Linux to overtake MacOS as the #2 Desktop - by next year

First, I've heard this argument before, but this article backs it up with an actual 'scientific' study...

Second, I can't friggin believe this was posted on the Slate. Someone's gettin' a pink slip in their check this friday.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2084727/


What do you think? Is this for real? Does this mean we'll see apps like Photoshop on Linux w/in a year? What's your take on the arguments this article brings up?

Yeah, I just saw that on /.

I would not be suprised it Linux did become more widespred than Apple. I mean those apple's are expensive.

Yeah, I caught it on /. after posting here.

We'll still see Macs cornering the graphic design market, and b/c of that, I don't see high end, high dollar programs like PhotoShop gaining support in the linux world. Even if there was a release, would there be a market? I wouldn't buy them. I can just imagine:

Friend: "What's the most expensive part of your computer?"
Me: "The $600 graphics suite!"

Thats a good counter-argument to one of the key points made in the article. What would be the incentive for a person who is only willing to spend $248 for a Walmart Lindows PC to shell out $600 for Photoshop?

I think that, in discussions of Linux, price is the unfortunate focus point of many articles; the focus point of Linux should be the open source, reliability, and - esp. w/ 'commercial' distros - user-friendliness, number of available apps (and their quality) etc etc. This article did a fair job of touching on these aspects, but the end point of the article drives home the 'linux is the bargain-basement' OS argument.

To what extent is this article simply more FUD on Apple && Linux by the MS camp? Did the author have the intention of spreading FUD of non-Windows OS' under the guise of being pro-Linux? Or, am I just paranoid?

Sometimes there are too many apps, all of which have a single feature you'd like to use, but none of which have all the features you want. Some of them are buggy, or work well but have a horrible interfaces.

How to solve this I don't know. But I thought the point of open-source was to allow others to improve upon existing code, not make another application that does the same thing in a different way.

Well I took a different take on the article, yes Mac may hold the graphics share of the market and Microsoft may continue to hold the larger share of the total market, but that won't last forever because free is free.

The article only touched on this briefly and then focused on specifics but the average household cannot afford to keep up with the latest and greatest in terms of OS, PC Components and Software.

Drop one of them in as Free and the PC Components and Software take a new turn.

As for this:

Friend: "What's the most expensive part of your computer?"
Me: "The $600 graphics suite!"

That is not a reason to use one OS over another, in fact it's about the most pathetic I have ever heard. Most freelancers run off of a basic setup and the software used in development far out weighs the value of the computer.

The funny thing about FUD is that it's not always unjustified bashing. FUDding Linux for it's non-friendly interfaces is fine - that's a shortcoming of something that so many people want to see as a desktop contendor. Same goes for things like the upcoming journaling support and whatnot. While M$ was fudding on that point, it was a perfectly legitmate knock against a shortcoming of the system.

On the other hand, FUD is a Bad Thing and just plain lies when it's something like: "You shouldn't use OSS because what if everyone stops deciding to support it next year?" When the truth is that the odds of 2 million disparate programmers suddenly deciding in tandem that they no longer want to work on their OSS brainchild of a decade is nearly non-existant. The odds of a single company dropping off the face of the planet in a year, however, is incredibly good. Therefore, the real statement is: "We want you to put all your eggs in our basket even though the odds are significantly stacked in favor of OSS being around much, Much, MUCH longer than us".

As far as the article: I think it's just a lousy article. This is where they lost me:

Seriously, why would Jobs mention the rising stardom of Linux while explaining the technical specs on a new Apple system? That's like saying "While Jobs was eating an omlette this morning, he forget to mention that Bill Gates has a lot more money than Steve does". Totally illogical. Next up:

Linux is a UNIX-LIKE operating system, not a WINDOWS-LIKE operating system. The target, initially, was high-priced Unix boxes that had awe-inspiring firepower but came with even more awe-inspiring price tags. In that respect, Linux has more or less won it's conquest - it's just mopping up the stragglers. Linux is now turning it's sites toward Microsoft, but only on the server, not on the desktop. Microsoft is not Linux's "natural enemy" despite misinformed commentators' comments to the contrary. Linux is not meant for the masses. Perhaps a concerted effort will create a user-friendly Linux at some point, but that's not the priority, which is what makes it such a great system to US and a lousy system to our moms... mom doesn't need a web, ftp, and database server or a journaling filesystem or RAID support. Mom just wants to email her sweety who "fixes computers" (pet peeve of mine.. I don't "fix" computers...)

See last rant. NOBODY in there right mind would consider handing the average end-user a Linux box and setting them free on it.... If something breaks, it can be extraordinarily difficult to fix. The solution on Windows is usually "reinstall" which is a data-losing hassle, but Linux geeks want the ability to REPAIR things that break without data loss, corruption, etc. so there are no such luxuries. On top of that, god help the end-user who wants to install a brand new printer or modem... even I dread those sessions on some hardware.

They're confusing Torvalds and Stallman. Personally, I think Richard Stallman is out of his freakin' mind and the man frightens me sometimes. Torvalds, on the other hand, is simply a guy who felt like writing an OS one day and decided to share it with the world a year later. He doesn't try to claim that you should use all OSS all the time, and he doesn't force it down anyone's throat the way Stallman tries. More or less, he just seems to like to do what he does and lets everyone else do what they want with it.

My $0.02 anyway...

Wait... you don't fix computers!??
What the hell are you doing on this forum!?! Moderators! Moderators!

Where's that 'banned users' list....

Heh.. I said I DON'T fix them, not, I CAN'T fix them. I just revived that stupid old Compaq this weekend for my gf's sisters. I like working on Linux and BSD systems (and, to some extent, prop Unix systems). I HATE trying to fix Windoze problems though. The solution is usually: reinstall Windows, which just makes me look like I don't know what I'm doing. Gee, sorry lady, I didn't memorize the meaning of all 82,000 registry entries from your gummed up, 3 year old Windoze installation to know which 81,500 I can delete from the 70 meg registry. When my job description becomes "Computer Help Desk Technician" and I spend 90% of my day telling people how to recover their missing Office toolbar, give me a call.

I'm a very, very bitter man..

I hear ya Ctb, I deal with the same crap.

Glad to know I'm not the only one that gets volunteered to fix computers for the friends of friends of friends.My point is that the people drawn to linux b/c it's free, are probably not going to spend $600 on a program. Those willing to spend that kind of money on a program are also willing to spend money on their computers, usually b/c they're successful graphic designers. I know a lot of people that have PhotoShop on their Windows machines, and I know just as many that didn't pay for it. Ask them why, they'll say cost.