Discussion in 'Open Source' started by ganesh_dabhade, Mar 11, 2005.
Will Linux overtake Windows?
It has already changed mind of some windows users..the fact why linux is popular over windows doesnt end anywhere near hell !!
Windows ===>80 %
Linux ==>20 %
In most offices ppl dont use linux for their dtp/editing/accounting and many more common tasks..
Maybe a good distro like knoppix may chng thingz the other way around..
I think linux is for hackers and sysadmins (90%)
as per Survey
Linux is improving day by day. Compare that with Windows. they only planning to release another version only in 2006. By that time many Linux distros will came into picture. Distros like Mandrake is more user friendly than Windows. So definitly after one year Linux will grow as a strong competitor. Give some more time and Linux will emerge as a winner.
In most colleges Linux is installed may be dual boot with Windows but students are eager to use it. They are enjoying the difference. If device manufactures are willing to write device drivers for their product, then Linux is going to replace Windows. Every young people really admires the idea of FREE softwares. They praise Richard Stallman. So give some more time and linux is going to beat Windows.
atleast most of the systems will dual boot with linux and windows.
No i dont think so this would be possible.
Windows is wat everyone starts off with and its installed on almost every comp out there. There are many ppl who dont know linux is even there. How are u gonna make them leave windows and join linux. Plus MS is going on a contract spree with educational & gavermental institutes.
So end conclusion Linux will not overtake Windows.
This is the Reality How harsh it may be
i have Xp(+sp2), the installation is 14 months old, & it still works like hot knife thru butter
i have used redhat9 but i better stick to windows only.
but for server use, i can say that linux will be the overall choice(it's free after all )
windows wins> ease of use-(in home use section)
linux wins> cost effective-(in corp section)
I have to accept the fact tht linux will not overtake windows in user-frendliness and win will always be low in network-security area compared to linux.
what is the point in discussing this topic again and again and wasting our time .....
Windows and linux are gud in their own ways .....
billy is not a fool to let linux rule .....
and several companies which are patronising linux are also not fools to let linux go down ...
which wud b used more than the other is the question ....
the much hyped longhorn launch is only 2 years away .....
only time can tell who will rule ..... wait till dec 2006 and then restart this discussion ....
Linux is getting popular at lightning speed & I feel that the day is near when it will takeover Windows in the recent years to come.
don't they say
"Unix is a great friend, but it chooses its friends"
Yes it will..
and its just a matter of time when Windows source code will be released to public.. and windows will also become more robust..
So every one thought that monopoly will always works, but no no not anymore, Microsoft took the monopoly advantage for a long time but now with the popularity of Linux, the monopoly has ended and Competition has kicked off....
But, the question is who will rule the world, and the answer is Microsoft Why ?
B'coz the competition has enabled Microsoft to come out with more ideas and more feature rich software.
Take the example of DIGIT that u read, the competition has enabled the publisher to come out with more ideas and feature for it customers, they started off with a single CD package , then VCD, then DVD, and now FAST TRACK BOOKLET, so who rules ??? DIGIT !!!
And the same holds good with the case of Microsoft !!! So who rules Microsoft !!!
Not satisfied with the answer.... Wait for Longhorn to come, u will know for yourself.
Actually, the company that will shine the most would definitely happen to be Google? They're already working on a messenger and a browser and they're also rumored to be working on a web OS. Google definitely has to be the company of tomorrow. But when it comes to OS wars, I guess it will always have to be Microsoft for the entry-level newbies because of the shorter learning curve associated with the OS. Linux is catching up real fast, but they still have a ways to go before going mainstream on the desktop and becoming standard OEM operating systems.
What about the Linux Support Service , which do charge u more than what Microsoft Charges from you for there Server OS. There is a recurring expenditure on Linux, since Linux requires more support then Microsoft OS's. Linux turns out to be costly in the long run.
Well nice little dream GNUrag. Microsoft would never do that and wat its doin currently is all under the eyes of fedral & other governmental agencies.
IF Microsoft has ots way all softwares on our PCs would be its and all us would have paid for it
Well, it looks like you're still in the infamous 2002 Microsoft TCO Report mood. Actually, there's no clear winner yet when it comes to TCO. Both parties claim superiority and have excellent case studies to prove their claims, but there is one thing I've seen in all of them - it depends on the use and is totally individual and not REALLY a case study at all. It all depends on the function of the OS, the hardware, whether you're migrating from Windows to Linux or if you're starting from the ground up, and if you have IT staff thats experienced with Linux. You cannot throw random numbers into formulas and come up with a TCO and claim its a general case study. But here's what I've found.
Linux claims the licensing fees when it comes to comparisons with Windows is ridiculously low. True, they're right, and as Microsoft points out, the licensing fees in the long run is practically negligible in figuring out the TCO over, say, a 5 year plan, in a dynamically growing company.
Like Microsoft says, the administration and support costs for a Windows system are much lower than a Linux system and that's what really matters, and Windows admins are larger in number and hence, cheaper than Linux admins. Again, true. But there's a fatal flaw that's in their argument. They fail to see that most Linux admins already have extensive experience as Unix admins, plus, the most important thing is that a Unix/Linux admin is able to manage ten times more systems than a Windows admin.
So while a Windows admin can manage 10 servers, a Linux/Unix admin can easily manage 1000 servers at a time, which means that they need fewer admins to manage a larger base effectively. The salary is obviously higher, but they get more bang for their buck with Linux guys. Also, its not like its really difficult to find qualified Linux people anymore. Basically a Solaris admin can work with Linux and pick it up within a week.
The Robert Frances Group (RFG) tracked 14 companies running mission critical web servers, or "processing units" that would be required to process about 100,000 hits per day over a period of 3 years.
With Red Hat Linux 7.3 running Apache to Solaris running Apache, and Windows running IIS, they tested on an x86 platform, they found that Windows needed an average of 7.6 servers for a processing unit, Linux needed 7.4, and Solaris needed 2.2.
Licensing costs per processing unit varied from a one-time software purchase cost of $400 for Linux, where most companies just ran the free download versions. Solaris was highest at $27,500 per processing unit, and Windows' up-front cost was $5,320, with a total licensing cost of $7,980.
Hardware and maintenance costs were nearly the same for Windows and Linux; Solaris cost about 10 times more. Linux admin salaries were slightly higher than Windows admins, with Linux at $71,400 per admin, and Windows at $68,500 per admin. But Linux admins took care of an average of 44 servers and Windows admins an average of 10. So the salary per processing unit was Linux, $12,010, and Windows, $52,060.
When it came to systems support costs, very few companies paid for Linux support, most of them used the free support online, which debunks your cost of support theory for servers. Obviously, commercial Windows Server support is a costlier option. A 3 year cost of the 100,000-hit processing unit among the systems was: Solaris: $561,520, Windows: $190,662, Linux: $74,475.
Nobody says Linux is free, its just cheaper and more effective compared to Windows. The facts are there for everyone to see.
Actually, GNUrag may not be dreaming all that much. Microsoft is slowly testing open source waters, they did release WTL and WiX as open source on SourceForge and they're planning to release Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003, Windows CE 3.0, ASP.NET and Visual Studio, the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) and C# as part of the Shared Source Initiative with their OEMs. True, its not GPL and its not open source, but at least they're swinging this way. It cant be too long (meaning before I kick the bucket) that they will go open source with their core code too.
LINUX STILL HAS A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE COMPLETELY TAKING OVER WINDOWS
No, this is possible only as I see after 7 years or so.. LINUX is good but today not many people are aware of it on the global scale.. Yes, the popularity is increasing day by day but still much is left to be no. 1.. After, LONGHORN AB DOOR NAHIN!
Only Looks won't help.. Its true that Linux is stable and has practically, no viruses but that alone does not make it no. 1...
GNURag, Dream is nice but will hve 2 wait....
Yes, a long way but for sure. Linux will overtake windows in coming years. I say that b'cause it has vast applictions for u and safe. The linux gives u strong base and comes bundled with great apps. Only thing they have to do is make it more easy and a bit sexy looking!
Separate names with a comma.