Why Linux succeeded where others failed

Operating systems such as Minix, BSD, and GNU cost anything from $169 to $5,000. Torvalds insisted that Linux remain free.
Click to expand...

That is going to ruffle some feathers. :mad:
 
How about why Linux has failed where others have succeeded ? Such as the desktop :) Probably the same reasons why it has succeeded where others have failed. :)
 
zippy said:
How about why Linux has failed where others have succeeded ? Such as the desktop :) Probably the same reasons why it has succeeded where others have failed. :)
Click to expand...

Why do people keep on saying it "failed as a desktop"?
 
zippy said:
How about why Linux has failed where others have succeeded ? Such as the desktop :) Probably the same reasons why it has succeeded where others have failed. :)
Click to expand...

Nooo....They didn't fail with the desktop. The desktop wasn't always good, but Linux was not always about the desktop environment, though it did help to get more people to use it. Hence the "succeeded where others have failed"
Also, some would argue, that their DE is actually being copied by others. :erm:
 
Hamster said:
Also, no fscking registry..
Click to expand...

We got systemd now although I'm not really phased by it, been working well for me on Arch but it is more complicated.


zippy said:
How about why Linux has failed where others have succeeded ? Such as the desktop :) Probably the same reasons why it has succeeded where others have failed. :)
Click to expand...

The only place where linux does not dominate is the desktop. It dominates in servers, embedded devices, mobile devices & super computers. The desktop market is a catch 22, if you don't have the app support from commercial vendors you are not gonna make the mainstream corporate desktop, for 95% of average Joes it would be fine BUT change is a big thing for most people and it does not come preinstalled on computers.
 
ponder said:
The only place where linux does not dominate is the desktop. It dominates in servers, embedded devices, mobile devices & super computers. The desktop market is a catch 22, if you don't have the app support from commercial vendors you are not gonna make the mainstream corporate desktop, for 95% of average Joes it would be fine BUT change is a big thing for most people and it does not come preinstalled on computers.
Click to expand...

That's a tough one...it's like asking a "normal" (non-IT person) what Apache is. It may be the "backbone" of the internet but it's mindshare amongst average users is close to zero.
 
Hamster said:
Why do people keep on saying it "failed as a desktop"?
Click to expand...
If you apply the same measures to conclude that Linux has succeeded as a server os where others have failed, then others have succeeded as desktop os and Linux has failed as a desktop os.

If you are arguing that Linux has not failed as a desktop os when it has a small % of the desktops, then you can't argue that others have failed as a server os if they have a smaller % of servers than does Linux.

Look closely at the original statement: Linux has succeeded WHERE others have failed. The other operating systems are not as popular as server operating systems. This is true. But Windows and OS X are much more popular as desktop os than Linux.
 
zippy said:
If you apply the same measures to conclude that Linux has succeeded as a server os where others have failed, then others have succeeded as desktop os and Linux has failed as a desktop os.

If you are arguing that Linux has not failed as a desktop os when it has a small % of the desktops, then you can't argue that others have failed as a server os if they have a smaller % of servers than does Linux.

Look closely at the original statement: Linux has succeeded WHERE others have failed. The other operating systems are not as popular as server operating systems. This is true. But Windows and OS X are much more popular as desktop os than Linux.
Click to expand...

This is the most logical post I've seen...it's almost a maths equation, it's so well-constructed :)

....which means Hamster will never get it :p
 
zippy said:
If you apply the same measures to conclude that Linux has succeeded as a server os where others have failed, then others have succeeded as desktop os and Linux has failed as a desktop os.

If you are arguing that Linux has not failed as a desktop os when it has a small % of the desktops, then you can't argue that others have failed as a server os if they have a smaller % of servers than does Linux.

Look closely at the original statement: Linux has succeeded WHERE others have failed. The other operating systems are not as popular as server operating systems. This is true. But Windows and OS X are much more popular as desktop os than Linux.
Click to expand...

Yeah I got that after the guy posted the graph. I've heard this "failed as desktop" thing since before I started using Linux and never quite understood it because I'm looking at it from a usability and capability point of view. But looking at it from a popularity/adoption point of view I get it but it is a trivial point.
 
ponder said:
We got systemd now although I'm not really phased by it, been working well for me on Arch but it is more complicated.




The only place where linux does not dominate is the desktop. It dominates in servers, embedded devices, mobile devices & super computers. The desktop market is a catch 22, if you don't have the app support from commercial vendors you are not gonna make the mainstream corporate desktop, for 95% of average Joes it would be fine BUT change is a big thing for most people and it does not come preinstalled on computers.
Click to expand...
I watched a talk by Linus Torvalds and he made this point in a slightly different way. While having an OS pre installed is an advantage, it's also because the vast majority of desktop users don't want to tinker. If presented with a choice they will not choose Linux precisely because it is percieved as being an OS that requires a lot of tinkering.

In the corporate world Windows is the OS of choice because there is a belief that while the acquisition price of Linux is free, the cost of supporting thousands of Linux desktops is too high. Btw, these are the same people who have Linux as an enterprise server os, so I don't believe it's entirely driven by bias.

Even Linus Torvald mentioned that the Linux dev community tends not to focus too much on the desktop side either. In fact it's fragmented and the fact that there is a choice of desktops probably doesn't help in convincing desktop producers to preinstall Linux.

That said, it's my opinion that Linux is a great server os :) I use it. I prefer OS X as a desktop though.
 
Last edited:
There is little point to debating the adoption rate on the desktop because no one really knows what the figures are.

The most widely quoted figures are largely based on web browsing statistics from North America to English speaking websites that pay to be counted. This does not give an accurate world view. Several years ago Steve Ballmer stated that Microsoft's figures indicated that Linux had a higher level of desktop adoption than Apple, but he did not state how they arrived at this conclusion.
 
zippy said:
In the corporate world Windows is the OS of choice because there is a belief that while the acquisition price of Linux is free, the cost of supporting thousands of Linux desktops is too high. Btw, these are the same people who have Linux as an enterprise server os, so I don't believe it's entirely driven by bias.
Click to expand...

The way I've been echoing that statement is that supporting Linux desktop users is the price you pay - and that's mostly in terms of time, more than anything else. Windows has so much reach that it's almost all that anyone ever wants to use, and that's because it's often a Windows program that's the best tool for the job, or sometimes the user's job.

Granted, there's far less headache in terms of dealing with viruses and cryptoransomware, and the users can't stuff it up nearly as much as they can with a Windows install because of how admin privileges are assigned, but Linux is a completely different animal to Windows, and not everything works in the same way. Breaking the habits they have formed using Windows as a desktop OS, and Office as the main productivity suite, is the hard part.

Also, this is relevant: How big is Linux gaming? Some estimates
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X