Linux has no hope

Post Reply New Topic

I prefer linux over Windows in so many ways. To my mind there is no better OS for day to day computer usage, with the obvious exception of gaming, which is only due to the lack of support from the game manufacturers. which brings me to my point, Linux has no hope of gaining significant market share when, what appear to be egotistical spats between the likes of Gnome and Canonical, result in the release of the atrocious Ubuntu 11.04 which in turn has resulted in an equally bad Mint 11.

For me it was a simple, yet annoying task of re-installing Mint 10 but had I been a new user I would have run screaming back to the now perceived safety and stability of windows.

Just having a rant but your experiences, thoughts on this would be appreciated.

I'm an OS X user, although I have used linux in the past and prefer it over Windows. I believe that the problem with Linux is that it's underlying project is a mess. Not a one person knows all of the depths of Linux, and with an Open Source project you need a couple of people that know the project inside and out for it to be very successful.

Linux was never intended to be anything more than a hobbyist OS. The real strength of open source is it enables anyone to write software for the platform that makes it do what "they" want it to do. However, no one has any great deal of interest in making a distribution to work for home-based consumers and take on Windows directly. Those that have tried in the past (anyone remember Lindows?) have failed, which scares off future commercial endeavors, and none of the "hobbyist" users really care to develop something for someone besides themselves. OS X proves that a company can make a consumer-oriented OS from linux with enough financial backing, but the returns are negligible and there's not any incentive to "take on" Windows.

However, your concept of "market share" is a bit skewed. Linux dominates the server market, and it always will. When looking for a server system, the primary motivators are cost and performance/stability. Linux wins hands down in both categories for a majority of the use cases for servers (one potential exception is directory services, and File/Print services). Enterprises love linux, because it's cheap, stable, and you have far more flexibility in terms of configuration and modification.

Linux is powering 90%+ of all websites, and that's largely because in the 90's Apache was the only HTTPd that supported vhosts (hosting more than one website on a single server/IP), and ISPs needed to keep their web hosting services as cheap as possible (because it was bundled with dial-up access, and they weren't making money off of it). It's that kind of ingenuity that has kept linux rolling in the server market, and it's where linux has it's strength.

Try linux mint debian, im posting from it right now! Im using the linux.mint.debian/incoming repo which is the most unstable repo and i must admit, its very stable.

As to the OP's statement; "Linux has no hope".

It does... Linux is in a much better position than it has ever been. Look at Android for instance. Android uses a debian kernel and has most of the basic GNU userspace tools included. You can even run ubuntu on-top of the stock android kernel. Not to mention all the other great things linux does. Like servers, satnavs, supercomputers, smartphones, routers, facebook(:().

Last edited by Tom_Kakes on 19 Jul 2011, 8:25 am, edited 2 times in total.

Double post

You're looking at it from the wrong angle, because there is no "Linux market" as compared to the "Windows/games market".
Linux developers aren't interested in the commercial aspect: it's not really about "achieving market domination" and suchlike because that's not what Linux is about.

Besides, "Linux" is all to often taken to mean "that thing you run on a desktop PC to browse and do word processing with", but it's much bigger than that.
For the real successes, look to manufacturers like TomTom, Google (with Android) and I don't know how many other devices quietly chugging away (routers, modems, Internet radios etc) which are running the Linux kernel and various GNU tools embedded.
And as others have commented - Linux practically owns server-space, and as far as I know all of Industrial Light and Magic's cinematic output still comes to you courtesy of a Linux-based renderfarm.
This, from as long ago as 2002: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6011?page=0,0

I am fully aware of the use of linux in servers etc, I am also aware that it was designed to be very individual and that the home desktop user was not really in the picture. However with the advent of Ubuntu, debian and the spinoffs this has changed. Until the recent debacle these distro's were aimed directly and successfully at the Desktop market and they worked. since discovering Ubuntu I no longer have windows on my laptop and only have WIn 7 on my pc if a game will not play under wine.

Android may be widespread but you can hardly call it linux, and I doubt it will be distributed for free when it comes to the PC market.

Linux would take a far greater share of the Home market if there was not so much petty rivalry, the latest addition from canonical is shameful and it will help further instill the idea that 'linux is for geeks only'

Uhh...I'd call anything running a linux kernel linux - as that's all linux really is.



http://source.android.com/ & http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html



"To kind of explain what Linux is, you have to explain what an operating system is. And the thing about an operating system is that you're never ever supposed to see it. Because nobody really uses an operating system; people use programs on their computer. And the only mission in life of an operating system is to help those programs run. So an operating system never does anything on its own; it's only waiting for the programs to ask for certain resources, or ask for a certain file on the disk, or ask to connect to the outside world. And then the operating system steps in and tries to make it easy for people to write programs." - Linus Torvalds

The entire concept of an OS is geeky in and of itself, and anyone who contributes any real amount of thought into the matter is automatically not thinking about the "greater share of the Home market". The bottom line is it really doesn't matter what people choose as their OS - what matters is what they get out of the equation.

I did not know about Linux being so dominant in servers, but I do see more if it in use on TV shows than Windows! Overall, I think the "hobbyists" do the best they can for any of the rest of us, but there is simply no way they can cover all the bases together -- no "one size fits all" -- since each is working within the limit of his or her own realm of experience with specific hardware in an ever-changing world of electronics.

Then why do you say it 'has no hope'?

Were you also aware that it runs the majority of the fastest 500 supercomputers in the world, and has done so for years? That seems more like 'has arrived' than 'has no hope'.


Debian is one of the oldest distros in existence. I first tried it in 1995 or 1996. Its aim is to be a universal OS, and is often used in servers. I use it as a desktop OS and it works well at that, but it isn't aimed at tech-unsavvy home users.

Ubuntu is much more recent and has more stability problems. If your distro is giving you headaches, you could try another.


Possibly, but I very much doubt it. Desktop users mostly don't care about technology at all, so they really don't want to pick an OS beyond 'uh, whatever the latest is dude'.

Ok, I am copping what I give others so let me be more specific.

I believe - maybe erroneously- that the likes of Ubuntu, Debian and Fedora are hoping for a larger percentage of home pc use.

I also believe that this would be a good outcome for home PC users

A higher take up of home PC's on Linux would make it easier for educational bodies, charitable bodies, corporations etc to have this as OS of choice (and yes before you all go shouting but some countries do use it in their schools, as do charities and corporations they account for a tiny percentage - which would also be a good outcome.

I believe the vast improvements in the user friendliness of various Linux distros is having an impact and allows people like myself to convert their 80 year old mother onto Linux, there by saving me a lot of time and effort fixing her PC (in the UK from Australia) every time windows screws up. Again a good outcome.

I could go on, but I hope even the most pedantic aspie can understand where I am coming from.

So when Gnome and Canonical have a childish spat, resulting in the 2 most popular distro's releasing such appalling versions it really makes me despair.

Now some of you may rue the day when Linux becomes a tool for the mindless masses to access facebook with and hark back to the good old days when the internet was purely text based. I dont and I would love to see LInux in some variety as the default OS for newely purchased PC's.

This cannot happen whilst the most popular desktop environment Gnome and the most popular distro Ubuntu are having a kindergarten like dispute

Meh, it's just a spat about one GUI - it's happened before and it will happen again and besides, there are plenty of others available: GUIs and distros. It's also not much to do with Linux, the OS.
In a way it's quite healthy, and certainly healthier than the situation with that other OS.

Bah! Didn't read the thread well enough before I made an embarassingly sappy post about Ubuntu and things you are well aware of. So I'll just edit this to say... I think the latest is awesome. I think the interface is incredibly simple on the surface but I dislike the applications menu and I hate learning where little fiddy things are within the GUI but it has a high level of functionality and improved my netbooks performance greatly so I got no complaints aside from concern over so many unneeded features being added, but that seems to be a part of the projects goal... to attract more of the regular old joe types of users since they make up the majority of people and now Linux can give them what they want and/or need for free.

Last edited by BrainVsMind on 20 Jul 2011, 8:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

@DentArthurDent: I think you have made your point very well, and I agree. I would much prefer using Linux rather than Windows, but the various "spats" or whatever within the Linux community have left me instead just continuing to deal with the more-predictable (or at least more-familiar) Windows troubles I already know how to address.

I agree!

I think your confusing the gnome project with Linux as a whole. Gnome runs on a whole load of OS's (well for the time being lol). OSX, bsd, Linux, to name a few. So this "spat" isn't even really a Linux issue. Though I do agree, unity is badly implemented but that's the great thing about open source. You're not tied into one buggy interface for 5 years. You have choice.

I agree!

I think your confusing the gnome project with Linux as a whole. Gnome runs on a whole load of OS's (well for the time being lol). OSX, bsd, Linux, to name a few. So this "spat" isn't even really a Linux issue. Though I do agree, unity is badly implemented but that's the great thing about open source. You're not tied into one buggy interface for 5 years. You have choice.