Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Migration
Counting desktop Linux users is impossible
Share
Print
CommentsIDC analyst Dan Kusnetzky is one of the world's most quoted individuals when it comes to counting computer operating system use, especially Linux. But when you come right down to it, he's no more certain than anyone else just how many people use Linux as a desktop operating system.
But
The big "but" is that, according to Dan, the 1.7% figure accounts for "paid shipments only," which Dan readily admits may only include a small fraction of all desktop Linux installations. To begin with, he says IDC's research shows that for every 10 copies of Linux sold, approximately eight copies are downloaded from the Internet for free, and that there may be something like 15 copies made, on average, from each downloaded or purchased copy. Not only that, Dan says he personally knows a corporate IT manager who made not just 10 or 20, but 6,000 (yes, that's six thousand) copies from a single set of downloaded Linux CDs. Dan doesn't know how many of those copies went on servers and how many went on desktop machines, but either way, it doesn't take many corporate IT people installing a few thousand homemade copies of their favorite Linux distro to throw all the numbers out of whack.
Exact numbers aside, Dan says Linux desktop users "are still a tiny minority" in the world. Windows is still the Big Dog, with around 94% of all paid desktop operating shipments in the last year. Dan says IDC's figures show Mac's percentage is down slightly -- from 4.17% last year to 3.9% this year, and that "all other" operating systems account for less than 2% of the desktop total.
Remember, all the "hard" numbers are for paid shipments only. It's entirely possible that there are more *BSD desktop installations than IDC counted in its public figures.
Public vs. private figures
IDC is in the business of selling studies and reports, not giving them away. Dan says anyone who wants to see results of detailed operating system use surveys, as opposed to just shipment data, needs to either buy reports IDC has already written or commission his or her own study. (If you want to buy some of IDC's reports on Linux trends, you'd better make sure your credit card limit is measured in thousands of dollars, not hundreds, before you order.) Dan hints that some of the private reports may have figures notably different than the tastes the public gets of simpler, more easily obtained data. Perhaps so. Still, Linux is nowhere near "world domination" on the desktop. Dan says that Linux's biggest impact so far is, unquestionably, on servers. Indeed, Dan's own home office network runs a Linux server, while his primary "work" desktop runs Windows 95, which he says is still IDC's corporate standard, with a gradual companywide switch to Windows 2000 now in process.
Should Linux be counted as Unix?
Dan claims he's heard this request from more than a few Unix vendors, because on the server front, Unix and Linux combined have a market share equal to Windows if not greater. But to be officially called "Unix," Linux would have to be certified as "Unix" by The Open Group, keeper of the Unix copyright flame. So far, Dan says, "No one in the Linux community is interested" in obtaining Unix certification.
It's rather unlikely that, say, a whole lot of Debian or Gentoo developers are going to wake up one fine morning next year and suddenly decide they want their favorite Linux distribution certified as a jen-you-wine flavor of Unix(TM). But what about UnitedLinux? After all, Caldera-turned-back-into-SCO is one of the driving forces behind this consortium, and SCO is far more of a Unix vendor than a Linux vendor. Is it possible that all those Gentoo and Debian developers -- and all other Linux users and developers all over the world, could wake up one morning and find that UnitedLinux was really a kind of Unix, but that other distributions weren't?
This could create an interesting situation, possibly even a true Linux fork, except that UnitedLinux is working toward full compliance with the Linux Standard Base -- along with Red Hat, Debian, MandrakeSoft, and lots of other companies and non-profits including The Open Group itself. Would a UnitedLinux certification as "Unix" apply to other Linux distributions? If so, would anyone care besides a few SCO resellers and some of their stodgier customers? All this is just speculation, not the sort of thing Dan Kusnetzky or any other sane industry analyst would want to comment on even if we asked them.
The real Linux count
Is there such a thing? There's always the venerable Linux Counter, but it has fewer people registered than download each new Mandrake release in the first week it goes live on the mirrors, and there's a nice big "My guess at the number of Linux users: Eighteen million" note on The Linux Counter main page, with the link going to another page where the admittedly flawed methodology behind this guess is explained.
Linux is sneaky
Despite all those IBM ads showing Linux saving the game or whatever, and all the articles that get written about Linux, and all the Web sites -- including this one -- devoted to it, Linux is still an elusive, essentially non-mainstream phenomenon. It's kind of like one of those groups that comes out of nowhere and suddenly sets album sales records even though it's gotten little or no radio play.
The "stealth mode" aspect of Linux market penetration, especially on desktops, has disadvantages. If more hardware vendors saw Linux as a true up and comer, we'd see more Penguins on product boxes and laptop labels, and we'd certainly see more commercial software ported to Linux.
But on the other side on the coin, as long as Linux remains so elusive on the desktop and is so frequently undercounted, it means that its spread can easily be pooh-poohed and half ignored by a certain company that dominates the desktop operating system market so heavily that the U.S. government has taken it to court over its improper use of that monopoly. Personally, I wouldn't mind Linux keeping a low profile -- at least on the desktop -- for several years, and suddenly jumping into prominence, with ads saying, "Dude, you're getting a Dell running super-cool Linux," appearing all over the prime-time airwaves all of a sudden, and full-color ads suddenly showing up in every Sunday paper advertising the latest "Linux laptop blowout" at MegaloComputerMart locations all over the world.
Until then, maybe the desktop Linux market share numbers we see in the computer and mainstream media are accurate, and maybe they're not. I no longer care. The only desktop Linux market share figure in which I have total confidence -- and the only one I really care about -- is the number of Linux-running computers sitting on my desk, which just happens to be an easily calculated 100 percent.
Comments
on Counting desktop Linux users is impossibleNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
btw.......the open source developers know whats' linux's worth and its penetration there is absolutely no need to get them interested as they are totally deep into this.
The Colonel
It is not a big deal. Having linux support when the OS gets popular will have a huge advantage on the market.
Presold OS's don't reflect the actual install base
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 19, 2002 06:39 PM
It's darn near impossible to order machines without a pre-sold operating system from Redmond or elsewhere. They are simply not available in practice. All of the desktop machines I've seen or handled since 1986 have had PC/MS-DOS, MS-Windows or Macintosh OS pre-installed. In otherwords, with a pre-sold operating system.
Yet, in the last three years, none of the incoming desktop machines in my dept. were ever booted from the pre-sold operating system that came on the hard disk. Instead, the very first start was from a Debian/RedHat/Suse/YellowDog install CD each time. On paper that looks like 0% Linux. In reality it is 100%.
Re:Presold OS's don't reflect the actual install b
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 20, 2002 06:48 PMRe:Presold OS's don't reflect the actual install b
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 20, 2002 06:54 PMRe:Presold OS's don't reflect the actual install b
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 30, 2002 11:20 AM
It's darn near impossible to order machines without a pre-sold operating system from Redmond or elsewhere. They are simply not available in practice. All of the desktop machines I've seen or handled since 1986 have had PC/MS-DOS, MS-Windows or Macintosh OS pre-installed. In otherwords, with a pre-sold operating system.
Wow, someone who missed the fact that Walmart is selling machines with Lindows or Mandrake on them these days.
And there appears to be nothing M$ can do about it. M$ needs Wally world more than they need MS.
Think about it.
And you don't think one of those companies buying the detailed report from IDC is this certain company. My guess is that MS has a better picture of the Linux penetration on the desktop market than most companies/people (of course they won't disclose their information as it is their interest to picture Linux as a small minority - geek OS).
I think it is our (Linux users) interest to as accurate a picture of the Linux desktop penetration as possible since the estimates are probably lower than the real penetration.
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html
However, browsers might not be honest about what they say about the OS they run on.
hook
I think most of the 1% users was accessing google from a server looking for some open source package to install.
Once I complete a project for my Dad, he has already said he would switch every desktop machine in his plant to linux.
The facts are there. Face 'em.
X
Many spoofing window/Ie for compatability
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 20, 2002 06:44 AMI need to too access a few sites that don't allow anything but ie even though mozilla supports more standard html, css than any other browser.
Re:Many spoofing window/Ie for compatability
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 20, 2002 10:13 AMIts the only way, otherwise they will never change their shabby shortchanging views on web developing.
My company produces web sites for alot of high companies (sony, uk goverment etc), and seen 60% of our servers are Linux,
I make damn sure they support Mozilla or at least Nutscrape => 6.2
It would take one corporate app (with Outlook like penetration) and one individual user application (like Kazaa) to figure out by comparison with Windows figures what the linux market size is.
But no one has got any influence on anything like that happening...
Thats because there aren't any.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
I think it's more wise to focus on the areas where Linux can progress, like in the low-end server businesses (like printer, file and web-servers) and embedded applications.
Well, then I, my coworkers, my daughter , my son and his friends must be nonexistent.
I did not realise that...
Linux *is* viable on the desktop but will remain a niche OS because there's no media interest, hence no general consumer interest.
JERK!
At home the only operating system I use is Linux.
And if you think it's more wise to focus on non-desktop related ventures then go and tell Red Hat, Sun, and others that they're wasting their time. If you're so enlightened then obviously you'll be able to back up your opinions with some well thought out information...
Oh, almost forgot... : )
One of the Win machines now runs Linux, the Mac was given to me used with the OS already on it.
Now, what does that tell you about how accurate OS counts are? Multiply me by some large multiple because most Linux users put it on top of some version of Windows. All the Windows sales get counted, but only the initial Linux sale (if, indeed, they don't start life as a download). However, there is no way to count how many copies of Windows were over-written with Linux.
I couldn't be happier with my decision. I think it would be more wise for you to focus your attention somewhere other than your rectal cavity, and take a real look at things. You obviously have never tried to maintain a windows nt server with MS SQL. I have, and let me tell you, I'll take Redhat 7.3 and MySQL any day for data I plan on keeping around for more than 2 months.
Heh...
Funny... I thought it would take more time for them to get to this point.
Because GNU = GNU's not UNIX right?
Of course, this is ironic since it uses a kernel that was originally created as a UNIX clone for x86 based computers.
If UNIX is just a Brand name (like Windows) then no, GNU/Linux != UNIX. But if UNIX is used as an identifier for a type of OS implementation then yes GNU/Linux = UNIX (not 100% identical, but neither are HP-UX, AIX, Solaris or the other UNIXs)
Linux != GNU. The entire GNU system uses Hurd as the kernel. Linux just uses parts of the system (such as libc).
There is only one reason some people refer to Linux as GNU/Linux. RMS was mad about it stealing the thunder from his Hurd system. He started ranting about how everyone should say "GNU/Linux" because most (if not all) Linux distros use various GNU projects. That is true, but they also use projects from XFree86, IJG, Apache, etc. Why should GNU get special treatment?
Some people caved or agreed with him. Most just call it Linux and think Stallman is a jerk or laugh at him.
I have begun to think GNU/RMS is a bane on the free software community (free as in not charging money to use or copy it--not free as in "there can be only one license"). Yes, they wrote quite a few programs and libraries, however what gives them the right to try to dictate what everyone else does.
Would there really be no free compilers, libraries, system utilities written if GNU didn't exist? I doubt it. Maybe some things would be different, but I'm sure many people would have pitched in no matter if the license was GPL, BSD, Artistic or even POV-Ray's.
-Tai
From talking with people in my congregation and just out and about, there are a lot more Linux installs than most folks think.
A little client that sends information back to a central server to signify a new Linux workstation is in use. You know, each client has a unique ID nuber and sends trivial yet unique data back to certify validity, like the MAC address of the primary interface or something.
Please, don't. It seems very common on that OS, but don't bring such a trash to our beloved OS. One might get inspired and then make a backdoor of it, etc.
DeadFish Man
If you've got Linux on your desktop, you've got in on your desktop. Doesn't mean you have to use it 24/7 so I reckon that you're a 1 for both Windows and Linux.
YMMV
X
A few counterpoints.
IDC and other commercial reports are largely interested in the business of GNU/Linux, which is to say, commercial shipments. Studies and methodology are going to focus on dollars. Not until they find a client who's interested in marketing to the installed base will you see solid efforts to determine how large it is.
GNU/Linux doesn't need tremendous marketshare, it needs a viable development and user base. Unlike every other competitor Microsoft has faced, GNU/Linux can't be priced out of the market. So most of the community side developers don't particularly care how large the base is. If it's big enough to give them a decent toolset and, preferably, employment, it works.
The GNU/Linux community and market aren't the only ones with an interest here. Don't think for a minute that Redmond doesn't have a tremendous interest in what the actual picture is. And they're as much in the dark as the rest of us. And are painfully aware that the statistics for MS Windows are inflated by their own marketing practices. Unless they're not, in which case, please share your numbers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
Numbers I'd be interested in seeing are interest queries to major ISVs for Linux versions of desktop products, notably Quicken and tax preparation software, which are widely used and frequently replaced. This is likely a strong gauge for both commercial viability and actual size of the desktop space.
--
<A HREF="mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com">Karsten M. Self</a mailto>
<A HREF="http://twiki.iwethey.org/">TWikIWeThey</a iwethey.org>, an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.
Second; On a corporate level, it's very hard to justify buying anything that isn't name brand with a 3 year 'kiss my ass when it tanks' warranty. Remember that even small companies have 50-500 computers. If that means a forced buy of Windows, it's the price that has to be paid. It would be a good idea to weigh the options and insist on Linux where possible for the pre-built systems.
Finally; You aren't helping anyone by mangling other companies names. It makes Linux advocates look bad -- even those that never use those phrases. Please stop. (No, it's not a protest it's just childish.)
You could do as little as:
desktop linux
Or as much as:
server linux: Redhat 7.3 Advanced Server
Users who are paranoid could do the minimal thing, and users who want to participate more fully could do the higher level of detail.
It's a really simple solution, if you can get the linux vendors to cooperate on it. And actually, at least compared to unix, that's one thing linux vendors are pretty good at.
Dan Stromberg, strombrg@nis.acs.uci.edu.
You wouldn't able to count it and I'm pretty sure those 6000 desktops mentioned in the article are running from behind a firewall too.
I think the google statistics are a more accurate meassure.
I have log files stuffed full of attempted attacks from AOL kidiots running scripts against IIS. Although I'm satisfied I'm adequately locked down, I'd just as soon they not realize it's a Linux box.
Linux will have a larger share than reported
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 20, 2002 06:55 AMIf i buy a box i get it made to my specs without a os installed(you can do that in New Zealand) and install linux on it.
I think most users wouldn't bother entering details into a linux counter site so you just don't see them.
Matthew (matthew@tedder.com)
Distros need to be involved to get accurate count
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 20, 2002 06:00 PMinvolved - namely that part of the install process
brings up something like this once everything is
set up and it's about to boot for the first time:
We are offering a monthly prize to any user who
freshly registers their Linux installation via
the Internet - you can *register now* (clickable)
or go to http://www.registerlinuxandwin.com/ (made
up address) after installation.
You really need something fairly unique (such as
an MD5 hash of the LAN MAC addr - not too
clever if you change your LAN card though) to ID a
machine and you maybe could register more than 1
Linux distro per machine for multi-boot
machines (only one prize per machine though).
You'd need to give your e-mail address too so
that the prize could be claimed.
I don't think people would bother registering if
they didn't stand a chance of winning a prize -
the prize could be a copy of the boxed set of
each of the commercial distros who get involved
in the scheme. Anyone think this is a good idea ?
I think you'd get a lot more reg's than Linux
Counter does if the distros got involved and there
was a prize winnable for registering.
Wouldn't that give you a good estimate of the number of Linux machines on the 'net pretty quickly?
Having a computer reveal information about itself - if it doesn't absolutely need to - is just not a good security practice. Therefore there is a certain amount of presure on software developers, distributions, sysadmins and users to avoid doing it. Also, the range of services running on one Linux machine can easily be wildly different from those running on another. To the outside world they could easily look like totally different systems.
Finally, firewalls at the ISP, or personal firewalls can also trip you up.
The thing I'm unable to understand is why it doesn't exist yet (?). Seems strange to me.
I would like to see real numbers...
Lets do some math... Real market share: 31.8%
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 22, 2002 06:09 AMOk, that is (1 + 8/10) * 15 = 27 installs per counted paid shipment. That means that the market shary is really (1.7% * 27)/((100%-1.7%)+(1.7%*27)) * 100% = 31.8% marketshare (!) accounting even for the increase of the total market due to the 26 * 1.7% extra desktops that were not counted before...
These figures are more accurate than any, but are really corporate secrets, I bet. Would be cool to pool all the data, from all sources, though, then cleanse the database of duplicates. But, will probably never happen... I just know that not all of my 22+ machines are registered on Linux Counter, yet, and I am a country Manager! Well, I am building a cluster... Please visit it
http://counter.li.org Register yourself and your machines! Be counted!
Also now that Release Dates are just around the corner if you plan to upgrade, show your support of Linux and go purchase your favorite distro. Money will help companies stay afloat and even expand to new users. Like it or not money makes the world go round, so let's get behind the principles we profess to uphold and give some power to them.
Thanks for your time and remember words of support will only take Linux so far, Then we need to put our money where our mouth is.
Support your favorite distro
Counting Linux Users
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 19, 2002 06:28 PMThe Colonel
#