Thanks in part to Google, Linux is finally becoming a mainstream OS, something ordinary people carry around with them. It’s not just for propeller-heads any more.This leads naturally to thoughts of a shake-out…While the shake-out that is now beginning may not cause distros to go dark, it is going to create new market separation. There is going to be clear market leadership, probably more interoperability, and a bigger application ecosystem. All these things are good. Could Android and Chrome OS sideline other Linux distros?
Now, before I offend Linux users, let me begin by saying that I’m well aware that Android and Chrome OS aren’t fully-featured desktop operating systems. Both are cut down and customized for the job in hand…Problem is, many people are radically changing the way they work. People are increasingly happy with cut-down PCs…The year of the desktop Linux might never happen, but Google could very well be a force to make it a significant player in the mobile market.
I think Linux will increase in its specialization, which is a strength of Linux not a weakness. Each group can focus on a particular purpose or platform and make it the best for that platform while not having to be “everything for everyone” and bogging down smartphones, for example, with having to be able to be modified for servers.
The great thing is no matter who is “leading” in a category, other distributions can be used much the same way as they are now.
**Smartphones **will be likely Android and WebOS (if HP doesn’t blow it). I don’t see much competing on that market outside the current list of players.
**Tablets **and **Notebooks **(and the coming uh… “things” and embedded devices) I see Android, WebOS (again, if HP doesn’t blow it) and Ubuntu being the leaders, with traditional distros having their own versions like now.
**Desktops **(and **Laptops **naturally) will be competing much like it is now, though I see Android and Ubuntu holding the lion’s share. Ubuntu has an advantage in their community-corporate structure over Fedora and openSUSE, who aren’t even trying to match on offerings.
**Servers **will still be hot competition and not much will change likely since there aren’t any real up-and-coming competiton (caveat: depends on what Oracle does with Solaris/OpenSolaris, Unbreakable Linux is still-born and will likely be replaced by a Solaris offering). It will also stay hot because this is where the traditional money is.
As for the smaller players, I don’t see much changing. There will still be smaller distros offering one or another advantage over the current leaders (codecs, specialization, etc.). They may see some gains as Linux as a whole is more recognized, but otherwise not much of a change.
You got it right as far as market-share, but you’re dead wrong as to why. It has NOTHING to do with community-corporate structure. Throw out everything you know about software for the moment.
Now consider this:
In the world of Operating Systems you have 2 Kinds, Free and Not-Free (Freedom and/or Beer).
Now in each of these realms of operating systems you have two dimensions, usability and empowerment.
The world of Operating Systems, both Free and Not-Free, is moving towards being more “usable” out of the box and less empowering. Ever since Windows 95, Windows has been gravitating more and more towards Mac OS. HOWEVER, Windows is still leaps and bounds more empowering of an Operating System than Mac OS. Windows puts much more control of your computer in your hands than Mac OS.
The same goes for “Free” Operating Systems as well. On one end of the spectrum are Android and Ubuntu. On the opposite end are gonna be Gentoo followed by something like Debian. Android and Ubuntu work for most people out the box, and are highly “usable.” Gentoo and Debian give you absolute control over your O/S, but the learning curve is steep.
The conclusion of all this is that, parallels can be drawn between the Free and Non-Free software realms for “end-users” because they share these same dimensions of user experience. Drawing on these parallels is this, Windows clobbered Mac OS because MS innovated to become more usable while maintaining greater user control over their experience, while Apple gave its users the same pile of junk System 7 through OS 9.
Apply this to the realm of “free” software and compensate for current market conditions, and while Android and Ubuntu will have a solid piece of the market, it’s by no means secured. Ubuntu won’t be able to compete with Android/Chrome (because Google has enough money to buy Canonical today, have them for dinner tonight and by tomorrow Ubuntu would be "Poo"buntu.) Also Ubuntu will lose out on the other growing end of the spectrum to the openSUSE and Fedora’s (because the others innovate more than Ubuntu).
This growing end of the spectrum, I submit to you, is where empowerment meets usability.
Go for it…I’ll be honest, I probably used the wrong word when I said “NOTHING” to do with corporate community structure. It’s probably a large portion of Canonical’s ability to market Ubuntu->by soliciting feedback/developing a base of core users that can extol it’s strengths and weaknesses.
Free/Non-Free segments are different, too Users of Free software have already made the choice to break into a realm where their destiny is in their own hands. So it’s not a cut and dry analogy to the Mac OS versus Windows history.
Android/Chrome’s impact could also be minimal, much like Mac OSX and the open version, Darwin. I don’t see Google putting forth a really polished free version of something, like Novell does with SUSE/openSUSE, or RedHat does with RedHat/Fedora.
So in summation, PLEASE by all means don’t hesitate to tear apart my response. lol!
Windows clobbered Mac OS because MS innovated to become more usable while maintaining greater user control over their experience, while Apple gave its users the same pile of junk System 7 through OS 9.
What? Windows was built upon DOS for the 1980’s and most of the 1990’s (at least the consumer versions of Windows). DOS was adopted by the corporate market back in 1981 and the corporate market never gave Apple Macs a chance since they were more expensive and offered little advantage.
By the time System 7 (System 7 made the MAC a cooperatively multitasked OS - something unique in the consumer market) came around in the mid 1990’s, the MS-DOS and Windows had the corporate market locked up. The consumer market was always driven by price, and cheap, generic hardware loaded with DOS and Windows always beat more expensive Macs. MS made development for Windows cheaper and easier than Apple made development for MacOS - more software choices, cheaper too. Both systems were closed source and neither was customizable. Windows and DOS were far simpler systems, not tied to proprietary hardware, and therefore easier to add-on features that were missing. MacOS was always a more complete operating system and needed far less in the way of add-on features than Windows.
Once Apple switched to OS/X and MS switched to NT-based consumer OSes, one could argue just the opposite. Apple’s system OS/X was far more user customizable AND open source for the first few years. heck, even today, most of OS/X is still open source and far easier for programmers and enthusiasts to customize. MS Windows from NT onwards was the ULTIMATE example of a system that users could not change. Only true geeks and hackers could figure out how to create and load alternative shells on Windows NT-based operating systems. Microsoft makes every possible choice for the user and locks them in, tight. OS/X is customizable through simple text and XML files.
This is true, but I wasn’t considering that far back, I was kind of going on the end-user GUI experience marked in the early 1990’s by both Win 3.1/3.11 as well as System 7.
You’re absolutely right. In a lot of ways we’re saying the same thing, just different words.
That’s my point exactly. OSX isn’t customizable…it’s like Ubuntu. You don’t fit the 80% market distribution or whatever…break out the text files, the command lines, etc.
MS on the other hand…when you’re outside of the 80% range, you still have a much broader host of options available at your fingertips before you have to resort to text files, command lines, and the dreaded registry editor.
I’ll give you this, sure without using some hackeriffic software, I can’t create a truly custom theme for XP/Vista/7, or do cool junk with the presentation layer of it…but that’s not the customization and level of control I’m talking about.