Slashdot Mirror
What Lies Ahead For Linux
An anonymous reader writes "Here's an interview with Stacey Quandt, a Linux and open source industry analyst. She explains why she feels Linux will overtake Windows as the number one operating system within the next three years." There's some interesting tidbits on what it takes to be an industry analyst as well, and some looking back to when most analysts were unaware of Linux.
Nice out-of-context hyperbole. She was referring to shipments of new boxes in the server market. In terms of desktop market share, she says that mere parity would take "a long time", and she's looking forward to a modest 10% share (essentially changing from a "fringe" player to a commonly-supported niche player) as a significant milestone.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Did they include some pictures... it, uh... helps me with my advocacy. Oh, they did. h0t!
He wants his headline back.
I thought the Slashdot editors would have caught this mistake when they read the article...
;-)
Oh. Nevermind.
I would doubt anyone would agree with the statement that Linux could overtake windows in 3 years, it will take a lot longer and more team work from the linux people to make this happen, not to mention Linux better start getting the support of gamers who can drive the sales of OS purchases.
**It runs through my veins like radioactive rubber pants! Do not deny my veins!**
Analysts exist solely to pimp products for vendors. When an XYZ Analyst tells you that XYZ is going to take over the world in 3 years, you can safely ignore it. That holds true whether XYZ==Push Technology or XYZ==Linux.
I like that name. That's a very clear title for Microsoft. It definitely would get the attention of someone undecided about MS vs Linux.
"Well, you could buy OS and related products from a convicted monopolist, or you could get these open source products (and buy professional support) from these (_list_) vendors."
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Maybe I'm a minority, but I use MS Windows XP at home to listen to music, watch DVDs, play games, surf the web, and (very infrequently) be productive. I download every security patch and always scan downloads. And my system has always been rock solid stable, and I've never had any kind of security breach (I use Norton Internet Security, too). Yes I payed a couple hundred for all the software (more for each game) but it's been worth it to me. And P.S. I love Linux - I develop Linux apps for a living.
Mine is Good
Anyone who has read more than 2-3 reports from the "big boys" like Gartner can easily answer that one. Not much, save zero morals/integrity.
I worked for a company which dealt exclusively with whitepapers written by the big analyst houses. The reports were widely known to be staggeringly poor, often blatantly wrong. It was hardly surprising that they were a royal pain in the ass to deal with on a technical level; getting them to use FTP to upload their content was nearly impossible. IT industry experts who can't figure out FTP. Special.
I've seen numerous comments here on /., on stories about both pro and anti linux analyst reports, talking about how much of a joke these companies are. Most of the analyst groups do huge amounts of "commissioned analysis", which is then passed off as being legitimate, unbiased analysis- when it is nothing of the sort.
Analyst groups have turned into little more than for-hire technical marketing (the computer industry's version of "military intelligence") who spew out documents just technical enough to impress/confuse the top brass.
Please help metamoderate.
I agree with you that stability is a minimum, but it depends on if you are discussing servers or desktops. In being a stable, a server has accomplished a big part of it's requirements. The desktop is a completely different ballgame. Linux on the desktop is a very popular /. topic, and everyone always wonders: "will this be our year." It's been a long time coming, but I still think we have some distance to cover. Linux is very powerful and very stable, and pretty user friendly these days. It is not yet ready in terms of program installation, especially when we are talking about Joe Sixpack. From my experiences with friends and family, the "average" user has little or no knowledge of the command prompt and no desire to learn to use it. It has to be so easy that the user can click on a program and have it installed. There are solutions that are getting close, such as RPM and APT, but there is still some ground to cover.
This isn't necessarily the biggest or most important problem with Linux on the desktop... I have seen many articulate and thoughtful discussions on this subject before. It is my honest belief that Open Source will have it's day, as many users are already switching to Firefox and Thunderbird among other things. Linux's day will come, but it will still take some time and honest, constructive criticism.
Damn... right when I got my karma up....
Oh no.
Linux has been "overtaking windows in the next 3 years" for at least the last 6 years,
probably more. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for running Linux on some non-critical servers.
But on desktop it's a freaking joke. I mean, you still can't play multiple sounds in Linux
at the same time (unless you use a laggy userland daemon that takes a second to unpause your mp3,
or buy a "supported" audio card with hardware mixing). For some reason Linus has a problem with
putting kernel audio mixer (something Windows had since Win98 (and probably '95 but I'm not too sure))
into kernel-mode, so now all "desktop linux" users are stuck with playing one audio stream at a time.
Even FreeBSD, a much less "desktop" oriented OS (at least it isn't claiming to be "the windows killer"
on the desktop every few months), has kernel audio mixing support since like 5.x-CURRENT. So this
was one tiny nitpick about audio, something people on "desktop" will probably need sooner or later.
How about video? Windows supports almost every known video card out of the box, while to get any kind
of decent graphics in Linux you need to buy a "supported" video card. How many "corporate desktops"
you know of that run on exotic "custom ordered" hardware? They all use precanned HP/Dell/Whatever
desktops with generic onboard video and audio. Unless Linux will automatically without *any* problems
installs on this class of hardware, forget using it for corporate desktops.
And to sum this up, I guess the real reason Linux isn't going to be overtaking anything "in the next
3 years", is the group mentality of Linux users in general. There are literally hundreds of half-assed
"distributions" of Linux. And new ones seem to be popping up at an amazing speed. Compare that to
the *BSD family, where there is only one "distribution" for each flavor (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD) and
once you know one, you should have no problems migrating to any other *BSD family. In Linux, every
distribution seems to want to invent their own packaging system, configuration system, etc etc.
People, this is not how you win users. You win users by creating a standard, easy to use system.
Forget the 100's of distributions. Create a single standard and make everyone use it. Then, only then
you might have some chance at a "desktop OS".
Microsoft is an "unstoppable" mega-corporation. Any legitimate competition is crushed by the might of Microsoft. Try to develop a for-profit operating system to compete with Windows and you'll get crushed. Try and develop a for-profit word-processor to compete with Word and you'll get crushed. Microsoft has reached the top of the food chain.
Legitimate for-profit companies cannot compete against Microsoft. Due to this fact, "free" software, such as Linux and Open-Office, has bubbled to the surface as the only possible contender in the evolutionary struggle against Microsoft. Providing "free" software is the only way to possibly compete against Microsoft. There would not have been a need for "free" software if Microsoft had not crushed all possible means of fair competition.
This lack of competition also hurts Microsoft because: a competitor, in general, only needs to be better than his next closest rival. If there are no close competitors then Microsoft does not need to improve. If it does not improve it will stagnate, whither, and die. It will be overrun by the weeds of small "free" software projects just waiting to get out from underneath the shadow of the mighty giant Microsoft.
Probably blow my good karma with this, but oh well
:)
I agree with everyone that Linux has become more usable and more security oriented(depending on the admin), but the bottom line is that as far as corporations and windows in the workplace goes, I doubt linux will grab a significant user base because of some basic reasons:
1. Alot of corporations will cling to windows because 99.9% of their userbase is on windows right now. They realize that there is cheaper alternatives out there (linux) but they rather stay with what they are using because it will cause less headaches for the IT dept. and operations as a whole will run smoother without messing with the OS that they are using.
2. Users in the workplace are comfortable with windows because it is what they know. Applications are not quite as cryptic and windows is truly a morons operating system which is what the vast majority of users in the workplace are.
3. The cost of hiring systems administrators is pretty close of linux vs. windows, but the cost of deploying software and the simplification that microsoft has deployed in this area is still untouched.
again, my argument is staged more to linux in the workplace and not in the end users hands which is probably where linux has more potential to grow.
prepare to see this posting get modded all over the place
Those who trade in their freedom for security, deserve neither.
What people will care about is, "Can this run my digital camera? Can I run the Sims on this? No? Oh. Convicted monopolist? I don't care, I don't use my computer that much anyway. I just want to play games and use my camera..."
The USSR, the plantation system, the railroad barrons, the oil barrons, the shipping tycoons.
... Well the fact is, MS's isn't competing against an opperating system, they are competing against a superior paradigm - and their half trillion market cap is nothing compaired to the yearly output of global industry. If they don't go with the flow, they will get squissed like a bug. like it or not.
Alot of times people have this misconception that something can be too big, too huge, too much talent and resources behind it to fall from greatness. This isn't true. How many times have we herd that "MS won't let it happen"
I think one hurdle Linux deveopers need to get past is their naming. Acronyms, abreviations, and random letter groupings culled from what the app does is not "user friendly".
"huh? Where is the install wizard?"
"oh, well you use RPM to get it."
"wha? What does how fast my motor is going have to do with installing my Video watcher thing?"
Maybe because they are names. And they come with a nice clickable installer. If they were called fbrsr and mrd, and required a full build from source on Windows, how much do you think their user base would grow?
I am relatively computer literate, but if I have a choice between something that needs building from source, and a nice installer, well, computer savvy or not, I am also lazy.
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
This is pretty simple to sum up in my mind. Although my desktop is still running windows at work, at home I rarely see it.
But when asked the question why I have moved to Open Office from Microsoft Office, and why I have moved to Linux from Windows, what is the answer?
It's mostly about rights and freedom. I'm not yet willing to admit that I am a full out FSF supporter, though I have been a supporter of the Open Source movement. Microsoft's licensing tactics (and not just theirs but the general tactics of many other folks have led me as far away from proprietary "treat-the-custer-as-a-theif" software as I can possibly get.
Linux is great, and it has been an incredible learning experience (I've honestly never felt so dumb sitting in front of a command prompt as I did during my first Gentoo installation).
I was never a *NIX user. I never had any desire to run anything other than Windows because I was happy with the product.
But they forced me to look elsewhere, and when I did I learned what I was missing.
So IMO, what lies ahead for linux is more users...and I don't believe that is limited to the server. From the desktop side, the strides that have been made in KDE and GNOME in the last couple of revisions have made them dramatically nicer to work with. From the server side...not having to have a GUI running on a server is quite a bit more efficient.
Back in the day I remeber Microsoft recommending you change the screen saver to the black screen instead of one of those OpenGL screen savers on your Windows NT SQL server because the screen saver would bury your processor. I couldn't help but think why do I have this huge GUI running on what is supposed to resemble a somewhat powerful database server?!!
"God is dead!" - Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead!" - God
link
Replace "NT" with "Longhorn" and change the dates and it still works!!!
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
As an ex-analyst who moved back to software development, I would add a few other things for my fellow Slashdotters:
... "In that time we'll see tremendous growth" ...'"Tremendous" means that we're going to see it move from being a fringe market..." I suppose I agree with Stacy about her actual conclusions, but the phrasing struck me as being about as optimistically phrased as one could expect given the underlying statements about Linux on the desktop.
;-)
1) If you want to be an good analyst, you need to be able to write English; preferrably fairly easily and fairly well. Speaking skills can be learned on the job. Overcoming writers block probably can't.
2) Tech skills can give an analyst an important filter and BS detector which can be a competitive advantage versus other analysts. However, ability to communicate with techies does not pay off. Techies aren't spending thousands of dollars for insight. Managers are. Ability to communicate with management and market the value of the service you provide is the paramount skill for an analyst.
3) In my view, the important milestones that lie ahead for Linux all have to do with success as a database server. That's where the most critical business data is, that's where the money is, and if a company trusts their data to Linux, what will they not trust Linux for? It's also a technology space that's complementary to Linux's existing strengths in webservers and web services, and it plays well to Linux's developer (not end-user)-orientation while avoiding the desktop usability and UI-training issues where Linux continues to play catch-up. In terms of specific milestones, I would track the percentage of applications being deployed in Fortune 500 with Linux hosting the database. And I would track the growth of applications employing open source databases. A Linux firmly entrenched as a database platform is a Linux not easily dislodged by Microsoft-induced desktop trendiness. Witness the billions upon billions continually invested in mainframes and AS/400 if you doubt me.
4) I'm personally agnostic about whether Linux will ever make headway on the desktop. If pressed for a conclusion, I confess that I doubt it, although if I was afraid of the Linux advocate hordes, I might couch it like Stacy did: "potential for a lot of innovation"... "a lot of potential for Linux to become a much stronger play there"... "next milestone to look for is when Linux takes 10% of the market"
More constructively, in terms of adding to that 'desktop milestone' analysis, another milestone to watch for is when Linux desktop developers spend more time trying to understand how the Mac OS X guys tackle the usability problem than they spend trying to copy the Windows approach blindly in the techy details while missing the bigger picture.
I used to get paid 20k... now I'll settle for 2 karma. Ah the price of doing what you love...
--LP
I think a lot of the decision on which system (politics aside) comes down to whether or not you want to futz around with the OS or not.
I use Windows, also, and have found it to be very stable - but then again, I also don't experiment a lot with software, having figured out which stuff works for me AND I don't try to push the bleeding edge on hardware.
Windows is very stable, now. In common desktop usage, I daresay it can be as stable as Linux.
I used Linux for a while, but it lacked a lot of the software I needed to get my design work done.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
I'm in agreement, but a few points:
:)
1) Stability is a big part, and I don't want to put words into your mouth, but other facets cannot be ignored. Performance. Ease of maintenance (service interruptions? reboot?). Remote administration. Batch-administration. Security. Lack of bloat (see Performance and Security as well). Available server applications. And lack of preparation or unique application training to accomplish these things. It's my personal observation that Linux beats out Windows in every area.
2) As far as I can see, most realistic people think Linux will take another 3-5 years to hit 10% on the desktop, including big Linux figures.
3) Administration is still the killer for Joe-user, but for companies with an IT department this isn't an issue. Considering Linux's put-your-home-and-usr-directories-on-NFS ability and how easy it is to mirror a box (no unaccessable 'files' on the filesystem), a company can roll out Linux without admin hassles. I honestly think this will be where it starts. People will use it at work and take it home (for work reasons or personal reasons). Companies will demand hardware support, user base will grow, and the snowball feeds itself.
Cheers
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
You're not in the minority, you're in the vast majority. It's just that most people in your position don't have any reason to discuss it. They just happily go about using their computer and having it work.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
An average computer user today does not type. Well, you can expect him to type a letter in a wordprocessor. But that letter comes from his head, and is easy to read. Computer commands do not come from his memory (as opposed to you, me and other computer professionals), and so he would need to ask, in this order:
In other words, the consumer is now totally GUI oriented, and only UNIX heads still remember what a command prompt is.
Note that Redcarpet, Up2date, RHN (and probably others) do auto-dependency like APT-GET.
I used the Redcarpet GUI when I first started with Ximian. It was very helpful and almost magic for a newbie. After a few months, I got 'rug' - the command line version (called 'rc' at the time). It was so much more flexible and efficient, I have never used the GUI since. For example, instead of paging through package listings with blearly eyes, I can just list them to a file with rug, and search the list with vim.
I started out my Dad on the GUI, and although he is no unix head, once familiar with the concepts, he found the 'rug' command line version much more efficient as well.
So my point is that you need both. I always recommend providing a solid scriptable command line interface first because it gives you the most bang for the buck (or hour). But then, a good GUI helps sell the program to new users by looking pretty and inviting and by helping to visualize concepts used by the program.