Talk:Linux adoption/Archive 1

Original Research / Citations Needed
The sections on "Motivations" and "Criticism" were originally based on the OSDL Desktop Linux Client Survey I believe, but have drifted somewhat with random additions. These sections do need tidying and citations, as noted by Rebochan on the article. There's plenty of published opinions about Linux out there though, so it shouldn't be difficult. —Pengo talk · contribs 22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

More examples
Some of these might be worth including in the article.--80.193.22.182 00:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Peruvian letter
The link to the Peruvian letter to Microsoft on OpenSource is now dead, and I can't find another. Obscurans 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maps
I am missing some maps. It would be cool to have e.g. a world map of adoption of linux on government level and in private and corporate sectors. More ideas, more concrete? Color code? --Ben T/C 11:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Linux in devices?
At this moment, I think the majority of Linux installations shipped by manufacturers is in devices - phones, PDAs, routers, switches, DVD players and so on. Does anyone have specific data that can be put into this article on those? --Alvestrand 17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Structure and Context
Long story short, a qualitative aspect would round out the quantitative statistics out there. What I'm listing is already represented, but can be expanded upon.

These are relevant to the past, present, and future: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablablob (talk • contribs) 12:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * moving away from only Microsoft is relevant in itself, because they had/have such a huge market share
 * Adoption of all Unix-like platforms is relevant because they are largely compatible (e.g. posix compliant software has a potential 10% desktop audience, not just the 1% in Linux)
 * When citing numbers, who and for what is relevant (e.g. 10% use a non-microsoft OS: average people for personal use? programmers working? companies using it for ... logistics, point-of-sale, automation ... ? )
 * indirect involvement is relevant, e.g:
 * windows users surfing Linux hosted sites
 * windows users using ports from Linux, such as programming languages and frameworks and software built on them - which extends the reach of compatible software for Linux users and developers
 * cross-platform software in general - as it lowers the burden of migration/adoptions between operating systems, including from MS to Unix-like
 * and so is virtualization (including type: virtualbox, xen, vmware)

POV push
AdrianTM, in what way would stating GNU/Linux instead of Linux be POV pushing? It just doesn't happen to be my view but also a fact that Linux is distributed in almost all cases with the GNU platform. Rather only writing Linux is false, since it refers to the kernel, even thou it's used that way in common speach. GNU/Linux makes it all more clear. It was also a way of being consistent in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * While I wouldn't call it "POV pushing" per se, I do agree with AdrianTM. Linux is the most widely accepted and used name for the operating system. And, if nothing else, keeps the naming in line with other Linux-related articles. —Pengo 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think it should state GNU/Linux because it is correct and clear to the reader what is meant. And ofcourse I think all other articles (and the rest of the world ;)) should change aswell, but since that is never gonna happen i'm not going to continue pushing this. It's all up to the rest of you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Linux refers to the Operating System, and in informal speech and writing to the whole enchilada (Excuse my informal use of the term enchilada to convey ... basically, 'entirety' - such as in a distribution). GNU refers to much of the software that found a home on Linux, and GNU/Linux therefore refers to both. It also points to and reminds us of the role of GNU (hey look! this document is covered by the GFDL, I wonder what the 'G' stands for? anyway) played in the development of Linux and Linux software. In the end, it's really not worth fighting over unless your in it for the thrill of the action. As for the rest of us, both terms represent somewhat informal, but easier to say and quicker to type than e.g. "the collection of system and user software centered around the Linux Kernel" - and even that's a bit informal and certainly incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laskdfj456 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section could use some TLC: when I got to it, it was a mislabeled list of potshots from people who don't like linux. I replaced the unrevealing title of 'other factors' with something more representative of the existing content, but there is a lot more that could be done. - criticism directly from major players (as in `notable` in the wikipedia sense of the term) - balance and context: as opposed to potshots from armchair generals -  generally, more encyclopedic

The section was clearly just an 'Axe to Grind' section, that I simply cleaned up a little by labeling it for what it was and listing who said what (it was originally anonymous jabs). There is however, a genuine place within an encyclopedia for public criticism from competitors, and the rise of such criticism (as a historical event for example), and maybe this section can become home to such -  what has Microsoft said about linux and when did they say it? Did the SCO trial merely fizzle out, or did the judge chastise the complainant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laskdfj456 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I originally entitled the section "Other Factors" as they are other factors to why desktop adoption of Linux is only 1%. Of course, typically those factors will be criticism, but not all; e.g. the SCO lawsuit is not criticism in itself, for example, as it was merely about alleged incorporation of code. Additionally, the title you have picked, "Attacks from Competitors", is untrue because Gartner is not a competitor of Linux, and although I didn't mention it explicitly, the "Novell boosts its Linux desktop" article cites IDG, also not a competitor. I think it is important to keep it with the "On desktop computers" section because those factors are primarily related to the desktop adoption. So, I have placed the majority of the previous content back into the original place.
 * You have rephrased the initial sentence to "With the success of Linux, has come increased hostility from competitors such as SCO complaining about copyright infringement and Microsoft injecting doubt regarding the total cost of ownership of Linux." I find the idea that Linux is a "success" to be a bit of a stretch because of its low desktop adoption -- the cited article says "Ultimately, consumers and decision makers need to look carefully at the data including the sources of the data and the criticism and decide if Linux is the right decision, but as more people choose Linux and it finds its place in the market, it is bound to wear a target. That's simply the price you pay for success in the marketplace." I find that quite balanced -- Linux is arguably quite successful in other areas, like servers and embedded devices, but it has not gained much traction on the desktop. In relation to the total cost of ownership part of your sentence, it is not just Microsoft. There is Gartner, and if you look carefully at the "Novell boosts its desktop adoption" article you also see a warning from IDG: "The cost and complexity of moving employees off a well-established platform continues to be the biggest hurdle to Linux desktop adoption, says Al Gillen, research director, system software, at IDC." For those reasons I have decided not to include your rephrasing of the first sentence. I also believe that it is better to have the citation as close as possible to the text that it relates to so there is no confusion. (Your rephrasing moved some of the citations together.)
 * It is notable that Green Hills is an operating system vendor though so I have incorporated that with some changes. I don't know if "competitor" is the right term and as the cited article does not mention it as such I have dropped that word. Green Hill does come off as if it is threatened by Linux but that is a POV not supported by the cited source so it would not be prudent to publish something like that on the article page.
 * Regarding what Microsoft has to say about Linux: I have personally refrained from citing any Microsoft sources on this page because other editors allege it does not meet the "reliable sources" guideline. In my opinion, those editors are simply pushing their own POV (that Microsoft is unreliable). Ideally, I would like to see Microsoft's POV and the opposing POV rather than the complete censorship of Microsoft-sourced information.
 * Regarding the SCO trial: That information would probably be better on the SCO-Linux controversies page.
 * You imply that what is written does not come from "major players" but I don't understand why. I also don't understand what you mean by "potshots from armchair generals". If you can find stuff to cite that supports an opposing view, please add it. Keep in mind that the purpose the the "other factors" section is not to criticize but to give possible reasons why desktop adoption is so low. Particularly, you might want to add citations to the "Motivations" section, because I have a strong urge to delete the whole section -- If the "reliable sources" guideline is enough to keep Microsoft off Linux-related pages, then the "Verifiability" POLICY should be ample justification for me to delete that largely uncited Motivations section. ;-) --118.208.113.76 (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This article about adoption of GNU/Linux is being taken over by FUD... For instance the thesis that adoption of GNU/Linux is low and needs to be explained by a long list of doubtful criticisms is false. NetApplications data that shows <1% is seriously biased towards adoption in North America by business. In the world adoption of GNU/Linux is much higher, but hard to measure. In 2008, ASUS alone claims to sell 5 million netbooks with about 30% running GNU/Linux. If there are 1000 million PCs active, that contribution is .15% growth. ASUS has several powerful competitors also doing well in the netbook market. Production of netbooks has been limited by supply and not by demand so this large growth rate will continue. Other sites like w3schools.com show much larger shares due to GNU/Linux and it is likely that non-English statistics would be much higher.

Criticisms of GNU/Linux would be more appropriate in an article on GNU/Linux. It is not appropriate here. Adoption of GNU/Linux has been growing dramatically for many years at a rate higher than PC production. The latest 10-Q from Microsoft shows they are losing market share seriously. Apple is holding around 3% from their 10-Q numbers. GNU/Linux is filling the gap. IDC shows PC production is growing about 18% for 2008. Microsoft shows client licence unit growth of 8%. PC production is about 300 million per annum. That means the dramatic growth of GNU/Linux is 30 million machines per annum, 3% of all existing PCs. GNU/Linux share could well be 10%. Pogson (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is aquotation from Microsoft's 10-Q see [10-Q] "OEM revenue decreased $46 million or 1% while OEM license units increased 8%. The decline in OEM revenue reflected the four percentage point decrease in the OEM premium mix to 71% as well as changes in the geographic and product mixes. Based on our estimates, total worldwide PC shipments from all sources grew 10% to 12%, driven by demand in both emerging and mature markets." From that, one would estimate that Microsoft had 90% of client OS units but this is contradicted by information that the PC shipments grew at a much larger rate, 14.6% see [IDC]

Thus, it is true that Microsoft's client OS share must be less than 90%. Similarly Apple's 10-Q publishes units shipped and the difference, largely GNU/Linux must be near 7%. The conclusion is unavoidable that the NetApplications sample must be biased.

Pogson (tapress releaselk) 14:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that the Net Applications data is too low on Linux use. My own websites show around 10% Linux hits most months, versus 83% Windows and 5% Mac. The problem is that we need another acceptable source of better data to replace it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Split to "Open source software adoption"?
I see there is some content related not to Linux directly, but rather to FOSS in general. Do we want to split that content to something like Open source software adoption?--Kozuch (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but I urge for the subject title Free software adoption and link similar terms (as above and the original) to this article. Furthermore, Kozuch's proposal avoids starting an argument whether it should be "Linux adoption" or "GNU/Linux adoption".--Hulten (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree these would really be two separate articles. Linux adoption is a subset of Free Software Adoption. There is a lot of free software that is, for instance, "Windows Only". I would suggest that a new article be created for Free Software Adoption and any content in this article that is not clearly Linux in nature should be moved there. That new article should have a section on Linux Adoption that directs people to this article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tagged for "Free and open source software adoption" - hopefully best name compillation ever for this.--Kozuch (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I wouldn't wait too long to do it, given that the material you are looking to relocate is really "off-topic" this technically isn't a true split. The article name isn't that critical, but there should be redirects form most conceivable other titles, like Free Software Adoption, Open Source Software Adoption, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PS - don't forget to add the new article to Template:FOSS - Ahunt (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Lacking any movement on this in the last couple of months I am just going to clean-up the existing article to remove off-topic non-Linux adoption text. In my opinion there isn't enough material to start a new article on Free Software Adoption left over from from what is removed this article and so establishing it would require some dedicated research and the location of a large number of refs. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Work completed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your effort. I moved some of the stuff to FOSS though as I dont like deleting content. Take care, Kozuch (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds great - that is probably a good place for it! - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Government adoption
French police Gendarmerie Nationale is changing to Ubuntu, but they aren't done yet. Just 5,000 computers are done and they change 10,000 more this year. They say that all of their 90,000 computers will be done by 2015. Source: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/03/french-police-saves-millions-of-euros-by-adopting-ubuntu.ars OjM (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point - fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Some articles with Linux desktop market share
Linux Desktop Market Share: Greater Than One Percent? May 4, 2009 By Bruce Byfield http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3818696/Linux-Desktop-Market-Share-Greater-Than-One-Percent.htm

Microsoft's 7 a 'change of tack' from Vista. May 05, 2009 By Fran Foo http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25428580-15302,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.44.172 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that was useful and has been incorporated! - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Massachusetts - Open Format
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=itdtopic&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Open+Initiatives&L2=OpenDocument&sid=Aitd

Massachusetts, as of September 5, 2005, has adopted the OASIS OpenDocument format and was congratulated by IBM, Adobe, Corel & Sun Microsystems for doing so. Altonbr 16:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * irrelevant. article is about linux adoption.

Perryizgr8 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

unencyclopedic statements and unverifiable sources
please ahunt, provide valid, accessible references and do not present opinions of people as statements of fact. in the reasons for adoption section, a ref to 'the economist' is useless. you need to be a subscriber. also, the sentence for which the reference was made was not put inside double quotes and hence it appeared as if it was wikipedia's opinion. removed. Perryizgr8 (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is in quotes and the ref has been repaired to allow access for subscribers and non-subscribers. An opinion from a very respected journal, such as The Economist is not "unencyclopedic statements". Please stop breaking quotes and removing citations. Uncited quotes are not permitted. Please see WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:DEADLINK, "Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information." In this case I have added a second link to a site where the article is quoted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * okay, sorry. i missed the alternate link.Perryizgr8 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, all part of the learning process! - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu images everywhere
I have reverted the replacement of a Knoppix image with an Ubuntu image. The article already includes one Ubuntu image. The argument that "Ubuntu is more popular than Knoppix" is not relevant, these images are here to show the diversity of Linux, not to just show one distro over and over again. If your argument were valid then all images on all articles about Linux in general must only show Ubuntu. Also the Ubuntu desktop image inserted is bare, it shows nothing but the desktop wallpaper, it illustrates nothing of use. Just to show that this is not a POV, I should point out that I am an Ubuntu user, but other distros need some exposure as well. - Ahunt (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Supercomputers and Linux speed
The statement that Linux is used in supercomputers due to its "superior performance and speed" was marked and the template removed because the statement was backed (in the article of Vaughn-Nichols I suppose).

The article is written in an informal style and the statement is not backed up by any reasoning, in fact it is not even explicit. It is clear that the author thinks the performance is the reason, but it is not clear whether he has thought seriously about the matter. Is the person an authority in the field?

For other reasons to chose Linux see e.g. Linux elbows into super-computer turf (2003) or Linux Computer Smashes Petaflop Supercomputer Barrier (2006).

--LPfi (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ref, I incorporated the newer one into the article and added "flexibility". That article directly supports "performance" as well. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Trasz seems to be having a problem with the cited refs supporting the text in the article, in particular where it says: "Linux is the most popular operating system among supercomputers due to its superior performance, flexibility and speed" and keeps tagging the text despite the supporting refs. I have invited him/her to discuss here.


 * Quote from cited ref: Linux Computer Smashes Petaflop Supercomputer Barrier : "At NASA we are working to solve some of science’s most complex challenges, so an operating system that can help us achieve the highest level of computational functionality is very important,” said William Thigpen, Engineering Branch Chief in the NASA Advanced Supercomputing Division in a statement. “In selecting an operating system, performance and flexibility are two of our top considerations. The right operating system helps us to push the boundaries of computing performance and bring new levels of innovation to our space, science and aeronautics programs." ... For NASA, that right operating system is SUSE Linux. For almost all supercomputer users, it’s Linux."


 * Quote from cited ref: Linux: It doesn't get any faster "In the latest ranking, where performance is everything and nothing else matters, Windows is stalled out at the starting line, and Linux is lapping the field...When being the fastest of the fast is all that matters, Linux isn't just winning, it's extending its lead."


 * I think this sufficiently supports the claims made. - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also added the 2003 ref supplied above by User:LPfi Linux elbows into super-computer turf which says "The Linux-based system resulted in not only faster processing and better customer service but also lower costs,"

London Stock Exchange
Hey there, do we want to start a section on "readopting" (readoption?) of Linux? Recently LSE readopted Linux to Windows again... I think there is more such a cases out there that could be referenced, but I did not conduct any research on references yet.--Kozuch (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like it is worth noting (there is already a ref cited on this in the article, but no note). I am not sure it should be a separate section unless there is more than one case, though. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Rentalia by Ruben Rio Rey
I deleted a link to an article written by Ruben Rio Rey about how he migrated a company called Rentalia to Linux. Neither Rey nor Rentalia is notable. Rey is a Linux aficionado in Australia, and Rentalia is a small company that he serviced. The story is self-published by an unknown, so it fails our reliability test. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

sony ps3 linux feature removed?
http://www.osnews.com/story/23075/Sony_Does_180_Removes_Other_OS_Feature_from_PS3

i think there was a firmware upgrade disabling the option to install any other os besides the original ps3 os. this is often thought to be a reaction on the hack which provided full memory access for the console. afaik there's another hack which brings linux back to newer versions of the ps3. people using ps3 clusters as supercomputing units must not upgrade their systems, as that will remove any self-made software (i think). 62.227.231.158 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Announcements
The page tells about announcements, some of who's deadline has passed for their implementation. Can anyone with information follow through on finding out if it was adopted (and how many) in those cases? i.e "German Foreign ministry is migrating all of its 11,000 desktops to Linux and other Open source applications.[42]" IRWolfie- (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In many cases organizations make announcements when they start a project like a desktop migration, but not when they finish it. If reliable refs can be located these items can be updated. - Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Android
Should there be a section on Android adoption? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Android is a Linux distro, so adoptions of it by companies, schools, research institutes, etc can be included in this article. We haven't divided the article up by distributions for Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, etc so far so I am not sure there is a compelling reason to do so with Android. - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So what's the rate?
The most basic information I'd like to see here is what is the number of installs and how that compares to other platforms. I'd like to know the rate of adoption. There's a lot of different figures given, but they are not brought into a simple, clear paragraph or two. The best guestimate I've seen is somewhere between 2 and 12% of the desktop market, and between a third and 80% of the web facing server market. If we can't get good figures, then somewhere (in the intro ideally), it should say that there are estimated x-y number installs and/or x-y percent of various sector (server and desktop seem notable, but maybe the portable segment, too). Then a reader coming to this page could see quickly, "Oh, it is used on about 10% of desktops, and 70% of web servers". Or something. 203.49.129.67 (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If that information was available and concise it would be there in the lead. If you have a better ref than the vague numbers presented then by all means add it! - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Post-2010 events
Why is there nothing written about what happened in 2011 and 2012? Could somebody take their time and write it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.182.170 (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not a lack of time, it is a lack of references. What should be mentioned under these years and what refs do you have? - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)