Linux Grabs More Than 2% of Desktop Market Share (w3counter.com)

LichtSpektren writes: W3Counter's stats for June 2016 are in, and Linux desktop accounts for 2.48% of all web visits from tracked websites... (Android is counted separately from "Linux desktop.")
Meanwhile, NetMarketShare shows Linux with a 2.02% share of the desktop market. And StatCounter shows a more detailed breakdown of the top 7 operating systems, with Windows 7 at 42.02%, Windows 10 at 21.88%, OSX at 9.94%, Windows 8.1 at 8.66%, Windows XP at 6.5%, and another 4.06% for "Unknown" (which is roughly tied with "Other") -- beating Windows 8.0 at 3.52%. In May they also reported another thought-provoking statistic: that Firefox's browser usage had surpassed that of IE and Edge combined for the first time.

Comments

Go Donald!

[ColdWetDog]

So now I'm all confused. Is this due to Trump's influence, Brexit or Global Warming?

Windows 10

[Anonymous Coward]

Will make this the year of Linux on the Desktop.

Re: Windows 10

[mark-t]

You may be trolling, but I'd like to answer a few of these:

1) I have to call bullshit on this. While some distros do indeed push systemd on you, that is a distribution-specific issue, and not a Linux one. There are at least two very mainstream systemd-free distributions of Linux. and both will remain so for the far forseeable future.

4) No argument about compatibility, my wife has griped about the same thing, but one could just as easily argue that the windows versions are inferior because they aren't compatible with open source alternatives. The notion of which is actually better depends on what a person happens to personally prefer, and is not based on objective and universal truth. Simply being adopted by fewer people does not make inferior by the same reasoning that suggesting the earth was not the center of the universe is not flawed either.

9) Three words: 'fsck -a /dev/sda1'. Some distros even come with an option at boot time to launch a recovery shell, but in a pinch you can always just boot from a usb recovery image or dvd. In my experience, recovery time on Linux in the event of a catastrophic failure is much faster (not to mention much less frequently needed in the first place) than it is on Windows.

And finally:

11) You are quite mistaken. First of all, not even all distributions require you to use X, let alone gnome, of which Bug Buddy is just a part. Secondly, only a very small amount of technical skill is required to block it.

The chief reason why Linux will probably not succeed on the desktop has nothing to do with any technical characteristics, merits, or lack thereof of the OS itself, but rather on the typical technical aptitude of computer users. Linux doesn't hold your hand the way that some other OS's might, and this can be intimidating for some people, but with the freedom that Linux gives to its users comes a great ability to control and customize your computer to behave exactly the way that you want.... in ways that Windows users probably cannot even imagine.

Re:Windows 10

[hey!]

Don't feel bad. I used Debian 0.9 when that was a thing. I dowloaded it over a 2400 baud modem onto a stack of floppies, haha!

No, seriously, I actually did that. I also got X to work on a Hercules Graphics Card, and if you even know what that is, you're old.

Re: Windows 10

[Opportunist]

1) The whole Systemd thing is something that only, and I mean ONLY, affects hard core Linux geeks. The average Linux user, let alone someone coming anew to the system, won't even notice that "force" at all.

2) I agree, but so is the Windows 10 surface. Bluntly, given the choice between Win10 and Gnome... Before I answer, is shooting myself in the head an option?

3) Not really, the support for graphics cards is actually quite good. What stymies gaming is the lack of support for gaming hardware. Flight sticks? Steering wheels? Hell, even support for fancy mice sucks (ever tried using a high rez mouse? I dare you, it might work. Sometimes). You are right that some distros do a tapdance around proprietary drivers that borders on religious extremism, but there are quite a few that don't give a shit about petty crap like that. The problem is rather the support from gaming hardware manufacturers.

4) Nope. LibreOffice is actually easier to use and more approachable, mostly because they don't feel that urge to reinvent the user interface with every single incarnation. No need to relearn everything time and again.

5) The security is still superior to the situation on Windows. While MS itself is getting pretty good at finding and rooting out security concerns, there is lots of software that you "have to" use that is omnipresent on every system that is a security nightmare (Adobe, I'm looking your way!). This doesn't apply to Linux due to the way these programs are treated in the OS. I have to give you, though, that there are alternatives that lock down the OS so far that it's virtually impossible to get anything bad in. But also anything the OS maker doesn't want you to.

6) That's different to MS, Apple, Android... in what way exactly? Unless you're paying for premium support, you're usually left to fend for yourself, too. And that premium support is available for various Linux distributions, too.

7) Quite the opposite. You can, today, have full support for any kind of ancient hardware that you could think of. Yes, you can actually install a current distribution on hardware from 10+ years ago and it will run. I wouldn't recommend trying that with a current Windows version. Likewise, you can run pretty much all ancient software on a current distribution. Again, I have a lot of Windows software here that keeps me from shifting versions due to incompatibility.

8) Wow, getting ad hominem already? Isn't that usually left to later in the discussion? Anyway. Again, no. There are indeed different packages dealing with the same problem, though. It's called competition. I know, an alien concept to someone who has been indoctrinated by MS, but look it up if you find the time. It's considered a good thing. At least if you're into capitalism.

9) Yes, Windows has a lot of tools that are actually pretty good at FUBARing a slightly misconfigured system without even bothering to ask you. Especially if you dare to install something next to Windows. That God complex ("Thou shalt not have any OS besides me!") really pisses me off.

10) Windows was pretty good at fragmenting, too. How many Windows XP versions did exist? 20? More? And that were all from the same company, and $deity help you if you picked the wrong one, because you made your choice, for good or ill. Worse than a marriage, actually. With Linux, you can at least try out a few before you settle down without spending a dime. And if you don't know which one to get, there is PLENTY of webpages dedicated to nothing but helping you finding the right one for your particular needs.

11) That is just a blatant outright lie. No idea why you thought you could possibly get away with it on /., or maybe you thought nobody would read that far, but no later than here it's obvious you're trolling. Actually, if I only had read your whole drivel to the end before starting to reply... but I'm so not going to delete this now.

Re: Windows 10

[JohnFen]

I don't know what you'll take as "proof", nor why you demand it so, considering that the original comment provided none for its assertions either, but here's my take:

#1: Nonsequitor. Yes, SystemD is being forced on people in a way that many consider unacceptable. No, this won't affect Linux adoption to any measurable degree.

#2: That's an opinion that is not universal. Also, it ignores that there are many UIs that are not Gnome or KDE and are hard to distinguish from Windows. There is great variety here, people can select the UI that they get along best with.

#3: This is true, gaming support is terrible (although I think the reason he gives is very misleading). This is improving, but remains an issue. OTOH, I know many Linux gamers who run Windows in a VM for the games they can't run natively, and are happy with that.

#4: This is false. I've been using OpenOffice and Libre for many years in an office environment, exchanging files with MS Office users frequently, and this hasn't been as issue at all for years. It is true, however, that the open source versions of these sorts of applications do not work identically to the Office products and require relearning some habits. But that are equally functional and usable.

#5: While it is true that no security is perfect and there will always be breaches -- even in the Linux world -- I'm not sure how this truth decreases the chances of Linux adoption, given that it is at least equally true for all alternatives, including Windows.

#6: False. It is easier to get answers to questions about Linuxy things than for any other OS I use. Even if you're too timid to ask questions on expert and hobbyist sites, you can still pay cash money to get professional support.

#7: False. While that sort of thing does happen, it doesn't happen as frequently as he implies -- and when it does, it is generally not a large disruption. Personally, I've had just as much problem with this sort of thing in the Windows world as in the Linux world, so I don' t know how this is a differentiator.

#8: I honestly don't know what he's talking about here. This sort of thing happened a lot in the old days, but I can't remember it happening with any of my machines for a few years now.

#9: False.

#10: False, and an odd criticism. Most Linux users I know who have multiple machines run a single distro on all of them. The main distros support nearly everything, there is no need to have certain distros for certain kinds of machines.

#11: False. In the main distros, all telemetry in the OS and core utilities is optional, unlike Windows 10. It is also well documented and easy to disable. Naturally, if you're talking about applications written by random developers, it's up to the developer how this is handled -- but at least in Linux it's easy to simply firewall off any and all applications you don't trust.

Re: Windows 10

[TommyNelson]

The chief reason why Linux will probably not succeed on the desktop has nothing to do with any technical characteristics, merits, or lack thereof of the OS itself, but rather on the typical technical aptitude of computer users. Linux doesn't hold your hand the way that some other OS's might, and this can be intimidating for some people, but with the freedom that Linux gives to its users comes a great ability to control and customize your computer to behave exactly the way that you want.... in ways that Windows users probably cannot even imagine.

Not so much to do with hand-holding than with marketing budgets and vendor binding. Installing and running Windows might be simpler than Linux, but not that much. Many distros have come a long way. The problem Linux faces is all the preinstalled machines. Buy an off-the-shelf desktop or laptop PC and it'll close to 100% likely be preinstalled with Windows.

Re:Windows 10

[Bert64]

The reason people say "open up bash and type" is because a textual interface is easier to explain vocally or in a textual medium like a website. Text is far more clear, you read out the instructions and they read back the output, they don't need to understand the output or interpret it, just read it. Compare that to a gui where you have to explain and describe and rely on both sides of the conversation understanding the way things have been described.

You could usually achieve the same result through a gui, only doing so would take twice as long to explain.

I've also seen many many cases of windows problems where "just open regedit and..." or something similar was the proposed solution, even very recently people have been proposing such hacks as the way to get rid of the windows 10 nagware - how is this better than the idea of opening a bash shell?

While i agree that linux in its current form is unsuitable for the average user, windows is even less suitable. Both systems can be limped along by users who have no idea what they're doing, but both are dangerous and can easily be broken by such users. General purpose computers are specialist tools designed by geeks for geeks, putting such systems in the hands of users who don't understand how to use them properly results in an epidemic of malware, fraud and other crime.

Users are better off with games consoles, chromebooks and ipads etc.

Linux Users use Adblockers

[yithar7153]

I would assume Linux has the largest group of users with adblockers, thus Linux would have the smallest desktop share.

Re:Linux Users use Adblockers

[Solandri]

These types of stats are gathered using the user agent string in a http request, not from ads. StatCounter has an agreement with millions of websites to gather their site usages statistics (e.g. page hit counter) in this manner.

Linux on mobile platforms (Android) was underrepresented because of this. A lot of Android users deliberately modified their user agent string to report a desktop browser, so they would get the desktop version of websites instead of crippled mobile versions.

Re:Linux Users use Adblockers

[93 Escort Wagon]

That's true, but similar story: a higher percentage of Linux users are probably using tools like umatrix which spoof the user agent string to fight "browser fingerprint" style tracking.

I used to think that was true and possibly actually significant; but, over the past two years, as I've seen more "desktop Linux" use among our grad students, I've also started seeing a lot of pretty clueless Linux users.

I realize that (and this next statement) are purely anecdotal; but most of the people I know who are knowledgable Linux users don't use Linux as their desktop OS.

Meanwhile...

[wbr1]

...auto play video ads on /. cause it to fall below 2% readership in the tech news sector.

. Come on whiplash, you can do better. I, and probably most others on here use ad blockers. I happen to be on mobile with no block, and I'm assaulted.

. I admire some of the changes since dice, but this? I have been a member, under varying names since 96 or 97. It may be time to head to ars or soylent news.

Re:Linux was at 2% in 2004, and 1% in 2009!

[AthanasiusKircher]

What makes this even less impressive is that Linux was at 2% back in 2004, as reported by /. way back then. Although I do suppose that is better than 2009, when /. reported that Linux reached 1% "for the first time".

To be fair, the first story from 2004 you posted doesn't claim 2% active market share -- in fact the summary states they are waiting for those numbers -- but rather that 2% of NEW PCs were using Linux when they reached the user's desk. That's a rather different stat, and even if true, one would expect that stat to be greater than actual active market share if the market share is growing. That stat also wouldn't take into account how many people LATER installed a different OS on a machine that originally was purchased with Linux (or, conversely, how many people installed Linux on a machine purchased with a different OS).

And the second story you linked to is actually trying to measure active market share (like the present story), which was apparently at 1% in 2009 and now appears at 2%.

There's probably a margin of error in any of these measurements, but I don't think this constitutes the oscillation you think it does, because these measurements were taken in very different ways.

I preferred counter culture

[aspx]

So basically, Mac users can make fun of us now? How humiliating.