has ubuntu taken over the linux industry?

[elliotn]

i am wondering if ubuntu has taken over linux, here in Nelspruit. I went to 3 major pc shop and only saw ubuntu stickers with a board saying laptops are also available preloaded with linux then they put an ubuntu sticker. I even asked one guy if I can get it preloaded with debian of fedora he didnt even know what the hell are those. Still on the web the only distro that is getting publicity or that is well talked about is ubuntu. Last week I tryd fedora 11 ok the interface looked the same as ubuntu but it didnt feel so quiet usable as my ubuntu (remember am used to ubutu).after seeing fedora i believe linux needs to beef up the default look it aint pretty.

[Bölvaður]

it's a good beginning

[Warpnow]

Ubuntu is totally the giant of the linux industry.

I think it comes down to shipit. Most people put more value in a pressed CD than a download. Seems more credible.

[tubasoldier]

I disagree. Ubuntu is far from the Linux giant.
Red Hat is the Linux Giant; at least in the corporate world.

Althought I would conceed that Ubuntu is currently creating more buzz.

[pluviosity]

Desktop Linux ---------> Ubuntu
Server/Enterprise------> Red Hat

[keplerspeed]

There isnt just one 'Linux Industry'.

Red Hat Giant in corporate world? Yes and no. These sorts of figures are more qualitative than anything. More servers running Red Hat or Debian? Probably Debian. Some of NASA's bigdogs run on Red Hat, but they might also use Debian. Who knows, I dont work for NASA.

In the desktop industry, Ubuntu is certianly the main player atm. These things change all the time, but Ubuntu seems like it will be around for a while. Mark has made sure of that. Cheers to him!

So it's a bit silly to argue over whether Ubuntu has taken over the Linux industry. No, it hasnt take over the whole 'industry', it is just very sucessful in some parts of it.

[RichardLinx]

Ubuntu has definitely been a pretty big success in the Linux desktop market. I attribute this to Shipit and Synaptic as a front end for APT. I don't know why but a lot of new users seem to have trouble with other package management systems. (See how many people from UF try out another distro and explain they've come back because they couldn't figure out why apt-get didn't work on an RPM based distro..)

Guess Synaptic has something Yast and PackageKit don't. Mind you, it's also because it's just a pretty good disribution if you're lucky enough not to experience kernel panics and the like.

[murderslastcrow]

It all comes down to ease of use and learning for beginners. Karmic in particular is going to be very hard to beat for noobz. Here's a little layout for what I used to have to tell them when helping them set up (after they ask, of course).

Update. Go to Add/Remove and install Wine, Ubuntu-restricted extras, go to the terminal and type sudo apt-get install simple-ccsm since it won't show up in Synaptic for some reason, then copy the url and enter the key for the Wine repository into Software Sources, then reload, update again.

Since, let's be honest, most newbies will like Wine there for convenience's sake, and they want their youtube and flashy effects. Why try out Linux when you can't play with the cool stuff!?

Here's what the same walkthrough will be like in Karmic.

Go to Ubuntu Software Center. Install Ubuntu-restricted-extras, Compiz Simple Settings Manager, and Wine (Beta), and maybe 7zip while you're there. Now go have fun, and if you wanna' add stuff not in the Center, just add the URL to Software Sources (don't even need the key anymore).

So, if Karmic blows all the other Ubuntus away, and Ubuntu already has significant Linux share, I don't see openSUSE or Fedora pushing him out of the way, especially with all of the commercial support he's getting. It's nothing personal, Ubuntu's just in the best position as an all-around OS for everyone, not just Linux users.

I think this is very good, and shows that diversity is good, but that some things just are better and will surface more often in that diverse puddle of GNU goodness.

[Icehuck]

Red Hat Enterprise and SUSE Enterprise say no.

[OpenGuard]

It can take over the START, but it'll be quite hard and time consuming to take over the RUN and FINISH, if at all.

[unknownPoster]

Unfortunately, Ubuntu is becoming synonymous with Linux. Many people, including myself, think that this is a very bad.

[Faolan84]

Unfortunately, Ubuntu is becoming synonymous with Linux. Many people, including myself, think that this is a very bad.

I couldn't agree more. The problem I have with the "Ubuntu == Linux" mindset is that means if someone has a bad experience with Ubuntu or find that it's a step in the right direction, but not what they are looking for, they might feel that other distros are somehow inferior to Ubuntu and assume that Linux just isn't for them when in reality it could be just around the corner, but they decided not to look since they didn't know there are other choices out there.

[unknownPoster]

I couldn't agree more. The problem I have with the "Ubuntu == Linux" mindset is that means if someone has a bad experience with Ubuntu or find that it's a step in the right direction, but not what they are looking for, they might feel that other distros are somehow inferior to Ubuntu and assume that Linux just isn't for them when in reality it could be just around the corner, but they decided not to look since they didn't know there are other choices out there.

Not only that, but I would argue that Ubuntu has began to deviate from what many people consider to be GNU/Linux. I know of no other distribution that makes as many changes to upstream as Ubuntu does.

To be honest, I see Ubuntu become a Monopoly in the world of Linux.

[carniola]

Well, Ubuntu has been on top of the Distrowatch charts (http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity) pretty much from the beginning. (2005 onwards) Just thought I'd throw that out there...

[unknownPoster]

Well, Ubuntu has been on top of the Distrowatch charts (http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity) pretty much from the beginning. (2005 onwards) Just thought I'd throw that out there...

There's an article floating around, which is a statistical analysis of Distrowatch rankings. Basically, those rankings mean next to nothing. Maybe I can find it...

[elliotn]

when i first installed ubuntu I knew nothing about linux, what I use to hear that it is not usable and is for advance users. but i was surprised when I gave it time

[amitabhishek]

Unfortunately, Ubuntu is becoming synonymous with Linux. Many people, including myself, think that this is a very bad.


Some free standards are always welcome. Not everyone can install Gentoo and arch.

[NoaHall]

It's not really a monopoly, considering Red hat(and fedora etc) and Suse(enterprise editions and Opensuse) are also used a lot.

[Exodist]

Desktop Linux ---------> Ubuntu
Server/Enterprise------> Red Hat

This I agree also.


Ubuntu is gaining ground in a major way. The next few years will make or break the distro as its gained so much popularity that if something minor goes wrong it could loose a great deal of fan/user base.

[unknownPoster]

Some free standards are always welcome. Not everyone can install Gentoo and arch.

Who mentioned those?

There are several other high-quality distributions out there that are no more difficult to install than Ubuntu.

Debian
Mandriva
openSUSE
Fedora
CentOS

[amitabhishek]

Who mentioned those?

There are several other high-quality distributions out there that are no more difficult to install than Ubuntu.

Debian
Mandriva
openSUSE
Fedora
CentOS

Debian: Would you really suggest Debian to a Window convert. It will be an overkill.
Mandriva: Ubuntu pwns it esp. on nVidia hardware.
OpenSuse: Dumps 2.1GB of garbage on first installation. Redesigned Gnome menu sucks, YaST never delivers.
Fedora:The only genuine Ubuntu alternative.
CentOS. Its a relic. Boots slower.It feels a bit like a throwback to the Linux of a couple of years ago, where everything would eventually work if you tried long enough.

[RichardLinx]

Debian:
OpenSuse: Dumps 2.1GB of garbage on first installation. Redesigned Gnome menu sucks, YaST never delivers.

And Ubuntu dumps 2.5GB on a clean installation from Live CD installer. The redesigned GNOME menu sucks? I wonder why so many people like Mint and why we have threads asking how to have a similar menu in Ubuntu. Besides, the menu is easy to change and is a pretty minor thing. And YaST never delivers? This is a peculiar statement - what do you mean it doesn't deliver?

[unknownPoster]

CentOS. Its a relic. Boots slower.It feels a bit like a throwback to the Linux of a couple of years ago, where everything would eventually work if you tried long enough.

This makes no sense, unless you are also referring to RedHat. CentOS is just RedHat's source code, recompiled without all the official branding, so you get RedHat without the cost of it, but you also don't get the commercial support.

CentOS is a very stable and modern enterprise/production environment. It's quite snappy on the Computer Science workstations at school and majority of the university's webservers are running CentOS.

[NCLI]

There is, IMHO, nothing worng with Ubuntu=Linux in most Windows users' minds, because it gives an impression of stability and userfriendlyness. Fact is, most people don't care about the existence of hundreds of other Linux distros, they just want one that works.

Why should my dad or my grandmother know about Fedora just because they like Ubuntu? Isn't it fine that only powerusers and developers know exactly what Linux is? I mean, just tr to explain to non-enthusiasts what a kernel is, and why the Linux kernel is superior to the Windows kernel, or why it iwas developed.

THEY DON'T CARE.

[carniola]

There's an article floating around, which is a statistical analysis of Distrowatch rankings. Basically, those rankings mean next to nothing. Maybe I can find it...

I'd like to see that. I don't doubt that the rankings are flawed, although I would be genuinely surprised if Ubuntu was not really the dominant Linux OS for the desktop.

Another small but interesting data point on the question of Ubuntu "dominance" that I just saw today: This map (http://linux.dootzky.com/) of Linux users in Serbia. Ubuntu users make up 50% of the total. Again, not saying it means anything. Just find it interesting. (And if anyone knows of any other maps like this, let me know. I'd like to see them!)

[murderslastcrow]

I'd have to agree- the majority of people I've seen join the Linux crowd these days are friends and family who were curious and rather satisfied with the alternative. They don't care about the intricacies at first, and it's not moral for us to force choice onto them.

However, a few months after they get used to it and have a good time of it, I think that's the perfect time to explain a bit of the virtues they've embraced and how much better off they are, to reinforce and enrich their experience, knowing more fully what they're participating in.

Then, if they want to, they can try another distro. Just like no one would pay for a less easy Windows, no one's gonna' invest the time to get a less easy Linux unless there's a solid benefit provided (it's hard enough to learn something new without learning five of them).

[Teber]

as to the original question: i hope not. nor do i hope it will ever do so.

is'nt linux supposed to be about freedom? ok. so i gave fedora and opensuse a try then ubuntu. the latter was veni vidi velcro (i came i saw, i stuck to it) which is entirely my choice.

[elliotn]

There is, IMHO, nothing worng with Ubuntu=Linux in most Windows users' minds, because it gives an impression of stability and userfriendlyness. Fact is, most people don't care about the existence of hundreds of other Linux distros, they just want one that works.

Why should my dad or my grandmother know about Fedora just because they like Ubuntu? Isn't it fine that only powerusers and developers know exactly what Linux is? I mean, just tr to explain to non-enthusiasts what a kernel is, and why the Linux kernel is superior to the Windows kernel, or why it iwas developed.

THEY DON'T CARE.

I second u, even i dont care. nobody cares why the windows kernel was developed. ubuntu and userfriendlyness its true its easy to get around ubuntu which to me gives more reason to use it as a per son who have been using Windows for years, if i was to try an OS and fail to play around it i would definately jump to what am familiar or used to. Not everyone can compile staff actually some like me just want to work and play than compiling. Thats why ubuntu comes top and thats why it is an alternative to windows.

[Screwdriver0815]

when it comes to the pure size of the company, Red Hat is the biggest player in the Linuxworld. Followed by Novell.

In the enterprise market - this is where the money is made - Red Hat is the leader. Followed by Novell. And its not just about servers, its also about enterprise desktops.
At work we have also Linuxworkstations... guess which system... right: Red Hat.
Speaking not only for my job: everywhere you look in industry, when you see a Linux-workstation: its Red Hat. Maybe sometimes you'll see a Novell (Suse) but this is really rare, compared to the pure number of Red Hat systems.

To be honest: no one cares about the private Linux desktop when you ask "who is the biggest?". Because there is no money to make. Even if Ubuntu is the biggest player in the private desktop market: Red Hat and Novell are so much bigger than Ubuntu, that Ubuntu is far from "taking over the Linux industry".

And if you take a closer look, you see that Red Hat has had also a Red Hat system for the private market in former times. Since some years it is renamed to Fedora.
If you install Fedora and Centos (which is Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but renamed) you'll see loads of differences. Because Fedora is the testing playground and an enterprise Linux has to be much more conservative and more reliable. The same goes for OpenSuse/ Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop.

This leads me to the assumption that both, Red Hat and Novell are concentrating their strengths on the enterprise Linux. Although they pay a lot for Fedora resp. OpenSuse, as they need them for testing new ideas.
Why do they concentrate on the enterprise market? Because there is the money.

[TheLions]

there is, imho, nothing worng with ubuntu=linux in most windows users' minds, because it gives an impression of stability and userfriendlyness. Fact is, most people don't care about the existence of hundreds of other linux distros, they just want one that works.

Why should my dad or my grandmother know about fedora just because they like ubuntu? Isn't it fine that only powerusers and developers know exactly what linux is? I mean, just tr to explain to non-enthusiasts what a kernel is, and why the linux kernel is superior to the windows kernel, or why it iwas developed.

They don't care.

amen!

[hoppipolla]

It was fairly obvious this was going to happen though, at least at first. I mean it had to take one particularly good and accessible distribution to start to penetrate the market, we certainly weren't gonna have like 3 do it at once! lol

Give it time. It won't be forgotten that it's Linux, and other strong distributions will rise too :)

[Faolan84]

It was fairly obvious this was going to happen though, at least at first. I mean it had to take one particularly good and accessible distribution to start to penetrate the market, we certainly weren't gonna have like 3 do it at once! lol

Give it time. It won't be forgotten that it's Linux, and other strong distributions will rise too :)

Exactly, and there are distributions out there that experienced Ubuntu users are migrating to also, so this is a sign that other distros are getting stronger. I've seen a lot of indication that OpenSuSE surpass Ubuntu in a year or two if they play their cards right.

Surprisingly one of the distros that has benefited the most from Ubuntu is one you would not expect: Arch. A lot of their users and community were former Ubuntu users including myself and actually UF is how I found out about it. Yes, it is more of a DIY distro one one hand, but on the other it was designed to be very simple and elegant to set up and honestly anybody willing to sit down and read the manual can install Arch and maintain it with fair ease. In many ways it's surprising how such a distribution became popular among a lot of people rather new to Linux in general.

[HappinessNow]

has ubuntu taken over the linux industry?

I wouldn't call "Linux" an industry.