Talk:Linux adoption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

	This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 7, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Two comments. First, I don't think it's accurate to say Linux has worse documentation, indeed, the man page system is far more complete than the "Help" option of windows programs. It's just my opinion and I'm a pretty big geek so I won't reword it myself but I don't think it's an accurate criticism.

Second, while in my opinion the part about Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign is completely accurate (I've read the papers myself, they intentionally cripple the Linux systems), that should be cited from another source. --Calmofthestorm

[edit] 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)

[edit] More examples

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 83.172.72.89 (talk) 01:09, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

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 83.172.72.89 (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] References

Please SOURCE properly and directly any content you add. Not direct sourcing like "(IDC)" is not acceptable and such a content will be challenged.--Kozuch (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)