The Year of the ___ Desktop

[JDShu]

Heres something I think is fun to think about. What market share do you think Linux (or any other OS) needs to start becoming the dominant desktop?

Heres what I think:

If Linux had 90% market share then it would probably continue growing until it had the same market share as Windows has today, where everyone uses it except for enthusiasts as it makes more sense for people to use Linux.

If Linux had equivalent market share to Windows, that is somewhere just under 50%, it would again grow upwards until it had the same market share as Windows does today. This is because I believe (may not be true) that Linux is cheaper in this situation.

If Linux had 10% market share, then it would probably decrease until it had the market share it does today, because it makes more sense for people to use Windows.

So somewhere under 50% we begin tipping the scale towards Linux domination. If and when that ever happens, it will be the Year of the Linux Desktop :D The downer is that this can also means that the Year of the Linux Desktop will never come, barring some kind of intervention.

[Post Monkeh]

it might be because i'm still drunk, but i'm confused

[JDShu]

LOL I'll try to explain it better.

In summary: I think there is a sweet spot for OS market share where at that point, the OS will inevitably dominate the market.

[SuperSonic4]

The year of the Windows 7 desktop?

[BuffaloX]

I think if Linux had 10% it would grow very fast after that, because 10% is huge.

More vendors would support it officially and much better than today.
Preinstalled systems would be much easier to get.
Many more would install it as the second option to their main OS.
Driver quality would improve.
More proprietary software would be ported.

I believe the magic number is around 10 - 15 %, but it's just a gut feeling.
Still the rise in marketshare would be relatively slow, simply because huge markets tend to shift slowly.

[Post Monkeh]

LOL I'll try to explain it better.

In summary: I think there is a sweet spot for OS market share where at that point, the OS will inevitably dominate the market.

i thought that, i think it was yor maths that threw me off ;)

you're right, if enough people switch from one os to another, the whole thing will gather momentum and it'll be the cool thing to do.

fwiw, i think osx has more chance of overtaking windows, but i don't think it'll happen unless microsoft screw things up royally - too many businesses rely on software that simply isn't available for anything except windows.

[JDShu]

I think if Linux had 10% it would grow very fast after that, because 10% is huge.

More vendors would support it officially and much better than today.
Preinstalled systems would be much easier to get.
Many more would install it as the second option to their main OS.
Driver quality would improve.
More proprietary software would be ported.

I believe the magic number is around 10 - 15 %, but it's just a gut feeling.
Still the rise in marketshare would be relatively slow, simply because huge markets tend to shift slowly.

You bring up an interesting point, I think, which is compatibility. If Linux and Windows could perfectly replace each other (driver support, 3rd party software etc etc) then Linux would beat out Windows simply because its free (as in beer). So maybe as you say, the sweet spot is when people (with the ability) are motivated to make Linux compatible.

I also agree that the rise in market share would be slow, but I also think that it would accelerate, as more people want to use an OS the more widespread its usage is.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

fwiw, i think osx has more chance of overtaking windows, but i don't think it'll happen unless microsoft screw things up royally
I don't know how likely OSX is to overtake Windows. If Microsoft screwed things up royally people would just continue to use older versions of the OS or their software that worked until they released a version that did. Like how most people continued to use XP even after Vista came out. Heck, most people are still using XP now that 7 is out.

I think the problem with Apple is the barriers to getting their OS to work on non-Apple hardware. Which is overpriced and underpowered. It's like a name brand, your paying for the fact that it's a brand name. I wish Apple would have stuck with the PowerPC platform instead of switching to x86/x64. At least then you had to spend a lot more to get an Apple computer you were paying for a superior architecture, even if software compatibility was more of an issue.

If they're going to be using the same processor architecture as everyone else they might as well just pull out of the hardware market altogether and release their OS as a competing OS for the same computers that Windows runs on. A lot more people would probably be using OSX if they didn't have to take out a loan to buy one of Apple's overpriced computers.

[audiomick]

LOL I'll try to explain it better.

In summary: I think there is a sweet spot for OS market share where at that point, the OS will inevitably dominate the market.
I think you are probably right, although I wouldn't want to have to guess what the number is. I would have used the term "critical mass".


If they're going to be using the same processor architecture as everyone else they might as well just pull out of the hardware market altogether and release their OS as a competing OS for the same computers that Windows runs on. A lot more people would probably be using OSX if they didn't have to take out a loan to buy one of Apple's overpriced computers. That contradicts the marketing strategy a bit. The system only works as well as it does because it only runs on exactly the hardware combination that the designers used to create it. If they let you buy the OS to install on the hardware of your choice, they would lose a lot of their "it always works" appeal.
btw. I don't have a mac...;)

[Post Monkeh]

I don't know how likely OSX is to overtake Windows. If Microsoft screwed things up royally people would just continue to use older versions of the OS or their software that worked until they released a version that did. Like how most people continued to use XP even after Vista came out. Heck, most people are still using XP now that 7 is out.

I think the problem with Apple is the barriers to getting their OS to work on non-Apple hardware. Which is overpriced and underpowered. It's like a name brand, your paying for the fact that it's a brand name. I wish Apple would have stuck with the PowerPC platform instead of switching to x86/x64. At least then you had to spend a lot more to get an Apple computer you were paying for a superior architecture, even if software compatibility was more of an issue.

If they're going to be using the same processor architecture as everyone else they might as well just pull out of the hardware market altogether and release their OS as a competing OS for the same computers that Windows runs on. A lot more people would probably be using OSX if they didn't have to take out a loan to buy one of Apple's overpriced computers.

yeah, i still use xp and can't see me upgrading to windows 7 anytime soon tbh. most people won't change their os just for the sake of it, which is why i really can't see anyone competing with windows any time soon. microsoft would have to screw up 3 or 4 releases in a row before people started looking elsewhere - most people only change their os when getting a new pc.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

That contradicts the marketing strategy a bit. The system only works as well as it does because it only runs on exactly the hardware combination that the designers used to create it. If the let you buy the OS to install on the hardware of your choice, they would lose a lot of their "it always works" appeal.
That is kind of true to a certain extent. But it's not like Apple only releases one computer every 4 years or so to keep a strict standard of hardware compatibility. They have a half dozen different models, ranging from budget to high end and continue to gradually better the hardware year after year. So they're just like Dell, HP, or any other computer company.

[SuperSonic4]

That is kind of true to a certain extent. But it's not like Apple only releases one computer every 4 years or so to keep a strict standard of hardware compatibility. They have a half dozen different models, ranging from budget to high end and continue to gradually better the hardware year after year. So they're just like Dell, HP, or any other computer company.

From 'budget' to 'worth more than your house' more like.

The world needs to be wary of apple - their DRM and lock-in makes windows look like the FSF's biggest fan.

[bruno9779]

I wouldn't like linux getting a market share similar to windows today.

monopolies are bad. Full stop. Liinux monopoly too.

In my opinion, if linux got to some 20% marketshare, so much would be invested in cross-plattform interoperability and so many patents would stop even making sense that it would be impossible to have another OS monopoly after that

[bruno9779]

From 'budget' to 'worth more than your house' more like.

The world needs to be wary of apple - their DRM and lock-in makes windows look like the FSF's biggest fan.

+1

Apple: closed source at its closest

[audiomick]

monopolies are bad. Full stop. Liinux monopoly too.
Whilst this is true, I would much prefer to see the monopoly in the hands of an Open source system that most likely wont have any hidden functions that I don't want because anyone can read the source code and isn't dependant on the well being of one company for it's survival. If microsoft goes broke, windows is dead. If canonical goes broke, there might be no more Ubuntu, but there would still be Linux.

[JDShu]

monopolies are bad. Full stop. Liinux monopoly too.


Explain why a Linux monopoly would be bad? Corporate monopolies are bad because they make people pay more than their products are worth. There is no company (extracting profits) behind Linux.



In my opinion, if linux got to some 20% marketshare, so much would be invested in cross-plattform interoperability and so many patents would stop even making sense that it would be impossible to have another OS monopoly after thatYou might be getting at something interesting here, but could you explain this? I'm not certain what you mean.

[SuperSonic4]

I wouldn't like linux getting a market share similar to windows today.

monopolies are bad. Full stop. Liinux monopoly too.

In my opinion, if linux got to some 20% marketshare, so much would be invested in cross-plattform interoperability and so many patents would stop even making sense that it would be impossible to have another OS monopoly after that

+1

Furthermore, I do not understand with this obsession about making GNU/Linux (more) dominant in the market. Surely it's good enough as is.

EDIT: Just thought of the irony - users claiming not to evangelise or push GNU/Linux onto others yet demanding bigger marketshare and demanding companies make hardware

[Kai69]

99% of pcs sold have windows installed if you go into any store this is what you see.
Now if pcs manufacturers didnt install an OS and you went to the store and had to chose your pc then the OS which would you choose? As for Apple I personally dont like any of their products , Too expensive , too restrictive , and your only buying a "lifestyle" product .

[JDShu]

Furthermore, I do not understand with this obsession about making GNU/Linux (more) dominant in the market. Surely it's good enough as is.


Heres is my reason: Linux is available in the public domain. It is also an OS. There are huge benefits to having one OS, or at least, one standard. Just as there are huge benefits to having one road system. However, something so important being controlled by a private company is inefficient. You get really expensive Windows and innovation is stunted. If Linux was that dominant OS, then society would benefit as a whole.

Oh yeah as a footnote, it doesn't actually matter which OS becomes the dominant one as long as it is one thats in the public domain.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

Heres is my reason: Linux is available in the public domain.
GPL =/= public domain

[JDShu]

GPL =/= public domain

Fair enough, just trying to sound smart. Publicly available in the sense that anybody can use, improve, and make new projects from it just like academic research.

[audiomick]

If Linux was that dominant OS, then society would benefit as a whole.
Oh yeah as a footnote, it doesn't actually matter which OS becomes the dominant one as long as it is one thats in the public domain.

I agree with that thought.
I see the quality of GNU/Linux and it's market dominance as being, whilst obviously not unrelated, two different things.

Sure, increasing the quality would be likely to bring more market share, and vice versa.
I don't however, view improving the system as a tool to gain market share, but rather as an end unto itself.

The question of who/ which system dominates the world is, for me, separate to that. Whilst it is, of course, important that the dominant system is good, for me it is much more important who has control over the system. I think computers have become far too indispensable for too much of the world for the OS to be in the hands of one corporation whose principle motivation is it's own profit.

[JDShu]

The question of who/ which system dominates the world is, for me, separate to that. Whilst it is, of course, important that the dominant system is good, for me it is much more important who has control over the system. I think computers have become far too indispensable for too much of the world for the OS to be in the hands of one corporation whose principle motivation is it's own profit.

Agreed! I never said this explicitly but its an important distinction to make.

[MooPi]

I personally am not interested if Linux becomes the dominate OS. What concerns me is the stagnant nature of proprietary software. With my Linux box I'm the one in charge and I make changes as I see fit. With a Windows or Mac computer I'm not the one in control. I don't consider this evil or a conspiracy, just a bunch of cows following the lead cow. I guess you can consider me the wild cow going on a walk about with Linux.

[pwnst*r]

I personally am not interested if Linux becomes the dominate OS. What concerns me is the stagnant nature of proprietary software. With my Linux box I'm the one in charge and I make changes as I see fit. With a Windows or Mac computer I'm not the one in control. I don't consider this evil or a conspiracy, just a bunch of cows following the lead cow. I guess you can consider me the wild cow going on a walk about with Linux.

Except that you're in the minority on a global scale. Most people DON'T want to make such changes.

[bruno9779]

@ JDShu

I'll try to explain better.

Given the actual, fractional market-share, linux has a very high interoperability, compared to win and apple products. For example you can open most MS formats in linux, access most file-systems etc. And this given the poor HW support.

If any OS following the open source idea would get a consistent market share, this interoperability would reach it's peak, and the patenting barriers now in place with the sole purpose of maintaining the monopoly would become meaningless.

Once these barriers are gone, any OS embracing FOSS would be able to make use of the linux code.
I would think, that if MS started losing considerable market share, a new generation of new or renewed OS would appear, almost overnight.

I wish for a diverse and colorful OS market, where interoperability becomes a must and where customers are convinced to switch, not forced by some proprietary BS.

[MooPi]

Except that you're in the minority on a global scale. Most people DON'T want to make such changes.
I disagree. Most people given a chance will personalize their possessions. Examples being cars, homes, clothing, etc..... If given a chance folks will change their computers as well. They just have to know that it is a possibility and easy.

[MooPi]

@ JDShu

I'll try to explain better.

Given the actual, fractional market-share, linux has a very high interoperability, compared to win and apple products. For example you can open most MS formats in linux, access most file-systems etc. And this given the poor HW support.

If any OS following the open source idea would get a consistent market share, this interoperability would reach it's peak, and the patenting barriers now in place with the sole purpose of maintaining the monopoly would become meaningless.

Once these barriers are gone, any OS embracing FOSS would be able to make use of the linux code.
I would think, that if MS started losing considerable market share, a new generation of new or renewed OS would appear, almost overnight.

I wish for a diverse and colorful OS market, where interoperability becomes a must and where customers are convinced to switch, not forced by some proprietary BS.
Bravo, grand idea. I concur.

[pwnst*r]

I disagree. Most people given a chance will personalize their possessions. Examples being cars, homes, clothing, etc..... If given a chance folks will change their computers as well. They just have to know that it is a possibility and easy.

You're comparing customizing your computer/OS to cars, clothing and interior/exterior decorating? LOL?

[JDShu]

@ JDShu

I'll try to explain better.

Given the actual, fractional market-share, linux has a very high interoperability, compared to win and apple products. For example you can open most MS formats in linux, access most file-systems etc. And this given the poor HW support.

If any OS following the open source idea would get a consistent market share, this interoperability would reach it's peak, and the patenting barriers now in place with the sole purpose of maintaining the monopoly would become meaningless.

Once these barriers are gone, any OS embracing FOSS would be able to make use of the linux code.
I would think, that if MS started losing considerable market share, a new generation of new or renewed OS would appear, almost overnight.

I wish for a diverse and colorful OS market, where interoperability becomes a must and where customers are convinced to switch, not forced by some proprietary BS.

Ah yeah, definitely. The whole point is that people can write software for all platforms without costing more than just supporting one platform. If we had a diverse OS market, where everyone could write software that would work on them all, it would certainly not be a bad thing. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that for technical reasons, this is probably quite hard to achieve.

[JDShu]

I disagree. Most people given a chance will personalize their possessions. Examples being cars, homes, clothing, etc..... If given a chance folks will change their computers as well. They just have to know that it is a possibility and easy.

Unfortunately, due to superior Windows market share, changing OS is not easy and often not possible.

[MooPi]

You're comparing customizing your computer/OS to cars, clothing and interior/exterior decorating? LOL?
I know even with your limitations, you've changed and customized your computer. Why couldn't someone of greater capacity try ?

[pwnst*r]

I know even with your limitations, you've changed and customized your computer. Why couldn't someone of greater capacity try ?

Lol @ the direct attack. In other words, I'm right and you're wrong.

Once you move out of the house and see what the real world is like you'll understand. Till then, keep living in your parents' basement and thinking that everyone on the planet gives a crap about modifying their taskbar.

[jrusso2]

Linux will need 5 to 10% of the desktop to start making an impact.

[JDShu]

Hmm maybe adding a poll would be interesting. I'll do that.

[mickie.kext]

Linux will need 5 to 10% of the desktop to start making an impact.

I agree to certain extent.

I think Linux already makes impact. With 10% market share, it would become a rock-star.

PS: I voted 6-10%

[Hwæt]

What happened to the good old days when 51% was a majority, and dominant? Both you and congress seem to have this disturbing thought that >50% is not a majority out of a total of 100%. ](*,)

[JDShu]

What happened to the good old days when 51% was a majority, and dominant? Both you and congress seem to have this disturbing thought that >50% is not a majority out of a total of 100%. ](*,)

Haha, please read my first post for the explanation. Note that I said what percentage is needed to become dominant, not be dominant.

[bapoumba]

3 posts removed. please keep it civil and the thread on tracks, thanks.

[gsmanners]

It doesn't take much for an idea to become a dominant one, even one that only has 5% penetration can become the dominant idea within 10 to 20 years. For example, Windows. Before Windows came along, IBM was the dominant player.

It would be nice for an open and honest organization to take the lead, but it's going to take some conflict and some inspired leadership to get Linux into a leading position. Ubuntu is a good first step.

[howlingmadhowie]

Ah yeah, definitely. The whole point is that people can write software for all platforms without costing more than just supporting one platform. If we had a diverse OS market, where everyone could write software that would work on them all, it would certainly not be a bad thing. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that for technical reasons, this is probably quite hard to achieve.

ah, the java ideal. i'm not sure that's the ideal, myself. i would however say that the people who write the software should not necessarily be involved in its packaging for each and every operating system. this is something the gnu/linux and *bsd distributions get very right--programmer A releases a new version of her project and package maintainers B through P go about packaging it (though this is probably mostly automated) for various gnu/linux and *bsd distributions.

of course all this is idle speculation. in 5 years we'll all be running html6 applications with 3d acceleration in google chrome and the one language to rule them all will be javascript. (I can't believe i wasted that sentence now instead of saving it for halloween).

Another thought occurs to me. the big american dream of capitalism and free-market economy is based on the idea that competition for money will tend to produce the best products. but even the most ardent proponent of the free market would agree that certain checks and balances are necessary, otherwise you get a situation like Ma Bell or microsoft where innovation is stifled. Free software shows that competition comes from a number of sources and doesn't have to be just about getting richer than the other guy. Why is the linux kernel, the gcc or the apache web server so good? It isn't about distorted financial gain, though i imagine the main developers get by quite comfortably---the wealth involved is peanuts compared with the 30 odd billion a year microsoft makes in pure profit for software which is probably used less than the linux kernel or the gcc.

I think that free software shows that you can have top quality products without capitalism. Instead software development becomes far more about a developer wanting to do her best and release (and share) the best possible product.

[JDShu]

ah, the java ideal. i'm not sure that's the ideal, myself. i would however say that the people who write the software should not necessarily be involved in its packaging for each and every operating system. this is something the gnu/linux and *bsd distributions get very right--programmer A releases a new version of her project and package maintainers B through P go about packaging it (though this is probably mostly automated) for various gnu/linux and *bsd distributions.


This would be another alternative, but would require the whole software world to go open source. I think that this is less realistic than having a free operating system dominate the desktop. Equally or perhaps even more desirable though.