Will Linux get significant market share?

[ParanoidLinuxGeek]

Do you ever think Linux will get significant market share on the desktop? The research I've done always has it around 1%. Windows has the most and Mac OS is around 5-10%.

I know Linux is inching it's way up in the Smartphone market but I think too many choices of Linux for the desktop can cause problems, there is no standardization. Different Desktop Environments, different ways to handle and install packages, etc.

Also people tend to stick with what they know and that's Windows. Most people don't care about open source philosophy either, they just want a system that works easy for them. Granted Linux has come along way since I tried using it back in the late 90's, it still has a ways to go. Don't get me wrong. I like Linux because it's free and I can do what I want with it and it's virus and spyware free.

[caf4926]

No.

Hasn't this question been asked so many times... it isn't even funny!

99.9% of People will just go the way the market leads them. If you don't believe that, then you are one of them.

[OldManHook]

No.

Hasn't this question been asked so many times... it isn't even funny!

99.9% of People will just go the way the market leads them. If you don't believe that, then you are one of them.

The question is what is Significant, A share of what How many computer users are there So 1% of what,Say 25M 1% would be significant.
Linux has it share,always have always will

[randomizer]

The fact that OSX has been quoted as being 5-10% makes me question any numbers given by those meaningless browser statistics. That's a huge variation for a small market share. It is no less questionable than having Windows being reported as having 45-90% market share.

[linmint777]

is a matter of $
if Linux has 1% market share, is for 2 reasons:
1 .- 99% of computers have Windows preinstalled
(Linux is free, and community, so do not have the resources to give them money to manufacturers, as does Microsoft.)
2 .- drivers
(Microsoft pushes hardware vendors for not releasing or updating drivers for Linux, the lack of drivers undoubtedly cause much headache and scares many users)

[vooid]

I personally don't care even if Linux's (to me bit fishy) market share even dropped down. Only really important thing is that the projects are alive and running so we can keep using this great software.

[Pierre]

Until Linux comes Pre-installed on any form of PC - the answer will always be " NO ".

Like the windows idea - it has to " no choice" - when buying a PC.

it has to be on that HDD, when the purchaser walks out-the-door, with that new PC.

[0ddity]

Until Linux comes Pre-installed on any form of PC - the answer will always be " NO ".

Like the windows idea - it has to " no choice" - when buying a PC.

it has to be on that HDD, when the purchaser walks out-the-door, with that new PC.

You mean like Ubuntu has for awhile? (Since v 8.04 on some dell netbooks and desktops.)

[monkeyboy]

Do you ever think Linux will get significant market share on the desktop? The research I've done always has it around 1%. Windows has the most and Mac OS is around 5-10%.

It all depends on what you consider a "significant market share". The Linux community is large enough to attract and maintain enough developers to produce a usable OS that continues to develop. To my way of thinking that is an indicator of an OS with a significant user base. On the other hand if you are talking about competition with Microsoft then Linux will always trail behind.

I know Linux is inching it's way up in the Smartphone market but I think too many choices of Linux for the desktop can cause problems, there is no standardization. Different Desktop Environments, different ways to handle and install packages, etc.

One persons lack of standards is another persons feature rich environment. If there were only one or two desktop choices some people would be happy but other people would dislike the presented versions and wander away looking for greener pastures.

Also people tend to stick with what they know and that's Windows. Most people don't care about open source philosophy either, they just want a system that works easy for them.

If people are happy with Microsoft products then great leave them alone. Its not like an OS is a holy cause that needs to recruit users in order to save their souls. Linux and Windows OSs are just tools.

[tdockery97]

If people are happy with Microsoft products then great leave them alone. Its not like an OS is a holy cause that needs to recruit users in order to save their souls. Linux and Windows OSs are just tools.

And...................we don't need to "recruit" users. There are enough people aready involved in Linux use and development to keep it going. Let's not get so big that the hackers are interested in us.

[exploder]

Linux can and likely will gain market share, just look at how well Android is doing. Look at how Firefox and Chrome are doing in the browser market. There was a time when Internet Explorer was on top but it is being left in the dust for lack of creativity among other things. More servers are running Linux than any other operating system. I think the desktop market will be captured by the same type of bold thinking used in Android, it's different, it's cool and people want it. Canonical is hoping to do the same thing for the desktop that Android is doing with cell phones. New ideas are coming and I think Linux stands a better chance of gaining market share because of it.

[Nexus]

It might if a few things change in how Developers of Linux Distributions view building a Distribution. Let me make a short argument of the things I think are hurting Linux.

Linux has a Fragmented User Base instead of looking to compete on a global market, it is competing within it's own community. There are hundreds of Distributions available which is fine, except not everything is done the same way on every Distribution. .rpm, .deb, .pet, APT, Yum etc. for installation methods. While choice is good this goes really fragments the user base. Even the desktop choices can cause confusion with some people preferring KDE over Gnome or XFCE, PulseAudio and ALSA or OSS there are so many choices it becomes overwhelming, for a Non-Techie user to sometimes decide which is best for their system and use habits. If GNU/Linux wants to be a real contender a Standard needs adopted as a Baseline for a Distribution, users can still install their preferred installer, desktop etc. but there needs to be a Centralised method that is Universal so you can say "This is what Linux is and how it works." This helps 3rd party development and Linux will need Commercial Developers to be relevant on the Desktop Market controlled by Microsoft. Right now Data Paths are not even Universal between Distros, how can you justify, as a commercial developer building a software package for half a dozen different Operating Systems, which is how many of the various Linux Flavors are viewed, when 90% of the market uses a standard?

Without some type of standardisation Linux I don't believe will gain any type of relevance outside the Server Market, it's simply too much for Commercial Developers to support.

What would I do to fix this? That's a good question, it would be impossible to get all the various Distro developers to settle on a standard, but what if we could get 3 or 4 of them too? I'd love it if Novell, and RedHat along with the Developers for Mandriva and Debian and Ubuntu got together and worked out a common ground for a Universal Installer Package. Eventually these things would flow downstream to all the derivative distros, sure some flavors would probably vanish from relevance but those that follow suit would be able to provide their own spin on largest Linux Flavours as they had been doing with the benefit of gaining access to a standardised installer system.

[monkeyboy]

It might if a few things change in how Developers of Linux Distributions view building a Distribution. Let me make a short argument of the things I think are hurting Linux.

Linux has a Fragmented User Base instead of looking to compete on a global market, it is competing within it's own community. There are hundreds of Distributions available which is fine, except not everything is done the same way on every Distribution. .rpm, .deb, .pet, APT, Yum etc. for installation methods. While choice is good this goes really fragments the user base. Even the desktop choices can cause confusion with some people preferring KDE over Gnome or XFCE, PulseAudio and ALSA or OSS there are so many choices it becomes overwhelming, for a Non-Techie user to sometimes decide which is best for their system and use habits. If GNU/Linux wants to be a real contender a Standard needs adopted as a Baseline for a Distribution, users can still install their preferred installer, desktop etc. but there needs to be a Centralised method that is Universal so you can say "This is what Linux is and how it works." This helps 3rd party development and Linux will need Commercial Developers to be relevant on the Desktop Market controlled by Microsoft. Right now Data Paths are not even Universal between Distros, how can you justify, as a commercial developer building a software package for half a dozen different Operating Systems, which is how many of the various Linux Flavors are viewed, when 90% of the market uses a standard?

Without some type of standardisation Linux I don't believe will gain any type of relevance outside the Server Market, it's simply too much for Commercial Developers to support.

What would I do to fix this? That's a good question, it would be impossible to get all the various Distro developers to settle on a standard, but what if we could get 3 or 4 of them too? I'd love it if Novell, and RedHat along with the Developers for Mandriva and Debian and Ubuntu got together and worked out a common ground for a Universal Installer Package. Eventually these things would flow downstream to all the derivative distros, sure some flavors would probably vanish from relevance but those that follow suit would be able to provide their own spin on largest Linux Flavours as they had been doing with the benefit of gaining access to a standardised installer system.

Its like herding cats, if in your opinion its whats needs to be done you want to try to make it happen then good luck. Me, I would rather break out the lawn chair and watch the results.

[Nexus]

Its like herding cats, if in your opinion its whats needs to be done you want to try to make it happen then good luck. Me, I would rather break out the lawn chair and watch the results.

Well those reasons are pretty much why Android is doing so well, I only know of one derivative of Android for Phones. Motorola develops it and it basically adds new API's. If Android was fragmented in to 25 versions that used different libraries and development models I doubt it would be as popular as it is.

As to trying to make it happen? Maybe, I've thought about spinning out my own distribution (though I require more education in programming) in the past maybe this could be a focus on the project.

[monkeyboy]

Well those reasons are pretty much why Android is doing so well, I only know of one derivative of Android for Phones. Motorola develops it and it basically adds new API's. If Android was fragmented in to 25 versions that used different libraries and development models I doubt it would be as popular as it is.

Drawing parallels between a phone os and a computer os is an apple to oranges comparison. Its like comparing a lawnmower engine to a locomotive engine, they are both motors but their use and construction are different.

As to trying to make it happen? Maybe, I've thought about spinning out my own distribution (though I require more education in programming) in the past maybe this could be a focus on the project.

That great when you get that together let us know.

[randomizer]

There are hundreds of Distributions available which is fine, except not everything is done the same way on every Distribution. .rpm, .deb, .pet, APT, Yum etc. for installation methods.

No developer really needs to worry about this. They make the source, they distribute the source, and distribution package maintainers compile the binary packages in whatever format they want.

Even the desktop choices can cause confusion with some people preferring KDE over Gnome or XFCE, PulseAudio and ALSA or OSS there are so many choices it becomes overwhelming, for a Non-Techie user to sometimes decide which is best for their system and use habits.

Even with two options they'd be confused. Most people have never made this choice before because there was only one option. You'll never convince any project team that they need to dump their work for the sake of standards. A lot of these projects run on entirely different philosophies and the developers aren't really interested in how many people use their work, only if they think it is good themselves. Remember, these people usually work on projects in their free time. A larger user base only increases the amount of whining, it doesn't provide any inherent benefits. Standards can be useful in some cases, and freedesktop.org has been working to have them implemented, but nobody can force a standard because force = forks. Although in some sense forks are where the true value of FOSS lies. There is infinite capacity for forking.

[tdockery97]

Although in some sense forks are where the true value of FOSS lies. There is infinite capacity for forking.

Although it's not always the case, forks are where to real improvement on the initial idea happens. Linux Mint is an excellent example. Sometimes the original design can become stagnant, lacking in forward movement.

[Nexus]

No developer really needs to worry about this. They make the source, they distribute the source, and distribution package maintainers compile the binary packages in whatever format they want.

Developers do not determine the overall success of a project either, the end user does, I could invent the greatest Ice Cream flavour known to man and if no one ever ate it, well then it wouldn't be successful. If I developed a Package, that was only available as an .rpm distribution package and source, would the average Linux user on an Debain based Linux Distro ever use it? Probably not. A universal install package that could accept any package format would go along way to helping Linux fully mature as an OS.

Even with two options they'd be confused. Most people have never made this choice before because there was only one option. You'll never convince any project team that they need to dump their work for the sake of standards. A lot of these projects run on entirely different philosophies and the developers aren't really interested in how many people use their work, only if they think it is good themselves. Remember, these people usually work on projects in their free time. A larger user base only increases the amount of whining, it doesn't provide any inherent benefits. Standards can be useful in some cases, and freedesktop.org has been working to have them implemented, but nobody can force a standard because force = forks. Although in some sense forks are where the true value of FOSS lies. There is infinite capacity for forking.

It's a value of FOSS but it's also a weakness, forking doesn't always improve a product, it can often over complicate things. I'll agree Mint is a considerable improvement in ease of use over standard Ubuntu, and many other Distros. I have to question is it a step forward for GNU/Linux entirely? Maybe a small one, but not one that will gain Linux distributions a major market. After all the subject here is Will Linux get significant market share, I said no, and stated my reasons I don't think it will happen. I didn't base my views on what I think as a current Linux user, I thought back to my first experiences with Linux and the trials and experimentation I went through before deciding to use and stick with Linux Mint, and what was confusing, frustrating, and at times overwhelming. I personally went through a large number of Distributions before landing on Mint, each has their pros and cons, those observations are what I made my response based on. Also a Larger User Base = more market share, the whining as you phrased it, is simply an unavoidable side effect of success and in some instances it can provide a huge benefit, if enough people are whining or more accurately complaining about a feature it is showing an area for improvement. It never pays to disregard common complaints as whining simply because the target of the complaint currently suits your taste. In order to have a successful project it must be aimed at the end users tastes not just your own. Would there be as many topics on here for feedback and suggestions for improvement if the Mint Team wasn't interested in what we'd like to see happen to Mint in the future?

[randomizer]

Developers do not determine the overall success of a project either, the end user does, I could invent the greatest Ice Cream flavour known to man and if no one ever ate it, well then it wouldn't be successful.

But if that flavour is exactly what you want it to be, then you could say that it is successful. Success is an arbitrary term. It depends what the goal is. If the goal is to get as many people to eat ice cream as possible then yes, you've failed. If the goal is to develop what you think is the best flavour and you don't care what everyone else thinks (but you're happy to let them try it anyway), then you've succeeded. The two core components of GNU/Linux, the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain, do not have goals which include market share. Microsoft and Apple have goals that require market share because profits are their targets. Market share does not impact the goals of Linux or GNU, because the market is mostly filled with users who do not contribute back to projects, and these users are not an asset to the projects. Users who pay money but do not contribute are assets to MS and Apple though.

If I developed a Package, that was only available as an .rpm distribution package and source, would the average Linux user on an Debain based Linux Distro ever use it? Probably not.

Not unless Debian packages it, no. But chances are they will, since they package the most obscure things as it is.

It's a value of FOSS but it's also a weakness, forking doesn't always improve a product, it can often over complicate things.

I agree, it does overcomplicate things, and forking sometimes produces worse products, but those worse products can later be forked to produce a better one. The beauty of infinite capacity for forking is that something can always be improved, even if it isn't always improved. If you're not happy with something you just fork it and start your own project.

Also a Larger User Base = more market share, the whining as you phrased it, is simply an unavoidable side effect of success and in some instances it can provide a huge benefit, if enough people are whining or more accurately complaining about a feature it is showing an area for improvement.

But that area may not fall in line with the developers' philosophy. And you know how some GNU/Linux software developers are when it comes to philosophy. Some would consider a compromise of philosophy in order to please end users as a project failure, not success. Once again it depends on your metric for success. In the event that people aren't happy, they can simply fork the project. Mandriva developers did that just recently. I have a suspicion that it may eventually happen to Ubuntu as well, where a major fork (and not a mere derivative) occurs if and when tension among developers with different philosophies and views reaches unworkable levels.

[Nexus]

But if that flavour is exactly what you want it to be, then you could say that it is successful. Success is an arbitrary term. It depends what the goal is. If the goal is to get as many people to eat ice cream as possible then yes, you've failed. If the goal is to develop what you think is the best flavour and you don't care what everyone else thinks (but you're happy to let them try it anyway), then you've succeeded. The two core components of GNU/Linux, the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain, do not have goals which include market share. Microsoft and Apple have goals that require market share because profits are their targets. Market share does not impact the goals of Linux or GNU, because the market is mostly filled with users who do not contribute back to projects, and these users are not an asset to the projects. Users who pay money but do not contribute are assets to MS and Apple though.

Yes but the topic of this thread is Will Linux get significant market share?, I'm arguing why I don't think it will. Sure the core components of GNU/Linux do not include goals concerning market share, but that is really irrelevant to the topic here. I'm not out to argue for or against the goals of GNU/Linux, I'm voicing reasons I don't think GNU/Linux Distributions will gain a significant market share. Now I don't think the goals of GNU/Linux exclude the ability to gain market share, but I do think in some ways the vision of and attitudes of Linux Developers do. Forking can improve a product, but too often those improvements never flow upstream, or if they do, it's dismissed by upstream developers as being outside their vision. I think GNU/Linux could improve faster if upstream submission of code was a requirement, submission not adoption. Good example here, if Clem corrected a bug in Ubuntu's source, he'd be required to submit the fix upstream for review and possible inclusion in Ubuntu. I don't know if he does this voluntarily or not but I know not everyone does. If all the derivatives of the GNU project and the Linux Kernel flowed up stream as well as down where would GNU/Linux be right now?