Linux is the quiet revolution that will leave Microsoft eating dust

Jun 27, 2014 by Andrew Smith, The Conversation
Linux is already at your party. Credit: John Vetterli, CC BY

Linux, the most widely used open source operating system in the world, has scored a major publicity coup in the revelation that it is used on 94% of the world's top 500 supercomputers.

Every operating system has technical issues and Linux has not been faultless. But some key technological milestones have been passed in recent years that have made it possible for Linux to quietly assert dominance in the fight for popularity and custom.

Apart from the fact that it is free and has been since its creation in 1991 by Linus Torvalds, Linux has many technological advantages that mean other operating systems just can't beat it.

Millions of people all over the world use Microsoft operating systems but how many describe themselves as enthusiasts? Linux users are often really passionate about the open source cause and this is boosting uptake. They argue that it is more secure than main rivals Apple and Microsoft, with technical features that win hands down. The fact that the most powerful and expensive computers in the world are using it is potentially the best reference you could want.

Quiet revolution

It's easy to see why Linux appeals to the people who operate supercomputers. Linux can support multiple processors and large clusters of computers, unlike IBM, VMware and Microsoft who prefer to charge per processor on many of their products. As long as you are capable of writing the software to solve the problem, Linux will allow you to create your own complex supercomputer or cluster system for free. As organisations who host these types of systems have the financial power to pay for the personnel, the supercomputers themselves become very powerful, efficient systems used to solve many computational problems.

But the fact is, even if you think you are bound to Windows or some other proprietary operating system, you are probably already a Linux user too. When you visit a website, the chances are that it is using an Apache2 webserver. This is free and designed to integrate with the security and operating system features of Linux. Currently more than 60% of webservers are known to be hosting via Apache.

Android, developed by Google, is based on a Linux kernel and is now the most dominant smartphone and tablet computer platform. Android is more vulnerable to malware than Apple's OS but you are safe as long as you act sensibly.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether Android can hold on to its 80% market share in the face of stiff competition. Amazon and Microsoft are getting in on the territory, which could be a threat. But at least Ubuntu, another big rival, is also very much grounded in the open source movement. Used on many desktop systems around the world, this free and easy to use version of Linux has extended the life of many computers after Windows had folded under pressure.

And at home, embedded devices, like your broadband wireless router and cable television set top box are often using specifically designed versions of Linux. Linux is highly likely to be an integral part of your household – it just doesn't shout about it like Apple.

Clinging on

While I am an enthusiastic Linux user, I also have Microsoft at work and use Apple products too. The fact that Linux is based on the same Unix system from which the Max OSX system is derived means that it should be seen more as a cousin than a radical alternative to Apple offerings. And if the two are comparable, are you more likely to choose one that comes with a shiny laptop or one that is more functional but less chic? Some would continue to opt for the design features of a Mac.

And even though Microsoft's star often seems to be fading, its dominance of the market in the 1990s and early 2000s means that it is still a tough one to beat. Windows 8 has had many detractors but Microsoft is adept at learning from its mistakes and tends to rally with a better version the next time.

All that said, Linux is free and much more pervasive than the average computer user might think. You can easily install Linux on any home computer, many tablets and even your own private supercomputer, so you should think about switching. And if you think you never could, think about how much of your online life already depends on this quiet contender.

Explore further: Open source gives new life to old Windows XP machines

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

IBM to invest $1b in Linux, open-source

Sep 17, 2013

IBM said Tuesday it would invest $1 billion in new Linux and open source technologies for its servers in a bid to boost efficiency for big data and cloud computing.

Linux camp has key to Windows 8 boot lockout

Oct 14, 2012

(Phys.org)—Microsoft's rocky reputation with the open source community was not exactly obliterated with hardware news surrounding the upcoming launch of the operating system, Windows 8. Systems will come ...

Recommended for you

Microsoft skips Windows 9 to emphasize advances

Sep 30, 2014

The next version of Microsoft's flagship operating system will be called Windows 10, as the company skips version 9 to emphasize advances it is making toward a world centered on mobile devices and Internet ...

User comments : 43

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cgwworldministries
1.4 / 5 (17) Jun 27, 2014
This is a stupid article. It carries on about "supercomputers" Nobody is going to build a supercomputer for facebook. not even for gaming... I ran a Minecraft server based on Linux for a little while then switched to Windows Server 2012. It just got along better with my internal Mac and Windows clients. When am I going to NEED a mainframe? IBM just introduced Windows on Mainframe. I wonder why they went to such lengths to do so? Windows has ran on mainframes forever. Windows performs better than Linux in almost every applicable way. I would even use Mac OS X server before I ever touch Linux ever again for ANYTHING.It is the most painful OS to use for anything. Real world usage, Windows is just better in every way. FOSS community is all but quiet, they scream and pound their chests for you to use Linux, then when you choose a distro they pound their chests in protest that you made the wrong choice! Sorry Windows isn't going anywhere and neither is this article.
cgwworldministries
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 27, 2014
There are 457 supercomputers in the world, and 1 runs Windows. Windows placed 58th on the list, simply because it runs on older hardware. Yet newer hardware with Linux only barely outpaces it. I would love to see what Windows ran like on newer hardware. Linux users are crying in desperation here.
nkalanaga
4.8 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2014
My main reason for not considering Linux is that all of my programs are for Windows. Most are older, specialty programs, not from major software companies, and trying to migrate them to another OS would be prohibitive. Likewise, converting all of the files to new programs would take much time and money, although it could be done. So, I'll stick with Windows, which serves my purposes fine.
cgwworldministries
2 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2014
@nkalanaga I use Windows for various reasons. Sure 1 is applications, but also because it is the industry standard. If I develop for Windows, considering on the hardware you have, my application will run the same on your computer as it does mine. I don't have to worry if GTK or Qt will get in the way, what kernel version you might be running, what package manager you have, what minor changes to your distro were made that could interfere with my application. The list goes on and on. I can't hire a small dev team to work on an application for Linux over Windows, it takes more resources (not computing but monetary). We would develop it say for Windows 7 with Windows 7 in mind. It works the same on all Windows 7 machines and there is a good chance it will work with Windows 8.x and 9... I have 10 year old apps which work with Windows 7.
shavera
4.5 / 5 (10) Jun 27, 2014
The point of the article, as I read it, is that whatever platform you're running *on your device* is becoming trivial compared to the fact that increasingly, the actual programs are running on servers elsewhere. Your device is increasingly a thin client/terminal to some larger server/mainframe. So an increasing amount of computation that you are requesting to occur occurs on systems that are Linux-based.
grondilu
5 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2014
> Sure 1 is applications, but also because it is the industry standard.

I can understand some reasons to prefer Windows to linux for a desktop. The fact that most commercial applications are not available for Linux is a good one. But saying that Windows is an industry standard, and thus suggesting that Linux is not, is just wrong. Linux is a POSIX compliant Unix kernel. So please. Plus the very article of this thread points out that the vast majority of the most powerful supercomputers in the world run linux. If that is not a proof that linux is an industry standard, I don't know what is.
shavera
5 / 5 (5) Jun 27, 2014
Also, the world of embedded computing, and the "internet of things" to come is almost certainly going to be linux based. Embedded Linux is where it's at for a variety of systems.
grondilu
5 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2014
I don't have to worry if GTK or Qt will get in the way, what kernel version you might be running, what package manager you have, what minor changes to your distro were made that could interfere with my application. The list goes on and on. I can't hire a small dev team to work on an application for Linux over Windows, it takes more resources (not computing but monetary). We would develop it say for Windows 7 with Windows 7 in mind. It works the same on all Windows 7 machines and there is a good chance it will work with Windows 8.x and 9... I have 10 year old apps which work with Windows 7.


This is a very Procrustean argument. The solution for software portability should not be that everyone runs the same OS or the same environment.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (10) Jun 27, 2014
If that is not a proof that linux is an industry standard, I don't know what is.


Yes, perhaps for the supercomputer industry. Most people however are not using supercomputers.

The solution for software portability should not be that everyone runs the same OS or the same environment.


True, but Linux isn't offering a viable solution at the other end because it's just such a mess for the end user.

Popular end user distributions like Ubuntu can't even stay compliant between minor revisions 6 months apart and need to have a great deal of their software repackaged for seamless operation, and are utterly dependent on a centralized balkanized politicized repository system that is arguably worse than the gilded prisons of Apple and Google appstores, while you can just run the same Setup.exe across 20 years of different Windows versions and the program will probably just work.

Plain POSIX compatibility means jack **** as far as standards go.
IamVal
5 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2014
as a linux user for nearly half a decade now, I can attest that most of the opions in the comments are true, but navagateable.

You can run Virtualbox or Wine - 90% of non-game windows programs will run without a hitch on one of those, regardless of kernel.
as far as kernel differences and repositories, You can source and compile your own software and outside the repository there are still deb and other type files for installation purposes if the repository doesn't contain an example, though the first time through any of these paths can be a real bugger, even for the innitiated. But that's how it avoid mal-ware. Nothing gets installed that the user isn't fully aware of.

as far as for most less intense users, linux may not be your cup of tea, but for any power user, there's no alternative.
Really hard to beat free.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2014
Your device is increasingly a thin client/terminal to some larger server/mainframe.


Not sure if that was the point of the article, ...but it is certainly true, and renders arguments such as cgwworleministries more and more out dated.
otero
Jun 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jun 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jun 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tessellatedtessellations
3 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2014
I recently made the mistake of blowing $120 to try Windows again. It is still almost as much of a joke as it was back in '95. Do they actually hire people to add bloat and crashes? It takes 3x more disk and RAM than Linux and I can't see where it does a better job at anything. I don't even see why people think it is easier to use.

I use it for Netflix. I wanted to play around with a game project with Visual Studio but it would literally take all day to compile the project because of bloat causing excessive swap drive access. It crashes almost once per day. Hell, even trying to watch Youtube videos it skips like a broken record, never happens in Linux even with a bunch of large apps running.

The only good reason to use Win is the wider app selection. But the only reason there is more of a selection is because people keep using broken Windows so developers keep developing for it. WTF?
cgwworldministries
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 27, 2014
@Tessellatedtessellations

#1, what version of Windows did you purchase, because Windows 7 AND 8.x are both rock solid. Sure Windows 8 has a horrible UI, crashing and bloat? Windows 8 runs very happily on the same hardware Windows XP SP2 can.

#2 paying $120 for Windows? Are you mentally ill? On snagstuff.com Windows 7 home premium is $69.99 and that's not the cheapest I have seen it. You can buy an entire Windows 7 machine refurbished from Dell for $120!

#3 3x more ram and disk? Ubuntu and Windows 8 both require the same amount to be usable.

#4 You must have a really crappy processor to take all day to compile anything. I program all the time for Windows, VS 2012 takes about an hour TOPS on a core i3 3220.

#5 YouTube is either HTML 5 or Flash. If it skips then you either do not have enough ram, which it would skip on Linux or your Internet connection sucks.

1/10 trolling, 1 point for making me respond to your idiocy. I used Linux extensively and exclusively for about 4 years.
sakamba70
5 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2014
cgwworldministries,
That is you Loverock from ZDNET, right?
You are just as ignorant as he is...
457 supercomputers, bwahaha....ahahahahahhhahhhahah....
And no, Windows is not even in the top 200. Try again.
And by the way everyone is using supercomputers. Just think about the weather forecast.
And yes, Facebook runs on Linux.
cgwworldministries
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2014
I am not loverock
I happen to love Windows
out of the top 500, 457 run Linux
Windows IS in 58th as far as performance goes
using supercomputers from the browser is like eating popcorn and calling it steak
using facebook to argue for Linux LOLz I mean now you are trolling
arron77
4.7 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2014
This is just the beginning. Microsoft's Windows operating system will soon be diminished its identity in this world of fast computers. I am using Linux and feel the difference. I even have decided to pursue my carrier in this field and recently checked the free Linux self assessment modules available on
http://blog.truea...-assess/
which is worth reading for every Linux aspirants like me.
LinuxMaster
4.5 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2014
I am a IT Professional and have been in the computer world for over 30+yrs. I have masters in computer science and MSCE and all that stuff. I have used Freebsd and Linux o/s since the last 90's. I use Linux 85% of the time and Mac 10% and Windows 5%. Being an IT person and business owner and fixing lots of windows base computers and windows Servers thur the years, I am thankful to Microsoft for making their O/S' es the way they do, Or else I would have no business. One of my clients is a Hedge Fund group that had nothing but issues under windows ( ie.. malware,virus,the usual suspects , switched them over to Linux base servers and desktops, and after 2 yrs in use not "ONE" issue. Now they still use Windows on a few Linux desktop, but only in a virtual machine environment which is great. So please people and small business owners keep using windows !! and the ones that knows best, keep using what we know best....
Eikka
3.3 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2014
At the end of the day, there's nobody holding a gun to people's head to keep them from using Linux. If it was really worth the candle, people would start using it.

The fact that it has less than 2% user share on the desktop for decade after decade is a testament that it just isn't.

It just isn't designed for that particular task, and trying to spin how Linux runs supercomputers and Facebook, or you cellphone, is just a huge red herring. Particularily because you the end user never has to interact with Linux itself there, whereas on a personal computer it's just a crapshoot whether you can even get all your hardware to function correctly. I know I never have with Linux.

Which is why I don't use it.

JohnGee
4 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2014
I just built a Linux based desktop for a 70 year old couple migrating away from Windows XP. They love it and find it easy to use.
Doug_Huffman
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2014
@LinuxMaster, for us fixers, defective by design is a fine base for our customers.

I defenestrated WindozeXP more than two years ago, to FOSS and/or tightly encrypted, and have easily, by my lights - 65 y.o. consumer, climbed the learning curve. There is a reason US education is disparaged.
Eikka
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2014
The "would my grandmother use it" test is also a red herring because grandmother just clicks the web browser icon and won't even notice that the screen is not operating at its correct resolution.

Meanwhile, on my computer, in practice:
-where's the control panel for my printer where I can change the paper type?
-why do my surround speakers mute the subwoofer when I select "expand stereo" to hear music out of all the speakers? Why does it work only if the balance is set off center?
-why can't I just install software on another hard drive when my main drive is getting full?
-why does my laptop battery last a full hour less?
-no internet connection to repository; can't install any software via USB stick etc. due to dependencies
-why do I have to upgrade the entire OS to get the latest version of Firefox?
-why does it break in many many ways every time I do?
-the fastest way to fix a problem is still to reinstall everything
-every solution is a cryptic script that starts with "Sudo"
JohnGee
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2014
The screen is at the correct resolution.
The printers were easier to install than in Windows.
Surround sound works fine in Linux for me. I have yet to figure it out in Windows 7.
etc.

And the "grandmother" you speak of had very stringent requirements. It isn't a computer for words with friends.

Maybe computers aren't your forte.
Eikka
2.8 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2014
Maybe computers aren't your forte.


Emperor's new clothes fallacy.
http://en.wikiped...7s_Reply

The printers were easier to install than in Windows.


That wasn't the issue. The issue was the lack of essential functions due to generic drivers.

"Works fine for me" is also a common fallacy, because there are some combinations of "blessed" hardware that have proper support in Linux, and some that don't. For every "works for me" there are hundreds and thousands of people for whom it doesn't work, and you never hear of them because they aren't using and preaching about Linux, because it didn't work for them so they went elsewhere.

And the "grandmother" you speak of had very stringent requirements. It isn't a computer for words with friends.


But tell me, could they install and administer their Linux computer without you?

The whole point was that "granny" just uses the apps YOU set up for them, and never actually interact with Linux itself.
The Alchemist
4.7 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2014
Linux Mint Olivia: Installs easily. Boots within moments, doesn't crash, doesn't slow down, never takes long to do anything, Firefox and it free "office suit," are awesome, and doesn't present significant incompatibility problems.
Support is outstanding, any issues you have have already been resolved.
Do not trust anything outside Linux, Unbuntu, etc. sites; Microsoft sabotages it, deliberately or inadvertently.
It is how a computer should work.
Printer capability is essentially printing, nothing flashy, HP only.
BSD
5 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2014
It's no secret, the Microsoft http://www.busine...-2013-11 from Android patents than from X-Box platform, for example.


Due to MS patent trolling. Purchasing companies to get their patents to sue the likes of Google. Apple does the same thing. MS and Apple are losing the innovation battle and this is all they have left.

Above all, BSD and Linux are free, along with thousands of applications.
JohnGee
3 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2014
"Granny" couldn't set up a Windows PC either. Granny has no problems using the package manager to install programs. Once again, maybe computers aren't your forte.

You keep implying "granny" doesn't count because granny isn't an advanced user. If you were an advanced user, you'd have no problem setting up such a system.
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2014
Linux is also too simple to have (or need) virii.

Download from a sight to disk. Save your data. Partition your harddrive. Boot from disk. Go to homesite to correct known issues. Google "the first thing you should do after installing Linux.

Then erase and overwrite any any all Microsoft the helk out of your life, and good riddance! Because it is free and easy!
Jotaf
4.3 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2014
Being a user of both OS's, Linux distros can do a lot better if they want to appeal to non-techies in the long run. Sure, you can fire up a browser fairly quickly and do basic tasks, but there's an uncanny valey of awkwardness for the medium user.

A "SUDO password screen" as on Windows would go a long way. The most trivial tasks (e.g. change file permissions) require you to pull up the command line. System settings screens are abundant on Windows, on Linux you probably need to google for the correct incantation and homebrew solutions.

They could also have a common place where shared libraries are stored and their different versions are first-class citizens. Right now, having simultaneous different versions of dependencies (required by different applications) is a nightmare. Also, hands up if you had to create symlinks because a package was installed to the wrong folder (/bin, /usr/lib, /local/usr/lib). This should be managed intelligently by the OS, not the user!
eMJayy
5 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2014
Windows and Linux operating systems are both decent overall, but too many are giving Windows more credit than is due to it while blaming Linux for issues that have nothing to do with the operating system itself.

You blame Linux because a particular sound card doesn't get to operate flawlessly on the version of Linux you're using, while it shines when used with Windows. The thing is, that has nothing to do with Windows or Linux. The reason your stuff can even install at all on Windows is because of manufacturer support. Without it, Windows becomes completely unusable while Linux still manages to thrive in spite of it. If you applied the same manufacturer support to Linux, you'd get the same or better results and functionality on Linux operating systems. That's why Linux excels in so many other markets where it does get hardware manufacturer support. It's also hilarious to expect that every single Linux operating system not designed for the average user should be user friendly.
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2014
"Granny" couldn't set up a Windows PC either. Granny has no problems using the package manager to install programs. Once again, maybe computers aren't your forte.


Repeating the same fallacy doesn't make it work.

You keep implying "granny" doesn't count because granny isn't an advanced user. If you were an advanced user, you'd have no problem setting up such a system.


Granny doesn't count because Granny doesn't have to administer and set up their own computers. I do have to do that, and your implication that advanced users don't find Linux difficult to work with or generally dysfunctional is just begging the question.

alfie_null
5 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2014
Most of the comments relate narrowly to only of personal experiences on desktops. Raises the question: How do we measure dominance today? Will it be the same in the future? What are the trends in operating system environments? Probably not desktops. Although he doesn't say this, I see the question more of Microsoft and their closed environment vs. everything else.

For a variety of attributes unix-like environments are attractive platforms for experimentation. That's where new technology is spawned, new growth will originate. Microsoft comes to accept some of these attributes, but slowly, reluctantly. Many are antithetical to Microsoft's business model. Meanwhile their market domination, which is the only thing they have going for them, erodes. It's a hard situation for them to be in, and for them, I can't imagine a good solution.
Eikka
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2014
You blame Linux because a particular sound card doesn't get to operate flawlessly on the version of Linux you're using, while it shines when used with Windows. The thing is, that has nothing to do with Windows or Linux.


Yes, it actually has lots to do with Windows and Linux in particular.

Linux makes it difficult to write and maintain drivers because they're trying to "own" the drivers and use them as political leverage to force companies to open source theirs.

The problem is that "drivers" for many devices aren't just generic kernel modules that open up basic IO access to the hardware, because they include supporting software like the printer paper selection dialog, or an equalizer/effects control panel for a sound card that won't exist in the generic OS provided version. But trying to maintain custom software compatibility across the 400 flavors of Linux that actually exists is a nightmare, because you're utterly dependent on the distro "lords" to maintain your software.
Eikka
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2014
The reason your stuff can even install at all on Windows is because of manufacturer support. Without it, Windows becomes completely unusable while Linux still manages to thrive in spite of it.


Manufacturer support is a two way street, and Linux is hostile to manufacturers while the fans keep blaming them for everything that's wrong.

The difference is that Microsoft largely doesn't care what the end user does with their computers. They've simply built a platform that is stable enough that I can go to a supermarket and buy a cheap dongle, and it comes with a driver disc and it works.

Meanwhile in Linux, the manufacturer can't just hand me a CD or a URL to give me the drivers. If the people who keep the repositories for my distro don't like some piece of software, they won't maintain it, and it becomes that much more difficult for me to obtain it. Same thing with the drivers that they roll straight into the kernel; if the people doing that don't like X then tough titty for me
Eikka
1 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2014
This is still relevant:

https://plus.goog...eFDfRzNe

Desktop Linux distributions are trying to "own" 20 thousand application packages consisting of over a billion lines of code and have created parallel, mostly closed ecosystems around them.

The Linux package management method system works reasonably well in the enterprise (which is a hierarchical, centrally planned organization in most cases), but desktop Linux on the other hand stopped scaling 10 years ago, at the 1000 packages limit...

Desktop Linux users are, naturally, voting with their feet: they prefer an open marketplace over (from their perspective) micro-managed, closed and low quality Linux desktop distributions.
Pawl
2.3 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2014
Personally I cannot stand Linux, mostly for reasons already stated. Having said that, I also don't care one whit what other people want to use, it's NOMB and if someone is happy using Linux, who am I to condemn them? Having said THAT, I also note that Linux has been "taking over the desktop and consigning Windows to history" for at least 20 years and doesn't seem much farther along today than it did back then. Those reasons remain the same as well. I am not going to spend 10 weeks trying to learn enough about the Linux kernel to install a new piece of hardware when I can just install on my Windows box and go. Those who wish to do so are welcome--I am sure they enjoy the process, and more power to 'em--but I have neither the time nor inclination.
JohnGee
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2014
You are a poor administrator Eikka.
kaypee
4 / 5 (1) Jun 29, 2014
Not sure why this is news, considering that some version of *NIX has been the OS for supercomputers for at least 2 decades.
Lex Talonis
3 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2014
Haaa... Arguing furiously too and froe...

Linux - Windows

Windoze - Linux etc..

Microsoft have been releasing bloated crapware for as long as I can remember - bug infested in it's own right and so infestible with the assistance of many dead shits.

One of the things that I am so pleased about with Linux is that I am not having to spend hours of my computer time performing malware scans and it tends to be overall - very stable.

Sure the people managing Microsoft are doing everything they can to be as compatible unfriendly as they can - but they got as good as they ever did with XP and Office 2003...

After that it was just stupidity repackaged - with shit like "The ribbon" and other "fucking idiot" ideas.

Basically the people running MS have made no real innovation in the last 10 years... only stupid monopolistic ideas to keep people on their cash cow treadmill.

Upgrade, Upgrade, Upgrade and ever decreasing backwards compatability..... = forced arm twisting upgrade.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2014
... compared to the fact that increasingly, the actual programs are running on servers elsewhere. Your device is increasingly a thin client/terminal


Ok, enlighten me. How does this apply with the increasing prevalent use of 'apps' on the client?

It seems that, in fact, the movement is toward more processing to be done on the users device.

Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2014
One of the things that I am so pleased about with Linux is that I am not having to spend hours of my computer time performing malware scans and it tends to be overall - very stable.


Security through obscurity. Android is rife with malware, whereas desktop Linux isn't because a significant number of people use Android whereas less than 2% of desktop users use Linux.

Both are Linux.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2014
You are a poor administrator Eikka.


The same apparently goes for 98.6% of the personal computer user base that is left unimpressed by Linux.

What you're saying is basically: "Only the intelligent people can see the Emperor's new clothes. If you don't, you aren't."

But the emperor is naked.
JohnGee
3 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2014
Why do you keep conflating professionals with the average user? Your thinking is very muddled. You keep insisting on the distinction when it serves your purposes, and ignoring the distinction when it doesn't.
Dr_toad
Jul 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
not rated yet Jul 03, 2014
The only one I hated was SCO, and I wasn't alone. ..


that's odd but old hat now. I enjoyed using SCO-UNIX in its heyday. It allowed fairly easy 'C' code retrieval of variables and multiboard RS485 interfaces. Along with Wingz for report generation. Once again, way ahead of anything Microsoft software could do at that time.

And the T-Shirts were cool.