Why Do Linux Users...

[aceinthenight]

Why Do Linux Users see the need for Linux to basically 'defeat' Windows? Linux has its own place, and frankly, isn't it best that it stays small relative to Windows? Wouldn't a lot of you move to say, Plan 9 or BSD if Linux became as big as Windows?

[Namtabmai]

Would I move to another OS if Linux became big? Of course not, I'm using Linux because I like it not because it's niche.

Anyway, I personally don't need Linux to beat Microsoft. Wanting that would imply I had some grudge against them, I like Linux and use it because it best suits my needs.

But on the other hand, what I'd like is more support from various companies. I'd like to see more hardware manufactures providing drivers rather than them being reverse engineered by others. Games companies considering us a viable platform etc.
Unfortunately all these companies are market oriented, they need to see Linux having a significant market share in order to provide support for Linux, and the only way Linux can increase it's market share is by digging into someone else, namely Microsoft.

[jimi_hendrix]

would i move to another os if linux became big? Of course not, i'm using linux because i like it not because it's niche.

Anyway, i personally don't need linux to beat microsoft. Wanting that would imply i had some grudge against them, i like linux and use it because it best suits my needs.

But on the other hand, what i'd like is more support from various companies. I'd like to see more hardware manufactures providing drivers rather than them being reverse engineered by others. Games companies considering us a viable platform etc.
Unfortunately all these companies are market oriented, they need to see linux having a significant market share in order to provide support for linux, and the only way linux can increase it's market share is by digging into someone else, namely microsoft.

+1

[cardinals_fan]

Why do people lump others into large categories and make baseless generalizations about them? I have never worried about what other people use. That's up to them. I use Linux because it does what I want, how I want it. I would switch to NetBSD if Swfdec could match the proprietary Flash player...

[Barrucadu]

I don't see a need for that to be the case. Some people do, and create large posts saying what Linux needs for this to be the case: I'll never understand them.

[mamamia88]

i feel like the opposite is true i think linux users like to be in the minority and brag about how the rest of the world is stupid for using windows

[xpod]

I think the word "some" is missing from the title.

[Namtabmai]

i feel like the opposite is true i think linux users like to be in the minority and brag about how the rest of the world is stupid for using windows

I think you'll find that's Mac users.

Joking aside that's one big sweeping generalisation of a troll there, and I'd rather you didn't encompass me in your mis-informed posting. So if you feel the need to make remakes like that again at least do me the good grace of excluding me.

[mamamia88]

didn't mean to offend anybody

[SomeGuyDude]

Why do people lump others into large categories and make baseless generalizations about them? I have never worried about what other people use. That's up to them. I use Linux because it does what I want, how I want it. I would switch to NetBSD if Swfdec could match the proprietary Flash player...

+1

I'm really, really getting sick of this "Linux users" term being bantered about like we're all on one big team. "Linux users" are mean to Windows users, "Linux users" need to stop evangelizing about Linux, "Linux users" need to do this, need to do that.

I am a "Linux user" but I'm also an HP laptop user, a 360 owner, a weightlifter, a LOST fan, a guy with a beard, and a bulldog owner. I feel as much connection to other "Linux users" as I do to the bazillions of people in those other categories. Meaning: none.

[twright]

Would I move to another OS if Linux became big? Of course not, I'm using Linux because I like it not because it's niche.

Anyway, I personally don't need Linux to beat Microsoft. Wanting that would imply I had some grudge against them, I like Linux and use it because it best suits my needs.

But on the other hand, what I'd like is more support from various companies. I'd like to see more hardware manufactures providing drivers rather than them being reverse engineered by others. Games companies considering us a viable platform etc.
Unfortunately all these companies are market oriented, they need to see Linux having a significant market share in order to provide support for Linux, and the only way Linux can increase it's market share is by digging into someone else, namely Microsoft.
If linux had a larger market share that would mean more need for pushing stability meaning slower updates (fewer cool features) and so many users would probably move to more cutting edge distros

[Namtabmai]

If linux had a larger market share that would mean more need for pushing stability meaning slower updates (fewer cool features) and so many users would probably move to more cutting edge distros


Er in a word no. The nature of Linux and it's accompanying software is that development is not only always on going, but there for people to get/add/try.
But you're right about the difference in distros. We already have Ubuntu on a 6month, 12month LTS release schedule and I doubt that would change, as well as Arch and Gentoo I believe on a rolling release schedule.

So we already have are in the position you describe, how would having a large market share changed that?

[twright]

Er in a word no. The nature of Linux and it's accompanying software is that development is not only always on going, but there for people to get/add/try.
But you're right about the difference in distros. We already have Ubuntu on a 6month, 12month LTS release schedule and I doubt that would change, as well as Arch and Gentoo I believe on a rolling release schedule.

So we already have are in the position you describe, how would having a large market share changed that?
Ubuntu or whichever distro dominated the desktop market would have to cater for a wider variety of userbases and developers so would have to be sure not to break backwards compatibility (openGL seems to be in a similar state now) and so would need a longer review stage for updates and so longer time periods in between releases would be necessary. This of course assumes in part that Ubuntu is depended upon to run propitiatory software (with a majority market share it is unlikely that it would not be without many companies having to change their business model) but it is also applicable to open source projects to a lesser extent. Thus most enthusiasts would probably prefer to run a more cutting edge system (e.g. something more like Ubuntu is now rather than something like SLED). People who know about software tend to hate out of date software. We can already see Ubuntu increasingly starting to favour stability over being completely uptodate with the lack of OpenOffice.org 3.0 in Intrepid, a few releases ago that would have gone in for sure but taking into account Ubuntu's changing user demographic, as only power users are likely to notice the difference in version, the older version was kept and the update was left till next release. The LTS system does not help most users as the majority use the latest 6 monthly versions and developers need to support the majority.

Overall I think the reason that most linux users like it so much is as it is targeted towards them; if more users with different needs join its userbase then we might see this change as their needs for less dynamic computing influence the developers (although with most open source developers mainly self driven they may never stop targeting the demographics with which they most strongly emphasise and thus it would be extreamly hard for Ubuntu to gain a majority marketshare).

[Namtabmai]

Ubuntu or whichever distro dominated the desktop market would have to cater for a wider variety of userbases and developers so would have to be sure not to break backwards compatibility (openGL seems to be in a similar state now) and so would need a longer review stage for updates and so longer time periods in between releases would be necessary.

Yes, which the whole point of Ubuntus LTS release at the moment. Released once a year, and after that has 3 years (I think) support without major upgrades keeping the system stable.

[twright]

Yes, which the whole point of Ubuntus LTS release at the moment. Released once a year, and after that has 3 years (I think) support without major upgrades keeping the system stable.
this does not help people who develop for Ubuntu or everyday users unless the majority of users use that version; this would still amount to the same thing as most current Ubuntu versions would still end up using something other that that which is mainstream. Basically my point is that non-typical users generally will not end up using something other than a mainstream OS. A different user demographic would also mean that more bloat would be needed to meet their needs and this mitigates many of Linux's current advantage in being lightweight.

[Namtabmai]

this does not help people who develop for Ubuntu or everyday users unless the majority of users use that version; this would still amount to the same thing as most current Ubuntu versions would still end up using something other that that which is mainstream. Basically my point is that non-typical users generally will not end up using something other than a mainstream OS. A different user demographic would also mean that more bloat would be needed to meet their needs and this mitigates many of Linux's current advantage in being lightweight.

Sorry I really don't know what you're getting at. I'm currently using the latest version of Ubuntu like others. And we are activity testing the next Ubuntu LTS. For every bug that's filed against this version will help with the next LTS, every time someone uses this version the next LTS is being tested.
As long as people like me continue using the non-LTS release of Ubuntu and reporting bugs to Ubuntu and all the other bits of software that go to make it up, we're activity helping/testing the next LTS right up until it goes into freeze.
For every bug filed against a non-LTS release, that's one less for the LTS release. And even after the release of the LTS version it will still receive fixes and security updates where required, these bugs don't have to be found in the LTS alone, a serious bug that found in the latest non-LTS release can and sometimes does get back ported to the previous LTS if the severity warrants it.

[fatality_uk]

*Chuckle :D

[ticopelp]

As long as Linux / Ubuntu remains well-supported and freely available, that's all the marketshare I personally need.

But I would like to see it grow and become competitive, because that means more and better support.

[sdowney717]

Zealots recognize linux is fundamentally much better than windows in concepts and could do everything windows can if the developers would create the programs.

[arctic]

Why Do Linux Users see the need for Linux to basically 'defeat' Windows?Where do you read this as an official statement of the Linux-users community? :confused: And why is the same flamebait-question posted every two months in one of the many Linux forums by some Linux-newbies? And why is there always a tendency to generalize things? And why is...Ahh... I give up. :lol:

[Namtabmai]

Well to be fair to the original poster, it is bug #1 in Ubuntu.

Microsoft has a majority market share (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1)

Filed by Mark Shuttleworth himself.

Of course there's a slight semantic difference between defeat and reduce market share.

[Dragonbite]

Actually, it isn't all Linux users.

If you look at it, though, Novell is taking this type of thinking (working WITH Microsoft, not trying to DEFEAT them).

[Rokurosv]

I don't think Linux has to defeat Microsoft, and it does not need to, perhaps gain market share, and that's about it.
I use Linux because it's safer and it's such a great OS to program in. Oh and KDE4, I love it :D.

[SomeGuyDude]

Wait, let me get this straight. People want the thing they support to be the most widely-used? My god, could you imagine if government worked that way?!?

[grotto]

For one simple reason; developers are reluctant to support more than one operating system.

As the developer for Rhino3D once said, in paraphrase, "I'll support Linux when it is the most widely used OS."

Linux needs official support for industry standard software; or, at least, widely-used popular software to be a relevant desktop OS. Until then, Linux is a novelty on the desktop filling a infinitesimally small niche.

Market share is paramount for better driver support and getting the applications users are demanding. WINE and emulation software isn't any kind of solution for this.

Linux needs to make financial sense for business and developers to support. That means more users and more market share.

[Grant A.]

It's nice to know that the whole world thinks of us as hippies sitting in the back of a winnebago smoking pot with a laptop hacking up people's computers.

I use both Windows and Linux because I like them, I won't leave Linux or Windows unless I find something better.

Windows is just as good as Linux with proper administration.

[lykwydchykyn]

I will go out on a limb here and admit that I want to see Microsoft "beaten", if you want to put it that way. I don't mean utterly vanquished and wiped from the face of the earth, but I want to see them knocked back to a niche status rather than the "de-facto" standard. And before you call me linux zealot or Microsoft-hater, let me explain why:

- The MS monopoly is strangling innovation and competition in the IT industry. Despite the efforts of anti-trust authorities, MS manages to dominate just about any software market. Between integration with windows and integration with office, they have an edge on making just about any type of software slicker than the competitors'.
- The monopoly is destructive to the establishment of open standards. All MS has to do is not support a standard and it might as well not exist. Look at web pages. Look at ODF.
- The OS needs to commoditize and standardize. People do not want to keep relearning how to do basic tasks. Windows is not a standard, it's not based on standards. Linux, BSD, and OSX are all based on POSIX/SUS standards. They aren't 100%, and the standards aren't perfect -- but they are standards, and open standards at that.

Bottom line: it's about consumers and the free market. In my view of the world, competition is good, choice is good, standards are good; monopoly is opposed to all this, and is therefore bad.

And here's the kicker: if this ever happens, and Microsoft is "dethroned" from monopoly-hood, it will be the best thing that ever happened to Windows users. Because at that point Microsoft will be obligated to comply with standards, to treat customers well, and to innovate.

[Naiki Muliaina]

+1 to lykwydchykyn

I dont want to see Windows slaughterd either. But enough of a battering to stir things up wouldnt hurt. Companys can realy pull thier socks up when they feel threatend by the competition.

[stopie]

+1 to lykwydchykyn

Also, with linux being free, and based on the community for development and support, wouldn't more market share create more users, and therefore more people for dev and support? And although there would be more things to cater to, wouldn't a larger community be able to support it, just as how a modestly large community has thus successfully supported current users?

Just the 2cents

[lykwydchykyn]

Also, with linux being free, and based on the community for development and support, wouldn't more market share create more users, and therefore more people for dev and support? And although there would be more things to cater to, wouldn't a larger community be able to support it, just as how a modestly large community has thus successfully supported current users?

Just the 2cents

Certainly the proportion of non-contributing users would rise, but even so there would be more companies with a vested interest in seeing improvements to Linux. Not only those who sell products or services based on it, but companies who use it as part of their business. I mean, even now, companies like Dell and Asus have a direct incentive to seeing improvements in the GNU/Linux/X11 stack, because it would improve their products. If the system works like it should, they'll start contributing patches and new features back. Or say if some big retailer like wal-mart or target decides to use Linux in a point-of-sale application, they can task IT staff to contribute back changes that might improve its stability or flexibility in those roles.

That's the idea, and the nice thing is that the gatekeepers of the code are vendor-neutral (and often not-for-profit) entities who aren't going to skew the code in favor of one vendor or another (at least in theory).

[hockey97]

WELL, I have a grudge with them. The prices for the os.

Well if you look in the history of microsoft. Microsoft played a monopoly.

They lost the case. Bill Gates started to cry. I hear today he uses that computer donation organization to cheat on his taxes.

I heard he is slowly moving his money out to africa. Using that none-profit organization showing it on taxes as a donation.

not sure how true it is. Also if you see some old movie that was about Microsoft vers apple and showed how it all got started.

THey show bill gates stealing the idea of a desktop from steve jobs (The founder of apple).

So windows has alot of negative history with it. People that have grudges with them usally resort to linux.

These have to be computer geeks. Some don't but most linux users are computer geek type people. Or business people that want a free os.

Those people hope that linux beats windows.

I am one of them because of how windows was created and made. Well how microsoft came about seems to crooked.

He was found guilty of monopoly of the American people.

That is really why me and some others really hate windows. Windows is commonly used for people that have no computer skills and need a simple solution.

I still say that some parts of windows is still better than linux.

Once linux gets to that point I bet they will pass windows.

I think currently it's all about simplicity. What OS will be the eases to use and smart.

Why make the users figure out what drivers to download when the OS can find it for us and install it automatically.

So I bet we hopefully will see OS gets simple in the future where we don't have to go after drivers or do maintenance.
It would be neat to see a anti-virus/malware/spyware to be intergraded with an OS and constantly updated.

It would take out the need to buy many anti-viruses to make a computer virus free.

That are some reasons why some of us hate Microsoft and windows.

[Chame_Wizard]

WELL, I have a grudge with them. The prices for the os.

Well if you look in the history of microsoft. Microsoft played a monopoly.

They lost the case. Bill Gates started to cry. I hear today he uses that computer donation organization to cheat on his taxes.

I heard he is slowly moving his money out to africa. Using that none-profit organization showing it on taxes as a donation.

not sure how true it is. Also if you see some old movie that was about Microsoft vers apple and showed how it all got started.

THey show bill gates stealing the idea of a desktop from steve jobs (The founder of apple).

So windows has alot of negative history with it. People that have grudges with them usally resort to linux.

These have to be computer geeks. Some don't but most linux users are computer geek type people. Or business people that want a free os.

Those people hope that linux beats windows.

I am one of them because of how windows was created and made. Well how microsoft came about seems to crooked.

He was found guilty of monopoly of the American people.

That is really why me and some others really hate windows. Windows is commonly used for people that have no computer skills and need a simple solution.

I still say that some parts of windows is still better than linux.

Once linux gets to that point I bet they will pass windows.

I think currently it's all about simplicity. What OS will be the eases to use and smart.

Why make the users figure out what drivers to download when the OS can find it for us and install it automatically.

So I bet we hopefully will see OS gets simple in the future where we don't have to go after drivers or do maintenance.
It would be neat to see a anti-virus/malware/spyware to be intergraded with an OS and constantly updated.

It would take out the need to buy many anti-viruses to make a computer virus free.

That are some reasons why some of us hate Microsoft and windows.

AMEN :popcorn:

[aysiu]

Not all Linux users want to defeat Windows.

Ubuntu Linux does have as its main goal (Bug #1) to defeat Windows (if by "defeat" you mean "take away majority market share from").

Other Linux distros have other goals.

And even some Ubuntu users don't care about defeating Windows.

But if you want to know why some Linux users want to defeat Windows, I'll tell you why: If a Linux distro has a large marketshare, it'll get more third-party support from software and hardware vendors, which means more stuff working out of the box and more options for installing programs. If a Linux distro has a larger marketshare than Windows, we will have true, long-term freedom (not just seeming short-term freedom). The "freedom" to play a proprietary format or save in a proprietary format is a short-term freedom because you're allowed that freedom only within a very small framework. For example, my wife loves that her Mac works well with multimedia, but she's frustrated that Apple will not allow Flash on the iPhone. See, ultimately, Apple isn't concerned about giving its users freedom and functionality. They're ultimately concerned with giving themselves and their shareholders more profit. Linux may not include some formats by default, but no Linux distro will ever prevent you by policy or software restriction from running what software is available for Linux. That is long-term freedom, and that's a good thing. Bill Gates has admitted publicly that Windows is like a drug. He gives it away for free by allowing piracy to run rampant until people are addicted. Then he finds a way to collect later. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a business making money but a lot of poorer folks, schools, and non-profits are now being held hostage by Microsoft-dependence. The great thing about open source is that you can charge for it, but people who have little money but a lot of determination can get it for free (check out Wordpress.org and compare it to Wordpress.com for an example). Do I want Linux to defeat Windows? Hell, yes! And I make no apologies for it. But I am only one Linux user who happens to support the fixing of Ubuntu's bug #1. I don't speak for all Linux users or for even all Ubuntu users.

Hope that answer helps.

[Frak]

Why Do Linux Users see the need for Linux to basically 'defeat' Windows? Linux has its own place, and frankly, isn't it best that it stays small relative to Windows? Wouldn't a lot of you move to say, Plan 9 or BSD if Linux became as big as Windows?
If Linux died overnight, and Windows and Apple were the last competitors, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. I couldn't care less.

[dragos240]

Why Do Linux Users see the need for Linux to basically 'defeat' Windows? Linux has its own place, and frankly, isn't it best that it stays small relative to Windows? Wouldn't a lot of you move to say, Plan 9 or BSD if Linux became as big as Windows?

The reason is becuase microsoft is not free, linux is free (if you don't count redhat), it's very reliable, it's not becuase they want to defeat windows, it's becuase after you use ubuntu (or any other linux for that matter), you feel that there is no need, it's free, it's fast, it works, it's reliable, it's used for most servers, and it's very secure. People using linux mostly are previous windows users that stumbled upon tux on the way to school/work. I will make fun on windows now becuase here in ubuntu we have everything they have, and it's free, and we can redistribute it in any way we want! Thats really all, some people DO try to defeat windows though, but thats mainly because they beleve in it more strongly.

[cardinals_fan]

I hear today he uses that computer donation organization to cheat on his taxes.

I heard he is slowly moving his money out to africa. Using that none-profit organization showing it on taxes as a donation.

not sure how true it is.
I've heard that the US government is covering up the existence of aliens by hiding their bodies in Area 51 whenever they crash into earth. That doesn't make it true.


Also if you see some old movie that was about Microsoft vers apple and showed how it all got started.

THey show bill gates stealing the idea of a desktop from steve jobs (The founder of apple).

If you want to look at it that way, everyone stole the idea of a GUI from Xerox. Microsoft and Apple did (and continue to do) some unethical things, but without them we would probably not have personal computers as common as they are now.

The reason is becuase microsoft is not free, linux is free (if you don't count redhat), it's very reliable, it's not becuase they want to defeat windows, it's becuase after you use ubuntu (or any other linux for that matter), you feel that there is no need, it's free, it's fast, it works, it's reliable, it's used for most servers, and it's very secure.
Red Hat is free in the moral meaning of freedom because its source is completely open. CentOS is an identical clone produced from that source and is free as in beer. Red Hat sells its packaged product to corporations who need support contracts.

[dragos240]

I've heard that the US government is covering up the existence of aliens by hiding their bodies in Area 51 whenever they crash into earth. That doesn't make it true.

If you want to look at it that way, everyone stole the idea of a GUI from Xerox. Microsoft and Apple did (and continue to do) some unethical things, but without them we would probably not have personal computers as common as they are now.

Red Hat is free in the moral meaning of freedom because its source is completely open. CentOS is an identical clone produced from that source and is free as in beer. Red Hat sells its packaged product to corporations who need support contracts.


Hmm, I didn't know that, but i did know about centOS i made a thread in sal's rs forums about what linux server would be easy to set up, and would be secure.

[hyperyoda]

why do people lump others into large categories and make baseless generalizations about them? I have never worried about what other people use. That's up to them. I use linux because it does what i want, how i want it. I would switch to netbsd if swfdec could match the proprietary flash player...

go steelers!

[wolfen69]

go steelers!

go cards!

[Frak]

go steelers!


go cards!

go cake!

[LinuxFox]

I'm someone who uses both Ubuntu Linux and Windows XP, personally I've been using Linux more. It's safer in my experience and it has some cool features and software.

I still use Windows for other stuff I can't do in Linux. Like play most of my PC games, use my portable music player, and watch DVDs.

I have use for both operating systems.

[jskandhari]

Looking at my Signature you can see i use almost all platform OS but Linux ( Ubuntu ) by far is the Best... and the reason it is so is because it is me.

It is customisability flexibility durability and security...

[Dragonbite]

Looking at my Signature you can see i use almost all platform OS but Linux ( Ubuntu ) by far is the Best... and the reason it is so is because it is me.

It is customisability flexibility durability and security...

What about BSD? OpenSolaris? BeOS? :lolflag:

[quinnten83]

I will go out on a limb here and admit that I want to see Microsoft "beaten", if you want to put it that way. I don't mean utterly vanquished and wiped from the face of the earth, but I want to see them knocked back to a niche status rather than the "de-facto" standard. And before you call me linux zealot or Microsoft-hater, let me explain why:

- The MS monopoly is strangling innovation and competition in the IT industry. Despite the efforts of anti-trust authorities, MS manages to dominate just about any software market. Between integration with windows and integration with office, they have an edge on making just about any type of software slicker than the competitors'.
- The monopoly is destructive to the establishment of open standards. All MS has to do is not support a standard and it might as well not exist. Look at web pages. Look at ODF.
- The OS needs to commoditize and standardize. People do not want to keep relearning how to do basic tasks. Windows is not a standard, it's not based on standards. Linux, BSD, and OSX are all based on POSIX/SUS standards. They aren't 100%, and the standards aren't perfect -- but they are standards, and open standards at that.

Bottom line: it's about consumers and the free market. In my view of the world, competition is good, choice is good, standards are good; monopoly is opposed to all this, and is therefore bad.

And here's the kicker: if this ever happens, and Microsoft is "dethroned" from monopoly-hood, it will be the best thing that ever happened to Windows users. Because at that point Microsoft will be obligated to comply with standards, to treat customers well, and to innovate.

Dude, +1!!!!