Never Say Linux Has More Than 1.1% Market Share

Chrome OS is a Linux OS. It uses the Linux kernel and so far as I'm aware it even uses GNU components. A few simple scripts turn Chrome OS into a full on GNU/Linux desktop.

So the Linux market share then is actually 4.7%. And that's not counting Android and it's derivatives. Which are also Linux OS's. Why does the technology press constantly insist on misrepresenting Linux market share?

The above is a comment I left in the comments section of this article. I'm sick and tired of being told Linux only ever has 1.1% market share. It's just not true. But it seems to be an unwritten rule of the technology press.

The Linux kernel is used as a core component in many alternative operating systems. Some more popular and better known than others. But the fact remains. If Chrome OS has 3.6% market share and all other desktop Linux OS's have 1.1% market share. Then "Linux" has 4.7% market share.

But 4.7% sounds far too credible. Too popular. Especially as that doesn't seem to take account of the mobile market where Andoid/Linux dominates. It's far more comfortable for the Microsoft and Apple centric technology press to pretend Linux is still in the doldrums. Still only developed by geeks in their bedrooms.

It's just not the case. Chrome OS is Linux. Android is Linux. And GNU/Linux is of course far more popular than official figures show.

Rant over.

deviantArt Munro

There are people in the world who doubt the usefulness of the Internet and the World Wide Web. These same people are the people who are currently talking down the transition from the desktop computing model to the "cloud" model. They are also the same people who stand to lose the most from this transition.

I've read articles in the past that talk about the security concerns related to "cloud computing" or "fog computing". There's a lot of scaremongering going on in the industry and in popular media. And disasters like Microsoft's Sidekick disaster are routinely trotted out to add weight to the claims being made. All of those articles however ignore one simple fact. We already live in the "cloud". As I've said in various forums in the past, cloud computing is simply a return to the client server model where applications are hosted by a server and interacted with via a client. The server does the heavy lifting. The client provides the interface. This is how the web works. It's how it's always worked.

So why all the fuss? Well traditionally web applications have always been limited to the capabilities of the web browser. Primarily Microsoft's Internet Explorer which has been a ball and chain shackled to the ankles of the Internet since Microsoft forced it upon it's customers in Windows 95. But that has changed. Microsoft no longer dominates the web in a meaningful way. It's market share is falling continuously. New versions of IE cannibalise market share from older versions of IE while the over all market share for IE falls. Microsoft's competitors are stealing the march on the web. Apple, Google, Opera and Mozilla have all released HTML5 aware web browsers. And it's HTML5 that will set the web free.

HTML5 is what powers Munro from deviantArt. Munro it's self is nothing special. It's a painting application that allows you to publish directly to your deviantArt account. What is important is how Munro is delivered. It's free to use and is delivered to the user via the deviantArt web site. There's no plug-ins required. No installation required. No configuration required. No lengthy serial number to input for activation. It is essentially the ultimate plug 'n' play application. The only thing the user is required to do is figure out how to use it. Which isn't hard.

Munro isn't the first HTML5 application to pop up. There are quite a few out there now. Discreetly integrated into web sites. Users simply take them for granted without even noticing how painless the whole experience was. Because it was painless. This is how the web was meant to be. Free and easy to use. Simple and transparent. Accessible to all.

Will Google Chrome OS Fail?

It might just be me. I might be biased because I'm a Linux user sick and tired of hearing Microsoft FUD about hardware support in Linux. But it seems to me as though the pro-Microsoft author of this article is suffering from a sever case of the skitters.

I mean isn't the writing on the wall for Microsoft and it's supporters? Linux is not as they claimed dead in the netbook market. It's flourishing apparently. Googles Android was not a failure as many predicted. In fact Googles smart-phone OS is gaining market share with ever increasing numbers of handsets appearing all the time while Windows is losing market share on the smart-phone.

Social media sites like Facebook are becoming increasingly important to mobile devices. So important in fact apps on smart-phones to access sites like Facebook seem to be essential features to just sell a handset. However Randall C Kennedy seems to think Googles web-centric netbook OS will fail? He thinks Linux is fatal flaw number one? A web based interface is fatal flaw number 2 and an inflexible hardware platform is also a fatal flaw.

For those reasons Googles web based OS will fail.

Personally I say he's wrong and here's why. People love Google for one simple reason. Google provides insanely useful services to people all over the world. And from the point of view of normal web users at least, those services are totally free of charge. No costs involved.

The Amazon kindle and it's ilk are the second reason. The fact that you can't upgrade a kindle the same way you can upgrade a desktop PC hasn't stopped people from buying them. The fact that the Kindle doesn't play with an iPod hasn't stopped people buying them. Even the fact that Amazon can and will delete your purchases at will for whatever reason it sees fit hasn't stopped people buying the Amazon kindle and similar devices. All of which by the way run an OS based on Linux.

But it's not the OS that's important here. It's how useful the device is to the consumer and how profitable it will be for the vendors. Get those two things right and you have a product you can sell to people with confidence. I strongly suspect netbook manufacturers will put their own spin on the basic Chrome OS user interface as they have done with Android.

Linux as a "device" OS has in fact been extreamly successful. Linux powers everything from toasters and satnavs all the way up to DVD players, smart-phones, ebook readers and beyond. None of these "devices" seem to be "failing". Consumers don't care that these devices run Linux. They just want them to work. Which is a key point Microsoft apologisers like Randall C. Kennedy always deliberately miss.

People don't care which operating system is on their PC, their smart-phone or their netbook. What they care about is, does it work? Does it let them do the things they want to do the way they want to do them? Google are answering those questions. Microsoft keep serving up more of the same.

Now it's interesting to note that while Chrome OS isn't even completed yet. Microsoft apologists have it marked as a failure. Could this be to distract attention away from the failure of Windows 7 to convert the Windows XP faithful? Windows 7 has been such a great success Microsoft and it's army of apologetic bloggers are already talking about Windows 8 arriving in 2012 (the end of the world apparently) and even Windows 9!

It's time the Microsoft faithfull woke up to reality. Microsoft just aren't going to have it all their own way any longer. At least not by playing nice.

In the time it takes your computer to boot up ...

"In the time it takes your computer to boot up ..." is a phrase I have heard over and over. What people should be saying is "in the time it takes Microsoft Windows to boot up you could go make a cup of tea, some toast, cook a Sunday lunch and dash out to the shops." This generalisation bothers me. It bothers me because not all computers are the same. They might contain the same hardware. But the software that makes that hardware do useful things makes all the difference.

Even with Linux, which generally boots fairly quickly the hardware and software setup makes all the difference. With an SSD drive at it's disposal Ubuntu 9.10 will boot in 5 seconds. Without the SSD drive it will be more like 10 to 15 seconds. The last time I tested Windows 7 Beta 1 on my Dell XPS 720, which has an Intel Core 2 Quad CPU runnung at 2.66 GHz and 8 GB of RAM, I was still counting Windows boot times from a cold start in minutes. Ubuntu 9.04 boots in 15 to 20 seconds on the same machine.

So bloggers and particuarly Priya Ganapati who is the latest offender to annoy me with this rediculous generalisation. Get it right! If you're talking about Windows PCs then say so. If your talking about Macs? Say so. If you're talking about Linux based PCs. Say so!

This is an important distinction to make. The PC landscape is changing rapidly. New OS players are coming into the market and they're all fighting for their slice of the pie. People tend to look to the media, blogs, forums etc to help them understand and figure out the differences between new products coming to the market. So it's important to get it right. Slow boot times are no longer an issue for everybody.

Apple seems to be able to do no wrong. Even though some of their business practices are worse than Microsofts'. Google is trying to muscle in with Android and Chrome OS. Both Linux based OSs. And of course we can't forget Linux it's self. Ubuntu is making good ground. Canonical, the parent developers of Ubuntu, are gaining support from the likes of IBM, Intel, Dell, HP and Sun Microsystems. All big names with interests in making Linux  success.

So in the time it takes your PC to boot. Try and see if you can figure out with OS you're running!

I Want To Be Blissfully Ignorant

Okay I demand to be told what is in the water these people are drinking. I personally feel it is my God given right to be this blissfully ignorant of the world.

News Just In! Randall C. Kennedy Becomes Even More Pointless!

Lacking any real news to report and desperately needing to fill a void left by Steve Ballmer after excavating Randalls' sphincter, Randall C. Kennedy has resorted random attacks on everything and anything not of Redmond.

Apple takes the first hit in a childish tantrum regarding Apples' advertising antics. Before they'd even started. It seems Randall has a case of the iGitters. Moving on however, next up for the chopping block was Googles' own Linux based OS. Chrome OS.

The short,snappy and memorable title of this particular blog entry "Will Chrome OS collapse under the weight of it's own Web browser?" would seem to imply Chrome OS is overweight. Morbidly obese one might say. Which is somewhat odd considering Windows not only seems to require a new PC with every iteration. But some how manages to devour the storage space on the hard drive like a fat chick let lose in a cake shop. Windows appetite for devouring system resources is so unseemly Microsoft considered it to be a huge achievement to get a tweaked version of Windows 7 running on a netbook.

Speaking of which. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed netbook specs have been on the up and up. In fact if it weren't for the 32-bit x86 based Atom CPU at their heart they'd be fully fledged notebooks with smaller screens.

Randall can't stop at bitching about Apple or Chrome OS though. Next target is the Linux desktop. The rather ironic title "Will desktop Linux ever grow up?", implies desktop Linux isn't ready to be the headline act. I'm pretty sure Canonical and others would disagree. Sharp in particular has just released a new Ubuntu based MID in Japan. One of the largest economies in the world no less. Brazillian education (52 MILLION NEW USERS) has all but abandoned Windows and Microsoft products entirely and Microsoft for the first time have included HP and Intels' Linux efforts as a threat to their business on their recently filed 10-K report.

Lacking any real complaints about the Linux desktop Randall unwisely decides to pick on X.org. X.org maintain the X server. Randalls gripe with this? The code has a 30 year history! Oh gosh quick we better not use it. Software does after all corrode with time doesn't it? Actually no it doesn't. Planned obsolescence, crap design and a total lack of foresight is what makessoftware bog down over time.

If the code is well maintained and properly looked after 30 years of service is a good sign of maturity and not decrepitude. X has served Linux and other NIXs well over the years. Better still it's going through a major overhaul right now as you read this to meet modern demands. Yes these changes break drivers. All major changes to an OS breaks something somewhere. For example when Microsoft implemented their new driver model they broke driver compatibility with XP. Then broke it again and again and again until their partners got fed up and did things on their own schedule leaving many Vista users with crap driver support for weeks if not months after the official release. ATI and Nvidia were amongst the companies that failed to deliver decent drivers on time. OUCH!

Next up it was Snow Leopard. Randall completely and I suspect deliberately misses the point of Snow Leopard. Unlike Windows 7, Snow Leopard isn't just a cosmetic make over. It's a re-plumbing of all the tubing and technical bits underneath the shiny Apply GUI that Windows and Linux users can't stop trying to emulate with theme packs. While the enhancements to Snow Leopard don't really help existing third party software. All Apple software has been rewritten to take advantage of them and third party offerings won't be far behind.

As a result of Apples tinkering with Snow Leopard, OS X has a smaller installed foot print and runs considerably faster. The net result of Windows 7 is a version of Vista that looks decent, is less secure and doesn't crash as much. BSODs are also still a coveted feature.

Finally we get to Randalls latest Cephalopoda like spaz attack with tentacles flailing every where desperately grasping for a target. "The 'Linuxification' of Windows has begun". Okay then. This "blog entry" has me seriously bewildered. FileZilla, VirtualBox and the Gimp all come under fire. For one reason or another their GUIs just aren't good enough. Apparently all GTK+ GUIs are a complicated ill designed blasphemous disaster. They should carry a public health warning. VirtualBoxs' error dialogues are clearly hazardous to ones health. Of course Windows BSODs are so intuitive. I speak in HEX daily. In fact I refuse to speak anything but HEX codes unless absolutely necessary.

Seriously, does InfoWorld actually pay this man-child to write this tripe? It's not helpful, it's not informative, it's not even a fully formed and thought out opinion. It's just random crap drugged up to draw attention away from the competition and back to Microsoft? Microsoft PR must be cringing right about now. At least they tried to spice up their tripe with some Photoshopping.

Well I have more bad news for Randall. Maybe this will send him completely over the edge. Dell are releasing an Android based smart phone in China. Remember Android is Linux based Randall. Now when will Linux grow up? I wonder? Who Runs Ubuntu Linux?

It really is time to wake up Randall. The Linux kernel is in one form or another embeded in every facet of your life. Remember when you use the Internet or a DVD player or a satnav, you're using Linux.