PDA

View Full Version : Why Linux Will Probably Never Overtake Windows



Hyperkill
December 5th, 2007, 06:14 PM
After being a dedicated Linux user for about half a year I have come to the sad realization that Windows will probably always be on top. Sure, the various distributions offer their users a great product for great prices. However, when it comest to ease of use Linux lags far behind. You can argue and say that Linux is more secure, stable, free, etc. But, what it all comes down to is ease of use for most people.

Look back at the old days of Windows 3.1 and look at who was using computers. Now, look at who is using them now. Even my mother, who used to barely know how to work a mouse, is online every day emailing family members and shopping. But, if you look back at the old Linux users you'll find that most fit the same stereotype -- geeks. With that said, if Linux intends on increasing in popularity it must also reach people like our parents.

Another flaw is that most systems take a lot of configuration to run Linux. With Windows you can practically pop in the disc's and take off. Then, when you do have a problem installing Linux as a new user you're practically forced to visit a forum and try tons of solutions until something hopefully works. This may be true with Windows as well but it's not nearly as prevalent. In fact, I almost went back to Windows because I could not get my internet to work after upgrading to Gutsy. Everything went in nice and smooth and was working great for the first week. Then it just broke for no reason and i could not connect to any networks in my area. Sure, I got it to work after reading for endless hours but that's not the point.

So, my question to you people out there is the following: Do you think after reading the above statements that Linux will really overtake Windows? I really hope it does because I have seen the light. But, I think that the majority of PC users today will keep running in fear until it's made more user/hardware friendly.

shad0w_walker
December 5th, 2007, 06:23 PM
So what you are saying the current usability is just never going to change? That's one hell of a wrong view on things. Look at a disto from 10 years ago. You think our usability is bad now? You haven't seen pure Linux.

Linux evolves and progress very rapidly (I like to think) and just dismissing its going to be 'worse' forever is just wrong. It's a matter of having been taught to use things differently and do things the 'windows' way. Look at the installer for the graphics drivers in Ubuntu 6.06 compared to 7.04 and see the speed of change.

As for 'pop in the disc' and your sorted with Windows. Every system I have installed in the last 5 years has required me to manually get and install atleast 10 drivers. Whilst this maybe easy enough it is something I haven't had to do with Linux. All I needed to do here is just hit the restricted driver manager.

I would comment on my experience with Vista but it plain refuses to install on my system so I can't. My choice in OS may be a little 'behind' when it comes to GUI but I'm a power user and prefer the CLI anyway and at least it will load and work on my system.

popch
December 5th, 2007, 06:25 PM
Hi there.

I do not think that Linux will 'overtake' Windows as long as Microsoft keeps on producing Windows.

My reason is a simple one and has nothing whatsoever to do with the software itself. Microsoft is a big large corporation with a huge budget to be spent on marketing.

While there are several corporations which produce Linux distributions, the do not live by selling that software.

Your observations concerning your parents might apply to your situation. They do not to mine. In my family, I am the parent. I am the Linux user. My son and his GF both use windows.

Although I am somewhat computer-savvy, I don't call myself a geek. I am, however, quite experienced in professionally installing and maintaining Windows systems.

And you know, for my own private and personal computer I prefer Linux because it is much easier to install and to maintain. Where I used to spend half week-ends fiddling with Windows I now accomplish that in an hour or so. That's time saved for actually using the computer.

pluviosity
December 5th, 2007, 06:25 PM
Another flaw is that most systems take a lot of configuration to run Linux. With Windows you can practically pop in the disc's and take off. Then, when you do have a problem installing Linux as a new user you're practically forced to visit a forum and try tons of solutions until something hopefully works.

I don't really completely agree with that. Linux keeps getting more user friendly, and once more major individuals and companies wake up and smell the coffee beans, kinda like Dell did, Linux will do better than it is doing now. If hardware manufacturers somehow made their products more OS neutral, I guess we wouldn't have as many issues. Personally, I didn't have a lot of configuration, actually none, to get my computer to run Linux, but then again, I could be one of the lucky few.

samuraiCat
December 5th, 2007, 06:29 PM
And the sun never did set on the British Empire, did it?

gn2
December 5th, 2007, 06:31 PM
Without wishing to cast doubt on your mother's intelligence or ability, how do you think she would she get on with a blank hard drive and a Windows install CD?

I know mine would be utterly lost.

igknighted
December 5th, 2007, 06:31 PM
Why linux will never overtake windows:

It exists to be great software, not to gain users. Overtaking windows is simply not the goal.

And please define "ease of use". I use linux because it is easier to use. My girlfriend who is your average college computer user (office, music/movies, a few basic games,etc.) found the linux GUI to be much more intuitive (middle click copy paste, for example). There is so much little details that people who use computers a lot will notice and love about linux that simply aren't there in windows. I will agree that someone who knows nothing about computers might struggle with linux. It isn't very new-user friendly. But it is far easier to use. You simply need to become familiar with it.


Another flaw is that most systems take a lot of configuration to run Linux. With Windows you can practically pop in the disc's and take off.

HA! If you believe that, you've never done a windows install.

Lostincyberspace
December 5th, 2007, 06:33 PM
The only reeason I would be considered a geek is because I use Linux. Not the computer knowledge I have.

popch
December 5th, 2007, 06:34 PM
Why linux will never overtake windows:

It exists to be great software, not to gain users. Overtaking windows is simply not the goal.

Ancient joke:

What is the current position of Windows: It is at the edge of the abyss.

What is the main goal for the Linux community: to overtake Windows.

aysiu
December 5th, 2007, 06:35 PM
Why linux will never overtake windows:

It exists to be great software, not to gain users. Overtaking windows is simply not the goal. Are you talking about the Linux kernel? If so, then you're right.

If you're talking about Linux distributions, however, you're wrong. Many Linux distros (including Ubuntu) have it as their goal to overtake Windows.

Read this for more details:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1

gn2
December 5th, 2007, 06:36 PM
And the sun never did set on the British Empire, did it?

All empires fall eventually.

jfinkels
December 5th, 2007, 06:38 PM
Another flaw is that most systems take a lot of configuration to run Linux. With Windows you can practically pop in the disc's and take off. Then, when you do have a problem installing Linux as a new user you're practically forced to visit a forum and try tons of solutions until something hopefully works. This may be true with Windows as well but it's not nearly as prevalent. In fact, I almost went back to Windows because I could not get my internet to work after upgrading to Gutsy. Everything went in nice and smooth and was working great for the first week. Then it just broke for no reason and i could not connect to any networks in my area. Sure, I got it to work after reading for endless hours but that's not the point.
Your assumption that because you had trouble, everyone else must have had trouble, is flawed. There are people who just pop in the LiveCD and start using right away without any problems! And the fact that you WERE able to solve the problem IS the point! Linux does what you tell it to do. Windows, the other way around.

Plus, because we (the greater we) have been brainwashed by using Microsoft Windows, we don't even realize how much configuration it takes to work "correctly" (if you can call Windows in any state correct).


Why linux will never overtake windows:

It exists to be great software, not to gain users. Overtaking windows is simply not the goal.

Well, not exactly... :) https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1

kuja
December 5th, 2007, 06:40 PM
While there are several corporations which produce Linux distributions, the do not live by selling that software.
Neither does M$. They live by selling a pretty box paired with a (rather ugly) licensing agreement to use software which you in no way, shape, or form own.

mikewhatever
December 5th, 2007, 06:42 PM
Hyperkill, you live in a dream world. I can't tell much about other distros, but Ubuntu is very easy to use especially because it needs next to no configurations. I've done a clean install of Gutsy about 8 hours ago with zero issues, so the memory is fresh. Wake up.
Here is a good reading for you http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html

Afkpuz
December 5th, 2007, 06:50 PM
For simple users like your mom, linux is not more difficult. In fact, I'd say it's easier. First and foremost, it's unreasonable to think that your mom is going to install linux on a blank system. She wouldn't install windows on a blank system. It would be set up for her. So, if you set up linux with the right codecs and programs and configure her email account, linux is a breeze. I installed linux on my mom's computer and she said that this was easier than windows. She just needs to know how to click on firefox and thunderbird. Thats not hard at all. She also doesn't have to worry about viruses, which was a problem for my mom.

See my post here for more in depth discussion on linux and the different types of users
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=3626374#post3626374

stmiller
December 5th, 2007, 06:51 PM
It is the security problems of windows which will be its downfall. Viruses, spyware, browser hijacks, keyloggers, random pop-up windows, etc. Not to mention operating system holes and exploits which go from the web browser down to the kernel.

All of these problems still exist on Vista. I service PCs for my day job. Just as many virus and spyware infested Vista machines come in as XP machines, even with vista's better security features. Norton and so forth is never up to date, and cannot be.

Security and malware is a nightmare, and will remain a nightmare until MS uses a sudo authentication (with a password) like Linux or OS X. Until then all of the crap runs free and unchecked.

/end rant

FuturePilot
December 5th, 2007, 06:58 PM
Buy a computer with a distro preinstalled. Then tell me how hard it is.
My point is, is that your average every day computer user finds Windows easier because it come preinstalled with everything setup already. (i.e. drivers) And most of them probably wouldn't know how to reinstall Windows if they had to. They usually just go out and buy a new computer.

I don't think Windows is any easier to install. Especially if you have a lot of hardware that Windows doesn't support. You either have to go digging around for driver CDs or digging around the internet in an 800x600 resolution.

Officer Dibble
December 5th, 2007, 07:01 PM
I hate installing XP and all the additional drivers on a system, and then installing all the necessary apps to go with it such as Office, etc, and then installing and configuring the firewall (which it then has to go through a longterm learning process) and antivirus. Seems to take forever... and then come the updates... :(

With Ubuntu it's all just there. Occasionally some have to tweak their graphics a little, some a lot if they want the effects.

For whatever quirks Linux still has, I find it very easy to forgive it as the whole Linux scene is a labour of love... loads of people have worked on it for free to make you and me really enjoy the Linux experience - and then give something back as we develop our own knowledge.

Windows is slow, and I hate the fact that I spent out so much money on an AMD 64x2 4200 system just to have it run like a dog with a half-baked OS such as Windows.

HemiGTX
December 5th, 2007, 07:08 PM
well im a 80/20 user linux/windows respectively... and imo for linux to take over windows it would have to become windows.... in its own variation of course. Linux just wouldnt be linux without the need to configure, compile etc etc.
Keep it real... keep it linux

23meg
December 5th, 2007, 07:25 PM
So, my question to you people out there is the following: Do you think after reading the above statements that Linux will really overtake Windows?

I've been reading those same statements (not even phrased differently; exactly the same) coming from different people for a few years, and along those years, what you refer to as "Linux" has become incredibly more (what you refer to as) user friendly. It's quite reasonable to expect it to become much more so, and much more "hardware friendly" due to increasing numbers of users, in the following years. I understand that it may not seem so to you, because you're new, and lack a perspective of how (fast) things progress.

enlightend1
December 5th, 2007, 11:07 PM
I've been following threads like this for a few years, since I first got involved with Linux back when RedHat 7.0 was the hot distro. My take on it is this, in a perfect world Linux would come out on top. But its not a perfect world, now is it.

The reality is that most likely Linux(and BSD), Mac, and Windows will probably end up with close to equal shares. You're always going to have people who will not, under any circumstances, use one of the other operating systems be it Mac, Linux, or Windows. We have that now, There are people on this forum who wouldn't switch to Windows even if they fixed all the security issues, eased up a little on the EULA, and sold it for $1.

It almost reminds me of Chevy vs. Ford Vs. Dodge, only not as rabid.

linuxrock
December 6th, 2007, 08:31 AM
I don't know what people should fear about linux.Its the safest os ever made.If i were them i would fear windows with all the virus.I am not a geek and i find linux very easy to use.And even if linux does not overtake windows who care,i love it and i ll never switch back to windows again. IF YOU WANT TROUBLE GET WINDOWS!!!!!!!
IF YOU WANT PEACE OF MIND GET LINUX!!!!!!!!


LINUX::guitar:

mdsmedia
December 6th, 2007, 11:12 AM
I've been reading those same statements (not even phrased differently; exactly the same) coming from different people for a few years, and along those years, what you refer to as "Linux" has become incredibly more (what you refer to as) user friendly. It's quite reasonable to expect it to become much more so, and much more "hardware friendly" due to increasing numbers of users, in the following years. I understand that it may not seem so to you, because you're new, and lack a perspective of how (fast) things progress.I couldn't agree more.

All you need is an open mind.

I used (well I installed) Linux about 7 years ago. It was usable, just.

I remained interested, and kept using Windows.

I used DOS from v.4.something and I was excited by Windows.....when Win95 came along I continued to use Win 3.11 for some time. When I moved to Win95 I didn't like it. It was new, and I lost a lot of the familiarity and expertise I'd built up.

Most of my peers now see me as an "expert". Our IT guy at work sees me as "knowing a bit about what I'm talking about".

I switched to Linux as an XP user, and an intermediate user of Windows. I'm no IT professional or tech-head. I try to keep up to date, but a lot of what I read is over my head.

My experience is that Linux just feels good. XP just feels like I'm wrestling with it all the time. I installed Ubuntu in October 05. That's as long as I've been using Linux, really. At the time, my 6 month old XP laptop was running like a slug. 2 years later my Ubuntu laptop and desktop are running like they were just installed.

That's the difference I see. Windows takes a lot of work to keep running reasonably. Linux seems to just work. I'm a Linux fan, so I might seem biased, but I'm just telling it how it is. And that's why I think, for a new user, Linux is better than Windows. It won't break down on them if they install new software. It doesn't require a lot of effort to keep working nicely. They have to go out of their way to get into trouble.

Kowalski_GT-R
December 6th, 2007, 11:54 AM
http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html

really documented statements here.....

gotta love opinated people...:roll:

back to topic:

to me, the most difficult difficult thing is making Ubuntu user friendly and keep it rock solid and somewhat lean. There's lots of features to add every other release to make it so. Kudos to the devs that keep the pace.

Generally I see Ubuntu reeling in on the big players, the process being potentially slowed down if Microsoft comes out with something better than Vista, which is a possibility...

khurrum1990
December 6th, 2007, 12:56 PM
All empires fall eventually.

That means that if Microsoft does fall and Linux goes to the top. Then some day there will be an operating system even better than Linux and that will bring our downfall?

eye208
December 6th, 2007, 02:54 PM
With Windows you can practically pop in the disc's and take off.
This is simply not true at all.

I've got a fairly new PC which is all S-ATA and no IDE any more. If I popped in a Windows XP disc, the installer would not even recognize the CD/DVD drive without additional drivers. Not to mention the plethora of drivers to be downloaded after the base install. Windows Vista was supposed to make this easier (by being less outdated), but failed. A lot of devices won't run at all with Vista because hardware makers don't bother to provide drivers for anything except their latest products. This is why consumers still prefer XP: It is considered the lesser evil.

Getting Windows to run smoothly on modern hardware is quite a challenge even for experienced users. Linux, on the other hand, recognizes new and old hardware alike, with only a few exceptions.

Windows will be on top only as long as users don't have to install it themselves. It will be on top as long as consumers are forced to buy it (preloaded on new PCs) whether they want to or not. Microsoft's market domination has nothing to do with quality of products. More and more people begin to realize this. A quick look at this forum is enough to prove that Linux is not only for geeks any more. It's beginning to penetrate the mainstream, thanks to Ubuntu.

Gadren
December 7th, 2007, 05:13 AM
Good points here -- I especially want to emphasize the fact that most people never install an OS at all -- but I think it's important to keep something in mind. I've noticed that when people talk about issues they have with Ubuntu or Linux in general, there tend to be a lot of responses saying, "Well, I didn't have any problems!"

While that may be true, the thing to remember is that this doesn't change the fact that people having problems are having problems. Some people have had lots of trouble in getting Windows to work "from scratch," but other people haven't. Some people may have everything work out of the box in Ubuntu, but that doesn't hold true for everyone.

aysiu
December 7th, 2007, 05:27 AM
Good points here -- I especially want to emphasize the fact that most people never install an OS at all -- but I think it's important to keep something in mind. I've noticed that when people talk about issues they have with Ubuntu or Linux in general, there tend to be a lot of responses saying, "Well, I didn't have any problems!"

While that may be true, the thing to remember is that this doesn't change the fact that people having problems are having problems. Some people have had lots of trouble in getting Windows to work "from scratch," but other people haven't. Some people may have everything work out of the box in Ubuntu, but that doesn't hold true for everyone.
I think the reason people respond that way is the OP's assertion or assumption that most people or everyone has serious problems with Linux.

If the OP says, "I'm experiencing problems," then it makes no sense to say "Well, I'm not."

If, however, the OP says, "I'm experiencing problems, and this is what's wrong with Linux. It's too hard for average users. Blah blah blah," then it makes perfect sense to say "Well, I didn't have any problems," especially if a bunch of people chime in.

I, like a lot of other people here, lucked out in having Linux-compatible hardware, came with an open mind, and had a little time to learn some things. We are not all programmers or tinkerers here. Some of us just want to use our computers, and Ubuntu is the best OS for us for that purpose. For others, that best OS is Windows.

inversekinetix
December 7th, 2007, 07:34 AM
LOL another pointless thread. Why don't you all save your breath and wait and see, fanbois from all camps can go on for eternity about what is better and will reign supreme. Fact of the matter is that linux in whatever form it takes is a million miles behind windows in terms of userbase. Instead of wasting time with fanboi ideologies like ' we will overtake windows' (something that apple(with its massive budgets) has been trying for ages and is still a million miles from doing), why dont people take a realistic stance something like 'we want to spread linux as much as possible'. Its really laughable, the kind of rhetoric I expect to hear from young students. Anyways...

.....I await the 'dream a dream' type responses with bated breath.

Gadren
December 7th, 2007, 10:03 AM
Instead of focusing on marketshare, I like to think in the same way that Torvalds does:

"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect."

Does that mean that growing the userbase isn't important? No. Does that mean we should try to keep Linux our own personal thing? Of course not! But there's something to be said for focusing on making Linux the best ever, and for that to be the goal.

23meg
December 7th, 2007, 10:12 AM
Food for thought:
"Popularity as measure of OSS success" (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=577989)
"Linux For Consumers" (http://log.ometer.com/2007-11.html#21)

mdsmedia
December 7th, 2007, 11:33 PM
LOL another pointless thread. Why don't you all save your breath and wait and see, fanbois from all camps can go on for eternity about what is better and will reign supreme. Fact of the matter is that linux in whatever form it takes is a million miles behind windows in terms of userbase. Instead of wasting time with fanboi ideologies like ' we will overtake windows' (something that apple(with its massive budgets) has been trying for ages and is still a million miles from doing), why dont people take a realistic stance something like 'we want to spread linux as much as possible'. Its really laughable, the kind of rhetoric I expect to hear from young students. Anyways...

.....I await the 'dream a dream' type responses with bated breath.Apart from the thread title, I fail to see any of the fanboi ideology you talk about in any comments on this thread.

The only place that Linux is behind Windows, IMHO, is in userbase. That can change very quickly.

inversekinetix
December 10th, 2007, 07:10 AM
Apart from the thread title, I fail to see any of the fanboi ideology you talk about in any comments on this thread.

The only place that Linux is behind Windows, IMHO, is in userbase. That can change very quickly.

How is hardware vendor support these days?

smartboyathome
December 10th, 2007, 05:07 PM
How is hardware vendor support these days?

It is great from some vendors (like my HP), and horrible from others. It just depends on which company(ies) you get with the hardware in your computer.

Retrominent
December 10th, 2007, 05:42 PM
I'm not sure why overtaking anything is important. The idea is to have choices. The one size fits all doesn't really fit all.

Scotty Bones
December 11th, 2007, 04:27 AM
First, i'll start with my experience for back drop (as many others have shared the same), then move into the "state of affairs as I see it". Feel free to skip down.

I've been a hard core windows user for years, a real guru you might say. Like may others, I was in high anticipation of Vista. Though I missed out on RC1, I was able to get into RC2 and I must say that I was quite disappointed. But I still had high hopes for the RTM release. Not much changed, Vista still sucked and I was still very disappointed. After removing it from my system, I felt kinda naked with only a single boot system (XPMCE) and figured I had to do something about it. I remembered hearing something about DELL offering linux and decided to check it out. This was how I discovered Ubuntu. I started with Feisty and only had a few issues. First was with my wireless card, broadcom (need I say more?) and I lost my title bar trying to use emerald. The forums were a great help but still no wifi. When Gutsy came out I didn't have a single issue. I've been more than happy with experience in Ubuntu and will never look back.
I alway hear that the hardest people to switch to linux, or rather those that have the hardest time, are the windows power users. With the right motivation, anything is possible and to be quite honest, it really wasn't that difficult. I'm not the power user in linix that I was with windows but all in due time.

The state of affairs as I see it.

Vista just pimp slapped Millennium Edition and stole its crown as the worst OS MS has ever produced! In the days of ME, MS was able to get away with this with very little repercussions, as there was really no alternative for the masses in sight. Today, however, the situation has changed as there are viable alternatives in sight. People and companies who have had the misfortune of having to deal with the headaches of Vista, are switching back to XP by the droves. However, with the end-of-life cycle nearing for XP, most are seeing this as a temporary solution and wondering what to do next.
Mac is reaching out of its niche and expanding into the general market grabbing more share where it can.. For those that would rather not incur the expense of replacing their existing units (which they would most likely have to do with Vista anyway), Linux is gaining more interest or at least a look. With all the progress Linux has made recently more and more are beginning to see it as that next viable option. For those that would say Linux is not ready for the desktop, I would say the same for Vista, making that argument a very mute point. As for software, what people are running now may or may not be vista compatible and there are many Linux alternatives that could easily fill the gap if one so chooses to switch.
Is there going to be a mass exodus over night? No, but over the next few years you will begin to see a shift in the market place. Especially if Vienna (black comb) is anything as poor as Vista. This could be the true killer for MS as confidence in their product dwindles. MS is licking their wounds right now and this is the perfect opportunity to kick them while their down. I'd say Mac is doing a good job of that!! Even Ubuntu is breaking into the market with DELL as a great launching post (even though the marketing is very lacking), not to mention Eee, gPC (with Wal-Mart, This was a genius idea) and the other various projects. Linux is getting out to the masses slowly but surely. It wont be long before you begin to see larger scale acceptance and support. Will MS die out completely? No, but the scales will tip and they will lose the strangle hold they currently possess and will, for once, be forced to compete. This can only make things better for all.

zero244
December 11th, 2007, 04:39 AM
I agree Linux has to continue gaining market share or it will eventually die out.
Windows horrible security issues and its own success make itself its own worst enemy.
Plus the fact that its upper level managers like Steve Balmer are nothing more than con men trying to sell low quality product with Vista.
As long as Linux keeps getting easier to use and Windows keeps getting bigger with sever security problems, Linux has a shot at overtaking Windows.
Which I believe is a good thing.
Ubuntu and other distros are superior to Windows at the core level.

nikoPSK
December 11th, 2007, 04:41 AM
just like in the lord of the rings, the two towers. Hang on, there is hope still and always be. Wait we will eventually dominate the world!

inversekinetix
December 11th, 2007, 05:24 AM
Can you imagine what will happen if MS loses enough market share to actually HAVE TO compete, with the resources they have they would undoubtedly make a great product. I wouldn't be so hasty to bet against them. It will be a long time before the range and depth of specialist applications that are available for window are available for linux.

Xbehave
December 11th, 2007, 03:11 PM
I agree Linux has to continue gaining market share or it will eventually die out. Linux cant die thanks to gplV2 its got a zombie like virus license, even if Redhat, cannonical and novell died today, it would just stumble then cent OS and debian keep comnig towards you.


Can you imagine what will happen if MS loses enough market share to actually HAVE TO compete, with the resources they have they would undoubtedly make a great product.
I cant think of a good product THEY've made. If they could undoubtedly make good products why dont they?
theyve had less than a third of the server market for years but are only slowly gaining ground

It will be a while before the depth and quality of specialist applications that are available for linux are available for Windows
there are limits when it comes to specialist aplications in both directions, But this is getting more and more limited. off the top of my head theres specialist bookmaking and CAD but theyre not usuall end user programs.

I do agree that windows marketing and FUD teams will work hard against any market change (i mean 40% market share hasnt come from security or performance tests) but theres nothing they can do against open standerds taking controll (even on windows machines), and if they choose not to support the standerds (effectivly giving 'us' the power) they will loose their market share quickly.

OSS may not be everywher but it has alot of power interms of designing porgrams
powershell, IE7, explorer.

Also dell offering linux laptops is a huge step forward as it give linux a good grounding in the laptop market for geeks without giving microsoft anymoney ( any good geek builds a system for <50% store price and avoids mstax )
cononical are also really helping with ubuntu, its alot easier to push a CD than a link.

mdsmedia
December 12th, 2007, 07:31 AM
How is hardware vendor support these days?Hardware VENDOR support may not be as ubiquitous as Windows, but Hardware Support OUT OF THE BOX leaves Windows for dead.

And userbase, as I said, the only area where Linux is behind Windows, would quickly lead to hardware vendor support, and software developer support.

Next.

Chrisj303
December 13th, 2007, 01:16 AM
Linux will never overtake Windows in terms of userbase.

Jesus, If Apple can't do it with its overwelming resources, than Linux hasn't got a chance.

I believe that the playing surface will level out somewhat, but Microsoft will never let themselves become bottom feeders - even if it means selling there upcoming OS' at a loss.

I also can't see either Apple or Linux overtaking the PC gaming market away from windows - an important market in terms of userbase indeed..

23meg
December 13th, 2007, 01:42 AM
Jesus, If Apple can't do it with its overwelming resources, than Linux hasn't got a chance.

My favorite apples and oranges comparison, pun unintended.

Apple's desktop OS is tied to their hardware platform that a handful of people opt into. Linux can run on pretty much everything, and is shipping and will continue to ship on anything from cellphones to high end PCs. It has a far greater potential of diffusion into the market, and is the polar opposite of Apple's product in this regard, hence the absurdity of the comparison.

Apple's business model isn't based on desktop OS market success; they're doing pretty fine selling machines as appliances loaded with an in-house designed OS, and tiny cool gadgets. They're selling hardware and software. Linux is just software. So is Windows.

kuja
December 13th, 2007, 02:14 PM
My favorite apples and oranges comparison, pun unintended.

Apple's desktop OS is tied to their hardware platform that a handful of people opt into. Linux can run on pretty much everything, and is shipping and will continue to ship on anything from cellphones to high end PCs. It has a far greater potential of diffusion into the market, and is the polar opposite of Apple's product in this regard, hence the absurdity of the comparison.

Apple's business model isn't based on desktop OS market success; they're doing pretty fine selling machines as appliances loaded with an in-house designed OS, and tiny cool gadgets. They're selling hardware and software. Linux is just software. So is Windows.

Additional note: Apple is selling these things at very high prices ..... Linux is being given away last time I checked ;)

khurrum1990
December 13th, 2007, 02:44 PM
Apple is never going to defeat Windows in terms of market share. Not everyone wants a Mac, most people like their own computers, and again u can build a better computer for the same price of a Mac. Linux can be rn on anything and has a greater chance of overtaking Windows.

lespaul_rentals
December 13th, 2007, 02:56 PM
The only place that Linux is behind Windows, IMHO, is in userbase. That can change very quickly.

No, sorry. Linux is not at the level of Windows when it comes to desktop/laptop application. Unless you run your personal computer in command-line interface (which is not practical for the average user, obviously), then Linux is not as stable or practical as Windows.

For the average home user, Windows supports all the applications he or she needs, and with XP does it very reliably and in a stable fashion. It's ready to go when you buy a new computer. I always have to laugh when I hear someone say, "I hate the way MIcrosoft works. They force their way onto PC's in the store and that's how they got where they are today. Well, that's the truth. And to be honest, I hate MIcrosoft's tactics too. But back in the days of 9x and 2000, Linux sucked for any application other than servers. Microsoft developed an OS that ran on pretty much every hardware setup out there, and was consistent enough that you could make a smooth transition from 95 to 98 to ME to XP.

I love Linux. I think it's great. I'm 100% Linux. But I'm really not surprised Linux doesn't have anywhere near the market share. When you have desktop enviroments like Gnome and KDE running, it's like pulling a block out of the tower. Who knows how stable it will be? Who knows what will go wrong and when? Linux has made great leaps and bounds towards being a good desktop system, and I predict that in 5 years, at the current rate, the average user will have a much better shot at enjoying the Linux experience.

popch
December 13th, 2007, 03:09 PM
Linux is not at the level of Windows when it comes to desktop/laptop application. Unless you run your personal computer in command-line interface (...) then Linux is not as stable or practical as Windows.

For the average home user, Windows supports all the applications he or she needs (...) It's ready to go when you buy a new computer. .

When comparing products obtainable somewhen during the year 2007, these are somewhat puzzling statements.

I run nothing but Linux at home. On Linux I use the CLI even less than I use the command shell and the registry editor in Windows. For normal operation, I use nothing but the GUI. The Linux GUI I use (Gnome) is at least as robust and usable as the Windows GUI.

The statement that Windows supports all applications an average home user might need is true but useless:

Both Linux and Mac OS X (and most other OS's which come to mind) do that as well, i.e. support needed applications.
Most Linux distros which address end users not only support applications but come out of the box with all applications needed. Windows does not. There are scarcely any applications boxed with Windows, and most of them are not useful.I don't see how your arguments apply to the real world in 2007.

lespaul_rentals
December 13th, 2007, 03:54 PM
When comparing products obtainable somewhen during the year 2007, these are somewhat puzzling statements.

I run nothing but Linux at home. On Linux I use the CLI even less than I use the command shell and the registry editor in Windows. For normal operation, I use nothing but the GUI. The Linux GUI I use (Gnome) is at least as robust and usable as the Windows GUI.

The statement that Windows supports all applications an average home user might need is true but useless:

Both Linux and Mac OS X (and most other OS's which come to mind) do that as well, i.e. support needed applications.
Most Linux distros which address end users not only support applications but come out of the box with all applications needed. Windows does not. There are scarcely any applications boxed with Windows, and most of them are not useful.I don't see how your arguments apply to the real world in 2007.

Okay, show me a full-featured office suite comperable to MIcrosoft Office. Oh, yeah, one that runs smoothly unlike OO.org. Make sure it has the same functionality, same compatibility.

Unless you can come up with answers like this, the average user will never switch to Linux. I myself don't care about the lack of certain applications because I don't expect Linux to be like Windows, but the average person does.

Will it work with my iPod? Will I be able to share my documents with co-workers? Will I be able to play games?

These are the questions people will ask. Unless you can answer, "Yes, just as well as Windows" every time, Linux isn't better for the desktop. For example, yes, you can browse the web, Flash, email in Linux, but Firefox will crash on you and slow your computer down all the time. Opera will too. Linux is only 75% of the way there. Do you see my point?

I'm not talking trash about Linux, just trying to show you what I mean.

lancest
December 13th, 2007, 04:37 PM
Okay, show me a full-featured office suite comperable to MIcrosoft Office. Oh, yeah, one that runs smoothly unlike OO.org. Make sure it has the same functionality, same compatibility.

Unless you can come up with answers like this, the average user will never switch to Linux. I myself don't care about the lack of certain applications because I don't expect Linux to be like Windows, but the average person does.

Will it work with my iPod? Will I be able to share my documents with co-workers? Will I be able to play games?

These are the questions people will ask. Unless you can answer, "Yes, just as well as Windows" every time, Linux isn't better for the desktop. For example, yes, you can browse the web, Flash, email in Linux, but Firefox will crash on you and slow your computer down all the time. Opera will too. Linux is only 75% of the way there. Do you see my point?

I'm not talking trash about Linux, just trying to show you what I mean.

I can see your point about how people think. Inertia.
However I don't think it's a question of "better for the desktop" with Linux. Hard to beat Windows in terms of applications alone.
In time Linux will take a large chunk of the desktop market in an organic manner. People are being exposed to it like the internet.
It's 6 month kernel development cycle alone- will insure technical superiority.
This might be comparable with the history of Japanese cars.
First they laugh at you, then you begin stomping them with your quality.
You can see this beginning to unfold at the low end of the PC market.

popch
December 13th, 2007, 04:39 PM
Okay, show me a full-featured office suite comperable to MIcrosoft Office. Oh, yeah, one that runs smoothly unlike OO.org. Make sure it has the same functionality, same compatibility.

First, the discussion is about the OS. My argument was (and still is) that with the typical Linux distro, you also get useful applications, while with Windows you do not.

OO not running smoothly is somewhat debatable. It runs smoothly enough for me, and I am not tolerant of slow or buggy software. The computer at work where I use MS Office is between 2 and three times faster than those at home where I run OpenOffice. Still, your perception can be different from mine.

As to functionality and compatibility: I have used at the same time in different environments Office 2000, Office XP and Office 2003 as well as OpenOffice 2.2 (I believe). Of all the possible compinations of products used to produce and consume documents those which paired OO with one of the MS Office versions where by no means the least compatible ones. In other words: At the different places where I used those products, the incompatibities between different versions of MS Office proved to be more disruptive than any incompatibilities between OO and any of the MS Office versions. In fact, we used in some instances OO to fix documents which had been broken by using them in different MS Office versions.

In short: the experience gathered at my work places by me and my PC support says that OO is in most respects a viable alternative to MS Office.

I do not compare MS Access to anything in OO. In fact, I use Access in Linux with Wine and am quite pleased with the result. But then, this thread is about the OS, not the applications.


Will it work with my iPod? Will I be able to share my documents with co-workers? Will I be able to play games?

These are the questions people will ask. Unless you can answer, "Yes, just as well as Windows" every time, Linux isn't better for the desktop. For example, yes, you can browse the web, Flash, email in Linux, but Firefox will crash on you and slow your computer down all the time. Opera will too. Linux is only 75% of the way there. Do you see my point?

I'm not talking trash about Linux, just trying to show you what I mean.

Many of your arguments are valid in a setting where someone already has a computer (and, obviously, an OS) as well as some peripheral devices and some applications acquired while using that computer.

Thus, your argument applies to the question whether Linux was fully ready to replace Windows on existing desk tops.

Clearly, the answer to this particular question is different from the answer to the question if someone considering buying the first PC should buy a Linux or a Windows machine.

In order to remain symmetrical, we then should ask as well if Windows would be a good choice of OS for someone already using a Linux computer.

Those question could yield some interesting answers, I think.

go2dell
December 13th, 2007, 11:00 PM
I just have to chime in on this one. These sorts of discussions are interesting when they involve only people who are "in the know" as the majority of Ubuntu forums users are.

More interesting is the simple realization that "Linux," or more correctly free software, has already established a strong presence in mainstream use and continues to do so. Except in the case of the "Linux fanboys" as the stereotype is portrayed, that usage has practically nothing to do with any anti-Microsoft sentiment whatsoever.

A few examples of free software and Linux in the wild would help.

1) An apartment manager got a new computer for her office. It was a notebook handed down to at least two other people before she got it. It was a mainstream model when it was new, so it was never precisely "zippy" in terms of performance. Before the laptop was given to her the system restore CD had been used to return it to an out-of-the-box configuration. The manager's office didn't own extra licenses to MS Office, and essentially refused to buy anything. I suggested OO.o as something for daily use until she could convince somebody to pony up some dollars for whatever she wanted. After a few months using OO.o she was happy to say that she wasn't interested in using anything else because it was easier for her to find what she needed in OO.o, and was therefore easier than MS Office had ever been. She isn't one of the "chained to the desktop" users in a typical office, who has time to search for features she doesn't regularly use; she typically has only a few minutes to create whatever she needs, print it, and fax or mail it off to somewhere, before running out the door for another appointment. The original reason for free software was the price; the final reason was the usability.

2) The same apartment manager started using Firefox years ago at my recommendation because her home computer was regularly inundated with popups and other irritating "features" allowed in by MSIE. One of her first tasks on her underpowered office notebook was to install Firefox for daily use. Another case of her own preference for free software based on usability.

3) A consulting client of mine is a rather diverse volunteer organization having somewhere around 80 people. Due to their nature their users end up spending lots of time sitting around with little to do, so they web surf. At one point one of their computers had over 3,000 virus infections on it (mostly just copies of the same virus) and I took steps to cut down on the problems. Firefox, as it turns out, was an easy solution for machines that don't have a dedicated, or indeed any, administrator. Not only did the problems decrease dramatically, but when IE7 rolled out to the volunteers on their home computers, a huge portion of them told me they downloaded and installed Firefox, and it was simply because it worked the way they wanted it to work.

4) Back to the apartment manager: her home computer is rather old and she simply doesn't have the funds right now to buy a new one. I suggested she try Linux. She's now been using Linux full time at home for over two years, and tells me she adores it because everything is so much easier than it ever was under Windows. Her favorite feature is that she's been able to browse through a list of available software and find solutions to almost everything she needs, without having to do loads of research and travel to every store in town just to find a copy of some special program. I've also overheard her telling people in her office that they should give Linux a try, so she appears to be a real convert. Her son was also using Linux and OO.o on his new notebook until there were a few things at his Windows-centric school that he couldn't figure out simply because they never bothered to teach applications, only keystrokes. Instead of trying to fight that one he just switched back to Windows XP and bought a copy of MS Office, which is a decision I support, since fighting it wasn't really worthwhile. Ok, yes, I would have fought it, but I'm a free software freak.

5) A now-retired former office worker was interested in trying Linux because she was interested in the whole free software aspect. She's now been using it as her sole OS for about four years. She recently bought a new digital camera and was at a friend's house trying to download the photos on Windows. It apparently took them quite some time to manage the whole operation. Back on her own computer, she asked me to help her do the same thing on Kubuntu. She was able to figure out most of the steps herself after I got her started, and I was a little surprised when she asked why it was so much harder to do on Windows.

6) I have a circa-2002 machine (mostly with 2001 components) running Kubuntu. It was somewhat above a mainstream model in its day but certainly not high end. It has quite mainstream components. I decided that the Windows XP license I originally bought for the thing should be put back into use instead of languishing on a shelf, so I reinstalled Windows. The graphics were abysmal and essentially nothing but the keyboard and mouse worked. Chipset drivers, sound drivers, video drivers, disk controller drivers, processor drivers (!!!), and the list went on and on, but they all had to be downloaded and installed even though Windows XP was released after every single one of those components. The Windows CD contains just barely enough to get a working system, unlike Kubuntu that does practically everything out of the box. Worse, Windows actually managed to break itself when I started downloading security updates and these overwrote both the video driver and the chipset driver. If you're a regular computer user how do you possibly figure out how to fix that sort of problem? That's what forms the vast bulk of my business, so I suppose I should be grateful to MS for making things so horribly difficult for the average user.

7) I've run Kubuntu from CD on customers computers to diagnose various problems they are having. Most of them don't realize I'm running something other than Windows until I explain it to them. I've had a few situations where people started web surfing while I walked out of the room for a few minutes, so it isn't that Linux is particularly difficult for the average user.

If you think alternative operating systems aren't making inroads, then you're ignoring all the Tivos, smart phones, web sites, POS systems, and so on, where average users are using Linux every single day. If it wasn't a recognized threat to Microsoft, do you really think they would have bothered to run a multi-year targeted advertising campaign against it?

ctyc
December 14th, 2007, 06:12 AM
Since most people are lazy and stupid windows will always be more common than linux on the desktop.

molom
December 19th, 2007, 01:00 PM
Try Linux Mint. I found it easier to install than Windows. It's usablility is better than Windows. But there are some porblems with linux. Look below at a plan that would work to make Linux the top.

These processes to take over Microsoft have to be taken in steps, just making the OS better is never going to make Linux the most popular OS. The steps and targets would be:
1. Office people - I know OpenOffice is a good alternative, but it's not fully compatible from head to toe with Microsoft Office. And that's why Linux isn't a good alternative for businesses and office people. The app needs to be ported, which is unlikely or OpenOffice needs to be more compatible with Microsoft Office. And crossover office is not a good solution because it's incredibly buggy.
2. Graphics and Multimedia - There is no photoshop for Linux, that is the main problem for graphics designers and thats why Macs are mainly used for graphics than Windows (Because it's stable and handles graphics with the available proper apps). Multimedia editing has to be taken with one big linux app like a simple garageband and cubase/logic pro. And there needs to be a good video editor like iMovie and Final Cut Pro.
3. Marketing - Macs are becoming very popular now and that's because they have these office/multimedia apps such as MS office, Photoshop/Adobe apps and iLife. If these programs are ported or equivalents are made and then are marketed like on TV, this could decrease the popularity of Windows.
4. Gamers - This is probably the hardest because there are so many companies that make games. I know there's cedega, but it still lacks performance and stability. The big time games first have to be ported and contacted with big TNC game companies. You could first sign for example with EA Games or Sierra for example. Or you could start with small companies, which is easy and gradually contract with every small game business until you get to the top.

These are probably the 4 things that are limiting linux to be for home use and business. And that stupid Wine emulator is not a solution. Only places now that Linux is being used is for servers, public places like libraries and government owned workplaces. These are hard tasks and many people don't accept this as a way to increase the popularity of Linux and some instead make viruses to corrupt Windows. That is not the right way to approach Windows. The reason why Apple is succeeding is because they have the MS and Adobe apps. Linux is user friendly enough now, which is one task that has been set to make Linux more popular, which is a good start. You have PCLOS and Linux Mint, which are the most suitable for Windows Users. But those 4 points are the limitations. And having an OS which is free makes it even better to gain popularity when these tasks are performed. Linux is smoother than Windows. And I imagine that high consumption apps will need more expensive computers, but the OS will be consuming less which means that lower ended machines can be used as an equivalent to Windows using the higher end apps.

Mac is increasing incredibly in popularity and am sure that Mac will take over Microsoft eventually because it has the apps Windows has like photoshop, acrobat, Adobe studio and Microsoft Office. Mac has stability and is user friendly. So the only issue with Linux is that there aren't the licensed apps like mentioned above and there isn't any marketing made by Linux. The easiest way this can be taken is if Canonical, Mandriva, PCLOS and Red Hat/Fedora unite.

I wish there were people and Linux business who would listen to this comment to make a difference, but I think the only way Linux would ever become the most popular if these steps are taken appropriately.

molom
December 19th, 2007, 03:00 PM
I don't know what people should fear about linux.Its the safest os ever made.If i were them i would fear windows with all the virus.I am not a geek and i find linux very easy to use.And even if linux does not overtake windows who care,i love it and i ll never switch back to windows again. IF YOU WANT TROUBLE GET WINDOWS!!!!!!!
IF YOU WANT PEACE OF MIND GET LINUX!!!!!!!!


LINUX::guitar:

Ahhh.... I think BSD or Unix is the safest, not linux.

smartboyathome
December 19th, 2007, 06:20 PM
The easiest way this can be taken is if Canonical, Mandriva, PCLOS and Red Hat/Fedora unite.

This has already been tried in the form of United Linux, and it didn't last long. :( Maybe second times the charm?

molom
December 20th, 2007, 08:04 AM
This has already been tried in the form of United Linux, and it didn't last long. :( Maybe second times the charm?

I don't even think there were any proper businesses other than Novell and Connectiva in United Linux. I think it could be definitely possible with Canonical, Novell, Mandriva and Red Hat to unite and take a good market share in the OS market.

smartboyathome
December 20th, 2007, 06:45 PM
But then, there is the discussion about what package manager/desktop environment/color scheme/etc to use. I would say you should definately email them all and tell them what you think if you think this should happen.

molom
December 20th, 2007, 10:31 PM
But then, there is the discussion about what package manager/desktop environment/color scheme/etc to use. I would say you should definately email them all and tell them what you think if you think this should happen.

I don't think I would be able to do anything to change the Linux community. I'm just a mere guy that knows how to use DE's and doesn't even know how to use sudo.

combatwombat_nz
January 9th, 2008, 10:26 AM
Windows? What's that? Aren't they those terribly fragile things that break if you sneeze (from a virus)?:lolflag:

Seriously, stop worrying about trying to catch up to a company that has billions of marketing dollars to spend brainwashing Joe Public.

Instead, concentrate on being the best you can be. Innovate, be attractive, smart and stable. That is what draws the smart people. When the smart ones are all drawn the dodos eventually get the picture. Commercial application makers and hardware vendors make their software along the chicken and egg theme; not enough users, not enough money, not enough reason to do anything.

But things are changing. Dell, Lenovo, Asus (Eee PC); all have begun putting resources into Linux. They don't do that lightly, especially when M$oft is breathing down their necks, threatening to withdraw the kickbacks, etc.

And don't merge the Linux companies, for God's sake. Linux is about choices, freedom, and the ability to create your own computing experience. If all of them merged, I am sure the shareholders would swing them into being the second M$oft (Red Novanonical?)

Xbehave
January 9th, 2008, 02:37 PM
marketing!
its the main reason linux wont take over desktop.
the same way that people think Ghz matter

I agree with combatwombat_nz
IMHO the only threat to linux from windows is that we get to worried trying to take its market share and stop inovating, we need linux to keep improving.

in adition we need fresh ideas, i mean composting was a good buzz but it was sorto stolen then done better. as we cant patent our ideas we need to just have plenty of new ones (atm i recon we could seriously improve ps3/xbox as a pc with some fresh ideas, unfortunately i cant code and am busy at uni)

GSF1200S
January 15th, 2008, 09:02 PM
After being a dedicated Linux user for about half a year I have come to the sad realization that Windows will probably always be on top. Sure, the various distributions offer their users a great product for great prices. However, when it comest to ease of use Linux lags far behind. You can argue and say that Linux is more secure, stable, free, etc. But, what it all comes down to is ease of use for most people.

Look back at the old days of Windows 3.1 and look at who was using computers. Now, look at who is using them now. Even my mother, who used to barely know how to work a mouse, is online every day emailing family members and shopping. But, if you look back at the old Linux users you'll find that most fit the same stereotype -- geeks. With that said, if Linux intends on increasing in popularity it must also reach people like our parents.

Another flaw is that most systems take a lot of configuration to run Linux. With Windows you can practically pop in the disc's and take off. Then, when you do have a problem installing Linux as a new user you're practically forced to visit a forum and try tons of solutions until something hopefully works. This may be true with Windows as well but it's not nearly as prevalent. In fact, I almost went back to Windows because I could not get my internet to work after upgrading to Gutsy. Everything went in nice and smooth and was working great for the first week. Then it just broke for no reason and i could not connect to any networks in my area. Sure, I got it to work after reading for endless hours but that's not the point.

So, my question to you people out there is the following: Do you think after reading the above statements that Linux will really overtake Windows? I really hope it does because I have seen the light. But, I think that the majority of PC users today will keep running in fear until it's made more user/hardware friendly.

I have KDE installed on my moms computer, and she finds it alot easier than Windows. My mom didnt understand how to keep Windows free of the overloaded system tray, and she couldnt keep the system itself running for more than a year without it crashing and her losing everything.

I went through the same thing in my dumb computer user years (3.1, 95, 98). Then I educated myself on what I needed to keep it running and things got better.

I setup plain jain Ubuntu and modified it for her. She had problems figuring out where she put stuff and found GTK apps confusing. I installed a command line version of 7.10, installed kdebase, and put only the apps she needed on it. I put bookmarks in konqueror to all of her important locations, and put shortcuts to these folders in all the save/open dialogs. I hate adept-updater, so instead I put a bash alias in so typing "update" in the terminal performs apt-get update and upgrade. Talk about easy...

It can be easy, and I personally think that older people are actually MORE open to Linux than non-technical younger ones. Its not grandma we need to worry about, because setting up the system for her, she will be set. Its the dumb teen and 20 somethings that have impossible demands even when an equivalent linux app can do the same things- these are the primary people preventing adoption...

ragadanga63
January 24th, 2008, 09:36 AM
1. Linux is not for geeks (not anymore). But most ordinary people don't even know that Linux exists.

2. The "which is easier" comparison is flawed when people compare a system (Windows) they have been using for years to a system (Linux) which they are still learning. Of course Windows always win hands down-they grew up with it.

3. As long as major applications including games run only on Windows, there will be no mass exodus to Linux.

4. Linux is easier to configure compared to Windows...PERIOD!

Still Linux will not overtake Windows anytime soon and it's not because Windows is a better OS but because MS is holding the PC market by its neck with their questionable business practices and power ($,$$$,$$$,$$$).

lancest
January 24th, 2008, 09:58 AM
There are enough good applications working on Linux for many people to start using it. Firefox, OO, and Gimp for example. Right now there are thousands of people buying Linux Eee pc's, Everex PC's, Dell , Lenovo laptops etc etc. There will likely be no "mass migration" to Linux but rather a gradual loosening of Microsoft making all the rules in personal computing. OOXML vs ODF for instance. If Linux can reach 2% of the market in 3-4 years it would be great. With Ubuntu versions improving so fast (allready) quality is a sure thing and alot of people are going to notice.

Mikecore
January 28th, 2008, 04:31 AM
After being a dedicated Linux user for about half a year I have come to the sad realization that Windows will probably always be on top. Sure, the various distributions offer their users a great product for great prices. However, when it comest to ease of use Linux lags far behind. You can argue and say that Linux is more secure, stable, free, etc. But, what it all comes down to is ease of use for most people.

Look back at the old days of Windows 3.1 and look at who was using computers. Now, look at who is using them now. Even my mother, who used to barely know how to work a mouse, is online every day emailing family members and shopping. But, if you look back at the old Linux users you'll find that most fit the same stereotype -- geeks. With that said, if Linux intends on increasing in popularity it must also reach people like our parents.

Another flaw is that most systems take a lot of configuration to run Linux. With Windows you can practically pop in the disc's and take off. Then, when you do have a problem installing Linux as a new user you're practically forced to visit a forum and try tons of solutions until something hopefully works. This may be true with Windows as well but it's not nearly as prevalent. In fact, I almost went back to Windows because I could not get my internet to work after upgrading to Gutsy. Everything went in nice and smooth and was working great for the first week. Then it just broke for no reason and i could not connect to any networks in my area. Sure, I got it to work after reading for endless hours but that's not the point.

So, my question to you people out there is the following: Do you think after reading the above statements that Linux will really overtake Windows? I really hope it does because I have seen the light. But, I think that the majority of PC users today will keep running in fear until it's made more user/hardware friendly.

Ubuntu ( Gusty ) is simply amazing and if your having any problems with it your NOT reading the man pages, wiki, or forums. Yes you are forced to read IF you have a problem. The price for freedom is YOU have to learn something about YOUR computer and OS.

"ease of use" yup your right windows is easy to use ( installing anti virus software, upating graphics drivers, installing games, or IM's setting up e-mail I bet money YOUR mom has never installed anything before, nor has she ever updated her graphics driver ( not that my wife or daughter has my point is THEY don't. I do it in my family and you probably do it in yours ) So most of those using windows are computer ignorant or lazy. I can qualify this statement with proof. Geek Squad and FireDog, Two computer repair/service groups popped up because people just like YOU, your mom, my family members don't want to take the time to read or learn what they are doing. Its easier to just have another person fix, install, or repair it. So its really NOT easy to use cause if it was there wouldn't be The Geek Squad or FireDog and your Mon, my wife, and daughter would install their own software or update their own systems.

Now to this I can just pop in a windows disk and bam I'm all set crap. Maybe in your dreams. I just installed Windows for someone and to do it correctly it took hours. After doing a complete fresh install with the factory recovery disk, I then spent hours updating windows from SP1 to SP2 from IE the latest. Installing anti virus, adobe reader, abode flash, upating to the latest graphic driver from ATI, installing print drivers from HP, stripping all the HP crap that comes with the laptop. Then after that was all said an done I had to disk clean and disk defrag ( XP ) several times. Not to mention going through an stopping unwanted services. I can install Ubuntu
in about hour with all the latest updates. With everything working fully. on any one of my laptops. ( two HP pavilions and two Toshiba )
( ati, intel, nvidia graphics cards two broadcom and two Intel wireless cards )

How much more easier do you want Linux to become? Its already installs faster then Windows. It much better in every way operationally. And everything is freaking FREE! ALL it takes is your time. what the hell else are you doing on the computer anyhow?
e-mailing ( 90% of this crap is jokes the other 10% might be work or family ) anything else your doing on it ( music, videos, forums, IM ) is really just a waste of time. My point is if your going to spend time on a computer ( not counting working and I mean earning a living ) then you might as well LEARN something.

OK rant done.

lancest
January 28th, 2008, 06:06 AM
Ubuntu ( Gusty ) is simply amazing and if your having any problems with it your NOT reading the man pages, wiki, or forums. Yes you are forced to read IF you have a problem. The price for freedom is YOU have to learn something about YOUR computer and OS.

"ease of use" yup your right windows is easy to use ( installing anti virus software, upating graphics drivers, installing games, or IM's setting up e-mail I bet money YOUR mom has never installed anything before, nor has she ever updated her graphics driver ( not that my wife or daughter has my point is THEY don't. I do it in my family and you probably do it in yours ) So most of those using windows are computer ignorant or lazy. I can qualify this statement with proof. Geek Squad and FireDog, Two computer repair/service groups popped up because people just like YOU, your mom, my family members don't want to take the time to read or learn what they are doing. Its easier to just have another person fix, install, or repair it. So its really NOT easy to use cause if it was there wouldn't be The Geek Squad or FireDog and your Mon, my wife, and daughter would install their own software or update their own systems.

Now to this I can just pop in a windows disk and bam I'm all set crap. Maybe in your dreams. I just installed Windows for someone and to do it correctly it took hours. After doing a complete fresh install with the factory recovery disk, I then spent hours updating windows from SP1 to SP2 from IE the latest. Installing anti virus, adobe reader, abode flash, upating to the latest graphic driver from ATI, installing print drivers from HP, stripping all the HP crap that comes with the laptop. Then after that was all said an done I had to disk clean and disk defrag ( XP ) several times. Not to mention going through an stopping unwanted services. I can install Ubuntu
in about hour with all the latest updates. With everything working fully. on any one of my laptops. ( two HP pavilions and two Toshiba )
( ati, intel, nvidia graphics cards two broadcom and two Intel wireless cards )

How much more easier do you want Linux to become? Its already installs faster then Windows. It much better in every way operationally. And everything is freaking FREE! ALL it takes is your time. what the hell else are you doing on the computer anyhow?
e-mailing ( 90% of this crap is jokes the other 10% might be work or family ) anything else your doing on it ( music, videos, forums, IM ) is really just a waste of time. My point is if your going to spend time on a computer ( not counting working and I mean earning a living ) then you might as well LEARN something.

OK rant done.

Right on! Very well stated. Since Windows comes with nothing (including drivers) why would anybody say it's easier? Simple- they haven't really taken the time (like they did in Windows) to learn Ubuntu. When I tell people Ubuntu needs no Windows junk like firewall and anti virus they are amazed. Nobody who is following Linux events in 2007 can say anymore that MS will be the only popular desktop operating system in the next 5 years.
In the future there will be at least 3 popular desktop OS choices. Just by the popularity of Apple itself you can see people are looking for alternatives to MS.

jonathan21
January 28th, 2008, 09:57 AM
the person above is right the only reason linux will never take off is because people are too lasy to go out and research this does not apply to everyone.love not having to go search hours for drivers.i don't play games much so thats not a problem but support for games increase once alot of people start using linux.as our user base has increased now look dell has started selling pc's with linux and a whole lot of others.with the support of everyone here its only a matter of time before more games and hardware is suppported.i don't see ubuntu being number one in the world but anythings possible.

MONODA
January 28th, 2008, 11:42 AM
I haave installed Ubuntu on several people's PCs and they have told me that it is much easier to use than Windows. These people are not geeks, one of them is my mother. They are all a lot more comfortable with using Ubuntu than Windows b/c they dont have to worry about messing up the system with spyware and such and they dont even have to defragment or do any system repairs like in Windows.
However I agree, windows or mac will always be prefered in general over Ubuntu or an other distro, not because it is hard to use but because of IGNORANCE IMO. They are not willing to learn that free software does not mean it is cheap. Believe me I have tried to convince MANY people of this and they keep on ignoring me... They say that they would rather trust an "empire" than something the download for free of the internet. When I tell them that they are getting ripped off, they ignore that too.(see http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=655370)

kernelCompile
January 29th, 2008, 04:46 AM
IMO, Linux has just about caught up with Windows in terms of usability, especially since Microsoft seems to have taken a giant step backwards with Vista. Windows still has the edge in software availabilty and hardware support, largely due to there huge market share. Nobody in the hardware or software business can afford not to support Windows.Most likely, Microsoft will eventually fix Vista, and the rumors of their death will prove to be greatly exaggerated. However, if they don't get it together and offer a product that actually is an upgrade to XP, they may find that Apple and Linux are rapidly gaining on them.

Windows is easy to use until something breaks. Then it is usually easier to reinstall than to figure out what's wrong and fix it. So much so, that I often see people on support forums suggesting a reinstall of Windows as the solution to just about any problem, even those that are obviously hardware-related.

A broken Linux or Unix system, barring massive file system corruption, can usually be fixed with a command shell and vi. If the GUI ceases to funcion on Windows, you usually have no alternative but to reinstall.

Infinity-al
January 29th, 2008, 09:35 AM
Well... In my school they are teaching us how to use microsoft windows xp ... I higly doubt linux will overtake windows in the future...

revelationman
April 2nd, 2008, 09:12 PM
I tend to a certain degree with your statement.

When you load Windows Vista it is a polished OS everything works, however does not mean it is better.

Linux has to stop thinking of taking over Windows it will never happen but when should be done is to take small chunks out of it.

Linux does not get the amount of virus and malware that Windows gets but that could change. Think about it more people use Linux more virus writers will try to create that nasty bug

The software that comes with Linux far exceed's Windows, imagine getting a full Office Program with Windows or even a dictionarytoo

The big issue is companies like ATI have to start realising that it is a good thing to create more driver's .

This is what I mean by taking chunks, it is time to tell the world that Linux is cool it is not just for geeks. I have a friend using Linux Ubuntu she loves it , it just works .

First thing to work on is a better messenger program sure amsn is fine and all but to configure it work with your web cam ! This is important to people why not havinga messenger program that works like MSN web cam functions etc.

I am looking forward to 8.04 and I will download it run the live cd and see what changes are made

Well lets see and again start taking chunks !

cardinals_fan
April 3rd, 2008, 01:03 AM
Well, if I leave my Mom (completely non-tech literate) alone with a Windows machine, she'll be begging for help within 20 minutes. If I leave her with my Linux machine, it takes an hour.

Cope57
April 3rd, 2008, 01:17 AM
On a quiet night, somewhere in the distance, you can hear a Windows PC reboot.

Flying caveman
April 3rd, 2008, 01:44 AM
Linux has already surpassed Windows as far as I'm concerned. Microsoft would have to have some amazing OS to make me want to switch back.

I can't imagine why everybody doesn't use Linux and I find it hard to believe that Microsoft will rule forever. It would be really sad :( if the general population is stupid enough to keep paying for a new OS and an office suite that doesn't do anything more than what it did 15 years ago.

Windows XP does most of the stuff that windows '95 was supposed to do. I don't know what Vista has that XP doesn't except a bunch of driver issues and incompatibilities built in.

Oh, yes I find Ubuntu easier to use than Windows.

madjr
April 3rd, 2008, 02:00 AM
First thing to work on is a better messenger program sure amsn is fine and all but to configure it work with your web cam ! This is important to people why not havinga messenger program that works like MSN web cam functions etc.

I am looking forward to 8.04 and I will download it run the live cd and see what changes are made

Well lets see and again start taking chunks !

first thing you should know if your webcam works with linux.

compatible webcam list (in green):
http://mxhaard.free.fr/spca5xx.html

if your webcam is compatible with linux it should work in amsn or mercury messenger

since i don't use webcam i like emesene better.

i agree with you: Well lets see and again start taking chunks !

Education about linux should be the primary goal to start taking chunks.

Anyway, the future of Ubuntu is very bright :D
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=742402

Twitch6000
April 3rd, 2008, 02:21 AM
I think microsoft will fall for sure maybe not to Linux but,most likely to mac and then we come up behind them and take second.

You saying we can't meet normal people standards?

Well my grandparents are considered normal on windows they beg me for help every day almost.

On Linux I haven't heard one problem yet except no real arcade(damn that sucks).

I have also gave Linux to my teacher she hasn't tried it yet but, she will on my spring break and give me the news.

When I first install ubuntu(my first Linux distro) only problem I had was ok where are those cool effects I seen on youtube!

I found them fast and was in love.

So yeah Linux is for anyone its just the persons choice who matters,I have learned that now.

falkTX
April 4th, 2008, 03:46 PM
I started using Windows 98, than XP than Vista, but I returned to XP and now I'm using DualBoot with Windows Longhorn Reloaded (non-official) and Ubuntu Hardy.
I think Windows has got one more chance with Seven/Vienna, but if it does the same thing that Vista did (lots of Hardware/Software incompatibilities, High-Spec PC needed to run, etc) maybe Mac will overtake Windows.
I really love Linux and I think the Open-Source is the final step to "software evolution"but as Companies releases stuff only with money interests, Linux will never overtake Windows.
I just hope that big companies start supporting Linux, so it can run on any computer; When that happens, than we can say "Linux is ready"

Potet
April 5th, 2008, 08:15 PM
Linux is not only for geeks, the non-geeks just don't know it. I am no big computer-geek myself (more like a Ninteno-nerd), but i do not have nearly as much problems with Ubuntu as i had with XP. My family hav also started using Ubuntu, and the only two problems they had was to use GIMP instead of Pain(t) and Firefox instead of IE. I think they newer would have enjoyed going back to IE and Paint now when they know more about Gimp and FF. I believe that the only thing thats Linux needs now to overtake Windows is that a Linux distribution becomes the new standard OS for new computers. It wont happen in some years, but I'm sure it will.

Sorry my misspelled English.

linuxbeatswin
April 5th, 2008, 08:40 PM
I personally like the fact that Linux users are among a small group of users. This means, as stated before, that fewer viruses are written for it because it's almost a waste of time. I like that I have an O/S that "just works", and that I'm among friends that feel the same way. I don't want to see it become the next "windows" (apparently, I'm not allowed to spell it 'windoze' any longer) because that would mean that these jackholes who think it's funny to write malicious code would spend more time concentrating on my O/S that "just works".

I personally feel that we should concentrate on making Linux better, stronger, faster, and more reliable rather than on making it the next "windows". (I still refuse to capitalize it.)

Thanks, by the way, to all the researchers and developers who have made Ubuntu what it is. Although we're not a rich family, I had no problem donating to the project- especially when it's this good.

davidgutu
April 20th, 2008, 11:57 AM
I think Linux is already past windows all that's left is for people to get to know about it and since that is happening fast, it's gonna be a matter of <5 yrs befor linux overtakes windows :)

rado1
April 20th, 2008, 04:49 PM
I'been using windows sinds windows 95( NT,2000, XP) and now Vista, but the thing why i'm now using linux and recommed it to all my friends is because of tons of informations on ubuntu forums. When something goes wrong with windows e.g. changing registry keys, massing up with login, your onlu choice is to reinstall. With time windows gets slower and slower, and even expensive tune tools woud not help you. I don't think that linux gonna overtake windows, just slowly replace it.

Old Marcus
April 22nd, 2008, 02:14 PM
The main problem I see is that people are so keen to see Linux overtake windows that they forget the problems that come with being the top OS. For a start, as others have mentioned is the viruses/spyware etc. that are so common in windows could become more common in Linux as it becomes more popular. At the moment it is just a waste of time writing viruses for Linux. Firefox prided itself on being virus and exploit free, but when it became more popular the problems came out to say hello. Also, let's say theoretically Linux does become top dog, I feel it would most likely be Ubuntu or similar, since it has a large emphasis on being easy for the average computer user. But what about all the other distros? What's to say we don't end up with a distro war? :p

Eclipse.
April 23rd, 2008, 04:25 PM
All you have to do is look at the progress linux has been making over the last few years and compare it to windows progress.

Linux is taking leaps while windows is falling over.

jaytek13
April 23rd, 2008, 06:18 PM
The answer about why it will never (or, at least for the foreseeable future) overtake windows is actually really simple... Mainstream users have been taken in by the "you get what you pay for" syndrome. Since Linux is both free as in speech and usually beer, they will consider it less capable than Windows, whether that belief is based in reality or not.

karellen
April 25th, 2008, 10:37 PM
MS has the upper hand because of the simple fact that it was here (on the desktop pcs) first. it's not that it's better or more stable or more reliable and all the other stuff. but it sets a standard and created a software ecosystem around Windows, an ecosystem very hard to beat (take for example all those apps people are accustomed to and use day by day)

akiratheoni
April 25th, 2008, 10:44 PM
The main problem I see is that people are so keen to see Linux overtake windows that they forget the problems that come with being the top OS. For a start, as others have mentioned is the viruses/spyware etc. that are so common in windows could become more common in Linux as it becomes more popular. At the moment it is just a waste of time writing viruses for Linux. Firefox prided itself on being virus and exploit free, but when it became more popular the problems came out to say hello. Also, let's say theoretically Linux does become top dog, I feel it would most likely be Ubuntu or similar, since it has a large emphasis on being easy for the average computer user. But what about all the other distros? What's to say we don't end up with a distro war? :p

Don't mean to sound mean but your argument about the market share is one of the most over used argument and easily refuted argument.

Now, I'm not saying Linux will remain virus-free -- it won't -- but virus infections will remain at a minimum and definitely at a smaller rate than Windows. I can write pages and pages on this but I'd rather not bore anyone...

aysiu
April 25th, 2008, 11:14 PM
Don't mean to sound mean but your argument about the market share is one of the most over used argument and easily refuted argument.

Now, I'm not saying Linux will remain virus-free -- it won't -- but virus infections will remain at a minimum and definitely at a smaller rate than Windows. I can write pages and pages on this but I'd rather not bore anyone...
Self-replicating viruses might not become widespread, but Linux will easily (with as much home consumer marketshare as Windows currently has) be as susceptible to social engineering-based attacks.

WilSteele
April 27th, 2008, 10:51 AM
OK, I've read a few forums like this tonight, and there are many good points made, but everyone misses - though sometimes only just - the main point of why windows stays on top. But I'll get to that.

So far as FOSS verses commercially licensed software and which is better. I saw some talk about OO.org vs. MSOffice. I remember reading a article in a tech mag last year stating the .odt was the new standard for office documents in many part of the world. Anyway, OO.org is not only a viable, but a perfect substitute for MSOffice. And as for as people saying "it" is not compatible with MSOffice... sorry, it's the other way around. OO.org does open a .doc but MSOffice does not open a .odt. Outlook is MSOffice's only advantage.
I love FOSS, I am often referred to in work places as the FOSS guy as though it were my job title. I love finding new Free and Open Source
Software and trying it out, even if I have no use for it. But... IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO COMPARABLE TO COMMERCIALLY LICENSED SOFTWARE.
With the except of OO.org vs. MSOffice none of the software required in many industries could be replaced with FOSS. GIMP instead of Photoshop, get real lol and all that. Truthfully nothing compares to Photoshop for what it does, for business or home. GIMP is not easier to use, it doesn't have the features, it doesn't do a nice a job as easily... sorry, but the list goes on. GIMP's only two advantages are the size of the program and price.
This is true with most of the software under the gpl. Sure, for just basic use, things like internet or word processing or for viewing or listening to media, Linux distros like Ubuntu win hands down. And I have used a lot of OS's on a lot of systems. But most of the appz that a person needs to do many thing are not intuitive, not as powerful, or as full featured as commercial or mainstream software.
Sorry, no way, no how, nah uh. I used to think so. I used to think PaintShop Pro was better than Photoshop too, till I learned to use Photoshop and realized what you can do with the integration between the programs in CS.
Anyway, that isn't the argument of this thread, that is FOSS versus Commercial and since FOSS can be used just as easily on Windows and most of the stuff you have been discussing from FOSS like OO.org also comes in Windows versions... that's is not the topic of Linux Will Probably Never Overtake Windows... but it comes close.

It is not Windows that is great software. I have had many issues with it. Viruses being the least of them. I have had more installation issues with Windows than with Ubuntu or Slack 12. FAR MORE. And Windows appz are larger and take longer to install because they come with all their own libs and crap and don't rely as heavily on system supplied ones. So, it takes for ever to install Windows, then Norton or F-Secure (the two anti-viruses I work with most). Than to install MSOffice. Then to install Adobe CS 3 sometimes takes a couple of hours all by itself. Then what ever other software the client or myself require.
On this lappy I installed Gusty, installed updates, noticed the upgrade, installed that, installed cxoffice so I can use palace, installed palace, installed several bits of software including 3 other web browsers, Komposer, Filezilla, aMSN, putty, and a few other things and then configured everything. I did this all in around 2 to 3 hours and everything works with only one issue with scrolling. Geee... I think that's pretty good and IMPOSSIBLE to do on Windows.

Anyway, I work in tech and IT solutions. I have had lots of professional experience with Windows and FOSS in the Windows environment, I also have friends and other connections in the commercial software development industry and game development industry. And we have had this debate many times. And the conclusion is...

Why Linux Will Never Overtake Windows
(notice I omitted the probably)
1: Lack of marketing, advertising, and overall exposure. Talk to most of your average computer uses (I have to everyday) and most of them don't know anything but Windows. I mean literally. They can't understand the idea of not using Windows. I even had one person say to me, "Linux, yeah, but what Windows are you running?" and another "All computers need Windows, you need that to make other programs like Linux work." Most have never heard of Linux, let alone know what it is. They don't even understand the concept of an OS. They just think computers use Windows and all other programs, including this new thing they may have heard about called Linux, install inside of that.

2: FOSS software development does not pay the bills. It does not make you money, so you need a job and that causes your open source development to suffer. Commercial software is created by companies who pay employees so the whole of their attention can go to that product. That is the sole reason why it is better. Here we are not referring to OS's but to programs. So, since commercial programs are and will remain better, easier to use, and closer to the cutting edge, it is safe to say they will be the common choice of users and businesses.

3: The common choice of users and businesses being commercial, closed source software the choice to the companies that produce that software will be the ideal closed source environment. And this is Windows. Linux, right down to it's core, is open source. Companies that want to keep their source code secret are going to stick with a closed source and... the really important part, standardized operating system. Linux is not closed source or standardized and is therefor developing commercial programs for is viewed as detrimental to their productivity and profit.

(It should be noted that all of this pertains to games as well. Especially to games. The gaming sector is one of the largest, most profitable, and fastest growing sectors in the tech industry.)

4: Standardizations of an operating system. Windows is pretty standard from version to version. At most a company only has to account for differences between 2 different version. Versions, I must reiterate, that are fully closed source. Linux, however, has somewhere in the ranger of 3000 distros, but a developer would only need to work toward supporting the core distros really (debian, redhat, suse, etc.). No matter how many Linux users there are, even if there were as many people using Linux as windows, they are using so many different versions of Linux and the only real way to make a piece of software work on all distros is to release source code so the user can compile it for themselves. The last thing companies want to do is release their source so their competitors can rip it off. To develope installers for all the different distros would take more man hours and resources and therefor money, cutting profit margins. To develope for only one distro will reduce profit since it cuts the amount of potential customers to a fraction.

So, people will always want the commercial software, since it is easier to use and more powerful. Companies will always program for windows because it is closed source and standardized giving them more profit and keeping their product secure. This in turn will force more people to continue to use windows.

lancest
April 27th, 2008, 01:25 PM
Linux doesn't need to compete with Windows directly. Rather it is going for the soft Windows underbelly- which is poor security, bloatware and lack of customization. It's rather obvious that Windows is the king of software since billions have been spend in development. Duh! But nobody can tell me Gimp is not suitable for most use either. Linux desktop software suits many businesses and millions of home users just fine.

Cyynic
April 27th, 2008, 02:27 PM
I think this debate is all a question of mindshare. Why did Windows become popular in the first place? Because it was was business users had at work, so it was the easiest OS to use at home.

To all of the arguments saying that Linux will never be able to compete in either mindshare or quality of software, I'd like to point out my favorite articles on the net, here are a few examples:

9000 swiss schools switch to ubuntu here. (http://www.duvet-dayz.com/archives/2008/04/04/654/)
12000 computers at a South African Bank here. (http://www.tectonic.co.za/wordpress/?p=1562&src=digg)
Japan aims to switch gov't to linux here. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/breaking/japan-to-boost-linux-use/2005/10/06/1128562928058.html)
Linux to be installed in every russian school here. (http://eng.cnews.ru/news/top/indexEn.shtml?2007/09/14/266177)
Munich begins migration towards Linux here. (http://www.dailytech.com/Munich+Begins+Migration+Towards+Linux/article4286.htm)

after only a few minutes searching.

I get the distinct impression that the next generation of users (like my one month old daughter) will be living in a very different environment than the one we live in now... and the more new computer users using Linux = more developers...

Linux hasn't been in a rush so far, why start now? we'll get there in due time.

sorin.stirbu
April 27th, 2008, 03:11 PM
Why Linux Will Probably Never Overtake Windows ... hmm ...

Well ... as an old friend of mine said some time ago: Windows and Linux can't be compared !! It is like comparing a fruit with a vegetable ...

My mom is using Ubuntu without any problems ... I even teached her how to install it + many other things ... but I think this is more on how open minded to learning new things is a person [my/your mom/other ppl] ... we live in the 3rd milenium man !!! ... the age of the computers is now ... if we don't keep up with them we will be extinct !! ... and the machines will take over the planet [ :D:D:D ] ... those ppl that do not know what an OS means or what Linux is ... they will learn or they will die of anger .. when their car won't start ... or their mobile phone [more mobile phones use an OS....iPhone...Nokia Symbian phones... PalmOS etc] will be to hard to use :D:D:D ... or their employer asks them to learn that or get fired !! :D

As another guy said earlier on this post .... [I]the only thing that can make ppl call me a geek is that I use Linux ... but I know how to use Windows + Solaris + MacOS + other ditros ...... I know all of them ... because I was curios and eager for different OS "knoledge" ... and I choose Ubuntu ... guess why ??? .....Answer: because I think that it is the best OS at the moment.

I would have more to say about this issue but for the moment I think that it is better to say :

[I]Linux Will Never Overtake Windows ... [ :) ] ... inside the mind of ppl that think like you and that are scared of new things and changes in their life.



P.S. A joke:
Question: What are the differences betwen WINDOWS and a virus ???
Answer: #1 - it is rather larger then a virus [some Gb's]
#2 - it uses more RAM then a virus
#3 - and it doesn't run behind another program ..

...as long as the blue screen exists....windows is going down !!!

cb951303
April 27th, 2008, 03:21 PM
Why Linux Will Probably Never Overtake Windows

1. linux overtook windows in servers since forever
2. linux doesn't have the aim to overtake windows or any os

cheers :)

the8thstar
April 27th, 2008, 03:27 PM
In a nutshell, my opinion is:

"Don't say you're better. Be better."

Practice, ease of use, example and demonstration make the difference in the end.

jeyaganesh
April 27th, 2008, 04:36 PM
From last two years of my experience with Ubuntu GNU/Linux, I have seen a greater leap in its evolution. Development of compiz/beryl,eye candies, lots of new themes, integrity of graphic card and wireless adapter supports and still more improved the GNU/Linux experience. Still it needs some art work to make it pretty, especially Ubuntu. Red Hat lineages like Fedora and CentOS and PClinuxOS has good sense of wallpaper. But Ubuntu still stick with muddy wallpaper. Ubuntu Studio developers has real taste. These are the things attracting laymen that GNU/Linux geeks should realize. Then only they can beat software giants in competition.

In this pace, GNU/Linux will capture more hearts of people. We can surely expect more rapid evolution of GNU/Linux in coming years. :guitar:

Vorian Grey
April 27th, 2008, 04:46 PM
All the news sites mention Ubuntu now. Even a year ago the story of a new release would be dead on arrival. Now, it's a major story. That just goes to show how much things have changed. Ubuntu has the buzz and is cool and Windows and particularly Vista is not. The mindshare is improving for Linux. It may or may not ever overtake Windows but who cares, really. People who want to change can and those that don't can use their Windows. It's not a life or death thing.

waterloo
April 27th, 2008, 11:18 PM
I learned about linux in ~2002.. Since then I think Linux has gone a longgg way and many of the adults I ask say Linux is very easy when compared to the early years of Linux. I personally use Gentoo and have tried ubuntu on many client pcs and I have high hopes for this distribution.

The main issue is attitude and if people would just change their attitude live would be better.

Many people who go into linux for the first time go in with this preset idea that linux is going to be complicated, is going to be hard, etc etc. I feel this is why people think so negatively about linux, because they have these preset idea from word of mouth or from newspapers etc that linux is going to be hard and because of is they aren't open to doing something a little bit differently (example use Totem instead of Windows Media Player). This causes a problem because obviously Windows and Linux are very different.

If people use linux, such as ubuntu without the preset ideas of Linux sucks etc I think they will like it and find it is a lot easier to use than Windows (such as Vista).

We have to tell everyone that they can be just as productive in Linux than they can be in Windows

Also -> I am pretty sure Linux servers have overtaken Windows Servers since forever. Also in Businesses Linux is becoming popular because they don't have the expensive license agreements.
:D Ubuntu needs a TV Commercial

fire5nake
October 31st, 2008, 08:38 AM
My two cents is the argument posed by the OP is fundamentally flawed.

"With Windows you can practically pop in the disc's and take off."
Its true that after windows has finished installing it will boot to desktop straight away. But then you often have to install video driver, reboot, install sound driver, reboot, install lan driver, reboot, install security software, reboot ... and thats even before yous start adding the software you will require for day to day productivity such as a word processor for example.

A more accurate statement would be that Windows is easier because you can just buy a new computer off the shelf that has all this stuff preconfigured by the manufacturer. Even then without vigilance from the user the system will still be brought to a crawl by registry bloat, spyware, adware, unneeded startup programs, etc.

I can count on one hand the number of computer hardware vendors who ship complete systems with linux preinstalled. If systems with preconfigured linux OS loaded on them were readily available at your local chain store then Microsoft would really start to suffer.

My own personal experience is that I have dabbled in Linux on and off for about 8 years, always finding it too dificult to configure or become productive with then giving up and returning to Windows.

Until earlier this year when I decided to try out the latest release of this Ubuntu distro that everyones been talking about.

I chucked in the 8.04 liveCD, made a partition for Hardy to live on, and installed. When I booted into my new OS I was amazed to discover that the only hardware that wasn't detected installed and configured out of the box was my graphics card and even in that case there was a handy little tool sitting up in the system tray which allowed me to set that up with little more than a click of the mouse and a small download.

Now I have installed Ubuntu for three other people who use ther computers only for the basic things that probably 80-90% of home users do - surfing the web, email, listening to music, burning CD's. They are all amazed how much easier things are for them now. No more wasted hours scanning for viruses, defragging drives, etc. No more worrying that they could click the wrong web link at any time and get owned by some dredded malware.

I believe Linux can overtake Windows. The only barrier is that most of the general public have never even heard of linux let alone used it. Now that Dell are shipping systems with an Ubuntu option, and the Acer Aspire One and Asus EEEPC are flying off the shelves, I believe that the tide has begun to turn. The question is no longer if Linux will start to hurt Microsoft its only a question of when.

lancest
October 31st, 2008, 09:14 AM
We have to tell everyone that they can be just as productive in Linux than they can be in Windows


I really agree with this. Sometimes I have to pinch myself. I am far more productive in Ubuntu than ever before. Windows comes with nothing, and I have no need for it.

maniac_X
October 31st, 2008, 09:43 AM
It may or may not ever overtake Windows but who cares, really. People who want to change can and those that don't can use their Windows.

TY Vorian....this is as clear as it can be or really needs to be.


Smoking is bad for you but there are still a lot of people that do it even in the face of scientific evidence. You can not MAKE someone quit smoking unless they truly want to. Hard sell will not work. You can only point out the science and let them make their own decision.

.

Giant Speck
October 31st, 2008, 10:15 AM
Smoking is bad for you but there are still a lot of people that do it even in the face of scientific evidence. You can not MAKE someone quit smoking unless they truly want to. Hard sell will not work. You can only point out the science and let them make their own decision.

Comparing Windows to smoking and Linux to quitting smoking is an odd analogy to use. Because for a lot of users, Windows is not a bad thing.

I think a better analogy to use is Coca-Cola and Pepsi, where Coke is Windows and Pepsi is Linux. Pepsi is newer and to many it is just as good as Coca-Cola, but it doesn't mean that preferring Coca-Cola over Pepsi is a bad thing.

Or you could compare Windows and Linux to name-brand goods and store-brand goods. Windows is more advertised and used more widely than Linux just as name-brand goods are more advertised and used more widely than store-brand goods. However, like store-brand goods, Linux costs less and to many, it is just as good.

eternalnewbee
October 31st, 2008, 05:55 PM
Red Hat lineages like Fedora and CentOS and PClinuxOS has good sense of wallpaper. But Ubuntu still stick with muddy wallpaper.
Don't just give me the beans then. give me the mud , too.

All the news sites mention Ubuntu now. Even a year ago the story of a new release would be dead on arrival. Now, it's a major story. That just goes to show how much things have changed. Ubuntu has the buzz and is cool and Windows and particularly Vista is not. The mindshare is improving for Linux. It may or may not ever overtake Windows but who cares, really. People who want to change can and those that don't can use their Windows. It's not a life or death thing.
__________________
+1

Silvernotex
November 3rd, 2008, 08:49 PM
I think Linux... probably ubuntu (Unless some unforeseeable issue occurs), will at some point overtake windows, Due to lack of bugs, virus's and difficulty to hack, its superb stability, ease of use and automatic installations (God bless the package manager).

P.S This thread makes me feel like those people that only like something after its became popular... you know the ones, Due to the fact I only started using ubuntu less than a week ago.. and <3 it.