Slashdot Mirror
Is Linux's "Overall Market Share" Statistic Meaningful?
ruphus13 writes "Linux recently achieved 1% market share of the overall operating system market. But, does that statistic really mean anything useful? This article makes the case that it doesn't. It states, 'Framed in the "overall market share" terminology, the information (or how it was gathered and calculated) isn't necessarily questionable, it's more that it's meaningless. It's nebulous, even when one looks at several months worth of data. [How] Linux is used in various business settings answers an actual question — and the answer can be used to ask further questions, form opinions — and maybe one day even explain to some degree what 1% of the market share really means. ... Operating systems aren't immortal beings, and by rights, there can't be (there shouldn't be) only one. ... No one system can be everything to everyone, and no one system (however powerful, or stable) can do everything perfectly that just one person might require of it in the course of a day. While observing trends and measuring market share are important, the results (good or bad) shouldn't be any platform's measure of self-worth or validation. It's a data point to build on (we're weak in this area, strong in this area, our platform is being used a lot more this quarter, where did all of our users go?) in order to improve and stay relevant.'"
It's like playing WOW and someone comes up to you and tells you the level of your character, the strength of its spells, don't matter. And all this time these were the things you were aiming for. A lot of people, me included, want to see Linux have 100% market share. What the summary seems to be trying to say is to not treat market share as the main goal. It is going one step beyond what timmarhy is saying. The article does not say that it is the number 1% that is faulty. Instead, it is the desire to know the market share that is misguided.
I don't know, I don't think Linux has a huge marketshare on the desktop, it's probably a few percent in corporate desktops and less than one percent for home desktops. That being said Linux is probably has more total OS installs that WIndows, all the virtual hosts and ubiquitous embedded devices that have been moving over to Linux in droves add up to a ton of actual usage.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Actually, there is no meaningful way to accurately measure how many people (or businesses) are using Linux, or Windows, or BSD. So "market share" is meaningless. Its just a statistic that marketing departments can twist to sound however they want it to sound.
Other sources estimated the number to be 5% or even 6%. Which just goes to show how statistics can easily be used in ways that are misleading or distorted.
But this also bears examining: 1% (or 5% or 6%) of what OS market? Linux is sure as hell a lot higher than that in the server market, and if you are talking about internet servers, higher still.
So, maybe it doesn't have wonderful desktop penetration yet. But I bet it's higher than those statistics say! My bet is that Linux is the secondary OS for an awful lot of people, often via dual-booting. Just as "one and one only" voting has been shown to be inferior to "instant runoff" and other voting methods, saying that people have only "this or that" OS does not present an accurate picture of the landscape.
This isn't quite true. I use Linux primarily because it's such an excellent development environment. However, I'd like to see it get a larger market share so that I can reap the benefits of manufacturers producing and testing drivers for hardware, and software developers releasing versions of their programs for Linux. I don't really care about market share for it's own sake, but market share comes with perks!
I figure Linux would only need around 5% market share to get me most the advantages I want though. Not everyone needs to use it!
I think it's assumed that we're talking about Linux on the desktop.
I wouldn't want linux to have a 100% market share, just a big enough market share that it is supported on hardware as much as windows is
It would be interesting to come up with a metric that evaluated "real" work done under each platform. The numbers might be surprising.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Absolutely. I want to be able to walk into a store, buy some random piece of hardware and be absolutely sure that it will work under Linux. I don't care how many people use Linux, I just want to make my own personal choice to use it easier.
The question is, what market share is required to achieve this? I'm betting it's fairly low, I mean, even at 1% we are starting to see some traction. Boxes with Linux pre-installed are available from major manufacturers (albeit in a limited and hidden manner), more and more hardware makers are starting to produce drivers or release specs so the community can (I'm looking at ATI here).
If we are getting all this at 1%, then surely full-support can't need a huge amount more, I'd guess at 10% we should be good. How long it will take to get there is another question.
I'm a geek. I run Windows XP OEM install on my Aspire One laptop.
However, I run debian stable for any server stuff.
And I don't actually do development on the netbook. I remote into the debian machine and there I do work.
Does that make me a hypocrite? No. I never claimed that Linux should be on all the desktops. I claimed, and continue to, that linux can be a fine desktop for people who know how to set it up well enough. I personally don't want to invest the time to do that.
"Piter, too, is dead."