Linux/Windows flame wars

[runequester]

I know why Linux hasn't gained mainstream popularity with the normal consumer. And i know why it never will.

It's because it doesn't cost anything. People associate a higher cost to higher quality. Because Windows 7 Ultimate has a price tag of A$268 the normal consumer will identify this as superior in quality than, say, Linux which is completely free.

Also lack of advertising from a major corporation like Microsoft means Linux has no awareness to the normal consumer.

Basic micro-economics    

A very large share of servers run linux (including amiga.org according to netcraft)

The US department of defense and several other gov agencies across the world run linux

The vast vast majority of the worlds super computers run linux

The embedded market is heavily linux

Cell phones? 160.000 android phones a day, running the linux kernel

Giant corporations like HP, IBM and Google ? All pushing linux as core businesses



The idea that there is a battle, or that its somehow about desktop computers is one that Microsoft wants to peddle, so they can look like they are still relevant in today's electronics market.

[runequester]

Personally I couldnt really care less. People will use what theyre confortable with and/or enjoy and good luck to them for that. Surely an amiga based site and it's people understand that ? As for why Windows is so dominant, there's plenty of reasons. Firstly (besides marketting) it's software. As good as some open source software has become, for the most part it's inferior to dedicated commercial efforts (with obvious reason).

Firefox, Google Chrome (combined 43% of market share) and Apache (58% of server market) seems to disagree with you.

You are misunderstanding how software works, though.
The operating system and the software you run on it have nothing to do with each other. You can use proprietary software on linux (I own Quake wars and Prey f.x.) and you can use open source software on windows (firefox f.x.)

Also, and Im sure long time linux users might disagree as they've by now learned how it works, but Linux simply isnt as friendly, even the more popular distros arent as easy to get your head around as Windows.

Take two people with no previous computer experience and sit one in front of a linux machine, and one in front of a windows machine. I'll guarantee there'll be no difference in their ability to do their daily stuff. Why would there? Either way, you are just clicking on icons.

Windows is familiar because you've already used it, not because there's somehow anything more intuitive or helpful about it. (if you don't believe me, google "windows troubleshooting" or similar and see how many millions of hits you get.


Will linux ever "rule" the desktop ?

No more than amiga ever would have ruled it.

Does it matter ?

No. The choice is there for those who want it (stability, freedom). The desktop is only one tiny bit of what linux is, can and does.

[runequester]

I disagree. There will always be desktop pcs. They are as cheap as hell and i can't think of anything that is cheaper. As long as they are the cheapest form of pc they will exist.

It always amuses me a bit that I can buy a PC that will stay fully usable and good for the next 5-6 years easy for about the same cost as my A1200 back in 92

[runequester]

Yeah, PCs are getting better at longevity alright, though it does depend on how you use them. I've already had a couple of Windows 7 PCs to reinstall, both less than a year old, because the owners had installed all manner of crud on them and stopped them from booting.

I was more thinking of raw hardware specs, but your point is well taken. Take care of your machine and it'll probably last a long time. Go easy on the midget-goat movies and people will likely be better off

Outside of specialized tasks like hardcore FPS games (and those things are moving to the consoles anyways), virtual machines or heavy video editing, its hard to imagine any task where a plain 3-4 gigs of RAM would be insufficient.

[runequester]

Firstly, I didnt say always in regards to open source software. There are examples (as you've given) when open source software is used as heavily as commercial efforts, I have no trouble admitting that and never said otherwise. Predominantely relying on open source and having access to are pretty different things though. As for me not understanding how software works,.... after 30 years of being into computers and developing I think I have a pretty good handle on it. Thanks anyway. Additionally I did say that I know Linux gaming is on the up, and I even mentioned things like WINE to be able to play commercial Windows software, but performance isnt what it is on Windows a lot of the time (as I already said as well). Also,... my post was ripe with me suggesting it doesnt matter to me anyway. I simply stated some reasons why Windows is a lot more dominant on the desktop than linux and why linux has little chance of making headway.


Seriously, did you even read my post, or just skimp through it and try to find fault ? Most of the things you've bought up I addressed already in my post, and both sides of the coin.

Sorry man. Didn't mean to do the post ripping thing. What I was /trying/ to get across is something a lot of people tend to miss, which is that open source and proprietary aren't either / or affairs.

I've been horribly stuffed up from a cold the past few days, so I apologize for being a dick