Marius,

As 'Technology News Editor', you should be a little more conscious about referencing sources of information.

You provide no reference whatsoever to your 1% install base figure for Linux. So does that mean I can assume it's a guess, at best?

Take a look at:

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/32648.htm
http://www.macminute.com/2004/08/04/linux
http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/06/21/154203
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/12/19.13.shtml

These are articles from years ago. Mac and Linux have been competing for the #2 spot for some time. The bottom line is that you can't measure Linux market share, because most desktop Linux machines were purchased with Windows pre-installed (So they contributed to Windows market share), and then Windows was removed and Linux installed from a free download (Which does not contribute to the market share numbers used by any of the big analyst firms. Now, you might argue that this is offset by piracy, but I just don't buy that. Windows has so much built in code to prevent piracy now, that it's more trouble than it's worth. Quoting high piracy rates mean nothing, because those rates include all software, not just Windows.

Either way, Mac and Linux are both very close to 5% install base, and they are probably too close to call, statistically speaking. But there is no doubt that the figure is larger than the 1% you're throwing around.

-Jeremy

A few other issues I wanted to address... First and foremost, you clearly lack some basic understanding of how open source software works. You might want to do a little more research before making some of these claims.

You said:

"In the first half of 2007, Microsoft patched a total of 38 vulnerabilities in its Windows operating system. Linux distributor Red Hat plugged three times more security holes in its open source operating system in the same period. Now how will the costs associated with deploying patches for 91 vulnerabilities in Red Hat Linux be inferior to that of installing updates addressing 38 vulnerabilities in Windows?"

Maybe you should learn to read. In the material you referenced, I read:

"There were 90 unpatched enterprise vendor vulnerabilities in the first half of 2007, which is down from the 94 documented in the second half of 2006. Microsoft had the most unpatched vulnerabilities of any enterprise vendor during both of these periods."

So Microsoft didn't release as many patches because Microsoft left more things un-patched... Hrm, which is worse? Releasing fewer patches, or leaving things unpatched?

Also, RedHat releases patches for more than just the core OS. Any and all software that is installed via the RedHat up2date or YUM tools, is automatically updated. Microsoft provides no such tools. On RedHat and other Linux distributions, nearly all applications that 95% of users need are available through these tools. This means that nearly ALL applications installed on a Linux box are kept up to date. Take a look at the Symantec report you referenced again, on page 57. Notice that 21% of the RedHat patches addressed issues in the 'Other' category because of this very reason. Microsoft had 0% in the 'other' category.

So, let's review. Microsoft left more vulnerabilities unpatched, and they don't even release patches for all aspects of the system as RedHat does. And you somehow managed to spin this as a negative for RedHat???

Next issue...

You said: "And to tap it all off, the Globalization Institute considers all users technical savvy to the point where all of them will be able to deploy an operating system, any operating system on an empty machine. "We do not believe this would add complexity for consumers. Consumers would simply be asked to insert an operating system DVD when they first turn on a new computer, which would then automatically configure itself,""

This may be true for Windows. But try installing a Linux distro. Try one of the user friendly ones such as Ubuntu or Linspire. They take about 25 minutes to install and require almost no user intervention. You just answer a couple simple questions and press 'Next'. Maybe if people actually had to install Windows because it didn't come pre-installed, Microsoft might actually try to make the install process a little simpler.


You said:

"there are over 1,000 official distributions of Linux. Will a certain Linux vendor be preferred over the others?"

You asked a question for which 1.) You knew the answer and even if you didn't... 2.) It doesn't matter.

Why would the Globalization Instituteprefer one over the other? The point is to let the user choose. There may be over 1000 distro's out there, but most of them are based on one of the major distro's. Just because there are over 1000 distro's, doesn't mean a typical computer user would know that. Presumably the vendor would offer ones that include commercial support, which would narrow the list down to about 6 or 7 Linux vendors. From there, they would simply inform the user which one is easiest to use and install (Probably Ubuntu, Xandros or Linspire) and the user would be on their way.

You said:

"Wouldn't such a move create a monopoly in the Linux world, with some top developers such as Novell, Red Hat or Canonical getting the lion's share of the market while the others are pushed to the background?"

Again, you demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of open source. This is already how it is. Most distributions are non commercial, and were only created to scratch some developers itch. RedHat, Novell, and Canonical are already by far the top dogs, especially Canonical on the desktop. This move would have no affect on that.

"And who will test and give out usability certifications for over 1,000 different distributions of Linux on all the computers shipped by the OEMs?"

Again, it would not be 1000s. It would be 6-7 at most. And even then, they only need to test device drivers. Anything not hardware related would not be applicable to be tested by the HARDWARE vendor, correct? So you boot up each distro, test sound, monitor resolution, run a couple benchmarks. You're looking at an hour to test each distro, so maybe a full day to test all 7. What's the big deal?

And in all honesty, the Globalization Institute would probably allow a hardware vendor to select a single preferred Linux vendor if a vendor did not want to support more than one. Different hardware vendors may select different distro's... But what's the big deal? If I want Ubuntu, I'll just go to a hardware vendor that tests/supplies Ubuntu.

Now, given that I think you obviously know very little about open source, and you should be ashamed of making some of the claims you have made against it when you know it so poorly... I will concede that I agree with you, that you shouldn't force vendors to sell PCs without an OS. However, the option to buy a PC with an alternative OS, or no OS at all, SHOULD be required by hardware vendors. I SHOULD have the choice to buy a PC without windows should I want it.

-Jeremy

Well done Jeremy :)

I agree with you totally on this article. Does the author (Marius) work for Microsoft?

I think he should replace his article for yours as yours is better written, with a far clear understanding of what an OS is.

All the best

Dave

Well, maybe author works for MS, but Jeremy is obviously IT Linux user, who works for Linux. ;)
You are both right in some things. But eg Windows also patches aplications within, like IE, Windows Mail, Notepad and ect. About OS usage, it is ussually based on the network statistic, not on the number of preinstalled OS and Linux has 1-5% based on the webpage. It might seem, that almost everyone uses Linux, but that is because of noobs spamming forums trying to persuade everyone to use it, like Firefox users and ect. By noobs I mean noobs, not Linux IT users, who does not have to do it, becuase they know about its qualities. Anyway, if someone do not want to have preinstalled OS, he can simply buy components, build PC and install OS himself, no big deal and if he can not do it, then he can not install OS anyway. I would love to see those "big heads" from EU to install OS, with drivers and so on, to their PCs by themself. :)

"But eg Windows also patches aplications within, like IE, Windows Mail, Notepad and ect."

Microsoft only patches components that are included in the OS. So you're 'Windows Mail' (Which is actually called Outlook) would get patched. But if you installed any other mail client, it would not be. On RedHat I can install any number of mail clients, and all of them would receive automatic updates.

"About OS usage, it is ussually based on the network statistic, not on the number of preinstalled OS and Linux has 1-5% based on the webpage."

Please provide a link to your source.

Linux 'market share' numbers are based on dollars of sales, not network statistics. Do a Google search for 'Linux Market Share', you will see that they all quote 'Unit sales'. not 'network statistics'.

See:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918001_mz001.htm?campaign_id=nws_insdr_jan21&link_position=link1

There are websites that quote network statistics, but that method has it's own problems as well:

1.) They are usually Linux related sites, so they have a much higher percentage of Linux users, much higher than 5%.

2.) They rely on the user agent string which is passed by the client's web browser. This isn't an issue for IE, but the web is full of less than qualified web developers who use these user agent strings to filter out alternative web browsers from viewing content. Firefox has an extension that allows you to change the user agent string to anything you like, and users often change it to IE on WIndows to get around bad website coding. So again, this statistic favors Windows and IE.

"Anyway, if someone do not want to have preinstalled OS, he can simply buy components, build PC and install OS himself"

Uhh, no. I'm more than capable of building a system myself, but I should not have to do that to get a PC without Windows. Just because I can build my own PC does not mean I should not have the option of letting someone else do that for me. Buying prebuilt gives me a single vendor to go to for problems, warranty, upgrades, etc. They also test the hardware combinations to make sure that Card X works with Motherboard Y. Also, if I were a small business owner, and needed 10 PCs, I suppose you'd expect me to build all 10?

"Jeremy is obviously IT Linux user, who works for Linux."

IT Linux user, yes. Works for Linux? No, because there is no company named 'Linux', for one thing. But seriously, I am not, nor have I ever been employed by any Linux vendor. My last employer was Cognos Incorporated (Business Intelligence), and while I had the opportunity to support Cognos software on Linux, the majority of our installations were on Windows.

Before that I was a Workstation/Network Technician at a college district. I was responsible for about 200 Windows PCs, Active Directory, DNS. I had to manage group policy and maintain login scripts, deploy software, etc.

I'm very familiar with Windows Server and Windows desktop products. I just happen to prefer Linux.

-Jeremy

By patching aplications withinVista I meant, that it counts to fixed vulnerabilities as well as it counts in Linux distributions. BTW, Outlook is actually called Windows Mail in Vista. ;)

Talking about patching 3-rd party aplications in Linux, that it is one of its many advantages. :)

OS usage, well if someone does not use net statistic, then it can not be taken seriously and if someone does such a statistic, well I hope, that at least he can do it properly and detect whetever it is Windows or Linux.

Not sure about countries, but in my country, in Europe, I can buy PC without OS, not sure if all, but definitelly some, including notebooks without OS or with free Linux, so I am not quite sure, what it is all about.

"By patching aplications withinVista I meant, that it counts to fixed vulnerabilities as well as it counts in Linux distributions."

... Huh? :p I'm sorry, but I did not understand that at all, English please!

Most Linux distro's release patches for all applications, even 3rd party ones, given they are installed via the software update tool provided by that distro. This includes sound applications, device drivers, office suites, mail applications, video editing, PDF viewer, you name it. These are all kept up to date by the distribution vendor, IE: RedHat.

"well I hope, that at least he can do it properly and detect whetever it is Windows or Linux."

I already explained this to you. It can not be done 'properly' because you're relying on the clients browser to provide accurate information, which it often times does not. The user is free to modify the user agent string as they please. You can not rely on it to be accurate.

In the United States, until recently it has been nearly impossible to buy a PC without an operating system (or even with an alternative one). Until Dell started offering Ubuntu, the only other choice you had was their FreeDOS PCs, of which there were very few, and no laptops. There were a few smaller vendor's that would sell non Windows PCs, but they have been few and far between.

-Jeremy

Jeremy is definitively right on with his comments.

But man, perhaps you should think that technology literate people and the average joe dont see computers the same way... so theres really no reasoning to be made with them.

To normal people, theres some placebo effect to know an OS has fewer patches. Heck i would not care if windows had fewer vulnerabilities, but more how more serious were they compared to the Linux ones. *sighs* theres just no more cirtical thinking anymore.

Hopefully Microsoft will pull another Vista in the future making Linux enter more users pcs, specially the lower end pc market