Don't listen to Bill Gates. The open-source movement isn't communism.

Slate ^ | Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005 | Adam L. Penenberg

[HAL9000]

Another problem with these stats, not evident here, is that many copies of Linux are running on hardware sold with a Windows license.

And conversely, 80-to-90 percent of the computers in China and India are running pirated copies of Windows on computers that were originally sold with a disposable copy of Linux.

And yet another problem with such stats is that there are many brands of Linux sold or downloaded, and that each copy of a Linux distribution is licensed to be installed as many times as you like.

Multiple installations of a single copy of Linux is common for servers, but I believe the opposite scenario is common when Linux is installed on a single computer. When I'm installing a Linux server, I usually download several different distributions and test all of them. Then I pick one, install it and dispose of the others. I'm sure other Linux users do the same, and those unused downloads tend to inflate Linux statistics.

There is no universally agreed method for measuring OS usage share. But I think the best way to measure desktop OS usage is according to user-agent statistics on a broad range of general interest web server log files.

Linux is excellent for servers and embedded devices. It's the best OS for those purposes. But it's lousy for a desktop environment, especially for the typical home/business computer user.

[Golden Eagle]

I won't argue that the majority of linux/OSS users are leftists

Admirable, since most pushing linux refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's no accident nor deniable that every communist government in the world is switching to open source typically by government mandate. They love it, and love those in the US that see no danger in it just as much.

[Golden Eagle]

I won't argue that the majority of linux/OSS users are leftists

Admirable, since most pushing linux refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's no accident nor deniable that every communist government in the world is switching to open source typically by government mandate. They love it, and love those in the US that see no danger in it just as much.

[ThePythonicCow]

But it's lousy for a desktop environment, especially for the typical home/business computer user.

That depends. I setup most of the computers used by my relatives, varying from elderly doing simple email and web, to a small business owner, to a serious multimedia artsie type, to a serious teenage gamer, to a production email server and a production web server. I setup Mac, Windows and Linux, depending on their needs.

If someone wants to use Quicken or Taxcut/Turbotax, I set them up with Windows. If someone wants to play the latest games, I set them up with Windows. If someone wants simple email, web and plain text documents, for the lowest cost, I set them up with Linux. If someone wants the finest in multimedia production software or the slickest end user interface, I set them up with Mac. If someone (like myself) wants to develop software for embedded or supercomputer Linux systems, I set them up with Linux. If someone wants an email or web server, I set them up with Linux. If someone needs to interoperate with systems at work running Windows, like my cousin who just passed his bar last week and has a new job at a law firm, they get Windows.

Depends.

Long term trends are not always easy to see, but some show up. Mac is resurging. Linux is taking over the embedded space strongly. Supercomputers are moving from proprietary Unix O.S.'s to Linux. Windows is holding strong in the game, typical home computer, office and business department server spaces.

The next trend, if Google succeeds in its long range plans, could dramatically change things, but I am not sure how.

• Google-Mart By Robert X. Cringely
• Cringely Sees Google Trucking Along by David Utter
• Don Dodge on The Next Big Thing

From Don Dodge's column:

GYMA (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL) will be important players in the next generation of the web, sometimes referred to as Web2.0. It really is a whole new thing. The idea of SaaS (Software as a Service) is to move computing resources off individual PCs and onto the network. To do this you need high bandwidth connections. Nearly everyone has that. But, if you can get data storage near the network access points and a computing infrastructure there as well...Wow! This changes the dynamics significantly.

We could be on the verge of another web innovation cycle reminiscent of 1995. Some entrepreneurs have spent the last two years building products and services in anticipation of this wave. The fun is about to begin.

These Google trucks are running Linux, by the way, not Windows. And the leading commercial database, Oracle, is making a big push to get on Linux. IBM continues to spend big money to get Linux to have features currently found on their mainframe operating systems.

[Poser]

Linux zombies are to operating systems as Jehova's Witnesses are to religion.

[HAL9000]

I generally agree with your comments (especially about Google) - except for this part -

If someone wants simple email, web and plain text documents, for the lowest cost, I set them up with Linux.

I'd encourage those folks to use Macs instead. Although the initial cost of desktop Linux is slightly lower, it's usability as a desktop machine is inferior and it requires more expert maintainence.

[ThePythonicCow]

Your Mac versus Linux for low cost email/web/text systems depends on how cost sensitive the user is, versus how tech friendly they are.

My father-in-law is an absolute cheap skate, but fairly patient with techie stuff. I can hand build a cheap PC for less than even a MAC mini (which didn't exist when he got his system.)

And for the three things he does, web, email and a text diary of his trips, there really is not enough difference in usability to amount to a hill of beans. Either way, you have to learn a few things.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

That's ok. It requires full stores in america to compete with the world's slow advance to OSS.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

^^^^^^^Many indeed are of a leftward tilt but not all.^^^^^^^

I know. But you and I are minorities within a minority. Though I'm a registered independent.

^^^^^^^^^^I honestly cannot remember the last time I was forced to reboot any of my computers.^^^^^^^^^^^^^

:-)

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

^^^^^^^^since most pushing linux refuse to admit this basic fact.^^^^^^^

See just two or three posts up from yours.

^^^^^^^And it's no accident nor deniable that every communist government in the world is switching to open source typically by government mandate.^^^^^^^^^^^


That's fine. That doesn't make *Linux* communist.

That's like saying "well now that these communist govermnents are dropping windows, windows isn't communist anymore".

^^^^^^^^^^They love it, and love those in the US that see no danger in it just as much.^^^^^^^^^^^^

It might be easier on you if you just stopped to think that part of the reason they love it is because it's just as easy to use, but it doesn't come with all the swiss cheese. MS has done alot to beef up their security, but it isn't nearly enough.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

^^^^^^^^^But it's lousy for a desktop environment^^^^^^^^^^

Not true. Linux UI development is pretty competitive even with Macs.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1522611/posts

[HAL9000]

My father-in-law is an absolute cheap skate, but fairly patient with techie stuff. I can hand build a cheap PC for less than even a MAC mini (which didn't exist when he got his system.)

If he knows how to work the basic commands like cd, cp, vi, man, grep, regular expressions, etc. - and he doesn't care about the awful GUI - Linux is okay.

But it's downright cruel to make a typical father-in-law use Linux.

[HAL9000]

Linux UI development is pretty competitive even with Macs.

The Linux GUI is about on par with Windows 95. It's crude and primitive, but a few people think it's good enough.

[ThePythonicCow]

Good grief - you are confusing the choice of GUI versus command line with the choice of Linux versus Windows.

My father-in-law has no clue how to use the command line commands such as cp, vi, man, grep or whatever.

He runs a gui (KDE, in a SuSE distro), just like most Mac and Windows users to.

On the other hand, one can run a command line shell on Mac (quite useable, since its GNU/BSD based) or Windows (a rather odd combination, though 4DOS/4NT from JPSoftware makes it tolerable, and for a while was my favorite tool.)

[ThePythonicCow]

It has been a while since you used a Linux GUI I take it.

It's far better than Windows 95.

[HAL9000]

It has been a while since you used a Linux GUI I take it.

My most recent Linux installation was Red Hat's Fedora Core 2, about a year ago. Thankfully, I rarely need to access the GUI on it, but I do occasionally. I'll be upgrading it to FC4 soon, but don't expect any major improvements in the GUI. It's the same old Windows 95-style that Linux has been stuck with for a while now.

Occasionally I'll try out the latest attempts at Linux GUIs like Nautilus (which flopped) or the Croquet Project (which is interesting, but a long way from commercial usability).

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

^^^^^^^^^^^The Linux GUI is about on par with Windows 95. It's crude and primitive, but a few people think it's good enough.^^^^^^^^^

It's time you gave something newer than Suse 7 a try.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

^^^^^^^^My most recent Linux installation was Red Hat's Fedora Core 2^^^^^^^^^^

I understand now. You need something which has more polish. You are using a distribution which is intended as a "proving ground" for RH's server line.(fedora is very solid but is not consumer grade) You might as well use RHEL and complain how un-user friendly it is.

Try Suse 10 or ubuntu then make your case. My dad the mac user(that would be tiger) is very impressed with Yast.(for example)

^^^^^^^^^^^I'll be upgrading it to FC4 soon, but don't expect any major improvements in the GUI.^^^^^^^^^^

That's right, you won't. That's not really the goal of Fedora.

[DaveMSmith]

The basic principle behind OSS, from what I understand, is that a lot of software is written by people who gain little or nothing by keeping it secret. Releasing the code publicly may offer some rewards, and even if those rewards are not likely to big, they may exceed the trivial costs.

That's the concept in a nutshell. OSS is written and maintained by people that love what they do. Often, the only 'reward' is a positive word by a peer. They strive to write elegant code without mistakes. When there is some sort of problem, it's fixed quickly.

Software for profit has farmed out quite a bit of programming effort overseas to programmers that couldn't care less about quality. Unless someone is watching over their sholder, they would write the sloppiest quick and dirty code possible (witness all of Microsoft's security bugs). The code is locked in the vault never to see the light of day again unless there is a problem.

At the end of the day, corporations like dealing with corporations. Money, not love gets things done. The socialism/communism FUD is for know nothing managers who like expensive lunches, short skirted salespersons, trips to conferences and all day golf dates.

[HAL9000]

I understand now. You need something which has more polish.

There's a old saying - You can polish a turd all day, but it's still a turd. That pretty well describes desktop Linux. Merely putting more polish on it won't fix the real problems.

Ubuntu, Suse, Mandriva, Red Hat, etc. - they're all stuck in the X11/Gnome/KDE world of inconsistent amateur superficial lipstick-on-a-pig Windows 95 GUI workalikes.

They target lowest common denominator hardware with a primitive graphics architecture, so they don't support advanced technology for screen drawing. The system fonts and typographic layouts are ill-proportioned and look awful, so it's hard to look at for any extended length of time. A good working knowledge of Linux system commands is still needed to use them, so it's best suited for hobbyists - not a typical computer user. It's not a desktop system I'd want to use for more than a few minutes, or recommend to my friends unless they were dirt-poor and couldn't afford a decent computer.

Mac OS X has the superior technology at affordable prices for desktop computer users - without requiring the user to know anything about UNIX.