I was reading a couple of articles wich states that the linux desktop is dead:

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/a ... _dead.html

Basically, they say that because the linux desktop stills only shares the "1% of the market", it failed. I've never care about the 1% thing since i have been a linux user for a long time. It just works for me, and every day i see new innovations, and the linux comunity is growing everyday. I meant , 1% it just means that the userbase for the linux desktop project has been ina steady growing ,isnt?.

Besides, i don't understand when people says that linux will be successfull only when its market share raise to the 50% or something like that. If those numbers means successfulness, then Windows is the only successfull desktop , so.. the others oses doesn't worth a penny?

In fact, linux is the most stable, secure and versatile OS out there. Is the OS with the larger hardware support.

I had always been clear about this fact: Linux is not for my grandma and maybe,it never will. But im happy using my linux just like other millions of users

But i think that if linux where owned by a company, im sure it would be really dead right now. So i don't think that the market share concept doesn't apply very well to the linux comunity.

I often see a lot of new distros,and some others are dying.And i don't see a linux in the Beos situation , or in the situation of the dozens of death OSes (mostly Unixes).

MacOsx is a success? its shares about what? 5,8,4% market share? is that successfull?. Well it means that Apple is not dead (thanks to the ipod by the way)

So , What do you think ?

1) there are those that disagree with the 1% estimate http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/09/de ... -myth.html and Steve Ballmer http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ballm ... than_Apple

2) there is growth in the Linux desktop distros that is being sponsored by some governments - Turkey and Pardus, N. Korea and Red Star, Guadalinex a region in Spain sponsored distro and Cuba has announced an initiative. Not the largest entities but still sizable numbers.

3) 1% of a humongous market is still a very large market

4) I think the "is the desktop desk dead?" a more interesting topic. To be replaced by cloud computing and smart phones. Or maybe the topic "will your smart phone's os be your next desktop's?

google01103 wrote:2) there is growth in the Linux desktop distros that is being sponsored by some governments - Turkey and Pardus, N. Korea and Red Star, Guadalinex a region in Spain sponsored distro and Cuba has announced an initiative. Not the largest entities but still sizable numbers.

You forgot Portugal where many schools run Linux, and over all, Brazil where millions of school computers are (or will be) running Linux (and KDE ) But yes, Guadalinex is really a small deployment compared to that

Don't forget the most populated country in the world and its linux.http://www.redflag-linux.com/en/index.php

google01103 wrote:4) I think the "is the desktop desk dead?" a more interesting topic. To be replaced by cloud computing and smart phones. Or maybe the topic "will your smart phone's os be your next desktop's?

Nope, that is not going to happen. unless that smartphones can feature a 22" screen. And cloud computing only makes sense in some services areas.

ngativ wrote:

google01103 wrote:4) I think the "is the desktop desk dead?" a more interesting topic. To be replaced by cloud computing and smart phones. Or maybe the topic "will your smart phone's os be your next desktop's?

Nope, that is not going to happen. unless that smartphones can feature a 22" screen. And cloud computing only makes sense in some services areas.

but isn't this (up sizing) what apple did with ios and the ipad and what Android's going to do with tablets? And why shouldn't your next screen be a touch pad?

google01103 wrote:
but isn't this (up sizing) what apple did with ios and the ipad and what Android's going to do with tablets? And why shouldn't your next screen be a touch pad?

I think that even Steve Jobs was very clear about this: The iPad and its competitors just covers a long time missisng market segment, the tablet pc. The ipad was not intented to canibalize the iMac and macpro bussines.

You see, the iPad has an optimized interface for this kind of product that doesn't apply to the traditional desktop

Nowadays you can do a lot of things with smarthphones and tablets, but that doesn't means that you can raplace the desktop. For example , the PSP cannot replace the PlayStation.

Mobile computing with touch screen has been hanging around since the palm pilot or the Apple Newton. But here we are, with those smarthphones with fancy animations and internet connectivity but doing basically the same.

Another issue is that although yes, Linux has been around for 19 years, it has only been in a position where it is effectively usable by ordinary users for a few years, if that.

The desktop metaphor is dead; it was introduced in the 1980s to sell 'windowing' systems like MS Windows and DRI GEM which used an even more strongly 'desktop' themed approach. It was tied to the notion that your computer was static - tied to a single location - a desktop.

The last desktop computer I bought was in 2000. I have bought laptops ever since. I expect I will buy a netbook or high-end mobile 'phone in future to handle some of my computing/Internet access needs.

That is why I applaud the design goals of KDE4 which seem to me to offer the opportunity to break away from the 'desktop' metaphor and towards something like a true 'window on the world' metaphor such as that pioneered but yet to be developed on netbooks.

If Linux Desktop dominance ever becomes reality, it will show that Linux has become bogged down in the past. If Linux becomes the standard way in which everyone who has a digital TV, a mobile 'phone, a netbook, a notebook or a laptop interacts with the world, Linux will be part of a future in which the desktop only survives in large organisations with largely static staff such as call centres.

Oh well... the Desktop metaphor is far from dead. It seems that some people don't just get it, it's not about netbooks replacing the desktop ( because that's is not going to happen). It's about a new interface type that suits best for the new mobile computing layout, that's all.

Some people doesn't need a desktop anymore, they just want to write emails , chat and browse the web, but that can be done even with an old palm device.

I cannot image how someone could seriously even work with some applications like qtcreator, logicpro or photoshop using netbooks or smartphones. And cloud computing for that? don't make laugh.

The motivation for interfaces like the KDE netbook, IOS, android and meego is that is best suited for small screens (not only small resolution) and for devices with limited power. So only left internet connectivity

And this is what we can found right out there:

Desktop/Laptops
TabletPC
Netbooks
Tablet Netbooks (iPad)
Pocket computers (iTouch,iPhone,Android,... smartphones)

Desktops, Laptops and tabletPC share the same interface type ,but tabletPC are too expensive and doesn't have enough processing power. Usually Desktops are more powerful than laptops and more cheaper,and that is important to note.

The rest is mostly for consume rather than real productivity. So this just fragmentation.

So i believe that trying to translate the smartphone interface to the desktop is just silly.

Dear @ngativ: you didn't read what I said.

I suggested that the KDE4 metaphor is a 'window on the world' - what KDE4 has shown is that there is the potential to break away from the desktop metaphor and that may open up other metaphors,

In the UK we have for some time had long distance trains with wifi on which people use their laptops and netbooks for the jobs they would previously only have been able to do in the office, including interacting with their companies' clouds.

But the same wifi is also available to people using their laptops or nebooks for leisure. So I foresee a future when, regardless of the hardware people are using, there could be many different types of interface based on different metaphors.

At the moment Linux is the only OS which allows this flexibility.

I think it important to differentiate what is meant by "Desktop". On the one hand there is the Desktop PC which usually has substantial resources (as compared to the average Laptop, Netbook, Tablet or Smartphone). The Desktop PC seems to be in decline as these other form factors take rise, but it isn't going to go away completely because it is easier/cheaper to put more resources into the Desktop PC form factor than into the other form factors.
On the other hand there is the Desktop interface with windows, icons, menus, etc. This Desktop interface has a few shortcomings, including that it only presents to the user local files and applications while leaving network/internet resources up for the user to discover; or that it focuses more on files and folders than on data and content. The Desktop interface is the legacy interface that is being replaced by alternatives like the netbook and smartphone interfaces. KDE has already started breaking away from the legacy Desktop interface with the KDE4 series, wherein it introduced plasmoids as views into different resources including internet-based resources; as well as adding new interface form factors starting with the netbook interface.

With more individuals and companies writing code for Desktop Linux (be it Gnome, KDE, GTK, Qt, distributions or what-have-ye), I'd hardly pronounce it, "dead". Where, "success" has been defined as, "providing an alternative to Microsoft Windows that is completely Free Software", it's never been more successful.

Madman wrote:With more individuals and companies writing code for Desktop Linux (be it Gnome, KDE, GTK, Qt, distributions or what-have-ye), I'd hardly pronounce it, "dead". Where, "success" has been defined as, "providing an alternative to Microsoft Windows that is completely Free Software", it's never been more successful.

I don't know what you meant but, for me Linux Desktop has been an excellent alternative to Windows.

"Success" should be defined as "market share", that's all.

If you use Market Share to define success, then you're missing the point of a community-based project.