Linux on the Desktop Doubles in 2007

00_NOP writes "According to a report on Softpedia, citing Net Applications, Linux usage on the desktop doubled in 2006 — 07: though from a miserable 0.37% to a still not brilliant 0.81%. Given that Linux is free, is based on peer reviewed source (and so inherently more secure in the longer term) and that hardware support is now pretty good, how long are we going to have to wait for the big breakthrough?" Of course the focus of the article is that Vista is kicking butt over Mac/Linux, which is not particularly surprising.

Comments

RE: Linux on the Desktop Doubles in 2007

[__aajwxe560]

Background: I am a sysadmin for a 300+ node Linux shop, and have fairly lengthy experience in Solaris, Windows, and AIX as well.

I still run Windows XP as my desktop of choice. I only run it because it came with the laptop that was provided to me by IT, or I would probably still be running Windows 2000. Very simply, I use the OS as a tool to get my job done, and Windows 2000 was doing the trick. Windows XP is now doing the trick. When there is something I want to do that Windows XP can no longer do, I will look beyond. If Linux starts to pioneer in new features and areas that Windows and the Mac OS cannot answer, then I will certainly consider it for my desktop OS. Meanwhile, I deal enough headaches from users at the server level that I don't feel like battling with my Linux wifi drivers, sound card strangeness, or having to jump through other hurdles to just stay productive. Of course there are patches and ways around most/all of the issues I have seen, but that doesn't mean its acceptable to me.

Now, cue over to the server arena, and Linux is certainly replacing Windows boxes for all standard day-to-day servers. It does what I need, it does it well, and even offers features and ease of use that the Windows boxes simply cannot match. That was a compelling reason, with cost also being a close secondary, that we now run so many nodes.

Meanwhile, who really cares. If _XXXX_ does what you want, use it.

Softpedia - Shitty website, shitty article

[jonathan3003]

Shitty website, low quality news. Just as an example, the same site has a different article that doesn't favor Vista: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vista-Is-Nothing-Compared-to-XP-Move-to-Mac-OS-X-and-Ubuntu-Linux-65786.shtml

Re:Wow, these people are idiots.

[afabbro]

Its also why Japan is having its densely populated cities (along with other areas) laid down with fibre optic while we're stuck with inferior methods of internet access. Japanese businesses are willing to look at the long-term while American businesses only look to the next quarter.

Yeah...that must be it. It couldn't be because the entire country of Japan is smaller than California, and when you subtract the inhabitable mountains, volcanos, etc. it's more like Nevada. Or that it has some of the densest metro regions in the world, including the world's largest, Tokyo.

Nope, couldn't be that running fiber everywhere is a much smaller and easier task. Must be that the Japanese are so clever and the Americans so dumb.

The numbers are demonstrably bogus

[btarval]

There are currently about 1 Billion PCs worldwide. If Linux had a 0.81% "marketshare", that would equate to a grand total of 8.1 Million systems. Fedora alone provided a fairly accurate measure of installed systems last year (for FC6 IIRC), and the last I heard it was 7 Million and counting.

But that's just Fedora alone. Ubuntu has a significantly bigger "marketshare" than Fedora. SuSE is also a significant player. Altogether, the Linux marketshare is probably somewhere between 3-5 times what Fedora is reporting, which would put Linux at about a 3-4% marketshare, worldwide.

But the point remains that the numbers in the article don't jibe with what most other people are reporting. In fact, these numbers are downright silly.

Also, no.

[btarval]

Please read the fine article. They are explicitly talking about the grow of the Operating Systems, and they don't make any distinction in terms of Desktop or Server. In fact, the word "desktop" is nowhere to be found in the article at all.

Now, one might infer that it's intended for desktops. But that inference is left up to the user. It is explicitly not what the article is claiming. TFA is only talking about their measurements of the total growth of OS's.

Had they stated that it was for Desktops only, and that they weren't talking about servers, this article might have more credibility. But they didn't. They are, instead, trying to misrepresent things.