| [cllfst] Un article, deux commentaires |
[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.tuxfamily.org/cllfst Archives ]
On the server side, Linux is kicking ass and taking names. An IDC report from 2010 claims that Linux made up more than 20% of the server market. I've seen some estimates claiming that it could be significantly higher than that today. Recent reports claim that Amazon alone is using as many as half a million Linux servers in data centers around the world to power its cloud services -- a strong indicator of just how established Linux is.
That's great, but on the desktop side of the fence, Linux is a non-issue. Compared to Microsoft Windows, even Mac OS X has trivial desktop market share, but it's enough to put it on the radar, and Mac OS X has been growing strong in recent years. Linux, on the other hand, has never really been more than a rounding error. It is up slightly, but it generally makes up about 1% of the desktop operating system market.
I spent a month experiencing Linux as a desktop operating system. What I learned from the 30 Days With Ubuntu Linux experiment is that Linux is, in fact, capable of being a desktop operating system. But, the whole 30 days felt like I was swimming upstream -- constantly tinkering and finding workarounds to get everyday tasks done. Using Linux as a replacement for Windows takes more effort than it's worth, and in the end I was still left with a poor substitute lacking tools I rely on like Microsoft Office, or native syncing for my iPhone and iPad.
Granted, Linux is not entirely to blame. Microsoft or Apple could certainly step up and make products available, and that would solve the problem to an extent. But they haven't, and they won't because Linux is not a big enough player in the desktop market to warrant the attention.
To its credit, Linux has a phenomenal support system and loyal, knowledgeable users willing to help guide you through the murky waters. Of course, it's often difficult to find them through the sea of self-righteous flamers who berate you for not knowing what you're doing.
Linux is an awesome server operating system. If you're replacing or adding servers at your company, I highly suggest you look closely at Linux as an option and consider the benefits of Linux servers. But, if you're in the market to refresh or replace your desktop operating system, stick with Windows and Mac OS X. Linux will be more headache than it's worth.
I know there's an army of dedicated Linux hobbyists who will no doubt unleash a barrage of flames and tirades as a result of this article. They'll tell me all the ways Windows sucks, and all the reasons Apple is evil, and make exalted claims about how wonderful their lives are since they made the switch, and how they'll never go back.Let me preemptively say, "That's great. I'm happy for you." It doesn't change the fact that you're part of a negligible market segment. It doesn't change the reality that Linux is not as intuitive or user-friendly as its rivals, or that it lacks the third-party hardware and software support of its rivals, or that using it requires a learning curve and the dedication to dive into forums and learn to tinker. It's great for hobbyists and hackers, but not for an average user at a company.
So, move on. There's nothing to see here. The dream of Linux becoming relevant in the desktop market will never be realized. The desktop operating system market is a two-horse race between Windows and Mac OS X.
Besides, we live in a post-PC era where even Windows and Mac OS X are being supplanted by mobile platforms like iOS and Android. Android is a Linux variant so Linux fans can claim that as a consolation prize for the lack of success on the desktop.
Commentaire 1:
Tony, I really enjoyed your 30 Days articles. That said, I think you are making some big, and very wrong assumptions in this article. Here are the "Myths" you seem to have fallen into:
1. Linux needs a market share to succeed.
This assumption is false. Being free open source software, Linux exists outside of the market forces that define success for Microsoft and Apple. Success for Linux is measured by whether it is useful for somebody. As long as those who use it are happy using it, it is successful, and is perfectly alive and well, not dead by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn't matter how much market share it has. That has no relevance to Linux.
2. Linux needs to be tweaked more than Windows to be useful.
Back when Windows Vista was first introduced, I purchased a new laptop. Vista seemed unstable, and did not recognize my printer and other hardware. So instead of buying new hardware, I bought a copy of XP. After installing it, many things just plain didn't work. It had no drivers for my laptop's hardware. I had to plug my laptop into a hardwired internet connection, search out the appropriate drivers, install-reboot-install-reboot-install-reboot-etc., and then purchase or download all the software that didn't come with Windows and do the install-reboot dance again. It took forever to get it all put together. Linux, on the other hand, installs cleanly, comes with most drivers built-in (for both new and old hardware), and finds drivers it didn't come with for you, and installs everything with minimal effort, and very little rebooting. It comes with tons of software preinstalled. With a bare Linux install, in a very short time you get a really well-put-together OS with minimal fuss, compared to a bare Windows install. Where most people get this stupid misconception is that Windows comes preinstalled and neatly optimized on most machines. Guess what: Buy a machine pre-installed with Linux, and you get the same nice configuration and optimization.
3. Everyone has the same OS/software needs.
The way I use my computer, Windows would be a dismal failure. It annoys me, and I cannot get anything done on it as cleanly and efficiently as I do in Linux. In fact, after using Linux for a number of years, I personally cannot find any reason at all to use Windows, although I do have Windows 7 on a separate partition. LibreOffice meets my needs just as much as MS Office ever could, and I like it better and would have it installed anyway, no matter what OS I used. I'm not a gamer. There are great audio/video/music creation tools that run nicely on Linux and do exactly what I need at a much better price (free as opposed to many hundreds of dollars). The lesson here: USE WHAT WORKS FOR YOU! If Linux works great, awesome! If Windows works great, perfect! If MacOS works great, wonderful!
4. Ubuntu defaults define Linux.
Each Linux distribution is designed with a certain use in mind. Ubuntu does ok for many, but its biggest reason for being so popular isn't because it's good. It's because it's got name recognition. Try other distributions that are tailored to what you use it for. I highly recommend Linux Mint as a good transitional Linux for a Windows user. That said, I personally wouldn't recommend Linux Mint 12, just because it's in a sort of flux due to all the desktop designers scrambling to move their design to the mobile/touchscreen world. I'd stick with LM 9, 10, or 11. I wouldn't recommend Windows 8/Metro for the same reason.
Basically, you're advising people to steer clear of Linux, without knowing their needs or level of experience. You are using falsehoods based on relatively little personal experience on the platform (30 days just doesn't make anyone an expert on anything). You are bashing an OS you have little real experience with for reasons that are mostly invalid, based on your own limited usage and bias.
While I don't use Windows or MacOS (although I have in the past), I will not say that Windows sucks or that Apple is evil. That's just not true. But they are run from a completely different philosophy and business model than Linux, and therefore cannot be compared like you have compared them.
I want to ask you the following:
1. What purpose does it serve to impose market force measurements on something distributed for free?
2. When you want to use MacOS, you have to buy Apple-approved and MacOS-compatible hardware. I prefer to think of Linux in the same way. I wouldn't purchase MacOS and expect it to run nicely on my Gateway laptop without some amount of difficulty. Why would you expect Linux to be compatible with hardware that is not specifically made for it (like you iDevices) instead of being happy that it is indeed compatible with a TON of hardware anyway?
3. What is the purpose of this article other than to unfairly berate an OS you obviously don't like, or to invite flaming from the Linux fanboys who will tell Windows sucks and Apple is evil? Other than that, I see no purpose for this article.
I understand that you intend this article to steer people clear of "headaches" from trying Linux. But rather than trying to give concrete things to look out for should they try it, which would be fair and acceptable, you simply bash it unfairly, and belittle those who use it. That is not acceptable.
Commentaire 2:
I read your 30 days with Ubuntu. It was good reading. However, you never really tried Linux. You tried to make Linux into Windows. That was actually almost your stated purpose.
I switched to Linux 18 months ago. I am a nurse with a nontechnical background. I went into it with the idea of learning the Linux way of doing things. Just like I learned the Windows way of doing things with Windows 95. After 6 months,I was more comfortable with Linux than Windows, but I was almost instantly able to 90% of what I did on Windows.
I would not dream of flaming you, to each his own. However millions use Linux as an operating system. It is far from dead and well seated to thrive as computing evolves.
I only ask, please do not tell people you tried Linux for 30 days, you did not.
As for Linux users. "We happy few, we happy band of brothers" or something like that.
Source :
| Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ | http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/ |