It is nice to see trolls from the bottom feeders of the OS market place here at the Win32ASM community :) What is the Linux market share these days ? Somewhere around 4% of the global desktop market last I heard with MacIntosh slightly larger and Windows representing more than 90%. Ofcourse they are predicting it to rise to 7% by 2008 so if you are willing to wait 3 years it will grow from almost nothing to virtually nothing. Outside of a rather vocal community of trollers and messageboard spammers Linux is pretty insignificant. If you want to make money you can always go after the miniscule niche markets, but odds are better with Windows.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5492399.html?tag=default
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5492399.html?tag=default
oh please, the spamware infested sheep's desktop market share is worth crap. It's like saying 10.000.000 flies can't be wrong. It's server space that decides who is king of the hill and linux doesn't do bad there (it's not the uber overlord but it's no peon either)
I use linux because I can tailor it to my needs, can tinker with it and am allowed to. The sheeple just run whatever is in front of them that has familiar icons to click (if they even manage to grasp that concept) If windows is that for you then that's great (each their own respected, deliberated choice of OS) but don't use the marketshare argument because you'd just say that the opinion of 3 idiots is worth more than that
of 1 genius. (that goes any way so 3 linux zealots < 1 thought-through win2k user)
yes, it was a long day of tech-support today :-D
BTW "we speak German" :p
If you are trying to sell software to the masses then Linux is obviously not the way to go - they give it away. Even the idiots have purchasing power - just talk with someone in marketing. My mother is never going to learn how to use a computer, but she has shelled out $50+ on multiple occasions over the years for various recipe programs. Who knows - maybe the next $50+ could go your direction? But the recipe program is more likely to be running on an XBox than on a linux box. :lol:
When is comes to selling to the masses 3 idiots are greater than 1 genius. The whole USA is proof enough of that (myself included). :P
When is comes to selling to the masses 3 idiots are greater than 1 genius. The whole USA is proof enough of that (myself included). :P
>>I even use my REAL NAME on forums :
http://www.cumberland.karoo.net/Pages/Staff/RobRice.htm
I guess that's why most people don't use their real name on forums ;) Maybe that's not you, but it surely expresses someones feelings. :)
>>the few things I can't talk about here is subjects like your mother
Wha Wha Wha...
http://www.cumberland.karoo.net/Pages/Staff/RobRice.htm
I guess that's why most people don't use their real name on forums ;) Maybe that's not you, but it surely expresses someones feelings. :)
>>the few things I can't talk about here is subjects like your mother
Wha Wha Wha...
No thats not me
but I have found some of my posts with google
so in away I'm knowen world wide
I get mails from nigerian princes offering me money, that must mean I'm famous....and hot! :mrgreen:
I get mails from nigerian princes offering me money, that must mean I'm famous....and hot! :mrgreen:
Must be the little lost kitten look :)
Posted on 2004-12-24 13:22:15 by donkey
about the number of computers running linux
it's real hard to get solid numbers
because there is no one counting the number of times it is downloaded
of the CDs that are sould there is no one counting the computers that
linux is installed on from those CDs there cases where over 100 copys are
instaled from one set of CDs or even a download
windows it's easy to get numbers on because thay (unless bootleged ) all
come from one place (and you only have M$s word on it) and even if
windows is removed at the time of the sale of a computer that still counts
as one copy of windows sould (the OEM bought it)
yes I've seen that 3%-4% number and I've also seen 10%-25% with 90% duel
booting windows
10%-25% or 3%-4% who realy knows and how can anyone tell ?
BUT
even 3%-4% is damn good for something where no real marketing is being done
it's real hard to get solid numbers
because there is no one counting the number of times it is downloaded
of the CDs that are sould there is no one counting the computers that
linux is installed on from those CDs there cases where over 100 copys are
instaled from one set of CDs or even a download
windows it's easy to get numbers on because thay (unless bootleged ) all
come from one place (and you only have M$s word on it) and even if
windows is removed at the time of the sale of a computer that still counts
as one copy of windows sould (the OEM bought it)
yes I've seen that 3%-4% number and I've also seen 10%-25% with 90% duel
booting windows
10%-25% or 3%-4% who realy knows and how can anyone tell ?
BUT
even 3%-4% is damn good for something where no real marketing is being done
...and a lot of the computers sold with linux pre-installed are bought because they are cheaper than if they had an OEM windows, and will run a pirated windows version anyway :roll:
Here is my BIG whinge about linux. I run two web sites, one on a REAL UNIX box with FreeBSD on it and the other on a Slackware distribution of linux that is run very well by a team of guys who are good at it.
I have shell access to the Slackware box and have to from time to time do some work over telnet or lately ssh.
Do an "ls -al" to see what is in a directory and you get a pile of crap with all of the file permissions then the file name and other attributes. Type in a command to see what its syntax is and you get multiple variations of how to call help. In one you type -help, another you type - help, in another you type --help and yet another you type -- help but they all do one thing in common, the PHUK UP and spit errors at you instead of giving you the help data.
This is but a simple example of how linux is hung together, distro's from arseh*le to breakfast time, the absolutely worst front ends I have ever seen and documentation that makes the worst of 1990 DOS look great. Then you have to go look for it and its splattered around the internet like a mad woman's breakfast.
Ask anyone anything and they dump you will a pile of SAUCE (intentional mis-spelling) that is usually an uncommented pile of crap that takes superman to decypher just to find the PHUKUP in it and they don't give a sh*t because they don't get paid for it.
My last effort to set up linux was a broken distro of Redhat which I could get to run as command line linux fine but the front ends were so bad, I cleaned it out and reloaded win98se which ran like a rocket in comparison and win98se is a slow pig.
As long as linux is a bad mannered, badly documented disaster that is nearly impossible to set up unless you have years of experience using it, it will live only for the technical guys who use it for web servers while the rest of the computer market dies laughing.
In comparison, slop in win98se, put the right info into it and it pops up running in about 30 minutes. If you trash it just do it again. Win2k is a bit more work to install but it all plugs in and runs fine and you don't have to scoure the internet to find the rest of it or more documentation just to get it up and running.
In contrast, Apple used a UNIX system and produced an idiot proof interface that even MAC users can understand. Whats wrong with LINUX ?
I have shell access to the Slackware box and have to from time to time do some work over telnet or lately ssh.
Do an "ls -al" to see what is in a directory and you get a pile of crap with all of the file permissions then the file name and other attributes. Type in a command to see what its syntax is and you get multiple variations of how to call help. In one you type -help, another you type - help, in another you type --help and yet another you type -- help but they all do one thing in common, the PHUK UP and spit errors at you instead of giving you the help data.
This is but a simple example of how linux is hung together, distro's from arseh*le to breakfast time, the absolutely worst front ends I have ever seen and documentation that makes the worst of 1990 DOS look great. Then you have to go look for it and its splattered around the internet like a mad woman's breakfast.
Ask anyone anything and they dump you will a pile of SAUCE (intentional mis-spelling) that is usually an uncommented pile of crap that takes superman to decypher just to find the PHUKUP in it and they don't give a sh*t because they don't get paid for it.
My last effort to set up linux was a broken distro of Redhat which I could get to run as command line linux fine but the front ends were so bad, I cleaned it out and reloaded win98se which ran like a rocket in comparison and win98se is a slow pig.
As long as linux is a bad mannered, badly documented disaster that is nearly impossible to set up unless you have years of experience using it, it will live only for the technical guys who use it for web servers while the rest of the computer market dies laughing.
In comparison, slop in win98se, put the right info into it and it pops up running in about 30 minutes. If you trash it just do it again. Win2k is a bit more work to install but it all plugs in and runs fine and you don't have to scoure the internet to find the rest of it or more documentation just to get it up and running.
In contrast, Apple used a UNIX system and produced an idiot proof interface that even MAC users can understand. Whats wrong with LINUX ?