Choosing a desktop platform usually involves the choice between Windows or Macintosh. There are a few factors which people consider when they are choosing a desktop platform. In no particular order, people want application compatibility, stability, security, performance, and ease of use.When we look at desktop market share, we can see the following (as of statistics reported in October of 2008): Windows boasts the lead with 91% market share, down 5% from March of 2003. Mac holds 6% market share, an increase of 4% from March, 2003. Finally, Linux has doubled its market share since 2003 with a current 4%. While the Windows operating system does seem to be losing ground, it is Apple that must be credited with the loss. While the Linux market share has improved, it is still obviously not a major contender.
What is required of Linux to compete, as Apple has with the Windows operating system? Certainly, as is this case with any market, a product must offer either something different or a more optimal way of doing the same. It seems that Linux is in a difficult position here because what makes it so different, and what it offers, seem to be things which would not be held as important by the majority of the user base.
Linux (or more specifically, free software) allows one to freely manipulate their software and even the operating system. This is one huge perk it has over the competition, but the perk provides functionality that is only desired by a comparative few. The average user does not know programming languages, nor have the time to code a program. This is one of the perks of Linux which unfortunately, is not a perk at all when contrasted with the intended user base.
Linux advocates will tout that Linux offers a more secure work environment than Windows, but there is already an alternative that exists that boasts such. Macintosh has no doubt made many of its sales to users who were seeking escape from the perceived malware and virus infested world of Windows. If given a choice, I would wager that people choose Macintosh over Linux and Windows in regards to security, not necessarily to imply that Macintosh is more secure than Linux, but there are factors which are leading people to choose alternatives over Linux in areas where Linux may offer the most!
Application compatibility is a huge issue for people deciding which operating system to use. Windows is obviously king in this area as the wealth of applications on Mac and Linux do not come close. This is not to imply that Linux does not have many applications, it does, and most offer the same functionality as their alternatives (and they are free!) but still this is not enough to urge the migration of users from the two leading platforms, to the present day underdog.
Performance is an area which Linux can make some headway, but the majority of performance claims are made in comparison to Windows on old machines. Linux definitely can act as life support system for an otherwise deceased set of hardware, but with the falling prices of consumer computers there is no reason to use the legacy type. It is suspected that people will take a knock in performance for what is perceived to be a leap in ease-of-use.
Is Linux desktop ready? This question is asked numerous times every year and I think we are finally at a place where we can say boldly, yes it is! But desktop ready means nothing if people won't adapt the platform!
Distributions have made the previously looming task of setting up and using a Linux system a breeze. Ubuntu has made great leaps in this department, with many other distros following suit. Using Ubuntu, I was able to use the platform for a great number of months without needing to drop to the command line. I would out of habit, but was never at any point required to do so.
What is needed from the Linux community is an advertising push. We have seen the effects of good advertising on the part of Apple, and it is high time to see the same from the Linux community. Novell or Ubuntu by means of Mark Shuttleworth must step up and finance an advertising campaign that serves a few purposes. To be honest, they have started campaigning (and IBM in the past) but nothing that is on the level of what Apple did with Macintosh. The campaign will get the name of Linux out there, a great number of computer users still do not know what Linux is, and have a puzzled look whenever Open Source Software is mentioned. It must show that Linux is just as good as the other platforms in some areas, and better in others. If enough excitement can be generated from this seemingly 'new and free contender to the desktop market', we might see more demand. With more demand comes more possibilities.
It will take a lot of torque to shift the view of an alternative to Windows being Macintosh, to being Linux. This is where Linux must arise as not another alternative, but a pioneer in a different way of computing. This task will not be easy in 2009 with Windows 7 and Snow Leopard scheduled for release, but there is still the possibility that with some key advertising and a few visionary members of the community working to improve application compatibility (or with advertising that motivates some to switch applications completely), Linux might slowly begin to crawl out of its dark corner and have a place in the consumer world.
As it stands right now, on this the beginning of the year 2009, Linux has the following advantages: it's open-source and it's free. Linux must add to this list, while at the same time stop playing catch-up with the other platform and move in an entirely new revolutionary direction. Which direction that may be, I am not sure. Though if I was, the direction would not be that revolutionary.
Famous last words
It's so god damn annoying hearing this year after year...
Is this the year?... dun dun dun. No, it isn't.
The only avenue I see linux exploiting are netbooks, but if Microsoft shapes up (as it is clearly trying to do), they will probably squash that with Windows 7
Naturally people will complain about massive corporations stunting the growth of Linux, but really it comes down to this:
Another thing is, linux has yet to make major headway into the gamers market. Sure you can probably get Wine to do it if you tweaked with it enough, but the experience wouldn't be the same and for most people it's just not worth it.
My kids wanted to try Guild Wars, so went to their website, and the installer exe ran with wine by clicking (again, just click). And it plays just like on Windows, as near as I can tell.
Install is fairly straight forward nowadays on the most popular distros if you also disregard that how it's done slightly differs for each distro.
The fact that I can monitor new available versions of every software I have installed automatically is something I really miss in Windows.
Questions with obvious answers, but only obvious if you know stuff about Linux.
Questions with obvious answers, but only obvious if you know stuff about Linux.
That's exactly on the mark... from the p.o.v. of someone who's used windows all of my life (since i gave up the old c64), i keep trying and giving up because all i get are answers like "wtf? you didn't run it from wine??" or "if you just start up the terminal and enter the command......."
it needs to be intuitive to people coming over from other o.s. not just to people who are designing them.
Questions with obvious answers, but only obvious if you know stuff about Linux.
They don't need to know what a "repository" is. Just run their package manager program and click on the programs they want, then click "apply".
Likewise they don't need to know what wine is. Just run the exe, and click "ok" when it prompts to run that exe with wine.
Do users in Windows need to know what a DLL is to run their programs? No.
Questions with obvious answers, but only obvious if you know stuff about Linux.
They don't need to know what a "repository" is. Just run their package manager program and click on the programs they want, then click "apply".
Likewise they don't need to know what wine is. Just run the exe, and click "ok" when it prompts to run that exe with wine.
Do users in Windows need to know what a DLL is to run their programs? No.
Does windows prompt you to select a DLL to use when running a program? And do you have any idea of the amount of problems caused when that DLL just happens to be missing?
But what IS a package manager? When you know what you're looking for on a computer, it's easy to say "Oh just use this", but when a complete novice first sees that Linux desktop, they have no idea where to begin. Even windows, for as long as I can remember, starts up with a "take a tour of windows..." popup. The best I've seen a Linux distro do is pop up the release notes for that particular distro.
To this day, pretty much every guide I've ever read on switching to linux, at some point, ALWAYS say "now open up a terminal window and type the following command..." and I'm sorry to say, this isn't the early 90's any more, if there isn't a button or a checkbox to click to do something, novice users are simply not going to know. What's a package manager? That's just a fancy term computer geeks use. as much as us experienced users hate them (and probably why Linux doesn't use them), we need more wizards, more "helpful" popups and dialogues and most importantly, a way to do just about everything with the mouse.
For example, Net Applications puts Mac OS at 9.63%.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-...rame=M&qpsp=119
Last edited by LTD on 01 Jan 2009 - 20:48
On servers, of course, things are quite different for Linux.
7.86% on August , 9.63% on December ... sales slowed down considerably compared to first half of year... maybe... Hackintosh!? EFI-X and all that?
With the popularity of netbooks that include linux, i think more users will become used to using linux, and since netbooks are targeted mostly towards students, those that travel, it's a great way to introduce students who are willing to learn and try out new things such as linux to be familiar with the OS. Not to mention the fact so many devices run Linux (garmin navigation/routers/Large Hadron Collider, some nokia phones, etc) The potential is amazing once everyone figures out the potential they will surely see clear reasons
I think it's a good direction!
Linux is far from being a famous desktop enviroment. A lot of people don't like it.
Too bad most people that buy a linux netbook end up returning it.
Source?
He's talking about the MSI units. Only MSI has reported this disparity, and ASUS has confirmed that they have not seen a disparity. MSI uses SUSE, and they have a poor network driver installed on their Linux units which causes periodic loss of connectivity. I would return any unit that lost connection, regardless of OS.
But 39 Thieves (and others) chooses to believe that this is an overall rejection of Linux as an OS by the consumer instead of a single-vendor hardware config issue.
I know, that's why I asked
OS X market share is closer to 10%. Counting the surge in December sales for Apple, OS X is now at 9.63 according to Net Applications.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-...rame=M&qpsp=119
Linux was never intended to be anything more than a kernel. Taken a bit further, GNU/Linux was intended as a freely licensed (and for most part freely downloadable) alternative to proprietary UNIX systems.
A lot of people assume that "desktop Linux" is a player of the same kind as Windows and OS X. It isn't. And people's expectations of Linux, given its nature and development model, have gone from too high to downright unreasonable.
Linux is not here to compete directly with Windows or OS X. Some Linux advocates would like the platform to compete this way and are trying to push it in that direction, but it was never meant to. It was never meant to be "user-friendly". It was never meant to be easier to use than Windows.
It was meant as a way to get a grade in a class. Then it became a passion for Linus Torvalds, then others caught his passion for it. The use of Linux should be a labour of love. You spend countless hours tweaking a system that is a completely open book, and are rewarded for all of your work. Linux is something that is supposed to offer challenges because you want those challenges. You want that level of configurability and complete control. Don't like what Shuttleworth and Co. are doing with Ubuntu? No problem. Head over to Arch Linux for a different experience. Want to roll your own? Roll up your sleeves and get dirty with Gentoo. Want something purely minimalist? Then head for Damn Small Linux. There is no standardization or "overarching vision" intended here. That's the beauty of it. That's the whole point. Demanding that Linux adhere to a monoculture will not only destroy this diversity but also result in some very ugly and very lengthy growing pains. And I assure you, the Gentoo developers and Arch developers, for example, will have none of it.
Why people expect an open source set of distributions, that by their very nature do not fit into a tightly controlled, hierarchical model of development to compete in this way is beyond me. There is no Jobsian singular vision here. There is no central control. There are no deadlines the likes that MS and Apple have. And why should there be when Linux is a free, open-source phenomenon? But demand has driven Linux into a range of new (and sometimes unfortunate) directions, and understandably the results have been mixed. Desktop Linux is getting there, and that's great, but it isn't meant to function as a free version of Windows. You can write articles and argue how much better it would be for users if "it" would advertise, centralize goals and move in one, focused direction. But Linux really isn't set up for that, regardless of how impressive and easy Ubuntu may be, for example.
Linux might indeed be a force to be reckoned with now and in the future - it has made impressive strides, but don't expect it to compete in the same class and in the same way as Windows. It doesn't operate on the same timeline or development cycle as the big players when it comes to the desktop, not simply because it was never meant to, but because it doesn't have the kind of control that would allow it to. It's a kernel that provides the basis for infinite configurability without being railroaded into any one direction. Linux has and always will exist as an alternative, whether it commands 1% market share or 5% market share. It makes no difference. Linux will still be free, and available for anyone to take in any direction.
Windows users want to change Linux because many of them believe that their "refuge" from Windows should be similar, better, and easier on the same scale. It doesn't work like that. Granted, some of the old traditions are being broken as developers are trying to drag an open source beast into an otherwise commercial market. Fair enough, but we just need to understand that the results won't always be pretty. Tight standardization doesn't happen overnight. And if it will ever happen to Linux in earnest because a certain set of users say it should, then we need to be willing to give it plenty of time to start being what it isn't.
Last edited by LTD on 02 Jan 2009 - 00:19
Firefox is open-source, also "work from thousands of dedicated developers", and its used by many people all over the internet. Although it was created by tech enthusiasts, they made a rock solid product with simple interface and easy-to-use. There are modded versions of Firefox, and the "core" of Firefox, its rendering engine, is used for many other browsers.
And still, it's used by normal users .
So, where linux is different? It isn't. It's possible to create developer-only distributions and it's possible to create user-friendly distributions. Creating user-friendly distributions won't make it commercial. Firefox has a big user base and its not commercial... .
You're suggesting that an user-friendly linux distro would become commercial and therefore disrespect every "freedom" concept.
In one thing I agree, linux is not made for convincing users to make the choice, linux is made for them to freely make the choice. I'm not against advertisements, since people are free to try linux and then replace it if they don't like it. They are not locking users to the OS, they let the user choose another OS and dual/triple boot if the user wants. But one thing is true: after users have replaced linux, they most times come back. Because you appreciate the freedom it gives you, and you end up coming back to create your own Personal Computer, with no restrictions.
And its really universal, i mean, it works on every PC (Win, Mac, etc.) with endless hardware.
"Think for yourself", that's the best kind of ads i have ever seen. They fit to the Linux philosophy by asking people to, instead of hearing and reading opinions, to try it. "Try it, we don't charge you for trying 'cause we are free and because we promote freedom, you can use Live CDs, and you can get your own conclusions about the OS."
In my opinion you are worrying too much about "what linux is meant to be" . Linux is meant to be free. That's the only thing it's meant to be. Everything else, it's the developers who decide. Linux is meant to be everything developers want to, and that's part of the Linux freedom.
Yes, linux is not meant to compete with microsoft, or apple, or [put company name here]. Linux is labour of love. But that "labour of love" might be a great OS. And Linux is not competing with Microsoft, it expects users to freely come by themselves, again, with their own thoughts.
Last edited by Ricmacas on 02 Jan 2009 - 03:17
As I said, "And Linux is not competing with Microsoft, it expects users to freely come by themselves, again, with their own thoughts. ".
But yeah, he has many good points above.
I don't think it's happened in 10 years either. Every distro out there has a completely different way of doing things. Some may argue that this is a good thing, but I see it as a hinderance and that some major standardization needs to be implimented if it's ever to be taken seriously as a desktop contender. Some of the steps that's needed to get video drivers working right and rebuilding the kernel source against them are not going to win any favors from the people that *nix is trying to get a foot in the door with.
I don't think it's happened in 10 years either. Every distro out there has a completely different way of doing things. Some may argue that this is a good thing, but I see it as a hinderance and that some major standardization needs to be implimented if it's ever to be taken seriously as a desktop contender. Some of the steps that's needed to get video drivers working right and rebuilding the kernel source against them are not going to win any favors from the people that *nix is trying to get a foot in the door with.
Does Linux really need to be a desktop contender? Why should there be that level of standardization?
Last edited by LTD on 02 Jan 2009 - 00:42
The "whole package" doesn't need to be a certain standard, but some of the otherwise archaic ways of doing certain operations should.
Major standarization might sound great as a push for linux on the desktop, but it hasn't happened and will probably never really happen for a simple reason: that would go against the point of releasing different distros in many situations.
Things make more sense if you consider distros as different highly compatible operating systems, rather than versions of the same OS with lots of differences.
Solution is easy: release the drivers as open source so they can be included in the kernel tree.
It might seem stubborness on the kernel devs' side, but the idea is developing a kernel that's highly portable, not something that works great on X architecture but doesn't support crap on Y.
http://www.wine-doors.org/wordpress/
navigate to the downloads page, and install your installation type. I had the easy route and could install from an RPM.
Step 2: Run the program from your main menu Applications--> System --> Wine-doors. This was for Fedora 9, I did not try any other distro's yet.
Step 3: Fill in some basic username information that is in regards to YOUR computer.
Step 4: choose which programs you would like to install. I Choose Steam, the Tahoma truetype font, and the DirectX 9 runtime stuff.
Step 5: Hit apply
Step 6: Programs are downloaded and installed automatically.
Step 7: VERY IMPORTANT!!! Restart your os. For some reason it took me two or three restarts but I have a fully functioning steam client.
At first I was disappointed because my steam client didn't show up with the tahoma font, but now everything is visible. Also something of note, I installed the adobe flash player before trying to run steam. I'm not sure if it affected it or not, but if your superstitious, reboot 3 times, install adobe flash player (rpm) and then open steam from main menu Applications --> Other --> Steam.
Source: http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Steam_under_Linux
Linux became so easy to use these days that a 7-year old can use a Linux desktop without any difficulty (seen it happen). Being "difficult" is not an excuse no more, GNU/Linux to the masses is the trend now.
If that's what Canonical want, fine. If their userbase wants it too, great. Linux by it's very nature can be anything you want it to be.
What is wrong, though, is the assumption that all Linux users want this, when the truth is that actually we're really happy with our minority-use OS.
But, again, linux is a "labour of love" from tech enthusiasts, that doesn't mean it's only made for other tech enthusiasts. Most of "the minority" are geeks, but why not expand to users? Sometimes tech enthusiasts also like to restart and create a clean and simple environment for everyday use. Yes, because we also get tired of consoles/terminals/command lines . That's why many Microsoft geeks use Macs at home, because when they get home, they don't want to handle the same problems they handle at work.
Why should Linux Compete? It is Free. It works for me and does what I need to do. I don't worry about virus and such. So why does it have to compete? Compete with who? Linux is not Windows or Mac. Linux can be anything you want.
Mel_B
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.