Linux on the desktop - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux on the desktop - Linux ; ----- Linus Torvalds: Well, I donıt know about broader adoption, but the Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop. ... But ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 149

Thread: Linux on the desktop

  1. Linux on the desktop


    -----
    Linus Torvalds: Well, I donıt know about broader adoption,
    but the Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first
    place. I mean, I have never, ever cared about really anything
    but the Linux desktop.
    ...
    But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I donıt
    even want to; itıs not what Iım interested in. Iım more of a
    desktop guy. Iıve always used Linux as a workstation person.

    So * and I think I see that as not just me. I think a huge
    amount of the developers see Linux the same way because it
    turns out that while, yes, maybe servers is a huge market,
    when you actually look at developers, what developers
    interact with all the time is their workstation, their
    desktop and thatıs the area where you really eat your own dog
    food and where you really end up seeing the fruits of your
    labor.
    -----


    ------
    The BBC had to prioritise building the service around PCs
    because, according to BBC figures, around 90% of computers
    use Microsoft's Windows operating system, he added.

    Macs account for 9% of the market while the open source
    system Linux accounts for 0.8%.
    -----

    If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is not
    doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he struggles to get
    1% of the user base.

    His explanation (from the same link as above):
    -----
    The desktop is special. Everybody has a different idea of
    what the desktop is going to be. You have lots of people
    coming from Windows who just * they know what a desktop is
    supposed to be - Windows, right?

    You have people coming from Mac and they know what a desktop
    is supposed to be and it has to have that menu bar at the top
    and if you donıt have the menu bar at the top, itıs not a
    desktop, right?

    So, everybody has a different idea. Everybody also has
    different hardware. The desktop is also where all the
    hardware really exists. Servers have 1% of the hardware that
    the desktop has in terms of different drivers and things like
    that. You donıt find webcams on servers generally. You donıt
    find oddball IDE drives on servers.

    So, the desktop is just much more varied and, at the same
    time, the desktop is also the thing where people get really
    upset if something changes, so itıs really hard to enter the
    desktop market because people are used to whatever they used
    before, mostly Windows. And if you act differently from
    Windows, even if you act in some ways better, it doesnıt
    matter; better is worse if itıs different.
    -----

    While there is some truth to what he is saying he is simply missing the big
    picture. I know I would jump ship if an OS came along that handled my
    desktop needs better than what I currently use. When talking about Linux
    distros Linux folks seem to get this - they talk about jumping from distro
    to distro to find the one you like (the distro dance). Sure, a number of
    people will just stick with what they know - Windows. But look at Apple:
    they do not sell to the low end of the desktop market and they still have
    managed to get 10% or so... and Apple insists you use their hardware,
    clearly a big impediment to their getting a bigger user base. All Linux
    distros *together*, most being *given* away and running on almost any
    hardware (to at least some extent) is - if the BBC is to be believed - at
    less than 1%.

    I have been talking about usability / UI issues... *that* is a huge part of
    what keeps Linux from being adopted - that and the lack of strong support
    from major software venders (Adobe, MS, Apple, etc.) Other have been noting
    that the fractured nature of Linux also plays a role - and it surely does:
    with Linux at less than 1% it is a big detriment to have people who use it
    have obstacles to helping each other.

    For Linus to focus on Mac users only considering the a desktop to be a
    desktop if the menu is at the top is just silly... most Mac users *also*
    have some experience with Windows... and many Mac users, myself included,
    understand the pros *and* the cons of the menu at the top. Heck, with
    greater screen resolutions and (especially) dual screens becoming more
    common the pros of the menu at the top might not counter the cons. It
    simply is not a big deal with today's computing hardware.

    And his comments about Windows: again he is wrong. As he notes the Mac is
    very different and many people who use the Mac quickly learn to prefer it...
    imagine if Mac OS were free - it would easily double its user base (or more)
    very quickly. There are good reasons why Apple does not do this - market
    share / user base is not the be all and end all of success... but clearly
    there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model for it to
    have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    product away.



    --
    What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.


  2. Re: Linux on the desktop

    Snit wrote:

    > but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model for it to
    > have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    > product away.
    >


    it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
    monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
    they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
    NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
    Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
    about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.

  3. Re: Linux on the desktop

    Snit wrote:

    > but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model for it to
    > have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    > product away.
    >


    it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
    monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
    they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
    NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
    Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
    about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.

  4. Re: Linux on the desktop

    Snit wrote:

    > but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model for it to
    > have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    > product away.
    >


    it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
    monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
    they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
    NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
    Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
    about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.

  5. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "Gordon" stated in post
    foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:

    > Snit wrote:
    >
    >> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux
    >> model for it to
    >> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    >> product away.
    >>

    >
    > it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
    > monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
    > they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
    > NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
    > Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
    > about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.


    That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
    well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
    that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
    well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
    away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
    a wrench, but you get the idea!)


    --
    When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
    When God changes your mind, that's faith.
    When facts change your mind, that's science.


  6. Re: Linux on the desktop

    Snit wrote:

    >
    > That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
    > well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
    > that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
    > well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
    > away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
    > a wrench, but you get the idea!)
    >
    >


    Macs already had a niche market because there was no desktop publishing
    software available for PC's.

  7. Re: Linux on the desktop

    On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:35:31 -0700, Snit wrote:

    >
    > -----
    > Linus Torvalds: Well, I donıt know about broader adoption,
    > but the Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first
    > place. I mean, I have never, ever cared about really anything
    > but the Linux desktop.
    > ...
    > But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I donıt
    > even want to; itıs not what Iım interested in. Iım more of a
    > desktop guy. Iıve always used Linux as a workstation person.
    >
    > So * and I think I see that as not just me. I think a huge
    > amount of the developers see Linux the same way because it
    > turns out that while, yes, maybe servers is a huge market,
    > when you actually look at developers, what developers
    > interact with all the time is their workstation, their
    > desktop and thatıs the area where you really eat your own dog
    > food and where you really end up seeing the fruits of your
    > labor.
    > -----
    >
    >
    > ------
    > The BBC had to prioritise building the service around PCs
    > because, according to BBC figures, around 90% of computers
    > use Microsoft's Windows operating system, he added.
    >
    > Macs account for 9% of the market while the open source
    > system Linux accounts for 0.8%.
    > -----
    >
    > If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is not
    > doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he struggles to get
    > 1% of the user base.
    >
    > His explanation (from the same link as above):
    > -----
    > The desktop is special. Everybody has a different idea of
    > what the desktop is going to be. You have lots of people
    > coming from Windows who just * they know what a desktop is
    > supposed to be - Windows, right?
    >
    > You have people coming from Mac and they know what a desktop
    > is supposed to be and it has to have that menu bar at the top
    > and if you donıt have the menu bar at the top, itıs not a
    > desktop, right?
    >
    > So, everybody has a different idea. Everybody also has
    > different hardware. The desktop is also where all the
    > hardware really exists. Servers have 1% of the hardware that
    > the desktop has in terms of different drivers and things like
    > that. You donıt find webcams on servers generally. You donıt
    > find oddball IDE drives on servers.
    >
    > So, the desktop is just much more varied and, at the same
    > time, the desktop is also the thing where people get really
    > upset if something changes, so itıs really hard to enter the
    > desktop market because people are used to whatever they used
    > before, mostly Windows. And if you act differently from
    > Windows, even if you act in some ways better, it doesnıt
    > matter; better is worse if itıs different.
    > -----
    >
    > While there is some truth to what he is saying he is simply missing the big
    > picture. I know I would jump ship if an OS came along that handled my
    > desktop needs better than what I currently use. When talking about Linux
    > distros Linux folks seem to get this - they talk about jumping from distro
    > to distro to find the one you like (the distro dance). Sure, a number of
    > people will just stick with what they know - Windows. But look at Apple:
    > they do not sell to the low end of the desktop market and they still have
    > managed to get 10% or so... and Apple insists you use their hardware,
    > clearly a big impediment to their getting a bigger user base. All Linux
    > distros *together*, most being *given* away and running on almost any
    > hardware (to at least some extent) is - if the BBC is to be believed - at
    > less than 1%.
    >
    > I have been talking about usability / UI issues... *that* is a huge part of
    > what keeps Linux from being adopted - that and the lack of strong support
    > from major software venders (Adobe, MS, Apple, etc.) Other have been noting
    > that the fractured nature of Linux also plays a role - and it surely does:
    > with Linux at less than 1% it is a big detriment to have people who use it
    > have obstacles to helping each other.
    >
    > For Linus to focus on Mac users only considering the a desktop to be a
    > desktop if the menu is at the top is just silly... most Mac users *also*
    > have some experience with Windows... and many Mac users, myself included,
    > understand the pros *and* the cons of the menu at the top. Heck, with
    > greater screen resolutions and (especially) dual screens becoming more
    > common the pros of the menu at the top might not counter the cons. It
    > simply is not a big deal with today's computing hardware.
    >
    > And his comments about Windows: again he is wrong. As he notes the Mac is
    > very different and many people who use the Mac quickly learn to prefer it...
    > imagine if Mac OS were free - it would easily double its user base (or more)
    > very quickly. There are good reasons why Apple does not do this - market
    > share / user base is not the be all and end all of success... but clearly
    > there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model for it to
    > have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    > product away.


    Pretty much true from what I can see.
    Notice the less than 1 percent number for Linux.
    No matter where you go, that number keeps popping up.
    Except on Linux blogs of course where you will read that Linux is taking
    over the desktop.

    There is some truth that Microsoft stifled Linux but then Linux is free,
    totally free.
    if Linux were a decent enough desktop alternative to Windows it would be
    destroying Microsoft.

    It's not.
    And there is no indication that this will change in the near future.

    The bottom line is that when something free can't take over a commercial
    products market, at least in a decent way, then something is seriously
    wrong with the free product.

    The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix it.
    Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  8. Re: Linux on the desktop

    * Gordon peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Snit wrote:
    >
    >> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
    >> well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
    >> that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
    >> well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
    >> away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
    >> a wrench, but you get the idea!)

    >
    > Macs already had a niche market because there was no desktop publishing
    > software available for PC's.


    Not to mention that Mac is advertised on TV.

    (IBM advertised Linux on TV, but for servers.)

    Snit doesn't realize that people:

    1. Need to know about a "product".

    2. Need to download the "product" (and it isn't a small package
    download, it is a download that can be gigabytes in size).

    3. Need to know how to burn an ISO image of the "product".

    4. Need to feel comfortable about potentially voiding their warranty.

    5. Need to feel comfortable about fixing computer problems, should
    they occur.

    Each item is ever more restrictive.

    None of these items would hold /if/ Microsoft didn't have the
    stranglehold they have over most OEMs. The situation is changing, of
    course, but will take time to become more open and effective.

    --
    Men shrink less from offending one who inspires love than one who inspires
    fear.
    -- Niccolo Machiavelli

  9. Re: Linux on the desktop

    Snit wrote:
    > "Gordon" stated in post
    > foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
    >
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux
    >>> model for it to
    >>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    >>> product away.
    >>>

    >> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
    >> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
    >> they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
    >> NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
    >> Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
    >> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.

    >
    > That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
    > well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
    > that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
    > well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
    > away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
    > a wrench, but you get the idea!)
    >
    >

    Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
    2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are as
    high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
    "boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.

    --
    Rick

  10. Re: Linux on the desktop

    On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:21:31 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

    > On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:35:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> <http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/...valds-part-ii/

    >
    >> -----
    >> Linus Torvalds: Well, I donÂıt know about broader adoption, but the
    >> Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I
    >> have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop.
    >> ...
    >> But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I donÂıt even
    >> want to; itÂıs not what IÂım interested in. IÂım more of a desktop
    >> guy. IÂıve always used Linux as a workstation person.
    >>
    >> So Â* and I think I see that as not just me. I think a huge amount
    >> of the developers see Linux the same way because it turns out that
    >> while, yes, maybe servers is a huge market, when you actually look
    >> at developers, what developers interact with all the time is their
    >> workstation, their desktop and thatÂıs the area where you really eat
    >> your own dog food and where you really end up seeing the fruits of
    >> your labor.
    >> -----
    >>
    >>
    >> ------
    >> The BBC had to prioritise building the service around PCs because,
    >> according to BBC figures, around 90% of computers use Microsoft's
    >> Windows operating system, he added.
    >>
    >> Macs account for 9% of the market while the open source system
    >> Linux accounts for 0.8%.
    >> -----
    >>
    >> If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is
    >> not doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he
    >> struggles to get 1% of the user base.
    >>
    >> His explanation (from the same link as above):
    >> -----
    >> The desktop is special. Everybody has a different idea of what the
    >> desktop is going to be. You have lots of people coming from Windows
    >> who just Â* they know what a desktop is supposed to be - Windows,
    >> right?
    >>
    >> You have people coming from Mac and they know what a desktop is
    >> supposed to be and it has to have that menu bar at the top and if
    >> you donÂıt have the menu bar at the top, itÂıs not a desktop, right?
    >>
    >> So, everybody has a different idea. Everybody also has different
    >> hardware. The desktop is also where all the hardware really exists.
    >> Servers have 1% of the hardware that the desktop has in terms of
    >> different drivers and things like that. You donÂıt find webcams on
    >> servers generally. You donÂıt find oddball IDE drives on servers.
    >>
    >> So, the desktop is just much more varied and, at the same time, the
    >> desktop is also the thing where people get really upset if
    >> something changes, so itÂıs really hard to enter the desktop market
    >> because people are used to whatever they used before, mostly
    >> Windows. And if you act differently from Windows, even if you act
    >> in some ways better, it doesnÂıt matter; better is worse if itÂıs
    >> different. -----
    >>
    >> While there is some truth to what he is saying he is simply missing the
    >> big picture. I know I would jump ship if an OS came along that handled
    >> my desktop needs better than what I currently use. When talking about
    >> Linux distros Linux folks seem to get this - they talk about jumping
    >> from distro to distro to find the one you like (the distro dance).
    >> Sure, a number of people will just stick with what they know - Windows.
    >> But look at Apple: they do not sell to the low end of the desktop
    >> market and they still have managed to get 10% or so... and Apple
    >> insists you use their hardware, clearly a big impediment to their
    >> getting a bigger user base. All Linux distros *together*, most being
    >> *given* away and running on almost any hardware (to at least some
    >> extent) is - if the BBC is to be believed - at less than 1%.
    >>
    >> I have been talking about usability / UI issues... *that* is a huge
    >> part of what keeps Linux from being adopted - that and the lack of
    >> strong support from major software venders (Adobe, MS, Apple, etc.)
    >> Other have been noting that the fractured nature of Linux also plays a
    >> role - and it surely does: with Linux at less than 1% it is a big
    >> detriment to have people who use it have obstacles to helping each
    >> other.
    >>
    >> For Linus to focus on Mac users only considering the a desktop to be a
    >> desktop if the menu is at the top is just silly... most Mac users
    >> *also* have some experience with Windows... and many Mac users, myself
    >> included, understand the pros *and* the cons of the menu at the top.
    >> Heck, with greater screen resolutions and (especially) dual screens
    >> becoming more common the pros of the menu at the top might not counter
    >> the cons. It simply is not a big deal with today's computing hardware.
    >>
    >> And his comments about Windows: again he is wrong. As he notes the Mac
    >> is very different and many people who use the Mac quickly learn to
    >> prefer it... imagine if Mac OS were free - it would easily double its
    >> user base (or more) very quickly. There are good reasons why Apple
    >> does not do this - market share / user base is not the be all and end
    >> all of success... but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux
    >> system and the Linux model for it to have so much trouble breaking into
    >> a large market where it *gives* its product away.

    >
    > Pretty much true from what I can see. Notice the less than 1 percent
    > number for Linux. No matter where you go, that number keeps popping up.
    > Except on Linux blogs of course where you will read that Linux is taking
    > over the desktop.
    >
    > There is some truth that Microsoft stifled Linux but then Linux is free,
    > totally free.
    > if Linux were a decent enough desktop alternative to Windows it would be
    > destroying Microsoft.


    It would be in a truely unfettered market, byt Microsoft has had a
    stranglehold for decades that is only now just barely loosening.

    >
    > It's not.
    > And there is no indication that this will change in the near future.


    Vendors need to port some apps.

    >
    > The bottom line is that when something free can't take over a commercial
    > products market, at least in a decent way, then something is seriously
    > wrong with the free product.


    Or something is seriously with the market place.

    >
    > The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix
    > it. Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.


    Break up Microsoft 10 years ago.
    --
    Rick

  11. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "Gordon" stated in post
    foi5bf$fom$4@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 11:00 AM:

    > Snit wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
    >> well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
    >> that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
    >> well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
    >> away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
    >> a wrench, but you get the idea!)
    >>

    > Macs already had a niche market because there was no desktop publishing
    > software available for PC's.


    Sure: having good apps pulls people to an OS. There are some good apps on
    Linux but not sure about any killer apps.

    --
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
    --Aldous Huxley


  12. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "Rick" stated in post 13qpf4p8e2jh030@news.supernews.com
    on 2/8/08 1:13 PM:

    > Snit wrote:
    >> "Gordon" stated in post
    >> foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
    >>
    >>> Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux
    >>>> model for it to
    >>>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    >>>> product away.
    >>>>
    >>> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
    >>> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
    >>> they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
    >>> NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
    >>> Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
    >>> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.

    >>
    >> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
    >> well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
    >> that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
    >> well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
    >> away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
    >> a wrench, but you get the idea!)
    >>
    >>

    > Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
    > 2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are as
    > high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
    > "boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.


    So now, as you suggest, is not "during the high days of the MS monopoly."
    During that time Macs actually *did* cost more than comparable PCs and yet
    Apple maintained a 2-3% market share (so you say... I would love to see
    where you get that figure in terms of desktop share). Now, when MS is no
    longer in its "high days" of its monopoly, Linux struggles to get 1% while
    *giving* away free products that, unlike Mac OS, can be run on almost any
    hardware.

    You keep trying to tell me that ho many people use PCLOS and what grand
    reviews it gets. Care to re-think that?

    --
    When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
    to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
    beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller


  13. Re: Linux on the desktop

    On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:14:58 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > 13qpf4p8e2jh030@news.supernews.com on 2/8/08 1:13 PM:
    >
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>> "Gordon" stated in post
    >>> foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
    >>>
    >>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the
    >>>>> Linux model for it to
    >>>>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives*
    >>>>> its product away.
    >>>>>
    >>>> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
    >>>> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem
    >>>> - they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's
    >>>> been NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs
    >>>> - Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
    >>>> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that
    >>>> freedom.
    >>>
    >>> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at
    >>> how well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific
    >>> hardware... hardware that you cannot even get low end. Even in
    >>> Apple's darkest days they were well above the 1% Linux has been able
    >>> to achieve by *giving* their products away and letting it run on just
    >>> about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as a wrench, but you get the
    >>> idea!)
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
    >> 2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are
    >> as high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
    >> "boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.

    >
    > So now, as you suggest, is not "during the high days of the MS
    > monopoly." During that time Macs actually *did* cost more than
    > comparable PCs and yet Apple maintained a 2-3% market share (so you
    > say... I would love to see where you get that figure in terms of desktop
    > share). Now, when MS is no longer in its "high days" of its monopoly,
    > Linux struggles to get 1% while *giving* away free products that, unlike
    > Mac OS, can be run on almost any hardware.


    AND AGAIN, go look up herd mentality, inertia and network effects.

    >
    > You keep trying to tell me that ho many people use PCLOS and what grand
    > reviews it gets. Care to re-think that?


    Not necessary.

    --
    Rick

  14. Re: Linux on the desktop

    On 2008-02-08 18:35:31 +0100, Snit said:

    >
    > If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is not
    > doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he struggles to get
    > 1% of the user base.


    Clearly the top 1% then
    --
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
    and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken

    http://titancity.com/blog/


  15. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "Peter B. P." stated in post
    2008020900485716807-spamtrap@SPAMMERSMUSTDIEduh on 2/8/08 4:48 PM:

    > On 2008-02-08 18:35:31 +0100, Snit said:
    >
    >>
    >> If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is not
    >> doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he struggles to get
    >> 1% of the user base.

    >
    > Clearly the top 1% then


    Ah, of course.


    --
    I know how a jam jar feels...
    .... full of jam!


  16. Re: Linux on the desktop

    On 2008-02-08 19:21:31 +0100, Moshe Goldfarb said:

    > The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix it.
    > Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.


    I agree. Fewer distros and more efforc behind each. This shoudl mean
    more drivers, more software, more quality.

    --
    "A casual stroll throug the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
    prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    http://titancity.com/blog/


  17. Re: Linux on the desktop

    On 2008-02-08, Snit wrote:
    > "Gordon" stated in post
    > foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
    >
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux
    >>> model for it to
    >>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    >>> product away.
    >>>

    >>
    >> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
    >> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
    >> they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
    >> NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
    >> Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
    >> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.

    >
    > That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
    > well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware


    Oh yeah... because they are just "doing so well".

    They started out with a commanding lead. Hell, they pretty much
    invented their part of the industry. What happens? Someone with a pretty
    trademark (pretty to an MBA that is) comes in and steals all of their
    thunder overnight.

    Having dramatically better product didn't help.
    Having dramatically better product for more than 10 years of
    Microsoft and IBM sandbagging didn't help.

    > that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
    > well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
    > away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
    > a wrench, but you get the idea!)


    Linux never started out as "the industry". Apple did.

    They aren't some scrappy underdog that has fought to scrape
    out a niche for themselves. They are the previous market leader
    that got their asses whopped. They are a has-been that's trying
    to get back on top.

    That's nothing compared to Linux. It started from nothing.
    It was never a consumer product even if you consider the
    progenitors it is decended from.

    Apple's position still remains precarious. It probably will
    deteriorate again if Jobs loses interest. At this point they
    haven't even built back up to the position they were in 20 years
    ago.

    --


    The average IT manager is a less effective mentor than a
    Spongebob Squarepants cartoon.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  18. Re: Linux on the desktop

    On 2008-02-08, Snit wrote:
    > "Rick" stated in post 13qpf4p8e2jh030@news.supernews.com
    > on 2/8/08 1:13 PM:
    >
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>> "Gordon" stated in post
    >>> foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
    >>>
    >>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux
    >>>>> model for it to
    >>>>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    >>>>> product away.
    >>>>>
    >>>> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
    >>>> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
    >>>> they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
    >>>> NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
    >>>> Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
    >>>> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.
    >>>
    >>> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
    >>> well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
    >>> that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
    >>> well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
    >>> away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
    >>> a wrench, but you get the idea!)
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
    >> 2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are as
    >> high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
    >> "boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.

    >
    > So now, as you suggest, is not "during the high days of the MS monopoly."
    > During that time Macs actually *did* cost more than comparable PCs and yet


    Apple's STILL cost MORE than comparable PC's.

    They are 2x more expensive on the low end.

    > Apple maintained a 2-3% market share (so you say... I would love to see
    > where you get that figure in terms of desktop share). Now, when MS is no
    > longer in its "high days" of its monopoly, Linux struggles to get 1% while
    > *giving* away free products that, unlike Mac OS, can be run on almost any
    > hardware.


    That may comfort you but in truth the only place that number can
    come from is out of your ass. One problem with Linux is that it isn't
    conventional. You can't count boxes and know what the market penetration
    is.

    This Vista box won't be counted as a Linux box. It is though.

    The same goes for the "MacOS" box in the family room.

    >
    > You keep trying to tell me that ho many people use PCLOS and what grand
    > reviews it gets. Care to re-think that?
    >


    You're the one that needs to put some thought into his position.

    --


    The average IT manager is a less effective mentor than a
    Spongebob Squarepants cartoon.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  19. Re: Linux on the desktop

    * Peter B P peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On 2008-02-08 19:21:31 +0100, Moshe Goldfarb said:
    >
    >> The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix it.
    >> Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.

    >
    > I agree. Fewer distros and more efforc behind each. This shoudl mean
    > more drivers, more software, more quality.


    How so?

    What you say makes no sense.

    GNU/Linux dudes do what they want. A guy who just wants to collect
    existing applications, change some configuration items, maybe tweak
    a few things, might not /want/ to add his efforts to an existing
    project.

    Next you'll be telling people who make themes that they should instead
    be working on improving OpenOffice's ODF<--->MS Office conversions.

    More drivers? The vendors should be helping.

    More software? It is happening all the time.

    More quality? Always a good goal. Let the people vote with their feet.

    --
    Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working together and
    motivating them, the teacher is the most important.
    -- Bill Gates

  20. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "Rick" stated in post 13qpmc018fcjc4f@news.supernews.com
    on 2/8/08 3:36 PM:

    > On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:14:58 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> 13qpf4p8e2jh030@news.supernews.com on 2/8/08 1:13 PM:
    >>
    >>> Snit wrote:
    >>>> "Gordon" stated in post
    >>>> foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the
    >>>>>> Linux model for it to
    >>>>>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives*
    >>>>>> its product away.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
    >>>>> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem
    >>>>> - they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's
    >>>>> been NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs
    >>>>> - Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
    >>>>> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that
    >>>>> freedom.
    >>>>
    >>>> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at
    >>>> how well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific
    >>>> hardware... hardware that you cannot even get low end. Even in
    >>>> Apple's darkest days they were well above the 1% Linux has been able
    >>>> to achieve by *giving* their products away and letting it run on just
    >>>> about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as a wrench, but you get the
    >>>> idea!)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
    >>> 2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are
    >>> as high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
    >>> "boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.

    >>
    >> So now, as you suggest, is not "during the high days of the MS
    >> monopoly." During that time Macs actually *did* cost more than
    >> comparable PCs and yet Apple maintained a 2-3% market share (so you
    >> say... I would love to see where you get that figure in terms of desktop
    >> share). Now, when MS is no longer in its "high days" of its monopoly,
    >> Linux struggles to get 1% while *giving* away free products that, unlike
    >> Mac OS, can be run on almost any hardware.

    >
    > AND AGAIN, go look up herd mentality, inertia and network effects.


    They are all under the definition of things you will try to use to excuse
    the fact that Linux distros are hardly used even when they are given away.

    >> You keep trying to tell me that ho many people use PCLOS and what grand
    >> reviews it gets. Care to re-think that?

    >
    > Not necessary.


    I agree - it is not necessary for you to make reasoned comments... but it
    would be nice!

    --
    The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast