Seriously, Linpus Linux--is it any good?
in [Setup]
|
From: James Westwood on 31 May 2010 12:32 On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:44:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Because there is no money to be made selling it to them. > > Free TV without adverts never really caught on, either. Interesting comparison. > >> >> >> Yet every single unbiased or even slightly biased source >> shows Linux to be hovering around 1 percent. > > Of what? consumer desktops? Perhaps. Yes. > Internet servers? nearer 90%. I'd say maybe 70 percent or so. > Emebedded OS in routers and other appliances? probaly 30-40%. And growing in leaps and bounds! > >> That's pretty bad and why do all these numbers seem to >> agree, within reason? >> > > Personally I think its probably because they all come from the same source. I don't think so. I think realistically Linux probably has 4 percent of the desktop on the low side and maybe 7 percent on the high side. That's world wide. > My gut feeling is that there are more every year, but of those lots are > dual boot or have windows in a virtual box etc. I agree because I have seen that type of system many times and in increasing numbers compared to just a few years ago. > Who actually cares though? I think competition, fair competition, is good for all because it forces companies to make a better product. Even the Windows users will benefit from this. -- James Westwood Remove'spamo' to reply. Microsoft? Not on my watch. 5/31/2010 12:27:11 PM
From: James Westwood on 31 May 2010 12:33 On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:55:37 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote: > On 2010-05-31, James Westwood <westwood.spamojames(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: >> True, however one can not deny that Linux has for some >> reason not caught on with the general public. >> It just hasn't. > > Only if your definition of "general public" does not include devices > that said public uses such as cell phones and digital television sets, a > very large proportion of which run Linux internally. Ditto for devices > used in businesses such as office copiers, etc. In fact the sole area > where Linux has not made major inroads is on traditional computer desktops. The average person has no clue what operating system is running their television etc. I'm talking about desktop systems. > In pretty much every other area of computing Linux is being heavily used > and its deployment continues to increase on everything from pocked-sized > personal devices to supercomputer clusters. So to say that Linux has "not > caught on" is incorrect unless you are specifically limiting the scope > of the argument to traditional PCs. That is what I am saying. The general public is not running a cluster. General public = Joe User = desktop system. -- James Westwood Remove'spamo' to reply. Microsoft? Not on my watch. 5/31/2010 12:32:34 PM
From: Nico Kadel-Garcia on 31 May 2010 17:08 On May 31, 1:02 am, James Westwood <westwood.spamoja...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 31 May 2010 06:53:49 +0200, Aragorn wrote: > > Market shares are irrelevant with regard to the quality of an operating > > system. > > True, however one can not deny that Linux has for some > reason not caught on with the general public. > It just hasn't. comp.os.linux.setup is the wrong group for this. Let's reset followups, OK? The reasons it "hasn't caught on" are many. Core is overwhelming desktip share Microsoft had at the beginning of Linux's advent, or the earlier work with GNU tools, and its deceitful, thieving, and monopoly abusing practices. Take a look at the history of web browsers, the theft of technologies from DEC to create NT, and the history of the Windows TCP stack for examples old enough to have gone to to the courts and not still be in negotiations. Take a look at the funding of SCO's fraudulent lawsuits and Ballmer's claims of patent violations, without ever showing the alleged copyright or patent violations. > > Alleged market shares represent commercially representative > > statistics. > > True, in terms of items sold. > > > GNU/Linux, although commercially available, is not a > > commercial product. It is still available as a freely downloadable > > system - and is primarily acquired as such - and does not have to rely > > on aggressive and monopolistic marketing tactics and deceitful > > advertising in order to actually get used. > > Yet every single unbiased or even slightly biased source > shows Linux to be hovering around 1 percent. > That's pretty bad and why do all these numbers seem to > agree, within reason? It's common in the server class, not the desktop class. The instability of "office suites" is one reason. Another is the web tools that only operate correctly with Microsoft's Internet Explorer, to the detriment of web users worldwide due to that tool's security flaws and instability. But if you have to deal with bureaucracies that insist on compatible documents for this week's forms, rather than forms that will work in a year, you're stuck. > > There is also no required registration or activation procedure to allow > > keeping track of the actual deployment and userbase. Ergo, invoking > > alleged market shares as an argument is in itself already an unreliable > > argument. > > Openoffice makes claims of x number of downloads yet how > many people have actually seen Openoffice in the wild? > I have not. Good lord, I do, often to successfully access legacy Microsoft Word or Excel or Powerpoint documents that contemporary Microsoft Office cannot open or with which it corrupts the data. > I suspect people download it, try it and remove it. > So does that mean it sucks? > Of course not. > In fact Openoffice is excellent IMHO. > To claim it's taking over Microsoft Office is another > thing however. > It's not, IMHO. Well, that's true.
From: RayLopez99 on 31 May 2010 17:17 On May 31, 7:02 pm, James Westwood <westwood.spamoja...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > I'm sorry but I don't have any experience with Linpus > other than reading about it. It's a ridiculous name but > Vista is no winner either. Vista reminds me of some kind > of bicycle I think I might have rode as a kid. > DO you realize what you are saying? Do you? You are saying that each and every LInux distro is unique. So there's a chance that out of the box Linpus will not have KDE or some other GUI to allow me to click and set up internet access? Since the hardware does not have a CD/DVD (to keep the price down), I'm left with a $300 paperweight. That's what you're saying. Oh, I code and am a power user in Windows and have built dozens of systems from scratch. Then you wonder about Linux's lack of acceptance. RL
From: James Westwood on 31 May 2010 19:03
On Mon, 31 May 2010 14:17:07 -0700 (PDT), RayLopez99 wrote: > On May 31, 7:02�pm, James Westwood > <westwood.spamoja...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: >> I'm sorry but I don't have any experience with Linpus >> other than reading about it. It's a ridiculous name but >> Vista is no winner either. Vista reminds me of some kind >> of bicycle I think I might have rode as a kid. >> > > DO you realize what you are saying? Do you? Of course. You don't seem to though. > You are saying that each and every LInux distro is unique. So there's > a chance that out of the box Linpus will not have KDE or some other > GUI to allow me to click and set up internet access? Since the > hardware does not have a CD/DVD (to keep the price down), I'm left > with a $300 paperweight. > > That's what you're saying. That's not what I'm saying. That's what *you* are saying. I'm saying I've never used Linpus so I have no experience with it. Learn to read or next time have someone read it to you. > Oh, I code and am a power user in Windows and have built dozens of > systems from scratch. You code? Big deal. Would you like a medal or a monument? I think you need a new set of batteries because your power level is about zero. > Then you wonder about Linux's lack of acceptance. > > RL I don't wonder about it because it works for me. I do wonder why a power user who codes has to ask for help when a quick Google would give him his answer. -- James Westwood Remove'spamo' to reply. Microsoft? Not on my watch. 5/31/2010 6:59:33 PM |