Can Linux go mainstream?

[fivepesos]

<< I think dell *can* offer linux on their machines because of precisely that. >>


if i remember correctly, dell sadly stopped shipping preinstalled linux on their desktop/workstation machines (at least their main lines). its still available on nearly all of their servers though.

linux already has a strong market share in the web server market. but do i think linux will go mainstream on the desktop? probably not for a while in my opinion, despite the accessibility of ximian gnome and other major linux distributions. but do i care too much about desktop market? nah, not realy. its a good desktop for me that interoperates with the rest of my windows PCs just fine for my tastes.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< So far Linux seems to have survived the deep corporate involvement of IBM. . . >>



Ok, I may be taking this the wrong way, but I dont think you phrased it correctly. IBM seems to get it. They are slowly but surely opening up source and hardware to the Linux community, not to mention pockets. Much like Apple, IBM understands open source, not perfectly, but they are working on that.



<< if i remember correctly, dell sadly stopped shipping preinstalled linux on their desktop/workstation machines (at least their main lines). >>



I think they said it wasnt selling and that is why they stopped offering it.

And mainstream does not mean "greatest market share." It is mainstream now. There are a bunch of boobs installing it every day and then saying how much it sucks because they didnt understand a bit of it. Will it ever have the market share Microsoft does now? Maybe. Do I think it should have that kind of market share on the desktop? Not right now. Hell, I couldnt use it as a desktop right now. Thats why I use OpenBSD (bass ackwards I know).

 

[NorthenLove]

<< I think the problem with added support for Linux is that it just isnt very cost effective, with added support and developer costs. I dont really know much about Linux, so i dont want to make an opinion. >>



LoL - You just did.



<< But there really isnt any motivation for a developer to go out and support Linux over Windows >>



Actually it's not about stopping windows development but about coding for Linux and *nix in mind which really isn't that hard in most cases. Or at least including *NIX suport in everyday commercial applications in some way. I could care less if windows appplications continue to be a large part of the market but what I would like to see is increased *NIX development to go along with it.

 

[FuManStan]

<< But there really isnt any motivation for a developer to go out and support Linux over Windows >>



Actually it's not about stopping windows development but about coding for Linux and *nix in mind which really isn't that hard in most cases. Or at least including *NIX suport in everyday commercial applications in some way. I could care less if windows appplications continue to be a large part of the market but what I would like to see is increased *NIX development to go along with it.[/i] >>



Well thats the thing, whats in it for developers to support *NIX? Windows does everything that most people need it to do, its got a huge market share... why bother coding for an operating system that a typical person won't use?

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< But there really isnt any motivation for a developer to go out and support Linux over Windows >>

Actually it's not about stopping windows development but about coding for Linux and *nix in mind which really isn't that hard in most cases. Or at least including *NIX suport in everyday commercial applications in some way. I could care less if windows appplications continue to be a large part of the market but what I would like to see is increased *NIX development to go along with it. >>

Well thats the thing, whats in it for developers to support *NIX? Windows does everything that most people need it to do, its got a huge market share... why bother coding for an operating system that a typical person won't use?[/i] >>



Because they can see some benefits for supporting another OS. Linux and the BSDs are open source. These developers could easily include something from the BSDs in their program cutting development time and money. They could also make sure their applications will work with the OS much more easily than you could with Windows. Know how much Windows source will cost you? I dont, but I bet its more than the source for Linux will cost me (~$60 retail ). Also, the Linux community is more than willing to help out when they can. Its much easier than *PAYING* to be a beta victim

 

[DaHitman]

<<

<< I think dell *can* offer linux on their machines because of precisely that. >>


if i remember correctly, dell sadly stopped shipping preinstalled linux on their desktop/workstation machines (at least their main lines). its still available on nearly all of their servers though.
>>




Actually.. your incorrect..

Maybe you didn't get the letter from DELL saying they made a mistake, and due to CUSTOMER DEMAND have started pre-installing and offering Linux boxes again.




<<
Dell today announced that it will offer factory installation of Red Hat® Linux 7.2 on its entire line of Dell PrecisionTM workstations and Dell PowerEdgeTM servers, including the PowerEdge 1500SC server, which was introduced today for small business customers. >>





<<

In response to growing worldwide customer demand for systems configured with Red Hat® Linux, Dell is the only major system vendor to deliver Red Hat Linux factory-installed directly to our customers.

Red Hat Linux is tested, certified and supported by Red Hat and available on all DellTM PowerEdgeTM Servers, PowerApp.webTM Appliance Servers and select models of PrecisionTM Workstations. Custom configuration options are available for quick and easy deployment.


PowerEdge
PowerApp
Precision

Linux solutions on DellTM OptiPlexTM and DimensionTM desktops and LatitudeTM and InspironTM notebooks may be ordered via Dell's Custom Factory Install service at http://www.dell.com/CFI/.
>>




http://www.dell.com/us/en/esg/topics/linux_linuxhome.htm

 

[StuckMojo]

<< The Linux advovates and the Anandtechers that say stuff like "Linux has no place else other than servers" ironically don't take the time to think about the learning curve associated with Windows. If you think about it, the same learning curve exists for Gnome or KDE.

I can't speak for all the Linux advocates here but I have never said Linux only belongs on servers and I do know the learning curve isn't very different. But you have to realize that A) most people have already gone through the Windows learning curve and don't want to go through another and B) they've already learned what they need to use applications like Word and Outlook, making them learn new apps is difficult no matter how similar they look.


run the same applications
that's how

if/when wine can run most anything windows can, linux could
grab a much larger desktop share

Just like OS/2 did? >>



OS/2 wasn't free. (and...OS/2 ran any windows app natively? i thought it just had most of the same applications written for it)

 

[Nothinman]

OS/2 wasn't free. (and...OS/2 ran any windows app natively? i thought it just had most of the same applications written for it)

From what I've heard (I never used OS/2, but I've heard from several different sources) when OS/2 was competing with Win311 it ran Win311 apps better than Windows, it used preemptive multitasking while Win311 used cooperative, it was purely 32-bit while Win311 was still half and half, it was a full OS while Win311 was just a shell ontop of DOS. MS and IBM had a falling out and each got a copy of OS/2 but IBM got to keep the name, MS' OS/2 copy alter became NT.

I'm sure there are more but not having used OS/2 I don't have much info on it handy. But it seems clear that while OS/2 was the technically superior (by quite a bit too) system DOS and Win311 still won out.

 

[DaHitman]

<< I'm sure there are more but not having used OS/2 I don't have much info on it handy. But it seems clear that while OS/2 was the technically superior (by quite a bit too) system DOS and Win311 still won out. >>



Having worked at a company that used OS/2..(They still do in fact in some situations)... I was around when the whole OS/2 thing was going on... My First PC at work was an IBM XT running DOS and we used Word for Dos as our word processor... I remember when Windows 3.0 came out and then 3.1..

The deal that people forget when looking at OS/2 and saying that Linux will fall into the same trap.... OS/2 wasnt beaten by Windows because of the "Why run OS/2 to run windows apps when you can run windows..." That wasnt it at all..

The real reason is this: IBM failed to market OS/2 to the home pc user... they wanted to sell OS/2 STRICTLY TO BUSINESSES.. they were going after the corporate desktop and the corporate desktop only... just like M$ ended up marketing NT..

The problem was... Microsoft basically was allowed to go into the consumer market without a SINGLE COMPETITOR.. and they captured nearly 100% marketshare in no time.. there wasnt any choice other than to use DOS. And after they had achieved this domance, the people who started making decisions for what OS to use in their business wanted to use the same thing they had at home... Microsoft was familiar, OS/2 was different and scary...

IBM tried to market OS/2 to consumers several years later but it was way to late and only a desparate attempt to sell some copies before the product got canned...