Desktop Linux Share Overtaking Macintosh

prostoalex writes "Business Week magazine is optimistic about desktop Linux's future, telling a story of Capital Cardiology Associates, whose 160 employees migrated to Linux desktops. Furthermore, Business Week expects IDC to announce desktop Linux installations to reach 3.2%, for the first time overtaking Macintosh market share. By 2007, IDC forecasts, Linux will be installed on 6% of the desktops. It's also worth mentioning that desktop Linux market share for 2002 was 2.8% and that year it was behind Apple's operating system."

Comments

if only apple was x86

[Anonymous Coward]

i know for sure i'd be running mac os if it worked on intel

Re:if only apple was x86

[diersing]

Moderators - why is this flamebait?

If Mac OS X ran on x86, it stands to reason the parent, myself and many others might give it a go. If you could run Mac OS X on cheap, available and upgradable hardware it would stand to reason that it would have a greater desktop share. Being that some out there view Apples as cost prohibitive. I feel the parent is on-topic, even if poorly presented/worded.

Re:if only apple was x86

[Mr Pippin]

Regardless, I don't think this is bad for Apple.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Apple has more to gain from Microsoft losing marketshare to Linux than themeslves losing marketshare to Linux. Apple is a Unix proponent, and friendly to Linux in that regard.

Who knows that the future may bring!

Re:if only apple was x86

[l0ungeb0y]

This is flamebait because people have been crying wolf about Macintosh OS's going x86 for years, much longer than the cries about "BSD is dying" and typically, people will post about Macintosh going to x86 to intice a flamewar from Mac enthusiasts and PC users alike.

In fact, I already posted in this thread and in my post I was going to note that it would be interesting to see what the stats would be for x86 OSX desktop installs if such an option were available to the consumer. But wisely I decided to skirt that issue for the very reason you see in your parent post.

Re:if only apple was x86

[rampant mac]

"If Mac OS X ran on x86..."

God Dammit, how many times does it need to be said? As far as the hardware debate, yes, Macs are more expensive. Yes, the retail cost of a new Mac is more than your average clone, or build-it-yourself project, and this is not where Apple is positioned.

I purchased a Mac because I was sick and tired of "tinkering" with my computer, constantly tweaking settings, ensuring everything worked properly. I set my PowerBook up 4 months ago, and guess what... It just works. Apple can NOT provide that same advantage using cobbled-together x86 components thrown together and hope the end user experience "just works" for the average consumer.

You really do get what you pay for.

Re:if only apple was x86

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you would, but Apple would be out of business. When they allowed clone PPC machines in the mid-90s, total Macintosh market share actually went up somewhat, but it was a financial disaster for Apple since it cut into their profit margins on hardware. Its the cost of Mac hardware that subsidizes OS development; when you buy a Macintosh, Apple gets at least as much profit as they would from 5 or 6 boxed copies of Mac OS at the normal retail prices. So if they were to port OS X to the x86 platform, they would have to count on increasing their marketshare sixfold almost instantly to counter the devaluation of their hardware. Now the truth is, that can't happen. Every single current Mac user would probably switch to cheaper and faster PC hardware if it came out, and the dilletante dabbler crowd that install ten OS's on their computer might install it, although not all of them would pay. But as far as a large-scale shift from Windows, it wouldn't happen; ordinary end-users cower in fear even at the thought of installing a windows upgrade, much less an entirely new OS, and PC manufacturers are far too entangled with Microsoft to ship PCs preloaded with software from a company that, after all, has been a competitor of theirs for most of its history.

Apple concluded, when Steve Jobs came back, that they could make more money selling computers to the current steady minority of Mac users, at a guaranteed huge profit margin, then try to take over the world. For that reason, they will never port OS X to commodity hardware.

Re:if only apple was x86

[SiliconJesus101]

Ahhhhmen brother. As a recent Mac convert (got lazy and sick of "fiddling" with my OS and hardware); I wholeheartedly agree.

Although my Mac is an old "Sawtooth" AGP G4 with a 1.2Ghz GigaDesigns processor in it, it would still fetch at least $600.00 or $700.00; This is for a machine that was built in 1999!! Find me a consumer grade PC worth anywhere near this that was built in 1999 and has nothing more than a new CPU upgrade and I'll [insert favorite disgusting act here] in the middle of Times Square at high noon. Part of the expense of a Mac is saved on the resale value when you sell your old Mac and buy a new one.

Re:if only apple was x86

[ReallyQuietGuy]

Yes, definitely, look at how well those other x86 OS vendors are doing even in a field dominated by Microsoft! Like, you know, like... hrm. Who else makes a commercial desktop OS on x86 and is still alive?

BeOS found out the hard way what happens when you try to fight on MS' turf. If you are going to live on the x86 sphere as an OS vendor you are either very niche/specialised (i.e. NOT "commercial consumer desktop vendor" a la Apple, Be, IBM-OS/2 et al), or you are fucked.

Re:if only apple was x86

[ddavis]

Appparently you must think the mac is a RR to spend so much time talking about it. I use my mac because, for me, it is a better computing experience. I do have a PC and have grown up on them. I give Apple my money because they build the best integrated product. Now go rant and rave about your PC to someone who gives a sh*t.

Re:if only apple was x86

[Blic]

I remember running Rhapsody DR2 on Intel - but that was back when they were working on slapping the OS9 UI onto NextStep. It never went any further than that.

Darwin can run on x86, but, uh... =)

In any case, it's never going to happen - Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. The make their money selling Macs, not the OS, the same way iTunes fuels iPod sales...

Re:if only apple was x86

[nomadic]

This is flamebait because people have been crying wolf about Macintosh OS's going x86 for years,

How on Earth does "IF OSX was on x86" equal "OSX WILL BE on x86"?

Re:if only apple was x86

[hype7]

adapting the x86 standard

excuse me? exactly which x86 standard are you talking about?

the fact that a majority of commodity PCs ship with x86 processors does not make it some kind of standard nor does it necessarily mean it's the best choice. In fact, Apple's resolute decision to stick with PPC is going to pay some real dividends in the next 12 months while the x86 world flounders.

-- james

Re:if only apple was x86

[namespan]

Yeah, but considering that Apple caused it's own demise by sticking to proprietary hardware

Demise?

Net sales increased $465 million or 8% during 2003 compared to 2002...Gross Margin of 1.7 billion...recent innovation....

Helluva death. One that a lot of companies would like to be enjoying.

Re:if only apple was x86

[dasunt]

I purchased a Mac because I was sick and tired of "tinkering" with my computer, constantly tweaking settings, ensuring everything worked properly. I set my PowerBook up 4 months ago, and guess what... It just works.

Just because MacOS X 'just works' for you, doesn't mean that it will 'just work' for me.

If I'm not using the cursor, I'd like it to disappear. Does MacOS X 'just work' for me in that way? Is it easy to find a graphical configuration utility and make the cursor disappear after 5 seconds of inactivity?

Oh, and I like hotkeys. Will MacOS X allow me to easily set up the combination of ctrl-j + l to switch to my web browser, and if that web browser doesn't exist, launch it?

There's just two trivial examples I found off the top of my head. I could easily add more.

Don't think everyone who uses the Unix-like OSes are a bunch of twiddling geeks who are content to fiddle with the OS while Mac users end up getting real work done. I'm not sure about the rest of the crowd, but the reason I use unix-like OSes is because its more efficient for me to get my work done.

As for my x86 hardware, its performing fine, thank you very much. Unfortunately, there is cheap x86 hardware, just as there is cheap hardware for Macintosh. If you don't do your research when making a major investment, you will get burned. (Or did we already forget the Apple Cube fiasco?) A system from one manufacturer is not a guarentee of quality, nor is the inverse true. There are plenty of cheap automobiles that have problems even though they were designed by one organization. Inversely, I'm pretty sure that kitchen sink makers aren't allied with the lumber mills, and yet the roof overhead doesn't leak and my sink runs water without a problem.

Re:if only apple was x86

[Alioth]

I agree with you on the hardware side. My next computer purchase will be a laptop, and it will be a PowerBook. PCs, even 'integrated' ones like laptops are parts-bin machines, and will always be parts-bin machines. The Mac is more like an Audi - although it may not boast any more features than a Ford, it's better thought out and it's more likely to just work.

Having said that, I've been using RedHat Linux 8 since it came out as my primary desktop. I've not had to tinker with it for a long time - it just works. That doesn't mean I didn't need to tinker at the start - my ancient parport scanner for example, I needed to build sane from source. But then again, the scanner isn't supported at all under Windows XP (and I suspect not under Mac OSX), so I still win. Why not buy a new one? Well, the existing one might be old but it works and I don't see the need to replace working hardware which can be fixed by 'configure; make; make install'.

Re:if only apple was x86

[Crazy Eight]

Apple can NOT provide that same advantage using cobbled-together x86 components thrown together and hope the end user experience "just works" for the average consumer.

Well, they couldn't do that with "PPC" components just cobbled together either. I don't think you necessarily meant to imply that x86 PCs are inherintly half-assed, but let's not forget that Apple, or anyone else for that matter could put the same amount of care, thoughtfullness, and integration into a x86 based PC. In fact, it does happen. Apple's hardware development (excluding iPods, etc...) centers on the chipsets/motherboard they've made to support the cpu and the OpenFirmware that goes into everything else. Beyond that (and the design sense) there isn't anything different on a fundamental level between Mac hardware and x86 PCs. Let me qualify that before I'm destroyed here. I'm only saying that what Apple does for it's desktops and laptops isn't intrinsically impossible to do for x86 PCs. It just looks more apparent in a Mac because Jobs has (wisely) kept a hammer-lock on the platform.

Re:if only apple was x86

[naden]

If I'm not using the cursor, I'd like it to disappear

You know you could just move the mouse to the side of the screen. But maybe thats a little too simple.

Will MacOS X allow me to easily set up the combination of ctrl-j + l to switch to my web browser, and if that web browser doesn't exist, launch it?

You can set hotkeys to launch applications. Just not ones that involve multiple key presses. For example, I map the F* keys to launch applications.

Also I use Launchbar .. which allows you to type the first few letters of the application to open it. Both useful and elegant.

But I don't think you've ever used OSX have you ?

Don't think everyone who uses the Unix-like OSes are a bunch of twiddling geeks who are content to fiddle with the OS while Mac users end up getting real work done.

Guess what .. OSX IS a Unix-like OS. Hence with OSX you can both fiddle AND get real work done. You do realise that OSX is just *BSD with a pretty front end dont you ?

OSX is and will probably remain for the medium term a shining example of what KDE/Gnome should have been.

Re:if only apple was x86

[Halo1]

If I'm not using the cursor, I'd like it to disappear. Does MacOS X 'just work' for me in that way?

Partly. If you start entering text, or scroll e.g. a browser window using an arrow key, the cursor immediately disappears (i.e. if key event occurs that does something in the current context, the mouse cursor gets hidden).

Oh, and I like hotkeys. Will MacOS X allow me to easily set up the combination of ctrl-j + l to switch to my web browser, and if that web browser doesn't exist, launch it?

Ironically, this was implemented in Mac OS 9, but not (yet) carried over to X. There are however several third-party utilities that allow you to do this.

Re:if only apple was x86

[TVC15]

i've never understood why people assume that OSX on x86 would be any (or much) more affordable than on a mac. theres no reason why steve doesnt charge $1000 for an x86 license of OSX. and another $500 for each point upgrade. not to mention that instead of charging $50 for stuff like iLife, he might charge $100-$500. after all, if macs have a 'tax' on them, why would he let software only purchasers get away with not paying it?

of course, parent said that they would be 'running it'. perhaps i was assuming wrongly that they would be paying for it.

Re:if only apple was x86

[Megane]

i know for sure i'd be running mac os if it worked on intel

But would you pay for it? Or would you just warez it?

Re:if only apple was x86

[jo_ham]

Apple hardware might not be cheap, but it is certainly upgradable and available.

I'm sure if OS X was available on x86 you'd give it a go, but I fear it would go the way of BeOS.

Apple couldn't survive in the x86 OS market, even with an immeasurabley superior OS than the current dug-in tick, sucking life and innovation out of the industry like the current status quo.

OS X wouls achieve greater market share, but I fear it would be unsustainable.

I think as Apple develops further and keeps working on their current model (like it or not, their method works for them) then Apple hardware will become cheaper.

There's never been a better value for money range of Apple computers as there is today - from the budget laptop to the SUV 17" model that most don't need, but is there for the small niche.

Their range of desktops is starting to look like something worth considering - from eMacs and iMacs, through MDD G4s (they do still sell them) and the mighty G5.

I can pick up a pretty good compact laptop - the iBook for just under $1100 that is pretty perfectly specced for the market. Good battery life, reasonable power, great OS, CD burner/DVD etc. I'd certainly go with that over the same laptop I could get in the x86 world for $1100, but it's just my choice at the end of the day.

I'd love to see Linux marketshare growing - and it is (although I've always been partial to FreeBSD myself). I hope that Apple and Linux can co-exist happily in the marketplace.

Re:if only apple was x86

[jo_ham]

The Cube was an attempt to build a small, silent system, and in that regard it worked well. It was just too expensive.

I know several Cube owners who are very happy with them, and wouldn't give them up for love nor money.

And you can use 3rd party software to assign any number of custom keyboard shortcuts that will do pretty much anything you want. This is especially powerful when combined with Applescripts.

Re:if only apple was x86

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

"Find me a consumer grade PC worth anywhere near this that was built in 1999"

Of course that won't happen. We payed less then and its worth less now, as is to be expected with x86 hardware. If you're only buying things so they stay valuable with time, I'd recommend diamonds, or maybe collecting antiques. I'd rather have something functional and cheap, and if the hardware is even less expensive 5 years down the line? great. that means if I need to replace something it won't cost an arm and my soul.

Re:if only apple was x86

[DrXym]

Yeah but running on x86 means supporting all that awkward hardware that Windows, Linux have to support. Can you see Apple doing that, especially seeing as they didn't make any of it?

I can't.

And if for some bizarre reason they did port to x86 they would simultaneously enrage their army of zealots and negate any possible reason for buying a Mac in the first place.

In other words, it would be suicide. With that said, I wish someone would produce a Mac OS X emulator for PCs. I have a Mac so getting the ROMs would be no problem, but it would be handy to be able to fire it up from time from my laptop.

Re:if only apple was x86

[alcmaeon]

"Just because MacOS X 'just works' for you, doesn't mean that it will 'just work' for me."

Sure it will, you just may not like the way it "just works" especially if you prefer twiddling with settings all the time.

"If I'm not using the cursor, I'd like it to disappear. Does MacOS X 'just work' for me in that way?"

Yes, in fact, it does just work this way. Have you actually used OSX? If you had, I'm sure that in less than 1 minute you could have deduced that this is an application-specific behavior. The cursor disappears in Safari or Word, for instance, but not in iTunes. Makes sense if you think about it. You primarily read in Safari where a cursor in the middle of the page could be annying. You primarily type and read in Word where a cursor would be jsut as annoying for the same reasons. In iTunes you primarily select things with the cursor where it is more important to have the cursor in a location so you don't have to "jiggle the mouse" to see where it is before moving it.

Would you really want the cursor to disappear in the Finder after 5 seconds of inactivity?

I don't understand this objection at all.

"Oh, and I like hotkeys. Will MacOS X allow me to easily set up the combination of ctrl-j + l to switch to my web browser, and if that web browser doesn't exist, launch it?"

Well, you could either use a macro utility, or pretty easily set up an AppleScript to do this, but this functionality is not otherwise built in for reasons that make sense as someone else pointed out.

"There's just two trivial examples I found off the top of my head. I could easily add more."

Find us two non-trivial examples.

"Don't think everyone who uses the Unix-like OSes are a bunch of twiddling geeks who are content to fiddle with the OS while Mac users end up getting real work done."

I don't either, but I do think that one of the selling points on every Linux distro site I have seen is configurability of the user interface which is fine If you are a twiddling geek, but not fine if you want uniformity of user experience across a company's computer installation. It is typically something that doesn't lead to productivity either. My user interface customization is limited to changing the desktop picture. Otherwise, I spend all my time actually using the computer.

"I'm not sure about the rest of the crowd, but the reason I use unix-like OSes is because its more efficient for me to get my work done."

Another good point. So, on the Mac, just run all your Unix apps in Quartz accellerated X11. I do this all the time, but I still dont' twiddle with the interface. What is the big deal?

Alcmaeon

Re:if only apple was x86

[d00ber]

I might get modded flamebait for this but ... After running both Linux (Yellow Dog 2.3) and MacOS X Panther I must say I like Gnome better. I think OSX would be just another desktop among many. Gnome is coming out with 2.6 soon and KDE is moving up a notch too so they will be getting faster and easier to use.

Im guessing there is a much larger developer developer base behind Gnome and KDE than the Mac OSX gui.

I've found Linux to be more stable than Darwin too. If you have more that one person logged into Panther I find it slooows down and then freezes.

Re:if only apple was x86

[DrSkwid]

You have to press keys, how gauche.

I bet you've never even tried a proper interface.

Re:if only apple was x86

[localman]

You're missing the point. Of course a computer isn't an investment. We all use computers as tools. I won't argue whether the PC or Mac is a better tool but here's my experience with pricing:

In 2001 I bought a G4 Powerbook 500 for $3500. At the same time my wife bought a Sony VAIO for $3200. Aside from the fact that it had no CD, the battery lasted about 1/4 the time, and it had a smaller, lower-res screen, we'll call them equal.

In 2003 I sold my G4 (with a cracked case from droppage) for $1025 on ebay. She sold her pristine VAIO for $400.

Of course, this is for laptops, and it could be argued that Sony's are overprice for PC's. But still, she "paid less" and I "got more" both in specs and resale value.

And all of this is a waste of time anyways -- as people rarely complain if you buy a more expensive car (with virtually no technical advangages) I can't see why people are so hung up on computer price, especially with the functional differences. Perhaps a matter of taste -- but what's wrong with paying more for something that fits your taste? It's all just a pissing contest and it's tiring.

Or so I say -- despite my adding fuel to the fire ;)

Cheers.

Re:if only apple was x86

[WillAdams]

But NeXTstep _was_ available for x86 (and one can still find copies here and there if one looks) --- why didn't you run that? Oh yeah, it was $795 / seat w/ _extremely_ limited hardware support, and if one called in for tech support on install, one might get a tech who didn't know that (for example) ThinkPads need to have their memory size specified at boot so as to not interfere w/ APM. (Nothing personal mind, I'm just still kinda bumming I never managed to get NeXTstep running on my ThinkPad....)

If Apple had tried to make Mac OS X available for x86, they'd've been pilloried over limited driver support --- if you don't believe that, go try out Darwin on x86. What? You don't have the exact motherboard specified? Sorry.

Interestingly, it's looking like a _lot_ of what will be available for people using in Linux will be derived from things developed on NeXTstep (and I'm not talking about Doom, FreeHand and the World Wide Web) --- GNUstep has really improved by leaps and bounds in the past year, and a _lot_ of nifty software has come up, most notably a full-fledged PostScript / vector drawing program, Cenon available from http://www.cenon.info (so one no longer need regret GYVE being given up on, or a certain Japanese company not following through on an offer to donate their internally developed drawing program).

There's a new look, and a lot of new stuff available at http://www.gnustep.org --- check it out.

William

Re:if only apple was x86

[The Lynxpro]

"This is flamebait because people have been crying wolf about Macintosh OS's going x86 for years, much longer than the cries about "BSD is dying" and typically, people will post about Macintosh going to x86 to intice a flamewar from Mac enthusiasts and PC users alike."

Pardon my ignorance on this subject, but couldn't you wrap the KDE desktop around Darwin on x86 and technically have OS X on a PC? Sure, you'd have compatibility issues since OS X has "middleware" between it and its BSD/Mach core but who's sweating such a technicality in this discussion?

Re:if only apple was x86

[The Lynxpro]

"Apple has more to gain from Microsoft losing marketshare to Linux than themeslves losing marketshare to Linux. Apple is a Unix proponent, and friendly to Linux in that regard."

Not to mention that developing for Linux or Mac OS X should be easier to port things to-and-fro versus between Windows and OS X or Windows and Linux. Increasing market share for Linux or OS X means more resources devoted to open and semi open standards which promote competition versus lending support to closed and proprietary solutions from *The Monopolist.*

Re:if only apple was x86

[Durandal64]

i know for sure i'd be running mac os if it worked on intel

No, you wouldn't be. If Apple suddenly switched architectures, they really would die. Let's ignore the issue that Apple would lose revenue from people just building their own white box Macs, for now. Let's list the other problems with releasing an x86 OS X port or just dropping PPC altogether.

1. What motivation does Apple have to do it? They are consistently turning a profit, and their hardware is no longer pathetic in comparison to the x86 world's offerings. By all accounts, the 970FX is shaping up to be a killer portable processor with high speeds and lower power consumption, and the G5 has been well-received by Apple's existing customers. It's at least on par with Intel's offerings and has an architectural base built for shuttling massive amounts of data, and is being developed by IBM, who have no intention of letting it flounder like Motorola did the G4. The move makes no sense. Apple have an awesome chip with a killer architecture that's built to scale well. What have they got to gain by switching architectures? A couple of hardware enthusiasts running OS X?
2. They'd piss off developers. They've just completed a transition to a new operating system and made their developers port their projects over to that. Now they're supposed to rewrite all that PowerPC code to run under x86? Sure, you can run Mac OS X on x86, but what would you do with it? Say, "It looks purty"? 'Cause the bigtime software developers aren't going to take kindly to the massive reengineering of their products that would be required to turn fast PowerPC code into fast x86 code, not to mention dropping AltiVec completely in favor of inferior SIMD implementations.
3. They'd piss off customers by shooting themselves in the foot.
4. The demand for this move just is not that high. The current Mac userbase doesn't care. They're going to buy from Apple regardless of whether it's x86 or PowerPC because of positive experiences. Who are the people we've got clamoring for OS X on x86? That would be the people who build their own machines, which would be a very small percentage of the market. And even if Apple granted them their wish, they'd install OS X on their custom-built PC's and quickly realize that they can't do anything with it and that OS X on x86 is completely useless. Then they'd complain about how slow it is compared to Linux and Windows.

So could someone please explain how this move could possibly go over well? If IBM and the G5 hadn't "come along" (Apple and IBM had been collaborating for a while on it before it was announced), Apple might very well have moved to x86 out of pure necessity. When the G4 was making pitiful showing after pitiful showing in benchmarks and cost efficiency, Apple had a reason to switch to Intel. Their chip supplier was apathetic to their needs as a personal computer maker, their architecture sucked, their bus was old in 2000 and their machines were too expensive for the performance they offered. Even then, a move to x86 would have the accompanied problem of developers making the transition in a timely fashion.

Now, with the G5, the performance necessity to switch doesn't exist. Apple aren't losing any money at the moment, and they have a healthy $4.5 billion in the bank, so there's no real monetary need for it. And to top it off, Apple have recognized that their marketshare is small and will probably stay that way, so they're diversifying their revenue sources with consumer electronics (iPod) and legal music downloads. They're not just about computers anymore. They cater to a niche, and that niche just happens to have money. By making their products stylish, they establish themselves as a "upper class" of computers and gadgets. Same with BMW, same with Ferrari. Small marketshare, but they just happen to be turning a profit based on their perceived status.

Re:if only apple was x86

[SiliconJesus101]

If you must know, I paid $250.00 for my Sawtooth with it's original 450Mhz G4. I added a 1.2ghz CPU, actually 1Ghz...but rated to overclock to 1.2 by the manufacturer ($329.00), an original Radeon 32MB AGP card ($32.00), swapped the 100MB Zip drive for an old 250 Zip that I got for free, and dumped in an 60 gig 7200RPM drive ($39.00 after rebates).

The original full pop list price for this machine 6 years ago in 1999 was $2499.00. By my calculations, based on the fact that the machine currently sells for an average of $500.00 used without any of the upgrades I added, it has lost 80% of it's value over a 6 year period of time. And while a comparable (?) x86 system from 1999 may have cost only around $2000.00 you will now have to give it away for free to a friend that just needs an old junk router box. And yes, by comparable I mean nice case (not some bleeder beer can case with a crap power supply), 64Bit PCI slots, Firewire (ieee1394), DVD-ROM drive, etc...basically fully loaded as a Mac comes by default.

Please make sure that you are comparing Apples to apples....pun intended. Any x86 system built with low grade cheap components will most assuredly be far less expensive than a Mac, but once you get into loading up the PC with the things that are standard on a mac, you may find your x86 systems to be a bit pricier than expected; Please don't compare the Mac pricing to a Wal-Mart special eMachine.

Re:if only apple was x86

[toddestan]

Find me a consumer grade PC worth anywhere near this that was built in 1999 ...

Part of the reason why you won't find a PC from 1999 that is worth that much anymore is because for $600-$700 I could go out and build a new PC from scratch that would totally smoke your Mac (or any 1999 era PC) in terms of performance.

Not to mention that perfectly usuable 1999-2000 era PCs (such as high end PIII's with 512MB of ram and DVD drives) go for under $200 at retrobox.com. I'm sitting in front of one right now.

Not that Macs aren't good computers, they are great machines. But I feel they are overpriced. Which is why I don't see myself buying one any time soon, though I enjoy using other people's Macs.

Re:if only apple was x86

[kalidasa]

Nice troll, there, but I know I'm not the only Mac user on Slashdot who only got a Mac after OS X came out. So it's not just "due to past users who refuse to change."

As A Mac User

[molafson]

As a Mac user, I guess I'm supposed to be foaming at the mouth now, extolling the virtues of OS X, and denigrating the virtues of Linux. However, I won't. I don't care about Apple's market share, as long as OS X (and its requisite hardware) is available to me. I will gladly pay the price. Long live the king!

Re:As A Mac User

[Dukael_Mikakis]

I think by default Apple users don't care about market share. In fact, my experience is that they abhor market share and extol the "uniqueness" and individuality that comes from being an Apple user. I mean, not any geek could hack on a purple box.

But also, lest you forget, remember that OS X, of course is based on Unix itself (FreeBSD). (Does that in any way qualify OS X for a "Linux distro"?).

Re:As A Mac User

[molafson]

But also, lest you forget, remember that OS X, of course is based on Unix [apple.com] itself (FreeBSD). (Does that in any way qualify OS X for a "Linux distro"?).

No, BSD is a blessed version of the old school source, Linux is a clean re-implementation. They're both good, but OS X definitely ain't a Linux distro.

Re:As A Mac User

[burns210]

no, it doesn't. It qualifies it as OS X, based on Darwin. Freebsd is indepedent of linux, and freebsd, netbsd, openbsd, and darwin(which borrows much from freebsd) are in no way a 'linux distro'.

To be a linux distro, the OS has to actually USE linux. *bsd and darwin don't use linux, they use their own open(and similar to eachother, in some parts) kernel.

Re:As A Mac User

[dbIII]

OS X, of course is based on Unix itself (FreeBSD). (Does that in any way qualify OS X for a "Linux distro"?).

Of course not, it's based on FreeBSD as you said - linux is something different. It does mean that most applications that run on linux can be ported to OS X withput too much pain.

Re:As A Mac User

[be-fan]

Its not based on FreeBSD. It uses parts of FreeBSD, but the bulk of the code is derived from Mach 3.x and 4.4BSD-Lite2.

This and the Quartz "Extreme" bullshit are perhaps my biggest peeves...

Re:As A Mac User

[Greenisus]

Apple may only have 3% market share, but it's the top 3%.

Re:As A Mac User

[Milo77]

just like luxury car owners don't care whether or not everyone owns the same car they do - mercedes (or bmw, etc) owners don't secretly wish everyone drove a mercedes even if they believe deep down inside that mercedes are the best cars on earth...not that i would know anything about luxury cars or car/computer analogies :)

Re:As A Mac User

[prockcore]

Its not based on FreeBSD. It uses parts of FreeBSD, but the bulk of the code is derived from Mach 3.x and 4.4BSD-Lite2.

Thank you for making that point. If OSX were based on FreeBSD, it wouldn't have such miserable UnixBench scores. (My P4 2.3 ghz linux box gets a better unixbench score than a dual G5)

OSX uses a frankenstein of parts from all over the BSD tree.

Re:As A Mac User

[JudgeFurious]

I particularly like their poll at the bottom. "Are Mac users smarter than PC users?" or something close to that with a "yes" or "no" choice.

If the total number of people online is divided between a relative few Mac users and a vast majority of people with a PC on their desk (translate that as "Windows") how could they possibly not expect that to result in an overwhelming "No"?

At the moment it's 45% "yes" and 55% "no". Either the Mac users are heading there in large numbers, the PC users aren't bothering with it, or a bunch of people using PC's think that Mac users are smarter.

My vote? Mac users are smarter. It's probably a localized thing and not widespread but almost every single person I know in I.T. goes home to a Mac at the end of the day (or granted a PC running Linux or FreeBSD) just like I do. I make money working with Windows because it's a mess. When I get home I want something that works.

Re:As A Mac User

[burns210]

i respectfully disagree. to be a unix distro, it has to be a 'true unix'... solaris, tru64, hpux, the big boy's old skool unix(i forgot several, i am sure).

A linux distro is something with linux in it. the linux kernel.

in the case of debian supporting different kernels... i would assume that they just ported their package manager, either way, that would be a 'debian distro'... a distro is a subversion of a larger group... linux distro is a subversion of 'linux'. Debian can use freebsd or hurd, but that immediately makes it no longer a linux distro.

actually, that would make it freebsd+apt, or a freebsd distro. but anyway. if it doesn'f run ontop of linux, it isn't a linux distro. :)

Re:As A Mac User

[Bob Uhl]

I make money working with Windows because it's a mess. When I get home I want something that works.

That's my feeling, only I admin Unix (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Linux & BSD) at work and when I get home it's Linux waiting for me. I don't like Unix because I'm a Unix admin; I'm a Unix admin because I like Unix.

A certain Large Cyan company is getting ideas that really every Windows admin wants to (and can) handle Unix, and every Unix admin wants to admin Windows. We'll see how it goes, but I've my doubts.

Re:As A Mac User

[RedWizzard]

Apple may only have 3% market share, but it's the top 3%.

I definitely agree, provided your measuring by pretentiousness.

Re:As A Mac User

[salimma]

Considering people who go to university tend to be smarter and make more money than those who don't - on average, that is - they're more likely to be able to afford a Mac too.

Now if we could just get...

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux - 51%

and Mac - 49%

Re:Now if we could just get...

[Trillan]

Now now. If that were to really happen, we two factions would have no choice but to kill each other...

Right now, we occasionally fight, but we don't have to. We're doing it strictly for fun.

Re:Now if we could just get...

[Mistshadow2k4]

No, no no! We need it to look like this:

Linux & BSD - 32%

Mac - 32%

An OS that is not Microsoft - 10%

Another that isn't Microsoft - 10%

And another that isn't Microsoft - 10%

And another - 8%

That way, everyone has plenty of choices, and fully viable choices at that instead of just Windows, Mac, Linux/BSD and a few OSes for which very little hardware and software support exists. As much as I love Linux, I do wish there were more well-supported OSes out there. That way anyone could surely find the one they like best instead of struggling with one they don't like so well or being stuck on Windows due to hardware incompatibility.

Re:Now if we could just get...

[Ryan Amos]

Well, while you're installing drivers and patching your kernel to interface with the nuclear ICBMs, I can just plug them in on my Mac with iNuke and destroy you immediately. Do not doubt the superiority of the Mac. ;)

Good news

[mysterious_mark]

WE the Mac owners wish to be a small and exclusive club. (Too bad I can't afford the new G5) MM

Re:Good news

[phrasebook]

Sounds like its a little too exclusive if you can't afford to be in it. Oh well, maybe you can just peer in through the Windows.

Re:Good news

[jest3r]

Owning an Apple is like driving a BMW ... sure every car gets from point a to b .. but some do it in style. My Powerbook wows people ... and OSX is like the icing on the cake.

I don't think BMW has ever complained about their 2% marketshare. Neither has Apple.

Re:Good news

[Sunnan]

If they are happy with their tiny market share, why pull something like this?.

Re:Good news

[IamTheRealMike]

I don't think BMW has ever complained about their 2% marketshare. Neither has Apple.

Cars aren't platforms - you can't compare the two. If an OS has no users, it has no apps and it will never get users - ie it is a dead OS. If a car has no drivers, it could still have 20,000 drivers tomorow, ie it's a "sleeping" car ;)

Er...

[aitala]

Those percentages are probably new sales and do not reflect the existing desktops out there.

E

Re:Er...

[wankledot]

They also don't reflect what people are choosing.

That might be a minor point to some people, but I think the number of people that actually CHOOSE to run linux is far far less than people that choose a Mac. Very few people say "hey, I'll get a new PC, I think I'll run linux." Most of the wins in the linux market are from installations where people have no choice... enterprise and business accounts.

Re:Er...

[TiMac]

Which is probably true of many of the Windows installations out there as well. Many people use Windows because they are forced to. And this leads to buying a Windows machine at home "to stay compatible with work" (despite the other options).

So what's the point? Hopefully if people are "forced" to use Linux at work, and find they can maintain compatibility with their Windows PC at home, they might start to realize they could maintain compatibility with their Linux machine with a Mac, too (even more so in some ways).

I find it sad that the Mac's marketshare is represented so low, but I find OS X and Linux users on the same side of the bigger war, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. w00t! :)

Re:Er...

[PunkPig]

"to stay compatible with work" is such a bad reason for going Windows. If work wants me to work @ home they can provide the hardware and software.

Re:Er...

[mrklin]

Yes, this is an argument that many of my fellow Mac users would raise. They will point out this is market share data for new sales and do not reflect 1) install base and 2) mind share.

However, the fact is new sales is what matters. Steve Jobs does not want you to keep buying the annual $129 OS upgrade (yes, yes, you don't HAVE to upgrade but this is Slashdot) to use on your G3 450 - he would also want you to buy that spanking new G5 along with the annual OS upgrades and the biannual iLife upgrades. Wall Street, Apple, IBM, Gartner, etc would all want you to buy that new Apple hardware.

"But why should I upgrade my G3 B&W 450 when it runs OS X just fine! In fact, I pity the pathetic Windoze M$ PeeCee users who upgrade their hardware every two years!" some of my more zealous Mac users might say.

The answer is, of course, "because they can".

They can because Motorola took two whole frigging years to go from 0.5 Ghz to 1 Ghz while during the same time Intel went from P3 0.75 Ghz to P4 2.2Ghz. They can because IBM did not come out with the excellent and competitive G5 until late 2003. They can because the competition between nVidia and ATI produced superfast and hot GPU for PC.

They can because the combinationof cheap and fast hardware more than make up for the deficieny of Windows.

If Steve-Apple-IBM-Moto made it cheap for you to swap your machine every couple of years, do not tell me you wouldn't buy new Macs instead of extolling the virtue of G3 450. And if so, market share of new sales for Apple would be higher and I wouldn't have to write this!

Re:Er...

[shaitand]

How exactly do you figure that not choice? The owner of the pc chooses the operating system. If all pc's come preloaded with one operating system then there is no choice. But if a corporation chooses to put linux on IT'S desktops then the choice was made.

Or do you honestly believe the secretary should choose the OS on the desktop? lol

At home it's your pc or pcs and you choose the operating system on the pcs you own. If you have 4 pcs, like I do, that counts as 4 desktops. Because my computer illiterate wife didn't choose the OS on the desktops I let her use does that mean there was no choice? Of course not, their my desktops and I chose what to run on my computers.

Re:Er...

[ctr2sprt]

You've got a valid point, but don't forget Apple's clout in education. At my college over 90% of students who owned computers had PCs, but over 2/3 of the public lab computers were Macs. So this will be distorting Apple's figures too. The interesting part would be how many of Apple's installs come this way, relative to Linux and Windows. But I'm not sure how you could gather that statistic.

Re:Er...

[mitchell_pgh]

Unfortunately, most of the people that are forced on to Macs and Linux boxes resist. These people don't want to use anything other then Windows because that's all they know.

Unfortunately, the uneducated public will use whatever they are given, and then defend said platform to the death. I have people that refuse to use anything other then Word Perfect, Windows 98, an old laser printer, etc. They don't want to switch because that's all they know. Throwing Windows XP on their systems causes MAJOR problems (other then the ones associated with the OS itself).

Let's face it... It's going to end up an "Us against them" type of situation where it's Unix (and their children... Linux, OS X, etc.) vs. Microsoft. I only hope we don't kill each other off)

Re:Er...

[IamTheRealMike]

I find it sad that the Mac's marketshare is represented so low, but I find OS X and Linux users on the same side of the bigger war, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. w00t! :)

Ever considered that some people don't see it that way? A mac is just like a PC running Windows in terms of economics and philosophy, swapping Bill Gates for Steve Jobs isn't a useful trade to make. So in reality it's free software, vs non-free software (or platforms, to be more accurate).

People who think it's Windows vs everything else are just shortsighted IMHO

Re:Er...

[SideshowBob]

I don't see it that way at all. I think that there are some companies that are embracing FOSS, using it where possible, and contributing back to the community. Apple and IBM are in this camp.

In the other camp are companies that see FOSS as antithetical to their way of doing business and fight it (legally and in the marketplace). Microsoft and a lot of others are in this camp.

In my opinion, someday (assuming FOSS wins, which I do) most companies will resemble Apple and IBM - a mix of FOSS and closed.

Re:Er...

[smallpaul]

Ever considered that some people don't see it that way? A mac is just like a PC running Windows in terms of economics and philosophy, swapping Bill Gates for Steve Jobs isn't a useful trade to make. So in reality it's free software, vs non-free software (or platforms, to be more accurate).

Only a tiny, tiny fraction of people who hate Microsoft hate them because their software is non-free. Most hate them because they are a monopoly and they abuse that monopoly. Apple will never be a monopoly as long as they refuse to port their operating system to commodity hardware.

Re:Er...

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

The 166 Mhz Pentium was available in the second half of 1995.

So when you bought your 166Mhz 1997 it must have been kinda slow - compared to the best.

Re:Er...

[HiThere]

IBM is, at least for now, in this camp. At least major parts of it are.
But do remember that Sun is also frequently in this camp. Sun is the source of OpenOffice.org, without which Linux wouldn't be in the running as a desktop OS. (KWord is coming along, but it still has a ways to go.) And it's frequently on the other side.

Apple? Well, Apple has made some contributions that help them. And that's probably the key thing to notice. IBM's contributions help IBM. Because IBM has put a large amount of their system work into Linux on mainframes, and a bit on Linux in other small systems, IBM is seen as a good guy. But this should be translated as "their aims and ours are currently in alignment".

I'm sure that the public facing representatives of IBM and Apple appreciate community support. I'm also rather convinced that the internal decision makers don't care. They care about that which affects the company profits, either now or in the future out to some time horizon. (Probably the closer the time is, the more they care about it, that would seem reasonable. The future is always uncertain to an unknown degree, but the further futurewards you project, the more uncertain it becomes.)

Re:Er...

[rixstep]

Most of the wins in the linux market are from installations where people have no choice... enterprise and business accounts.

Obviously some people have a choice - and Apple should be here. They have the fanciest, by far the most advanced GUI platform, they have the only decent development platform, and they have hardware that runs rings around x86 junk in terms of reliability and just plain 'class'.

Admins would generally welcome a move to Apple hardware: it's less work for them. No more wailing at the Dell and Gateway walls. Far more dinners at home with the family some time before midnight. Support? Forget it. 'It just works.' It's painfully obvious.

But that's what the techies would like, and the suits upstairs don't give a hoot about the techies, and never will. The suits see short term bottom lines. They're also infamously slow on the uptake.

And this is where Apple should be in and educating.

FIrst post W00T

[Provocateur]

ANd to think the halftime ad in the Superbowl featured IBM's Linux ad...

History repeats?

Re:FIrst post W00T

[dbIII]

ANd to think the halftime ad in the Superbowl featured IBM's Linux ad...

But that was OK, they didn't show the nipple.

I know, I know..

[DwarfGoanna]

This is about desktop marketshare.

But shouldn't this be more a story of Linux gaining ground on Windows? I like and use both, but I hate to tell ya, Apple's core market is safe from Linux for the foreseeable future.

WHere is my half life2 and photoshop?

[Billly Gates]

The marketshare is there now right? Most linux installs are for home users who are nerds, cad engineers, and some servers here and there.

The server software is comming and cad software is just now being ported. Home software is still nowhere in sight.

Also most nerds now download iso's from Debian and Gentoo, and FreeBSD. They do not pay for there rpm hell anymore. Are these users being counted as well?

If there could be a way it would tell these software makers to port home software.

Re:WOW

[Dukael_Mikakis]

Linux installations to reach 3.2%, for the first time overtaking Macintosh market share. By 2007, IDC forecasts, Linux will be installed on 6% of the desktops.

So that means in 2052 we'll have over 50% market share!

And in 2102 we'll be on 100% of all machines!!

And in 2202 there'll be 2 Linux distros on every machine!!!

And in 2302 ...

More design software for Linux on the cards then ?

[bushboy]

This starts making Linux a very viable software platform in terms of established software companies such as Adobe and Macromedia.

Being a designer, this is the key area I'd love to see Linux flourish in.

To be able to ditch windows and natively run applications such as Photoshop or Dreamweaver would be a dream come true !

Not the point.

[marcsiry]

Who cares if it's overtaking Mac- as long as the share it's taking over from is Windows.

If Linux was *replacing* Mac on the desktop, that would be worrisome. Instead, you're seeing municipalities, counties, even countries switching from Win to Lin. You're not hearing about ad agencies doing mass migrations to Linux, replacing Photoshop with the Gimp and Quark with... with... um, well, you're not hearing about it.

Meanwhile, the mac addicts will single-click along, content with their 3%- and happier still that they've got some stronger allies against the real threat to their desktop security.

Re:Not the point.

[dalutong]

It seems a lot of people think that overtaking Mac is not a newsworthy feat. It is a huge deal.

They're not replacing Photoshop with Gimp, Quark with nothing, etc. But, if they have developed Photoshop for Mac, including MacOSX, then they now have a reason to develop it for GNU/Linux. This would be a reason for a lot of businesses to get into gear and start porting.

I am aware of all the reasons they might not -- different distros, harder to support, not as focused a userbase, etc. but at least the list no longer includes "it's not even as popular as Mac!"

Re:Not the point.

[ickoonite]

Well, maybe not yet, because remember, the reason that Adobe, Quark et al still develop for Mac is because a large proportion of the Mac user base uses this software, buys this software, etc. It does actually make business sense. The Mac has always had these apps, so one must continue to satiate Mac users' demands for said software. Whereas let us look at Linux. OK, the installed base is growing, but what is the proportion of users of it who are professional graphic designers with the money to buy this kind of expensive software? Very few. Linux is for cost-saving businesses, the hobbyist wanting desktop UNIX on x86 and possibly, soon, the home user. Graphic designers are not in that list. Obviously you aren't going to see a mass migration of said users to Linux until the apps are there, but I'm afraid the chicken-and-egg situation remains. Like Windows, the Apple has the advantage that it has momentum - it was the graphical OS of the 1980s, so acquired all these graphical apps. It's the same for music software. Still, nice to see that Linux is making progress, because even one percentage point less in share for Microsoft can only be a Good Thing. iqu :)

Re:Not the point.

[great throwdini]

But, if they have developed Photoshop for Mac, including MacOSX, then they now have a reason to develop it for GNU/Linux. This would be a reason for a lot of businesses to get into gear and start porting.

I am aware of all the reasons they might not -- different distros, harder to support, not as focused a userbase, etc. but at least the list no longer includes "it's not even as popular as Mac!"

Unfortunately, I think you are being a bit too optimistic, if not outright mistaken in jumping to this conclusion. Overall shifts in desktop installations for Linux compared to OS X do not translate to equivalent shifts in the interest, need, or profitability for a given application native to either platform.

Let's use PhotoShop as an example.

Those who are increasingly adopting Linux may not be a solid target market for (in this case) PhotoShop. Now, if one could demonstrate that all those graphic designers et al. who currently use Macs or Windows are jumping the fence for Linux, that may be the case, but greater or growing numbers overall don't mean greater or growing numbers of users who want to or are willing to purchase (in this case) PhotoShop.

In the firm for which I work, everyone uses either OS X or Linux on the desktop. The Linux users outnumber the OS X users by a ratio of about 2:1 (and yes, there are more than 3 people in the firm). However, the number of Linux users interested in acquiring PhotoShop is zero. Anecdotal, I know, but my gut feeling is that something about my personal experience with Linux v. OS X on the desktop captures (at least a bit of) the reality in the bigger picture when it comes to this particular app.

It's not the size of the install base, but its characteristics of that base which are most important. Mac users may have a fractional hold on the desktop market, but it's where that fraction of the whole pie has been installed and put to use (DTP, etc.) that attracts the interest of companies like Adobe at present.

"It's not even as popular as Mac!" means a whole lot more when you ask: "Among whom?"

Re:Not the point.

[dalutong]

I must have really not chosen the right words for "not focused enough userbase," as I have gotten two replies about the same thing. What you are saying is what I meant in that (at the end.)

I am glad this hurdle has been crossed, though. I still think that it will make some companies look into the market more closely. Maybe some of them will see enough of a user base in server admin, software development, or even office productivity apps. Anything to get us to that next percentage point faster so that we might then have one of our many different sub groups get to be a similar size to Mac's even if they are not as great a portion of the GNU/Linux userbase as they are of Mac's.

Some round numbers -- though they are all just hypothetical.

Let's say 30% of Mac owners own a copy of Photoshop. Let's say that 15% of GNU/Linux users want to be able to use it. At the same total desktop market share there is not the same incentive for Photoshop to be ported. But if GNU/Linux had 6% of the total marketshare then it would make sense to develop Photoshop for GNU/Linux because they were getting enough phone calls to justify it. in reality it is likely that fewer GNU/Linux users want Photoshop... but you get the point. Anyway, it is also likely that the GNU/Linux market share wouldn't have to reach Mac's to make it a profitable market for Photoshop, or whatever app.

My point about other apps and this stimulus (the surpassing of Mac) is that the more people use GNU/Linux for other things, the more mature it gets, the more other apps are developed for it (and probably maturing the GNU/Linux development tools to make porting easier), and the more people use it. That gets us to the point where the diverse groups of users allows each group to cut from a larger pie, and then create more incentive for companies to work with us.

This has already happened. GNU/Linux became popular enough for people to start caring enough to make desktop environments since they knew people would use them. That allowed more people to start using GNU/Linux, which allowed for enough of a population for good printing software that CUPS was developed, which allowed for enough growth in the population to allow for the development of some office suites, which would only have had a market if less than directly related and other small time counterparts had gone in earlier with a lower barrier of entry and/or a stronger, though different, userbase.

But it's now 03:15 and I am not thinking so clearly, so I'm off to bed.

FACTS PLEASE

[mitchell_pgh]

In the unparalleled words of Jerry Mcguire "Show Me The DATA".

I'll believe it when I see some kind of data. I have yet to see Linux being used in a desktop environment. I've seen a few macs, but a majority have been Windows based.

Re:FACTS PLEASE

[dameron]

I'll believe it when I see some kind of data. I have yet to see Linux being used in a desktop environment. I've seen a few macs, but a majority have been Windows based.

And I've never seen Bigfoot but I know it exists. Your point?

-dameron

Google says 1%

[bhny]

Google Zeitgeist still says Linux is 1% and Mac 3%

Re:Google says 1%

[OneFix]

Probably because most Linux users change their user agent string to report as a windoze variant...

Re:Google says 1%

[ImTwoSlick]

Probably because most Linux users change their user agent string to report as a windoze variant... That's what I do. I'm sick of so may internet sites denying me access because my browser doesn't identify as IE. Even though 99% would still work anyway. Now I just change the string, and have no more problems.

Re:Google says 1%

[arvindn]

Note that opera on linux identifies by default as MSIE/Windows. Also I don't know what google's "5% - other" means. Perhaps some of that is linux but not correctly identified?

Re:Google says 1%

[MalleusEBHC]

Please, what are some of these sites? I use Safari and Camino regularly on my Mac, and I can't remember the last time a site shot me down for not being IE. This includes banking, getting my grades, buying from sites like Amazon, etc.

FYI, it's useless FUD like this that hurts the adoption of Linux.

Re:Google says 1%

[fr0dicus]

I mean they're not default options. I was trying to point out why the Linux desktop figures probably match up very well with what Google Zietgeist says. Most Desktop machines are still used for business after all. Like it or not, these are two paradigms (as opposed to specific products) that are holding Linux off from the business desktop. Even the Mac has Applescript and Filemaker. You simply can't make a dent in installed base without something to match these business oriented RAD tools.

Re:Google says 1%

[perp]

Probably because most Linux users change their user agent string to report as a windoze variant...

That's just wrong. It's like faking orgasms; if you do that, he'll never learn.

Predictions are like ***holes

[tyrione]

Everyone's got one.

This presumes the rate of growth for Linux on the Desktop will be as prolific as it has been for Enterprise deployment, not to mention OS X isn't once mentioned in the article, just the Macintosh Operating System.

Market researcher IDC expects to announce within weeks that Linux' PC market share in 2003 hit 3.2%, overtaking Apple Computer Inc.'s (NasdaqNM:AAPL - News) Macintosh (news - web sites) software.

Macintosh software? Could this article be particularly more vague? I guess being overly general is good to cover their butts?

Good luck on Linux overtaking OS X's momentum.

Since over 40% of pre-OS X has switched since its inception I would expect in a year from now another 30% and climbing, especially with the G5 and soon-after G6.

My daily OS is Debian so no I'm not coming from a Mac biased viewpoint.

Re:Predictions are like ***holes

[shaitand]

Actually I find it quite broad. The way it is phrased it includes EVERY version of MacOS including OS X.

Small but significant

[Hamster Of Death]

This just goes to show that you don't need to be an 800lb Gorilla to succeed, you just need to be useful. This is where both Apple and open source competes. They are both useful to different groups (with some overlap) but since the user base of all computer users is so large, 3% is still a large number of people. I guess it's proof that if you are good at what you do, people will come to you.

huzzah

[BortQ]

While the desktop linux market share is rising about that of macintosh, that isn't a bad thing for the mac. The loss is market share will be to windows.

One of the driving factors behind this is cost (especially in emerging markets). The change is coming in business environments, where the macintosh has always lagged far behind windows.

I can't see any of the traditional macintosh markets switching to linux. The same UNIX base is present on the mac along with other more exclusive things.

Anyway, I think that this is in fact a great thing for the macintosh. The compatibility of programs is much better between os x/linux then it is between os x/windows. And Apple has been showing it is more than happy to take up open-source created standards.

In conclusion: go linux, go mac os x, die windows die!

Critical mass RealSoonNow

[Anonymous Coward]

If desktop Linux starts to hit Microsoft where it hurts, it will happen not so much among typical office employees but among specialized workers. These include stock traders, bank tellers, engineers, customer-service reps, and warehouse employees. They rely on just a few applications and need PCs that are simple to use and rarely crash -- which Linux can handle.

The last part from the article is an understatement, but it shows BusinessWeek gets IT. It is a pretty well written, but short article, from the business perspective.

Some disadvantages do remain in the near future (eg., the home desktop user still has to get around to installing a working DVD player for movies), but even businesses see the snowball is gaining in size and will soon pass the critical mass (to mix metaphors)!

Re:WOW

[whiteranger99x]

And in 2302 ...

We'll be used as batteries for our robotic overlords, whom I for one welcome :P

Linux overtaking Mac...

[Pathway]

Well, I think it's important to note that it's not the MAC which is loosing ground to Linux, but rather that it's Microsoft's Windows users who are primaraly making the switch.

I just don't think that the Mac is going to disappear because of linux. The Apple zealots are worse than Linux'es own!

Pathway

Still not there yet...

[d.valued]

I think we're going to succeed in pissing off the Macophiles in the crowd with this one. I like OS X as much as anyone, and its multipedia capabilities are utterly obscene, but for general apps most people don't need it.

To be fair, most people don't need the capabilities of any modern system. I'm going to get a 64-bit based laptop, and the only people I can think of who need such power are gamers, video/audio editors, and the highest of power users.

Linux based systems tend to hold the line on excess hardware bloat. You don't need to stay on an endless treadmill of forced hardware and sofware upgrades for support; a skilled tech can keep your setup running. Security is potentially higher, with proper configuration. And virii are pretty much a null threat.

Most office productivity can be handled with F/OSS analogues of Windows tools. Programs like OOo and FireFox, The Gimp and the myriad SQL databases do a great deal of work.

How exactly do you do this?

[Durin_Deathless]

There strike me to be several problems with this: 1) Many linux users(myself included) download iso images, from which it is hard to get an idea of number of users 2) most linux installs are not traditional desktops, for Joe Schmo. Most are for more technical users. 3) When do they 'expire' a machine? For nubmer 3, I mean this: when is a machine no longer held to be in use? I didn't get Panther(it won't run on my Beige G3), does that mean I don't count? What about the Macintosh SE in the basement, still getting daily use? The other beige G3 here, still on OS 9? 2 or 3 years is fair for Wintel boxen as an average IIRC, but a Mac tends to outlast that. I know of several people using first generation PPC machines, simply because they do everything needed. This isn't as simple as OS sales in a given year, I would say harder for Macs than for other machines because the life of a Mac is so much longer than many other platforms, especially without any trackable upgrades. Without knowing from whence these numbers came, they are pretty meaningless.

Penguins Eat Apples For Lunch?

[l0ungeb0y]

Actually, this should not be surprising nor alarming.
On the face of it this is a very misleading statistic and /. post. What would be more relevent would be to compare Linux penetration across hardware architectures seperately. Saying Linux has more installs than OSX is rather slanted and not all that informative since there are many more x86 compatable PC's on the market than PPC compatables. Linux is not hardware, Microsoft does not make PC's. OSX is a desktop yes, but tied to the hardware needed to run it.
So let's see the percentile of Linux installs on x86 PC's vs Linux installs (Yellow Dog et al) on PPC architectures.
That would give a better overall view of the marketplace and usage trends. For I'd suspect the migration to Linux from OSX would be microscopic at best while the real breakaway would those migrating from Windows.

Google Zeitgeist

[BlueEar]

Google's Zeitgeist still has Linux at 1% and Mac at 3%. I also find it not very encouraging that even with Longhorn delayed by 3 or so years predicted Linux desktop share gains are 3-4%. Maybe our New Years resolution should be to install Linux on at least one computer that was monopolised by Windows. I did just that :-)

Re:Google Zeitgeist

[prockcore]

Google's Zeitgeist still has Linux at 1% and Mac at 3%.

Yes, but Google's Zeitgeist isn't an authority on the subject. They only count the unique visitors to the site. Many Linux desktops are being set up in work environments, where people may not even have a browser installed, or where work might not let them visit Google.

At home, most linux users have static IPs, or near-static IPs via broadband. The majority of OSX and Windows users use dialup. This means they get counted multiple times.

Re:WOW

[fromtheblueline]

[pink elephant ballon wafts in, all eyes follow]

And a gay president by 2065?

"We're trying to be realistic."

It doesn't matter

[Hornsby]

I'm a long time Linux user who's just about to purchase my first Mac, a G4 powerbook. I use Linux on the desktop everyday, and while I like it, I'm not afraid to admit that compared to an OSX desktop, it lacks polish. I don't blame X, Gnome, KDE, or anyone for this. I really believe it's simply a matter of Mac development being more focused due to Apple spearheading it's development.

Linux is awesome because it's affordable to everyone, and it's become a very nice alternative to Windows; however, I don't think that it's going to steal a significant number of users from the Mac market since OSX has a major geek appeal as well.

It's silly to think that users have to be either here or there. I plan to continue to use both Linux and OSX after the purchase of my laptop, and I don't understand why everyone is so black and white about what you run on your desktop. Anybody that's used a Mac knows what the appeal is about. Linux has a natural attraction to anybody that wants a stable and cost effective OS. Why not enjoy both?

The Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumer: Hello, I just bought a new foobar2000 how come the monotior flickers?

Distro: The foobar2000 doesn't have drivers yet, go buy a foobar 1999 or wait 6 months.

As long as this scenario continues Linux will not "take over" the desktop market. I am on a ATI radeon 9600 and am using VESA drivers as we speak cause the Radeon drivers break X. So that Unreal2004 you all enjoyed. I sit here "waiting 6 months".
Although this situation has gotten significantly better we are no where close to windows or Mac yet. There are still too many cases where if you buy some new hardware you have to upgrade distros or recompile the kernel. Still not acceptable for joe.
Haha jokes on you, by the time you mod me down 100's of people will have read this and heard the truth! take that my slashdot overlords!

Uhm... duh?

[solios]

To run MacOS requires a PPC. Not just ANY PPC, a Macintosh. That's ONE breed of computer. Just one.

To run Linux, you need a computer and some means of getting linux onto it. Linux runs on Sparcs, Ultras, SGIs, Alphas, x86, m68k, several different PPC variants, pdas, cel phones, the Game Cube, the Dreamcast, digital watches, and the IBM 390 mainframes.

Not only does linux run on practically everything, it handles almost identically across ALL of these architectures. Your debian experience won't be much different on an Ultra III than it will be on a Dell or a Macintosh G3 (aside from hardware support, obviously).

I can install linux on any computer I can find in the dumpster.

Every other OS on the planet (BSDs excepted) are much less portable and available on a vastly narrower variety of hardware.

So. DUH. Of COURSE it's a growth industry. Linux is popular on the x86- and there's got to be at least 10 PCs for every Mac, just in terms of volume of existing hardware. Linux will continue to gain marketshare because it isn't tied to any specific hardware, making the cost of entry incredibly, amazingly cheap.

Can I get a HELL YEAH! ?

Re:Uhm... duh?

[loco_0wnz]

2 words... Hell [expletive deleted] Yeah! I personally have an agenda against closed-source programming and I do everything I can to promote Linux on the x86 front.

only 6% in 2007?

[skillio]

hmm, i wonder if they're taking into account the ever-growing usability of linux to casual desktop users when giving this projection. it seems to me that in 3-4 years, just observing the trend, adoption percentages will be much higher than that. it isnt linear because as it gets better, more people try it, recommend it, etc, and obviously the price factor is big. in addition, i'd think something like the walmart cheap PC thing will be multiplying greatly as linux is shown to be user-friendly, with many more major vendors pro-offering linux in some form on their systems. maybe i'm just being optimistic, but i'd hope linux desktop adoption in 2007 would be 10-15% or higher - i guess we can hope (:

Re:only 6% in 2007?

[unoengborg]

Yes, it sounds low. But as the article states if Linux gets as much as 10% Microsoft will start feel the pain, and we can expect them doing something about it, and do so long before it reaches those figures. One such action could anticipated by the article would be to lower the prices.

I wouldn't be surprised if you will get a free (as in beer) copy of some Windows XP Light bundled with every computer magazine you buy, and that Microsoft instead focus on sales of various kinds of OS related services. After all that's what .Net are for. Such development would slow down Linux adaptation significantly as many people will install such a free windows just out of curiosity.

But even at 6% Linux will be a potentially interesting market. And more and more software companies will port their software to Linux.
When that happens, the Linux growth will increase even further over the years to come.

It is also interesting to note that the article predicts that Linux will have 6% of the market while windows will have the remaining 94%. That is probably not true. I would expect Mac OS to remain at something like 3% if not better.

And remember even if MS decides to make their money from services just like Red Hat and other Linux companies do today, MS have to carry the whole cost of development of their OS while the cost of Linux development is shared among many diferent parties. This means that Linux venders can spend more money on developing their services than MS and hopefully that will show as a difference in quality, and ultimately in user preferences for Linux.

Re:If this is true, why wont game companies port?

[Brandybuck]

Supposition: Mac users actually buy software, Linux users demand stuff for free. Every platform has its user quirks. I think Linux's is that they all want everything gratis.

Who wants to port to Linux only to have hordes of advocates screaming "it's not Free Software!"

To paraphrase Disraeli

[pixelgeek]

There are lies, damn lies, and market share percentages.

Missing the point my friend, but then so did the p

[SmallFurryCreature]

Missing the point my friend, but then so did the poster. Nothing is said about Apple loosing ground. Just that their is now another non-windows OS out there with users in the single number percentages. That they are a fraction higher just makes for nice headlines. It is a journalist thing.

Since real freedom fans are not out to destroy ms-windows but rather to make for a world in wich ms-windows is just another desktop this is good news. Apple and linux and bsd and beOS (whatever its new names is) SkyOS and tron and etc all have tiny shares. TOGETHER we are now beyond the 5% and closing slowly on the 10%. 1 out of 10 people is a significant number. That is the kind of number businesses have to respect or face loosing customers.

With Office on Apple uncertain this could mean that 1 out of 10 people need to get their documents in a more open format.

So this article shouldn't be about linux overtaking apple, wich is hardly a suprise considering it is happening on the office desktop and the gigantic price difference, but the share of non-ms-windows installations increasing.

No MS is not going to go bankrupt over this. But with these kind of statistics IE only websites are becoming just a little bit less good business sense. That can surely only be a good thing.

Homophobic Moderation?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is wrong with a Gay President?

Re:Homophobic Moderation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing, that was a Simpsons reference

Re:At this rate...

[sloanster]

I highly doubt that it will be a nice linear function, for a number of reasons -

It will most likely be exponential at the tipping point, then going more logarithmic as the market sorts itself out.

Honestly, I don't care if microsoft keeps a healthy market presence, if linux gets a good 30% share I'm happy, since that's big enough that it can't be ignored, and microsoft can't get away with the old monopoly games any more.

Linux Compatibility

[Phroggy]

This was on Mac OS Rumors two weeks ago; since they no longer have archives I pulled it from the Google cache:

One of the biggest Mac OS X 10.4 features: Linux? It's that time of year again, folks - last year's big operating system release, Panther, is about to get by far its largest and most mature update yet in the form of 10.3.3 and Safari 1.2 in the next couple of weeks, and Apple's attention is beginning to turn to its next major release.

One of our oldest sources has reported in on the beginning stages of this process, and the first item on his bullet list: Linux. Mac OS X 10.4 will more closely merge the Apple experience with that of Linux in several key ways that will visible to users as well as developers. Panther already implements a number of Linux APIs, but Apple hopes to make 10.4's adoptions higher-profile and therefore mirror (rather than cannibalize, we can hope!) Linux's success in creating an "opening wedge" into the Windows world.

We expect to get more details as Apple fleshes out its concept work and gets coding. Stay tuned....

Interesting follow-up to that:

Apple's 10.4 "Linux initiative" could work both ways. Today's crop of new reports on this topic not only provide considerable confirmation that Apple is indeed pondering a "Linux adoption" move, but hint at an angle we haven't covered yet. It has been suggested that Apple could gain quite a bit of attention and support from the GNU/Linux/OSS communities by porting more of its key pieces of software to Linux: Xcode, Rendezvous, QuickTime, iTunes, and iChat have all been mentioned. More on this later in the week as we continue to analyze this particularly tantalizing line of inquiry....

Re:Linux Compatibility

[iotaborg]

Hate to say it but MOSR's rumor accuracy is a close 1%, you can see their past history and their accuracy from webarchive or google (or lack thereof).

And this is why MOSR doesn't have past archives.

Usage vs Install

[pavon]

I bet the discrepency comes from the fact that IDC is measuring installs and google is measuring hits. There are probably a lot of people who have Linux installed but still use Windows as their primary OS, and/or use Windows at work, and therefore visit google using Windows more often than using Linux.

Re:Are servers a subset of Desktops?

[phatsharpie]

>Also, assuming they keep to their previous methodology,
>they'll be reporting on their estimates of machines that
>shipped with Linux already installed. This obviously
>underreports overall Linux market share, discounting people
>who convert new or old machines to either Linux or dual-boot
>status.

Then outside of enterprise purchases, these numbers wouldn't factor into people who buy ultra low priced PC's with Linux pre-installed and slap on a copy of their friend's Windows OS.

Nevertheless, I think it's a good sign for the future of Linux on the desktop! But presently I still prefer OS X as my primary OS. ;-)

-B

Re:I'm going to help out here...

[Brandybuck]

The system for you depends on your particular wants and needs. More than one category can apply.

• I'm a clueless newbie and proud of it!
  Lycoris, Lindows, Xandros
  
• I don't intend to be clueless forever
  Fedora, SuSE
  
• I am not afraid of computers
  Slackware, Debian, FreeBSD
  
• I like to tinker with stuff until it breaks
  Gentoo, NetBSD
  
• Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get me
  OpenBSD, Debian
  
• I want to be l33t
  Gentoo
  

Could be even more Linux desktops out there

[darnok]

I'm now regularly "reviving" old Windows desktop boxes that didn't have enough grunt to run as Win XP systems. They still make perfectly useable Linux systems.

The majority of these are used as firewalls or Samba servers, but some are running Mepis. There's nothing like taking a "junk" PC from someone, then "reviving" it for use as a Web browser/email/simple office PC. Many, many home users are upgrading their old PCs, and I suspect a growing number of these are now retaining their old PCs and redeploying them as simple Linux SOHO desktops.

After all, a ~500MHz, 128Mb RAM desktop PC is barely useful for Windows 2k or XP, but still works fine as a Linux desktop.

I doubt that these PCs are showing up as Linux PCs on any survey - they usually were originally sold with a Windows licence. As they're often "second" PCs, they might rarely get used for Internet access; instead Mum or Dad use them for work stuff while the kids are playing games on the shiny new PC.

Linux not there yet for CAD engineers

[PotatoHead]

Win32 is getting a pretty nice grip on this market. Almost all of the MCAD (mechanical CAD) companies offer win32 versions of their software.

Smaller, niche CAD players, do offer both Linux and Mac versions. PTC, one of the bigger players (for a while longer at least) does Linux today, with Mac coming.

The problem is the number of users running strong win32 based programs. (AutoCAD, Solid Edge, Solid Works) While none of these packages offer the level of capability the bigger packages do, their numbers are creating a significant network effect. Very few mechanical engineering departments, found in small to mid-sized enterprises, run anything other than win32 systems. The big players still make good use of UNIX, with Linux being rare at this point and OS X being more rare or non-existant at best.

These systems are increasingly being tied to back-end PDM (product data management systems) that aim to drive the product knowledge throughout the company. The reasons for doing this are sound, but the platform in the lead right now is win32. Given the strong intergration between win32 and office, additional intergration involving engineering and CRM software, Microsoft is getting hold of manufacturing and product design companies in a big way.

Both Linux and OS X are going to have an increasingly hard time cracking this nut. All of the MCAD sales people use win32 running laptops. Older UNIX products are being ported and adapted to run win32.

Many folks in this market do not even have Linux on their radar yet.

Given this is my area of expertise, it is a depressing story really. Linux and OSS in general are a great story that almost never gets told in this space.

Microsoft has been growing at the expense of commercial UNIX vendors, in this space for the last 8 years or so, almost unchecked. This is an area that Linux is ready for in many ways, due to its technical nature. The ECAD people along with the movie studios demonstrate this clearly.

I'm afraid, without ports to Linux from the big players, the mechanical engineering and product design markets are going to be win32 for a long time to come yet. Even with the ports, the mid-range packages (having the majority of users) are win32 only at this point, because they leverage Microsoft tools at almost every level of the software.

I fear the home software will come first. Maybe I am wrong, I hope I am.

Mach microkernel, lots of *BSD bits... once again!

[green pizza]

The Mac OS X kernel itself is a derrivative of Mach. This is were essential kernel services plug in. A lot of the userland and driver space is based on BSD in general... some bits are from 4.4BSD Lite 2, some from FreeBSD, and some from OpenBSD. In fact, there was an article somewhere in which the author ran the latest Darwin (the opensource, non-gui part of Mac OS X) source through some scripts to discover that there's more OpenBSD in Mac OS X than there is FreeBSD.

Remember, Mac OS X is based on NeXTSTEP / OPENSTEP, which were based on 4.3BSD and did not have any FreeBSD or OpenBSD code (in fact, NeXTSTEP probably predated FreeBSD).

As far as the "Macintosh" side of things, only the Carbon runtime libaries were ported over for legacy semi-ported Carbon applications. Native Mac OS X apps are Mach-O binaries and use the (NeXTSTEP "NS") Cocoa library for GUI. There is also a "Classic" virtual machine for running Mac OS 9.2.2.

Re:If this is true, why wont game companies port?

[Jad LaFields]

I think part of the idea is that many gamers who use linux also *already* dual boot or have a secondary Windows computer for gaming, and so for them there is no point in selling them a Linux version.

Yeah I'm sure someone will immediately respond to this post with a "I haven't used a Microsoft product in years and I play x, y, and z all the time!" But even if you represent half of the "linux gamer" population out there, that's still halving an already tiny market.

But....

[Anonymous Coward]

But BSD is dying!

Re:But....

[Kierthos]

No, it's just pining for the fjords.

Kierthos

Good for Linux, still good for Mac

[amper]

Well, I just spent the better part of my day building a new mail server.

It's a Power Mac G3 B&W running Mac OS X 10.2.8 (6R73), with Sendmail 8.12.11, Cyrus SASL 2.1.15, Cyrus IMAPD 2.2.3, GNU Mailman 2.1.4, SquirrelMail 1.4.2, Berkeley DB 4.2.52, etc, etc--all downloaded and compiled from scratch with GNU GCC 3.3 (except Sendmail, which doesn't work with 3.3, so I used 3.1 for that).

*And* all of this works with SMTP AUTH through SASL linked through PAM to the NetInfo database. I've done this on Mac OS X 10.3 as well.

I could do this on Linux, too, I suppose, but then I wouldn't also get all the really cool features of Mac OS X or Apple's really cool hardware.

BTW, just saying "Linux" is kind of misleading. Even if you only looked at the major distro's, you're still talking about several different types of systems that have significant compatibility problem between them. So, if you're going to lump all of these into one big "market share", I'd say why not lump all the commercial *NIXes together? I'm sure AIX, IRIX, Solaris, etc could add a percentage point or two to Apple's share, at the least. Hell, you could even toss in all the *BSD's, for that matter.

The bottom line is, no matter what flavor you feel like using, it's all basically a (nearly) POSIX compliant system under the hood.

Just so long as it's not more Windows...

I was listening to NPR briefly today with some silly girl from Wired talking about the MS source code leak. Doesn't it amaze you how much people are talking about hackers taking advantage of the source code to attack Windows?

Don't these people have any memories at all? I would venture to guess that *none* of the writers of the very well publicized virus attacks of the past few years needed access to the MS source code to effectively attack a large portion of the world's Windows systems. Can you say MyDoom? Melissa?

Bah! Windows is a plague on humanity. Hopefully, the combined power of Linux, UNIX, and BSD, especially with the help of Apple, will wipe this incontinent excuse for security off the face of the world once and for all.

More is needed for desktop (suggestions included)

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote from the article:

Munich went with Linux, but the city fathers may rue that day. BusinessWeek has learned that the project is behind schedule, bolstering Microsoft's message that Linux still isn't ready for prime time. "I haven't seen any of our customers use Linux in a mainstream way," says Martin Taylor, Microsoft's general manager for platform strategy.
[End Quote]

Some things a Linux desktop still needs (in my opinion, in random order):

1. Good DVD player & CD-RW that just work, without mesing around. If this software is not part of the distro, simple instructions on how to get/install it (one click?).

2. Friends who are familiar with the OS/Distro, for the network effects and piece of mind in case something goes drastically wrong. This is where having a "critical mass" (fuzzy value) comes in - this is already happening, but the more, the better.

3. Better Wine, but that will come with age. :) [CodeWeavers is doing a really good job, with full disclosure of the limitations, which leads to a sense of psychological well being, rather than the feeling "they are trying to take advantage of me."]

4. Better default settings for Desktop/Window managers that make sense to a majority (and keep the ability to tweak). The "usability" improvements and surveys will help here, a lot. More needs to happen in that field.

5. Use easier "language" - eventually (in 1-2 years) e.g., non-cryptic commands, or a *standardized* set of aliases that work on all distros. [And continue to evolve the GUI so the user doesn't HAVE TO use the CLI.]

6. Better Grub/Lilo/equivalent that is less intimidating for new users that want multi-boot. Preferably with a easy to use GUI that detects all HDDs & partitions and tells you what's on them (with as much relevant information as possible).

7. Some packaging system with less dependency problems. [Yes, there are a few that show very good promise, with only occasional issues surfacing.]

8. The equivalent of a "tray" where one can see the status of the firewall, proxy server, network connection, ..., similar to a few other OSs. The lack of such status is hard to get used to, for a new/non-expert user.

9. Few, well chosen default applications on the distro (not "give them four of everything"). [Lot of progress has already happened in this area in a few distros.]

10. Other stuff that's been talked about in other places. :)

-srr

It's worth noting

[MysteriousMystery]

It's worth noting that IDC #s are based heavily on sales figures. IE sales of box sets of Linux aimed at desktops (Lindows, Mandrake, Red Hat person, Suse) or systems preinstalled with the OS and not necessarily people downloading it for free, making copies of copies and such. The reality is that there is a high possibility the number of Linux desktops is SUBSTANCIALLY higher then their sales based estimates.

Re:It's worth noting

[fr0dicus]

Or substantially lower, which Google zeitgeist suggests.

Some people are willing to try anything, but may still find Linux too hard or incompatible with their kit. I wonder how many of those boxsets were sold to people with Winmodems for instance? Given that this seems to be the Internet connection hardware of choice for the non-broadband enabled consumer, I would suspect quite a lot.

Re:It's worth noting

[MysteriousMystery]

Well, lower might work if Linux weren't free, as I said they are tracking sales figures for most of their research. Most of the Linux desktops aren't necessarily in the hands of consumers but are in the hands of business's that are using broadband anyway. Besides, there are quite a few winmodens that ARE supported out of the box these days.
br> Also, think about all the people who have dual-boot systems, I know more then my fair share of them. Are those counted as Linux or Windows users?

Re:More design software for Linux on the cards the

[ratsnapple tea]

I dunno dude. Like you, I'm a designer (print and web), but I think if you ask around, you'll find that the reason a lot of designers prefer working on Macs is that the Mac is somehow inspiring; it drives people to be creative; it feels less like a computer and more like an extension of your creative soul. The Mac has that special je ne sais quoi that Windows lacks, and--I'll probably get modded troll for this--Linux desktop environments, in my humble estimation, lack too. And I think that to a lot of people, that mysterious something is worth the Apple premium.

So it's not just about market share. It's about how many graphic artists actually want to work on Linux, and while I don't doubt there are a lot of talented designers who would be more than happy to switch to KDE or Gnome, I don't think that number is going to be anywhere near the number of people who for some reason or another are attached to the Mac environment.

Thoughts?

yours

We're not all zealots :-)

[SuperBanana]

I think by default Apple users don't care about market share. In fact, my experience is that they abhor market share and extol the "uniqueness" and individuality that comes from being an Apple user.

Actually, I just don't care about market share, with either Linux or the Macintosh. I settle for showing people(who show interest) some of the neat things about my powerbook and OS X. I'm very reserved about recommending it for someone, and there's no point in trying to get someone to switch- they have to want to, otherwise, it'll never meet their expectations.

I mean, not any geek could hack on a purple box.

Are you talking about SGI? If so, that'd be indigo, not purple- and one of the first Unixes I was exposed to was Irix on an old Indigo(IP12 with the "Song and Dance" graphics card, not nearly enough ram, and I think maybe 1-2GB of disk- but man, it could do some nifty graphics for the time, and it was an OLD system by the time I got my hands on it!)

People say OS X is the first unix desktop-friendly unix(ie, no command-line necessary), and they're dead wrong- SGI had them beat by almost ten years with Irix.

PS:hard core SGI people started on brown computers, not "purple" ones. Why Indigo, by the way? Well, the color supposedly perfectly matches Lotus Coachworks's Indigo paint(one of the top SGI execs owned a Indigo Lotus Espirit Turbo- guy had taste...)

Re:We're not all zealots :-)

[MrHanky]

Truly an underappreciated, and highly marginalized system as far as graphics, and rendering goes...

Maybe because SGIs were, and still are, ridiculusly expensive. I was given an Indigo^2 for free a couple of months ago, and naturally started surfing for info. I found this old article about the machine (from 1993), skimmed through it: "Wow, UK 8,000 for that computer?" Pretty expensive. But when I read the article again, I understood that was the cost of only the graphics card... "The Indigo2 costs 34,000 UKP." That's about half of what my parents got for their house when they moved, in 1992 (houses have at least doubled in value since then, and an Indigo^2 is worth almost nothing).

My point is: You don't buy an SGI unless you really need it, or if you have too much money.

Linux may be gaining market share....

[Anonymous Coward]

...but are any of the distros gaining capital in the desktop market? Mandrake only recently pulled itself out of chapter 11. Redhat has all but given up on the desktop market. Lindows is enjoying a very small measure of success, but Lycoris and Xandros (the other two "desktop" distros) seem to be falling farther and farther behind.

So Linux may be gaining some ground, but if all of the companies that make a kinder, gentler Linux can't afford to keep developing their product, how far can Linux on the desktop go?

And before you say "Linux grows because of the community development!", no, it doesn't. Linux's core code may become more advanced through that method, but drudging Linux up to desktop usability levels comes because companies work to make more intuitive experiences. The Linux community, short of providing feedback, has little to do with this advancement.

Re:Linux may be gaining market share....

[pe1chl]

The multi-distribution model of Linux has some advantages w.r.t. development by competition, but it works against general desktop acceptance.

Probably there will be a shakeout and a small number of distributors survive. Only then can the desktop market be really developed.

Linux enthousiasts like choice. Choice between distributors, choice between window managers, system administration tools, choice between applications.

Desktop users like a uniform system where there are some known invariants. Systems that they can ask others to support, or that they can ask questions about when chatting with a co-worker or friend.
Right now, Linux is not like that.

Re:If this is true, why wont game companies port?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Many of us Linux users support the companies that sell software for it

Judging by the Loki situation, there's only about 1000-2000 Linux users willing to "support" home/desktop software.

More power to ya, but don't overestimate your influence outside of your messageboards.

Re:You're fired

[Flower]

Bull. From experience, if it ain't company owned and controlled I don't want it connecting to my network. Why? Because the instant it starts producing data for the company I have to support it and I have to wonder if it's secure.

It's cheaper and safer to buy the employee the equipment to do their job.

Re:THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU MUST ACQUIT.

[Bluetrust25]

From the article, "Market researcher IDC expects to announce within weeks that Linux' PC market share in 2003 hit 3.2%, overtaking Apple Computer Inc.'s... Macintosh... software."

My company, SurveyComplete, programs online surveys for market research companies. That's all that we do, and we're damn good at it. In fact, I'd say that we're the best in the world at what we do at this point in time and I'm proud of my work. Last year we completed nearly fifty research studies, covering over 800,000 interviews.

This story really ticks me off because we performed an Awareness and Usage study across Internet Users (just two weeks ago) on the topic of Operating Systems and found that Linux is absolutely not overtaking Macintosh.

While 26% of the 1,100 respondents we interviewed were aware of Linux or one of its many distributions, only 1% use it on a daily or weekly basis. Macintosh comes in at a healthy 6%.

One of the most interesting findings in the study came from when we examined techies against the rest of the population and found that "Respondents who are male, aged 35 or more, use broadband, and are college educated (some college or more) are far more likely to be aware of Linux than the rest of the population" to the tune of 43% awareness of Linux in techies versus 15% in the rest of the population. That's a huge gap, a gargantuan gap. When we examined the operating systems respondents currently use, 3% of techies are using Linux versus less than 1% of the general population.

When I read the results, it really shocked me. Why, this means that 2004 is not going to be the year of Linux on the desktop -- this goes against everything I've heard on slashdot! All those hours I've spent reading articles by people in the open-source scene talking about how this year, was going to be it. But this makes more sense: Nobody has really heard about Linux outside of nerds.

Which is probably why the results of our study never appeared on slashdot (even though they were submitted last week.)

It's really frustrating that this pro-linux propaganda gets through onto the front page while articles like ours which have results that make sense, get dropped.

You can read our study results and find out if BSD is truly dead, here:

2004 SurveyComplete Operating System Awareness and Usage Study

Re:I'm going to help out here...

[presearch]

I can do pretty much anything
Mac OS X

Irrelevant

[fr0dicus]

This is like saying "Taxi use outstripped Mercedes sales".

It's the games issue

[superpulpsicle]

If Mac wants to be serious about being a home OS, they need to figure out a way to release games before windows.

Linux will always have that server/unix advantage against windows. With Mac's unless you were ichatting or hooking up digital cameras 24x7, there's no reason to have one. Games would be a damn good area to improve.

What this means

[Anonymous Coward]

Please remember that "market share" refers to the percentage of units sold in a given amount of time. (In this case, the idea of "sold" has to be a little fuzzy.) IDC is saying that the market share of Linux per quarter is approaching that of the Mac OS.

But the Mac has a 20-year headstart.

By most estimates, there are something close to 40 million Macs in use today. (About half of these run Mac OS X, and the other half the classic Mac OS in one version or other. Many of them, of course, are older machines that are not capable of running OS X. Apple's market research says that of the users who can run OS X on their machines, something like 75% do.) There are about 400 million desktop computers in the world, total, so Apple has about 10% of the total installed base.

It'll be a long, LONG time before Linux starts approaching those numbers.

What IDC is saying here is that they think the rate of new installs of Linux is approaching that of the Mac. Which only makes sense, if you think about it. Linux is the hot new thing, while the Mac's growth has been pretty steady for the past six or seven years.

What'll be illuminating is what happens to the rate of adoption of Linux after it surpasses the Mac's new adoption numbers. Will it keep going, or will it peak out and then drop off?

(Honestly, based on past trends, it will almost certainly peak out and drop off. But time will tell for sure.)

OK, but..

[pbjones]

Linux is displacing WINDOZE as a desktop, not MacOS. I look at it more like people are choosing to use LINUX instead of Windoze, mainly because the Mac market share hasn't disappeared, and most LINUX distros run on wintel hardware, which is not where MacOS is. More misdirected anti-Mac hype...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Re:THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU MUST ACQUIT.

[be-fan]

I'm curious --- who were these people that you surveyed? Were they in the US, or worldwide? Does the fact that you conduct online surveys make the user pool somewhat self-selecting? What makes your research methods better than IDC's, anyway?

I definitely think your research should have made Slashdot, but at the same time, I see no compelling reason to believe that your results are more accurate than those of other companies.

interesting ramifications for..

[ricochet81]

websites too. A LOT of developers i've been around design pages for the mac and pc, and dont care about linux, it works somehow. But, I am increasingly peeved at web content that is windows only (IE and Windows Media Player) eg. launch.yahoo.com and many other streaming Windoze audio/video, IE jscript & other IE only web content. This fact should be made as public as we can so I can get rid of my windows partition once and for all.

Linux in IT may help Mac in long run

[Sigh Phi]

The original poster plays up one line in the Business Week article and completely skews the tenor of the article. To wit: Linux is becoming attractive in "business" -- never an Apple strength. The article's mention of Macintosh marketshare is a journalistic technique used to provide a frame of reference. Iraq is roughly the size of California, etc.

But Macintosh and Linux have more than marketshare in common. Both platforms are committed to open standards and interoperability, the former out of necessity due to its historical role as outsider, and the latter out of philosophical conviction of its adherents. If Linux leaks into the business world, IT folks will find that the formats and APIs they're using work just as well on Macs. This could lead to a more equitable situation where people use the tools they like, rather than the tools that Bill Gates wants them to use. Joe the Administrative assistant will while away on Windows, Jane the database nerd loves her Linux cluster, and Johan the turtlenecked web designer makes merry on his Mac.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic. IT monoculture is so annoying.

Both LInux _and_ OSX

[Colonel Panic]

I've been using Linux since '96. I've tried most of the major distros out there. I really like Linux.

However, yesterday I got my first G4 PowerBook. I wanted to actually do some multi-media type things with my computer without having to spend hours (days) trying to get things to work. I wanted to do things like burn DVDs, edit video, play Quicktime movies. Sure, you can do these things with Linux, but I've got other things to do than spend hours/days/months trying to get everything sort-of-kind-of-working.

So, I got a Mac. Seems like the best of both worlds.

Am I going to dump Linux now? No way. Linux is great for lots of other things. I have to say that I actually prefer KDE or GNOME to the Mac's Aqua. The Mac doesn't have virtual desktops, it doesn't have enough mouse buttons and what's with the toolbar having to be at the top of the screen instead of on the actual application window?! (seems to harken back to the pre-OSX days when MacOS wasn't a true multitasking OS). On the otherhand, I can stick a DVD-RW in the Mac and copy a movie to it that will play on my DVD player, no muss, no fuss. I can hook up a digital camera to my Mac via the usb, download the images from it and edit the pics without having to spend hours trying to get it to work - I really like that. Now I can get on with getting some work done instead of being a sys-admin.

Re:Both LInux _and_ OSX

[StormReaver]

"I wanted to do things like burn DVDs, edit video, play Quicktime movies. Sure, you can do these things with Linux, but I've got other things to do than spend hours/days/months trying to get everything sort-of-kind-of-working."

I don't think any mainstream version of Linux comes with video editing tools out of the box, so I'll grant that point to you.

Burning DVDs with Mandrake 9.2 means right clicking on a file and selecting k3b. Playing Quicktime movies (and any other media file) on Mandrake 9.2 involves nothing more than clicking on the file. All the necessary software is preinstalled.

The Mac probably still has an advantage in some areas, but the gap has closed considerably in others.

Linux and Mac do not share the same market

[kyshtock]

How can one say such a thing? Macs are for people willing to spend extra money, for people who appreciate design and ease of use, for people who want to have a certain touch of uniqueness.

On the other hand, Linux is for poeple who don't give a damn about the looks of their machines, for the people who aren't afraid to search the net about ten hours for the piece of code they need, and will read the docs and compile for about ten more hours. Oh, yeah, and for people with a certain cash affection.

Oh, so you said desktop boxen! So? Check the prices: same machine, same capabilities: one computer, one operating system, one office package. Which is cheaper?

However, gimme a Powerbook running Linux and I'll change my mind :)

On a different level: applications. Industry uses Photoshop; industry uses Macromedia stuff, industry uses specific software which runs on more standardised systems, such as MacOS or Windows. When Photoshop and Dreamweaver and Flash and QuarkXpress, and all the software that equipment get deliverd with will work on Linux, TOO, than you can speak of a choice. Till then, you need to be extra carefull when you shop, because you new laser printer might not work on linux (been there, bought that).

Cheers and power to the Penguin

Re:THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU MUST ACQUIT.

[calidoscope]

You can read our study results and find out if BSD is truly dead, here:

BSD may be invisible on the desktop, but I've had a lot more interaction with BSD (primarily through my former ISP) than any version of Mac OS. Then again, I also use Solaris (both Sparc and x86) on the desktop.

I have some kiddies that can show you...

[codepunk]

I just converted a whole damn school over and I can show you a bunch of first graders that feel right at home on a mandrake thin client. Oh yea and get this the total investment for 75 machines was a $2000 for refurb dell server. Every one of the client machines was taken from a free recycling program.

Re:I have some kiddies that can show you...

[NtroP]

This summer I will be rolling out our first large-scale Linux thin-client network.

We have a new school being built, and two more being renovated. The workstations will be thin clients (built from new parts by students at about $150.00 ea. not including monitors - we will be putting some of our savings there to get flat panels). The servers will probably be Dell or Iron Systems Dual Processor systems with 4Gig Ram.

We will be installing a Mac OS X X-Serve kerberos/LDAP password server to take over autentication from our Active Directory Server (although the AD server will continue to provide account details for our Windows Clients). Our Mac and Linux clients will use LDAP for account information so we can have true single-signon district-wide.

Almost all standard usage for computers at the high-school level consists of web-based research (web-browser), typing notes and papers (basic word processing), developing presentations ("powerpoint"), and email (web-based). All of this can be done without pain, or viruses, or licenses, with Linux/OOo/Mozilla.

We also have an Apache/PHP/MySQL based student management system that we've developed in-house which automagically provides teachers and students with a web-based view of their classes, teachers, students, etc. This system auto-creates accounts and manages class enrollment associations based on information from HR and Student Records through the normal process of student-enrollment on our AS400. This means there is no staff/student account management. When a staff memeber is hired and assigned a teaching position (or other position) their account is auto-created (currently in Active Directory), they are assigned groups and a home directory on the server in the building they are assigned to. As students enroll in our district they get accounts auto-created in the same way, with passwords randomly assigned. When the student enrolls in a particular class, the teacher will see them on their class lists on the web and be able to tell them their default password so they can log in and change it via the web browser (which changes it in AD) Teachers can also "reset" a sudent's password for students in their case-load via the web - no more calling down to the helpdesk to and taking up everyone's time just to change a password (Admin-secretaries and other designated people can do the same for staff in their building).

Assignments and other resources can be uploaded via the web interface and "handed-out" to student in a class with the click of a button - this is available securely outside the firewall so teachers and students can access these files from home. All files are thus virus-checked and controlled as opposed to being carried in by floppies. Student can similarly hand-in documents to their teachers. Attendance, and grading will be rolled in next, at which point our hope is to post the source for other school districts to use.

What this means is that almost all daily functions can be managed in a completely platform-agnostic way. Accounts are the same regardless of OS. Home directories are available via the network district-wide with single-signon. And, with the exception of some of our "MS certification" classes (which will be delivered via Citrix and rdesktop) almost all other functions can happen with any OS and more importantly, with linux. Specifically, dumb-terminals, with no moving parts and no requirement for constant maintenance and upgrade. All users will be using Open Office where ever practical to avoid the overhead in license-fees and content lock-in.

Our students will graduate with a solid knowledge of Mac OS X, Windows and Linux. They will be able to be flexible in the workplace because they won't start with the attitude we see in so many of our current teachers: "If it's not [insert the only App/OS they've ever used], I don't know how to use it".

Another advantage is that we can now actually use the many donated computers we get. Before, we would get an old PII 233 and spend more money tha

Re:THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU MUST ACQUIT.

[brandond1976]

I call bullshit.

"Respondents who are male, aged 35 or more, use broadband, and are college educated (some college or more) are far more likely to be aware of Linux than the rest of the population" to the tune of 43% awareness of Linux in techies versus 15% in the rest of the population.

That result is so far of base I can't even begin. 43% amoung techies? Hmmm... where did you give this survey? Was it only posted on some Windows tech site? Did you send it out as HTML formatted SPAM? Give me a break. Techies work with computers, they love computers, they spend time learning about them. This is akin to saying that only 43% of jockeys are aware of Palaminos or that only 43% of mechanics are aware of Lotus. Sure, they may not be intimately familiar with it, but they most certainly ARE aware of it. Christ, even the most non-techie people I support at work (the ones that need support when the dialog box that only has an "ok" button on it comes up) have heard of it.

BTW, what was the name of your company? I want to make sure they I never pay attention to any of the stats you post. After all, 43% of us know you made them up :)

Re:More design software for Linux on the cards the

[Anonymous Coward]

...you'll find that the reason a lot of designers prefer working on Macs is that the Mac is somehow inspiring; it drives people to be creative; it feels less like a computer and more like an extension of your creative soul.

So they are zealots too, in other words. ;-)

Linux usage barely tops Win 3.1 usage

[Anonymous Coward]

According to this site, desktop Linux usage to access the web sites of this site's clients barely tops usage of Windows 3.1:

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2004/January/os. ph p

Kind of puts it in perspective, don't you think?

Re:THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU MUST ACQUIT.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

After reading your "note on methodology" it is pretty clear to me why your survey showed less desktop usage than a survey like IDC -- you claim to have measured "internet using" adults. You are welcome to provide more of the specifics on how your data was normalized, but I'm going to make some educated guesses about factors that are specifically relevant to linux and mac demographics that may not be so relevant for other topics.

1) Mostly American - seems your entire website is in English only and despite the FAQ stating that you have thousands of worldwide members, I bet the number of Americans is an order of magnitude larger than non-Americans.

2) Mostly Home (or non-workplace) Internet Users -- not many companies are going to be ok with people taking for-pay surveys on company time or equipment.

These biases help to explain some of the numbers in your survey related to Mac usage. First, you showed 6% regular or semi-regular mac usage, which is twice what surveys like IDC's show. Unless you happened to get an unexpected spike of people who use Mac's at work (like a bunch of marketing droids were pulled to make this survey pool), it is reasonable to expect that these Mac users are are either home or public-terminal (think public and school libaries)- they may only use windows, or think they do, at work (as indicated by the 98% number) but it suggests their access to your survey is through a Mac that is not at work.

Similarly, your "puzzling" result of high Mac usage and intent to use among employed minorities also suggests free public and school access systems. I am equating minority to "less better off" than the average white guy, but I also expect that employed minorities (versus unemployed minorities) are more likely to understand the value of a buck and make use of public-access systems like that at a school (continuing education, night classes, etc) or library.

Meanwhile, consider the kind of desktop usage that we see reported in the pro-linux press - point-of-sale and other task-specific uses sure seems to get mentioned most. These users may not even know they are using Linux. The more general use deployments, where Linux and apps are displacing both MS-Windows AND MS-Office seem to be in foreign, non-English speaking countries (Germany, China, Peru to name a couple off the top of my head). These users are probably under-represented in your survey population. If you had compensated for higher than "normal" foregin usage, I don't think your reported margin of error would be as small. Based on my assumption that your foreign pollees are significantly less than your domestic ones.

Re:I'm going to help out here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a fag:

Mac OS-X

you folks have the wrong perspective

[CAIMLAS]

Everyone here seems to be foaming at hte mouth, "Mac vs. Linux". No. You've got it all wrong.

That market share increase for Linux came out of MS's market share, not Apple's. This is progress.

Re:THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU MUST ACQUIT.

[Alioth]

You don't even need to do a survey - just look at the Google Zeitgeist for evidence.

Only 1% of Google users are using Linux, it's languishing down there with Windows 95. Macintosh has three times the usage.

I am a Linux fanboy. I'm using my Linux system now, and my primary desktop system has been Linux for quite a while. However, facts are facts, and the Mac is doing much better on the desktop. Linux is ready for the desktop, but only certain desktops (corporate desktops, where competent sysadmins run the systems, developer's desktops, like my own, desktops installed on other people's behalf, like my Dad's). However, it's not ready for the mainstream home user. Macintosh has been ready for all desktops since the 1980s.

Heh, If You Can't Afford It...

[Durindana]

... You Ain't the Target Market

Re:If this is true, why wont game companies port?

[shaitand]

While your general point is true. It's worth noting that linux is an operating system, ie a kernel. RH doesn't add anything to linux in it's Enterprise edition. It adds applications, which are not part of the operating system, rather they are part of the distribution. The kernel is under the gpl, the gpl does not extend to applications that are bundled with it.

Re:THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU MUST ACQUIT.

[SanGrail]

Hold up a moment and read what you just quoted.

Male.
At least 35.
Uses broadband.
College educated.

This does not equal someone who 'works with computers'.

You got caught by marketing lingo that just gives a particular demographic a cute name. In this case, 'Techie'. But, hey, we don't need to be so biased as to say Computer Geeks are the only techies in the world.

The sample as stated includes any college education, so you've got all the French & Business majors in there as well (and those that failed).

It's still not too bad for statistical data. Except in it's implications for Linux, which still, to me at least, sound pretty accurate.

From talking to a bunch of first year Computer Science students (I decided to go get a degree *shrug*), I wouldn't expect more than 2/3 maximum to know about Linux when starting.
The computer labs use OpenBSD & KDE.
I mentioned to a second year student (apparently doing pretty well) I was maybe going to try the same setup at home, and they told me to get the KDE distribution of linux.
Close enough I guess. :(

Accuracy

[Decaff]

Don't you just love the accuracy of these reports? They don't just say '3%' they say '3.2%'. Maybe its just my experience with math and statistics, but I would be far more confident if someone said 'around 3%'. Of course, trying to predict as far ahead as 2007 is just a joke.

keep it corporate

[Trilobyte]

Please, can't we just keep Linux desktop installations in corporate environments? I don't want to see my dad buying a new computer and having Linux on it. If there's ever a problem, he's going to have to spend 3 hours on the phone, get charged $450, and end up returning his computer, because there's no way I'm going to sit down and start digging around in the internals to try to get it up and running again.

On the other hand, if he's using Linux on his desktop at work, I'm happy, because there is a paid support staff (made of people like you!) who must administer the machines, and he gets his job done just as well (if not better), while the corporation doesn't have to pay the Microsoft tax (and thereby support the Republican party [and thereby support terrorism]).

I don't think I'd want my dad using Macs at work though, because he'd be complaining all the time about how "foo-foo" it is. He'd make little limp-wristed gestures and talk about the pretty pictures and bouncing icons. I'd try to explain better to him, but he wouldn't care. "Too foo-foo," he'd say.

[I use a PowerBook as my main computer. I'm typing this on an Amiga right now. No joke. Still almost posted this as AC to avoid flamebait accusations. Darn you all.]

UNIX vs MS?

[gordguide]

Another story about marketshare. Maybe it's only me, but I find the constant micro-battles about market share to be just a little on the boring side.

However, what instantly caught my attention with this story is this: IDG is essentially predicting that *NIX desktop OS's will grow to about a 10% share in a couple of years, and with two mature versions driving the increase, which has both momentum and is predicted to continue growing versus Microsoft's offerings.

Now that's news.

Mac vs. Windows (with a linux kernel)

[Ilan Volow]

The points laid down in your post precisely illustrates why people from the mac community, those who have been utterly disgusted with microsoft's two decades of bad usability and non-innovation, should take their ideals and ideologies about how technology should be designed and migrate these ideas to their own Open Source linux desktop project. The "Linux Macs" (for lack of a better term) could then make use of the cheap x86 boxes that Apple could never take advantage of, and finally compete on the points of usability and user experience that were always obscured by a higher sticker price.

I say that it's about high time to we mac folk take the Mac vs. Windows battle into linux land, creating a third desktop environment that give GNOME and KDE a serious run for their money.

Never seen a Mac in my life

[mic256]

I have a Master degree in computer science. I studied together with a 100 people at my faculty. I work as an IT consultant at a rather respectable company, yet I have never seen a Mac in my life (just in pictures). Suprised ? Well, I live in Poland (approx 40 million inhabitants).

Apple is pretty nonexistant in my country and probably in many others as well. The barrier in a country where the average salary is $500 and there is 20% unemployment is the price.

The IDC survey, as I understand it applies to users worldwide and new computers! Your survey measures existing usage, which is something much different

Re:Never seen a Mac in my life

[0x0d0a]

That's smack dab in the middle of the desireable Linux user area. He's got a master's in CS, he knows tech, and Linux is $0.

what do you mean by home software?

[StandardDeviant]

"home software" means different things to different people. the canonical "big three" of home computer applications/uses:

1. Web usage (IE)
2. E-mail usage (Outlook/Outlook Express)
3. Office/Productivity Suite [word processing, spreadsheet, etc.] (MS Office)

That's pretty much all I ever see my non-unix-head/non-gamer friends using their machines for. Each of those categories has obvious, mature, and very functional replacements or analogs in the open source world (Mozilla, Mozilla, and OpenOffice, in order. or Firemumble, Thunderbird if you prefer that to the integrated moz). Heck, all of those even have windows ports that work very well, so you could give people a springboard to the world of software freedom without having to walk your non-technical friends and family members through hard disk partitioning or shell usage. ;)

Now, if you mean games and stuff like tax programs or garden layout software, yeah, linux isn't there yet. I suspect it won't be long though before the linux market is large enough that small ISVs will be tempted by the low development costs to release programs like that. (The software overhead alone for a traditional programmer's workstation in the MSFT world can reach into the thousands rapidly. The software overhead for a linux development system is... however much a couple of CD-Rs is these days.)

I would not be at all suprised to see something akin to the shareware/micropublisher model bloom in the linux "space" as the desktop market grows. Personally I don't have much need for payware (almost everything I use and need is free), but if I can get, say, a $10-20 program to do my taxes with that runs on linux, I'd do it in a heartbeat. (That's not a terribly unreasonable pricepoint either, TaxCut basic is about $15.) I'm sure there are lots of other little niche products like that out there that could find a market with the open source community.

no year of the Linux desktop in sight jusy yet

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read the results, it really shocked me. Why, this means that 2004 is not going to be the year of Linux on the desktop -- this goes against everything I've heard on slashdot! All those hours I've spent reading articles by people in the open-source scene talking about how this year, was going to be it. But this makes more sense: Nobody has really heard about Linux outside of nerds.

They said 1998 was going to be the year of the Linux desktop.
They said 1999 was going to be the year of the Linux desktop.
They said 2000 was going to be the year of the Linux desktop.
They said 2001 was going to be the year of the Linux desktop.
They said 2002 was going to be the year of the Linux desktop.
They said 2003 was going to be the year of the Linux desktop.
Now they're saying 2004 is going to be the year of the Linux desktop.

Does anyone notice a trend here?
Every year it is announced with great fanfare that KDE and Gnome have reached some new evolution, along with distributions in general, and that Linux will arrive like a biblical flood over the course of the following year. But each year ends, it hasn't happened, people have forgotten the predictions made at the begining of the year, and the process starts over again. Although Linux has become more usable on the desktop over the last 6 years, the number of people using it has not increased substantially. There is no strong upwards trend in the numbers using it. The number of people using Google from Linux is only at ~1% - and technical users would do far more searches than the rest of the population. As much as you may love Linux, or are convinced it should take over the world, or how good we think the technology is, it just is not arriving on the desktop at any meaningful speed.

The truth of the matter is that despite how WinXP has all sorts of security mess ups, few average people either know what Linux is nor see any good reason to use it if they do. Linux is still primary a server/professional operating system and a geek toy. As much as the strong vein of Linux zealotry on Slashdot may want to dismiss this, it is true. If you want free software operating systems on the desktop, there're better vehicals for that task.

Re:no year of the Linux desktop in sight jusy yet

[0x0d0a]

Yes, but there are two big factors that changed.

1) Open Office is good enough. Open Office used to kind of suck. A lot of bugs have been fixed in it, and you can sit down and actually do work in it. Office applications are the big barrier out there.

2) Big companies are backing Linux. IBM's been behind Linux for a while, and now Novell, HP to some extent, etc. The mainstream folks now are willing to go with Linux.

It will still take time. There is no magical 12 month window. However, Linux users are increasing. Not many folks move from Linux to Windows, and there's a steady flow of users to Linux.

Remember that about ten years ago, there were just a handful of Linux users looking out at the wide world and what might happen. I'd venture to guess that the number of Linux users has done better than double each year, and that's pretty respectable growth.

Remember when Linux wasn't a serious server OS? There were folks that said that it was a toy, and that you needed a real UNIX system if you wanted to do serious work. Well, damn, Linux seems to have tromped all over and overrun those "serious UNIX systems" on the server.

Has Linux become a major desktop player yet? No. Has it gotten more desktop users each year? Yes. Has it gained more corporate support each year? Yes. Is the software getting better faster than Windows? You bet.

And as for the link to Syllable...get real. All the complaints you listed, *especially* the ones about market share, apply tenfold to AtheOS. Hell, I'm a geek, and *I* didn't know that there was an AtheOS fork.

Keep it corporate?

[msimm]

If your dad ever installs linux on his home desktop it will be because Linux (or more like the distro he's chosen) has over come the short coming your reffering to. You've made a moot point.

When Linux is ready it will be as easy to use as either Mac or Windows. And to really grab mindshare it will probably have to do the same things better then those other too.

People predicting the end of Mac

[webmilhouse]

I think the number of people who have predicted the death of Apple in the past is directly proportional the number of times Apple has bounced back.

I think Linux is gaining in business desktop use because it is x86 and most businesses already have a large investment in hardware that is easy to convert to Linux rather than replace with G5s.

Re:More design software for Linux on the cards the

[clifyt]

Designers don't want them customizable. Being about to tweak every fucking thing on their computer is infact the OPPOSITE of what they want.

They want a computer that works right, is logical to their way of thinking, and is consistant.

Out of all the machines, the Mac OSs of the day have always been more uniform and perfect around the edges than anything else.

Seriously, this is the problem with Linux users -- they think users want more choices. They don't want more, they want the right choices.

I will say this -- I design Windows Applications for a living. A lot of my clients claim they love my apps because it does exactly what they need. I generally think in terms of Mac users when I do this. No extra features just because it can be built into it. At home, I use both Mac and Linux. Yeah -- I have a PC as well to take care of my office needs, but the G4 and powerbook CAN do most of it. The G4 is for my creative business -- I do music technology consulting. Its the PERFECT OS for the creative end...if you don't understand this, you aren't one that truely focuses solely on the creative end. Some of these folks would rather not think about the computer as anything but a pallete and never have to go into mechanic mode -- which honestly, I do more in the PC than I ever do in Linux.

When I really need something to work towards the geek end of things for myself, I pull up Linux -- but with OSX, I'm slowly abandoning this platform for anything but server activities. The only reason in my mind other than religious reasons not to go with Mac is that you can't afford it...in which case, a Linux box is perfect.

So no, Graphic Designers don't go nutty about things like brushed metal...the only folks I hear about the lack of customization are generally geeks. They think that by changing a theme on a windows manager it means they are truely creative...I'm sorry that doesn't get the bills paid.

Agreed -- Apple + Linux == desktop UNIX usage

[0x0d0a]

I know few people using Linux at home. Linux is being deployed as a business desktop, a cubicle box, which was the area traditionally ruled by Microsoft. Apple's generally stayed with niches.

The fact is, you can *combine* the Apple and Linux desktop market share to calculate (desktop UNIX users) and watch happily as it rises. Mmmm....

Do I count?

[Chuck Bucket]

I use Linux as a desktop, but I run it on an iBook. Does this confuse the poll?

CB

Re:Statistics

[fafaforza]

avoid relying on [surveys] too heavily. (Unfortunately govt.s often ignore this).

I find the above statement highly dubious. Do you have a survey to support this?

Mac OS and Linux more compatible than not

[0x0d0a]

Good luck on Linux overtaking OS X's momentum.

Apple has built themselves a very profitable niche, and is happy with it. Yes, they could get more market share (but much less money, at least in the short run) by porting Mac OS X to x86. They've chosen not to. They want to maintain a market with users who are comfortable paying high prices for a polished black box system. Nothing wrong with that, but Apple is not aiming at the masses, which buy computers based on price, where Apple simply is not competitive (and, again, has chosen not to be).

Aside from the folks that use Linux on PowerPC, Apple's Mac OS doesn't really even compete with Linux all that much. People using Linux on the desktop are generally on x86 -- a new Linux user means a vanished Windows users.

Linux and Mac users can get along pretty well. Apple (setting aside Quicktime) doesn't push proprietary formats, a la Microsoft. Apple doesn't play dirty compatibility games, a la Microsoft ("Gee, did we break Netscape Server with that change? Do we prioritize IE requiests ahead of Navigator requests? Ooops, looks like we introduced a bug!"). An Apple/Linux argument is much like an argument between vi and emacs. It can get very impassioned, as each person defends their own favorite logic. However, in the end, the two interoperate well -- they'e still both churning out text. Bob in the next cubicle can use one, and me the other, and everyone is happy. I don't get my nice GNU tools on a vanilla Mac, but I get a reasonable set of POSIX utils. I can write and run my scripts and work without too much pain. I don't have the Godawful Windows virtual terminal and horrendous shell. I get X11 support. Yeah, some Linux software doesn't work well or at all under OS X (especially for things that have half-done native ports from X11), and software using the Mac's GUI as a front-end doesn't work really well on Linux. However, think of the following:

* Libraries can be designed to be cross-platform. Most Windows uers that I know of seem to use AIM or ICQ, or maybe Trillian, which I believe is a closed-source codebase. The friend that I have that uses OS X uses Adium, which uses libgaim. If I find a bug in libgaim on my Linux box and fix it, he benefits, and visa versa. There are a startling number of Mac OS X people working on POSIX sourceforge projects, much like the Linux world, and very unlike the Windows world.

* Dunno if Mac OS X does perl out of box, but if not, I'm sure that it's installable via fink or something. I don't have to futz with Visual Basic crap coming from some annoying Windows "programmer". Similarly, nice traditional UNIX C daemons work nicely on OS X *or* Linux.

* Objective C. Linux has a nice Objective C compiler available in the GNU Compiler Collection that ships with most distros. The only guy I know that uses Objective C isn't really impressed with it, but still, if you like using the language of choice on the Mac, you can code on Linux comfortably.

* X11 support. I can run X11 apps anywhere, and over the network. It's a whole different world from Windows.

So, while people may happily bash someone else's OS between Mac OS X and Linux, ultimately they can live together pretty comfortably. I mean, I get really annoyed when using Solaris, which I see as missing features, being heavyweight, and being rather expensive. However, I can do useful work on Solaris without constantly getting ticked off at having an environment about a tenth as capable as my Linux box at home -- which is exactly what happens when I use a Windows machine.

More expensive

[The Herbaliser]

Three years ago, I spent $2500 on a fancy new PC. Since then, I've spent over a thousand dollars upgrading and fixing it, dealing with such issues as my power supply exploding after a year of use, Windows XP running like a dog (requiring a memory upgrade), needing a WiFi card, needing a Firewire card, etc. Every time I needed to do something new, I had to modify the computer. Meanwhile my buddy bought an iBook around the same time, and decided to upgrade to a power book after a year of use. I bought the iBook off of him for $1000. Its specs don't match up to my expensive desktop machine, but it seems to run faster, I've had no problems with it, it has features like Firewire that just weren't available on PCs at the time, and I'm generally pretty happy with it, and it works a lot better with the unix servers I need to use for school. I've spent thousands of dollars on a PC desktop that I now use as an iTunes music server (and to play minesweeper) but it useless for anything else, and $1000 on a used iBook that's almost as old and serves all my needs. It's a little slow when doing complex plots, but I can live with that. At least the OS multitasks properly, so my computer doesn't freeze up while they're running.

Article-Extension

[Greenisloved]

What makes Linux a truly Nice Desktop to common not-so-expert users ?

1.mp3 playing -XMMS [Works ,Less features , needs configuring additional support]

2.Watching movies - Mplayer [Amazing ,can read many formats including .wma]

3.Watch online Music like Launch [Not much help in Linux]

4.Browser [tabbed browisng,Awesome Firebird / Netscape]

5.MailClient [Great , Thunderbird , Netscape]

6.Realplayer support[not great in linux]

7.Yahoo Messenger advanced functionalities[Doesnt seem like yahoo messenger in linux beats its cousin in windows]

Automatic Flashplayer ,Java JRE support etc

I really love linux and think it has the potetial to become no 1 desktop product but i must admit i dont know if there is anyone OS which does all the basic things taht i have mentioned.

Really new users want it simple..

think a virtual Demo could motivate and help new users.

computers are lovely bright and deep

And linux has promises to keep

Miles to go before linux sleeps

Miles to go before i sleep
lol..

All these brains...

[w3weasel]

All these brains focused on this topic, and no-one seems to get it.
OSS/FS initiatives have already seriously eroded the earning potential of MANY commercial software products. This trend will continue (duh).
Apple has never been a software company... they sell hardware. They give away a boat load of software with any machine they sell. They do charge for some of their software packages (OS upgrades and premium design apps), but the fees they charge are usually a fraction of what a 'software' company would charge for a similar project.

Recently, Apple has made significant moves to more closely incorporate the GNU tools that Linux users expect, or at least design the OS to allow seamless installation of GNU tools. They are hedging their bets. Linux is Apple's friend at the moment, because as Linux makes advances on the desktop, Microsoft users might actually take a moment to ponder their alternatives... some of the people might look at a Mac.

Its not about Linux > OSX or OSX > Linux, As a Mac, Linux, and Windoze user, I cheer the advances of Linux. When my Macs get outdated (after 5 or 6 years) they get a nice Linux distro installed and do odd jobs around the office.

Can't we all just get along?

Once again, Analysts....

[poemtree]

confuse market share for installed base. IDC (subsidiary of IDG) is one of the worst undercounters of Mac marketshare and installed base. A quick look at Google's Zeitgeist shows 3% Mac, 1% Linux. I know these number are not perfect as we all spoof browser IDs, but I think the the ratio of Mac to Linux boxes undercounted due to spoofing is also likely 3:1.

Apple has sold nearly 30 million Macs since 1984. The PowerPC shipped a decade ago in 1994. Any PowerPC will run OS 9, any G3 will run 10.2, and any factory USB machine will run 10.3 (officially, XPostFacto). That is something like 20 million machines still in use mostly as desktops.

I don't hate free software, and I think Mac OS X and Linux complement each other. I just hate these so-called analysts with their biased numbers. My wife used to work for an economics firm that did analysis for the telecom industry. I would liken what they did to selling cosmetics to ugly people to make them look better. They tailored their reports to put the companies that were paying for the reports in the best light no matter what the truth was. IDC is no different. If Apple gave them a crapload of money, they would say Apple's marketshare far outpaces Linux.

really?

[Hooya]

really? you really get what you pay for?
hmm..

air: $0
water: $0
sun: $0 ("the big, warm spot in the sky" sun,
not the "dot in dot com" sun)
life: $0 (unless one is born to a whore. then it
would cost the father a pretty penny.)
love: $0 (unless you are the said father.)
GNU: $0

all of the above things are things that i can undoubtedly say are the most valuable things that i have. and i didn't pay for any of it. maybe we should all Darl-afy ourselves and monitize everything listed above. otherwise it totally goes against the "you get what you pay for" philosophy.

Secure??? You allow Windows boxes at work? ;-)

[waferhead]

This is a troll, and a lame attempt to be funny.
Deal with it.

It is also true...

Re:Secure??? You allow Windows boxes at work? ;-)

[HiThere]

This is a troll, and a lame attempt to be funny.
Deal with it.

Unfortunately, it's also true. It is possible to make MSWind boxes reasonably secure. By disabling "functionality" that's on by default. And adding a firewall. And (much like Linux distributions used to have a lot of dangerous daemons running by default and no firewall).

Where I worked (recently retired) we did this using Novell Netware and Groupwise. And a few other things. And first Netscape, and then Mozilla. etc. It was pretty effective. I suppose that it might have been possible to design a virus to crack into the setup, I never investigated, but it was such a rare setup that the virus would die of loneliness. (Monoculture is bad, in and of itself. Forget the vileness of the monopolies that impose it.)

But even so, people would bring floppies in from school, or accept mail off the web, or any of various other things, and THEIR machine would get infected. (Occasionally the virus would be shared with everyone editing the same MSWord document.) Not pretty. The Mac users never had this problem. (Neither did the Linux users, but they were all techies, so that's not the right population for comparison.) It was only the MSWind machines that got hit. And on those machines, it was usually only the MSOffice applications, though occasionally it would be the system itself.

It *could* have been made more secure through draconian measures. Or it could have been made more secure though replacing the MSWind machines. Management decided to increase the number of MSWind machines. The Mac users fought. The Linux users fought. Things stayed pretty much the same, though over time the Mac users were worn down. (Some were switched to MSWind, a couple switched to Linux..Web developers, so Linux didn't scare them.) Linux usage was increasing rapidly at the time I left, but strangely tech people who insisted on Linux for their own machines often wanted to force others to use MSWind. And so did the managers. (I could understand the managers, but the tech folk puzzle me. They both want to force everyone to be the same, even though it's a provably bad idea. But the managers don't really understand the proof, and like the feel of control. Perhaps the techs also just like the feel of control.)

But MSWind even in a rather controlled environment is very significantly more dangerous and unstable than any of it's major compeititors.

Um, yes, it's free.

[Knights who say 'INT]

Duh.

How hard do you think it is for someone to switch from a properly functioning product (Mac/Windows/commercial Unix) to an inferior similar that costs +inf% less than what they used?

I happen to like cashmere and silk, but most of my clothing is cotton or cotton+polyester.

Duh.

Why and what you *should* play!

[0x0d0a]

I've responded to a post from Adolf Hitler and Bill Gates in the last ten minutes or so. Good old Slashdot.

Why do game companies port to Mac, but never Linux?

Good question! There are a number of excellent reasons:

* Financial differences. Many people using Linux (especially on x86) are using it because they like using a free-as-in-beer UNIX system. Mac users were willing to throw down a significant amount of extra money for proprietary hardware and their OS. Conclusian -- many Mac users may be willing to spend more money on software.

* Interest differences. Linux has traditionally had few games. This means that folks that habitually buy games generally either use Windows or have maintained a second Windows boot and are willing to purchase Windows versions of their games.

* CPU Infrastructure. Partly because Linux often replaces Windows on older boxes when Windows no longer runs well on a machine, and partly because there aren't a lot of CPU-cyle-eating gamers on Linux, there are a surprisingly small number of high-powered Linux machines sitting around. I upgraded my PII/266 to a PIII/550 3 months ago only so that I could watch DVDs and do software decoding in real time. I upgraded to a P4 after that only because the motherboard died. Even on Windows, unless one is running games, it's increasingly harder to justify buying new hardware. On Linux, which runs well on old hardware and for which few games (and almost *no* high-system-requirement games exist), there are few high-end systems.

* 3d Graphics Infrastructure. Because there are few games, there is little demand from customers for good, up-to-date 3d drivers. NVidia provides only binary drivers, ATI does not support any hardware 3d above the 9200 (and even the 9200 has still-being-worked-on open-source drivers -- try using texture compression in Neverwinter Nights with a non-CVS DRI). Matrox has provided poor support for their products since the G450/G550 era. Many distros do an incomplete or poor job of setting up 3d out-of-box. With poor 3d support and most new games coming out requiring 3d cards, it's a rough area to sell games in. Most of the games that have sold well for Linux are 2d.

* Software Packaging. This is a huge pain in the ass for most commercial vendors of any Linux software. Ideally, a vendor wants to hand you a CD that you can pop in your drive, click something, and any required software is installed. This is easy to do for Windows -- you pull out InstallShield or Nullsoft's installer and whip something up. On Linux, some people only use tarballs. Some use DEBs. Some use RPMs. There are various downloading-and-dependency-handling front ends for each (apt-get, yup, yum). None of these deal very well with third-party-packages wanting to use them for stuff that isn't in the original distro vendor's distribution -- they usually require the user to manually, as root, modify a repositories list somewhere on his sytem. The installer can't just dump a file in a directory like /etc/yum/repositories or ~/.yum/repositories. Furthermore, apt-get and yum tend to slow down and not parallelize repository checking, so if there's one slow repository added, all tasks done with them are much slower (this is especially true for yum, which by default checks for updates from repositories on every run). There is no standard for autorun on Linux (admittedly, for good security reasons, but it's still a potential issue). You can't just stick in a CD and have an install window come up. There is no standard front-end to use that can deal with RPM/DEB/what-have-you. Folks may use a front-end like Loki's installer (which doesn't work in text-only mode and doesn't enter anything into the RPM/DEB/what-have-you database, breaking the systemwide packaging system by allowing the newly installed software to break if a library it depends on is removed). Many vendors just provide big shell scripts that kind of sort of do the right thing. It's pretty atrocious.

*

Re:WOW

[The Lynxpro]

"And in 2102 we'll be on 100% of all machines!!"

Fitting. Considering how Windows won't recognize the year 2100 if a mobo BIOS is reporting that as the current year. $25 to Microsoft support taught me that regarding Windows98.

Why Linux people act so weird about macs...

[TempusMagus]

I've never heard one Ferrari owner complain about how Ford has greater market share.

Apple is a hardware company - they don't compete on cost - they compete on quality. Whereas with Linux, not a hardware company mostly competes on cost. The nice thing is that both platforms have quality software and many of the applications for Linux run on OS X.

Why does an OS have to be all things for all people? Why do Linux lovers wish that Linux was as borg-ish as windows?

Don't get me wrong, we develop on Macs and design on macs and use Linux (sometimes Solaris) to serve. The only PCs we have are basically for 3D. So, I'm an honest platform agnostic driven by what tool is best for the job.

I think the reason that some Linux people get all weird about Mac/OSX is that it messes with the whole Linux vs. Microsoft dialectic. Remember Apple's slogan was not "Think Opposite" - it was "Think Different".

It's a game of GO not chess. There are more than two sides to the board.

Mixing values here

[pelorus]

The 3% that Apple has is the number of units sold in a quarter taken as an average. Apple's installed desktop base is (according to Forbes) closer to 10%.

Seeing as there are nearly a million new Macs sold every quarter, can Linux compare with that?

It's stupid anyway.

IF, and I do mean IF, Linux does well - fantastic!!!!

I'd love to be a Mac user in a market where there was 75% Microsoft, 20% Linux and 5% Mac. The very fact that a LOT of people had chosen Linux speaks volumes to me. And like it or not, Linux and Mac OS X are closer i terms of the things that really matter (sharing documents, working with Windows-only web pages, email viruses).

Re:THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU MUST ACQUIT.

[nineoneone]

(from their website) : Note on methodlogy These results are based on 1,171 interviews of internet-using adults from the U.S. sampled from the SurveyComplete panel. The results were weighted where necessary to align them with the current online population on the following demographics: age, gender, ethnicity, education, and internet connection. With results based on a randomly chosen sample of this size (N=1,171), there is a 95% confidence rate that the results have a statistical precision of plus or minus 2.9% of what they would be if the entire adult online population of US households had been polled. The sample used for this study was not a random sample. While individuals were randomly sampled from SurveyComplete's panel for this survey, they had previously chosen to take part in the panel. Furthermore, all surveys or polls are subject to other sources of error which are probably of greater impact than these theoretical aspects of sampling error. These other significant sources of error include: question phrasing, question order, weighting of demographic data, and refusals to be interviewed (non-response error.) Quantifying the errors that may result from these additional factors would be impossible. It might actually be true - generally - for the US, but I'm certain differant results would be found here in Europe and the rest of the world.