When do you think Microsoft's monopoly will die?

[KemyLand]

It is obvious that the almost ONLY reason most desktop (and laptop) PCs don't use Linux is because all big-box shops sell their products with MS Windows pre-installed. I wish the day that will end! The other one that tons of software hasn't been ported to Linux, and people qualify them as "necessary for life". (i.e: MS Office, Photoshop...)

Some statistics state that 1% of PCs use Linux. It isn't not true, at least that's my perspective. See for example Android: it is based on the Linux Kernel, and is a really used OS on mobile devices.

Most desktop users don't even know how to deal with a Windows "error" (remember: in Unix everything is a file, in NT everything is a BSOD). So, how would they know how to install a (foreign) O.S?

Sure Torvalds isn't always the most polite of all:

So, NVIDIA, **** You! *F-Bomb*

But he knows how to incorporate people

From: [email protected] (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
Summary: small poll for my new operating system
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

Hello everybody out there using minix -

I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready. I’d like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
among other things).

I’ve currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.
This implies that I’ll get something practical within a few months, and
I’d like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions
are welcome, but I won’t promise I’ll implement them

Linus ([email protected])

PS. Yes – it’s free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that’s all I have .

I think that sometime (pls in near future ), somewhere (pls not in my house jeje) people will start to notice Linux as the real solution to Windows. Unix should always been the standard (it was by some time).

When do you think Windows will decay, and Linux will completely raise?

[Rusky]

People won't just magically realize that Linux is better than Windows, because pre-installed Windows isn't the only reason it's so big. Even if everybody agreed Linux was better, that wouldn't help the massive amount of porting and re-learning and re-tooling that would have to happen for it to replace Windows.

Any big shifts are and will be more like the shift to Android, or the growth of OS X from people using MacBooks, or the increase in Chromebooks- someone with the production and marketing power to push a new system as part of a new product that has a compelling reason for real people to use it. Desktop Linux does not have any compelling reasons for very many people, but Android and OS X definitely do.

[Antti]

Have you seen Q&A Session at DebConf 14 with Linus Torvalds? I am not a Linux fan but I liked this video.

[iansjack]

1. Microsoft do not have a monopoly. Have your rant by all means but misusing terms undermines the credibility of your argument.

2. Until another operating system provides the degree of control offered by Windows Server operating systems used in conjunction with Windows clients Microsoft will continue to be the preferred choice for the enterprise desktop.

3. Am I bothered?

[Brendan]

Hi,

It is obvious that the almost ONLY reason most desktop (and laptop) PCs don't use Linux is because all big-box shops sell their products with MS Windows pre-installed. I wish the day that will end! The other one that tons of software hasn't been ported to Linux, and people qualify them as "necessary for life". (i.e: MS Office, Photoshop...)

People are lazy. This means that they do whatever they think is going to be easier. It also means that if (one of the many distributions of) Linux came pre-installed on their computer, then the majority of actual users (e.g. those that aren't programmers, OS developers or server admins) would realise that it's a hideous usability disaster and switch to Windows ASAP.

Some statistics state that 1% of PCs use Linux. It isn't not true, at least that's my perspective. See for example Android: it is based on the Linux Kernel, and is a really used OS on mobile devices.

Linux is a kernel. It's not an OS.

Some statistics probably say that "the combination of many different distributions that combine Linux with (e.g.) a *nix-like GNU user-space to form an OS" adds up to 1 % of PCs. Other statistics probably say "the combination of Linux and Google's own entirely different user-space, called Android" is used on 0% of PCs. Of course there'd also be different statistics for different platforms (like mobile phones, Itanium servers, HPC and super-computers, etc); and all of these have nothing to do with statistics for "IBM PC compatible" computers.

I think that sometime (pls in near future ), somewhere (pls not in my house jeje) people will start to notice Linux as the real solution to Windows. Unix should always been the standard (it was by some time).

When do you think Windows will decay, and Linux will completely raise?

As someone that's been using Linux for over a decade; I think it's more likely that something like Hiaku (that doesn't suck so badly for your average end user) will replace Windows.


Cheers,

Brendan

[embryo]

When do you think Windows will decay, and Linux will completely raise?

Any system can raise after some big investment in it, would it be Linux or Windows is irrelevant.

I suppose you are expecting the style of working, preferred by you, should prevail, but Linux driven style is not excellent, unfortunately. And even Android style is far from excellence. My thought is - there still is a place for new OS.

[SoLDMG]

I don't think Microsofts 'monopoly' is ever going to end in the software industry. They've got a lot of really smart people working for them, whether it's on Windows or something else. They've got the funds to completely turn the company around in case that something drastic happens to their income, and trust me, they will. They'll find something else to do, they're not going to just twiddle their thumbs until the company implodes, whether it's a completely new OS (maybe a new Xenix or something) or in the Office/Microsoft programming language toolchains, and other stuff.

[Wajideu]

The only monopoly Windows has is they almost own Intel stock-wise. Linux fanboys with their anti-Microsoft hippie bs can wave their penguin and bison (or any other assortment of mascots) flags all day long claiming they're #1 but any unbiased person who tries both Windows and Linux would pick Windows every time.


/rant
Linux still forces their users to do meticulous and frustrating crap just to install software or run a program. Apparently, the last time any of these people have tried Windows was about 20 years ago, because they're complaining about errors galore like BSODs. You know when the last time I got a BSOD was? 14 years ago, on a Windows 2000 desktop because I was messing around with the system files. I was responsible for the error. With Linux, I get errors out the wazoo. Everything is always messed up somehow. You could be using it just fine, shut off your pc, turn it on the next day and suddenly it won't boot or one of your programs no longer works.

You spend hours upon hours googling for solutions only to find links to broken packages, demeaning responses to other people asking the same question, and a shitload of confusing information. Any normal person's brain would melt seeing 50 package names that all look like "gmp-ecm_6.4.4 -2_i386.deb" trying to figure out which one to download. In the end, you often find out the package is incompatible with your os for seemingly no reason whatsoever, or that there is no version of it for your os and for some reason, despite installing the latest version 20 days ago, your os is suddenly outdated. If there's an update manager, it often breaks your installation by installing incompatible packages, or you simply can't download any newly created software. Either way, you're going to have to manually download the latest disc image and burn it. Then the cycle just repeats itself until you get so fucking fed up with it that you explode on a forum or irc. Then some *******'s like, "try XXX-linux, it's the best!" DONT.DO.IT. figuratively knock their teeth down their throat and walk away. As someone who has tried over a dozen Linux flavors, it's never going to change. It might last a few weeks longer than the last one you tried, but it's still gonna break.

The problem is at the very core of Linux itself. Linux never had users in mind with it's creation. The entire purpose was to create a clone of an outdated Unix operating system. Therein lies the difference. Windows focuses on the user, and makes the complicated stuff obscure. There's no reason for you to understand a Windows error message because you're not the one who's going to fix it. They are. In about 24-48 hours with a Windows update because they've got paid programmers addressing the bug reports.


The truth hurts. I'm sure I just rustled a bunch of jimmies.

[bluemoon]

The problem is at the very core of Linux itself. Linux never had users in mind with it's creation. The entire purpose was to create a clone of an outdated Unix operating system.

While I use Linux at work with both love and hate, I agree it is not as user-friendly as Microsoft Windows.
Linux is powerful to get the job done, which sometime it can't be done with Microsoft Windows, but at the cost of user's effort and time.

And I disagree that Unix is outdated (Which Unix? Well, Solaris, may be, get the 11.2 and you know what is meant by un-user-friendly).
I also use FreeBSD for mission critical work when Linux is not stable enough. It is rock solid.

[Wajideu]

And I disagree that Unix is outdated (Which Unix? Well, Solaris, may be, get the 11.2 and you know what is meant by un-user-friendly).

I believe it was based on Unix 10.5, but when I said outdated I referring to the fact the the Unix api was designed in a time where programming was much more primitive. Hell, the entire reason that it even caught on was that it was such a huge thing that they ported it from assembly code to C, making it portable.

Programming has evolved since then, and there is mile long list of issues with the standard C library based on POSIX (rather POSI-for-uniX) that need to be addressed. Of course, everyone's position on this is



One of the major reasons C# took off is that is had such a rich runtime library.

[bluemoon]

The fact that It just work™ and rock solid™ reduce the need and momentum for new operating system, which by definition has less of testing. You may still argue that the claimed rock solid is biassed, which every version of kernel itself is new. But overall, it is really difficult to beat them on stability.

However, there are great deals of possibility and demands on new application / usage (mobile, watch, embedded systems, etc) which traditional operating system just can't fit directly (I don't like how Apple and Microsoft port/merge their desktop OS into the devices).

[Rusky]

Apparently, the last time any of these people have tried Windows was about 20 years ago, because they're complaining about errors galore like BSODs. You know when the last time I got a BSOD was? 14 years ago, on a Windows 2000 desktop because I was messing around with the system files. I was responsible for the error.

Not to start a flamewar, but honestly this is my experience on the Linux side. My system doesn't break, it's easier to install the software I want reliably than on Windows, and the system stays out of my way. The difference between Windows and Linux today in my experience is that Windows is opaque (heh) and often the only way to make it do what I want is a one-off registry key (that often has bad UX once enabled if it's possible at all), while Linux is much more transparent and it's pretty clear how to do what I want.

I readily agree that Linux is not as good for everyone's workflow and sometimes can be quite an awful experience, but that point has to go with the fact that Windows is pretty awful for some others' workflow (mine included).

---

But I think my biggest point here is still that, while Windows is quite good for most people, and Linux is quite good for some people, no system is going to get anywhere just because it has a better design, or even a better design plus pre-installation on OEM machines. Most people don't care about how their system is designed- they care how easy it is to do what they already want/need/know how to do.

These all got big without a "good design": Windows on PC (only got stable and polished way after it was huge), Android on smartphones (still pretty poor execution on non-Google phones), ChromeOS on Chromebooks (pretty narrow use case). The thing they have in common is they're easily available and they make it easy for consumers to do things they want to do: run Office, games, and other programs; call/text/email/internet with a single portable device; browse the web with good battery life and a cheap device.

My rule is that if something "went big" (whether in absolute terms like Windows or just in some niche like Linux) there's almost always a better reason than "monopoly" or "marketing" or "people are dumb."

[Wajideu]

However, there are great deals of possibility and demands on new application / usage (mobile, watch, embedded systems, etc) which traditional operating system just can't fit directly (I don't like how Apple and Microsoft port/merge their desktop OS into the devices).

Agreed. I'm not saying that Linux is 100% ****, I'm just saying it has it's place and the casual desktop is not that place. Linux isn't something that you just install, it's something that has to be tuned specifically for your needs. Systems like Ubuntu and OpenSUSE try to automate that fine tuning for you, which honestly doesn't work. If anybody read my rant, you'd notice a majority of the issues were package or update related. If you must install Linux on a desktop, it's best to get a distro like ArchLinux or Gentoo and build your own Linux from the ground up.

[Octocontrabass]

If anybody read my rant, you'd notice a majority of the issues were package or update related.

Manually downloading and installing packages is generally not recommended. From what you said in your rant, it sounds like you did it anyway.

And speaking of casual desktop, I know several people who've used Linux for "casual desktop" and had no issues. You're posting here, so I'd say you probably aren't a "casual desktop" kind of user...

[Wajideu]

If anybody read my rant, you'd notice a majority of the issues were package or update related.

Manually downloading and installing packages is generally not recommended. From what you said in your rant, it sounds like you did it anyway.

And speaking of casual desktop, I know several people who've used Linux for "casual desktop" and had no issues. You're posting here, so I'd say you probably aren't a "casual desktop" kind of user...

I was downloading packages that were specifically built for the distro I was on from their repository; usually through the package manager that came with the distro itself. This is yet another one of those things I've mentioned before on another thread, where the Linux community has the mindset that any problem that ever happens is the user's fault.