Linux is Free-->So Why Such A Low Market Share?

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Microsoft WindowsXP has been pretty much stagnant for the last 2 years,
so why hasn't a FREE operating system like Linux taken hold, set down
roots and sprouted?

For Linux to be a 3.4 percent, considering it is FREE is
pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What if Sony gave away CD's for free?
How long would Warner Brothers be in business?
How about if Levis gave away jeans for FREE?
How long would Wrangler be in business?

Yet, we have Linux free every day of the week and still at 3.4 percent?

Maybe the real truth is, that Linux SUCKS!

And for the record, I don't believe the Linux excuse that people set
their browser strings to show IE, although I know they do, but it
doesn't matter.
Why?

Because the browser string includes more information, including the
operating system, so it is trivial to parse for this and get more
accurate statisitics.

A typical browser identification string looks like this:

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 4.0)

It's easy to parse for Windows or Linux and correct the stats
accordingly.

The "faking the browser: excuse is just another copout in the Linux
screwballs bag of tricks.

Again, Linux is free................................

So WHERE THE HELL IS IT HIDING?

 

Linux has reached the tipping point where its taking over
all the basic bread and butter stuff from specialist applications,
to servers and now the desktop.

For any price point, now Linux is faster and handles bigger files
than windopes in every known configuration,
whether its applications, gaming, playing videos, networking, 3D windows
or developing new code. Its also more interoperable than any
known windopes configuration.

You shouldn't fret over market share. Its going up in
leaps and bounds (in percetange growth terms) - so why fret?

 

Because 80% of new PCs come with Windows already installed maybe?

 

There are no OEMs who preinstall Linux.
90% of the market only buys computers from these OEMs.
Therefore, we are not seeing widespread Linux growth because it is
completely dependent on individual users installing it themselves --
which nobody is doing, no, they want Dell to do everything for them.
Dell chooses Windows so... that's what they use.
You dumbass, think logically.

 

Companies have offered new PCs with Linux installed, but the sales
were abysmally low so they were dropped by most of them.

Dell still lists Linux systems
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/precn_n?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

For a complete list of companies that sell new computers with Linux
preinstalled see http://www.linux.org/vendor/system/desktop.html

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

Wall Mart sells laptops with Linux installed.

 

Because windows comes pre-installed on just about every pc that is produced,
obviously it will have a larger market share. Most people just don't know
that there are alternatives out there and indeed many of them beleive that
"windows *IS* the pc".

Add to that the fact that Linux just doesn't run all those games that gamers
play and you end up with a specalist system.

A vast majority of servers are linux because it is good a doing it. However
certainly in the case of games, the linux servers are powering windows
gamers.

 

It has.

Says who? I dispute your numbers, and EVERYONE agrees that Linux passed
MAC about two years ago - and nearly everyone will agree that MAC is
better than MS.

Your analogies are seriously flawed. Virtually every computer sold comes
with MS preinstalled. You have to do serious work to find a vendor who
will sell you a bare computer or one with Linux installed - try Dell,
Gateway, . . . So first off, a consumer has to take action to replace
something he already has. Most people are not up to installing Linux. IMHO
it's easier than installing MS and they could not do a bare install there
if their lives depended on it.

After you just bought a new car with crappy Firestone/Bridgestone tires,
would you go to the effort of installing new Goodyear tires yourself, even
if they were free?

 

The market i.e. desires of the buying public determines what OS is
installed. If a reasonably large number of people wanted Linux the PC
builders would offer it pre-installed or they would lose business.
Apparently that is not happening.

 

The numbers don't show it, show the numbers.

I dispute YOUR numbers. Oh.. you don't have any numbers either. Who is
"EVERYONE"?

Because that's what people want maybe?

You have to do serious work to find a vendor who

Exactly the problem. I put my Windows install disk in, select a couple
of options tell it to install and when I come back it's all done and
operating. Been running XP for years with very few problems (mostly
caused by me).

IMHO

Doesn't match your assertion above does it ("Most people are not up to
installing Linux")?

 

Do you go into a restaurant and take whatever the server places in front
of you without ever looking at a menu?

 

Ok, but if the plate determines what kind of food you can have, and
someone only gives you the choice of one kind of plate, isn't that the
same thing?

The point here is that the so called "demand" for M$ software is self
perpetuating. When all people know and see is M$ to the exclusion of
anything else, then of course that's what they are going to want simply
because they don't know anything else. Win mindshare and you win
marketshare.

There was once a movie based on some wannabe actress who paid for posters
and ads with nothing but her name and a headshot to be posted all over the
place. She had never been in a single movie, show, commercial, not even a
milk carton. Within two weeks, she was in the highest demand of any actor
or actress in the area. She created the demand for herself, just like M$
created the demand for their products.

M$ took it even further though by eliminating the competition through
various methods such as exclusive licensing, legal finagling, buyouts,
lockouts and other methods. To the point that they are to this day still
being investigated for monopolositic and anti-competitive practices here
and overseas.

So when people say that M$ products are "in demand", I laugh at them.
Nobody goes to a computer store and "demands" Windows, it's just what they
are given. There is no choice in the matter. Go into the store and
"demand" Linux and see what happens. How exactly are people "choosing" it
when there is no choice given?

 

For desktop use, that is closer to 98% for all new PC's.

 

A better analogy would be like, do you care if the plate your food is on
is white, yellow or bone colored?

Operating systems are the plate.

The applications are the food on the plate.

The majority of people care about the food and much less, if at all, about
the color of the plate it is served on.
The plate (operating system) is just a medium on which to deliver the food.

 

If you grow up with all your neighbors and all your friends, relatives
and enemies using Windows, if you want to buy software at a local store
that will work with your Walmart computer, if you want your local
hoodlum kids to show you how to use your computer, if you don't want to
bother with finding obscure drivers, learning obscure commands, diddling
with security issues, Windows is the only way to go. Microsoft made it
easy and is still making it easy for end-users to get into computing.
Yes, if the end-users could somehow be convinced to try Linspire or
Ubuntu first, it might be different. But that's an enormous hurdle to
get past.

 

I was going by a news report a few days ago about MS's legal troubles in
Europe, it said 80% of PCs sold there had Windows and thus all of its
components pre-installed, that being offered as the reason why competing
media players couldn't break into the market.

 

Any numbers for the argument that Linux passed Mac? In the developed
countries at least, I have my doubts about this. According to Apple,
Mac sales growth year over year in 2005 was an amazing 40%+!

http://news.com.com/Apple+earnings+continue+to+hum+along/2100-1045_3-5669710.html

I think Linux will start eating up Windows like a hungry dog munching
on fat steak when it comes to the server arena, but desktop Linux is
just not up to Windows or Mac in terms of available applications and
ease of use (not to mention marketing power).

 

I just had a brilliant inspiration that is colostomy in scope, why not
give computer buyers a $95 rebate if they choose Linux instead of
Windows? Of course, that's about 10 times what the OEM builders pay for
Windows, but it's just a starting point. Just knock off what Windows
actually costs them for choosing a Linux machine? Hell, let them put
some investments into game developers, that'll light some fires. I'm
certainly not a Linux drum beater, but if Linux could make the turn into
an OS that the populous accepts, I'm all for it.

 

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, Windows Server has overtaken and is growing
faster than Linux in the server arena right now.

 

Numbers and sources, please. Considering that my company and several
others I know have switched from Windows boxes to Linux for web
servers, I'm not so sure about this.