you're good to go.
FWIW, I hate the Windows Start Menu. Ever seen the Programs folder for someone who's used their computer for a year, but doesn't meticulously sort it every month or so? Can we say, "A list of meaningless drivel that takes up two thirds of the screen"?
To refute your conclusion:
A debian netinstall bootstrap takes up about 70MB.
My kernel (after a run through make menuconfig) boots in 23 seconds.
I can't say it's not complicated, but let's imagine two linked slider bars: At one end is complication and Custimzability, at the other end is Simplification and Let-Me-Do-It-For-You
Linux makes up for it. That's what the community is for. Windows community? Heh.
I'd say thats true to some degree. But even Google's stats aren't right... they rely on the browser info provided by the browser itself, not what it really is.
For example, I'm using konq, and I have it set to identify itself as IE 5.5 on Windows 2000. So I *know* I'm inflating the Win2K and IE 5.5 figures myself.
In fact, half of the techs in my office use linux, and the other half use Opera on Win2K... but everyone identifies themselves as IE, just to get around stupid browser sniffers.
Try getting to support.microsoft.com using something other than IE. Unless you lie, the page won't display right.
So I would submit that those numbers are probably biased against non-windows platforms. It might be the case that the Linux desktop percentage is as high as, say, 3%!
Yeah, okay. Still pretty sorry... but I'm not sure I trust the Google stats as-is. I believe your fundamental assertion is probably right. Linux desktop penetration is abysmal.
I just ran across this when I googled. Might be of interest, Joe: http://www.attentiondeficitdisorder.ws/links/techn ology.html
BTW: I found out after 48 years that I have ADD, and I'm working as an coountant. Go figure! or design a database, or plan a wooden ship or wite a song . . .
The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet. -- William Gibson
By registering on Linux counter?