The Market has Rejected Linux Desktops!?

[Zidane24]

I’ve been running Linux on PCs since 1998, when Red Hat still cared about the desktop and Mandrake was supposed to be the distribution that was going to bring Linux to the masses. That was also about the time that the mainstream media got infatuated with the story of the free operating system from the Finnish hacker that was going to bring down Microsoft Windows.
Spoiler alert: I’m going to give away the ending now. It never happened. In the decade since it was first proclaimed as the “Windows killer,” Linux on the desktop has made virtually no progress in real adoption numbers. According to market share trackers (based on real PC activity and not just sales) such Net Applications, StatCounter, W3Counter, and others, the market share of Linux has been hovering around just 1-2% of total PC operating system installations for a decade.
Even in the past two years since the netbook phenomenon began with Linux as its primary OS, Linux market share has failed to make a major jump. The chart below, based on Internet visitors tracked by Net Applications, shows the trajectory of Linux desktop market share over the past 24 months.

Read more here

Opinions?

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

Until linux becomes more user-friendly, I don't see it becoming that popular. I mean hell, its bad when it takes you about 20 minutes to figure out how to do something that should only take about 1 minute at the most.

 

[thefabe]

Wow what surised me the most was how many people had something to say about it. Went on and on and on.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
if you use that analogy then you could say the market has rejected "Ferrari's" as a Car. It's "Horses for Courses".

Linux as a universal desktop does have a critical weakness against it - since there isn't any real "Common" Distro. However this is also a strength in that a user can customize and optimize it in anyway he wants to.

Obviously where standardisation etc is required such as on workplace desktops then Linux is not a viable option in most instances.

For servers a different consideration applies -- although W2008 and W2003 windows servers started the MS fightback.

For large scale Virtualisation "Server" farms a small Linux kernel often powers these servers very efficiently -- but this is way beyond a "Desktop" OS.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[smarteyeball]

Linux will always have a place, but the likelihood of it ever being a simple "install disc, click file, application easily works" is highly unlikely. (compared to Windows/MAC anyway )

Until such, it will never be considered a 'true desktop' replacement. Distros like ubuntu and Opensuse et al are making great progress, but are still far behind the curve. And that curve is forever widening.

As much as I like some distros, I always end up primarily using Windows. Some of that is based on familiarity, application compatibility or an overall lack of patience with counterintuitive behavior that is inherent with linux distros.

As it stands now, and for the foreseeable future, Linux will remain a 'niche' sector in desktop computing.

 

[pparks1]

As an avid Linux user, I don't really ever want to see Linux as "the desktop" for the majority of computers. In order to accomplish that, the Linux community would have to standardize and make firm decisions on behalf of the end-user and that eliminates the spirit of Linux as far as I am concerned.

Linux has it's place...and it's not with the majority of computer users. Linux is heavily geared towards more savvy users and users who want to understand what it is that they are doing. It's one of the reasons I think Linux often stays more secure....the end-user has to read up and learn what they are doing in order to accomplish something...they don't simply just click around in the GUI and figure it out (as they often do with Windows...but then have an unsecured box or service running and don't even know it).

To me, the beauty of Linux is that it provides me with an "alternative" to Windows and being tied to a licensing and activation system that I might not want to use on all of my computers.

 

[nate42nd]

I like messing around with Linux on old desktops. It's fun to play with, but for a desktop OS? No way!

Most users would be taking a trip to the shop the first problem they ran into. Most computer users could not give advice because Linux is not that popular. There are reasons why it's not to popular, i have to agree with pparks1, Linux has it's place. That place is small devices like phones, and large servers. It will never be a "mainstream" user unless it changes drastically.

 

[FuturDreamz]

Until every piece of hardware is Linux-compatible out of the box Linux will almost always be very complicated to install if something is not immediately compatible.
I propose a Universal Driver Format, which would be drivers for hardware that any operating system can use.

 

[nate42nd]

Until every piece of hardware is Linux-compatible out of the box Linux will almost always be very complicated to install if something is not immediately compatible.
I propose a Universal Driver Format, which would be drivers for hardware that any operating system can use.

As long as money is there to be made, this will never happen. It would be nice.

 

[pparks1]

Until every piece of hardware is Linux-compatible out of the box Linux will almost always be very complicated to install if something is not immediately compatible.
I propose a Universal Driver Format, which would be drivers for hardware that any operating system can use.

The problem with Linux compatible hardware are hardware manufacturers who don't put in the time and energy to release Linux drivers for their peripherals. For me, I personally do research and usually don't invest in peripheral manufacturers who do not provide Linux driver support. At the end of the day, I'd almost be willing to bet that these manufacturers also have incentives from certain parties (ahem Microsoft), which encourage them to not put forth the time and effort necessary. And without the demand resulting in financial gains from the Linux community, the manufacturer is probably better financially for turning their backs on users. Sad, but likely true.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
actually I think the problem with Drivers may become less and less in future.

Take USB devices these days . It's reasonably possible to define a "Common" USB interface so actually writing the code to interface with the actual hardware wouldn't be too much of a problem.

You can see some of this already being implemented in some scanner software for example -- Vuescan -- (not free) will drive loads and loads of older scanners that W7 doesn't have official drivers for.

So long as the piece of hardware has some type of API then it wouldn't take a humungously skilled programmer a lot of work to hobble up say a USB driver for the device.

Video drivers are already pretty well catered for in Linux, and often the 3D implementation is actually better than Windows.

I think most people have problems with Mobile Phones and TV cards in Linux -- nearly everything else works --you just have to search a lot more than you do with W7 and sometimes you may have to compile a module or even compile a kernel.

But I agree - it's NOT a general purpose Desktop OS. It's great to use but not for the guys who just want to switch on a computer and start working.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[jradicle11]

I like messing around with Linux on old desktops. It's fun to play with, but for a desktop OS? No way!

Most users would be taking a trip to the shop the first problem they ran into. Most computer users could not give advice because Linux is not that popular. There are reasons why it's not to popular, i have to agree with pparks1, Linux has it's place. That place is small devices like phones, and large servers. It will never be a "mainstream" user unless it changes drastically.

I was running Ubuntu for a few months. It ran quite smoothly. I encountered many problems and solved every single one of them just by googling it.

The only thing I didn't like was not being able to use .exe files. That could be a big problem for your every day user. I also really missed microsoft office. Open office is really nice, but it's just not the same.

 

[Lordbob75]

As I have said before, the real problem behind Linux (in my opinion) is not really its own fault.

Because Windows has the lions market share, MOST applications and new computers use Windows. How many people could easily find a substitute for everyday programs that work (instantly, and easily) on Linux? Excluding OO, browsers, etc.

Windows just has that advantage. If Linux were sold on desktops at, say BestBuy, with applications, etc, then people would buy and use it. But its not.

~Lordbob