Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare - Linux

This is a discussion on Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare - Linux ; On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:39:28 -0400, Sophie McDowell wrote: > > "ray" wrote in message > news an.2007.10.29.20.59.25.763741@zianet.com... >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:00:09 -0400, Keith Windsor wrote: >> >>> Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare >>> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare

  1. Re: Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:39:28 -0400, Sophie McDowell wrote:

    >
    > "ray" wrote in message
    > newsan.2007.10.29.20.59.25.763741@zianet.com...
    >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:00:09 -0400, Keith Windsor wrote:
    >>
    >>> Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> It isn't.

    >
    > You're correct. It's actually 0.6% by most accounts. But they probably got
    > the 1% figure by "rounding up."


    I believe you are wrong - the figures I see run 5% to 10%.


  2. Re: Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith

    wrote
    on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:26:51 -0500
    :
    > In article <2m9iv4-4u2.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>,
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >> Indeed, especially since the 10Ks' suggest Linux has 3% of
    >> Microsoft's Windows revenue. Either I'm misinterpreting
    >> something (possible, as I'm not a lawyer, investment
    >> advisor, or other such expert) or he is.

    >
    > Have you factored in average unit cost? A Windows XP or Vista license
    > for the copy bundled with a computer is something like $50 (ballpark).
    > The typical Redhat product is a lot more than that.


    This is true, but what is market share, then? It is
    possible that RedHat is overpricing its stuff (in which
    case savvy IT departments can switch over to Fedora,
    Debian, Gentoo, or Slackware, with a local distribution
    tree).

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  3. Re: Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare

    Keith Windsor wrote:

    > Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare


    [snip]

    Weird. Just a quick check of my web server acceess log for the past few days
    shows some 250 Linux hosts and some 2,000 Windows hosts visiting my Web
    pages -- and I already filtered out all the bots and spiders from those
    numbers, and of course duplicate IP addresses.
    And even hough my Web site is almost completely OS neutral in its content,
    let's say that half of those 250 Linux hosts are somehow related to my
    Linux activities. That would leave a Linux user base of some 6% -- which, I
    believe, is quite in the ball park. So forget this 1% number. There are
    dozens of millions of Linux /desktop/ users out there.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl/

  4. Re: Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare

    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article <2m9iv4-4u2.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>,
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >>Indeed, especially since the 10Ks' suggest Linux has 3% of
    >>Microsoft's Windows revenue. Either I'm misinterpreting
    >>something (possible, as I'm not a lawyer, investment
    >>advisor, or other such expert) or he is.

    >
    >
    > Have you factored in average unit cost? A Windows XP or Vista license
    > for the copy bundled with a computer is something like $50 (ballpark).
    > The typical Redhat product is a lot more than that.


    Funny, I recall being told here only a little while back that linux was
    *free* and they couldn't even give it away. Now suddenly the average
    price is more than windows. How did that happen for something you can't
    even give away?

    --
    Ron House house@usq.edu.au
    http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house

  5. Re: Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Ron House belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >> In article <2m9iv4-4u2.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>,
    >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>
    >>>Indeed, especially since the 10Ks' suggest Linux has 3% of
    >>>Microsoft's Windows revenue. Either I'm misinterpreting
    >>>something (possible, as I'm not a lawyer, investment
    >>>advisor, or other such expert) or he is.

    >>
    >> Have you factored in average unit cost? A Windows XP or Vista license
    >> for the copy bundled with a computer is something like $50 (ballpark).
    >> The typical Redhat product is a lot more than that.

    >
    > Funny, I recall being told here only a little while back that linux was
    > *free* and they couldn't even give it away. Now suddenly the average
    > price is more than windows. How did that happen for something you can't
    > even give away?


    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

    --
    Tux rox!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2