Your telling me that doing the same thing for less money isn't better?
If it did the same thing then maybe, but it doesn't. That's the entire argument as to why it isn't ready for the home!
Quote:
Oh, yeah I forgot consumers don't care about the speed of connecting their machines to LANs or the internet (TCP stack) or losing their data when the power dies and slow disk access (Journaling). Silly me!
You're right they don't. As long as it works, regardless of the underlying technology, users don't care. Journaling exists under MacOS and Windows, and maybe it isn't quite as robust as on Linux (and maybe it is), but it simply doesn't matter. There is no practical or real world difference in day to day usability and operation.
Quote:
The pro-Linux people never start this kind of childish pissing match.
Oh please. That's all the pro-Linux people ever do whenever anyone doubts that their precious OS might be ready for the home. Starry eyed delusions of the ultimate victory of the bazaar only go so far, and eventually people will actually have to use this thing, and it's just not ready.
Quote:
But for some reason people think that Linux will never become popular until it is 'better' than Mac OS X, an OS with 1% market share, (which even according to the Google piechart posted above, Linux has already equaled).
No, Linux will never become popular until it is so much better at general tasks than Windows that people will want to switch. MacOS is already better than Windows (and has been for decades) and it still only has a 3% market share. Being better wasn't enough for the Mac, and it wouldn't be enough for Linux (even if it were better). By the way, I wonder where you get your 1% figure? The Mac (and by extension MacOS X, since that is all that can run on every Mac sold) has about 3% of the market by all accounts.
Thanks for the summary ...fox - sometimes I feel the confusion that is going through these Linux desktops can be a bit - comes from being more entrenched in Mac that anything else for me.
Which is why I applaud what Lindows has done. Perhaps we need more "branding" in the desktops that run on Linux in order to have them more accepted and identified by consumers.
As an end user, I wouldn't want to repeat what you told me. Although it makes sense, I couldn't quote it verbatim. I'd want to be able to tell a vendor exactly what I want. Mac OS X and Aqua are branded, Windows and Longhorn and Luna are branded. Lindows is branded.
Are there any other complete desktops branded in Linux? Full distributions is what I think I mean. Something I can buy with a simple install CD or download instead of getting pieces here and there.
That applies to everything in Linux. It will never be unified and never be a desktop. And yes I'm playing Devil's Advocate, because Linux fanboise are delusional and for some weird reason the media is caught up in the Linux thing too. Linux probably has less than .1% desktop martkshare at least in the US. Elsewhere governments are putting it to good use. Actually I think the US should use Linux in more agencies to cut costs and virus/security problems.
Distro Watch is a website that keeps track of new distros and updated older ones... They have a next-to-compleat list of all the Linux distros out there.
That applies to everything in Linux. It will never be unified and never be a desktop. And yes I'm playing Devil's Advocate, because Linux fanboise are delusional and for some weird reason the media is caught up in the Linux thing too. Linux probably has less than .1% desktop martkshare at least in the US. Elsewhere governments are putting it to good use. Actually I think the US should use Linux in more agencies to cut costs and virus/security problems.
Yah... I am not delusional. People like stupider...likeafox and myself are using straight fact and experience to fill our posts. You, however, you are just posting your opinion. I am not asking you to change your views on Linux, but I do ask you to be a little less dismissive when good points are posted. It seems as if you are only reading what you want to read.
That said, The media is caught up in Linux and that's a good thing. The more light that hits Linux the more interest people will have in it. The media is an important part of business, Apple knows how to use it well, and it is good to see Linux getting some attention.
Thanks Wickes. Something like this is great for me. But again I address the branding. Is there anything out there as well-known as Lindows? I know of Red Hat, but I get the impression from them that I still have to build up what I want (ie. they have no standard desktop look and feel). Not that there is anything wrong in putting the pieces together, but I hope I am asking it the right way (from an end-user perspective) what I am looking for.
If I start using Lindows, then I would want to setup all hardware that I get to work with it (as opposed to buying necessary components and/or adding it pieces of software) and I guess I would have some expectations about this distribution. For example, each upgrade of OS X explained the minimum hardware requirements, but you could be assured that it would work with the newest hardware - I guess that's what happens when Apple controls "the whole widget". And Micro$oft has the resources to test their OS on everything (well, in theory).
This is where I see Linux not being ready for prime time. It seems that it is at the same place OS X 10.0 was - being ready for early adapters, but not something you would want to put into production as a replacement. Maybe it's these questions that might concern people who would readily switch to Linux.
Guess that's why I stay with Macs. Fear of things getting too involved. After all, isn't that the excuse Windoze folks use when confronted with integrating a Mac into a corporate environment? Fear of too much resources to set it up - even though we all know that it has to be one of the easiest platforms to add to any existing network.
Thanks Wickes. Something like this is great for me. But again I address the branding. Is there anything out there as well-known as Lindows? I know of Red Hat, but I get the impression from them that I still have to build up what I want (ie. they have no standard desktop look and feel). Not that there is anything wrong in putting the pieces together, but I hope I am asking it the right way (from an end-user perspective) what I am looking for.
Well Red Hat does have a standard look and feel. It is called Bluecurve.
And with the link I gave you before just look down and to the right and you will see a list of distros, while this is just a list of distros used to visit the site you can see links to their sites and a bit of info about each one when you click on them.
By the way, I wonder where you get your 1% figure? The Mac (and by extension MacOS X, since that is all that can run on every Mac sold) has about 3% of the market by all accounts.
They claim that 40% of Mac users will be running OS X by the end of this quarter. The last time I checked the figures it was only a third (33%) and so I was calculating a third of 3% (from Google Zeitgeist) = 1% i.e. the same as Linux.
Going by the survey data linked in the original post Linux overtook Macs last year so by their measure there is 3 times as many Linux desktops as Mac OS X desktops.
Thanks Wickes. Something like this is great for me. But again I address the branding. Is there anything out there as well-known as Lindows?
Lindows , Lycoris and Xandros are the consumer oriented desktop distributions but they all work best if you actually pay money for them. You can buy Lindows and Lycoris pre-installed at Walmart. Unfortunately they are all aimed at Windows switchers and so act a bit too much like Windows for my liking.
Suse is also available preinstalled at Walmart and while you can just run it as-is, with the addition of Ximian Desktop 2 you get a pretty kick ass enterprise desktop that is reasonably Mac-like (but not just in a cheesy rip-off way). Interestingly both Ximian and Suse were recently bought by Novell as part of a major Linux push within that company so I'm expecting big things from that department.
Note that Red Hat's Fedora Core 2 is due out next month, something I'm quite excited about (Core 1 was a bit muddled due to the transition from Red Hat). However, Fedora is far more hardcore about open source and so doesn't include things like Acrobat Reader, Shockwave/Flash plug-ins, or any mp3 support due to licensing issues. It's little niggles like these that will trip up beginners and that's why it's better to stick with the consumer focussed distribs that are built on top of the geek focussed ones.
Wait a minute, you said MacOS X has a 1% market share, not installed base. MacOS X has a 3% market share, and probably about a 2% installed base (due to the longer lifespan of a Mac vs x86 box). Multiplying an Apple installed base figure by a google web access statistic to get market share is ridiculous.
Besides, if LotD is really taking off then why has the google statistic for Linux been stuck at 1% since 2001? It would seem to me that if Linux were actually expanding on the desktop you'd get some kind of jump.
Quote:
Going by the survey data linked in the original post Linux overtook Macs last year so by their measure there is 3 times as many Linux desktops as Mac OS X desktops
No. Last year all macs sold ran MacOS X solely, so by their measure the number of desktops between the two are basically equal. Or are you claiming that somehow, during the year in question, only 33% of Macs sold are now running MacOS X?
Come on, you're trying to compare one year of Linux sales to an aggregate average of 6 or seven years of Mac sales. It just doesn't work that way.
Getting a lot of good info about desktop distributions of Linux.
Now, from a consumer standpoint, are there any "branded" distributions of applications that do not require the end-user to compile the apps, or rely on libraries installed? Specifically, I am thinking of things like ThinkFree Office and Gimp, but are there more? Games? PDA sync software? And how do these compare with "industry standards" that are out there?
For example, try submitting artwork if it is not in a Quark 4 format. Try talking to a graphic artists about anything other than PhotoShop. It's almost like talking to LAN Admins about Macs!
Wait a minute, you said MacOS X has a 1% market share, not installed base. MacOS X has a 3% market share, and probably about a 2% installed base (due to the longer lifespan of a Mac vs x86 box). Multiplying an Apple installed base figure by a google web access statistic to get market share is ridiculous.
Okay, hold on, I'm confusing myself now. From the top:
Mac OS X now has a market share (percentage of desktops sold) of 3% which the original link claims Linux on the desktop matched and surpassed last year. So, according to them there will be more Linux Desktops sold this year than Macs, and will be selling twice as much within a couple of years.
The Google figures concern installed base (if you assume all OS's are as likely to use Google) and claim 3% total for Macs (which happens to coincide with the generally accepted level) and 1% for Linux. Apple claims that nearly 40% of their installed base is running Mac OS X which gives 1%, the same as Linux.
So (without delving into the total lack of info behind these numbers) my math stands even if I got the terminology mixed up.
Now, from a consumer standpoint, are there any "branded" distributions of applications that do not require the end-user to compile the apps, or rely on libraries installed?
Yeah, Lindows has a software library called Click'n'Run which gives you some idea of the ease of use they're aiming at.
Well your claim was that there are 3 times as many linux as MacOS X desktops in use, and that's what I'm disputing. In any event, it really doesn't matter. I disagree with your math, we'll leave it at that.
What I find interesting is that the article states that IDC is going to announce a 3.2% PC share for Linux, it didn't specifically say desktop share, nor whether that includes downloads and boxed red hat et. al sales or just boxes sold with linux pre-installed, etc. It will also be interesting to see whether that's worldwide (likely, due to China and other areas), or just US, and how they gathered info on whether those linux boxes will be used as actual desktops or not. The article is really quite vague on the specifics, but we'll have to wait and see.
Appearances to the contrary aside, I really do hope that Linux does well. I believe that the golden age of computing was in the late '80's with the Atari, Amiga, Mac and DOS/Windows all vying for supremacy. I just don't ever see it happening again. Linux on the desktop might hit 4 or 5 %, the Mac may someday hit 5%, but I fear that Windows is here to stay.
Comments
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Your telling me that doing the same thing for less money isn't better?
If it did the same thing then maybe, but it doesn't. That's the entire argument as to why it isn't ready for the home!
Oh, yeah I forgot consumers don't care about the speed of connecting their machines to LANs or the internet (TCP stack) or losing their data when the power dies and slow disk access (Journaling). Silly me!
You're right they don't. As long as it works, regardless of the underlying technology, users don't care. Journaling exists under MacOS and Windows, and maybe it isn't quite as robust as on Linux (and maybe it is), but it simply doesn't matter. There is no practical or real world difference in day to day usability and operation.
The pro-Linux people never start this kind of childish pissing match.
Oh please. That's all the pro-Linux people ever do whenever anyone doubts that their precious OS might be ready for the home. Starry eyed delusions of the ultimate victory of the bazaar only go so far, and eventually people will actually have to use this thing, and it's just not ready.
But for some reason people think that Linux will never become popular until it is 'better' than Mac OS X, an OS with 1% market share, (which even according to the Google piechart posted above, Linux has already equaled).
No, Linux will never become popular until it is so much better at general tasks than Windows that people will want to switch. MacOS is already better than Windows (and has been for decades) and it still only has a 3% market share. Being better wasn't enough for the Mac, and it wouldn't be enough for Linux (even if it were better). By the way, I wonder where you get your 1% figure? The Mac (and by extension MacOS X, since that is all that can run on every Mac sold) has about 3% of the market by all accounts.
Which is why I applaud what Lindows has done. Perhaps we need more "branding" in the desktops that run on Linux in order to have them more accepted and identified by consumers.
As an end user, I wouldn't want to repeat what you told me. Although it makes sense, I couldn't quote it verbatim. I'd want to be able to tell a vendor exactly what I want. Mac OS X and Aqua are branded, Windows and Longhorn and Luna are branded. Lindows is branded.
Are there any other complete desktops branded in Linux? Full distributions is what I think I mean. Something I can buy with a simple install CD or download instead of getting pieces here and there.
run under the other almost totally seamlessly
That applies to everything in Linux. It will never be unified and never be a desktop. And yes I'm playing Devil's Advocate, because Linux fanboise are delusional and for some weird reason the media is caught up in the Linux thing too. Linux probably has less than .1% desktop martkshare at least in the US. Elsewhere governments are putting it to good use. Actually I think the US should use Linux in more agencies to cut costs and virus/security problems.
There are many distro...
http://www.distrowatch.com/
Distro Watch is a website that keeps track of new distros and updated older ones... They have a next-to-compleat list of all the Linux distros out there.
Originally posted by Aquatic
That applies to everything in Linux. It will never be unified and never be a desktop. And yes I'm playing Devil's Advocate, because Linux fanboise are delusional and for some weird reason the media is caught up in the Linux thing too. Linux probably has less than .1% desktop martkshare at least in the US. Elsewhere governments are putting it to good use. Actually I think the US should use Linux in more agencies to cut costs and virus/security problems.
Yah... I am not delusional. People like stupider...likeafox and myself are using straight fact and experience to fill our posts. You, however, you are just posting your opinion. I am not asking you to change your views on Linux, but I do ask you to be a little less dismissive when good points are posted. It seems as if you are only reading what you want to read.
That said, The media is caught up in Linux and that's a good thing. The more light that hits Linux the more interest people will have in it. The media is an important part of business, Apple knows how to use it well, and it is good to see Linux getting some attention.
If I start using Lindows, then I would want to setup all hardware that I get to work with it (as opposed to buying necessary components and/or adding it pieces of software) and I guess I would have some expectations about this distribution. For example, each upgrade of OS X explained the minimum hardware requirements, but you could be assured that it would work with the newest hardware - I guess that's what happens when Apple controls "the whole widget". And Micro$oft has the resources to test their OS on everything (well, in theory).
This is where I see Linux not being ready for prime time. It seems that it is at the same place OS X 10.0 was - being ready for early adapters, but not something you would want to put into production as a replacement. Maybe it's these questions that might concern people who would readily switch to Linux.
Guess that's why I stay with Macs. Fear of things getting too involved. After all, isn't that the excuse Windoze folks use when confronted with integrating a Mac into a corporate environment? Fear of too much resources to set it up - even though we all know that it has to be one of the easiest platforms to add to any existing network.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Thanks Wickes. Something like this is great for me. But again I address the branding. Is there anything out there as well-known as Lindows? I know of Red Hat, but I get the impression from them that I still have to build up what I want (ie. they have no standard desktop look and feel). Not that there is anything wrong in putting the pieces together, but I hope I am asking it the right way (from an end-user perspective) what I am looking for.
Well Red Hat does have a standard look and feel. It is called Bluecurve.
Take a look.
http://osnews.daemon.be/img/1842/redhat6.jpg
And with the link I gave you before just look down and to the right and you will see a list of distros, while this is just a list of distros used to visit the site you can see links to their sites and a bit of info about each one when you click on them.
Originally posted by Fluffy
By the way, I wonder where you get your 1% figure? The Mac (and by extension MacOS X, since that is all that can run on every Mac sold) has about 3% of the market by all accounts.
From Apple of course: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jan/06macosx.html
They claim that 40% of Mac users will be running OS X by the end of this quarter. The last time I checked the figures it was only a third (33%) and so I was calculating a third of 3% (from Google Zeitgeist) = 1% i.e. the same as Linux.
Going by the survey data linked in the original post Linux overtook Macs last year so by their measure there is 3 times as many Linux desktops as Mac OS X desktops.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Thanks Wickes. Something like this is great for me. But again I address the branding. Is there anything out there as well-known as Lindows?
Lindows , Lycoris and Xandros are the consumer oriented desktop distributions but they all work best if you actually pay money for them. You can buy Lindows and Lycoris pre-installed at Walmart. Unfortunately they are all aimed at Windows switchers and so act a bit too much like Windows for my liking.
Suse is also available preinstalled at Walmart and while you can just run it as-is, with the addition of Ximian Desktop 2 you get a pretty kick ass enterprise desktop that is reasonably Mac-like (but not just in a cheesy rip-off way). Interestingly both Ximian and Suse were recently bought by Novell as part of a major Linux push within that company so I'm expecting big things from that department.
Note that Red Hat's Fedora Core 2 is due out next month, something I'm quite excited about (Core 1 was a bit muddled due to the transition from Red Hat). However, Fedora is far more hardcore about open source and so doesn't include things like Acrobat Reader, Shockwave/Flash plug-ins, or any mp3 support due to licensing issues. It's little niggles like these that will trip up beginners and that's why it's better to stick with the consumer focussed distribs that are built on top of the geek focussed ones.
Besides, if LotD is really taking off then why has the google statistic for Linux been stuck at 1% since 2001? It would seem to me that if Linux were actually expanding on the desktop you'd get some kind of jump.
Going by the survey data linked in the original post Linux overtook Macs last year so by their measure there is 3 times as many Linux desktops as Mac OS X desktops
No. Last year all macs sold ran MacOS X solely, so by their measure the number of desktops between the two are basically equal. Or are you claiming that somehow, during the year in question, only 33% of Macs sold are now running MacOS X?
Come on, you're trying to compare one year of Linux sales to an aggregate average of 6 or seven years of Mac sales. It just doesn't work that way.
Now, from a consumer standpoint, are there any "branded" distributions of applications that do not require the end-user to compile the apps, or rely on libraries installed? Specifically, I am thinking of things like ThinkFree Office and Gimp, but are there more? Games? PDA sync software? And how do these compare with "industry standards" that are out there?
For example, try submitting artwork if it is not in a Quark 4 format. Try talking to a graphic artists about anything other than PhotoShop. It's almost like talking to LAN Admins about Macs!
Originally posted by Fluffy
Wait a minute, you said MacOS X has a 1% market share, not installed base. MacOS X has a 3% market share, and probably about a 2% installed base (due to the longer lifespan of a Mac vs x86 box). Multiplying an Apple installed base figure by a google web access statistic to get market share is ridiculous.
Okay, hold on, I'm confusing myself now. From the top:
Mac OS X now has a market share (percentage of desktops sold) of 3% which the original link claims Linux on the desktop matched and surpassed last year. So, according to them there will be more Linux Desktops sold this year than Macs, and will be selling twice as much within a couple of years.
(Here's an otherwise generally negative article on Linux that claims 2.8% Linux marketshare versus 3% Apple in 2002: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/pte...eut/index.html)
The Google figures concern installed base (if you assume all OS's are as likely to use Google) and claim 3% total for Macs (which happens to coincide with the generally accepted level) and 1% for Linux. Apple claims that nearly 40% of their installed base is running Mac OS X which gives 1%, the same as Linux.
So (without delving into the total lack of info behind these numbers) my math stands even if I got the terminology mixed up.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Now, from a consumer standpoint, are there any "branded" distributions of applications that do not require the end-user to compile the apps, or rely on libraries installed?
Yeah, Lindows has a software library called Click'n'Run which gives you some idea of the ease of use they're aiming at.
You can check out the range and prices here: http://www.lindows.com/lindows_products_categories.php
What I find interesting is that the article states that IDC is going to announce a 3.2% PC share for Linux, it didn't specifically say desktop share, nor whether that includes downloads and boxed red hat et. al sales or just boxes sold with linux pre-installed, etc. It will also be interesting to see whether that's worldwide (likely, due to China and other areas), or just US, and how they gathered info on whether those linux boxes will be used as actual desktops or not. The article is really quite vague on the specifics, but we'll have to wait and see.
Appearances to the contrary aside, I really do hope that Linux does well. I believe that the golden age of computing was in the late '80's with the Atari, Amiga, Mac and DOS/Windows all vying for supremacy. I just don't ever see it happening again. Linux on the desktop might hit 4 or 5 %, the Mac may someday hit 5%, but I fear that Windows is here to stay.