Comments on: Prediction: Linux will Eat Microsoft on Most Desktops

By: Bernie

Bernie — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:23:25 +0000

Andrew, you do know that all those Hollywood movies (at least as far back as Shreck and Titanic) do their rendering and CGI on Linux these days (and SGI before that), right? It’s NOT a question of whether Linux can do it as well as Windows. Whatever hardware you have, Linux can use it more efficiently. So the really “high-end” video is done on Linux already, partly for performance, partly for cost.The real stumbling block is that certain corporations — which probably should have known better — chose to develop their applications (eg. PhotoShop or AutoCAD) as OS-specific, OS-dependent software. Worse, they have developed a sort of tunnel-vision, trashing Linux and clinging desperately to the old familiar ways, rather than learning to apply their specialty knowledge in a new environment.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:52:14 +0000

I understand the “less lines of code” thing and big, bloaty programs are definitely a big flaw for Windows.I’m kind of confused about the MLB strike zone thing though… I think you are saying that they use Linux computers to calculate the batters strike-zone in real time during games, and they use Linux because Windows just can’t do the job. Is that what you’re saying? Anyway, while thats very cool I was specifically talking about the $500 Linux PCs that you talked about. While I’m sure there are many amazing super-Linux-computers out there, I don’t think the $500 ones will be able to do that (and if they can I’m going to rush out and buy one right now, haha)My point wasn’t about the OS. I know the Linux OS is more stable, smoother, contain less code and is more efficient but my point was that I don’t think its going to matter. Even if the Linux was some genius, unbelievably fast and efficient marvel of engineering, if a program requires 1 Gig of Ram and the computer only has 512mb, Linux (or any other OS) will not be able to run it.That was what I was pointing out. I’m sure the Linux OS will run nice and smooth on the $500 PC you were talking about, but what about hardware limitations? Programs and games are using more and more RAM and CPU power every year and they aren’t going to stop anytime soon. Linux will run well on a $500 PC, will new software be able to do the same? Once again this isn’t an issue with the OS, but the hardware. Linux can’t just “try reeeeeaaaallly hard” and push its processor to go a little faster: It’s locked in. Same with RAM. Once they are reached the OS can’t really do anything about it.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:39:11 +0000

Andrew, those are good points, but there are two other things that should be mentioned. Because of the way *nix handles memory and various other factors, if you need a real application, like the app that draws the box around the strike zone in MLB and computes where the ball goes, etc., you can’t run that on windows, on any machine, because you’d be insane to develop such a demanding application for a system that traditionally will not use more than a certain amount of system ram, and taht won’t use 32 or 64 bit architecture (all depending on where in computer history we make the comparison). In other words, it has always been true that the really demanding apps do not run on and are not developed for baby computers like Windows machines.The other thing is actually two parts: If you need lots of ram and other system resources, no matter what the amount you have on your hardware is, you will always get more on a Linux box than a Windows box because Linux does the same job as Windows (only better) with much much less demand on resources for the system. The second part of this is that software that runs on Linux typically uses less code. A given program may or may not use less code (but usually does) but if you run two or three programs interacting with each other there is a huge savings if they are using common libraries on Linux, and making use of the system. That just does not happen too much in Windows.This is something that Microsoft actually touts as part of their design strategy. Bill Gates has been known to say that it does not matter if the applications and the system are sluggish now, the hardware will catch up.The two systems are fundamentally different in philosophy in a way that will always result in much, much better software on a Linux machine than on a Windows machine given the same development effort.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:50:40 +0000

As for the $500 budget computer thing: Yes I agree, the Linux OS works much better than Vista or XP on low end or budget PC’s. It wouldn’t surprise me if Linux completely took over all 2nd-hand or dated machines within the next 20 years. However, the crux of the issue is not really about the OS, but about the physical requirements of the software. Take this for example:Sony Vegas is a high end video editing tool, requiring lots of RAM and processing power. Linux can obviously not run Sony Vegas because it’s a Windows program. However, if Sony suddenly this very instant released a version of Vegas that was compatible with Linux, it would become obvious WHY the average price of a computer today is over $1000.On a budget machine, Linux (or any OS) would be completely incapable of running such a program in timely or useful manner. This is not because of the OS, but because of the hardware. Sure, Linux uses, say, 128mb less RAM to run the OS than XP or Vista does (I made this number up), but in the scope of things that doesn’t mean anything. For a $500 machine with only 512mb RAM, freeing up 128mb will have AMAZING results. However, if you want to run a program like Vegas you’ll need 2-4 Gigs of RAM, and the 128mb that Linux would free up would no longer be noticeable and the experience would be exactly the same as a somebody using a Windows OS. While Linux runs great on low-budget PC’s, you will need something bigger and better to use the more complex programs around today REGARDLESS of what operating system you have. If Vegas was available for Linux, do you thing movie editors and studios would rush out and purchase a bunch of $500 PC’s? No, they’d go for a souped-up $1,500-$3,000 PC so they could run Vegas and other high end programs well. Once again, it’s not about the OS, but the software. No matter how efficient and stable Linux is, if the program says it needs 2 gigs of RAM, than it needs 2 Gigs of RAM.However, at the moment Linux cannot run Vegas or many other high-end, CPU/RAM intensive programs. This is why it can get away with the “budget PC” headline. As of now Linux doesn’t really have a use for a 3.6Ghz Quad-Core processor, so there’s no point in getting one since a 800mhz or so will do everything Linux can do just fine.If major software titles like FL Studio and brand-new games like Bioshock or Crysis had dedicated Linux versions available, a $500 computer is no where close to what would be required to run them and you would be looking at prices close to the ones you listed for a Vista desktop in your article. Remember, Microsoft doesn’t make computers: It makes software. If you want to run certain programs, the price of the computer is going to be the same regardless of what OS you choose.

By: sgtrock

sgtrock — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:52:52 +0000

Sorry, I meant to mention South America as well as Asia as starting down the trail that Europe has already blazed. In fact, it’s not too much of a stretch to say that the adoption of Linux desktops (FLOSS in general to a lesser degree) is one area where the U.S. is definitely lagging most of the rest of the world.

By: sgtrock

sgtrock — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:44:10 +0000

There’s a point at which Linux could conceivably come from nowhere and become the dominant OS. However, IMO we’re years away from that point for reasons that Duncan and others have outlined.OTOH, SJVN and Greg both are right about how the capabilities and the market conditions have changed, far more than many have realized. For example, take a look at the sales figures for the eee and the gPC. The eee is literally flying off the shelves as fast as Asus can build them. Asus hope to sell between 3 and 4 million of them in 2008. Everex, the company that built the gPC for Walmart, has announced plans to release a small laptop for roughly the same price as the eee. They clearly mean to steal some of Asus’ thunder if they can.Meanwhile, the gPC sold out its initial run within 2 weeks! There’s clearly a huge, pent up demand for low end solid, reliable PCs. Linux based boxes can certainly fit that bill far more easily than Vista or OS/X boxes can.OT(gripping)H, both SJVN and GL have made a logical leap that I think is premature. Just because people desperately want something like this at home does not automatically translate to immediate demand for corporate IT.In my view, I expect that we’ll begin seeing people sneak Linux based boxes in the same way that they sneaked in Microsoft DOS PCs 20 some years ago and for the same reason: They want something that Just Works, and that works with what they already have at home.However, building up a consumer base of these Linux boxes will definitely take time and introducing them to the U.S. corporate world will take even longer. (Europe already has several fairly large implementations of Linux desktop to use as examples, and parts of Asia are also headed down that path.) If I were a betting man, I’d say that we’re still 3 to 5 years away from a time when suggesting a Linux rollout for anything other than a tightly controlled, limited desktop. Think POS terminals, call centers, etc.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:58:44 +0000

OK, so we’ll just say … “Prediction: Ubuntu will Eat Microsoft on Most Desktops”I’m fine with that.

By: Brian X

Brian X — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:24:07 +0000

If I may…Linux, on the whole, does not have a prayer of taking over the desktop. As long as IT departments have a decent amount of control over the software they run, Linux may in fact retain and expand its dominant position in the server room, but should any version of Linux become significant on the desktop, it will become THE Linux. Outside the power user community, GNOME vs. KDE vs. whatever else, version numbers, etc, in other words the very things that make Linux the superior solution for cutting edge software development, hobble it for end user systems. “Linux” is not an end-to-end solution; something like Knoppix, or Fedora, or Ubuntu is, and has more weight as a whole than a single component of the system.The differences can be readily evened out of course; all these disparate APIs are more or less interchangeable. GTK apps can run in a KDE environment; ALSA apps can run happily alongside Linux-native apps. But the flamewars that currently rule the world of Linux preclude this.I like Linux, but we do have to be realistic.

By: Dunc

Dunc — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:11:07 +0000

Thin clients? I’ve been hearing that one for most of my career. Actually, it’s been most of my career… Sure, there’s a big niche there, but client/server (and just plain desktop) ain’t going away – thin client is a fundamentally flawed approach for certain kinds of task. And there’s no getting away from that massive installed base, at least not in any kind of a hurry.Look, I’m perfectly happy to agree that ultimately Microsoft is doomed. Just like IBM was. But IBM didn’t lose their position because somebody came up with a cheaper mainframe – somebody made the whole mainframe concept obsolete. Whatever wipes out Microsoft will probably make both Windows and Linux look like electric typewriters. Until then, their massive pre-existing dominance more-or-less guarantees their continued success, at least in the short-to-medium term. (Remember, many people were still running their old IBM mainframes well into the late 90s – some probably still are. I believe you can still make big bucks as a COBOL consultant.)Oh, and it’s “Dunc” (short for “Duncan”), not “Dune“. No offence taken. 😉 Sorry if I’m losing coherence too… 🙂 hic

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:42:49 +0000

Dune: OK, OK, no low end desktops…But, what about thin clients??? :)One thing I’m sure of: There have rarely been accurate predictions about how change happens, and what direction it goes in, when it does occur in IT.