Alan Bourke wrote: > > On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:15 -0500, "Leland F. Jackson, CPA" > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Did your 3% Desktop Linux adoption rate come from a Steve Ballmer >> survey? > > It all depends on the definition of 'desktop Linux adoption rate' which > is as you say blurred by the fact that a lot of people-dual boot and use > one or other OS in virtual machines. I don't see what the use of Linux > in Blackberry and the like has to do with the *desktop* adoption rate. > Given that, the number of people that use Linux either as a primary or > secondary OS, or in the Mac, has to be way more than 3%. > > >> Many desktops running the windows OS act as thin clients when connected >> to the web, or as a windows clients connected to a Linux terminal >> server. The real application is likely running on a Linux server >> somewhere on the internet, and the application with its data is actually >> running in Linux with the thin client as the standard output. In this >> scenario, I would say the desktop, for all intent and purposes, is >> really consuming or running a Linux OS . All the action today is in the >> internet, and Linux is the king of the internet. That's where the >> action is. > > I would say that's a bit tenuous - if a PC boots into Windows and then > uses a Linux-served web application or an application on a Linux server > via a terminal, it's still running Windows, or vice versa. >
I was thinking along the lines of the old dumb terminals like the Televideo 925 or Wyse 50+, which didn't have a traditional OS, but could be connected to servers running Linux, Unix, or even Windows, I suppose, via a multiport board like the digiboard. A thin client is close to being like the old dumb terminals, but they do have an OS, even though all the action takes place on the server over the WAN or LAN. Below is a link about a $100 PCI card that can turn a computer running windows into a Linux thin client. If this board was installed and connected to a Linux server, would the desktop computer be Windows or Linux based, for example: There are still plenty of Linux and Unix desktop that are running dumb terminals or, thin clients, where the application runs on a Unix or Linux server with multiport board interfaces to the desktop. Are such dumb terminals running a Windows, Mac, Linux, or Unix desktop? http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7132597064.html What about a company that decided to standardize on Fedora. They purchase a single DVD for $5.95. They order 100 desktop computers, which all ship with windows Vista pre-installed. The single Fedora DVD is passed around to install the Fedora OS on all 100 computers. If the surveyor used the number of sales of an OS, as its criteria to measure the adoptions of the various OS(s), it's likely the survey would have picked up 100 computers running windows; although, the company actually would be running 100 Fedora computers, based on the scenario I created above, all installed from the purchase of a single Fedora DVD. You can see the problem of trying to find a survey methodology that would accurately measure the real adoption of a free, and often concealed, OS like Linux, but I do agree that Microsoft's Windows is clearly the dominate desktop OS. However, I feel the 3% Linux Desktop adoption figure is a little understated, and I feel Linux has a bright future as a desktop OS. Regards, LelandJ _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
