Slashdot Mirror
New Numbers on Linux Market Share Soon
prostoalex writes "New numbers on Linux market share are due this week. As far as global PC market is concerned, Gartner claims 5% of all PCs shipped this year ran Linux OS, although by the time the PCs were actually on the user's desk, only 2% of them run Linux. In the server world IDC estimates that Linux-powered servers comprise 28.3% of all server sales in 2004."
Linux market share? thank god they didn't say BSD.
I'd think that the percentage of computers that actually run Linux would be higher, not lower, than the % that ship with it... my family has three, one (soon to be two) exclusively Linux.
And how many people buy PCs with Windows on them, and immediately format the disk(s) and install Linux?
So long as I can download Windows XP and get a valid serial number generator, I have no reason to install Linux.
-Bill
-Bill
The best hope for linux is in getting new users from the pool of non-users instead of from the pool of windiws users. Once people use windows, they believe for some reason that they will be unable to switch.
Ok, you got IBM linux, SGI linux/altix, Solaris technically has linux too. Then within linux you have a thousand distros. What about people who run windows but use linux thru vmware, does that count? And you wonder why I hated statistics class.
I started a new job recently, and they seem to live and die by these fucking Gartner reports. I hadn't heard of them up until recently. Can someone tell me what the deal is?
I mean, really, what evidence do they have that hordes of people are buying machines with Linux pre-installed just to go through the pain of installing XP in order to save, what, $40?
Granted, a lot of machines shipped with Linux aren't running the version of Linux they shipped with, but I find their statement hard to believe.
Gammage also stated that until Linux is shown to support the NX (No eXecute) security technology supported in Microsoft Corp's forthcoming Windows XP Service Pack 2, it will be seen as potentially deficient to Windows. However, Red Hat released a patch for the Linux kernel to support NX in June that has the full blessing of Linux creator Linus Torvalds.
Yeah, right. Read 'em and weep.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
And here goes the danger of thinking that your family if somewhat representative. Or the slashdot community for that matter.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Linux advocate on the "pain" of XP installation? It reboots twice and you are done; everything works. Not like Linx where three years later your soundcard still doesn't work.
I haven't RTFGR (Gartner report) but does anyone know the rate of increase of Linux machines compared to, let's say, 1/2/5 years ago?
:/)
(I have bad karma
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
What the hell? As long as Linux doesn't support NX, which *will be* supported in the *upcoming* SP2, it will be seen as deficient in comparision? Okay, ignore the fact that they themselves state there are already patches for Redhat, while SP2 hasn't actually shipped. I'm just wondering what the fascination with NX is. I mean, it's a nifty idea, but I can't imagine anyone getting down the wire of choosing between XP or Linux as the right tool for a job, and deciding on XP because of NX. I mean, come-on. This is just idiocy. Not that I had any respect for Gartner to lose, but if I did, there it went... There are plenty of differences, strengths and weaknessess on both sides, to differentiate between XP and Linux. Supporting the NX bit is not one of them at this time.
Well, yeah. I know that. But I'd think the number of people adding linux would be greater than the number who buy linux boxes and format them, just because there are so few linux boxes sold.
I hate to break bad news to you, but what you're doing is called "stealing".
Yea, because no one is going to buy a low cost Linux computer at Walmart and slap a pirate version of Windows on it. Nope. Never gona happen.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
this
Bah! Gartner's fabricated estimate is totally unnecessary for this. Actual usage measurements, like the Google Zeitgeist are more telling. Linux has never broken 1% and as a desktop system I really wouldn't count on it passing the Mac any year soon.
Linux users need to decide what their operating system is all about. Is it about freedom and doing it your way, or is it all about sales and making money?
I'm sorry, but the two are not compatible. Once your focus becomes "market share" (shouldn't that be "market selfish"?) then you start in with the competition and copyrighting and everything that goes with it.
It would be a shame to see the creativity and individualism that spurred the Linux revolution denatured and dilluted, like so many other initally promising social trends, by the invisible hand of the "almighty greenback".
Fristage postage is mine. I use that postage to mail props to anti-slash, the GNAA, and woja for FAILING IT so that I could SUCCEED IT. But no hard feelings, the editors are the great satan, that apple screenshot troll kicked ass, and woja...is a four letter word, yay.
getting back on topic, the gardner group is clearly highly biased and in the pocket of corporations. care to guess which corporations? I'll give you a clue, it's not the escort service in question here.
I'd think the 98% of people who don't know what linux is would boot the computer, say "wtf is that" - then get little Timmy around with his windows XP cd to "fix" it.
the 150 desktops we bought and immediately wiped because D^H"they" wouldn't sell us anything without windows.
...and no one is ever going to buy a windows computer and slap linux on it...nope, never going to happen.
Time makes more converts than reason
If I'm not mistaken, Dell offered business users a choice of some random flavor of Linux or FreeDOS preinstalled on their computers.
The logic was thusly: Licensing agreements force them to ship the computer with SOME OS on it, but a lot of businesses already have a Windows site license. Because the price of the non-windows Dells was slightly lower than effectively purchasing the license a second time, the companies order these computers with one of those two OSes preinstalled, then wipe the drive and install WinXP/2000.
So while there are a small number of users purchasing their computers with Windows pre-installed and migrating to Linux, that number is effectively buried by businesses doing just the opposite.
In past 10 years, I bought a total of just a dozen PCs. Every one of them is now running Linux, completely eliminating all brands of Windowses bought with them.
That's 100% of current userbase over past 10 years now. And 6 of the 12 are actually desktops. That's 100% of my desktops running Linux.
Well, within above I do not count Linux replaced a toy WinCE in iPaq PDA, gaining a desktop capability in my pocket too.
There you are, staring at me again.
I know a lot of people who swear by Google Zeitgeist but really, as a statistical tool, it can be limited. I'm not saying Gartner's numbers are perfect, but at the same time, consider the following:
Google only uses cookies, as far as I know, to store my preferences. While that's good for security and privacy reasons, its bad for Zeitgeist.
Its not unreasonable to think that 'power' web surfers probably use Google more than most computer users, on the whole. Who are power users? Are they Mac users? Linux users? Windows XP? I'm not sure, but I'll bet that 'power users' tend to use some platforms above others.
Mac users may, for example, be inflated because of all the kids using Macs at school for school projects (as a random example).
Computers running Windows 95 are probably less likely to connect to the Internet through a fast connection, therefore, users are less likely to google 50 sites a day and instead probably just stick to say, email and their bank's website.
I think Linux is hampered on Zeitgeist because many Linux desktops are probably ONLY on corporate LANs or the like, where they don't have direct internet access. Which is why Garnter can be useful, it will count those of Zeitgeist never will.
So while Zeitgeist is by far the best tool to use when deciding what to design a popular, general purpose website for (as it shows whose likely to get to it, esp. through Google), it doesn't necessarily show you what EVERYONE is using EVERYWHERE, even in the dekstop world.
While the released numbers could be a good thing for Linux, it's more likely to be representative of "size of capital market for Gartner services" than to truly represent a completely impartial measure.
Like seeing a positive reference to OS/2 in a Windows magazine or reading how there are many qualities Microsoft should copy from Mac OS X in PC err eWeek, it really isn't a major or even minor coup when a firm that has completely been lodged in the cleft of Windowlingus for years starts including references to things people on the fringe may recognize or relate to. From the sound of the "interpretations", it seems that Linux still will be painted as diminishing and losing ground even with measureable sales.
Gartner's numbers benefit Gartner's paying clients, and its doubtful that the funds will be enough to get them to a 12 step program and off their capital addiction. Don't let these "facts", "statistics", and "analyses" get you too up or down. They know which side their bread is buttered on.
These will never go away as long as there are people using PCs. Until they start making people take moron tests before issuing them a PC, there will be some idiot who insists on opening this attachment from someone they don't know, just becuase the subject of the email says "Open this now!!"
bash: rtfm: command not found
However insignificant the numbers might be do these figures include any boxes that or addons that are PowerPC based (other than IBM) - meaning a Mac or other custom box like a Yellow Dog Briq? (Or any of the Macs they sell that ship with Yellow Dog Linux PreInstalled?)
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
The fact that the oldest one is still running is a testament to Linux stability. I'm sure a Windows machine would have keeled over five times in that timeframe.
And the 95% of that 98% probably also don't know what Windows is, think it's something new, and go about typing their letter to grandma.
And no one is ever going to buy a linux computer and slap their old version of Windows on it. No, never going to happen.
I think Linux is hampered on Zeitgeist because many Linux desktops are probably ONLY on corporate LANs or the like, where they don't have direct internet access.
I would tend to think the opposite, that the Linux boxes are the ones that the hobbyists have in the spare bedroom at home, and the majority of XP machine sitting behind corporate firewalls and routers don't cound in the numbers.
Perhaps the vast quatities of boxen that Wal Mart is shipping has something to do with it. I still don't believe for a second that these numbers are fair and unbiased, and I think their polling methods may be in error, but Wal-mart does ship a lot of computers to people who are very familiar with Windows, not Linux.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
I know... You can do a lot of that stuff with windows, too. I know this because I too am a (closeted) windows user. I am sitting at a (presently) windows2000 machine that has bore this same skin (my own version of "Beacon") for years now ala windowblinds. Yes, it makes it a bit slower but goddamn windows is ass-ugly without it!
My system is my TV set, my vcr, my video player (I rarely watch dvds - I rip them and then watch the 1-3gb avis at my leisure). I can drive the vs6 system I was given by a college buddy but I am most definitely not a programmer of the c variety. In linux I can hang the ./configure and make install but rarely can figure out what to fix when things don't go properly (one of the best parts of linux is that I can still create nice applications using the multitude of scripting tools that hook so well into the windows manager). Thanks heaven for google, as tech support is now 24/7 and I usually find the answers I need.
So... let's compare.
My windows install has been pretty much stable the last couple of years. Many apps I rely on for my "shell" don't require install or are very quick to do so (dscaler, winrar, irfanview, photoshop, etc). I don't use IE and my entire profile - all my bookmarks, emails - evrything - are in an encrypted 650MB pgp disk which I migrate from install to install. The biggest nuisance of setting up windows is just getting the codecs to all work together smoothly in zoomplayer. That is, except for the vs6 setup, which is a goddamn twitchy nightmare of os patches, swapping cds, rebooting and holding my breath a lot. But I can get a basic install working (ie I can surf the net and watch TV) in about an hour and a half - the rest of it is at least a half a day. Last time I had to do it all it took most of my weekend (thanks to a vs6 install that simply would not... and my weekends are three days!).
Contrast this to linux: I can install mdk10 in about an hour. Spend another hour tweaking settings to make it all look nice and installing a couple of bug patches, and I'm nearly done.
End result: my windows2000 system does what I expect but it takes fucking hours to reload, it's creaky and kinda ugly, and very definitely showing its age - and, it being windows, one does need to reload from time to time. The zoomplayer feels very slick and looks nice as does dscaler (just so long as I don't accidentally launch an mdi app like photoshop, which will force dscaler to throw a bsod every time).
Compare this to mdk10, which in less than one hour installs the entire dev environment, the media engines, gorgeous desktop tools with enough "themes" to provide a nice looking desktop with no downloads required. Spend a few more minutes installing codeweaver's crossover office so I can run photoshop, click to the llf to download decss so I can rip (er, watch) those dvds when I want, and I'm done.
Ironically, the media stuff in mandrake ALL works better than windows (and my files are all avi, a "windows format"). Playback is smoother in totem than in windows, the interface just as nice (albeit slightly different), and the picture and sound quality is better than in windows.
Of course, that part could also be because linux has better drivers for my sis7xx chipset based system than windows, thus offering me the option (in linux) of running 1400x1050 resolution at 75hz with my compaq 19" monitor (as opposed to windows which forces me into using either a flickering 1600x1200x60hz or the gigantic 1024x768 at a decent scan rate, with no proper aspect ratio choice in between). Oh, and that's true with XP as well, although you won't get me near that shit again unless you pay me (which someone does).
Nothing is perfect. Suse9 looks much nicer ootb than mandrake10 (although it takes about three times longer to install even from the DVD) and its cryp
When the numbers come out this is news.
The numbers are going to come out real soon is not.
Slashfarkingdot.
The evidence is called a "ms windows site license."
In order to avoid paying for windows twice, corporations that already own a ms windows site license choose to buy their new PCs with linux pre-installed. They choose linux over no os at all because MS has this silly little contractual requirement with all vendors licensed to ship ms-windows, the requirement is all machines must ship with *an* OS. The requirement used to be to explciitly ship with ms-windows, but that requirement was axed as one of the few punishements that MS actually received for being found of abuse of monopoly power during the last couple of suits against them.
These corps would end up doing a ghost-install to bring the system into line with their standard corporate configuration anyway, so they gain absolutely nothing by having the machine come with ms-windows installed and a license to go with it.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
individuals who invest in Silver Lake, called limited partners, who might be of most interest to Gartner clients. According to Silver Lake, they include more than 150 "leading technology executives from the top technology firms." Some of the names you might recognize: Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, and Bill Gates.
j html?articleID=15800394
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.
Gartner is in the business of selling "reports" and "studies".
Most of the "reports" and "studies" you'll see from Gartner are linked from vendor's websites. Vendors who paid for the report. So the vendors use those "reports" and "studies" as marketing materials.
I've only seen Gartner stuff used to justify a decision that has already been made. And, IMO, that's all they're good for.
Will probably also be savvy enough, to, oh, say, build their own system?
I mean, it's possible that the cheapie Linux boxes are getting some reinstalls. But it seems unlikely to me. Those are entry-level boxes. If you're getting them, you're either a computer n00b, or you know enough to be doing sophisticated things with them like using them as firewalls or HT boxes. In both cases the reasoning for installing Windows breaks down.
Everyone else is going to be upgrading and getting a "better" computer with a pre-installed copy of XP.
There will be Hawking news
Hawking news
good political satire
Naturally, with all those spare cycles available, what is a Linux box to do, but look up stuff on the internet. Must be all that server pr0n. Remind me to uninstall Mozilla from all the company servers over the weekend.
-Hope
It isn't someone looking at all the requirements of the system and evaluating them against the capabilities of the SHIPPING products.....
It's someone who's already made a decision to go with a particular platform and looking for anything that can be used to justify not going with a different platform.
"Look! Linux doesn't have that NX capability yet but it will be in the next XP service pack. Therefore, XP is more secure than Linux."
This is plain rationalization and justification. There's nothing you can do to change that behaviour. Just realize what is happening when you see it.
My six Linux boxes were never counter I'm sure.
Unfortunately, that's not possible with laptops.
Why would you build your own system when you can get a high-end PC made by someone like Medion for much less than the wholesale price of the components?
I've sorted their numbers a bit:
Win95 1%
Win98 16%
WinME 3%
WinNT 2%
Win2000 18%
WinXP 51% (that's a lot of XP)
Mac 3%
Linux 1%
Other 5% (What are these OS's?)
Really, aside from all the Windows versions listed and the "Mac" category, what other OS's are out there? There must be at least 6 of them with marketshare just below Linux's. But I don't know what they are. Any ideas?
Not that I don't trust Google's numbers (I'm cynical) but that 51% looks awful high too. At work we have about 3% XP machines (95% Win2000 and 2% Linux). That's an awful lot of XP that's been deployed, particularly when you see the 16% of Win98.
22% of the Windows machines are pre-Win2K
Win2K accounts for 18% (so far I see no problem)
WinXP is 51%?
Are all WinXP boxes shipped with google as the default?
I'd think that the percentage of computers that actually run Linux would be higher...
not only that, but how the heck can they possibly know how many people are running linux or not running it?
I understand they can count the number of linux pc's going out the door, but how do they know people are installing winxp or not?
also, how do they know how many linux desktops are out there? are they just counting how many copies of mandrake were bought at CompUSA?
Gartner's estimates may be fabricated (most of their data doesn't look all that reliable to me), but Google is not an unbiased sample even of desktop users, let alone an indication of what people are actually using. For example, Linux is widely used in research settings, universities, and other applications that would qualify as "desktop usage" or "interactive usage", but that are less likely to access Google.
I really wouldn't count on it passing the Mac any year soon.
On Google, no. On the desktop, it may already have.
What you are forgetting is that the 5% figure is only for the shipments this year. Overall only 2% of the world's PC run Linux, because there are all the existing PCs out there that run Windows.
....Paul
If everyone in the world replaced their PC each year then the share for Linux would only be 5%; it could not be more.
Even so, the figure of 2% is probably a bit conservative. For example, the notebook I ordered from Dell had WinXP-Home on it (Home because it is cheaper; I knew I was going to replace the OS anyway). It now happiliy runs Mandrake 10.0.
F U NE X N M? Son: "Dad... How do you spell 'hourly'?" Dad: "0 * * * *"
Isn't this the opposite of the argument that Linux users have always made. That because it is so hard to get a PC (as opposed to parts) without Windows, that the number of linux installs running was higher than the shipments?
Yes. And, as usual, Gartner's report is flawed.
Large numbers of PCs are sold without OS. Large numbers of PCs run Windows for a few years and then have Linux installed on them to give them a second lease on life. And all of that doesn't even count the PCs that ship with Windows and have Linux installed on them right away.
Linux is widely used on the desktop. Not on the home desktop, but on the desktop: in educational settings, research, public areas, etc.
2% of PC's runs Linux?
What a bunch of loosers you are! hahahaha!
It's due to bulk license agreement between Microsoft and PC manufacturers. Since the licenses fee has already been paid, the marginal cost of pre-installed XP on each desktop produced is zero. Therefore, in economic sense, the incensive of installing other free alternatives, be it Linux, FREEDOS or *bsd is low. Microsoft doesn't even need to excerise their monopoly power to maintain the market share there.
However, there's no similar license arrangement in servers manufacturing. In most of the cases servers boxes and OS are purchased seperately. Thus the users can choose whichever OS yields the best cost/performance.
If Microsoft does not improve their server product line, we can foresee a continuous trend of them losing server market.
For example, I have an HP sitting beneath my desk where I work at my client's place. It bears an XP Pro License sticker, it even runs XP Pro (not my choice), of course it is running a corporate license instead of the one that it came with.
We also have PCs running Linux. Same deal, they still have their XP license sticker. When the PCs are disposed off, someone will just ghost in XP again and sell it with operating system.
In other words, a fairly big overcount of XP licenses. Dell's program still isn't that widely known and people are concerned about their ability to resell PCs.
See my journal, I write things there
Microsoft is dying.
(I can dream can I?)
"but a lot of businesses already have a Windows site license."
There is no such thing as a windows site license. There are volume discounts but you still have to pay for each copy of windows you have. Depending on how you arranged your contract with Dell and MS the copy of windows that came with the Dell will count towards your select account. In other words dell will install windows for you for the same price you are paying under your volume discount.
There are companies that pay for windows twice (mainly because their CIO was a dumbass who didn't know how to say linux enough times to get a bargain from MS). I don't think any of theose companies would by dells with linux on them to save a few bucks though because the last I checked a Dell with linux actually cost more then a dell with windows. Besides I think you can get dells with DOS for less.
evil is as evil does
How cares if Linux has a few percent more market share?
...
Most people won't switch, because they have been using Win, Office and IE at home and in the office for five or more years. People are simply USED to this set of applications and are not keen to learn something new - no matter how geeky, secure and cool it is.
99% of people hate change that inferes with their daily work. The human animal hardly changes its habits - unless forced to.
Joe and Jane average expect their PC thingy to behave and look like what they have used the last few years. If it ain't the same they consider it weird or broken and won't use it
Good points made in your post. Deserves a couple of bumps, IMHO. Of course, I blew my mod points yesterday...
yeah, but if I as joe user have a choice between point and click, or typing stuff at a line that is as unintuitive as hell, what do you think I'm going to want to do? There is a reason that the PC market didn't truly explode until windows came out.
/. user.
which is easer to figure out?
click "Make a new folder" and type the name of the folder. or...
~joeuser>make a new folder
make: Fatal error: Don't know how to make target `a'
~joeuser>help
Enter the message number or SCCS command name: make a new folder
ERROR: Key 'make a new folder' not found (he1)
~joeuser>make me a f*ing folder dammit
make: no match
joeuser>Screw You, I'm calling that kid down the street to install windows for me.
unmatched '.'
Joe user gets up and gets his phone.
What you think? Think in terms of an AOL user, not a
Since Im an offtopic master, a misspeller and a karmawhored person, ill asume this: You wanna sell(by this I mean get people to use Linux). This is gong to be hard because regular pc users are drones and we all know that. You got to dazzle them. Most really interesting things either they take for granted or dont understand. So its gotta be simple and flashy, believeable and elegant. Just pop a copy of your favourite Knopix in their own machine, before they realize their machine just CHANGED asure them its OK and just show off for a while by stating this is actually not the best version but a cool one. Tell him he can even pick flavours. And that he doesnt have to turn his computer off and that that is good. Bla bla bla. me bored and sick of -1ing
I think you are mistaken - Dell did not ship compouters with preinstalled Linux for a long time. They have just begun to test shipping Linux. Take a look at this.
Why does anybody here care about Linux's market share? Do you directly profit from Linux's market share? Or is it merely just like rooting for your favorite sports team?
John Kerry is a Joke!
Not to be pedantic, but let's say that machines with windows break after 1 year, but machines with linux break after 5 years. Even though only 5% of computers purchased are running linux, it still would have greater than 5% marketshare.
" The evidence is called a "ms windows site license.""
There is no such thing. MS does not sell "site licenses".
"MS has this silly little contractual requirement with all vendors licensed to ship ms-windows, the requirement is all machines must ship with *an* OS."
Dell sells PCs with no OS on them to businesses. Go to their web site and see for yourself before.
Honestly where do you get off sprouting off such bullshit? Do you really think none of us work for a business that buy MS licenses and PCs from dell?
evil is as evil does
Not only the OS, but also the browser, or whatever the browser claims to be :)
A nice pie chart for them, too.
And a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly chart showing the trend over time.
But how to count without letting cheaters script up the stats?
of the four machines in my home, three came with windows, just one has it left.. the rest runs linux excusively.
And the one that is left is a dualboot, strictly for gaming... And I might replace that with an xbox.. or a ps2.
"/Dread"
Collegues do not let collegues use Internet Explorer
A greater market share means:
More companies & people will look at Linux for:
Writing software
Creating hardware/drivers
Writing software
Using Linux
Writing software : )
So... market share matters to me, because then, I will have more hardware and software compatible with my favorite OS!
I read Walmart is selling cheap computers with Linux preinstalled to customers. This could be an explanation for this.
Uh, this shouldn't be redundant, a moderator screwed up. Ebyrob said '..and slap their OLD version of Windows' which is much different than '..and slap their PIRATED version of Windows'. You missed his point.
Still, I know nobody who bought a computer with Linux. Altough I know quite a few Linux users.
Here's how I understand it:
+ Newer MS volume licenses are basically "Upgrades" and tied to a specific machine. If you order a machine with XP, you don't pay MS any more money until you upgrade that machine. Nobody pays twice.
+ Older customers may have "floating" licences that apply to any machine. These people already bought Windows 2000 and therefore would be "paying twice" if they bought a new machine with W2K preloaded. So, if they're smart, they buy a machine with DOS or Linux preloaded. Here's where you get your marketshare disparity.
+ If you're big enough, Dell will let you deal with the licencing and will install any image you request (Linux, Windows 98, OS/2, etc).
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
buying machines with Linux pre-installed just to go through the pain of installing XP
Come one, even my grandmother can install windows XP. Try and stay a little fair, will you...
"So while there are a small number of users purchasing their computers with Windows pre-installed and migrating to Linux, that number is effectively buried by businesses doing just the opposite."
MOST users running linux don't purchase a computer with it preinstalled. Since linux requires far less in terms of hardware to get the same or better performance usually they put a little memory in the computer they have and install linux on it. That includes businesses.
But what dwarfs the linux factors one way or another is the windows site licenses. For every desktop that an alternative OS was purchased on there are hundreds in which it was not, where they simply paid the MS tax despite their site license (like they've always done before).
Of course the difference in the numbers should be obvious, this could well constitute a pretty big chunk of the market, significantly reducing what is believed to the size of the market. This means x number of sales is really a larger percentage of the market than it is portrayed to be.
When it comes down to it, compared to legitimate copies, there really aren't that many pirated copies of windows... there just aren't. While they are common among techs, giving us the impression they are rampant, in reality I'd be surprised if techs and their families amount to even 1% of the market.
The kid/teenager of the house isn't an OS installer anymore than his parents or grandparents. He is wise in that he can successfully work the mouse and install most programs... a far cry from a pirated OS installation.
With linux on the other hand, there is a strong prevalance of technically literate users (the reasons for this are debatable and not the issue here). Almost every linux user can install the OS. Couple this with the fact that companies normally act as if linux is a "cheap and inferior" solution. Normally the pc's that come with linux preinstalled are in the $200-300 range and worth more like $150, they are usually crap a literate user wouldn't touch.
Aside from the price on the pc's, I fully admit I'm educated guessing the numbers. But from what I've seen... well I've never actually seen a system with linux preinstalled on it. I've seen lots of linux systems mind, many I've setup and have lots of friends using linux. Most of their computers are homebuilt (but not all). All in all, among desktop users I'd guesstimate about 200 linux pc's. Not a single one of them would be counted in these numbers.
In the businessworld it's much the same. Support contracts are an issue for obscure software only in small businessland. Corporations want accountability, small business wants it to work and wants someone to call to fix it when it's broke, they don't care about fingerpointing.
On the business side I've setup countless workstations and several hundred linux servers. Out of all of them only one was even a purchased license, all the rest were download editions of the software. A support contract would be pointless, if they have a support contract it's still us they call if they have a problem, we are local and can fix the problem before they finish holding.
You also don't need to buy a boxed version for updates. Really using the vendor update mechnism is probably the last thing I'd recommend to a customer. With redhat distros in particular, redhat drops support too fast and is slow on the updates in comparison with well known and trusted 3rd parties (*cough*freshrpms*cough*) who still provide updates for redhat version 6.2 last I checked.
5% of the desktop market, I doubt it's that low. 5% of oem preinstalls, perhaps. As for whether it had that OS on it when it hit the desktop, if you consider that, you have to consider all the rest I've mentioned above and more and the result is the desktop market, not the OEM preinstall numbers gartner is claiming.
July 2004 52.3%=WinXP 28.6%=Win2000 8.2%=Win98 1.9%=WinNT 0.2%=Win95 3.1%=Linux 2.4%=Mac OS
They are not upgrades. YOu buy a select license. This license gives you co many "points" where each point could be spent on a variety of MS products. The cost of the product determines how many points you spend.
When you buy a select license you are buying the right to use that software for a fixed amount of time (measured in years). If MS upgrades their product you get to install the upgrade. Once your time is up you get to pay MS again.
evil is as evil does
I still sometimes get a little pissy about articles/reports/surveys like this. Then after I spout my peace, I can't help but laugh. Linux has an advantage that most commercial desktops can't even approach. See, if I sell Windows, Solaris, Mac, or any of the other commercial operating systems, I know exactly how I'm doing.
We all "know" MS has 90-95% of the market. The numbers shipped, the dollar amounts, all point to this "fact". Same with the others.
Linux doesn't come close. From a dollar perspective, most distros pale compared to the others. From a "shipped" point of view, well, who counts little Linux shops in their numbers? This is about Dell and the big folks. And there is the dualboot/wipe issue.
So, why do I laugh? Because, using these statistics, nobody will realize how many people actually use Linux until it's right in their faces. In other words, theoretically, MS could still ship 90-95% of the market, only to turn around one day, and find out that only 10-20% of users actually use Windows (with a few more using it occasionally).
So, realisically, the better way of measuring this would be to measure the "other" sales related to Windows. Antivirus software wouldn't count, neither would Office software, or games. (These are necessities for dual booters, or things that might only be available for one OS.)
My pick would be the "cheapy" software that people tend to buy for their computers. The productivity stuff, or "make your computer easier to use" kind of stuff. Better yet, if you want a long term guage, try the "educational" aisle.
In other words, to guage an OS's success, compare it's market. Find something unusual about that OS, something that no other can share, and use that as a guage. Exact numbers don't matter, but trends can point out a lot.
If money/users seem to be disappearing from these markets, yet the hardware folks are actually doing pretty well, you might want to bump up your Linux/OSS numbers a little.
Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
In India about 5-10% (probably closer to the latter figure by now) PCs are sold with linux pre-installed. Obviously, not all stick with linux. My guess is 2-3%.
Its the same situation in most of Asia. Linux PCs are reportedly selling like hotcakes in Malaysia. In China, it is even more extreme than in India because the number of people actually using linux is negligibly small.
The reason for this is that most home PC users in these countries use pirated software whereas OEMs still have to pay for Windows if they want to install it. The amount of wipe-out-linux-and-install-windows going on in Asia totally dwarfs the number of geeks in the world installing linux on their machines after paying the windows tax.
Slashdotters are living in the 1990s. The new reality is vastly different from what it used to be. The vast majority of linux users are non-geeks. There is no problem at all in getting linux PCs. The number of Linux PCs sold significantly overestimates atual usage.
The reason that linux usage continues to hover around 2% is no longer due to Microsofy bullying, but because Linux is still quite hard for non-geeks to use.
If you think about the millions of users using Google compared to the perhaps thousands of users spoofing their browser, then you'll understand that it won't significantly affect the percentages.
I agree completely; you can have one, or the other. Well said.
I know that I have bought quite a few PCs over the years, and they all have Windows pre-installed, and the first time I power them up, I put in a Linux CD/DVD and install. Windows never even gets a chance to say hello to me. There's no way to estimate how much of that is happening, other than to guess by looking at how much Suse is selling. Also, a lot of computers with Linux installed have both Linux and Windows and maybe even some others. The sum total of market share of installed OSes is MORE than 100%. Computers might have 95% Windows, 6% Linux, and 2% something else.
Yes, but if you buy a computer with XP preinstalled, you don't need to expend any "points" on that computer in order to run XP. So therefore, at least on the OS level, it's basically for upgrades only. At least in my limited understanding.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Not when they have the choice of buying a machine with no OS or Linux pre-installed. Why pay for a license youre not going to use? Whereas a machine with Linux on adds no extra license costs on top, so people don't care whether or not it has it on if they intend to wipe it.
In fact, in the case where a OS is required to be on the machine, they are more likely to choose Linux because it reduces the cost of the total system.
But then, I thought this was the point of the parent poster, and was supposed to be obvious.
I.O.U One Sig.
Uhm yeah that's great, but it doesn't matter. All that matters is the numbers. If software companies see the Linux sale numbers, they'll *think* that more and more people use Linux, so they may port their software.
It doesn't matter whether people actually put a pirated Windows on it. All that matters is that companies *think* the numbers are correct.
As with BSD, the way I see it, the important thing is not so much the size of Linux/OSS/etc's market share, but the importance of its influence.
Linux and OSS' influence has been growing quite fast lately, probably faster than its "official marketshare", whatever advantage that could give it.
It's not because someone runs windows that he doesn't run OSS (mozilla, OpenOffice, etc), and that's a step in the right direction.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Yea, because no one is going to buy a low cost Linux computer at Walmart and slap a pirate version of Windows on it. Nope. Never gona happen.
I'm sure it happens, but I'm also fairly sure that the majority of people running Linux didn't buy a computer with Linux pre-installed; which means that in the majority of cases they were counted as a Windows license sold but aren't running it.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
If you think X11 is immune to "Shatter" attacks, think again, smart guy.
Which brings us to the point that it's just impossible to know how many copies of Linux are out there..
:P).
It's like trying to know the number of people having sex tonight; you can make some pretty good guesses and take surveys, but it's a free and (mostly) private thing (well, in most cases anyway
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Consider this case: the parents of a friend of mine run Windows XP on all their computers (about 4). My friend runs Slackware (like me) on his laptop. Say 3% of all new PC sales run Linux. We disregard changing the OS aftermarket, as it roughly cancels out.
My friend's parents do not reinstall Windows when it breaks. They buy a new computer. For some reason my friend hasn't enlightened them, but....
My point is that if new Windows PCs break 10 times more often, they are probably replaced twice as often as Linux PCs. This of course doubles their sales figures.
-Ashton
(-(friend^2))^(1/2)
Incoming mod-bombing for having a different viewpoint, 2 o'clock! Heads up!
I believe you mean "selling like iPods".
I believe it is cheaper(bottom line) to use select points to get a winxp license for a bare computer than to pay extra for a computer+license.
Furthermore, neither of them bought their PCs from Dell. But, just to humour your bullshit-eating ways, I dug up this little this article for you to read that says:
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Not when they have the choice of buying a machine with no OS or Linux pre-installed.
Because there are a hell of a lot of people who don't have a choice. Not everyone in the world has 24hour access to Walmart.
I've never seen a PC with Linux preinstalled in any store. I live in Switzerland, where Walmart does not operate AFAIK. There are dozens of stores which sell computers. They all have Windows preinstalled. It is difficult to avoid paying Microsoft when you buy a computer here.
When I buy a computer, I go to a store which will sell me the case, motherboard, disk etc separately, I assemble them, then I install Debian from an old set of CDs, then I connect to the internet and do the apt-get update/apt-get upgrade thing. Frankly, it would be more cost-effective to buy a machine with Windows preinstalled, and install Debian on that. For me, avoiding paying the Microsoft tax is a point of principle, for which I'm willing give some of my time. Most people here who want Linux will do the easiest and most cost-effective thing - pay for Windows, then throw it away.
There are mail-order companies which will sell you a Linux PC, but mail-order is not a big slice of the market here.
Well I would imagine any Linux user worth his salt wouldnt be buying OEM machine from Dell with Windows pre-installed, most likely they would build their own. If that is the only type of machine they can manage to find, then perhaps they should stick to the Windows alreeady installed.
If I had to choose between Linux and Windows to be pre-installed, I would certainly choose Linux everytime, even if I was putting Windows on the machine. But if I intended to put Linux on, there is no way Id be paying for a License, and would build a machine from scratch or ask for a discount for no OS etc.
I dont think you need '24 hour access to Walmart' to buy a computer without Windows - you just need ten minutes to order one from any random computer shop and go pick it up. There cant be that many people stupid enough to pay for a license they arent going to use.
I.O.U One Sig.
There are many reasons to buy a windows computer and stick linux on it. In my case it was simply that there wasn't a company that sold a computer I wanted without Windows pre-installed. Not being in America, we don't have Walmart anyway.
Another reason is that a high proportion of desktop linux users dual boot and buying with Windows pre-installed is usually the cheapest way to get it legally. Dual boot machines still count as an increase in Linux market share, because we start off with Windows having by far the higher share.
As for the parent post (grandparent? can't be arsed to look), it was disagreeing with the original point that the Linux market share is probably higher than the percentage of PCs that ship with it pre-installed. I'm not sure whether that's the case or not, but with factors like dual-booting, limited availability of preinstalled linux pcs for those that want them, people installing pirated windows on linux boxes and the fact that widespread availability of preinstalled linux boxes is a relatively recent thing, etc, etc, I shouldn't think there's much correlation at all between the two figures.
"The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."
True, plus the people who build their own computers witho no OS preinstalled, and don't tell me there are few, anyone who knows how to screw things and plug in IDE cables knows how to build one.
I know nobody who has had linux preinstalled, OTOH, I've had quite a few friends install it beside windows (of course they still want to keep their games, but they use Linux for everyday tasks)
However, many people buy a computer with Windows installed, and 2 years later are fed up and put Linux on it. I know it was so for me, many moons ago. OR they buy a new one for the desktop, again with Windows, but put Linux on the old one and use it as a server. Both cases are listed as "Windows license sold", but not as "actually running Linux"
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
I saw a Linux PC at Fry's Electronics the other day. Lindows, actually. It had crashed :-/
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Something like ten million OEM Windows systems ship each month. Most people simply don't want to be drawn into a hobbyist project when they can order a customized system from Dell that is guaranteed to work out of the box.
In India at least, there are many shops that ask you what parts you need, assemble the computer, install windows and then sell you.
So you don't need to know how to install Windows. The people at the shop do that for you. So there really are that many pirated Windows in countries like India, though not many Indians know how to install Windows.
I would be happy to bet that I could count on my fingers the number of people here that have BOUGHT a piece of software that runs on linux. I can proudly say that I have (Matlab), but then again I don't use the fact that a distro is free as an advantage over windows. I think the programmers should be compensated...I don't like being dependent on them without anything in return.
As a side note, what will happen if Linux becomes ultra popular? More programmers will be needed, all working for free? Its not going to happen!
Market sales are the only figure that matters, and I do really think that the 5% is quite promising.
WARNING: This sig does not contain a joke
So how do you get your Linux installations in the tally? Is there an online survey you can fill out? How about a small/clean application you could install that would let you define what data should be sent out. It could keep a database updated with "specs" on kernel version, CPU types, CPU count, etc etc etc.
Well I would imagine any Linux user worth his salt wouldnt be buying OEM machine from Dell with Windows pre-installed, most likely they would build their own.
/.
Why should i spend my time buidling a machine? Will i save enough money to make it worth my time? How about support - with Dell i get a better chance that the company will be around in 2-3 years when parts start to go bad.
I don't understand your prejudice that anyone looking to NOT spend their time configuring and bargain shopping should stick to Windows and/or is stupid. Personally i have other things to do with my time. Like reading
They're Gartner, they don't have to know. They just have to say it and instantly thousands of I.T. managers treat it as fact.
It's similar to the situation in the UK with The Sun newspaper.
Actually, I talked a retiree on a very limited budget into a TigerDirect Wintergreen $240 computer a couple weeks ago. Replaced Lindows with Fedora Core 1 -- so lets count the linux-to-linux installs!
After her circa '97 Mac died, she realized a learning curve would be in order, so, yes thank you, she is adapting well. Webbing and emailing. And very unlikely to get mucked up with spyware, trojans and viruses.
Since the article is talking "shipped", maybe 2% is fair in that context if people understand that the 5% linux figure can also be true since 3% of older machines and home built machines may be retrofitted with linux.
Unless you're either ghosting, streamlining the XP updates onto the install CD or installing from some kinda manufacturor supplied restore disk then Windows is much more hassle to install than any modern Linux distro, even ignoring reboots (since they happen so fast in XP anyway).
Installing XP means spend hours installing things such as critical updates that require user intervention to click "yes" 3 or 4 times in a row (I mean for fucks sake would I have downloaded and run the installer if I didn't want the bloody thing installed!). Then browser plugins with similar requirements, basic apps, codecs, some DVD playing software (some multimedia OS that can't even play the most common format of multimedia around by default) then finally the applications you actually want to use. Most Linux distros come with all of this already done.
Having said that I use Gentoo which has the shittest install process in history (get an installer and you'll be taken 1000x more seriously by businesses) so that probably makes me a complete hypocrite
Not when they have the choice of buying a machine with no OS or Linux pre-installed. Why pay for a license youre not going to use? Whereas a machine with Linux on adds no extra license costs on top, so people don't care whether or not it has it on if they intend to wipe it.
Actually, many vendors charge the same for Windows XP home or Linux (Dell, for example). This is because their cost for Windows is about as low as the labor to intall Linux. You are paying for labor instead of license. Their installs of Windows are more automated since 95% of what they ship IS Windows, and MS has provided the tools to make it faster to install at the OEM level. If they shipped more Linux boxes, I am sure they would mirror the drives over as well.
Many people still build computers from parts, and while this is a small number of systems, they are probably more likely to use Linux by, by more than a few percentage points, considering the OEM pricing of XP, $80/$140, or the retail price, $250+.
Also, like many others, I have taken older boxes with Windows 98/ME and deleted it to install Linux (500mhz-1ghz) for performance and security reasons. This also doesn't account for dual boot machines, which probably number in the hundreds of thousands, at least. There are also many older boxes slower than 500mhz that are wiped and used as file sharing boxes, routers, firewalls and home servers. Most of those started their life as Windows boxes.
Since there is no forced registration of Linux, so many distros of Linux and no central authority for Linux distros, the numbers will always be suspect.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
...and nobody is going to take that computer then 3 years from the date of purchase and slap linux on it then..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I know I'm not the only one who does stuff like this.
I forget what 8 was for.
As the ease of using LInux gui increases so will its popularity !
Chris ,
Php Programmers.
I just did click on the link. I'll be honest and admit that I skimmed most of it, but I did read carefully the paragraph at the bottom about X.
>still theoretically possible for some of these attacks to work against X but in practice it's highly unlikely.
and goes on a bit about how and why it would be much harder to mount a successful shatter attack against X. In other posts of mine, critical of the "Windows done right" concept, I maintain that Windows may well be broken at the architectural level, not just the implementation. This is a piece of such an argument. Design for features without regard for security is another.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Why should i spend my time buidling a machine? Will i save enough money to make it worth my time? How about support - with Dell i get a better chance that the company will be around in 2-3 years when parts start to go bad.
/.
First, most people do NOT build their own to save money. Building your own almost always costs more than off the shelf, if you are using all new parts. The primary reason for building is performance and/or features, since you can use better quality parts and combination of features. Most of these people (myself included) have never called tech support, since it takes less time to fix it yourself than to wait on hold.
I don't understand your prejudice that anyone looking to NOT spend their time configuring and bargain shopping should stick to Windows and/or is stupid. Personally i have other things to do with my time. Like reading
Personally, I do both. I have bought many Dell boxes over the years, and build my own as well. When I decided to buy mom a computer, I bought a Dell because I live 1300 miles from her, and wanted her to have the support if she needed it. The last home server I built (3 months ago) was built completely from parts, because I wanted very specific parts for performance reasons, and wanted special features, like several swappable drives for testing multiple OSs. Not everyone either buys off the shelf exclusively, or builds exclusively.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Buying a computer with Linux on it then reformating and installing Windows makes me a sa-a-a-a-ad panda.
Hate to break this to you, but you can buy a Walmart computer with Lindows for 200 bucks (decent 1400mhz) and put Win98 on it. Been there, done that, many times...
...and nobody is going to take that computer then 3 years from the date of purchase and slap linux on it then..
I hope you are joking. This is probably how the majority of Linux installs happen, take an older box and put Linux on it.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I don't understand your prejudice that anyone looking to NOT spend their time configuring and bargain shopping should stick to Windows and/or is stupid. Personally i have other things to do with my time. Like reading /.
Or perhaps babysitting your OS? Linux requires a hell of a lot more effort to install and admin than the 10 minutes it takes to put a system together. Most people prepared to put in the effort required to run Linux would also put in the effort to build their own system. Most shops will put the parts together for you, at least mine did which gives you the ability to have your choice of parts, but still not to have to spend (a small) amount of time putting it together.
I.O.U One Sig.
Vidalinux has ported the Anaconda (RedHat) GUI installer to Gentoo, so that more or less the entire partitioning/install is done for you.
When you buy a select license you are buying the right to use that software for a fixed amount of time (measured in years).
This is incorrect. There is no time limit on the basic licenses. If you buy licenses with upgrades included, there is a time limit to how long Microsoft will supply the new version, but there is no time limit on how long you can use the basic product - though Microsoft has said they would like to move to this model.
yep, i was joking. and thats how they pretty much can't even make a guess that would be anywhere near the real figure..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Where I work, a number of people have bought the Linux boxes from Wal-mart. I think the longest any of them ran Linux was a month. All of them installed the Windows from their previous computers. I suspect this is not uncommon...
I thought Dells running Linux costed more than Windows, at least that was the case when I last checked several months ago.
Uhm. Much less likely. People who gonna "slap linux on it" would very probably buy hardware w/o MS tax, right?
I think you would lose that bet (unless you have a freakishly large number of fingers).
At my place of employ, we have purchased several products for Linux (including the excellent Matlab that you mentioned).
At home, I have a couple of FPS games that I bought because they included a Linux client.
P.S. What are you betting?
P.P.S. Cue all the "I have don't have any fingers, you insensitive clod!" jokes.
God is imaginary
So if your plan is to install pirated Windows, it definitely makes way more sense buy a machine with no OS installed.
I have never encountered anyone who buys a linux pc intending to install linux on it.
"linux requires far less in terms of hardware to get the same or better performance"
Really? How odd. I've installed Mandrake, SUSE and Fedora, and they're all slower or barely equal to Windows XP on the same box. Memory requirements when you're running GNOME/KDE, Mozilla and OpenOffice.org are far higher than XP, IE and Office.
Yeah, perhaps I could run a messy piecemeal desktop with Fluxbox and SIAG Office and Dillo, but then my productivity would vanish. Fully-fledged Linux desktops are just as bloated - and often even more so - than Windows.
I would be happy to bet that I could count on my fingers the number of people here that have BOUGHT a piece of software that runs on linux. I can proudly say that I have (Matlab), but then again I don't use the fact that a distro is free as an advantage over windows. I think the programmers should be compensated...I don't like being dependent on them without anything in return.
I have bought several programs that run on Linux only. Also, you can spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to run Oracle and any middleware program, SAP, or thousands of other apps. Most of the apps for pay are enterprise apps at this point, but there are many out there. This is increasing all the time.
My attraction to Linux is NOT cost of the distro, I have PAID for RH, Mandrake, and other distros for years, happily. I like the freedom, the ease of maintaining many different systems from one desktop (via ssh and scripts) and the robustness of the OS.
As a side note, what will happen if Linux becomes ultra popular? More programmers will be needed, all working for free? Its not going to happen!
There is no reason you can't sell apps for Linux, the same as for Windows. This is a big misconception. If you take GPL code of someone else and build on that, then you have to release your code as GPL, but any project from scratch that doesn't use GPL libs (LGPL is ok) isn't subject to the GPL at all.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
For the love of God or whatever you deem to be holy NEVER ALLOW WALMART INTO YOUR BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY!!!!! Terrible store, cruel labor practices, exports all jobs to Asia, strongest force for mediocrity and conformity to arise in America since the birth of television.
So unless Gartner counts all No OS computers as Linux, then you're absolutely right. No one is going to buy a low cost Linux computer at Walmart and slap a pirate version of Windows on it, when they can get a cheaper computer at WalMart with No OS. This is the description of the No OS computers: "These PCs are completely assembled, but do not have an operating system or any other software loaded on the hard drive. They are a perfect solution if you want a new PC and own a full version of Windows that has never been installed, or if you have an alternative operating system, such as Linux."
All the dells I use always gets wiped and reinstalled because it comes with a bunch of preinstalled crap, making it work, but below my expectations.
Since Dell only ships servers with Linux, do you really think that 3% of all purchases of computers fall into this category?
The parent is obviously a Microsoft troll. Linux is a common and growing reason to build your own box.
I work in a small company with 12 computers on a network. The network is Linux (Slackware) and all but 3 of the machines now are running Linux. To be fair at least 5 of the machines running linux are dual bool windows but nobody turns that on much any more.
The last time one of the machines (dual booted) was turned on for Windows it was the object of a lot of fix actions for trojan and virus activity. Nine of these machines were originally purchaced with Windows installed. The last 3 boxes we bought bare of OS.
Sorry for the Microsoft trolls out there but we are going to Linux and never coming back. I know of a lot of other offices where the same is going on. What is more, I don't see the "massive overhead" in sysops that Microsoft reports either. We had spent nearly $20,000 (one year) in Sysop overhead with Microsoft when we finally went to Linux and that has dropped to a noise level expense. Linux WORKS.
At home I have 2 computers and both came with Windows installed. Now they run Linux! I will not buy a machine with windows ever again.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Well, as you say, US != World. And in the US, Microsoft bullying is stronger than it ever was.
Besides, if pirating Windows and installing it on linux pcs is so very common in Asia, why don't they just sell computers with no OS, like Wal Mart does? Even if Linux is license free, surely the electricity/time/labor cost of installing software starts to add up to something....
As a side note, what will happen if Linux becomes ultra popular? More programmers will be needed, all working for free? Its not going to happen!
Linux has been getting increasingly more popular for the last decade, and it has been happening all the time. What leads you to believe it will suddenly stop?
I'm sure back in the linux 1.x days people were saying the same thing, and again in the 2.0 days, 2.2, 2.4, etc.
Finkployd
The market research is very skewed.
they take windows sales as gold that the os is used at home. While I know of at least 20 pc's that were sold with windows and promptly had linux installed.
It's an extremely difficult number to accurately discover. Here at work we get suck a deal from DELL on pc's that the entire fleet of Pc's purchased last fall for the linux migration lab, it was cheaper to buy the windows-preinstalled pc's than the linux/freedos ones from dell. (go figure that one!) and your general consumer, where the largest uptake of linux is happening do not buy laptops from tuxtops or other companies that are simply reselling other laptops for a mark up... they are buying the laptops themselves and installing linux.
As for businesses right now, many companies use vertical apps that they need to rewrite themselves or convince the company that wrote them to port them to linux or get them to run under wine reliably before a migration can begin. we migrated all of our office's in this area to StarOffice and mozilla exclusively (Yes we use Moz for email and use a web app for collabration calendar) so the switch to a linux desktop will be unnoticed by the workers as soon as we get the 5 vertical apps to run well.
These new "numbers" are as accurate as a guy telling you an exact number of black sand grains on a lake michigan beach... it's a wild ass guess.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
In India about 5-10% (probably closer to the latter figure by now) PCs are sold with linux pre-installed. Obviously, not all stick with linux. My guess is 2-3%.
5-10%?!! That's untrue. I am yet to come across a person who does not code to earn bread and uses linux. In India, only geeks (mind you, hardcore fans) use linux.
Where cost of software is equivalent to cost of media (due to rampant piracy), people tend to use windows.
Isn't that what most of us do...especially where we've got a great deal on a computer with Windows w/ it. First thing I do is blow Windows away (or relegate it to a small partition) and install Linux and run the computer as it should be operated.
This isn't quite true.
You can buy a license only or buy the software assurance with a select agreement.
You have rights to use the software forever, but if you buy software assurance, you'll also get rights to upgrade to any new versions released during the term of the contract.
just my $.02, not to be taken as authoratative.
Hmm, yes, I suppose that would explain the way my HP Vectra VE7 was together, back in the day. It took me a year and a half and three less than fruitful visits from HP service people to get it working. They would just come by and replace the motherboard before they even knew what the problem was, and then drive their big Audi's happily off into the sunset, leaving me with a computer that kept crashing on me until I figured out what the problem was myself. Oh well, it's not like those things and their service contracts cost ridiculous amounts of money! Oh wait...
It is representative. M$ OSs ship on most computers so when we get them home, we wipe them clean and install Linux. You can't just go down the street and buy a computer that ships with Linux. OK, maybe that Java thing, but I've yet to see one. I think what happened is that you misunderstood the point of parents remark.
That's fine if you want (like someone else said) to type your letters to Grandma. If, on the other hand, you want a middle-high end machine, you'll generally get the best value from DIY.
Those who do this generally realise that there's often no point in having the latest and greatest graphics, processor etc, because you're paying premium, so instead of getting a machine that advertises "cheap" but is actually "crippled" or one that advertises "high-end" but is actually "exorbitant" you put your own pretty decent but reasonably priced computer.
These days you can generally expect that a machine you put together will work, mostly first time. Sure, for the type-the-letter-to-grandma, you don't want to faff around with the bits AND risk it not working, but for many, it's half the fun.
im in ur
I don't have any arms, you insensitive clod!
im in ur
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
I saw a Linux PC at Fry's Electronics the other day. Lindows, actually. It had crashed :-/
Further demonstration that attempting to be too much like windows is a bad idea.
Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
An ootb mandrake install will play movies, music, browse the web, allow you to create powerpoint presentations, write and edit a book, PUBLISH a book on your desktop, create a website, check your email, play arcade games, find and connect you to any nearby linux, mac, or windows machines... all without getting NEAR a command line. It does all this stuff very very well, and does it near perfectly from the moment the installer resets the machine into your default desktop.
Does that mean everyone's out buying a mac? :)
I had a choice and I bought this machine with Windows 2000 preinstalled. It now runs Linux. Why? Better hardware and better warranty.
My laptop runs Windows XP and the only reason it isn't running Linux is that so far, Linux doesn't seem to handle its hardware very well. As soon as that changes, guess what OS my laptop will run?
I say we get the Nielsen folks in on this. They should take a pool of people who keep diaries about which OS they boot at which time on which day. That's the only way to really know...
I probably spend a full workday in total configuring XP on the box I'm writing this from. And no, I'm not stupid/ignorant either, I've used and programmed for windows since 3.1.
:-)
I probably spent about equal config time on my XP box and a Gentoo box I maintain... if you DON'T count download and compilation.
"Building our own" isn't always the best idea, and isn't always possible if you're talking about laptops.
So when companies plan on producing a Windows product they shouldn't consider the number of people who pirate Windows as potential customers?
I would consider users who download Linux legally to be much more likely to be customers than those who have shown they pirate at least some software.
> Most people simply don't want to be drawn into a hobbyist project when they can order a customized system from Dell that is guaranteed to work out of the box.
First of all.. guaranteed to work out of the box? hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe, sure.
Anyway.. putting things together yourself means that:
- you can decide on what goes in there, ie, no crappy components, and proper drivers for everything
- you know what went in there
- you know what to get when hardware breaks
Alternatively, you can spend quite a bit more money on crappy hardware from the likes of Dell.
I built my last machine for approx 2/3 of what a comparable machine would cost from Dell.. except for me havign twice the amount of memory, a better disk, a better video card, and a much better cd writer.
Now when I get a new laptop I'm not sure what I'll do. If I get another PC-based laptop (as opposed to Mac) I'll probably end up buying another Windows laptop and slapping on Linux unless there is an easy way to get a laptop with nothing on it.
> Why should i spend my time buidling a machine? Will i save enough money to make it worth my time?
The savings are in money, choice of quality components, and knowing a lot better what you are using.
> How about support - with Dell i get a better chance that the company will be around in 2-3 years when parts start to go bad.
And with your home built machien that is completely and utterly irrelevant. Your videocard gives up? you goto the first computer shop that is willing to sell you a video card with specs that you like and a price you accept, you buy it and stick it in. You do not have anythign whatsoever to do with if the 'brand' survives, there is no 'vrand' except the brands of the seperate components, and those are easily replaced.
When Dell goes belly up, you have no option left whatsoever when their boxes break.
but running Linux.
Like my notebook - I had to buy Windows with it but
I am running Linux exclusively.
Same with my Mom's notebook.
If 2% of win PCs go into Linux then the number is again at 5%.
Even though the border between the literal and the figurative uses of the word "steal" is getting more and more blurred, the way you're using it is plain wrong.
Normally, if someone tells me they'll go driving, I assume a certain thing. Without any context or particular knowledge that may indicate otherwise, I assume they will go out driving a car. Not a cart, not a herd of buffalo and not a herd of buffalo. This nominal meaning of the word is, in this case, what the vast majority of people would associate with it without further clues.
Although you may want to equate the moral horrors of illegal copying or unlicensed usage of software to that much more intrusive act of theft, most people still have the nominal concept of something being stolen, and thus removed from the possession of the owner. To steal, in essence, binds much more closely with stealing cars, horses and jewelry, than to abstracts like stealing thunder or the show.
Therefore, I would argue that you are misrepresenting the nature of the grandparent's suggestions by making an allegation of him "stealing" without further ado. I, as a reader, feel obliged to join in on the outrage that someone can commit such horrors, yet am left with a general feeling of being hoaxed, that maybe the accusation doesn't match the act, and that my voice is called upon to join in and condemn stronger, where in fact I ought condemn milder.
And that is what pisses me off enough to throw away minutes of blissed unemployment on the parent.
Good point! My laptop (Toshiba Satellite) came with XP but now runs Mepis Linux. I think I actually booted into Windows once with it.
-Cnik
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2004/June/os.p hp
Linux? 0% But it's leaving win31 in the dust !!
1. Win XP 115787313 (52%)
2. Win 98 52753983 (23%)
3. Win 2000 37918205 (17%)
4. Mac 4388024 (1%)
5. Win NT 4318447 (1%)
6. Unknown 2745285 (1%)
7. Win 95 1821950 (0%)
8. Linux 637109 (0%)
9. Win 3.x 290833 (0%)
10. WebTV 136542 (0%)
11. Unix 123877 (0%)
12. Win ME 42127 (0%)
13. OS/2 5427 (0%)
14. Amiga 1199 (0%
Amiga? OS2? Oooo, Win ME (over).
Most of the applications one buys for Linux these days are high-end, highly customized software (I work for a company which makes such software, and makes a VERY good business selling it as both product and service).
As far as the desktop goes, that's as yet an untapped market, but as it grows, rest assured that new players and old will start to target the Linux desktop. You'll probably see games and security software first. The other thing that I think you'll see, which is kind of unique to Linux, is a set of desktop unification tools that let you do what Red Hat's switchdesk did, but on a much higher level. In other words, you'll see things like a tool that sets up all the right Gnome bits, makes sure all of the MIME types and gconf settings are right, tightens up the Mozilla security settings and makes sure that evolution is configured to open the right browser when you click on a link. That kind of thing.
Someone could make a killing selling that tool, perhaps with some high-level layer on top of apt updating at the same time.
>As a side note, what will happen if Linux becomes
> ultra popular? More programmers will be needed, all working for free?
> Its not going to happen!
That argument does not make any sense in the case of computers. If lots of people want to buy motorbikes, yes you need more people to build motorbikes. But if more people want to use a given system, you don't need more programmers to write it. You might need more systems administrators, people staffing helplines etc. etc. but not more programmers.
Which is exactly the reason that i'm quite outraged that the price of windows or office hasn't come down, even though the cost of development per licence sold must have decreased significantly during the last decade.
Microsoft's income 2003 was $ 32 Bn. The vast majority coming from sales of Window and Office. Their total development cost expenditure was $5 Bn. Even if they sold twice as many copies of their software, it would not add to their development cost.
[snip] because Linux is still quite hard for non-geeks to use.
Or maybe, it's because Windows is so easy to pirate, eh?
I'm not surprized. Just installed Fedora Core 2. As installed it is way slower than XP. Also, the sound card was not properly detected = no sound. Hey, this is a 2yr old Dell Dimension - it should be a putz setup for Linux. Sure I'll tweak it out and make it better. But, the average person can't be bothered to do this. Maybe the 2% who left it on the desktop are all slashdot type operators!?
I don't understand how that remoptly resembles the parent remark. let me spell it out for you in simpler terms.
He is saying that some people won't know windows enough to care that they are not using windows. This doesn't mean they are ignorant instead of being a "supercomputer geek" or "microsoft fanboy". I know several people that only get on the computer to surf a few websites, write a couple of letters, play some solitare and check email. There is nothign they need that needs to be windows so any computer or operating system would work for them. Actually i have them using mandrake without a problem and the love it. Of course they also love windows xp too.
So you see, not everyone that doesn't use windows is stupid and not everyone that uses windows is stupid, some just don't care enough to be bohtered by it.
Everything being equal Google probably still has a slight Geeky slant compared to Say Ask Reeves so this would tend to over represent Linux not hurt the reported market share. Can anyone think of what the problem with Google might be if the share of linux is 5% and the Zeitgeist number is only 1%?
Help fight continental drift.
Why do we need news stories telling us that some or another particular bit of interesting information is going to be released 'this week.' Why not wait until *after* the news is available and then talk about that?
Not sure. I have installed for relatives and knowlenge more than one hundred gnu/linux bases computer, mainly SuSe, Mandrake and (long time ago) Corel. And that's not counting that every computer where I work(as administrator/it: www.uinm.qc.ca) runs SuSe. Imagine that each tech could convince just the third of my gnu/linux installation base.That's certainly much more than 1% of the total population.
How I wish that it is true. The fact of the matter is that an extremely large majority of Malaysians don't know what the hell Linux is.
I'll bet my life savings that out of 20 random Malaysians you pick in any shopping centre, you'll be lucky if you get even a single person who knows what Linux is...
And yes, I'm a Malaysian.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
While the typical windows user likes his crap preinstalled, most linux users order their machines without os (or actually put their servers/machines together from parts)
....
/u /s) so people can have a legal choice of "no os"
-and then just download the favourite distro, or RE-use a purchased distro CD set again...
I would never buy a linux preinstalled machine, but every laptop I bought came with windows preinstalled (even that I tried to get a discount and offered to wipe the OS in front of the sales person and hand ALL bundled windows software back to where it came from
Actually in hungary there is a law, that prohibits selling a machine without an OS (they say it is to cut off piracy I say it is to make people buy their windows ) on the other hand now stores preinstall free dos (floppy in, format c:
But many of us here on slashdot uses the downloaded version of Linux (Slackware 10.0 on my case). How is Gartner supposed to track that?
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
As the HTML here shows.
That's not true. The license that comes with your PC is charged against your points. If you have a contract with Dell or HP or something they may agree not to charge you for the copy that comes with the PC.
evil is as evil does
Linux has been getting increasingly more popular for the last decade, and it has been happening all the time. What leads you to believe it will suddenly stop?
:)
I'm glad you're not my stockbroker.
Since you didn't answer the question...
Follow-up question
What makes you think the popularity of an open source operating system is even remotely related to the economics of a stock market.
Finkployd
You'll probably see games and security software first.
UT2003 was one of the first to run on Linux right out of the box, so I tend to agree with you on this one. Also, because of the commonality of linux users and gamers, both having a somewhat better understanding of computers and not afraid to tweak a bit.
I am waiting for mainstream apps like a good replacement for Peachtree, etc. for 10 to 20 users, myself. apps in the $500 to $2000 range, for small (but not tiny) companies. Once you start seeing those, Linux has arrived.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I have to second the common opinion here that something is screwed up in these estimates. I have NEVER seen a machine with Linux pre-installed in a store.
My last two machines were blank, built by a computer shop, and I installed Linux on them. I assumme that Microsoft did not get their tax for these, but it is really hard to tell.
Anyway, it is vastly easier to get a no-os machine than a Linux-preinstalled machine. Anybody intending to install a pirate copy of Windows would get one of these. Yet this report seems to indicate sales of no-os machines is zero? WTF?
The Lindows machines sold by Walmart are obviosly junk, available only by mail order, and if you look on the same web page you will see cheaper no-os machines, and I would not be suprised if they have better hardware because they don't have to worry about Linux compatability. They certainly sell much better-quality no-os machines (much faster and much larger hard disks) for only slightly more than the Lindows box.
Linux fans might fear admitting it, but I suspect even a Linux user who buys a Lindows machine purposely to add to the sales figures will wipe it and reinstall it as a dual-boot with Windows configuration. I did, even though I don't ever use the Windows system, it is nice to know I can boot to it if I need to run something (yes it is a pirated copy, so sue me Mr Gates).
The last company I was with tried to use them. And yes, we were going to pay a "crapload of money" for their service.
We were running an old version of GroupWise and we wanted an un-biased, expert opinion of the benefits of either upgrading GroupWise vs migrating to Exchange.
We got a couple of their people in the office and they conferenced in a woman on the phone.
They knew NOTHING about GroupWise. They kept going on about Exchange vs Lotus Notes.
We didn't surprise them with our request. My boss had contacted them with the clear request to compare GroupWise and Exchange. Yet they couldn't even CALL someone who knew GroupWise.
And I would think that such a request would NOT be that unusual. They SHOULD have the basics already available. They had NOTHING. That only reinforced my belief that they will sell themselves to present whatever conclusion is desired.
"For instance, they have people who specialize in every niche of the industry and know a ton about it."
It might SEEM that they do to someone who doesn't know much about those niches. But when you get them on FACTS, they fail.
I read their "reports" and "studies".
I've seen their "experts" in action.
The best word I can think of to describe it is "prostitution".
I can't think of a reliable way anyone could research actual Linux usage share. Does the userbase have anything externally detectable, that distinguishes them from the rest of the population? The closest thing I can think of, is perhaps connections to distro servers for downloading updates, but updates are so widely mirrored and distributed, I'm skeptical anyone could actually gather the statistics. And then there's the people who don't keep their systems maintained. Hm.
Unless someone explains how they get their figures, I would be inclined to suspect that they're engaging in the same kind of conjecture as Slashdot posters. And that includes Gartner.
And on that note, I think it's irresponsible for media to summarize the paper's conclusion without mentioning how the figures were derived. Laymen will listen to one part and not consider the other part. Now, in some cases where we're talking about a reputable source (e.g. Stephen Hawking talking about black holes) maybe that's ok, but sheesh, this is Gartner.
And then look at the number of significant figures in IDC's estimate. Yeah, right!! At least that one says something about where the number came from, though it's amusingly naive. Actually, let me restate that: their "explanation" looks a lot like an advertisement. ;-) But they say they're non-profit. Hm.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Somebody is buying those Mandrake CDs. If you look at what has happened with so-called "easy to use" distros, they have put a lot of effort into dumbing down the installation process. Why? The kind of people who build their own machines, are also the kind of people who have not been asking for this. Who is creating the market force that has made companies like Red Hat and Mandrake put time and money into making Linux installation easier than, say, Gentoo's Stage 1 process? I suggest it's the same kind of people who don't build their own computers.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Shows what my schools knows: there are XP home stickers on every dell machine with serials.
Problem is they all have windows 2000 on them.
I'd tell you the school but then you'd laugh at me so I'll let you wonder.
Get your Unix fortune now!
I've never heard of Dell doing that and I work for a Uni that does a lot of business with Dell. We are also practically a Windows only environment with a site-license from MS for *all* versions of Windows.
But guess what? Our license is only an "upgrade" license: each system must come with a valid license for some (any) version of Windows. Even if Dell did offer that kind of computer we couldn't buy them and I suspect that the same is true for most/all MS licensees.
But misunderstanding "site-license" is a common problem, one I have to explain in its many variations every day.
Thoromyr
Actually, I buy lots of linux software. Like ut2k4, neverwinter nights, quake3, and doom3 when it comes out. In that same period I bought zero windows software(mainly because I don't use windows).
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Microsoft has been claiming that they run on 95% of the desktops; and it's been in that range for a while.
But according to Zeitgeist, google only sees about 91% percent. It's been years since MS has claimed in that range.
Or, to put it simply, perhaps a healthy choice in different OS's is indeed starting to return.
US != world, however the US is still home to a disproportionate number of computers. I like how you come up with the 2-3% guess. You don't know and have no way of knowing or even estimating so your guess is as pointless as me making one.
Any linux usage numbers are basically worthless because:
1. MS claims market share based on number of PCs sold with Windows pre-installed PLUS number of Windows licenses sold
2. Number of linux kernel/ISO/whatever downloads could be more or less than number installed via that method (download once, install many; download many never install one)
3. Number of linux distro sales is likewise meaningless for the same reason.
These market share numbers are just meaningless. There are too many variables with no means of checking on any of their values.
Thoromyr
Not us students without credit cards. I can't buy stuff online, so I just buy a decent PC from a big chain and slap linux on it.
I'm sure you're correct. But it doesn't contradict what I said. All I claimed is that Linux PCs are being bought (simply because they're cheaper because of not paying the windows tax, with the buyers not even knowing they're buying a Linux PC) and then get pirated windows installed right after being purchased. Do you have any info on whether this kind of thing is happening or not? I know its happening massively in India and China (I live in India).
Yeah, but we represent fraction of percents in regard to the "global market". How are our numbers representative at all in from of n millions computers sold to other people?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
...than anyone thinks.
Yeah, there are a lot of people that are going to buy an ultra-cheap WalMart PC and use a bootleg copy of Windows to overwrite the Linux installation. A lot of companies will buy Linux Dells to avoid purchasing redundant Windows licenses as well. That'll push the true market share down (I'd venture to say by 50-60 percent but that's just a wild guess)
However, the vast majority of Linux users out there did NOT buy their PCs with Linux installed. In my case I assembled my PC from components from local discount shops that will let you buy (gasp!) a "naked PC". Microsoft doesn't like this but it isn't illegal to do so--and they have no contracts with MS restricting the practice. Each and every machine either runs Linux exclusively or dual-boots with Win2k.
Furthermore, at a student job some years ago the corporate policy was to purchase all PCs through Compaq. Although Deskpro towers were not marketed as servers, my employer purchased nearly a dozen to replace an equal number of aging AT&T UNIX servers (those old beasts sporting 80386 processors that were the size of 2-drawer filing cabinets). These came with Windows 95B pre-installed (and thus would be counted as "market share" from a sales standpoint). However the machines were never once booted into Windows--the first thing we did on power up was to boot from an install floppy that loaded a pre-configured Slakware Linux image from a JAZ drive (so from a sales standpoint they only recognise the single purchased set of InfoMagic CDs used on all machines). I'd venture to say that a countless number of home users similarly dump Windows to this day.
So I think it nearly all washes out in the end. Linux might not run on quite 5% yet but I'd say it runs on much more than 2% share. Nobody will know for sure unless they figure out a way to count actual PCs in current use world wide (corporate, home, new, used...everything, even hacked XBoxes and TiVOs and such).
"Well killer, maybe you need to check again because I've worked for two clients that did have ms-windows site licenses. They also have employee counts in the low 6 digits."
Please provide a link to such a thing.
"The Microsoft licensing terms, which were put in place on Aug. 1 [2002], specify that PC makers must ship PCs with an operating system."
Check the calendar, it's now 2004. Go to the dell web site and order a business PC and check the box that says "no operating system"
evil is as evil does
Or you like building computers :)
:)
;)
I always build my own, simply because I get to choose what goes in it. (e.g. maybe I want a top-notch processor to do [insert CPU intensive task here] plus tons of memory but I don't need any super-mega-6.1-surround soundcard or the latest ultra-geforce-7-nvidia graphics card. Or I run a Squid proxy and need large amounts of RAM and a fast HD, but any processor will do.) Plus it's cheaper, too. Plus you get no O.S. preinstalled, blank harddrive, ready to get whatever I like to put on it.
And you get to make little adjustments/details that might actually make a difference (master/slave settings on IDE drives, adding on some decent -silver- thermoconductive grease instead of the crappy stickers to get the CPU colder, what PCI card goes where because the cables are short/they are farther apart/whatever, etc...)
These things are why I build my own, added to the fact that I like building my won for countless other detailt (stupid, maybe, but I like my cables wrapped neatly, makes adding/removing pieces much easier), plus the fact I like building it
I can keep on talking but I guess you get the idea
I would be happy to bet that I could count on my fingers the number of people here that have BOUGHT a piece of software that runs on linux.
Railrod Tycoon II, from the late, lamented LokiGames, here. At Best Buy, even.
Actually there is a pretty good metric for measuring Linux users: weblogs. Many browsers, in addition to reporting the brand of browser, also report the OS the browser is running under. Most geeks hit the same sites as non-geeks, especially when it comes to news, search engines, and the like.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I know someone who runs a shop in Malaysia, selling PCs with Linux(I don't recall which distro) and OpenOffice.org installed. This makes for a useable system while keeping the price down, but most customers don't actually want Linux. So they get their own copy of Windows and either install it themselves, or pay the shop to do it. Pirated Windows CDs are available for about US$2.00. I think this is common practice in some places.
-Adam
Who buys a computer with linux on it and doesn't know what linux is. I would jsut assume that most people who buy a PC without XP on would know whaqt they are doing to a certain degree (either they are going to install their own burnt copy of XP or another OS). I mean... how many people do you know who 'accidently' bought a linux box. I don't know anyone who did it deliberatly.
However, everyoen i know who uses linux started with a windows box (or no OS) and, either dual boots or goes all linux. Given the lack of people distributing linux, i'd assume that this is the route for most linux users
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
I bought a WineX subscription... but that kinda defeats the point eh?
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
I bought a WineX subscription... but that kinda defeats the point eh?
;) There are some Windows apps that have no Linux counterpart yet, so if WineX helps someone run Linux exclusively, while keeping productive by running their Windows apps, then I say its a great approach.
I dont think so. Its like how they give alcoholics Methadone to help them get over the addiction
I have had mixed results with Wine, but have used it to run a few apps, like Forte's Agent (Much prefer over any Linux USENET news reader). To me, using Wine isn't admitting defeat to Microsoft, it's helping defeat Microsoft by giving people choice of OS to run Win32 apps.
Part of my sales pitch to get the boss to switch from Win32 to Linux *IS* Wine, so we can still use some older apps that have no Linux equivelent yet.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I'm still trying to figure out how the moderating on that comment went. I was looking for a comment like that or else I was going to. I would think buying a new computer to install an old version of Windows you already own would be much more common than a pirated version of Windows. Most people I know wouldn't even have any idea where to find a pirated version of it.
Anyway, the modding on that comment showed:
50% Insightful
30% Overrated
20% Redundant
for a total score of 0.
Unless the percentages are not accurate, it looks like this had to get 10 mod points to achieve a 20, 30, and 50%.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
the problem with that is that KDE and gnome look enough like windows to be considered an "upgrade" like going from 98 to XP.
If they dont know what they bought and they cant use a windows install disc, they probably dont care enough to warrant OS restoring.
Not to mention the average person has at least heard of linux at this point. its been fairly unavoidable for the past few years.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
really ? Only 10 million ? I would venture a guess that there are a lot more "hobbyist's" out there than you think, how else do you explain so many computer store, parts suppliers etc ...
I have 8 computers here, they all run linux. Most people I know use linux for something (although we tend to be younger and more technical types) those 8 for me have to count as 8 individual desktops since I am sure the 300 running windows at the local university count as 300 for windows. Point being -- I built 6 of my computers and bought two with windows installed, how the hell do they know that my 8 are running linux ? or even that I have 8 ?
The answer is: they dont. They estimate based on shipments from major/mid-major manufacturers.
We all knew that MS controlled the OEM market, that was a major reason for the anti-trust trial ?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Well, I did say "everyone".
Unfortunately, the analogy you use is fundamentally flawed and I'd be willing to bet there has been no detailed study of the life-span of Linux-based PCs vesus their Windows counterparts. In fact, the machine I use at work (Win2k-Pro) is much older than the Linux machines I have at home.
Are you suggesting that hard-drives and memory and optical drives and video cards wear out faster on Windows machines? Or that they become obsolete more quickly?
Listen, I'm not trying to push Windows, but this 5-to-1 lifespan is really just wishful thinking on your part.
Having said that though, I believe that the number of people like me that buy a machine with MS-something on it and immediately format the drive and install Linux is greater than anyone might be able to measure. It certainly seems that Gartner didn't even try to acknowledge this segment of the market; let alone estimate it. Furthermore, the unfortunate side effect of this is to over-inflate the Windows figures...
So, to the original issue, how can 5% of machines sold this year be pre-installed with Linux and yet only 2% of the market be Linux. Because not *everyone* replaces their machine every year. The fact of the matter is that there are one h*ll of a lot of working, Win98 vintage machines out there. It will take several years of good sales to start impacting the overall installed base figures.
But the more important questions are:
Did Gartner gather their research with due dilligence and care? Yes
Are these statistics correct? Yes, within the context of the large PC distributors they surveyed.
Are the numbers they published representative of the true story? Resoundingly *NO*
Unfortunately, many people will believe the number because it is Gartner that published them.
F U NE X N M? Son: "Dad... How do you spell 'hourly'?" Dad: "0 * * * *"
> I can keep on talking but I guess you get the idea ;)
;P
And I guess we agree
how do you know we are only a small percentage ? Do you have hard data about that ? How about from places like china ?
Mom and Dad might not use linux in your family, but they do in mine. So do quite a few people I know. The problem is very simple: there is no way to track usage of linux.
this firm estimated 2.8% of computers shipped last whatever ran linux when all was said and done. What if triple that number were built and had linux installed via a download ? or were ms machines but were wiped and had linux installed ? How do you estimate this ?
I would say worldwide linux runs 6% of desktops, mac 3%. that puts ms at about 90%, thats what I would assume. If I call it a statistic would anyone believe me ?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Plus you get no O.S. preinstalled, blank harddrive, ready to get whatever I like to put on it.
Just a word of advice, investigate each component to make sure drivers are available for the O.S. you're planning on installing.
I almost ended up with a winputer, but managed to rewrite some of the existing driver source to work with my hardware. Some people might enjoy doing stuff like that, but I didn't.
On the other hand, the machine only cost about $500 US.
I'll stop using it.
What makes Linux so extraordinary is that it is NOT a commodity OS. It has a certain level of hackability and customizability that would be dangerous in the hands of Joe Sixpack.
As the saying goes, "Make something that even a fool can use, and only a fool will use it." Linux can't be used by fools, but Windows can.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
What laptop is it?
"Gartner claims 5% of all PCs shipped this year ran Linux OS, although by the time the PCs were actually on the user's desk, only 2% of them run Linux." Gartner does not take into account how many PCs were purchased with Windows and then ended up with Linux/Windows installations or Linux only installations by the time they were actually on the user's desk. How many people are going to actually pay for a Linux desktop only to adopt Windows by the time the reach the user's desktop? Do you know how expensive it is for a new copy of Windows XP vs. buying a PC with Windows preinstalled? This sounds like Microsoft FUD. Check into Gartner's funding for their research for a comapany called Microsoft.
I have purchased about 10 pcs for my company, all windows originally shipped, then formattted and slacked. I gotta beleive that is true in many cases
Oddly enough, my first introduction to Linux was in Switzerland. (I'm from the USA.)
I was on tour in Europe with my university's choir, performing in various cathedrals and stuff. We made a stop in Interlaken to take a day off from singing and see the Alps, and during that day I went into a little cybercafé to mail the people back home.
Pay my money, sit down at a machine, and notice that--while the desktop is superficially the same, with a Start button and the like--it's not Windows.
I knew enough about Linux, even though I'd never used it, to figure out what the box was. "Neat!"
It's now three years later, my whole family runs Linux, and my senior project gets compiled with gcc.
And let's not forget the boxes that are bought with Windows and retain Windows for games, but have Linux installed as a dual boot for everything else.
I'm surprised some marketing "genius" hasn't come up with this one yet, but does anyone sell a preinstalled dual-boot box? Yes, I'm too lazy to google it.
Not that I'd buy one, I don't like dual boot boxes. (I figure that's why they make KVM switches.)
how do you know we are only a small percentage ?
Well, nothing is easier that that. Number of people reading slashdot every day. Then you divide that number by the number of people owning a computer.
I don't have these figures (And I don't care about getting them), but I would be very surprised if it is more than 1%.
And please don't try to pretend there is more than 2 million people reading slashdot or less than 200 million computer in use worldwide.
Your question is like asking: "How do you know there is more stars in the universe than coins in my purse?" I know it because it is so freaking obvious.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Well, you know how hot those processor chips get...
I actually went ahead and paid for the OS. The reason was three fold. 1. I've been running Suse 9.1 and really like it, but it takes forever to do the FTP install. 2. It comes with excellent documentation on pretty much everything. I haven't been using Linux for very long (a couple months) so its nice to have a guide specific to the system (yes, there is the Internet, but its not the fastest. 3. If Suse doesn't make any money they won't make newer distros.
Where can I buy a copy of Linux OS?
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I would be happy to bet that I could count on my fingers the number of people here that have BOUGHT a piece of software that runs on linux.
I bought HOMM3 from Loki and Crossover.
Does that count as one or two fingers?
Bullshit. It's because the pirates precieve that either
or
If you have the best Desktop in the business, it won't matter becuase of what that person preceives as important. For Everyday Joe that means either being a good sheep[1] or getting his pr0n, w4r3z, etc to work out of the box.
If you'd every ran a Linux install-fest for a local Linux User's Group you would have learned this first hand. Those two things are number 1 and number 2 on the LUG FAQ for every Install-fest I've ran or attended.
------------
1. As racist as it sounds, every Oriental-culture teacher (foreign language, historian, etc.) I have met at University mentioned that this was a very large part of Chinese and Japanese culture. Being a good cog is more important that being a good person. Frankly I think it's also B.S., but then I'm from the USA and not allowed to hold balanced or informed opinions of other cultures.
"You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
It's a pedantic point, and I really didn't mean to start any argument with it.
Your statement that most "geeks hit the same sites as non-geeks" is non-provable and, without a valid premise, your metric is also invalid.
Being non-provable is sufficient, but to not just leave it to the trivial counterproof: you're metric does not take into account that most browsing is done during the day which for many is at work which means that your are getting more of a corporate browser and OS measure than anything else.
Which in my case would count the WinXP system I use at work for my primary desktop, but miss the two OS X desktops and the RedHat desktop, not to mention the two SuSE desktops and OS X laptop at home (and, no, that's not trying to count in the two additional SuSE servers as desktops).
I stand by my original claim: there are no metrics.
Thoromyr
I work at a place the has a licensing agreement covering some 45,000 PC's. But it is not a site license in the tradiional sense, where you pay a flat fee and copy as much as you want. In fact, it is a contract with hundreds of pages. I'm not claiming to have a complete understanding of such a behemoth, but the direction I get is that we have license to upgrade any version of Windows, but not license to install on a PC built from parts.
All new machines get re-imaged because that is the most efficient way to put on all the necessary network scripts and site-licensed software like anti-virus, but the OS licensing terms still require the OEM Windows.
It would be a travesty to see Linux shoe-horned into one place and philosophy.
The great thing about Linux now is that you can install a totally free community supported distro like Debian or Gentoo, a good server like RHEL or SEL, a decent desktop like Lycoris, Xandros, Linspire, etc.
If the Linux "community" ever tried to decide that the focus was either solely freedom or market share to the exclusion of all others, I'd be horribly disappointed.
In fact, I'd say that the ability to make your Linux motivation a good "market share" is in fact, a reflection of Linus' and Stallman's motivations for freedom.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
argh.... I mean:
I stand by my original claim: there are no valid metrics.
Oh and by the way, I read and post on slashdot. I am what a lot of people I know qualify as a 'nerd'. And no, I have no linux at home, my parent's home or anyone else. Well, I have a Knoppix that I boot every now and then, but this probably doesn't qualify.
So even if we were that numerous, you just can't assume we're all using Linux for ourselves and our entire family.
Basically, you can't assume that anyone is like you. The fact is that everyone is unique. And that's why proper polls are necessary to come up with any figure.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
They do? I thought it was only given to heroin (or maybe other opiate) addicts since methadone is itself an opiate thus helps deal with those cravings.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Are they installing pirated copies of windows though? Our shop custom builds computers.
We ask what parts you need, assemble the computer and install windows for you. But it's a valid OEM windows license and is included in the price we tell you after you tell us the parts.
While the memory requirements are higher, the processor requirements are lower.
"Really? How odd. I've installed Mandrake, SUSE and Fedora, and they're all slower or barely equal to Windows XP on the same box."
That would depend on how your gauging performance, your basing it on how fast a window appears on screen after clicking the icon you'd be right. That performance is no better than windows.
I judge performance based on how fast tasks are completed.
it appears that linux is really having a big impact at microsoft.
o ft_jobs.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/23/technology/micros
I could be wrong, but I believe they do use Methadone for severe alcoholics, and other addictions as well since it "plugs into" similar receptors. I could google it, but it looks like we both are too lazy :D
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Not all linux programers work for free. That is just a misconception because people think charging for software before the user can use it is the only way to make money. There is tech support, i know of several companies that won't buy software unless they can puchase some sort of tech support agreement. There is customizing the aplication to meet the job it is intended for. I know of a couple more companies that higher the original programer to make a few changes in some software so that it integrated into another aplication they were using better. This work caist about 3 times as much as the software and they justified it with increased productivity that they actually saw.
But needless to say, free software as in free beer is atractive to me as well as paying for software when needed.
And Visual SlickEdit lives up to its name. No, I don't work for them, I own my own software and product development company. It's a nice tool, goes in easier than a windows virus, and does what we need. We couldn't find anything free that was close without spending much more $/time looking than it cost us to just buy it. End of story. Apps for Linux will sell.
"Slashdotters are living in the 1990s." ... "linux usage continues to hover around 2% is no longer due to Microsofy bullying, but because Linux is still quite hard for non-geeks to use."
Now who lives in the 90s? Linux quite hard for non-geeks to use. Yeah, right. So all people working for the Munich government are geeks?
Fighting spyware and installing the service packs on windows is a lot harder than using a modern Linux distribution these days.
"but because Linux is still quite hard for non-geeks to use."
Can't speak for linux, but it's definitly not true with FreeBSD.
I just download a couple of ISOs, burn them, pop them in, "slice" the drive, select the BSD "partitions", answer 1000 and 1 more incredibly complicated questions, and as a reward for my success, I reboot and let it start, log in... and am greeted by a command prompt. After trying "startx", and it failing, I spend the next hour or so of my life attempting to figure out how to configure X windows since the configuration program that comes with the OS is broken, figure that out, put the config file in the right spot, then get X started. Wow, I have 3 xterm windows. So I wait about 30 minutes while gnome installs, tinker with X for another 30 to get gnome to load. Then I am greeted by... what I should have had a few hours ago. Then, I spend the next 30 minutes modifying and recompiling my kernel to enable the ipfw firewall. After this, I spend a few hours installing some other essential software such as Firefox and Thunderbird...
My point? Get these users to attempt FreeBSD first, then Linux will seem very user friendly!
(I am not trying to bash FreeBSD, this was simply my experience installing it for the first time. Other than the difficulties getting it off and running, I quite like it.)
ND
This statement is forty-five characters long.
There's over a billion installed Windows users right now. Would you say Linux has made it to a million yet? That would be still only be 1 percent.
This article *guesses* it's 5 percent. I could guess it's less than 1 percent and release an article too!
People buying new machines for that purpose is unlikely, but installing Linux at some point down the road is very common. I wouldn't be at all surprized if most of the Linux boxes out there started out that way. Also consider that many computers that run Linux are set up to dual boot with Windows, or run a VM. It would make much more sense to buy a machine with bundled Windows for such a set up than to buy a Linux or no-os box and buy Windows separately (assuming you care at all about having a fully legal setup).
Granted, such machines cannot rightly be counted as Linux boxes, but neither can they rightly be counted as Windows boxes. And I suspec that the latter is exactly what most such statistics do. Not necessarily out of any kind of intentional misrepresentation, but more just from the difficulty of figuring out how many such machines there are. These don't show up in any analysis of sales data. Yet may well represent the most common case.
How about you provide the links this time around? I already did my part. In fact, before I even posted the second time I did exactly what you suggested - went to the mediam & large business section of dell's website and checked out the optiplex, dimension and precision lines, none of them listed "no operating system" as an option and even spot-checking the customize section for 4 different models "no OS" was never an option.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I see a link to a Wal-Mart web page. A Microtel Linux page with a very prominent "Upgrade to Windows XP for Only..$$$." insert. So how about some hard numbers for the "vast quantities of Linux boxen" Wal-Mart ships?
It's happening all the time... In fact, most "successful" PC assembly shops do this for "free". Why have the consumer run away just because they find installing Windows to be "complicated".
As a general rule of thumb... if a P4 pc of about 1.8GHz with 256MB RAM costs more than RM1300 (US$1 = RM3.80), it's considered "expensive".
And that's with Windows XP (pirated, of course).
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
Linux Market share? Well, I am more interested in the fact that Linux gives me market freedom. If it weren't for Linux, I never would have learned that there is a whole different life waiting for users outside of the, "Windows". :)
So for me, freedom comes before cost...
Just my .02 :)
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin"
Same here. We have 9 PCs and they are al home-built systems. Seven of them run Linux. The other two run Win98SE - the last reasonably secure version of Windows.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Ignorant people run whatever's in front of them. And it works. I've had people spend an entire day using a Linux machine (KDE, nothing special) and react with shocked surprise when they're told as they walk out that it wasn't MS-Windows or MS-Office they were using.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
how the fuck does slashdot have a damn thing to do with this ? Slashdot is a website, thats it. I was using linux for 3 years before I had even heard of slashdot. Most people I know still dont know about it, and if they do there is no guarantee that they will actually come to it and read it.
Saying that you know something because it is obvious is foolish. Also I asked very specifically for some kind of logic -- that noone can provide because there is no way to provide it. There are to many variable's. I can produce anecdotal evidence to support whatever bullshit statistics or theories I come up with.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
And basically you cant assume that anyone is like you.
.... whatever it doesnt matter there is no 100% in this situation because there are to many variables.
R that's why proper polls are necessary to come up with any figure.
Yet you fail to respond to the fact that there is no fucking way to come up with accurate numbers regarding this shit. Base it on sales and it skews a large percentage of the market (not everyone who builds a computer or buys a whitebox from a friend is counted.). Base it on
"We" are not the only group of people who use linux.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Bull999999 wrote: "But many of us here on slashdot (...)?"
I wrote: " Yeah, but we represent fraction of percents in regard to the "global market""
You responded: "how do you know we are only a small percentage ?"
I responded something about slashdot.
And now you're asking me "how the fuck does slashdot have a damn thing to do with this ?"
That was the original question dude!
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Okay, just re-read the whole thread ....
...)
I wasnt making a statement about slashdot being a large or small percentage, I was reffering to Linux users as a whole being a small percentage. The mixup occured because I thought I stated that, but didnt. (must use preview
However the OP has a valid point, how does gartner track users of whitebox's or people who wipe a windows machine with a downloaded OS ? (that is the only point I was trying to make -- surveys, statistics etc are all bullshit)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Yet you fail to respond to the fact that there is no fucking way to come up with accurate numbers regarding this shit
Who said I was trying?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
yeah ... well .... ummm .... My dad can kick your dads ass !!! (?)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Actually, for me it wasn't about being lazy; I just feel a little uncomfortable doing heavy research into methadone and the like from work.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
You don't remember the 1.x days....
God... I'm 23 and your making me feel OLD.....