Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #348919

Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure.

From Homer <usenet@slated.org>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure.
Date 2016-04-08 01:23 +0100
Organization Slated.org
Message-ID <dmobv9F2n9lU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References <nduans$68g$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On Monday 04/04/2016 7:14 PM, Omar wrote:
>
> PC World Executive Editor Robert Strohmeyer commented that although
> Linux has exceptional security and stability, as well as great
> performance and usability, the time for desktop Linux to succeed
> has been missed.

Where his definition of "succeed" is market share.

But surely a "market" is where commodities are bought and sold.

So of what relevance is "market share" to something that's given away
for free?

GNU/Linux is made by the users, for the users. The "market share" of the
results is entirely irrelevant to those users, not least of which
because they're not actually selling anything, and therefore they aren't
even attempting to participate in that market, they're simply being
self-sufficient.

Certainly it's true that companies like Red Hat and Google subsequently
use the end results as the foundation of their products and services,
and profit greatly from it, by all accounts, but again that has nothing
to do with the "market share" of this (or any) Free Software, as the
software itself is not even being offered for sale, it's given away for
free.

You could speak sensibly about the "market share" of hardware
preinstalled with particular Free Software, or services powered by Free
Software, but then that's only a measure of the market share for that
hardware or service, since that's the only bit actually being sold.
Similarly you could speak sensibly about the "market share" of one
proprietary operating system versus another proprietary operating
system, since they are both sold and therefore actually compete for
market share.

But comparing the "market share" of something that's sold with something
that isn't, is frankly just a bit silly. It's like saying that Twinkies
have a bigger "market share" than cakes baked by millions of people in
the privacy of their own homes, when not only is the latter not even
offered for sale into this "market", but in fact you have absolutely no
way of knowing how many of these cakes are baked in private, so your
assertion is just wild speculation at best, even in terms of ubiquity,
and utter nonsense in terms of "market share".

On the other hand, if you want to speak about _ubiquity_, then Free
Software wins hands down, given that Linux is used in billions of
devices the world over, and the number of Linux instances outnumbers
that of all other proprietary systems by several orders of magnitude.

This is still of very little interests to the actual developers of that
Free Software, however, since very few of the millions of people who use
those billions of Linux devices actually contribute anything to its
development, mainly because most of them are not even aware of its
existence, or that it's Free, or that they are permitted to contribute.
That's perfectly understandable, as they're not developers and nobody
expects them to be, but equally the widespread adoption of Linux (and
other Free Software) is therefore also of no particular benefit to the
developers, for that very reason.

Even though it has actually happened, Linux and Free Software in general
is everywhere, that fact is of little more than a passing curiosity.
Except to those obsessed with money, of course. This might make more
sense if it was your _own_ money you were obsessed with, but an
obsession with _other people's_ "market share" is just ... odd.

For those who care about such things as "market share" (which should
probably be no one outside the boardroom), they would do well to take a
keener interest in the fact that the sales of x86 (i.e. "PC") hardware
continues to plummet, as this is the only platform upon which Microsoft
still has a foothold, given it's eternal failure in pretty much every
other emerging technology - the "mobile" space in particular.

Put simply: dominating a dying platform is not really something to gloat
about, but if you absolutely must then please understand that nobody
outside the boardroom actually cares.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-04 14:14 -0400
  The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 12:27 -0700
    Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-04 16:18 -0400
  Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 13:18 -0700
    Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 00:48 -0700
      mental illness comes in many different flavors John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 03:21 -0700
        Re: mental illness comes in many different flavors DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-05 10:47 -0400
          Happily, mental illness comes in many different flavors.. DooFuS prefers Shit flavored, above all else. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 07:50 -0700
        Gohde wants to ban CLI in Linux is like the Muslims want to ban pork in Western schools Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 18:29 -0700
          Who let the dogs out? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 02:13 -0700
      Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-05 10:26 -0400
    Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-07 10:55 -0400
      Just because you can does NOT mean that you should, Ass Wipe John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:03 -0700
        Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-07 12:19 -0400
          Says, who? The DooFuS on COLA, says you. Enough said ... John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 10:24 -0700
          Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.invalid> - 2016-04-08 10:17 +0000
            What does a Goober know about anything? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 03:29 -0700
              Re: What does a Goober know about anything? "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.invalid> - 2016-04-08 12:13 +0000
                Re: What does a Goober know about anything? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 05:28 -0700
                Re: What does a Goober know about anything? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-08 07:32 -0500
                Re: What does a Goober know about anything? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 05:53 -0700
                Re: What does a Goober know about anything? "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.invalid> - 2016-04-08 23:33 +0000
                Re: What does a Goober know about anything? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-08 19:41 -0400
                Re: What does a Goober know about anything? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-11 07:28 -0500
            Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-08 10:56 -0400
              Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-08 11:15 -0400
      Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-07 12:01 -0400
  Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. X11 Sucks <xsucks@xxx.org/null> - 2016-04-04 21:52 +0100
  Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-04 23:11 +0000
    Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-04 19:19 -0400
  Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-05 08:48 +0200
    The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-05 05:53 -0400
      Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-05 07:09 -0400
        Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-05 14:15 +0200
          Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-05 09:35 -0400
            Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-05 16:09 +0200
              Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-05 10:23 -0400
          Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-05 09:50 -0400
            Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-05 10:22 -0400
      Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-05 13:05 +0100
        Re: The Troll Community is directly responsible for Trolling's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-05 09:34 -0400
  Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-05 10:57 +0200
    Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-05 07:06 -0400
  Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-08 01:23 +0100
    Re: Hordes of people would _love_ to have a desktop, but can't afford it. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-08 03:01 +0100
      I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 01:52 -0700
        Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-08 18:28 +0100
          Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-08 15:55 -0400
            Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-08 16:07 -0400
            Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-10 01:02 +0100
              Countless millions exposed to microshaft viruses as well 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-10 11:46 +0000
                Re: Countless millions exposed to microshaft viruses as well Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-10 09:45 -0400
          Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 13:52 -0700
          Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-11 08:09 -0500
            Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 18:45 +0000
              Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-11 12:08 -0700
              Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-11 14:58 -0500
                Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 00:56 +0000
                Re: I am game for fighting to the death the new generation of Zombies. Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-12 09:55 -0700
      Re: If you've $700 phone, you have desktop too, most likely. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-08 18:07 +0100
        Re: If you've $700 phone, you have desktop too, most likely. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-08 15:42 -0400
          Re: If you've $700 phone, you have desktop too, most likely. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-10 00:55 +0100
            Re: If you've $700 phone, you have desktop too, most likely. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-10 08:10 -0400
              Re: If you've $700 phone, you have desktop too, most likely. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-10 09:36 -0400
        Re: Apple doesn't sell what I want, nor does Google; so I go DYI/custom. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-10 00:53 +0100
    Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-08 07:05 -0500
      Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2016-04-08 17:46 +0100
        Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-08 13:04 -0400
          Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2016-04-09 07:48 -0300
            Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-09 08:37 -0400
            Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-09 14:53 -0400
              Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-09 17:49 -0400
          Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-12 12:46 -0500
          Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-12 12:46 -0500
            Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Silver Slimer <linux@sucks.balls> - 2016-04-12 17:05 -0400
              Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-12 14:13 -0700
                Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. Silver Slimer <linux@sucks.balls> - 2016-04-12 17:27 -0400
            Re: The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-12 23:13 +0100
        The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's great success Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-08 13:48 -0400
          The Linux Community is directly responsible for Linux's abject failure Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-08 13:56 -0400

csiph-web