Slashdot Mirror
Linux will have 20% desktop market share by 2008?
unmadindu writes "Siemens Business Systems, after conducting an extensive survey on non technical workers ("secretaries and managers, not IT people") is predicting that the Linux desktop will capture 20% of the market for desktop computers in large enterprises within the next 5 years. Senior program manager Duncan McNutt, who has overseen Siemens's testing of Linux desktops with users and administrators in enterprise settings, believes that the Ximian desktop and application suite, running on either SuSE or Red Hat, requires two days of training, which is the same as what most enterprises budget for a Windows/MS Office version upgrade. Interestingly, they used Ximian Desktop, instead of KDE, because Gnome, particularly Ximian's version, was "different enough" to set user expectations that the experience would be less like Windows. "
I predict a 90% market share by 2008. And then the cute little "tux" logo will be replaced by Ballmer!
right now I have openbox3 with customized gnome-panel open, a transparent aterm and firebird with 4 virtual desktops open, and I tell you, it look prettier and works faster than any other system. especially now with the preempt patches to the 2.6 kernel and the new 2.4 gnome, all linux needs is games.
The new John Carmack games will come out this year, too. Also, Michael Moore will make an authentic documentary by 2005. Finally, OSDN will be profitable by Q4 of 2006.
Yeah.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
I would love to see it, though I think it depends more on what MS is capable of delivering with Longhorn that what Linux can do. My guess is that if the economy is still in the crapper, and people are still using a decidedly client server computing model, then upgrades to a new MS OS are going to be slow on the uptake. We need a paradigm shift in IT, something new and wonderful needs to happen. Linux desktops should be going for new and wonderful, not same old same old.
And we'll be driving to the local electronics store in our flying cars to buy Linux, which we'll install on our personal droids in preparation for our vacation to the moon!
All these so-called 'predictions' are useless. No-one can look into the future and especially in the fast moving world of hard- and software the Next Best Thing is always just around the corner, so why do people take the time even to read predictions like this?
-- Cheers!
What if the kernel used year 2008 is the Hurd? Is it still "linux". We should really speak about free unix like operating systems.
"Siemens found KDE to be more "Windows-like" than Gnome, but that lead to problems when non-technical users expected a more Windows-like experience. Gnome, particularly Ximian's version, was "different enough" to set user expectations that the experience would be less like Windows, which led to fewer adoption problems."
Need more reasons to have at least two different desktops?
They used Ximian Desktop because the menu interface is ordered with a more clear naming than KDE.
My 0.0002 euros
The title leads one to believe that Linux will have 20% of all desktops. However, it's actually 20% of desktops in large corporations. Still very cool, but not quite as significant.
From the current trend, people are switching to free, be it via P2P, or software itself, now that people actually know what open source is, and they are considering Linux.
Currently Linux has a few issues but overall, for the price (free), when it comes time to buy a new computer, why buy longhorn when you can get Linux for free?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Interestingly, they used Ximian Desktop, instead of KDE, because Gnome, particularly Ximian's version, was "different enough" to set user expectations that the experience would be less like Windows.
Mark me down as flamebait, but perhaps this is truly important. Perhaps we as a community should stop trying to mimic existing applications and begin innovating instead. Certainly, a good user interface is necessary, but is Windows truly the best user experience? OF course, it's ridiculously hard to come up with a new user interface that is logical and easy to use. After all, a button is a button. It can't really get much better than that, but perhaps there is room for improvement.
I still remember the first time my girlfriend saw me running Linux and said that that looked exactly like Windows and then asked why would I bother going through the hassle of installing Linux when I could just use Windows, which was preinstalled and already worked. Keep in mind that she saw me using KDE and Gnome. (I do realize there are other window managers in this world.)
She had a good point. Windows 2000 and XP have been much less crash-prone, and I find myself increasingly using Windows XP and Mac OS X instead of *nix as my desktop OS of choice. Instead, only servers that I must work on use Linux, and I simply SSH into them, skipping all of the GUI nonsense. For me, the best user interface in Linux is the command-line - not the GUI that looks like Windows anyway.
While the article is a bit thin on details on this, I'd be curious to know what this extends to. Is it just the look of the widgets? Questions like single vs. double click? Menu layouts of the standard applications? Did anyone make this experience before when trying to convert folks to Linux?
It's a shame that we don't have results of a survey like this from before and after the SCO storm hit. It would probably very useful when it came time to extract some damages from the pump and dump crew.
I for one am scared that the long term effect of the SCO lawsuit will be a slowing or reversal of linux's creep towards the desktop where the final battle with closed source development will be.
PornStarGuru
Nobody can really predict the direction the computer industry is moving in the next 5 years. The technology is still very young and futher has a very high innovation speed. Prediction over such a long time range are rubbish.
Just remember the classical examples of such predictions getting fucked: AI, "processors beyond 300 MHz are physically impossible", "640 kB is enough for everyone", "OS/2 is the system of the future" etc.
And for Linux: there is hot stuff like Grid computing, immersive VR, Quantum computing etc. on the way and I don't see even the smallest efford to integrate this into Linux.
The only thing we can predict for the next 5 years is crackpot MBA doing academic, oops non-academic of course (we can't insult academics), circle-jerks and spewing out rubbish predictions.
Ha, outsource everyone to India.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Whatever name SCO chooses for *nix once they have sole proprietorship of it?
Oh come on indeed, one thing is certain... you need to pay heed to past false predicitons, and at least honor current trendlines.
Google HTTP shows Mac ALWAYS 9x larger tahn Linux every year since 1995.
therefore for linux to be larger than its relationship versus mac i find laughable these predictions.
In 1996 linux was supposed to finally overtake mac.
In 1997 linux was supposed to finally overtake mac.
In 1998 linux was supposed to finally overtake mac.
In 1999 linux was supposed to finally overtake mac.
In 2000 linux was supposed to finally overtake mac.
In 2001 linux was supposed to finally overtake mac.
In 2002 linux was supposed to finally overtake mac.
In 2003 linux was supposed to finally overtake mac.
Now these hilarious predicitons of 20% desktop market when Google OS in http referrals (OS never spoofed usually) shows that linux still never got close to mac.
That is why tens of THOUSANDS of shrinkwrapped commercial mac products exist, while almos NO commercial shrinkwrapped Linux products exist.
Marketshare.
Mac users do buy abnormally large amounts of software per machine sold, but even taking that into account, the lack of commerical Linux shrinkwrapped software should indicate SOMETHING.
Until Google shows linux gaining, i will chuckle at these predictions.
If they said in 5 years everyone would be using FreeBSD-Mach-Darwin OS (Apple OS X) that might be believable... but not 20% desktop Linux.
In addition to this statement from Siemens, I wonder if there is any company that has ever evaluated the time lost in desktop use using Windows 98/2000 on PCs in an enterprise-wide level compared to Linux, in a typical day's work, and that which is lost with linux. To be fair, this comparison ought to be with controlled environment (well set-up systems, users are only Power Users and therefore unable to install applications themselves, etc..).
This would result in something like:
Setup: Intel 500MHz/1GHz Desktop (or laptop)
Cold Boot Up
Login time
starting Lotus Notes/Outlook (viewing emails/starting new messages in Notes is historically long!)
opening word processor 1st time/next time
opening spreadsheet first time/next time
opening presentation tool first time/next time
opening web browser first time/next time
shutting down
rebooting (yes, even in linux this may happen!)
number of rebooting
etc... (applications in Enterprise environment, not home use, hence no video viewer or filesharing software for example. IM is not yet a universally accepted tool in my experience either)
If workers in a 1000-employee company were asked to monitor all these tasks for a whole week, half of them on linux, half of them on Windows, this should return an average that's actually measurable and would start making sense.
Does this exist anywhere?
There is no god
It'll reach desktop prominence just in time to play Duke Nukem Forever!
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Am I the only person who cracked up when I read this?
...who cares about market share of the desktop? It isn't going to make any difference since Linux is already here to stay. Whether the corporate types take to it or not makes not one bit of difference. We (the Linux users and coders) already know a good thing when we see it. That's why a lot of us avoid using Microsoft products to begin with. This is NOT about business, this is about ability, the advancement of technology and the advancement of society. At this point software should be seen in the same light as air and water: necssary for life in modern world. Unfortunately the perversion that has ruined the original capitalist ideal may one day put a price tag on clean air as well. They've already done it with water. We must resist corporate ownership at all costs.
Yes, not quite as significant, but it paves the way for more home users. If an employee has a linux workstation at the office, and gets used to their particular interface, then they'll be much more likely to ask for Linux when they purchase their next new home computer.
:(
I doubt the 20% figure is accurate. I might be wrong, but my gut tells me otherwise.
This will NEVER happen by 2008.
As another reader put it "Oh Come On".
Even if linux were to get to 10%, MS would release a new stripped down version of windows and office for a reduced price to cut into the market that this study says is going to flock to linux because it only takes 2 days of training.
What happens when these people get sent a MS Project file and can't open it, or what happens when they call the support desk and the person tells them to open their c:\winnt folder??
Come on people, you are starter than these posts.
Consider a time span of 6 years. That is 2 linux computers or 3 windows computers.
I'd say that you've just saved 1/3 on hardware costs.
20% of desktop computers running Linux, and SCO charges 699$ per computer, so this equals ??? I guess SCO will get a decent amount of money by then.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
Perhaps we as a community should stop trying to mimic existing applications and begin innovating instead.
If the development trend goes that way, then we'll start hearing "For Linux to be accepted in the home and enterprise it must be much more like Windows". There'll be whinging for innovation and there'll be whinging for re-implentation. Could it be that maybe developers will work on what they want to and ignore the pundits? P
I wounder if that desktop expansion will be more at the expense of Microsoft or Sun (and to a lesser extent SGI, I suppose). Replacing relatively expensive Solairs desktops with Linux is straightforward; replacing M$ generally requires a shift in how applications are delivered (e.g. a move to web-based or Java applications).
...but this is extremely unlikely. In the event that they pull MS's entrenched ass out of the corporate world, maybe. People would be a lot more willing to run it at home if they ran it at work. Furthermore if Linux holds 20% you're going to have compatibility problems up the wazoo(sp?) The reason everyone uses Microsoft products is because it works[sic] so well together.
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
According to the GNU website, "Linux" means just the kernel, so if the kernel got replaced the system is not GNU/Linux any more. It may be called GNU/Hurd, or "The GNU system" (which is also more or less usable now).
The two days of training may not seem significant. But you have to realize that most people already know how to use MS office/outlook by using it at home or school, so by the time they get in the workforce they don't need training. For Linux, they will need a day or two of training.
BTW, anyone have a link to Ximian desktop? I use Ximian evolution for email, and think it's a nice program. I tried Thunderbird, but it's still not quite there yet (I know it's only 0.1 or something, but I want something that works, not something I have to bug-test)
You've hit the mark. The only way people are going to dump Windows for Linux or any other OS is if that OS has a compelling difference that makes it worth the change. While one can argue that Linux or *BSD is more stable that is hard to demostrate without prolonged use and if the system is too close to Windows yet not quite there as is the case with KDE then users will be frustrated and leave it before the realize that it is more stable and more secure. The very things that make Linux the better OS are the hardest for end users to see.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
Why does it have to be installed in large scale environnments for productivity gains? The article states that the training required is the same. If that is the case then it should be good for any size business???
Training is only part of the cost structure for any IT deployment. The cost savings of desktop Linux are due primarily to it's UNIX heritage: its security model, centralized authentication, network filesystems (both NFS and AFS), and it's inherent ability to scale from thin client to full workstation without any back-end changes to user accounts. This is all traditional 'NIX stuff going back to late '80s early '90s Workstation fare.
Why this matters is that an organization doesn't see significant cost savings along these lines until they hit a threshold deployment size, nor are the savings linear from the bottom up. Ten Linux ('NIX) workstations don't save the same percent of money in an IT budget as do one hundred. One Hundred saves less as a percentage as one thousand. I don't have numbers, but I've seen the savings first hand - the bigger your deployment gets the greater your savings due to reduced overhead (IT staff) costs.
This is why I don't think we'll see Linux take off as a desktop platform for most small businesses, but we will see it deployed throughout government and large industry players. It will likely move from foreign markets to the US as well, simply because third world industry is under heaver cost constraints compared to the US. But like all network effects, as industry uses it abroad, US players will have to follow in order to maintain some level of compatibility' most likely we'll see US players install OpenOffice and then it will mushroom from there.
JMO.
Cheers,
--Maynard
...was "different enough" to set user expectations that the experience would be less like Windows. "
Translation: You don't suffer from the cervical spine injuries and/or severe coup contra-coup brain injuries secondary to banging your head into a blue screen of death.
There are tons of Linux Desktops (RedHat BlueCurve, Suse Desktop (KDE), Ximian, Mandrake ...), with different look and feel, tools, etc. We dont have DRIVERS from companies, OpenOffice is HEAVY (and its l&f isnt very similar to Microsoft Office)... There is not an homogeneous Desktop.
Is difficult to make the decision and install Linux for the employees (secretaries and so on). If with windows i have tons of problems with the employees (i am an admin), imagine with linux desktops!! .
How to gain real marketshare for Linux on the desktop.
Standardize all hardware installation and removal in one place across all distros.
Name changes that non-it people get. Grep makes sense to IT types, but few outside IT are going to know what it means. Similiarly, I shouldn't have to explain that eth0 refers to their Network card and so on.
Improve Wine. You can give me a hundred stories about how with your uber-133t skills you get a certain archaic package to work under a certain distro and that lusers don't need graphics anyways. This is exactly the type of attitude that will keep Linux from the masses. They want to be able to use their programs, and most could care less what OS their using (how many times have you talked to someone who didn't even know which OS they had?). If they can happily use the same programs they used before, they could well not even notice the OS.
Most importantly of all, all versions of MS office must work seamlessly. This is the standard in the business world, and StarOffice, OpenOffice are poor substitutes. They don't want to learn the quirks of these packages, they just want to use MS Office. Nothing is more important for gaining marketshare than this.
Drop the attitude. The attitude that many newbies encounter is more than enough to send them back into bill's not-so loving arms. When someone is trying Linux they far too often run into someone who an elitist that thinks they should not only know *nix inside out, and be a programmer to boot. When joe-sixpack gets told to go RTFM after asking what a tarball is, he's going to get indignant and goes back to what he knows - windows.
Have a resource available to those who come from the Windows world that tells people in plain English what the Linux terminology is for equivalent ms / windows functions. Also have this resource list programs like gimp that can replace their old windows programs. A frequent complaint of those that try switching to Linux is that they can't do what they used to freely do under Windows. Slashdot types will respond, of course they can, they don't know what to use. Well, how would they know what to use?
Despite its obvious flaws, Microsoft software is superior in at least one important aspect: usability.
This wins the desktop user time after time. Will Linux catch up? (Can it catch up?)
Either a UI should mimic windows completely and perfectly, or not at all.
If you're not going to imitate windows, you can still take good ideas from it, but that's it. You can't have users thinking that something works like windows and then it not working like windows.
If a user sits down and thinks it works like windows, then it should work like windows; if s/he doesn't think it should work like windows, then it shouldn't.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Is that few people come back to check afterwards.
Siemens is presumably positioning themselves as a Linux vendor. Whatever they say should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
The future has an amazing ability to be exactly like the past in every aspect we thought it would change, and totally different in those aspects we expected to remain the same.
So, here is my prediction of Linux in 2008:
- There will be an explosion in the development of portable computers, provoked by the appearance of OLED screens that are cheap and flexible and gentle on batteries.
- Some of these computers will be truly wierd, ranging from disposable to wall-sized.
- Most of these new devices will run Linux or another free OS with similar plasticity and easy consumption.
- By 2008, server computers will be assembled out of brick-style units (storage, CPU, devices) that let you throw together a server of any capability from standard pieces with no tools. The OS will be Linux, the principal vendors will be IBM and DELL, the technology remarkably similar to clustering. Windows will try and fail to compete.
- The concept of 'desktop' will thus be totally passe by 2008. Only poor slobs will keep a desk chained to a computer.
- The majority of 'desktop's outside the US and parts of Europe will run Linux distributions.
- Most of those distributions will be heavily customised per country, often sponsored by governments. This will start in China and India and work up through every literate and connected country.
- The US will remain the stubborn consumer of desktop Windows OS and applications.
Conclusion: Windows can only dominate a market that is static. But markets do not rest. New technologies permit and drive new platforms, and each time, it gets harder to justify Windows. In 5 years, the current landscape will have been changed by the appearance of many new platforms where Windows is a poor second choice. It is these new platforms that will finally kill Windows and Microsoft, not replacement on the desktop.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Marketshare or necessity?
Most Mac users have to get their software from a shop, and have done for years. Most Linux users have to get their software from the 'net, and have done for years (it's where it all started). The only thing it indicates is a different software legacy.
Silly Mac Troll.
no one cares
The subject of this reply sounds like a troll, but considering this fact it might actually be sooner. All chinese civilians will probably be 'encouraged' to run chinese s/w as well. With 10^9 inhabitants and a growing market for personal computers, China may make a bigger dent in the statistics than Microsoft would like.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Have you strolled down to a local CompUSA or any other computer superstore lately? While I find several "shrinkwrapped" Linux distributions, and even FreeBSD on the shelf, I rarely see a "shrinkwrapped" copy of Mac OS, namely due to "marketshare". I do however, find games and even some commercial applications that run on Linux. I'm lucky if i find a Mac system on the shelf. Seems that something with "marketshare" would be easily obtainable for a consumer, not having to order online, or track down a Mac vendor in the yellow pages. It's like comparing apples and ermm..penguins.
Interesting point. The differences may be just as important to user acceptance as the similarities. Reflects a point I've tried to make in management discussions: Linux is not better now because it's like Windows, Linux is better because it offers advantages over Windows on many levels. So far I've been the token open source advocate, but the interest level is definitely on the increase. It's not lost on the boss that when the virus-o-d-day comes around our RedHat servers stay online.
Still some acceptance hurdles to cross and some technical improvements needed, but we're getting there. Amazing to me how fast it's gaining ground.
Viva la Penguinista!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
It's not really surprising. How many times have we heard, "It doesn't work like (act) Word", or "It doesn't work like (act) Windows". If it "looks like" then it must "act like", and when it doesn't frustration sets in. Gnome reduces that.
Here is the link
Evil ZEN Scientist
and you open the case and you peer inside---we're inside our CPU's. now imagine your burning heatsink is a white ball of healing light. that's right, feel your pain, the pain itself, it's a white ball of healing light.---I don't think so. this is your linux. good to the last drop, doesn't get any better than this. this is your linux, and it's ending one minute at a time. this isn't a convention and this isn't a weekend geek cruise. where you are now you can't even imagine what the bottom will be like. it's only after a hard drive crash can we be resurrected. it's only after you have lost all your data that you are free to do anything. nothing is static, everything is falling, everything is falling apart. this is your linux it doesn't get any better than this. this is your linux and it's ending one minute at a time. it is not a beautiful and unique snowflake. it's the same decaying OS as all the others. we are all a part of the same compost heap, we are the all-singing, all-dancing developers of the world. you are not your transparent terminal, you are not the bogomips you utilize. you are not the contents of your hard drive. you are not your window manager. you are not your kernel. you are not the code you debug. you are not your fscking frags. you have to give up, you have to give up. you have to realize that someday you will die, until you know that, you are useless. I say let me never be complete. I say may I never be content. I say deliver me from 101 different distributions. I say deliver me from clever EULA's. I say deliver me from different packaging formats. I say you have to give up. I say evolve, and let the open source revoltion unite. this is your life it doesn't get any better than this. this is your life and it's ending one minute at a time. you have to give up. you have to give up. welcome to the Linux takeover, if this is your first night, you have to reformat.
gentlemen, welcome to Linux assimilation on the desktop
1st rule of Linux club: You must agree on a single distribution
2nd rule of Linux club: You must agree on a single packaging format
3rd rule of Linux club: You must agree on a single desktop environment
4th rule of Linux club: You musy agree on a single web browser
5th rule of Linux club: You must develop a groupware suite
6th rule of Linux club: You must NOT mimic rival OS's
7th rule of Linux club: You must lay down your holier than though ego's
8th and final rule: if this do this, we will all bask in the glory of Linux on the desktop.
Duncan McNutt... Right.
interesting that this report says what it says, a few months ago I applied for a unix admin job at SBS and a guy from microsoft.com replied to my mail. luckily I didn't get it and got another job doin linux stuff at another company. I guess not all of MS's partners fear them.
I would agree with the study, as done.
The study is about the software on desktop computers in large enterprises.
As desktop computers are pressed into service as appliances/turnkey systems (cash registers, terminals) in companies, they become prime for a Linux takeover. Once you have 200 computers in an organization that are all identical and only have to runa single app that you custom wrote for it, why run Windows on it? It's just a stupid added expense. Linux will grow to own most of this market.
However, I don't see Linux reaching 20% for actual use as a desktop (as in the desktop metaphor) by 2008.
"Perhaps we as a community should stop trying to mimic existing applications and begin innovating instead."
Like Apple?
I'm not sure why they say KDE is very similar to Windows.
Yes, it can be configured to look like Windows. It can also be configured as a traditional Unix desktop (activation-follows-mouse, no taskbar, CDE style alt-tabbing) or MacOS (menubar at top of screen, macos[9|X] style window decorations) or any bizzare combination you can come up with.
I agree about about the crashes: just buy a standard Linux box and the kernel should work just fine. (I'm running the latest kernel and glibc for RH 9 over the Red Hat Network, on bad hardware, and I can still start OpenOffice.org in about 2 1/2 minutes!)
:-], KDE...)
Red Hat, I think, has done a great job with making a pretty UI which gets out of your way. The icons, window decorations, etc., aren't ugly like Win9x/ME/etc, and aren't childish like XP. I've used KDE with the Keramic icons, widgets, etc., and they seem to serve no real purpose.
And for anyone arguing about the "Windows-like" user interface, I'd like to see Windows with four (or more) virtual desktops... or virtual consoles from which I can quickly login and kill a runaway app... or an optional new menu, a logout button and lock screen button, or even a convenient monitor of new security updates... I think I'll stick with my $40 Red Hat 9, instead of waste $400 plus on a buggy set of programs and operating system.
I know there's other distro's (I used Debian *stable* for a good five months) but I just wish Red Hat would quit crippling a few good bits of software (the GNOME menu editing feature, xmms [for which I found a fix
When administrators that currently run a linux server room see the desktop as viable, stable and ready.
Then they will start rolling out test then production desktops.
It is almost there. Very very close. Probably the next desktop releases this coming fall/winter.
Right now, it isn't quite there yet. I think 2008 is too far off. That is like the linux server predictions that were saying in 5-10 years, but it happened in 18 months.
The real question, once all things are equal, will be "how much goodwill does Microsoft have in the industry". Essentially everyone is forced to use them now.
Derek
If Novell and IBM put GroupWise and Notes squarely on the Linux desktop (both are headed that way) then it gets serious.
that Linux shouldn't necessarily be trying to emulate MS Windows' dekstop so much as making one that's better even though different.
Generally too many choices for the end user (read jane secretary, or joe PHB) are BAD because it confuses them and creates IT maintenence nightmares.
It is true that if you try to create a gui interface that is just like MS windows, except you differ in some crucial areas, the user will be put off by the "well windows doesn't do/have that" comparison. However, if the user expects it to be different (because it looks that way or obviously acts that way) then their expectation base is "Hm... this is neat, I will have to learn it" which creates a whole different set of expectations that are not driven by comparisons to MS Windows.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
A point is made here. GNU/Linux distributions should look and feel differently than Windows or other proprietary OSes, not radically but still enough to avoid the kind frustration that I've seen when people expect graphically equivalent desktops like GNOME or KDE to behave like Windows. They will never be perfect replacements for it, nor should they be. Interestingly, I've seen much more success when demonstrating window managers like Fluxbox. People immediately fall for their simplicity. They just love to have one simple, well organized desktop menu and no annoying icons or toolbars to push around. No nonsense user interface is what they like. They even tell me afterwards than Windows desktop is a mess compared to them! I hope that these lightweight WMs will gain grounds in the future, because frankly even if their libraries have become essential parts of many applications, GNOME and KDE do not look or feel like the right desktops for GNU/Linux (IMHO). Something about the UN!X philosophy of having one small and efficient tool for the job makes me (and a surprising amount of novices) more comfortable without them.
./configure --enable-shared --disable-static && make world clean
....[McNutt] believes that the Ximian desktop and application suite, running on either SuSE or Red Hat, requires two days of training, which is the same as what most enterprises budget for a Windows/MS Office version upgrade.
Now I know why people call in to tech support with such rediculous problems. Perhaps M$ apps could be made more useful if the people that relied on them were better trained in the techniques of using a windows system.
So what will happen if businesses were to migrate to a linux platform that's completely different from windows? Would the average desktop user really be able to pick up the necessary skills to use linux effectively in a matter of a couple of days?
I have a feeling that insufficient knowledge and interest in learning a new system is the reason that linux hasn't already claimed a larger share of the desktop market.
Before you can have a smarter desktop, you need to make smarter users.
~Mike
Mike Rizzo
Although I may be being shortsighted, I don't think it can get much better than a wheel. However, there are other things that could use improving that people work on all the time - the placement of dials and gauges, signal controls, headlight controls, position of the shifter, environmental controls, HUDs...
So, like Windows and other desktops, for a GUI, there are certain givens (until other hardware becomes commonplace, like maybe gloves), there is a pointer, there is a graphical background, you click on things to make something happen. In that way, yes, they are all the same. But the positions of items, the labeling, the color schemes, gestures, voice interfaces, these are all things that someone could (and should) run with to make the "standard" in the future.
I guess what we are (and should be) driving towards, no pun intended, is customizablilty. That's one of the strong suits. There is something to be said for consistency across applications (like menu hot-keys), but there can be a whole world of things besides that. What we should be driving more towards (and again, you see this more with Linux and Open Source applications) is being able to assign the hot-keys yourself.
Perhaps a system wide defination to make all applications behave the same way, but make that definition customizable. I don't mean "skins", although that's part of it, but skins don't necessarily change programs functionally.
In any event, it IS worth trying. With all that said, GUI is NOT a better interface than the command line all the time. Certainly for a lot of things, and if I had to choose I'd just stick with the GUI, but I tend to have at least one shell open (in Windows or Linux). The best thing on Windows is having CYGWIN and a "Bash Here" (or "Bash This") context option when you right click on a folder.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Statistics obviously don't mean jack and statitsitcal prognostications are perhaps the only thing less reliable. I personally think that the GNU/Linux desktop numbers are way higher than what gets reported. I mean it's free and you download it from the net. If sixty million people are using P2P to download DivX, Mp3, games and apps with who knows what kind of archiving I have to assume that downloading distros is not as challenging to the masses as folks imagine.
In fact, I think it's the non-geek types who are quickest to switch. They just want something that works and the fact is that whether or not they're really the ones to blame, MS products piss ordinary users off all the time. Sure, Linux will do the same, but you know how people are, they'll turn away just out of spite. Loyalty, hah. This is the twenty-first century.
I just installed Mandrake 9.1 the other day and was completely shocked at how easy it was to install compared to my initial taste of Linux (Slackware) several years back. With each version, it's getting easier and more user friendly, and that's the only way Linux will ever have a chance of taking over the Windows market. It's just amazing how many pieces of full featured software are available for free, and you have *so many options*. It's way more customizable than Windows is...I think it's completely possible, and I was talking to my friend the other day and predicted that within a few years, Linux will be tough competition against Windows. Just look at what's happening...HP is bundling Linux with their systems. While HP doesn't make that great of computers, I view this as a BIG step. I think one of the major hurdles that is keeping them from capturing a big market today is game compatibility. I'm a big gamer myself, and after trying Mandrake 9.1, I'd be willing to go fulltime Linux if all my games worked perfectly in Linux. But alas, I will continue to dualboot. Someone needs to do a social experiment and put 10 Linux newbies with computer skills ranging from total newb to pretty technically adept into a room with 10 computers running Mandrake 9.1 and see how they make out. Hey, a new reality show!
Furthermore if Linux holds 20% you're going to have compatibility problems up the wazoo(sp?) The reason everyone uses Microsoft products is because it works[sic] so well together.
Look at the Linux desktop four years ago when I migrated my parents to Linux with RedHat 6.1...... And no, they are not great with computers.....
Look at the Linux desktop today where finally RedHat, SuSE, et. al. are trying to push for a Linux desktop market. This would have been unheard of 4 years ago.
We already have early adopters in Muenchen, and other places, but the large-scale deployments seem to generally be governments, while the small scale deployments tend to be smaller businesses. Here are the pro's and cons to Linux vs Windows:
Cons:
======
Lots of software available out of the box for Windows. Many well developed desktop applications.
Microsoft RAD environments have a much larger mindshare than their UNIX equivalents (TCL, Perl with GTK, etc.).
Company may have large number of legacy VB applications, and I have still had serious difficulty getting many Win32 applications to install or run on Linux using WINE.
Pro:
==========
Flexibility: This is open source's killer app, IMO. With Linux, you can download a set of ISO images from the net, roll out a pilot program on existing hardware without having to procure anything. The same holds true for the BSD's as well. Of course if you don't buy it you get no support, but you may not want to pay for the support for a 3 month pilot program since you can then buy things later when you have figured out exactly what you need.
Linux is far more admin friendly than Windows is because the "toolkit" approach that Microsoft disparages gives far more flexibility than Microsoft's "End to end solution" approach. Again, this comes down to additional flexibility for a business who can now easily use existing solutions in new environments.
In essence all the "Software for an Agile Business" ads aside, it is clear that open source gives businesses MORE agility and flexibility than any proprietary solutions, and that this is most pronounced when compared to Windows.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
In every office and every home that I work on
:)
a computer, at least ONE person (with a few exceptions)
in that place gets a Knoppix cd.
In the homes, the kids are usually more interested than
the parents.
At the offices it gives them a 'working' internet
machine when the M$ crap takes a dump
At the very least... it's getting Linux in the
door.
In the best cases... I get to do a linux install
One of my wife's friends wants me to install Linux on her machine just so she can play Frozen Bubble. They are all addicted to that game.
Hey, there goes the stupid argument that everything has to look "exactly like Windows".......
Mainstream adoption is hard to predict because generally it takes a critical mass for such to start being adopted big-time. Vendors and retailers won't support it until there is enough demand, and people won't bother learning it and installing it until enough other people are. Nobody really knows where the tipping point is.
It is kind of like predicting earthquakes: you know there are stresses on the fault-lines, but you cannot tell exactly when those stresses are enough trigger a chain-reation movement, AKA quake.
Table-ized A.I.
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
...due primarily to it's UNIX heritage: its security model, centralized authentication, network filesystems (both NFS and AFS), and it's inherent ability to scale from thin client to full workstation...
Argh! Make up your goddamned mind!
GNOME might look like if it has better usability than windows at first glance, but it lacks any sort of consistancy, which hurts intuitiveness, which in the end hurts usability. When running GNOME, I don't feel like I'm using a desktop, but rather a loose collection of apps. I don't feel that way with Windows or MacOSX.
All of these discussions about desktop Linux seem to take place in a vacuum, or at least an ideal situation where office workers need no more than a suite package and a web browser and the training to go along with them. Sure, it's trivially true that if We Had To It Over Again, we'd come up with something better than Windows (even MS probably agrees on that point).
However, most organizations are tied down to the massive installed base of Windows applications. In larger corporations, the numbers of internal/vertical applications can even rival the number of employees. The OS is nearly meaningless compared to the importance of these apps to a business. The cost of porting to Unix/Java/Web would be absolutely gigantic -- if the tools were even there to do it (and it's not clear they are).
So, while incrementally lower administration costs are nice, it's simply impossible for COA considerations to overwhelm the absolutely massive transition cost of rewriting all of those apps.
We need a paradigm shift in IT, something new and wonderful needs to happen.
I think that open source *is* that paradigm shift and that it *is* happening. Buisnesses are going to open source solutions because they are finding business value in that paradigm shift.
While Ballmer yells "Developers, developers, developers," we should be saying quietly, "Flexibility, flexibility, flexibility" and know that we are talking about flexibility of business, not just the flexibility of the software.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I'm very satisfied what I have to work with. I have a very clean window manager with no crap I don't use. Everything is one right click away in a menu I create by hand with a utility I wrote to edit it. It's pretty. It uses 8 megs of ram when running. It is completely personalized for me and my tastes. I have shortcut keys all over the damn place so I hardly ever have to touch my mouse to interact with my desktop. Very very fast. Very simple. And I did my own them with aquas and blues and greens and gradients and it's soothing to look at and damn sharp. I have Office 2000 working with wine one click away. I have a ton of first person shooters. I have 6000 of my favorite songs, cd burning software, everything I need. And I haven't had to mess with it or reboot it in ages. KDE and Gnome are playing catchup with microsoft. Not all of us though microsoft had a particularly great interface to begin with. Some of us have been way way ahead of Microsoft on the desktop for a very long time.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
I'm doing yardwork today and just don't have time to proofread. Yuk is right. --M
You are a troll but...
In 2002 Linux did overtake mac.
Linux is part of the free software movement, Linux users are disproportionately hostile to shrinkwrapped commercial packages; further Linux distributions come with tons and tons of software and you can download software for free for just about everything.
And what you can't download is available though not in retail stores.
There are elitists in the Windows world and the Mac-principality and indeed in any OS-contrived social situation. People who are like that exist ev-er-y-where! One learns to avoid them; if such attitudes make one uncomfortable. Telling all Linux elitists to change personalities? That's a bit like telling a leopard to change spots to stripes. Far better to wait until more and more non-elitists move into the Linux continuum, than kvetch and complain that some of the current crop are less than friendly and patient.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I started using Linux for coding about a year and a half ago, and switched to using it as my main OS a year ago.
I had various problems getting odd bits of hardware to work, etc, etc... nothing too serious. I found people were generally helpful. The one offputting thing that happened was this:
I use a chat program that I wrote under Delphi in Windows... making it pretty much impossible to port. Under Windows it binds to port 23 to let people connect to it with telnet... obviously impossible under Linux, but I didn't know that at the time :-)
Anyway. I asked how I could get around this -- and the person on IRC said, well, you could start it as root and drop priveleges. And then I said I wrote it and was running it under Wine... and the response was one of disbelief. Why I want to run anything under Wine?... it was 100% necessary to my switch to Linux, but they weren't interested.
So -- switching operating systems isn't easy, particular for a home user. The fact that I'm a compsci student, plus the fact that I was persistent, mean I made the switch okay. Much happier with what my computer can do now :-)... but you're absolutely right about the attitude of many current users. Relying on Windows doesn't mean you're stupid or weak; it's a tool like any other.
It sure lowered mine.
[...] most organizations are tied down to the massive installed base of Windows applications. In larger corporations, the numbers of internal/vertical applications can even rival the number of employees. The OS is nearly meaningless compared to the importance of these apps to a business.
This is absolutely true. Once the cost of the migration exceeds the recurring yearly gain over a five year time horizon or so (doesn't matter why; could be porting apps, hardware transition, licensing) then you've got a no-go situation. Wine might be a partial solution to that specific problem, but each app would have to be rigorously tested in house and certified with management as to functionality. That testing would certainly cost and should be factored into the migration costs.
I'm not sure a large organization with many prior internally written and platform specific apps would save significant money from a transition to Linux. It's catch as catch can. Per desktop, Linux is certainly cheaper to manage in large deployments than Windows. It gets significantly cheaper the larger one scales up. But if your apps don't run and the workforce can't work, you've lost the whole point behind a deployment. So, I would certainly agree and wouldn't recommend Linux in that situation; especially if the organization in question wasn't interested in a potential wine solution to running their apps.
Now, back to the yardwork,
Cheers,
--Maynard
Here at UC Davis, almost all the math teachers (and probably other departments) use linux desktops in their offices. I was rather suprised. Does anyone else have any examples of Linux desktop (non)use in higher education?
No it won't, because regardless of what Linux is capable of now or down the road, this will not happen unless something significant happens to Microsoft's marketing machine. Linux will get no where in the desktop space without a UNIFIED and powerful marketing powerhouse.
People have to be convinced that moving to Linux is the right thing to do. People have been forever in the belief that Windows is the right thing, because Microsoft has convinced them of this.
-Slashdot Junky
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
Duncan McNutt should take over SCO as the successor to Darl McBride. He would make a much better CEO of SCO.
To answer a question that will probably pop up in a reply to my post, yes, I did read the article and actually printed it out. It was greater than any work of Shakespeare! :)
Interestingly, they used Ximian Desktop, instead of KDE, because Gnome, particularly Ximian's version, was "different enough" to set user expectations that the experience would be less like Windows.
You see, all you people who think the Linux desktop needs to be "more like Windows?" If you go the path of "like Windows" then you have to make Linux exactly the same as Windows or ex-Windows users (99% of the population) get confused.
On the other hand, as this story says, if the desktop is different enough from Windows, people automatically (because of psychological reasons) know it is not Windows so they expect things to be different, and are more open to the change.
Incidentally, they mention that training lusers on Linux takes 2 days, the same as a Windows upgrade, but I don't remember if they mentioned this: Upgrades to the Linux system (other than automatically administered bug patches for security reasons) won't need to take place as often as for Windows systems.
- Linux makes better use of the hardware.
- Open standards and open source on Linux means that nobody is forcing you to upgrade.
- Unlike in the Windows world, where you must upgrade because the rest of the world is doing it, there is no such requirement on Linux, except for security related patches which can be remotely administered by the IT department without the user even knowing it.
This means that companies will have to spend many less two days to get users acquainted with changes to their computer systems.Even if more horsepower is required for some reason (which would, in the Windows world, require all 50,000,000,000 computers in a company to be replaced with faster models and new software), the company can install one or more big huge servers running Linux or any other UNIX and use the resources on that machine, leaving all or most of the users' machines alone. Again, the users wouldn't even know anything was changed... and that means savings in cost. (If you have 45,000 employees on computers and you have to train them for two days, that's likely to cost twice as much as buying six million dollars in servers. (Figure 45,000 people making $18 an hour, 8 hours per day, for 2 days... Add to that all the taxes, insurances and benefits you have to pay and you've got two really expensive days!)
Furthermore, the free software community reduces costs for companies, not only because of licensing fees but because bugs and security problems get found and fixed quickly, and new features are added when someone needs them... I imagine that as more "enterprises" make the switch, they'll hire some folks into their IT department to do nothing but develop Linux to meet their special needs, and that means that with thousands of companies worldwide doing this, in addition to tech companies like IBM and HP, and in addition to the already existing (and growing) developer community... Linux is going to continue picking up speed and inertia, and Microsoft, with their "little team" of 30,000 programmers, soon won't be able to keep up.
It is for all the above reasons that I firmly believe that companies that don't invest in Linux now will scamper to invest in it later... or be left in the dust.
having to configure you desktop to get it to work well is a major waste of time, in the real (mom+pop/corperate) world people just want it to work well out of the box. making things config options instead of taking the hard road and researching how to best configure the default desktop to be most usable is a cop out to the nth degree.
> Linux desktop will capture 20% of the market
> for desktop computers in large enterprises
> within the next 5 years
yeah right. I will also have lost my virginity in
the next 5 years.
Get real guys!
" You've hit the mark. The only way people are going to dump Windows for Linux or any other OS is if that OS has a compelling difference that makes it worth the change. While one can argue that Linux or *BSD is more stable that is hard to demostrate without prolonged use and if the system is too close to Windows yet not quite there as is the case with KDE then users will be frustrated and leave it before the realize that it is more stable and more secure. The very things that make Linux the better OS are the hardest for end users to see."
So by your argument:
1-Mac OS X doesn't have compelling differences to cause people to switch.
2-And those differences in it's favour are too hard for end users to see.
Why don't we all simply be honest with ourselves, and instead of coming with creatives excuses why not. Why not come right out and say "We are not going to switch from Windows, reason or not"?
People who have every intent of switching, don't need excuses, but those who feel their position threatened do.
The reason that training is more successful on a very different looking distro is mode change. Apple was going after this with OS X. All the whiners that complain it looks different and acts different from OS 9 for no reason don't understand that they are trying to get people out of their old habits and fully appreciate the power of the new experience. The same is true if your Linux distro looks decidedly unlike Windows. People won't have as many "Windows" expectations.
If something should go wrong under the hood, like the internet connection drops, God help her if I'm not around. And she could not have set the system up herself. But with large organizations like the article discusses, that's not the end-user's problem.
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
From there on next 10 years linux community will be playig catch-up as they still do with Windows 95.
That's probably a gross understatement. When Linux breaks the desktop (like it did for servers), a couple things will happen.
First, development of the desktop will be relatively much cheaper, due to the large mass of users. More slickness and more applications (finally...)
And second, MS will be in deep trouble. They can't keep hiking the price to sustain their profit level. They'll also have trouble reducing the prices significantly, as shareholders would panic. And if they introduce a new desktop OS, it'll have to compete head on with a seriously tough enemy - the perfected (and still free) Linux desktop.
While Linux lives just fine with 5%, 10% or 20% of the desktop, Windows doesn't - a major drop MS-Windows marketshare would cause the confidence in the platform to erode, and thus create an interesting snowball effect, leading to great savings and great freedom :)
Optimist, and proud of it!
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
Windows will be almost gone by 2008. There will be significant improvements in all aspects of tech by then, and Linux will both carry and be carried by the waves of new devices and applications rolling out that will use Linux and therefore support it(directly or indirectly).
:P
With a few more years of improvement at the current rate(and maybe less time if the rate increases with a larger dev-community and more funding!) Linux is likely to reach a point of critical-mass, at which point the market will suddenly flood over and give up Windows forever. This will happen even for Joe Average, as he someday discovers that he can't download or purchase much of anything new for Windows anymore. All that will remain will be Microsoft's in-house products and labels, tucked in some back corner of the computer store. And Slashdot will have to get rid of the Borg-Gates icon because it'll never be used anymore
"is predicting that the Linux desktop will capture 20% of the market for desktop computers in large enterprises within the next 5 years."
Ok, but what is the size of "large enterprises"? This could still amount to a small portion of the entire world's desktops.
I've been interested in Linux since 1998 and I've always had at least one desktop computer with a Red Hat distribution on it and I enjoy it as an OS, though I rarely no more than word process or surf the web on that box.
What I have been always curious about, and I never see this covered: what companies, big, small, in between, have adopted Linux on the desktop? I am a teacher, so I know of schools, but what about businesses?
This is a really big development. Siemans is a giant global IT consulting company, which means it is the sort of authority that high-level business executives listen to. They have a lot of credibility because they know the corporate environment and have a reputation for expertise and objectivity.
This is the first time that such an organization has come out publically and said good things about the Linux corporate desktop. Oh, and what they say pretty much blows Microsoft's TCO out of the water. I wonder if they have a report you can get that presents the details of their studies?
This is where Microsoft's push to web services might hurt them. I just deployed a .Net app using webservices to talk to the database. We've got a business partner who hits the same services, using SOAP::Lite (opensource perl). It works great. We're even using Microsoft's dataset format.
my kingdom for a mod point...
*sigh* back to work...
Seems like bloody slow progress to me, given that Linux has been around in a usable form since 1993 or so and that in 2008 it will be about 17 years old. Linux had a usable desktop in 1994, or at least a lot more usable than Windows back then. Still I suppose this process is social rather than technical.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
The question mark can be useful for changing a statement into a question, but a little polish can be added by adjusting the word order as well.
For instance;
"Linux will have...?" becomes
"Will Linux have...?"
So much better.
All things in moderation; including moderation
Don't tell her that there is a Java applet version of Frozen Bubble...
Big companies are already going through the portings, IBM rewriting almost everything in Java or Web services for example, SAP is being rewritten as web services, etc. All these can then be used either through a browser or other thin client, making the OS almost irrelevant.
Once that happens, companies can look at the cost of buying the next 3 year cycle of Windows+application licenses, and compare it to the cost of porting over or replacing the remaining windows only applications, and do the maths. For some it will be easy, dump windows, get in Sun or IBM to do a Linux thin-client or workstation implementation with servers doing the real work.
Ewan
You shouldn't make fun of people just because you think their names sound funny.
Sincerely,
Pat McGroyne
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
I was talking with a friend yesterday about why the "Linux on the desktop" debate always strikes me as entirely moronic. I finally found the right words to express the situation. Linux can't "win" the desktop until people respond "who cares?" Relevance of the desktop is a false value. The best technologies are the ones you rarely notice.
The only hope is to have a version of WINE that is so reliable and capable that it not only will run everything, but is also usable and fast enough that it develops a solid reputation for being "the" answer to this problem. Anything short of that and businesses will not convert to Linux--why should they go through the pain and expense of converting to an OS that doesn't meet their needs, even if has a zero marginal cost and superior reliability and security?
Seriously though, this is useful in terms of raising credibility for desktop Linux. I find it very significant that this comes from a German company -- the EU in general and Germany in particular seems to have special motivation to resist the Redmond hegemony.
Which opens up an interesting possibility: North American corporations stick with Windows out of sheer inertia, while their overseas counterparts all switch to Linux. One more cultural-technology gap, to go with the metric system and GSM!
But, you say, the prediction is still not useful, because it doesn't actually predict! Well, evaluating predictions in terms of their accuracy has a certain naive charm, I suppose. But not very realistic!
Isn't KDE quite configurable about its look&feel?
You can change the fonts, styles, colors, click behaviour, widget themes, sounds, menus, panel and desktop.
I don't see why they couldn't simply use a configured KDE setup if they wanted a difference from Windows.
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/May/os.php
1. Win 98 15416286 (40%)
2. Win 2000 11518338 (30%)
3. Win XP 7329054 (19%)
4. Win NT 1140924 (2%)
5. Mac 881868 (2%)
6. Win 95 844872 (2%)
7. Unknown 565197 (1%)
8. Win 3.x 188799 (0%)
9. Linux 132828 (0%)
10. WebTV 58173 (0%)
11. Unix 23838 (0%)
12. Win ME 10638 (0%)
13. OS/2 2118 (0%)
14. Amiga 648 (0%)
Yeah, sure, it's dying you might say.
But I have to admit that I just installed FreeBSD (4.8-R) on one of my spare computers, and it only took three or four hours to have an operational system with properly working Xfree86 and the usual stuff to surf the web etc. I've never managed to do that with linux (debian). Either it took much longer or it just would not work. Right now I only have problems with my sound card (sb clone).
Maybe I should try some other distro or some live linux ISOs to get things working?
I'm a windows guy, and I like/run several linux desktops and servers. I want it to be as good if not better than windows as a corporate desktop because I feel that by then linux will have been so matured and reworked that it has no choice but to be rock solid, and I look forward to that.
But I dont dilude myself with visions of grandeur. Secretaries wont understand: why copy/paste doesnt work in every app and behave consistently, why they need to download other packages just to get one program to work (or why it isnt done transparently for them), why they cant eject their cdrom by pushing the button on the front of the drive when they want to, why fonts sometimes look different, why domain credentials are no longer transparent, etc.
Maybe some of these are already solved and I am just behind the times. But I deal with non-IT end users all the time and linux would just befuddle them to no end in some of these cases. But I also know that they could learn another office suite other than MS Office, and they can fathom the purpose of multiple desktops, and they would be happy when they dont get virii so often.
I really want to see linux work even better than it is. But take it in small steps, and lose the holier-than-thou attidude that most of you have against windows [users] and we might actually take notice.
Untill linux cleans up its act as more and more bloatware distros out there, it will never replace a Windows PC. I mean really, Linux freaks claim its better than windows, but the only advantage so far is its "free".
1. Still crashes like windows would.
2. Has just as many (if not more depending on distro) patches/security problems as windows. Mandrake had 34megs more than WindowsXP on a fresh install.
3. It has 15 programs that do the same thing in each distro!
4. No freakin game support, don't even mention Wine for anything worth playing.
5. It cost more than windows cause you will spend 5 hours each day trying to figure out how to make your freakin hardware work, it detects it, but still does not work.
Fix that, then we can talk.
Well, IBM is a somewhat special case, never having been particularlly wedded to Windows. Realworld ERP installations have a ton of custom code surrounding them -- often in VB or whatever.
Maybe in 3 years things will change, but I know people that are still running XBASE apps, things written in VB4.0, and even DOS stuff. Plus the usual gazillion Access DBs, Excel macros, Delphi hacks, etc etc that IT dept probably doesn't even know about.
The only really big big "desktop" Linux deal is the recently annouced City of Munich. And they're running VMWare/Windows as a "temporary" measure (uh huh) until everything is ported over. Dollars to donuts it's a permanent part of their infrastructure, just as how DOS compatibilty lives on underneath every OS.
>> You've hit the mark. The only way people are going to
>> dump Windows for Linux or any other OS is if that OS
>> has a compelling difference that makes it worth the
>> change.
Could you follow up on this please?
I just can't think of an example of when any large group of people dropped Windows for anything. I pre-date Windows myself, and my observations are that DOS users (who later became Windows users) claim that they don't need what they don't have until they get it.
Example: ten years ago, a DOS-user friend of mine ragged on Macs because they used this "mouse pointer thingy".
He's probably using one of those thingys today.
No one's going to switch from Windows based on mere merits of functionality.
--Richard
One thing I'd like to mention is Microsoft's purchase of Connectix, the maker of the Virtual PC for Mac and, well, PC.
For a long time its seemed that virtualizing machines for even a single process is inevitable. Microsoft's acquisition of Connectix makes me think they see the virtual machine as important to their future.
Apps and coding platforms are as much their core business as the Desktop/GUI they are presented in. With fairly ubiqitous [and somewhat standardized ;^)] VMs running an MS core, a person's program really wouldn't care where it started and where it ends up (e.g. from your widnows desktop to you linux pda to your java watch to your PlanIX:2-ElectricBoogaloo toaster to ... etc.).
Essentially the 'battle for the desktop' becomes moot as the program people run which don't really get that much more complex (i.e. user software typically increase their complexity along with human needs) are able to 'keep up with your busy life' on hardware that advances at a more exponential pace (e.g. "You only have 50GB in you George Foreman Lean Mean Grilling/SETI@Home Machine? Jeez!").
For me it always comes back to what people -- real people -- the nx100 millions of users not reading /. -- want or need to do with their information processing machines. Today's level of need can pretty much be handled at the Pentium II (or even 486!) level for web/email/office if it's lean and mean (like many linux-top boxen), and yet today we have Intel today pushing a non-product ("Centrino" == ??) with their annual marketing/advertising budget of $US ~200-400 Million.
I'd like to think that Linux (especially when you separate the meat of GNU) is a concept that is not at odds with MS (which itself is a group of concepts that happen to manifest as software and blue screens these days ;^}). Perhaps the trouble with all software is actually in discovering what, if any, information processing acutally requires the power and complexity that the Open Source movement and linux affords.
It's fine and jim dandy to lead a horse to water, but if its not thirsty, it just might not be interested.
I'd even say the notion of 'Battle' is a bit of a distraction. Certainly its a solidifying point programmers rally around, and yet if the energy focused by those programmers are simply to fight microsoft, maybe that's really like letting the Redmondists win...
Five or ten years out would seem a little much, when you consider that we're at just over a decade of Windows (3.1 shipped in 92, and this November we'll see the decade anniversary since WFW3.11!), that's pretty awesome considering that in that decade not only has there been the incredible changes in personal OSes, server OSes, peripherals, programming languages, and the information superhighway. jeez I still remember 300 bits per second, and now my modem is 1000 times faster at 3Mbs.
With that kind of increase what will the growth curve give us? 5 more versions of Windows in the coming decade (and who knows how many forks in the linux kernel ;^)); a trillion dollars of marketing money flowing to promote the latest thing that really isn't...
The future is always brighter than expected, and dimmer too. My biggest bet is on the children. Given the opportunity to look up answers to absolutely any question that pop's into their developming minds, and not being daunted by parent's can't conceive of 3 billion pages of information being accesible through a single google search, the kids may just turn out to find something more exciting to do with One Terahertz processors than anything the people who are fighting for the title of 'King of the WIMPs' might conceive...
Oliver's Law: Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
Did you notice their argument for using Ximian ? The fact that it is different enough from Windows means that users are not irritated by the differences, whereas with KDE the users found the difference a problem. Interesting. All the time many WMs have been trying to produce a Windowsish experience and that now looks to be a problem in adopting that WM for newbies.
Bitter and proud of it.
I know some folks will dismiss me as way off base here, but I've come to believe these types of "efficiency studies" are total B.S.
Here's why: Even if someones does accurately measure the time spent opening/using/saving files in a Windows environment vs. a Linux environment (ensuring equivalent hardware for both tests), factors in number of reboots, and everything else - the results will mean little to nothing in the real corporate environment.
While a computer might be executing code non-stop, as fast as its given new tasks to process, people don't function that way. When someone has to stop what they're doing/thinking about doing due to something like a system reboot, their train of thought gets temporarily lost. They tend to use this time as an opportunity to "switch gears" and do other tasks that need doing. (Maybe it's as basic as going to the restroom or grabbing a drink of water? Maybe it's a matter of getting some RMA shipments ready for the UPS driver to pick up? Whatever....)
My point is, management shouldn't be making decisions on which OS to run based on these time/efficieny studies, because it's a flawed concept. Computers *should* perform quickly enough that using the software doesn't feel like a fight of "user vs. sluggish PC", but beyond that - counting seconds saved doing basic file operations is too nit-picky. You might as well make rules forcing employees to always walk the shortest path back from any printer or copier to their desk, or supervise everyone to ensure they're using every possible keyboard shortcut, rather than waste "precious time" finding options on pull-down menus and clicking them!
Wow, I did my nightly visit to Slashdot and then my nightly visit to news.google.com and was surprised to see this very article posted on Google's new site. Weird.
According to Google zeitgeist, its been 1% for the last three years.
..once all these people discover just how crap desktop linux is.
Why did you choose PhProjekt? Did you compare it to PhPGroupware? Can you give some more details? Groupware is one of the sticking points for deployment of Linux in the workplace. If we can get over this hurdle and accounting software, we will be mostly home.
Put identity in the browser.
However here are a few things worth considering:
1: Reboots can mean data loss (if a project was not saved before the BSOD, etc.)
2: Reboots can mean higher support costs, more helpdesk personnel, etc.
So management has valid reasons for using this as a factor, but rapid application development is more of a business driver than stability
Actually I know of one company that ran Windows 98 inside of VMWare (on Linux) on all their workstations. People's documents were saved on fileservers. Then, when an update needed to be made, they would make the change to the master VMWare image and use good-ol' *nix stype automation to push it out to everybody....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I have always said that MS is more vunerable than, say, Oracle. Replacing desktops and productivity apps occurs in 18 to 36 month cycles anyway.
On the other hand, databases, and the other critical enterprise applications which rely on them, take 18 to 36 months _to_ replace.
Your MIS is going to cast a much more critical eye over the decision to replace the enterprise layer of the business than the access-points (i.e. the computers on the worker's desks) to that enterprise layer. And that access layer is frequently nowadays nothing but a web browser over a secured network. Such as the project I am currently working on for a client, 'Business transformation project', taking the mission-critical apps - the core business - off an OS/390 mainframe onto a n-Tier J2EE based architecture using Websphere, DB2, and Webmethods. It is very much in the front of the client's minds, has been for quite a while, and will be for quite a while more. The success or otherwise is totally critical to the enterprise in a way that 'the desktop' never will be.
Oracle (and SAP, and J2EE, etc) is far more 'mission critical' than Windows. That's why MS wants to get their dirty fingers into a piece of that pie - harder to dislodge from it.
-A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed-
I'm reminded of that quotation, I don't remember by whom, which went, "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed."
...I might have thought Linux stood a chance on the desktop.
But once NT4 came out, Windows became "good enough."
Not "the best", not "great", but good enough.
So on the desks it went, where it is firmly entrenched. That's all she wrote.
Windows seems to be getting better and better. Still not great, still not the best (but neither is Lunix). Now if they could/would only fix those pesky security holes...
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
N/T
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Unfortunately, Siemens Business Systems' research was most assuredly done without taking into consideration that Novell is buying Ximian! Having worked for Novell I've always been one holding out and "rooting for the home team". After their dismal buggy software releases; software that requires support technicians to connect to our corporate network to implement fixes/hacks (NDS/eDirectory); and continually having their support department hold patches hostage as a means to coerce us into upgrading to a higher more costly PREMIUM SUPPORT CONTRACT; you can count this patsy out of number of folks jumping on the Ximian bandwagon.
I've waited well over a year waiting for yet another management team to turn things around. I'm tired of the empty promises that Jack Messman and Chris Stone will clean things up. They've not made a damn difference except to continue Novell's old ways of trying to purchase their way out of trouble and sending us new faces in place of the old. They've not addressed the cancers within that keep eating up good technologies and potentially great "solutions".
Have you ever seen another company waste away so much good technology and capital through acquisition? If there is any way for Ximian to back out, they should do so immediately. S. B. S. needs to start back at square one with their research or drop to the second place finisher if they expect to make good on their findings.
If it has the Novell name or logo associated with it, it is not an option - too many hidden costs. In my book Novell will end up the great business case studied by university IT and business students as the quintessential company that would have, should have, could have but never did and died the slowest of deaths squandering assets and conning customers.
with equal abilities.
>...is if that OS has a compelling difference that makes it worth the change...
I work for a fairly large IT company, and at a guess, I would say that out of the 40(ish) developers in my group, we are at about 10% Linux (me being one of them), 40% OS X and 50% Windows. That beings said, it's a trend that's on an up slope. A year ago it was more like 0% Linux, 25% OS X and the rest was Windows. The fact is people (especially developers) are getting sick of Windows. Therefore, while Linux may never have a full 20% of the desktop market share, the numbers are going to continue to grow as people are looking for alternatives to Windows.
-- [Sig] Rome did not create a great empire by negotiation; They did it by killing everyone who opposed them.