[CentOS] OT: linux desktop market share more than 1%

Fri Oct 8 22:04:12 UTC 2010
Warren Young <warren at etr-usa.com>

On 10/8/2010 6:14 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
>> is on Linux servers, but OS X Just Works(tm), and I don't have to be
>> constantly fiddling to get tools working.
> I here that occasionally;  since you switched to OS X "shortly after it
> came out", which is like 5 years ago now

OS X came out in Spring of 2001.

> your experience with desktop LINUX is not current.

My experience with both platforms *is* current, and I agree with the GP.

Yes, Linux has come a long ways since 2001, but so has OS X.  I continue 
to find usability differences between Linux and OS X, and almost always 
the advantage is to OS X.

OS X has broader software compatibility than Linux, simply because of 
the fact that OS X is UNIX (R).  Almost all Linux programs can be built 
to run on OS X, while the reverse is most definitely not the case.

As for hardware compatibility, I'd say Linux can probably talk to more 
distinct device types, but there are enough choices on the OS X side. 
The reverse is often not true: I can think of several devices available 
on the OS X side which not only won't run under Linux, but which have no 
comparable alternative.

You might be tempted to bring up the fact that OS X won't run on generic 
PC hardware, but I think that's an unfair comparison.  If you insist on 
making it, I have unfair comparisons to throw right back, like Final Cut 
Studio.  See, both sides can build incompatible things.  Now let's get 
back to the rational discussion. :)

> I *use* LINUX on my HP Pavilion dv7 (HP DV-3085DX) all day five to six
> days a week.  It is production and rock-solid.  In installed openSUSE
> 11.2 w/GNOME and *all* the hardware *just worked*.  All the applications
> *just worked*.
> OpenOffice, Evolution, Nautilus, Tomboy, Banshee, Monodevelop,
> File-Roller, F-Spot, and Firefox is a killer suite of top-notch
> applications.

I don't find your experience surprising.  You're installing on a generic 
box, and apparently your software needs are completely met by commodity 
applications.  For those whose needs fit into that limited scope, Linux 
on the desktop can be the right solution.

Some of us have needs beyond that, however, which cannot be met on 
Linux.  Photoshop, for example.

If you think Gimp is a suitable alternative to Photoshop, you either 
don't know Photoshop or your needs are simple enough that you shouldn't 
buy it even if you have the choice.

I think you should also ignore Wine and virtual machines for the purpose 
of this discussion.  Both platforms have the same capabilities in this 
regard, and these technologies are limited cheats besides.  You start 
sliding down that slope, and you end up dual-booting.  That's a fine 
pragmatic solution to some problems, but it tells us nothing about 
native OS capabilities, and so fails to illuminate.