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. "
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.
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.
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.
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
Am I the only person who cracked up when I read this?
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.
...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
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
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?
How quickly we forget. Just a couple days ago a gent wrote to slashdot stating his company would pay, what was it, $350K to RedHat for their latest pricing scheme. That's free for very high prices of free. Oddly, it seems that the higher price tag adds some credibility. While Debian was a very popular choice for the replies, Debian lacks official support and the software vendors stamp of approval, which many (most) companies consider essential, hence was a moot point made over and over and over again.
Yesterday I put in some overtime by working in our manufacturing plant. Wore my nifty CopyLeft baseball cap with the backwards C. Several of the college kids asked me what it was. When I told them, not a one had a clue as to what I was talking about. They never heard of GNU or linux or opensource/free software in general. That didn't leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling for the future.
In our IT department, while I'm not what one would call an advocate, whenever I mention linux or anything in the free software genre, I quickly get an "oh shut up, it's junk" reply.
20% by 2008 is just a silly pipedream. The major problem seems to be mind share. Folks who aren't fanatical about Windows are seen as the bad guys who infect computers with viri and engage in other immoral activities that cause trouble. I picture a witch hunt type senario against linux et al rather than a major acceptance.
-----
The mob moves like demons possessed
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right
Confident their ways are best
The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies
-----
We've seen it over and over again, the better choice doesn't always win. The only way I see linux succeeding is by first dominating non-US markets. e.g. Company X sets up a shop in Country Y where linux is number one, they use linux there, it proves to be a good value, then is implemented in other locations. But given the Windows network design, I think that is even pretty far stretched, as incorporating non-Winodws network segments in their forest/tree thing can be a real pain. And, let us not forget, the US is basically the only place on earth that continues to reject the metric system.
Well, that's enough Sunday morning babbling :P
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
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.
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?
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.