Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare - Linux

This is a discussion on Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare - Linux ; Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare Linux Zealots respond: ..The many choices (Linux distros) are good, a feature not a problem. Users will choose the bestdistros and the rest will fade into oblivion. ..The many flavors of Linux are ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare

  1. Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare

    Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare

    Linux Zealots respond:

    ..The many choices (Linux distros) are good, a feature not a problem. Users
    will choose the bestdistros and the rest will fade into oblivion.
    ..The many flavors of Linux are compatible enough that software producers do
    not have a majorproblem to support many distros.
    ..Windows does not offer the freedom to improve the product like Linux does.
    ..Linux installation problems happen, just as for Windows. Get over it.
    ..Linux is just as easy to learn as Windows..Linux does not sell because it
    lacks the games that Windows has.
    ..I don't give a s**t about those dumb Windows users..Wolfe is technically
    ignorant.
    ..Wolfe is a Microsoft shill.

    Other responses supporting Wolfe:
    ..Some Linux "free" software is worth what you pay for it.
    ..What if you had to periodically rebuild your transmission in order to drive
    your car? Linux canbe like that.
    ..Lack of ABI compatibility in Linux stops software from being transportable,
    which is rarely aproblem with Windows.
    ..Software for Linux must be pre-packaged for each distro. Packages may or
    may not beportable to other distros, which would be anyway too technical and
    risky for Joe User.
    ..Linux lacks drivers for some hardware (e.g. some network cards, printers).
    ..Some web sites do not play well with Linux but work OK with Windows.

    THE REAL PROBLEM WITH LINUX:
    Just read the responses of the Linux zealots, and it should be clear. They
    are not objective and honest, but self-serving and egoistic. Linux is their
    religion, and like most religious zealots, theyuse their belief system to
    assert their own superiority and privileged status. Or they simply feel that
    they are on the frontier of knowledge, far ahead of that dumb Windows crowd.


    Page 1
    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=3&gl=us

    Page 2
    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=2&gl=us






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


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

    On Oct 29, 3:00 pm, "Keith Windsor" wrote:
    > Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare
    >
    > Linux Zealots respond:


    Hi there,

    First of all linux market share is not 1% as shown by various
    sources. However this is only according to server market share not
    desktop which may be what you are talking about which is very
    difficult to count simply because you can download it for free from
    many sites and or get a CD from a friend or such. Estimates in 2005
    showed that server market share for linux ranged from 5% to 30%
    depending on who you asked.

    >
    > .The many choices (Linux distros) are good, a feature not a problem. Users
    > will choose the bestdistros and the rest will fade into oblivion.
    > .The many flavors of Linux are compatible enough that software producers do
    > not have a majorproblem to support many distros.
    > .Windows does not offer the freedom to improve the product like Linux does.
    > .Linux installation problems happen, just as for Windows. Get over it.
    > .Linux is just as easy to learn as Windows..Linux does not sell because it
    > lacks the games that Windows has.


    The above arguments generally stand true for the most part.

    > .I don't give a s**t about those dumb Windows users..Wolfe is technically
    > ignorant.
    > .Wolfe is a Microsoft shill.
    >


    Unfortunately you have created a name for yourself that isnt
    necessarily a good thing in the group. I can see how since this is a
    very combative posting.

    > Other responses supporting Wolfe:
    > .Some Linux "free" software is worth what you pay for it.


    Some "free" software is worth what you pay for there is no denying
    that. Look at Microsoft SFU which was free for quite a while and is
    now a paid service that still has the value of free.

    > .What if you had to periodically rebuild your transmission in order to drive
    > your car? Linux canbe like that.


    I rebuild my Windows boxes about every 6 months. Clears out all the
    viruses malware and bloatware that gets installed on it by accident.

    > .Lack of ABI compatibility in Linux stops software from being transportable,
    > which is rarely aproblem with Windows.


    Im sorry but this is incorrect. For Open source applications the key
    is that you get the source code. I can download a tgz and install it
    on almost any *NIX system without any issues at all. Packages are
    just convienient for those that dont want to do the manual builds.
    manual builds by the way take about as much time to install as a
    windows application of the same functionality.

    > .Software for Linux must be pre-packaged for each distro. Packages may or
    > may not beportable to other distros, which would be anyway too technical and
    > risky for Joe User.


    Again they do not have to be pre-packaged. Pre-packaged is just
    convienient but not necessary. Get the source for your open source
    application.

    > .Linux lacks drivers for some hardware (e.g. some network cards, printers).


    I recently purchased a top of the line Alienware system. Every piece
    of hardware was found and drivers installed for it without interaction
    from me at all. Not the same for my windows system which still has
    problems with some video drivers that are not supported by Vista.

    > .Some web sites do not play well with Linux but work OK with Windows.
    >


    If microsoft would stop trying to re-write what web site standards are
    then coders wouldnt have to make exceptions for two seperate
    browsers. And remember, here youre picking on browsers not with
    Linux. Linux is a kernel not the applications that run within the
    operating system.

    > THE REAL PROBLEM WITH LINUX:
    > Just read the responses of the Linux zealots, and it should be clear.


    I agree, read our responses and it will be clear. Read the combative
    posts by Windows zelots too and ensure that you keep an objective
    perspective the entire time. Posts like this really do make you look
    bad to your peers and insight unhappiness which is what it seems youre
    trying to do. If you would like to be an advocate of microsoft
    products then please do so. Compare them with Linux and other
    operating systems but do it with honesty and objective reason instead
    of trying to pick a fight.

    >They
    > are not objective and honest, but self-serving and egoistic. Linux is their
    > religion, and like most religious zealots, theyuse their belief system to
    > assert their own superiority and privileged status. Or they simply feel that
    > they are on the frontier of knowledge, far ahead of that dumb Windows crowd.
    >


    Windows has a place just like OS X has a place. Everything is useful
    in some respect. Linux is an alternative for people that enjoy the
    freedom of knowing what is going on within their systems. Linux
    provides you with a peace of mind that should something need to be
    done to make something better, it is up to you, the user to improve
    it. If you dont have the means to do so yourself (youre not a
    programmer) then you have the ability to go to the community to
    request features or additions that will improve Linux. Microsoft does
    not have this freedom... when was the last time you reviewed the
    kernel32.dll source code?


    > Page 1http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:kavs4b_PJCkJ:kornelix.squarespac...
    >
    > Page 2http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Gkl96V-auRMJ:kornelix.squarespac...
    >
    > --
    > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com


    In summary, your post is neither constructive or helpful. And though
    your views are important, they are stated in a way that forces the
    "linux zelots" to respond to you in angry ways. Since I have noted
    that you do this often I can only assume that youre either doing it
    because you like it when people hate you or because your paid to do
    so. In either case your views could be heard even on this news group
    if you would simply show respect for your peers.

    Thank you for your post!






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


    "Tycho" wrote in message
    news:1193690245.451401.237370@50g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
    > On Oct 29, 3:00 pm, "Keith Windsor" wrote:
    >> Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare
    >>
    >> Linux Zealots respond:

    >
    > Hi there,


    Yo. What's up?

    > First of all linux market share is not 1% as shown by various
    > sources. However this is only according to server market share not
    > desktop which may be what you are talking about which is very
    > difficult to count simply because you can download it for free from
    > many sites and or get a CD from a friend or such. Estimates in 2005
    > showed that server market share for linux ranged from 5% to 30%
    > depending on who you asked.


    I think they're talking about desktop and overall marketshare. The 2005
    estimates you mention are for *server* market share.


    >>
    >> .The many choices (Linux distros) are good, a feature not a problem.
    >> Users
    >> will choose the bestdistros and the rest will fade into oblivion.
    >> .The many flavors of Linux are compatible enough that software producers
    >> do
    >> not have a majorproblem to support many distros.
    >> .Windows does not offer the freedom to improve the product like Linux
    >> does.
    >> .Linux installation problems happen, just as for Windows. Get over it.
    >> .Linux is just as easy to learn as Windows..Linux does not sell because
    >> it
    >> lacks the games that Windows has.

    >
    > The above arguments generally stand true for the most part.


    Sounds reasonable.


    >> .I don't give a s**t about those dumb Windows users..Wolfe is technically
    >> ignorant.
    >> .Wolfe is a Microsoft shill.
    >>

    >
    > Unfortunately you have created a name for yourself that isnt
    > necessarily a good thing in the group. I can see how since this is a
    > very combative posting.


    Not my words. This is a direct quote from the link that I provided. You did
    click on the link didn't you?


    >> Other responses supporting Wolfe:
    >> .Some Linux "free" software is worth what you pay for it.

    >
    > Some "free" software is worth what you pay for there is no denying
    > that. Look at Microsoft SFU which was free for quite a while and is
    > now a paid service that still has the value of free.
    >
    >> .What if you had to periodically rebuild your transmission in order to
    >> drive
    >> your car? Linux canbe like that.

    >
    > I rebuild my Windows boxes about every 6 months. Clears out all the
    > viruses malware and bloatware that gets installed on it by accident.


    Setup your machine properly and you won't have this problem. It's people
    like you that give Windows a bad rep.


    >> .Lack of ABI compatibility in Linux stops software from being
    >> transportable,
    >> which is rarely aproblem with Windows.

    >
    > Im sorry but this is incorrect. For Open source applications the key
    > is that you get the source code. I can download a tgz and install it
    > on almost any *NIX system without any issues at all. Packages are
    > just convienient for those that dont want to do the manual builds.
    > manual builds by the way take about as much time to install as a
    > windows application of the same functionality.


    I think the author's point is that most regular people aren't going to be
    compiling and building their own applications. I tried a few and some would
    build and others wouldn't. Thinks like missing libraries and header files
    creates problems that ordinary people want nothing to do with.


    >> .Software for Linux must be pre-packaged for each distro. Packages may or
    >> may not beportable to other distros, which would be anyway too technical
    >> and
    >> risky for Joe User.

    >
    > Again they do not have to be pre-packaged. Pre-packaged is just
    > convienient but not necessary. Get the source for your open source
    > application.


    What good is having the source code for Open Office for the girl down the
    hall from me? She's a waitress.


    >> .Linux lacks drivers for some hardware (e.g. some network cards,
    >> printers).

    >
    > I recently purchased a top of the line Alienware system. Every piece
    > of hardware was found and drivers installed for it without interaction
    > from me at all. Not the same for my windows system which still has
    > problems with some video drivers that are not supported by Vista.


    Your mileage will vary.


    >> .Some web sites do not play well with Linux but work OK with Windows.
    >>

    >
    > If microsoft would stop trying to re-write what web site standards are
    > then coders wouldnt have to make exceptions for two seperate
    > browsers. And remember, here youre picking on browsers not with
    > Linux. Linux is a kernel not the applications that run within the
    > operating system.


    I've read too much flip-flopping about linux and just a kernel. One minute
    linux is superior because of all the bundled apps and how everything is
    updated automatically. But when that point of view doesn't work well linux
    magically becomes "just a kernel" once again. Pick one story and stick with
    it. It's either just a kernel or everything that's on the CD. (I don't mean
    'you' specifically... but the 'advocates' in general.)


    >> THE REAL PROBLEM WITH LINUX:
    >> Just read the responses of the Linux zealots, and it should be clear.

    >
    > I agree, read our responses and it will be clear. Read the combative
    > posts by Windows zelots too and ensure that you keep an objective
    > perspective the entire time. Posts like this really do make you look
    > bad to your peers and insight unhappiness which is what it seems youre
    > trying to do. If you would like to be an advocate of microsoft
    > products then please do so. Compare them with Linux and other
    > operating systems but do it with honesty and objective reason instead
    > of trying to pick a fight.
    >
    >>They
    >> are not objective and honest, but self-serving and egoistic. Linux is
    >> their
    >> religion, and like most religious zealots, theyuse their belief system to
    >> assert their own superiority and privileged status. Or they simply feel
    >> that
    >> they are on the frontier of knowledge, far ahead of that dumb Windows
    >> crowd.
    >>

    >
    > Windows has a place just like OS X has a place. Everything is useful
    > in some respect. Linux is an alternative for people that enjoy the
    > freedom of knowing what is going on within their systems. Linux
    > provides you with a peace of mind that should something need to be
    > done to make something better, it is up to you, the user to improve
    > it. If you dont have the means to do so yourself (youre not a
    > programmer) then you have the ability to go to the community to
    > request features or additions that will improve Linux. Microsoft does
    > not have this freedom... when was the last time you reviewed the
    > kernel32.dll source code?
    >
    >
    >> Page
    >> 1http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:kavs4b_PJCkJ:kornelix.squarespac...
    >>
    >> Page
    >> 2http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Gkl96V-auRMJ:kornelix.squarespac...
    >>
    >> --
    >> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

    >
    > In summary, your post is neither constructive or helpful. And though
    > your views are important, they are stated in a way that forces the
    > "linux zelots" to respond to you in angry ways. Since I have noted
    > that you do this often I can only assume that youre either doing it
    > because you like it when people hate you or because your paid to do
    > so. In either case your views could be heard even on this news group
    > if you would simply show respect for your peers.
    >
    > Thank you for your post!
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >




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


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

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:00:09 -0400, Keith Windsor wrote:

    > Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare
    >
    >


    It isn't.


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

    Keith Windsor wrote:

    > Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare



    Linux is distributed not sold.
    Existing market share analysts are out of date
    with respect to distributed business models.

    Newer market share analysts are on their way
    soon enough as Linux is adding at least one million
    seats per month.


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

    On Oct 29, 4:00 pm, "Keith Windsor" wrote:
    > Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare


    I know of a few interesting variants on that:

    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
    Shows FireFox with 35.4% of the total market, on one survey.

    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
    Shows Linux with 3.5% and Mac with 3.8%
    Vista gets 4.5%.

    In theory, 1% is 10 million PCs.

    But then there is that "other" catagory.

    About 10-20% of those are "bots" and "crawlers" that are just crawling
    through.
    About 80-90% are actually Linux browsers. Remember, Linux is source
    code compatible with Unix, including Solaris, AIX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD,
    and OpenUnix.

    Most distributors don't update the signature line with their
    particular signature each time a new patch is released to any of the
    5-6 popular browsers.


    Consider
    http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
    Note that khtml browsers are KDE - which means there is a pretty good
    chance that those browsers are for Linux - Konqueror to be exact. In
    the referenced table, the range seems to be as high as 5%.


    Most of these surveys are based on counts of IP addresses. A dial-up
    PC calling MSN could get a different IP address every day. A
    corporate NAT router can make thousands of PCs look like a single IP
    address.

    Microsoft likes to point out that Windows in installed on 99% of the
    PCs sold by the top 5 OEMs. This is probably true. Less than 1% of
    the Linux user community uses Linux exclusively. Which means that for
    every machine sold with Linux there are 99 machines that have been
    configured with Linux by their end-users. That would just about put
    Linux and Windows at 50/50.

    Most either run Linux and Windows on the same box, or they have one
    machine for Linux and another for Windows. Many Linux "servers" are
    actually capable of providing a desktop interface to Windows users who
    have X11 software. This software can be purchased from a company like
    hummingbird, or installed for free as part of the cygwin package.

    If you look at the original of this posting, it would tell you I'm
    posting from a Windows XP machine. I happen to be running both
    Windows and Linux concurrently on the same machine. I'm behind a NAT
    firewall/Router which I share with my Wife, who uses Windows.

    Now, if my IP address is counted based only on which browser signature
    I have, and only counts one, Linux wouldn't be counted at all.

    Less scientific surveys have shown that as many as 14% consider Linux
    to be their "operating system of choice". Too bad the BBC took down
    the survey - the link is gone, but I posted some of the results as
    they were unfolding.

    According to that survey - only 56% preferred Windows to the other
    options. This would indicate that if Microsoft had to face toe-to-toe
    competition with Windows, Linux, and Leopard in the same store, on the
    shelves next to each other, Microsoft would still be the market
    leader, but wouldn't be getting 99% of the market that they currently
    obtain through exclusionary contracts that were supposed to be
    forbidden by the DOJ antitrust ruling.

    > Linux Zealots respond:
    >
    > .The many choices (Linux distros) are good, a feature not a problem. Users
    > will choose the best distros and the rest will fade into oblivion.


    Linux is based on standards. There are standard components such as
    the Linux kernel, the glibc library, the X11 display system, the Qt
    and GTK toolkits, the Gnome or KDE desktops, compliance with the ICCCM
    standards, standard applications and so on.

    Each "distribution" is essentially a customized "mix" of these
    standard components.

    > .The many flavors of Linux are compatible enough that software producers do
    > not have a majorproblem to support many distros.


    This is almost as silly as saying that if a Windows system had a 3rd
    party application such as Winzip, it would be totally incompatible
    with every other version of Windows. Microsoft tries to enforce that
    kind of thinking. It's almost as if they believe that a PC which
    included Windows XP or Vista but also contained RealPlayer, Quicktime,
    Symantic AV, or Open Office, that every other application on the PC
    would be rendered completely inoperable. I suppose that in
    Microsoft's world, if they could make that true, they would be more
    than happy to make it so.

    In Microsoft's world, if Microsoft doesn't make it, you don't need
    it. If Microsoft makes it, you shouldn't be using anybody else's.

    In Linux world, if there are 6 different text editors, you can select
    which one(s) you would like to have installed by selecting them from a
    "menu".

    In Microsoft's world, you should go to each individual vendor, pay
    $40-100 per package, and if Microsoft's latest patch shreds those
    applications, that's your problem.

    In Linux world, you pay $5 to $100 for a DVD which is loaded with
    applications. You can install a "standard" configuration that has the
    basics, and then you can go to the software management utility and
    install lots of different software products from lots of different
    vendors. If you really like their product, you can pay a few bucks
    more and get upgrades, enhancements, plug-ins, and other "value-add"
    features that might make you like it even more.

    Get Open Office - if you like it, you can upgrade to StarOffice and
    get lots of wizards, themes, macros, and upgrades.

    Get Eclipse - if you like it - you can upgrade to WebSphere or Oracle
    or BEA and have a much more robust toolkit available.

    Microsoft has their own version of this. Buy Vista Home Basic - if
    you like it, you can pay $200-300 to upgrade it to Vista Ultimate. By
    Works, if you like it - you can upgrade to Office 2007 professional
    for $400.

    Add $400 for Visio Professional, $500 for Project, $300 for SQL
    server, $1000 for Autocad, and

    > Page 1http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:kavs4b_PJCkJ:kornelix.squarespac...
    >
    > Page 2http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Gkl96V-auRMJ:kornelix.squarespac...
    >
    > --
    > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com




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


    "7" wrote in message
    news:UtsVi.39220$c_1.23007@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    > Keith Windsor wrote:
    >
    >> Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare

    >
    >
    > Linux is distributed not sold.


    Excuse # 385.


    > Existing market share analysts are out of date
    > with respect to distributed business models.


    No. It is very accurate. You can only use the "people can't measure linux
    usage" excuse for so long. They have a very good idea of how many minutes
    per day the average person brushes their teeth. They can certainly measure
    how many linux installations are out there.


    > Newer market share analysts are on their way

    Poor little 7. Always too little too late. The newer analysts are already
    here and they've been here for years. Do tell us again how advertisers
    *MUST* accept paid-for adds even if they don't want. That is sooo funny.


    > soon enough as Linux is adding at least one million
    > seats per month.


    Proof? Of course not. Now run along and clean your room before mommy calls
    you down for dinner.



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


  8. Why Linux is up to 15% marketshare

    On Oct 29, 4:00 pm, "Keith Windsor" wrote:
    > Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare


    Pick your poll you can get numbers across the board.

    At one end you have Linux only being sold on 1% of the machines sold
    by the OEMs - because end-users like having XP and don't mind
    installing Linux themselves on a Linux ready machine.

    At the other end of the spectrum you have poll that shows that among
    60,000 respondents, 14.5% preferred Linux as their operating system of
    choice.

    What get's really interesting is the DELTA. Microsoft's OEMs have
    sold roughly 1 billion computers over the last 9-10 years - including
    Windows 98, Windows XP, and now Vista.
    Windows PC users replace their machines at the rate of about 1 million
    machines per year, but not that many new users are being added.

    On the flip side, if you look at all of the different numbers, it
    looks like Linux is adding about about 50-70 million new users every
    year. That's only a "bump" of 5% of the total market, but it's also
    the equivalent of 50% of the total PC market. Look at Apple. They've
    bumped from 3-4.5% of the browser base, and that's enough to make them
    the 3rd largest PC vendor with almost 20% of the market. By the way,
    if Vista has gone from 3% to 5% in the last 6 months (as indicated by
    browser surveys) then Vista's total would be about 20 million PCs, not
    88 million.

    Maybe Microsoft is counting those premium licenses and upgrades as
    additional licenses. It's BRILLIANT!. They can sell the OEMs a
    license to Home Basic which is brain-dead, then sell them upgrades for
    every machine they sell which now means TWO licenses per machine, and
    if they are going to a corporate customer, they can claim a THIRD
    license for each new machine sold to a customer subscribing to the
    support program, and if Microsoft doesn't distinguish between XP and
    Vista, then they could claim 88 million licenses on as few as 20
    million PCs. And of course, if the old PC is "recycled", then
    Microsoft can claim the recycled PC as an additional license when they
    donate a license to the charity that recycles them, which means they
    now have FIVE licenses for EACH PC Sold.

    I must say, Ballmer is BRILLIANT!! He has figured out a way to fleece
    the lambs 5 times in one season!!

    Oh - wait a minute! An even better Idea!!! Microsoft can donate
    Vista Home Basic to the charity - then donate an upgrade license to
    worthy recipients who are willing to prove that they are worthy and
    destitute. Now we are up to SIX Licenses per PC actually SOLD!!!

    This is even better than the Linux playbook of attempting to count
    every single distribution sold to every owner of multiple PCs and
    assuming that they have installed every version on every PC to claim
    that 20 licenses have been sold for a single distribution. It's even
    better than the Linux strategy of assuming that all of the Linux users
    and downloaders have burned 30 CDs and given them to their 30 closest
    friends, one per distribution!!

    I think the real magic is that Microsoft assumes that "There can be
    only one", while Linux makes it easy to run both Windows and Linux -
    at the same time - on the same box.

    If Oracle were to buy Red Hat, or Sun wanted Solaris on the desktop,
    they would be filing lawsuits for antitrust violation and demanding
    divestature based on the success of Linux. Ironically, Linux on the
    desktop gives Solaris, UnixWare, and other commercial vendors an
    express-lane to the OEM distribution channel, but Microsoft is still
    guarding the gates, willing to kill the OEMs rather than surrender
    even 20% of the market to a Linux/Windows hybrid.

    Seriously, the numbers are a huge joke. You could make a valid case
    for any number between 1% of the PCs being Linux (based on % of PCs
    sold as "Linux Only" machines with Linux preinstalled) up to 200% of
    the market (by assuming that every PC sold with an OpenGL card in the
    last 5 years has been licensed for every version of Linux released
    since the machine was first purchased - giving Linux something like
    300 million new "License deplayments" per year.

    The funny thing is that the real numbers probably would be some blend
    of those scenarios. There are probably Linux users who have 5-10
    different Linux distributions installed on their hard drives, either
    as VMs or as Linux partitions. There are also probably a substantial
    number of people who didn't know that a PC that had an OpenGL card
    wouldn't work well with Vista, and never intended to install Linux in
    the first place.

    If anyone has real, accurate, reliable numbers, they are probably
    SELLING them for $5000 per VIEWER. You will probably NEVER see those
    numbers posted on a usenet newsgroup. This information IS sold to
    advertizers, marketing managers, corporate executives, and other who
    need to know how many of what kind of customers they would lose if
    they refused to accept connections from FireFox, IE7, or Linux.

    What DOES seem significant, is that so many content providers,
    advertisers, and marketers have now made platform independence, the
    ability to support IE, FireFox, Windows, Vista, AND Linux an absolute
    requirement for all new projects and content.

    Seriously, if ANYBODY has any REAL numbers based on reliable methods,
    such as count of all of the registered users of Google, Yahoo, or
    Amazon, let me know. That would be a telling story. The last public
    numbers published by Google back in 2002 showed Linux at something
    like 7% of the total market, when standard "IP counters" were showing
    numbers like 0.5%.



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

    Keith Windsor wrote:

    >
    > "7" wrote in message
    > news:UtsVi.39220$c_1.23007@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    >> Keith Windsor wrote:
    >>
    >>> Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare

    >>
    >>
    >> Linux is distributed not sold.

    >
    > Excuse # 385.


    Thats your excuse!

    Linux is distributed not sold. Period!


    >> Existing market share analysts are out of date
    >> with respect to distributed business models.

    >
    > No. It is very accurate.


    Bwallocks. How can it be accurate if analysts don't
    know how to do market analysis for distribution business
    model? They don't even have the tools let alone the
    procedures in place!!!


    > You can only use the "people can't measure linux
    > usage" excuse for so long.



    Pardon me, but thats you doing it.
    No one else here.

    > They have a very good idea of how many minutes
    > per day the average person brushes their teeth. They can certainly measure
    > how many linux installations are out there.


    Of couse.
    But read my lips. The anaylists are out of date. They
    don't have the tools and procedures in place to
    measure the new standards set by Linux and open source.
    If they have, let them produce it so that their tools
    can be validated.


    >> Newer market share analysts are on their way

    > Poor little 7. Always too little too late. The newer analysts are already
    > here and they've been here for years. Do tell us again how advertisers
    > *MUST* accept paid-for adds even if they don't want. That is sooo funny.


    Bwallocks. Analysts have always been around, but now
    they are out of date and don't
    know how to do market analysis for distribution business
    model? They don't even have the tools let alone the
    procedures in place!!!



    >> soon enough as Linux is adding at least one million
    >> seats per month.

    >
    > Proof? Of course not. Now run along and clean your room before mommy calls
    > you down for dinner.



    There you go - its you again - you have no tools at your
    disposal either to verify or deny one way or the other,
    just like the analysts.



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

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:00:09 -0400, Keith Windsor wrote:

    > Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare
    >

    Why do you care?

    (snip)

    --
    Rick

  11. Re: Why Linux is up to 15% marketshare

    Rex Ballard wrote:
    > On Oct 29, 4:00 pm, "Keith Windsor" wrote:
    >> Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare

    >
    > Pick your poll you can get numbers across the board.
    >
    > At one end you have Linux only being sold on 1% of the machines sold
    > by the OEMs - because end-users like having XP and don't mind
    > installing Linux themselves on a Linux ready machine.
    >
    > At the other end of the spectrum you have poll that shows that among
    > 60,000 respondents, 14.5% preferred Linux as their operating system of
    > choice.
    >
    > What get's really interesting is the DELTA. Microsoft's OEMs have
    > sold roughly 1 billion computers over the last 9-10 years - including
    > Windows 98, Windows XP, and now Vista.
    > Windows PC users replace their machines at the rate of about 1 million
    > machines per year, but not that many new users are being added.
    >
    > On the flip side, if you look at all of the different numbers, it
    > looks like Linux is adding about about 50-70 million new users every
    > year. That's only a "bump" of 5% of the total market, but it's also
    > the equivalent of 50% of the total PC market. Look at Apple. They've
    > bumped from 3-4.5% of the browser base, and that's enough to make them
    > the 3rd largest PC vendor with almost 20% of the market. By the way,
    > if Vista has gone from 3% to 5% in the last 6 months (as indicated by
    > browser surveys) then Vista's total would be about 20 million PCs, not
    > 88 million.
    >
    > Maybe Microsoft is counting those premium licenses and upgrades as
    > additional licenses. It's BRILLIANT!. They can sell the OEMs a
    > license to Home Basic which is brain-dead, then sell them upgrades for
    > every machine they sell which now means TWO licenses per machine, and
    > if they are going to a corporate customer, they can claim a THIRD
    > license for each new machine sold to a customer subscribing to the
    > support program, and if Microsoft doesn't distinguish between XP and
    > Vista, then they could claim 88 million licenses on as few as 20
    > million PCs. And of course, if the old PC is "recycled", then
    > Microsoft can claim the recycled PC as an additional license when they
    > donate a license to the charity that recycles them, which means they
    > now have FIVE licenses for EACH PC Sold.
    >
    > I must say, Ballmer is BRILLIANT!! He has figured out a way to fleece
    > the lambs 5 times in one season!!
    >
    > Oh - wait a minute! An even better Idea!!! Microsoft can donate
    > Vista Home Basic to the charity - then donate an upgrade license to
    > worthy recipients who are willing to prove that they are worthy and
    > destitute. Now we are up to SIX Licenses per PC actually SOLD!!!
    >
    > This is even better than the Linux playbook of attempting to count
    > every single distribution sold to every owner of multiple PCs and
    > assuming that they have installed every version on every PC to claim
    > that 20 licenses have been sold for a single distribution. It's even
    > better than the Linux strategy of assuming that all of the Linux users
    > and downloaders have burned 30 CDs and given them to their 30 closest
    > friends, one per distribution!!
    >
    > I think the real magic is that Microsoft assumes that "There can be
    > only one", while Linux makes it easy to run both Windows and Linux -
    > at the same time - on the same box.
    >
    > If Oracle were to buy Red Hat, or Sun wanted Solaris on the desktop,
    > they would be filing lawsuits for antitrust violation and demanding
    > divestature based on the success of Linux. Ironically, Linux on the
    > desktop gives Solaris, UnixWare, and other commercial vendors an
    > express-lane to the OEM distribution channel, but Microsoft is still
    > guarding the gates, willing to kill the OEMs rather than surrender
    > even 20% of the market to a Linux/Windows hybrid.
    >
    > Seriously, the numbers are a huge joke. You could make a valid case
    > for any number between 1% of the PCs being Linux (based on % of PCs
    > sold as "Linux Only" machines with Linux preinstalled) up to 200% of
    > the market (by assuming that every PC sold with an OpenGL card in the
    > last 5 years has been licensed for every version of Linux released
    > since the machine was first purchased - giving Linux something like
    > 300 million new "License deplayments" per year.
    >
    > The funny thing is that the real numbers probably would be some blend
    > of those scenarios. There are probably Linux users who have 5-10
    > different Linux distributions installed on their hard drives, either
    > as VMs or as Linux partitions. There are also probably a substantial
    > number of people who didn't know that a PC that had an OpenGL card
    > wouldn't work well with Vista, and never intended to install Linux in
    > the first place.
    >
    > If anyone has real, accurate, reliable numbers, they are probably
    > SELLING them for $5000 per VIEWER. You will probably NEVER see those
    > numbers posted on a usenet newsgroup. This information IS sold to
    > advertizers, marketing managers, corporate executives, and other who
    > need to know how many of what kind of customers they would lose if
    > they refused to accept connections from FireFox, IE7, or Linux.
    >
    > What DOES seem significant, is that so many content providers,
    > advertisers, and marketers have now made platform independence, the
    > ability to support IE, FireFox, Windows, Vista, AND Linux an absolute
    > requirement for all new projects and content.
    >
    > Seriously, if ANYBODY has any REAL numbers based on reliable methods,
    > such as count of all of the registered users of Google, Yahoo, or
    > Amazon, let me know. That would be a telling story. The last public
    > numbers published by Google back in 2002 showed Linux at something
    > like 7% of the total market, when standard "IP counters" were showing
    > numbers like 0.5%.
    >
    >


    I doubt there are any legitimate numbers. I do know that the 45 empty
    cake boxes I have represent 4,500 LiveCDroms of many of the top distros
    from http://livecdlist.com that I have handed out in demonstrations at
    computer shows and chain store demos, plus, other full install distros
    since 1997.

    Problem is, I did make about 200 copies of music CDs, .avi movies, and
    also had 65 failures (which I also kept, for research purposes).

    But, I only know two other folks in the LUG with similar track records.
    Gave out 12 last week, and 7 this week, plus have done three installs.

    I install a single distro on a computer. but, I do have 130+ computers.
    Yeah, I run a couple schools, too. Then, too, I also have done BSD,
    PC-BSD, NetBSD, to the tune of about 80 CDs in all that time, since 1997.

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

    Rick wrote:

    > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:00:09 -0400, Keith Windsor wrote:
    >
    >> Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare
    >>

    > Why do you care?
    >
    > (snip)


    If these trolls claim linux only has 1% marketshare, they're sure getting
    their nickers in a twist over it. If I thought something was insignificant,
    I'd ignore it......like I ignore idiot wintrolls.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA1.5
    Linux systems: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
    Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy"

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

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Keith Windsor

    wrote
    on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:00:09 -0400
    <47262fe5$0$26499$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
    > Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare


    MSFT 10-K report suggests Windows revenue ("client") for the
    three months ended 2007-09-30 is $4.045B, with an operating
    income of $3.244B.

    RHT 10-K has subscription revenue -- one assumes that is
    all Linux -- of $0.109172B, for the three months ended
    2007-08-31. Granted, that's not quite the right interval
    but Linux is at most growing 5%-10% a year, so this will
    introduce at most a 0.5%-1% error.

    In short: Windows 97.37%, Redhat 2.63%, based on *revenue*,
    not installed seats. (Granted, this is a best guess,
    based on my interpretation of the 10-K reports.)

    One can of course accuse RedHat of lying through its teeth to
    increase income -- but that sword cuts both ways.

    >
    > Linux Zealots respond:
    >
    > .The many choices (Linux distros) are good, a feature
    > not a problem. Users will choose the bestdistros and
    > the rest will fade into oblivion.


    No, they won't. Users will choose Windows, always. Why?
    Because OEMs are required to sell Windows, and most
    applications are designed to run on Windows.

    > .The many flavors of Linux are compatible enough that
    > software producers do not have a majorproblem to support
    > many distros.


    There's a number of issues here, especially if one throws
    non-Intel boxes into the mix.

    > .Windows does not offer the freedom to improve the
    > product like Linux does.


    Actually, Windows has already improved the product line;
    Vista is the latest and greatest. (Many Linux aficionados,
    myself included, of course, will pooh-pooh Vista --
    and rightfully so; it's warmed over XP with some extra
    windowing, from all accounts. It will still of course
    be touted as the most modern Windows OS since XP -- and
    that's indeed correct, as far as it goes, which isn't far.
    It is also an improvement over XP, in some areas, though
    others may claim that it was rushed out before it was
    ready, and still others may claim it's a step backward.)

    > .Linux installation problems happen, just as for Windows. Get over it.


    Windows has no installation problems. Windows is
    preinstalled; any problems are dealt with at the OEM's
    installation area, and the result imaged, duplicated as
    many times as necessary, and then shipped. At most,
    the user keys in an access number during first bootup,
    some updates are loaded, and one's ready to roll.

    Of course one eventually has to reinstall Windows, but
    by then one's comfortable with the system and the
    4+ hours required is not a problem. (This time is
    highly variable, depending on number of additional
    applications.)

    > .Linux is just as easy to learn as Windows..Linux does not sell
    > because it lacks the games that Windows has.


    Linux is much harder to learn than Windows. (This is
    mostly because Windows is a known devil. Also, Linux
    has the minor issue that once a problem is fixed, it
    tends to stay fixed.)

    > .I don't give a s**t about those dumb Windows users..Wolfe is
    > technically ignorant.
    > .Wolfe is a Microsoft shill.


    Huh? No idea whom you're discussing.

    >
    > Other responses supporting Wolfe:
    > .Some Linux "free" software is worth what you pay for it.


    s/Some/Most/

    > .What if you had to periodically rebuild your transmission
    > in order to drive your car? Linux canbe like that.


    Indeed. With Windows one merely replaces the entire car
    every 3 years, then ensures that the roadway is the right
    version, and do watch out for those rogue streetlamps
    which are actually using standards as opposed to Microsoft
    best practices.

    The car will also periodically blow up and have to be
    repainted and the engine replaced anyway. The tires may
    or may not shred, though it depends on whether the user
    is dodging rogue streetlamps or not. Also, it tends to
    stall when turning left while a truck is passing. While a
    patch is available for that problem, said patch tends to
    cause issues while backing up. Note that, even if the
    user says he wants to go straight, Windows occasionally
    decides it's better to turn left anyway.

    Most users can tolerate all this, since Microsoft is doing
    all this for their benefit.

    > .Lack of ABI compatibility in Linux stops software from
    > being transportable, which is rarely aproblem with Windows.


    Rarely? Try *never*. Solitaire, for instance, works fine.

    > .Software for Linux must be pre-packaged for each distro.


    Some issues here, mostly having to do with system builder
    and/or system maintainer competence. In short, can one
    read instructions?

    With Windows, just point and click. It's that easy. No
    reading of instructions required.

    > Packages may or may not beportable to other distros, which
    > would be anyway too technical and risky for Joe User.
    > .Linux lacks drivers for some hardware (e.g. some
    > network cards, printers).


    This is true, though the number of such devices grows less
    all the time.

    > .Some web sites do not play well with Linux but
    > work OK with Windows.


    They are designed to work with IE -- one might test
    such websites with Mozilla Firefox under Windows, and
    see if they still work.

    There's a difference: IE is part of Windows, but Windows
    is not part of IE.

    [ad hom snipped]

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
    Windows. The choice of a bunch of people who like very weird behavior on
    a regular basis, random crashes, and "extend, embrace, and extinguish".

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


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

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, William Poaster

    wrote
    on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:34:17 +0000
    :
    > Rick wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:00:09 -0400, Keith Windsor wrote:
    >>
    >>> Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare
    >>>

    >> Why do you care?
    >>
    >> (snip)

    >
    > If these trolls claim linux only has 1% marketshare, they're sure getting
    > their nickers in a twist over it. If I thought something was insignificant,
    > I'd ignore it......like I ignore idiot wintrolls.
    >


    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.

    I note with interest that it's now 1% from 0.24%. :-)
    Why the change? Did the FUDFactory(tm) update its Excel
    spreadsheet?

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous munition.
    Please notify the US government immediately upon reception.
    0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...

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


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


    "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."




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


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

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:00:09 -0400, Keith Windsor wrote:

    > Why Linux is stuck at 1% marketshare
    >
    > Linux Zealots respond:
    >
    > .The many choices (Linux distros) are good, a feature not a problem.
    > Users will choose the bestdistros and the rest will fade into oblivion.
    > .The many flavors of Linux are compatible enough that software producers
    > do not have a majorproblem to support many distros. .Windows does not
    > offer the freedom to improve the product like Linux does. .Linux
    > installation problems happen, just as for Windows. Get over it. .Linux
    > is just as easy to learn as Windows..Linux does not sell because it
    > lacks the games that Windows has.
    > .I don't give a s**t about those dumb Windows users..Wolfe is
    > technically ignorant.
    > .Wolfe is a Microsoft shill.
    >
    > Other responses supporting Wolfe:
    > .Some Linux "free" software is worth what you pay for it. .What if you
    > had to periodically rebuild your transmission in order to drive your
    > car? Linux canbe like that.
    > .Lack of ABI compatibility in Linux stops software from being
    > transportable, which is rarely aproblem with Windows. .Software for
    > Linux must be pre-packaged for each distro. Packages may or may not
    > beportable to other distros, which would be anyway too technical and
    > risky for Joe User.
    > .Linux lacks drivers for some hardware (e.g. some network cards,
    > printers). .Some web sites do not play well with Linux but work OK with
    > Windows.
    >
    > THE REAL PROBLEM WITH LINUX:
    > Just read the responses of the Linux zealots, and it should be clear.
    > They are not objective and honest, but self-serving and egoistic. Linux
    > is their religion, and like most religious zealots, theyuse their belief
    > system to assert their own superiority and privileged status. Or they
    > simply feel that they are on the frontier of knowledge, far ahead of
    > that dumb Windows crowd.
    >


    Why do you post here? If you like windows so much why not frequent
    windows advocacy groups instead of coming here and making confrontational
    posts that do nothing but anger people?

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

    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.

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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:26:51 -0500,
    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.



    And CentOS is free, we, for example, have 5 RH licences, and some 70
    more CentOS boxes, what's that do for the market share?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHJrYBd90bcYOAWPYRAju0AJ9KFz9k7dNDoAotl/YQO+JQuMbmEgCeN5mK
    JtLN/WvUh2jKzSSm+Xz43vw=
    =MAh5
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Do I LOOK like a damn people person?

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

    Rex Ballard wrote:> Consider
    > http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
    > Note that khtml browsers are KDE - which means there is a pretty good
    > chance that those browsers are for Linux - Konqueror to be exact. In
    > the referenced table, the range seems to be as high as 5%.


    Isn't Safari based on khtml? Safari doesn't appear to feature in that
    table.


    Peter



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

    peter wrote:
    > Rex Ballard wrote:> Consider
    >> http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
    >> Note that khtml browsers are KDE - which means there is a pretty good
    >> chance that those browsers are for Linux - Konqueror to be exact. In
    >> the referenced table, the range seems to be as high as 5%.

    >
    > Isn't Safari based on khtml? Safari doesn't appear to feature in that
    > table.
    >

    IIRC, Safari is based on Webcore, which is based on the khtml rendering
    engine. Supposedly, the khtml guys are considering going to Webcore.


    --
    Rick

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast