why Linux desktop remains below 5%

[Coolerthanyou]

A lot of distros may be a waste of time if you actually look at them all. But usually it's a good bet that the ones you hear about the most are generally the better ones. Up until recently, I thought it would be good to go through all of them. But no, it is a waste of time. It's just a matter of preference at the end. So I root for somewhat of a standardization, I'm with you. Ubuntu seems nice since appearently so much effort is going into it. The selling of the community is just hype though. It's no better in usefulness than any other top distro community. 5% of desktop use? That doesn't sound too bad, and to be honest I think it's growing a bit faster than before these days. But that doesn't mean MS will fall. That's not going to happen anytime soon. Not even close, any given competitors will be nuisances to MS, at best. We could talk endlessly as to "why", but we all know why even without words.

[JN4OldSchool]

It's gonna sound like I'm switching sides in a minute, but I assure you I'm not. But a few points to clear up.

Michael Dell did indeed say what is quoted. It was in one of the magazines, Linux Pro I think. And he has a great point. Dell would have to support, either directly or indirectly any OS they provide. This means more staff, more resources, more time. Those of us in the know say this is really a non-issue. Just pack anything on the HD: Linspire, PCLinuxOS, Ubuntu whatever. Once the buyer gets his feet wet he is always free to try any other distro. But long time Windows users just dont know this. It IS part of their buying decision as to what OS they get with their new PC. Like it or not they are wrapped up in "what is the best distro." I'm sure you remember how it was when you started in Linux. I was the same. COOLER just mentioned it again. Which distro do I get? It really is a major decision to a newbie.

I agree with COOLER that 95% of the distros are a waste of time, at least to me. I am sure everyone has their very own favorite nonstream distro, mine is Puppy Linux. But they are all just more of the same thing. I dont think this is bad, in fact I love the idea that I myself can package what I think is the best distro and release it. But once you get to know Linux you will just end up changing any distro to your own customized version anyway. There are a few hard decisions you are pretty much stuck with. What package managment/repos do you use, or you can always just compile from source. Debian based or RPM based. But hell, anything else you can pretty much change on the fly. Dont like the KDE that came with your distro? Just get Gnome, or Fluxbox, or XFce, or Enlightenment...Dont like OO.o for some strange reason? Ditch it and get Abbiword instead. The Koffice suite isnt too bad either. Unfortunatly, Windows users thinking about switching dont usually realize that Linux is this flexable. They think what they install off the Distro CD/DVD is what they get. So yes, I do see this as a factor.

[tomcat]

Michael Dell did indeed say what is quoted.

I know, but nonetheless he ships Linux boxes. I only wanted to show that there are always two sides on any business decision involved. If you can make cash with Linux, then you will ship Linux on your Dell-boxes, too.

I agree with COOLER that 95% of the distros are a waste of time, at least to me.

For "Joe Average", this is true, for software developers, things are different of course. And most distros are not developed with newcomers in mind, but for very special tasks, so cheking specialized distros is only something for those who really seek those ready-built solutions like e.g. a small firewall/router solution, a cli based server, a gui base server, a distro for forensics, ...

[Omega Blue]

Originally Posted by JN4OldSchool

Dell would have to support, either directly or indirectly any OS they provide. This means more staff, more resources, more time.

Well it's not like they are supporting Windows. The only thing Dell has to do is to make sure the distro they preload has all the drivers for the boxes.

I think bundling Linux is a smart move, because it is less problematic than Windows for the most part (except for drivers AFAIK), esp if you pick a stable distro such as RedHat Enterprise, CentOS, or debian.

Originally Posted by JN4OldSchool

I agree with COOLER that 95% of the distros are a waste of time, at least to me. I am sure everyone has their very own favorite nonstream distro, mine is Puppy Linux.

Never heard of it. Is it related to Yellow Dog?

[w5set]

????
Ahhhh--yes--but Dell does support Linux.
Servers..

Operating System
Note: Dell does not certify and is unable to provide support on this server when installed with an operating system not listed below. If self installing an operating system, the no FD/CD option may require the use of an external floppy drive, CD drive, or USB key.

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...=MLB1580&s=biz
and ships configured to run Linux i386 and IA64 with system configed and supported/guarenteed to preform.
workstations..
http://catalog.us.dell.com/CS1/CS1Pa...210&l=en&s=biz
No matter what Dell said in which interview--he ships preconfigured Linux boxes (note distro).

And I would figure that everyone knows HP is heavily into Linux/Opensource.
Mostly folks don't know that alternatives are available or are just users and figure a major change from Win xx is a large step to take since they can just get by with a desktop usage now.
But then again, there is coming daylight --read this....
http://business.newsforge.com/articl...51224&from=rss
Looks like Linux is poised at the edge.

[Finalzone]

Originally Posted by Omega Blue

Never heard of it. Is it related to Yellow Dog?

Nope. Puppix Linux is similar to Slackware. It aimed to run on very old PCs like Winbook XL and is only 60MB compressed Live CD or pendrive.

[JN4OldSchool]

Never heard of it. Is it related to Yellow Dog?

Nope. Puppix Linux is similar to Slackware. It aimed to run on very old PCs like Winbook XL and is only 60MB compressed Live CD or pendrive.

Yeah. Going even further, it is a superlightweight like DSL or Feather Linux. The full Puppy has a ton of apps on it. I daresay you could use it as a main desktop and not really miss anything in the ISO form. Of course it also uses a synaptic like package manager and you can find what you need for it. The 60MB regular version live CD runs totally in RAM and is very very fast. You can of course install it on the hard drive too. I like the barebones Puppy which is a whopping 38MB!!! This is just awesome to me. 38MB and I can still preform any function I need to. The older versions had X problems, but the latest releases seem a lot more stable and I have run it on about 8 different computers without any problems. You should check it out, the 38MB download just takes seconds. Very fun to play with.

[leadgolem]

I just thought I would relate a few personal experiences.

1. I know exactly how and what I want, and where to get everything, for both my windows and linux sides. It takes me roughly 12 hours to install everything for windows from scratch. It takes me about 6 to do the same for fedora.

2. Every job I have had required computer skills of some kind, including stocking shoes at kmart.

3. I have been able to replace the following applications with opensource apps that do almost the same thing: a program to extract selective files from an .iso, nero, alcohol 120%, Internet exploder, partition magic, ms office, photoshop, adobe illustrator, 3dsmax, bejeweled, mine sweeper, tetravex, pinball, windows media player, notepad, mahjongg, audio crusher, lamexp, Magix audio cleaning lab, diablo, quake, bounce out, id3tagit, and civilization the original.

4. Applications I have not been able to find an acceptable opensource replacement for: Winavi, mp3directcut, winhiip, and solveig avi trimmer.

5.The hd on my mothers win98 pc dieded. Being unwilling to purchase a new computer she asked me to fix it for her. I explained to her about win 98 support going completely away, and that she would have to buy a new copy of an updated windows to get anything but very basic functionality out of her system. She didn't want to do that either, so, I installed fc5 for her on a spare hd I had. She has been using the system for about 6 months now, with the exception of still liking photoshop better then the gimp she is now a linux convert. She does more then the average home user with her computer.
5.1 She has a scanner that has no functioning driver past win 98. I work just fine in linux.

6. I myself have two pieces of hardware that currently do not function in linux, a lexmark z55 printer and a atsc/ntsc tv card. I consider these acceptable losses. Since in the two years I've been running linux I have never had to reinstall it because it became unstable. I was reinstalling windows roughtly every six months.

In my personal opionion the reason opensource software, and linux in particular, doesn't command a larger market share is lack of an advertising budget.

[RupertPupkin]

Why is Linux's desktop share below 5%? Well, I honestly don't care. Lots of discussion and hot air will be generated by this topic, and it will amount and lead to nothing. As soon as the "there are too many distros" whining rears its head, that's when you know the discussion has become pointless. There will always be tons of distros, by the nature of the GPL. Don't like it? Then use Windows, because that's just the way Linux is.

For people worrying about Linux: relax, Linux is doing just fine.

[Omega Blue]

Since this thread has surfaced to the top again I'd add some more comments.

The assertion that "Linux's desktop share is below 5%" is extremely hard to support via hard facts. For starters anybody can download a copy of a distro, and proceed to install it on 1000 desktops. So how do you count Linux desktops?

[JN4OldSchool]

Originally Posted by Omega Blue

Since this thread has surfaced to the top again I'd add some more comments.

The assertion that "Linux's desktop share is below 5%" is extremely hard to support via hard facts. For starters anybody can download a copy of a distro, and proceed to install it on 1000 desktops. So how do you count Linux desktops?

yeah, I am starting to think about this lately. The numbers are always wrong, in anything you want to look at. If Fedora alone even has 1 million users (2 mil reported but for arguments sake lets be very conservative) think how many Ubuntu users are out there. How about debian? NASA uses debian as do many government agencies. Speaking about government departments...Man, them brits sure do dig that Gentoo! In the US you dont hear much about it but I would venture to guess that if it isnt the leading distro in England it is close. Every day more people switch. No, not a mass exodus but a slow steady trickle. 5 years ago I suspect that 5% figure might have been in the ballpark, but in that time I have watched Linux go from "huh? What the heck is a Linux?" to being a household word that most everyone at least knows what it is even if they never used it. As Omega Blue states, it is free to download and I suspect we all might just be surprised at the number of people who have at least attempted to use it never mind those who have switched. I may be reaching but it wouldnt surprise me to learn Linux has a solid 20% of desktops now, today, at this moment. I dont think there really is any way to know.

[Firewing1]

Originally Posted by JN4OldSchool

yeah, I am starting to think about this lately. The numbers are always wrong, in anything you want to look at. If Fedora alone even has 1 million users (2 mil reported but for arguments sake lets be very conservative) think how many Ubuntu users are out there. How about debian? NASA uses debian as do many government agencies. Speaking about government departments...Man, them brits sure do dig that Gentoo! In the US you dont hear much about it but I would venture to guess that if it isnt the leading distro in England it is close. Every day more people switch. No, not a mass exodus but a slow steady trickle. 5 years ago I suspect that 5% figure might have been in the ballpark, but in that time I have watched Linux go from "huh? What the heck is a Linux?" to being a household word that most everyone at least knows what it is even if they never used it. As Omega Blue states, it is free to download and I suspect we all might just be surprised at the number of people who have at least attempted to use it never mind those who have switched. I may be reaching but it wouldnt surprise me to learn Linux has a solid 20% of desktops now, today, at this moment. I dont think there really is any way to know.

I heard the France's government switched to Linux, too...
Firewing1

[rerushg]

It seems to me that counting updates would help determine user base count. Tracking updates to, say, FC6 balanced against downloads might provide some statistical info as to what percentage of downloads actually become in-use systems. If nothing else it would throw another piece if data into the discussion.

As for the British: Yep, they've always been world leaders in the concept of "practical approach". We Americans tend to just throw money at things. Witness the automobile: In 1978 I had a Mazda GLC that seated 4 comfortably and got over 40 MPG with the A/C blasting. (And somehow, incredibly, we managed to find our way without GPS.) Now it seems the auto industry is gonna have to completely re-invent the automobile to get back to that at 5 times the price.

In a larger sense, I think it's important for the open-source community to be aware of its strength. Big business has a nasty tendency to try to own everything. (Does anybody really think Enron was an anomaly?) There is already a lobbying effort in the US to establish "ownership" of the internet. I hardly think that resistance to the concept might come from the M$ community.
Splintering of the open-source community might leave it vulnerable to control by a government manipulated by big business flying the flag of "international security" or "intellectual copyright protection" or whatever can be thought up to spin it for the masses. Consider that it might be easy in high places to view the community as a sort of unknown, suspicious, "underbelly" that spends most of its time "worming around" the proprietary rights of others.
Who's to say that the government (motivated by $ influences) might take on, say, Red Hat on the basis of alleged legal or financial "discrepancies". The cost to defend is enormous. If in some backroom somewhere it becomes clear that all their problems will go away if Fedora goes away, well, who can blame 'em if they ditch it? After all, the wife and kids are on the line.

I came to Linux a few months ago for the intellectual challenge and not so much anti-M$ or looking for "free-software" (time = money, therefore Linux ain't free). I could easily buy a quad core with SLI, run Vista Deluxe, and throw it up on a mega-inch 1080p LCD or plasma, and play solitare blissfully while the aero-windows come flying at me. But somehow there's a "quality of life" issue with all that that I can't deal with.
What I've found here is a phenomenon, a movement perhaps even destined to be a revolution. Indeed, name one other human effort that is truly global and cross-cultural. (By the way: Who's working on the Global Warming for Linux app?)

Point is: Perhaps there should be a very serious effort by the Linux community to "formalize" itself more clearly and understand where it stands as a whole in the total scheme of world politics. As Linux grows it will likely become a target for those whose "quality of life" criteria are not so pure. A little preparation doesn't hurt: My father taught me to avoid a fight if at all possible. At the same time he taught me how to fight in case it couldn't be avoided.

[JN4OldSchool]

rerushg, I am fighting against that. On the surface it sounds great, we have people screaming "standardize" all the time. What if Linux could become more mainstream, one size fits all? Easier to use? Formalize itself? But...in so doing wont we become the very thing we hate? I am actually for "anti-growth." I dont necessarilly want everyone running Linux. Oh sure, I spread the word, talk nice about it. I am always up for helping out an eager young user looking to learn. But I would sure hate to see Linux become "too" easy to use. I would prefer to remain the "geeky elite" at least for a little while longer. I like the freedom of choice and lack of strings Linux currently provides and I am willing to sacrifice ease of use, auto config, plug and play idiot proof to keep it. I enjoy learning and tinkering and just regret I didnt find Linux 5 years earlier. Not at the beginning when you had to be a programer to use it, had to write your own drivers even. But I would have liked to have jumped in around '98. As it is, I got in on the ground floor of the commercialization era of Linux. When I started the going question was "is Linux ready for the average user?" I think that for well over a year now that answer is a no brainer, an emphatic "hell yeah!" And it just gets easier and better every day. Like I always say, enjoy it now folks because I have a feeling this will be looked back on as the golden years.

[rerushg]

JN4OldSchool:
Extraordinarily well said. Perhaps there's nothing to be done except to let the Linux child come of age and see what happens.
I recognize that "formalize and standardize" is a double-edged sword. While it would likely increase the user base more rapidly, leading to strength in numbers, it does have that nasty tendency to limit creativity.
Maybe I've just hung around corporate America too much and I'm ever fearful of it's inherent desire to destroy anything that is "free"; the profit motive rules. As long as Linux flies under the radar it's no threat. When it rises up, look out.
The really interesting thing here is that you, the forums, the community, ARE Linux. Fedora, Ubuntu, and the other distros are largely abstract faceless entities to us newer users. We communicate with you guys. You have knowledge, opinions, insights, and personality; all crucial to to making the thing work. If the distros are forced out it will fall to you guys to keep it going.
Maybe the next golden age for you "geeky elitists" will be to take Linux "underground" and find a way to keep it going for the devoted. Maybe the key then will be to de-formalize and de-standardize it. Enteresting concept.

Thanks for the conversation. It's a pleasure talking with you.