- Related Stories
-
VMware moves to deflect Xen, Microsoft
August 8, 2005 -
LinuxWorld outgrows original outfit
August 8, 2005 -
Indiana schools enroll Linux
August 5, 2005 -
Novell seeks outside help with Linux
August 2, 2005
While for years mainstream computer makers such as IBM, HP and Dell have been professing their love for alternatives to Microsoft Windows, the overwhelming majority of open-source-powered machines are business servers and high-priced workstations.
Finding an entry-level home PC that doesn't have a Windows XP sticker on it requires consumers to search through a maze of Web sites. If they try calling a major PC maker, the agent is likely to have a hard time steering them toward a Linux-based or bare-bones system.
"There is no champion for Linux clients among the major vendors," PC industry analyst Roger Kay said.
What's new:
Installing Linux on a home PC is easy enough. It's buying a Linux-based box that's the trickier part.
Bottom line:
For those enthusiasts looking for PCs running Linux or other open-source operating systems, finding an alternative to Windows from a mainstream vendor can be an arduous process.
Red Hat Chief Executive Matthew Szulik said open-source software hasn't caught on in the industry as much as he'd like. Red Hat itself only has a modest Linux product aimed at a relatively narrow set of customers such as those manning the phones at call centers.
"The (Linux) desktop is like teenage sex. Everybody's talking about it, but nobody's doing it," Szulik said during his keynote speech at the Vortex conference in San Francisco last week.
Consumers can always buy a copy of Linux and install it themselves. Best Buy offers Novell's Suse Linux version 10.0 in a box for $59.95. Linspire is offering its shrink-wrapped software for $99.99 online and in stores. Wal-Mart sells Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v.3.0 Basic Edition for Intel processors online for $348. And as always, downloading an open-source operating system is also an option. However, you need an OS like Windows to connect to the Internet first, unless you've gotten a copy from a co-worker or friend.
Clearly, Windows continues to dominate the computing world. About 94.4 percent of all the PCs and other handheld devices shipped in 2003 run Windows, according to the latest stats published by research firm IDC. Apple Computer's Macintosh OS ranked second, with 3.2 percent of the total operating system market, while Linux placed third with 1.4 percent. Other software, such as DOS, made up the final 1 percent.
About 828.5 million desktops have shipped in the last 10 years, research firm IDC said. The overwhelming majority have some type of Microsoft Windows client running on them.
That's not to say Linux will sit on the sidelines. The operating system in various forms will continue to take a bite out of Windows over the next few years, IDC expects. Sales of PCs running the Linux operating system will reach $10 billion by 2008, according to a 2004 IDC study of the Linux ecosystem. The firm also predicts that the overall Linux ecosystem will grow 25.9 percent annually to reach $35.7 billion in 2008. Of that, IDC estimates $14 billion will be packaged software, $10 billion PCs and $11 billion servers.
Even though the LinuxWorld conference in San Francisco two years ago saw a considerable amount of buzz about breaking the Windows stronghold, talk about Linux on the desktop has all but faded, leaving vendors to fend for themselves.
"It's no surprise that there are only a handful of non-Microsoft offerings out there for consumers today. Desktop Linux only makes up between 1 and 3 percent of the market, depending on which way you look at the data," IDC analyst Al Gillen said.
Gillen did offer a ray of light to Linux fans. "I would argue that at least the PC vendors are making an effort to meet demand to offer alternatives to Microsoft," he said.
Linux is not an impulse buy that consumers just stumble across and purchase, Gillen noted. Most buyers of PCs loaded with Linux or open-source operating systems are technically savvy customers who have a very good idea what they are looking for.
Nevertheless, finding an alternative to Windows from a mainstream vendor can be an arduous process.
After Dell's announcement earlier this month of its Dimension E510n--which ships without an operating system installed--CNET News.com attempted to find out how difficult it would be for a consumer to find the PC.
See more CNET content tagged:
Linux PC, Linux, Red Hat Inc., home PC, research company
How about:
http://www.linux.org/vendor/system/desktop.html
http://www.linux.org/vendor/system/laptop.html
the propaganda beast published by the spin doctors who
evangelize for Microsoft and hate all things Linux!
source their drivers so Linux has a very
difficult time supporting these DirectX9 OpenGL
2.0 graphics cards and
systems.
Just check out Mandrive and notice how
you have to cryptically install a closed source
Nvidia, ATI driver from the company websites that
oft times creates a blurry Linux desktop and
other glitches like not supporting certain
hardware for example. Then there are the game
companies who are locked into M$ contracts so
they only support there beloved DirectX fetish.
(Don't you love these Linux debates :)
So, getting a newer mobile graphics setup like
the Intel Mobile media processor, SiS Mirage 2,
or Via Savage IGPs (Intigrated Graphics
Processor) saves a TUN of money on purchase and
upgrade.
These drivers and graphics systems are open
source and very well supported by Linux
this year they are on the slower side supporting
UnrealTournament2003 at like 60 FPS but next year
with the Mirage 3 they will support OpenGL 2.0
and DirectX9 more properly and thus run Doom3 and
HL 2 at decent speeds.
How do you think they are getting computer prices
down so much. They using small form factor IGPs
and not bulky systems. Computers used to be so
much smaller.
So this is really a major factor as well.
It's not only games, though, as graphics are
playing a major role in everything as we go
forward so it really intigrates into everything.
I haven't had any trouble with my nvidia 6800 gt on linux, but it has whatever driver is on Suse download list. I keep my games on my toy OS.
"out-of-the-box" than Windows. The only things
that I know of that aren't automagically
configured today are some lesser known
"Winmodem" devices and a few models of 802.11g
and pre-n cards (most of which work fine, but
require you to download the driver), and a few
of the low-end USB flat-bed scanners.
I use Linux systems at work and at home all the
time and I don't even bother to check if
hardware is "Linux compatible" when I buy it. My
experience so far has been that you get a
reasonably recent Linux distro and it will
detect and autoconfigure everything for you.
I do digital video editing under Linux, have
Firewire external drives, USB fobs, webcams, a
cheap USB scanner (which pops up an icon on my
desktop when I plug it in, and scanning works
fine), an iRiver audio player.
No, so far my experience has been that Linux has
the edge in hardware support over XP at least
(my 802.11g card didn't work in XP without
tweaking the registry, despite coming with
drivers, whereas it works flawlessly in Linux).
Tha last time I ran into a hardware support issue on any computer that I own was for low end onboard video chipsets back in 1998.
I don't run a lot of exotic hardware. I have a Compaq AGP video card with an ATI chipset and an HP SCSI RAID card with 3 drives currently hooked up to it. My computer has an ECS motherboard with onboard AC97 sound and an onboard VIA Rhine II network chipset.
Do you have some examples of even relatively common hardware that's not supported?
I recall several years ago many local computer shops offered Linux based systems but the SCO thing put a chill on things for a while. I think it is bad form to have one company dominate the OS field so Linux needs a push and from what I've seen the community is busy trying to make it an alternative to ordinary computer users.
I also took in LinuxWorld this year but found it was mainly server oriented and offered little in the way of showing Linux as a desktop solution.
1. Way to many distributions
When I first used Linux I went searching through many distributions till I found what I want. Including slackware, debian and Cent OS. If it the Linux community agreed to have only a small number of distros for a few mainstream purposes then switcing to Linux would be SO much easier.
2. Sound and Multimedia problems
I can tell you how many problems I have had with sound and multimedia, suchs as XMMS not working because the deamon XMMS used didn't work because another program was using a Deamon
Also I had problems with decoders for things like WMA and MP3, granted that may be my distro but that goes back to point 1
3. Windows compatibility
Wine, Cedega and Crossover office just don't provide the windows compatibility for me to run all the windows programs I want
4. GUI's
There are too many completely different GUI's sometimes with different API's
If the GUI's shared more in common... life may be a lot easier. I have used KDE, Gnome and XCFE, I would a lot easier if for example Linux had a GUI tool for managing system settings that worked across all the GUI's
Anyway if these problems where sorted out I think Linux would have a LOT better chance against Windows...
"IBM Opens Fire -- On Itself
In any case, IBM took a backseat to no one when it came to doing injury to OS/2 and its consumer users. On July 31, 1995, the very day that The New York Times went all gooey over the still-unreleased Windows 95 and announced that IBM would soon discontinue OS/2, IBM CEO Lou Gerstner told a group of securities analysts something that sounded very much as if IBM were conceding the standalone computer to Microsoft". This was just too bad for this once promising Operating System!
http://www.linuxandmain.com/features/os2retro.html
If you're not informed about operating systems at all I can see how you might not have any ideas about OS/2 at all, but disjointed references that mix the related and the unrelated seems a bit disingenuous at best.
Windows NT and OS/2 were based on the same code base, which you seem to be alluding to. They haven't shared code for quite a while though, so implying that OS/2 is "hidden" in Windows could be humorous if that's the kind of thing you find funny.
eComstation pretty much is OS/2 now that IBM has end-of-lifetimed it again and doesn't seem to be willing to make a new extension to supporting it, but new drivers and fix packs are still being released for download for OS/2:
http://www.ibm.com/products/finder/us/en/finders?Ne=5000000&finderN=1000100&pg=ddfinder&collection=dblue&collectionN=4294967280&sid=465863341130963811459&cc=us&lc=en&oldC1=5000998&tmpl=%2Fproducts%2Ffinder%2Fus%2Fen%2Ffinders&C1=5000998&C2=5001138#dropdowns
What might "parts of the of the Linux System codes" be a reference to? JFS maybe?
It's been 10 years since the article you referenced was published. Is it now relevant since the actual end of support is coming up next month? If so, please elaborate rather than conflate and imply.
Thanks for posting that.
So for those linux fans, here's your chance to upgrade ;)
The machines that Walmart sells are obsolete and s-l-o-o-o-w which when tested give linux a bad rap and poor showing. Its no wonder hardly anyone buys them.
A precentage of these techie types are resentful of the success of MS to the point that they are laughable. Linux as a server OS has at least a semi-compelling argument as does do open source niche applications.
hate the idea of choice (Mac, Linux, Amiga and etc...) and its
presence in the computer market!
I'm a choice fanatic myself ;-)
>> Probably true. The average consumer hasn't a clue about
what goes on inside of the computer as long as it does what he
wants it to do.
Your average consumer does not hate Microsoft.
>> Probably true. Microsoft is just a name on his desktop. He
doesn't care whose name is there as long as the computer does
what he wants it to do.
Linux fanatics are driven by some strange belief that they can
unseat MS in market share, backed up by their dislike for what
they see as a Monolihic MS.
>> Probably true, matched by the equivalent fanaticism among
many MS adherents who firmly believe that MS can do no wrong.
For the consumer its a choice betweem Windows and the Apple
OS plain and simple.
>> Probably wrong. The average consumer is blindly following
the marketing buzz, as encouraged by his fellow consumers,
equally blinded by the buzz. For him, COMPUTER=WINDOWS. His
experience and education lack the ability to go any further. Any
consideration of Apple as an alternative almost entirely depends
on the consumer having a somewhat trusted acquaintance or
friend who can explain the differences, and who is capable of
actually determining which platform the consumer should be
using. Then, it's still marketing buzz unless the consumer
actually recognizes that Apple is a viable alternative (assuming
that it really is).
A precentage of these techie types are resentful of the success
of MS to the point that they are laughable
>> No more laughable than the MS techies who can't accept that
the Mac and OS X are quite effective alternatives for many
computer users. To many brainless fanboys run off at the mouth
with the slightest provocation relative to either platform.
Linux as a server OS has at least a semi-compelling argument as
does do open source niche applications.
>> LInux,or Unix, and indirectly OS X since it is built on a Unix
base and can run Unix programs.
Me, a fanatic? Hardly. I'm no geek, and I don't even play one on TV. But I can plug and play USB & Firewire devices w/o having to 'Safely Remove It'. I can leave my system running...for...a day, maybe 2! All without the Blue Screen of Death. Also, I still quite happily run MS Office XP.
Linux is still 1-2 years behind XP and OSX in terms of raw functionality. But it is changing fast. But all I care about is my system just WORKS. No Spyware, no Viruses, and no bloatware.
I don't resent MS, Steve Jobs would be 1,000 times worse if given the chance. MS just make a crap OS. Period.
Installation is MUCH easier, but most people
wouldn't know that since most people don't
install Windows.
Depending on the distribution, software
installation is typically easier under Linux
today. Fire up the software installer and tell
it what you're looking for and it will find it
and any prerequisite software and install it.
Configuration issues are a mixed bag. Some
things are far easier in Linux, others easier in
Windows.
For Linux, hardware comes in three flavors "just
works", "just doesn't", and "ask someone". Most
hardware falls into the "just works" category,
but obviously people ought to ask around. I
bought a DWLG-650 802.11g wireless card for my
laptop, which came with Windows drivers.
However, the Windows drivers were nearly
impossible to get working (WinXP/SP2) and
ultimately required Googling and tweaking some
registry settings and going back and forth
between "let Windows manage this card" and "let
the manufacturer's driver manage this card"
before it worked. In contrast, I googled the
card model and "linux" and found the driver. I
followed the half page of installation
instructions, and it worked. Prior to that I've
used several 802.11b cards, all of which worked
in Linux without any need for additional
drivers.
I use the KDE desktop environment which is
similar in many ways to MS Vista's environment.
Applications function much like they do under
Windows but applications "talk to each other"
better in KDE than Windows. The appearance is
less distracting under KDE, and the VFS support
is quite remarkable. Things like fast user
switching an the like also work better under
Linux and KDE (if that matters to you).
On top of that, you get much better performance
(even Linux video drivers have gotten to the
point where they're surpassing their Windows
couterparts), quicker filesystems, and much more
software at no cost.
I recently suggested to my director that we
might try introducing Linux systems for people
to use alongside their Windows systems for work.
To date, everyone whose been using both reports
a preference for Linux (and all of them were
pretty skeptical about using Linux desktops) and
it's pretty much replaced Windows as our
standard environment at this point. The general
take was that the Macs we had were the simplest
for common everyday tasks, Linux with KDE for
more involved tasks and anything involving the
network (seemless integration of SMB, NFS, FTP,
SFTP, WEBDAV, and SSH into the desktop), and
Windows not particularly best at anything (other
than running the corporate standard Lotus Notes
client).
While I do digital video editing under Linux, I
concede that at the low-end, Windows beats Linux
for DVD menu and design apps. OS/X is better
than either. Linux takes the cake in supporting
various media formats and encoding schemes
though. I get much higher quality video output
using the same sources than I've gotten from any
Windows application I've tried -- which I don't
really understand since so many of the Windows
apps use code derived from Linux projects.
Windows simply cannot be beat for games. Sure,
many Windows games will run under Linux, but the
DirectX emulation just isn't complete.
For ease of use, I use my mother and
mother-in-law as the metrics. They are green
novices (my mother still gingerly touches each
key expecting the computer to explode). They
both found KDE much more intuitive than XP
(until one opened the "Control Center" by
accident and was faced with all those buttons).
I'm really of the opinion that Linux on the
desktop is at least equally viable as Windows on
the desktop is -- particularly if connected to a
network, and doubly so in a corporate setting
where games are not a principle concern.
Yup, that's good ol laughable me. I wanna be a criminal monopolist. But MS won't allow me to compete in that arena and I feel cheated.
I need your expert advice though. Where do I rank on the consumer scale? Above average, average or below average. I need the opinion of someone who knows about this stuff.
Bad juju.
And from your statement;
..."There's nothing worth running on linux that isn't a lot better
on a Windows PC."...
What's nothing (worth running) exactly? Please enlighten the
rest of us here!
http://news.com.com/5208-1042-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=11104&messageID=82586&start=-139
Though if your thinking about servers most would prefer Linux to Windows.
And yes you don't find boxes of software for Linux because they are available for free from http://sourceforge.net/ such similar sites.
Please, do not show off your ignorance...
IMHO
Dell = garbage hardware + garbage OS + crap support + bloat
http://news.com.com/5208-1042-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=11104&messageID=82404&start=-149
What's more, if TCO is its only selling point for servers(as it very much seems now), its destined to be doomed. All that Microsoft has to do to up the ante is lower the cost of its own servers.
I'm an Open Source evangelist, but believe Linux is the worst possible product to showcase it. Wikipedia is a much better exhibit.
Which company do you work for in India ? How many years of IT experience do you have to say that Linux is not used in desktops ? I think you mean corporate desktops since clearly Linux penetration in India is limited to the corporate world. If you are saying Linux is a non-entity on the corporate desktop in India, you are very much mistaken my friend.
Novell has a policy of using only Linux on the desktop. IBM has already moved a number of desktops in their Indian offices to Linux. Hewlett Packard gives employees the option of installing Redhat Enterprise Linux on their desktop instead of XP if they want. Not only that, Infosys has an entire department which uses only Linux on the desktop, called SETLABS which is a kind of research and consulting wing for the company. I can vouch for HP and Infosys since I have worked there and worked on a Linux desktop in these places.
Your argument that Linux desktop is used for learning Unix shell commands is childish and silly. As I said Linux is used for performing serious research and development in these companies I mentioned.
Perhaps that is the way in your company. However corporate India does not agree with your viewpoint. Do some research before posting stupid comments in public forums.
- The point of the article...
- by dargon19888 November 3, 2005 3:31 AM PST
- I believe the point of the article was that consumers who should have a choice and access to non Microsoft OSs are still not getting that choice.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (124 Comments)Breaking this down to the following:
A) Most home computer users want the "standard" PC so that they can "surf the web".
B) Large manufacturers cater to this group and do not want to invest in Linux for the masses.
C) Linux on the Desktop? Not ready for Prime Time.
The point being is that large PC vendors do not see the demand for a "desktop" linux, thus they "offer" linux just to say that they do offer an alternative.
I would love to run an ALL Linux shop in my SOHO. However, I need to also run a Microsoft based PC and a Microsoft Laptop so that I'm compatible with my customer's environment along with being able to test GUI's and client server apps.
The weird thing... I went to check Best Buy Online, they only offer Linspire. No SuSE.