An objective article on why Linux hasn't dominated the Desktop market.  I have been a long time Linux user, and have always wished for Windows' rapid demise.  Linux slowly gains market share, but it is still a while off.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/043012-linux-desktop-258724.html

I can't help agreeing with you, and joining you in wishing for the demise of the EVIL WINDOWS!!! But folks have been dreaming about said demise for decades now. It hasn't happened, and probably won't, mainly because -- as your article points out so clearly -- there ain't nothin' else out there that gets the job done.


I've used various versions of Linux off and on over my 'puter years. Ubuntu most recently, others in the past. It hasn't changed a bit, though it's slightly more user-friendly than it used to be -- and it used to be not user-friendly at all.


Linux is to the software world what Wikipedia is to the information world -- a gigantic, never-ending argument. Millions of people struggle to change it to fit their ideas every day.


90% of all useful commercial and entertainment software for a PC is written to run on a Windows platform. Roughly 9% is made for a Mac. That leaves about 1% for the endless variations of Linux...


Um, I think I'll stick with ol' Bill Gates, at least for a while, if y'all don't mind.

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 04, 2012, 07:43:14 PM
I can't help agreeing with you, and joining you in wishing for the demise of the EVIL WINDOWS!!! But folks have been dreaming about said demise for decades now. It hasn't happened, and probably won't, mainly because -- as your article points out so clearly -- there ain't nothin' else out there that gets the job done.

It doesn't say that.  It's about market share.  Linux, as an OS, is far superior to Windows.

Quote
I've used various versions of Linux off and on over my 'puter years. Ubuntu most recently, others in the past. It hasn't changed a bit, though it's slightly more user-friendly than it used to be -- and it used to be not user-friendly at all.

It's far more user friendly than it was in the past.  Anyone can install and use it with no problems.

Quote
Linux is to the software world what Wikipedia is to the information world -- a gigantic, never-ending argument. Millions of people struggle to change it to fit their ideas every day.


90% of all useful commercial and entertainment software for a PC is written to run on a Windows platform. Roughly 9% is made for a Mac. That leaves about 1% for the endless variations of Linux...


Um, I think I'll stick with ol' Bill Gates, at least for a while, if y'all don't mind.

Yuk.

Quote from: taxed on May 04, 2012, 09:56:11 PM
It doesn't say that.  It's about market share.  Linux, as an OS, is far superior to Windows.

Oh, piffle. Superior in what specific ways? Linux, in its basic form, runs the internet, for instance, but 90% of desktop users access the internet by way of Windows. 9% use some version of Apple's OS. Roughly 1% use a version of Linux. How and why is Linux better, and why does almost NOBODY use it as a desktop OS? (Getting back to the OP.)

QuoteIt's far more user friendly than it was in the past.  Anyone can install and use it with no problems.

How does Linux get LESS user friendly than it was? NO, sorry, not anyone can install and use it with no problems, that simply isn't true! Linux users hate it, but it is FACT that Linux has not even begun to tackle hardware compatibility issues in the way Microsoft has. (Apple opted out of that battle a long time ago, and just sticks with their own stuff.) I've been in the 'puter biz off and on for nearly twenty years, and I've been continually amazed at how Microsoft gets progressively more inclusive and comprehensive with hardware compatiibility, and how Linux versions seem to be two or three years behind -- all the time.

In addition, adopting Linux means abandoning ALL your treasured Windows programs -- or I guess they're called "apps" these days. No more SIMS or Call of Duty! NOTHING you can buy at Walmart or Best Buy will run on your Linux machine. Yeah, you have OO, the free answer to Microsoft's Office suite, but I can get that to run on Windows, and skip all the Linux razz-ma-tazz.

BUT that's the way it really ought to be, I think. There's not a logical way of thinking that leads to a conclusion that a completely free, open-source operating system like Linux should somehow compete with Microsoft's Windows, is there?

I think Linux does its thing, and does it well. Microsoft does its thing, makes a shitpot of money, and does it well. Apple is just weird.
.

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 10, 2012, 12:18:12 AM
Oh, piffle. Superior in what specific ways?

Security and stability.  For example, malicious code can't get root access on a Linux box. That is a pretty significant architecture difference.  Linux/Unix boxes are designed to run 24x7 for years on end.

Quote
Linux, in its basic form, runs the internet, for instance, but 90% of desktop users access the internet by way of Windows. 9% use some version of Apple's OS. Roughly 1% use a version of Linux. How and why is Linux better, and why does almost NOBODY use it as a desktop OS? (Getting back to the OP.)

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the OS itself.  No one is arguing Window's market share (getting back to the OP).

Quote
How does Linux get LESS user friendly than it was?

It doesn't.  If you can answer 1) your timezone, 2) what language you speak, and 3) if you want to use it exclusively on your box, then you can install Linux.  Installing Ubuntu 12.04, for instance, was so easy it was silly.  Installing Linux is no longer an issue like it was.

Quote
NO, sorry, not anyone can install and use it with no problems, that simply isn't true! Linux users hate it, but it is FACT that Linux has not even begun to tackle hardware compatibility issues in the way Microsoft has.

Huh?  Linux hardware compatibility gets far better with every release.

Quote
(Apple opted out of that battle a long time ago, and just sticks with their own stuff.) I've been in the 'puter biz off and on for nearly twenty years,

Same here, at the systems programming and software application development levels, and working in and owning a data center with various flavors of Windows, Unix, and Linux.

Quoteand I've been continually amazed at how Microsoft gets progressively more inclusive and comprehensive with hardware compatiibility, and how Linux versions seem to be two or three years behind -- all the time.

What hardware are you running that I couldn't?  I'm sure there is some, so I'm curious about it.  I haven't really run into anything.

QuoteIn addition, adopting Linux means abandoning ALL your treasured Windows programs -- or I guess they're called "apps" these days. No more SIMS or Call of Duty!

Huh?  Here is a video of someone playing Call Of Duty on Ubuntu 10.04:
Call of Duty 4 on Ubuntu Gameplay

Here is Sims 3:
Gaming In Linux : The Sims 3

It's my understanding those run under PlayOnLinux emulator just fine.  I have a few gamer friends who game on Ubuntu, and they say most stuff runs fine.  I'm not familiar with it though, so I can't speak to gaming, but they are pretty hard core.  The Windows emulator on Linux is the missing link right now for the Ubuntu Desktop.  It is difficult to configure, not intuitive, but I have run enough Windows programs on Linux to know that for the most part, it works fine.  Again, I think this is their biggest hurdle to become more widely accepted.

Quote
NOTHING you can buy at Walmart or Best Buy will run on your Linux machine.

If you mean devices, I can personally attest that isn't accurate.  For software, it goes back to the emulator.

Quote
Yeah, you have OO, the free answer to Microsoft's Office suite, but I can get that to run on Windows, and skip all the Linux razz-ma-tazz.

Then one less reason why Microsoft has an advantage...

Quote
BUT that's the way it really ought to be, I think. There's not a logical way of thinking that leads to a conclusion that a completely free, open-source operating system like Linux should somehow compete with Microsoft's Windows, is there?

Yes.  Functionality, security, and stability, it's already passed windows.  Once Linux handles the emulator issues, it will gain market share far more rapidly.  For bugs and security patches, Linux has the advantage because the community can patch and fix far quicker than Windows.

Quote
I think Linux does its thing, and does it well. Microsoft does its thing, makes a shitpot of money, and does it well. Apple is just weird.

Apple makes a good product.  Windows doesn't.  The fact is, the Windows OS is inferior to the others.  Apple "just works".

Ah, we could roll this one into the dreaded Pit, and it still wouldn't be settled, would it? I didn't have you pegged for a Linux freak.

Since there can't possibly be a "right/wrong" determination to this argument... I"ll just say that Windows, better than anything I've been able to find so far, does what I want it to do. It runs my hardware properly and provides the necessary playing ground for me to, um, play.

This was NOT always so! Linux/Unix wound up running the internet less because it was the ideal vehicle and more because Windows was so damn bad at it. (Think Win95/95/Me and Win200/2003.) On the other hand, Windows captured the public's imagination -- and DOLLARS -- less because it was so good in the ways you value an OS, and more for the fact that it WORKS for most folks. Linux won the internet because it was -- AT THE TIME -- more stable than Windows, and had been designed from Page One for networking.

We can argue the pros and cons of this/that OS until the end of time, but it's always been about managing the flows of zeroes and ones, pluses and minuses, yeses and noes. Because of the strictures of pesky stuff like basic arithmetics, OSes are, in the main, remarkably alike.

And anyway, I just like pulling your tail.... 

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 11, 2012, 09:22:40 PM
Ah, we could roll this one into the dreaded Pit, and it still wouldn't be settled, would it? I didn't have you pegged for a Linux freak.

hahaha  When I started in the telecom world, it was in the early/mid 90s... I was 19 or 20.  I got a taste of real world Unix and Windows 3.1 when I started out, and worked with both (*nix and Windows) throughout my career.  I was systems programming in Unix, and developing applications in Visual C. I've seen the damage Windows does by it being such a horrible product -- from early on until now.

Quote
Since there can't possibly be a "right/wrong" determination to this argument... I"ll just say that Windows, better than anything I've been able to find so far, does what I want it to do. It runs my hardware properly and provides the necessary playing ground for me to, um, play.

If it works and you are happy with it, then totally.

Quote
This was NOT always so! Linux/Unix wound up running the internet less because it was the ideal vehicle and more because Windows was so damn bad at it. (Think Win95/95/Me and Win200/2003.) On the other hand, Windows captured the public's imagination -- and DOLLARS -- less because it was so good in the ways you value an OS, and more for the fact that it WORKS for most folks. Linux won the internet because it was -- AT THE TIME -- more stable than Windows, and had been designed from Page One for networking.

It was all about Windows for the desktop.  They hit the wave and dominated, but that has nothing to do with the quality of their product.  Linux/Unix, as a platform, have always been more stable than Windows -- that's not even a question, but the desktop was not the market.  Unix has been around since the 60s/70s, so it had a head start on Windows.

Quote
We can argue the pros and cons of this/that OS until the end of time, but it's always been about managing the flows of zeroes and ones, pluses and minuses, yeses and noes. Because of the strictures of pesky stuff like basic arithmetics, OSes are, in the main, remarkably alike.

Not really, and in fact, completely different how the systems are designed.  How it deals with file IO, memory management, permissions, display, networking, and all sorts of other stuff the OS handles.

Quote
And anyway, I just like pulling your tail.... 

hahahaha  I figured that had to be part of it.  But I honestly don't preach Linux for a desktop anymore, unless you are just doing media/emails/office/development stuff.  If you use tons of Windows software, then you need to wait until the emulators are more user friendly.  For a geeky kid, I would point him towards Linux, since you have everything you need to build any type of system, from coding, media, animation, and on, for free.   But if you are a heavy Windows software user, then stay on Windows.  I used to think once they made the installs a breeze, which they have totally licked, that Linux would gain more market share.   Now, the Windows emulators are the real hurdles I think, along with people, by majority, just don't know about Linux who would otherwise be fine using Linux.

You knew from the start that I was pulling your tail, didn't you, big boy? 

I still have an ancient laptop with Ubuntu on it, I think v10 maybe, and it runs GREAT! For lightweight web browsing, basic office work, etc. it's the bee's knees. But this laptop is the ONLY system I've ever managed to get to run well on ANY desktop version of Linux.

EVERY other laptop I've tried to use with ANY version of Linux has crashed. I'm sure it's just me.

It actually has come a long way since 10.  It used to be a pain in the ass to install and config.  Check out 12.04 some time when you are bored...  You'll dig it...

I will do exactly that. I have an aged laptop that is due for revamping, and I'll see if the latest Ubuntu will breathe a little life into it. (Can Ubuntu fix a missing "M" key?)

But I've heard those claims that "It's come a long way since...." and "It used to be a pain in the ass...." before. So much chatter. I'll see what happens with the laptop, and report back.

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 15, 2012, 09:20:31 PM
I will do exactly that. I have an aged laptop that is due for revamping, and I'll see if the latest Ubuntu will breathe a little life into it. (Can Ubuntu fix a missing "M" key?)

But I've heard those claims that "It's come a long way since...." and "It used to be a pain in the ass...." before. So much chatter. I'll see what happens with the laptop, and report back.

Big news! Because of several issues regarding compatibility and resource usage, I've decided to try some version of Linux on my workshop PC. I use the machine mainly for ready internet access (saves a lot of dirty footprints for Mrs. Tbone to clean up after) and for email. Oh, and for music; I'm a Pandora junkie. Games are out of the question, since the hardware is really too old and the monitor is too small and weak.

I have tweaked the system over the years, stretching it to 1.5 gigs of RAM, installing the best P4 chip I could find that would run on the mobo, latest BIOS... but it's still a first generation P4 board with an 800 MHz front end and a 2-gig RAM ceiling. Forget 64-bit. AGP video (8X!), and NO PCI-E slots.  A small rodent on a treadmill gallops steadfastly to generate juice to keep my CMOS stuff in order.

Please favor me with a recommendation. Ubuntu? Something else? What works well with older (not quite old) hardware? What flies and zips and makes me not miss my WinXP?

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 20, 2012, 08:31:26 PM
Big news! Because of several issues regarding compatibility and resource usage, I've decided to try some version of Linux on my workshop PC. I use the machine mainly for ready internet access (saves a lot of dirty footprints for Mrs. Tbone to clean up after) and for email. Oh, and for music; I'm a Pandora junkie. Games are out of the question, since the hardware is really too old and the monitor is too small and weak.

I have tweaked the system over the years, stretching it to 1.5 gigs of RAM, installing the best P4 chip I could find that would run on the mobo, latest BIOS... but it's still a first generation P4 board with an 800 MHz front end and a 2-gig RAM ceiling. Forget 64-bit. AGP video (8X!), and NO PCI-E slots.  A small rodent on a treadmill gallops steadfastly to generate juice to keep my CMOS stuff in order.

Please favor me with a recommendation. Ubuntu? Something else? What works well with older (not quite old) hardware? What flies and zips and makes me not miss my WinXP?

Try the recent 12.04 Ubuntu.......