On Mar 2, 1:08 pm, Doctor Smith <iaintgotnostinkinem...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:19:16 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
> > <quote>
> > Microsoft's Windows operating system increased its online market share in
> > February.
>
> > According to web analytics firm Net Applications, Microsoft grew its
> > operating system share to 88.42%, from 88.2% in January.
>
> > Apple on the other hand lost 0.28%, and now holds 9.61% of the market.
> > Linux went up slightly to 0.88%.
> > </quote>
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
Also shows that Vista share is growing but rate of growth is slowing.
Linux held at about 3.8% and Mac is holding at 5.3%
NetApplications is a notoriously unreliable source of statistics, due
to flaws in their sampling methods. So is the W3Schools, which counts
IP addresses and only the "primary" OS for each IP address.
IIRC, Net Applications uses an ActiveX control to send a UUID from the
PC to register the system being used against it's browser signature.
The problem is that most FireFox and Linux users don't install
ActiveX, which is optional, because of security issues.
Linux users can run ActiveX controls, but they have to install
Crossover with WINE, to emulate Windows, then plug in ActiveX to the
FireFox browser.
No surprise that the measures are so low.
I'd be perfectly willing to hear a different, perhaps more up to date
report on their sampling methodology - to know WHAT they are counting
and HOW they are counting it.
Generally, when you see a remarkably low number like that for Linux,
there is usually some "filtering" going on. Until Net Applications is
willing to share exactly WHAT is measured and HOW it's measured, I
will continue to consider their results unreliable.
Some examples of how statistics can be flawed.
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
> >http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/03/02/235084/windows-grab...
> Wow!
> Linux at 0.88 percent!
> The Linux cracked pots must be delirious with joy!
At least Linux hasn't LOST market share :-D
Linux users almost NEVER run ActiveX.
Linux Web Browsers put "X11" as the "OS" (first entry in the
signature), Windows and Mac put the OS as the first entry.
Linux users usually stay behind firewalls, making a much larger number
of users appear to be a single IP address.
Windows users often use Dial-Up and DHCP addresses that time-out
quickly. A Windows user who uses a cellular modem could be 20
different IP addresses in a single DAY.
Linux users rarely reboot or shut-down their desktop PCs, which means
they are likely to renew the same DHCP assigned address for months.
Most Linux users purchase machines with Windows licenses, and install
Linux as the "native" operating system, then install Windows as a
Virtualized client.
Many corporations install ESX (lean version of Linux) on the desktop
and install Windows VMs on the desktop. This has become particularly
popular with banks and companies who want to stay with Windows 2000,
since they don't have to worry about drivers.
Linux users can boot Linux from flash, CD, DVD, or USB drives,
allowing them to run Linux on ANY machine that is mod-probe compatible
(Linux determines the configuration when it is booted and loads the
appropriate driver modules.
Even Casual Linux users can run Linux as a VM, even if they don't use
it as their primary operating system. Windows XP is usually the
"native" operating system, but if the configuration is "light", and XP
disk indexing is turned off, and memory is prioritized to foreground
applications, the Linux VM performance can be pretty good.
Just because the machine runs Windows, doesn't mean that Linux isn't
hiding in there somewhere. Applications such as GIMP, FileZilla,
OpenOffice, WinDirStat and Putty use a cygwin library, which makes
Windows "look" like a Linux machine. Installing cygwin is a good way
to get Linux text mode applications and a cheap way to get X11
capabilities as well.
The reality is that nobody, including me, has a CLUE how many Linux
boxes and virtual boxes and emulators are actually out there.
The Google Zeitgeist survey showed Linux at 1% and "Other" at 4%.
Based on their measurement methods, it's quite possible that about 90%
of that "other" was also Linux.
That would have put Linux at about 4% to 4.5% in 2002.
Since then, there have been financial reports from Red Hat, Novell,
and the Ubuntu organization that show double-digit growth every
QUARTER since then. Even if you only figure a conservative 20%/year,
against Microsoft's 10%/year, that would have Linux gaining about 2-3%
share every year. That would put Linux at around 20%, possibly more.
Virtualization, emulation, and the proliferation of Linux API based
OSS software has blurred the lines completely. There is a good chance
that new Linux deployments (virtual or real) exceed Windows and Vista
deployments combined. Microsoft has been getting the license revenue
from the Pre-installed OEM Windows, but OEMs are acutely sensitive to
the "price erosion" that seems to plague any laptop or desktop machine
that is not capable of running Linux as well as Vista.
The OEMs have been watching for other "Red Flags" indicating Linux
growth, such as machines ordered with no additional Windows software.
If they aren't ordering MS-Office at a huge discount, and other 3rd
party Windows software at deeply discounted prices, from the OEMs,
then there is a pretty good chance that the machine is likely to be
running Linux in some form or another when the customer gets the
machine.
If the OEM gets a request for "downgrade media" such as XP or 2K on a
CD or DVD, then there is a pretty good chance that Linux will soon be
part of the mix.
If the customer purchase a USB drive with their computer, or a second
internal hard drive, that can be swapped out, or selectively booted,
there is a good chance that laptop or desktop will be running Linux in
some form or another.
Linux is finding it's way to lots of desktops, but not necessarily in
a form that is easily measurable by Net Applications.
|
|
