IDC: PC Shipments Decline In Second Quarter

IDC apparently still has faith that the PC will continue to be a cash cow for Wintel but there is a problem that consumers are preferring small cheap computers…

“The PC ecosystem faces some work to properly educate the market”

Chart: Total Worldwide Desktop PC vs. Portable PC Shipments, 2011 – 2016 Emerging vs. Mature Markets (Shipments in Millions)Description: Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker, August 23, 2012Tags: IDC, tracker, PC, forecast, emerging, forecasts, 2012, 2013,Ultrabooks, Ultrabook, Windows 8, mature Author: IDCcharts powered by iCharts

see IDC Lowers PC Outlook As Shipments Decline In Second Quarter Ahead Of Fall Product Updates – prUS23660312.

I have news for IDC and Wintel. Consumers have already been educated

  • by global warming,
  • PCs slowing down,
  • PCs re-re-rebooting,
  • prices not reflecting the real cost of technology, and
  • M$ and Apple and Oracle suing the world rather than competing.

You can only abuse customers so long before they find alternatives and right now, hundreds of millions of people are preferring to buy a small cheap computer running */Linux than their next Wintel PC. Consumers are finally evaluating price/performance and seeing the light. It’s only a matter of time before OEMs and retailers will too. Many OEMs of PCs are seeing tight margins and falling shipments while OEMs of small cheap computers are finding they are only limited by their imaginations, not their products. Will IDC be the last to notice?

Wintel can advertise until the cows come home but consumers have already seen small cheap computers in their hands and the hands of acquaintances doing most of what they could do with a huge, power-hungry and expensive PC. If consumers stop doing some unnecessary things they may find their PC is also unnecessary. Further the mobility users have with Android/Linux gadgets is exquisite compared to the burden of a notebook PC. How many really want to go back to the old way of doing things?

M$ can add features and advertise them for “8” but who is listening? Intel can cut power-consumption dramatically using Moore’s Law, but ARM is always one or two steps ahead in power-consumption even one or two steps behind in Moore’s Law. ARMed CPUs cost much less to buy. OEMs can offer ultrabooks without giving users much benefit at all. If you are going to handle something that requires two hands, why not make it a tablet? With voice activated user-interfaces and applications, is a keyboard really necessary or just a bottleneck for less skilled typists?

The decline in rate of growth of PC shipments is not a blip. It’s a reflection of real change in the market including users. Users are using PCs less and don’t miss them. Of course, many use personal computers that IDC calls “not PCs”. Users don’t care how IDC defines them. Users want small cheap computers.

One thing IDC does get right: the opportunities for OEMs and retailers in IT is mostly in emerging markets. Those segments cannot concentrate on mature markets and remain relevant. The emerging markets are not locked in to Wintel.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to IDC: PC Shipments Decline In Second Quarter

  1. oiaohm says:

    Brillo
    –And what would such “cases” be?–
    http://www.sepago.de/d/helge/2009/02/17/mandatory-profiles-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly
    Read the links. Mandatory profiles and anywhere using
    terminal servers is not an option. Mandatory profiles on Windows terminal services provides a link between users this is 2003 and 2008 terminal services. Buggy sand-boxing in Windows to blame here Brillo.

    http://www.sepago.de/d/helge/2010/12/13/mandatory-profiles-ae-insecure-by-default
    Read the solutions in your link and they don’t work or a not practical.
    –1 Do not use mandatory profiles on multi-user systems. On single-user systems make sure that remote registry editing is limited to administrators.–
    Ok so you cannot have a system for multi users. Great. By by terminal services by by machines with more than 1 user this includes switching users temp counts as 2 users. Not a very valid option in lots of cases.

    –2 Block access to the registry via software restriction policies. This includes, but is not limited to, Regedit.exe, Cmd.exe, Reg.exe, scripts and batch files, custom (downloaded) tools. In essence, in order to fix this problem exclusive white-listing is required.–
    So someone runs something like a word macro that calls a dll that edits the registry this does not help right.
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/bb687915.aspx
    http://www.ehow.com/how_8749944_edit-registry-excel-vba-macro.html
    So no Macros in MS Office at all. This for some reason does not make users particularly happy with you.
    But even then you cannot trust libreoffice from a python macro not to reach out to a dll.
    http://www.python.net/crew/theller/ctypes/tutorial.html
    So now you don’t have a office suite you can use fully since they all can reach out and mess with the registry.

    In essence, in order to fix this problem exclusive white-listing is required problem is what is on the black list is everything people want to be using.

    Once you make the true complete list of what applications you are not allowed to prevent registry modification in evil ways you cannot do much.

    –3 Re-ACL each registry hive after it is loaded and replace “Everyone” with the current user.–

    Ok is there a window at login where the cross link exists yes. Could it be possible to exploit this window yes. In that cross link time can you prevent Re-ACL to the correct user working yes there is. How simple start the Re-ACL to your own user before the login process starts its own. Make sure of course you leave everyone in read write but without rights to change permissions. End result is Re-ACL to correct user now fails. Again most Windows users will not report the error message. First to start the Re-ACL wins. Fun of a race condition.

    This is why you must do section two. If section 2 don’t work your screwed. Any application with exposed macroing that can edit registry must be done be on the black list or its macroing must be disabled.

    Brillo so you have a mitigation failure here. Someone thinks they have design mitigation but they really have not.

    All that does not the worse address the worse problem.
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/264732
    Everything using encryption services has just been disabled because you are using mandatory profiles because you are using mandatory profiles.

    Linux Mandatory shared profiles work. You use a unionfs of some form if you want user to be able to edit in the Mandatory profile. This is truly sand boxed no option to exploit it. Everything in the unionfs owns the the correct user all the time there is no exploit window. Also Linux Mandatory shared profiles are read only in all ways to everyone bar administrator unless administrator allows unionfs or equal. Also everything create in memory from the Linux read only profile owns to the correct user. That is the windows mandatory profile problem items end up in memory owning to the wrong user then you try to fix it after the fact.

    This is all a case that the sandbox has holes. Accessing regedit should not be a security risk in a mandatory profile if the mandatory profile is correctly design. Accessing a text editor does nothing against a Linux, Solaris… Mandatory profile.

    Simple of Simple fixes. MS altered Mandorary profile hive loader to load with a Re-ACL so its never in memory and exploitable with the wrong ACL information so preventing the race condition. Two implements security features to allow disabling of registry modification by a user. Three why in hell can users who are not administrators even be able to see this HKU\. Different session to there own should be invisible.

    Do this enable registry editing is harmless. Just fixing the Re-ACL so Mandorary profiles have to be loaded with your users id permissions.

    As you can see the fix is simple alter how Mandatory profiles work minor-ally and security hole goes away. Yes the Re-ACL as default feature blocks the attacks. Since until the Re-ACL is done the hive needs to be hidden from display and access by users.

    Brillo
    “An what exactly would “that user” be writing into the profile? It seems that you are simply grasping at straw due to the apparent fact your experience with ADs are mostly fictitous.”

    Really this is sometimes user sometimes windows. Sometimes windows is when windows has glitches logs of ntuser.dat. So it makes backup of logs creates a new log try’s to regenerate log and gets lost in a loop basic generating more and more files with ntuser.dat. That user is that user login.

    Sometimes it can be simple case that user gets the idea of writing into the wrong place. Like a classic case of writing a 4G iso image into the same directory as ntuser.dat. Then wondering why their profile snails even that there documents folder and everything else is redirected. You cannot redirect it all.

    Redirection folders presumes users are not idiots. Problem is you always will get 1 or 2 idiots who will do stupid things to you.

    Brillo
    “Cite something relevant, and then we shall discuss it in all its details.”
    The lag is a simple inter-talk issue.

    Kerberos need to refer to ADS when ticket issuing. To make sure machine is known. So if ADS is busy you are in trouble.

    After you machine is connected. Also there is a catch that there is quite a large delay between sending a Kerberos ticket to a Windows server and finding out it expired but valid and a new one has to be sent.

    http://www.sharepointblog.co.uk/2012/05/permissions-delay-when-using-kerberos-and-security-groups/ This is a related problem. You enable security groups on a per machine/user base the ADS lookup for Kerberos is now more complex if it should issue or not.

    http://activedirectoryfaq.blogspot.com.au/2007/09/how-kerberos-authentication-works.html
    Simple overview of ADS Kerberos and Permissions.

    30 second delay comes about because the process is not straight forwards and waiting for locks and packets to make it around network all can consume time then you have to wait for cpu processing for encoding parts. Also note 4 threw 7. So you have more than 1 server you need to talk to you can require more than 1 key to access resources all consuming time. Also if something goes wrong after 1-3 are done

    So the login is not going to fail once you get to 4. But you can be badly delayed.

    Also some windows clients get lost in stupidity(user triggered) as well like requesting a ticket for each share on the same server(not required) and not mounting shares in until it has a ticket for every network share. Then mounting the shares one at a time. The requestion a Kerberos key pair for every resource is a bug that appears happens random-ally cause is user not waiting and attempting to click to access resource so windows responds by requesting another Kerberos key pair because it does not have a key pair for that yet. Result is Kerberos server can be a little bit busy answering requests to other users who are click happy to be answering yours so you can end up waiting too long for a kerberos answer so having to send another request. Not helping problem.

    30 second delay has a causes there is no simple solution. One part can be fixed windows client side so users clicking on share that is not accessible yet does not result in client performing a DOS attack on the kerberos server(Key Distribution Center) because the client goes I have already sent in a request for that and the user is being stupid. Just to be fun the data for kerberos is stored in the ADS so someone is doing lot of other things with the ads it can be a little busy to answer.

    Other bits being encryption and alteration using more powerful server can help. Just to be annoying not all the encryption is stable. Sign’n’seal MS uses sometimes fails for no good reason causing a retry even windows to windows.

    So 30 second lag happens that is reality. Mostly because the login process of windows is complex.

    Really correct answer is not to dispute the random 30 second delays. You can also see 30 second delays out of Linux when you use some of the more complex and more secure login methods. Price of login methods the more complex it is more extrema the worse case with real world delays is.

    The delays of 30 seconds in ADS network appear random but if you can see the overall picture of what going on in the network when the 30 second delay happens you find causes. Sometimes exchange sharepoint or some other server hogging ADS or kerbero time. Some times a user who needs a good talking to about waiting for the system.

    The delay glitch in the interaction of kerberos ADS and permissions basically does not have a cure. It will just happen at the worst possible times.

  2. Brillo says:

    In fact they are not random.

    If not for the fact that you have gone as far as to making up your own language, I’d regard you as a slightly better science fiction writer than L. Ron Hubbard.

    Cite something relevant, and then we shall discuss it in all its details.

    Even doing the redirect folders that user still can write into the user profile causing it to explode in size so causing issue.

    An what exactly would “that user” be writing into the profile? It seems that you are simply grasping at straw due to the apparent fact your experience with ADs are mostly fictitous.

    Ok you will say use a read only mandatory profile sorry that is not a option in lots of cases.

    And what would such “cases” be?

    Anyway, I ain’t going to waste any more time with your hand-waving, but rather I’ll just leave you with this in the hope that people will just look at you funny when you start conjuring up more fictitous scenarios and explanations.

  3. oiaohm says:

    Brillo the random 30 second delays in ADS has a cause and its not avoidable. If you wireshark monitor windows client to windows server you see them as well.

    In fact they are not random.

    http://www.sharepointblog.co.uk/2012/05/permissions-delay-when-using-kerberos-and-security-groups/
    Its a source of another problem.

    There is a nice super glitch with ads Kerberos and permissions. When you many kerberos tickets issued it can take ages to confirm that all tickets for particular machines have been activated. It can also cause other shock-wave problems through an ADS network.

    Brillo
    “LOL. Someone obviously missed the memo about redirected folders and mandatory profiles, but what gives?”
    Even doing the redirect folders that user still can write into the user profile causing it to explode in size so causing issue. Ok you will say use a read only mandatory profile sorry that is not a option in lots of cases.
    http://www.sepago.de/d/helge/2009/02/17/mandatory-profiles-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly

    Yes good write up on the topic short and covers the downsides perfectly.

    Roaming profiles and 30 sec delays are basically design issues with Windows networking with no simple way around problem.

    Also kb835222 Brillo is no longer required with more modern samba and winbind unless for some reason you are using SASL.

    “During the authentication protocol exchange, SASL defines or negotiates the maximum cipher-text buffer size that each side can receive. The problem occurs because the SASL implementation of Windows 2000 Active Directory does not support the maximum cipher-text buffer size that is negotiated between the client and the server. When this negotiation is unsuccessful, the Linux client software disables the connection.”

    Read the bug. Notice down the page is http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2222.txt Released 1997. Linux attempts to talk to Windows 2000 as per standard and yes its area that Windows developers thought it would be good to forget standard and go fixed size its slightly faster right. In fact there is a security flaw right there allowing buffer overflow. If you have windows 2000 server and it last service pack that bug you are referring to is fixed.

    Your Google is failing you Brillo. Please read completely before using. That bug is exactly why windows suxs. MS disregards common standards.

    Exactly what reason does SASL do a size catch backwards and forwards first. Lets say you have a case of network that drops packets for some reason either over or under a particular size. Proper SASL will connect. MS implementation of SASL in windows 2000 would fail if the fixed size would not go through. Correctly working SASL is better. MS fixed it in newer version of windows.

    Yes VPN failure from windows 2000 client to windows 2000 server using SASL happened as well. Not a Linux only issue this one. Unix clients also had the same problem.

  4. ch says:

    “ch, I posted the values of MSFT a few articles ago, for your benefit here they are:”

    Oh, I see. Mr Knows-it-all mixed up revenues and stock value. Well, given the level of knowledge you’ve demonstrated so far, I probably should have expected something like that.

  5. Brillo says:

    Nope. Real people qualitatively and quantitatively found that other OS was a drag.

    So what happened to your “standard units”, “measurements” and “analysis of errors”? Or is it now OK to forgo all those and resort to pure anecdotes? These same things have in fact been demanded from both you and dougman over and over for I don’t even remember how long, and what have we got here thus far? Nothing. That’s what.

    One lady with malware actually was accepting as “normal” a system that took five minutes to respond to a click.

    Again, is there an example where you don’t compare a Windows system that has been loaded down by malware or even just third-party apps to a clean install of Linux? (Didn’t you also mention “really stupid administrators”? What happened to that now?) This apples-to-oranges comparison of yours is getting really old.

    I was in one place with “roaming profiles” that took 2 minutes for clients to boot.

    LOL. Someone obviously missed the memo about redirected folders and mandatory profiles, but what gives?

    I hooked up some GNU/Linux clients to AD and found random ~30s delays for authentication from 2003.

    ROFL. Did you check the back log of the client? There are a lot of arcana in making Linux clinets work correctly with AD. A patch is also required if your are using older Windows server releases for SASL binds.

    Brillo wrote some stuff.

    You break me up. If I weren’t so tired after labouring for the little woman all day, I would be ROFL and gasping for breath.

    I have seen better bluffs than this sorry piece of an excuse. If you are not ready for a response, just say so. Honesty is a virtue, albeit rare.

  6. Brillo wrote some stuff.

    You break me up. If I weren’t so tired after labouring for the little woman all day, I would be ROFL and gasping for breath.

  7. Brillo wrote of side-by-side tests of GNU/Linux and that other OS, “was supposedly very fast.”

    Nope. Real people qualitatively and quantitatively found that other OS was a drag. Some operations like booting to a useful desktop were three times faster with GNU/Linux. Same for opening applications like the office suites. One lady with malware actually was accepting as “normal” a system that took five minutes to respond to a click. She resisted switching until all her work was done for the year. She was amazed at the difference even though students were using GNU/Linux PCs in her classroom for months. I was in one place with “roaming profiles” that took 2 minutes for clients to boot. Apparently, the server just made them wait. I hooked up some GNU/Linux clients to AD and found random ~30s delays for authentication from 2003. No malware was found… People who found that kind of performance “normal” for XP told me they hated Vista and “7”. I can’t imagine what they think of “8” when they see it…

  8. oiaohm says:

    Brillo the question you are not asking is how many attacks can be blocked without applying patches due to the security design of the OS.

    There are two levels of responses to security flaws. Repair and Mitigation.

    Repair is how fast patches to flaw can be reached. In this metric FOSS is about average to everything else.

    Mitigation is items like Mandatory Access Control(fully functional of course to be counted), in OS virtualistation (cgroups from Linux, Zones from Solaris, Jails from BSD) . What is windows in OS virtualistations solution it don’t have one. Microsoft is still working on creating one. Sad part is OS virtualisation is in the NT base design just early on Microsoft took performance over security and broke it.

    Stronger the Mitigation solution. The more odds a flaw will be non functional or can be rendered non functional without repairing the defect in the binary itself. So giving longer time to repair the defect properly and faster response time to stop the problem.

    Yes a lot of development servers were run with Mitigation systems off. Linux world paid a price in down time for this. Kernel.org there are no more user shell accounts. So Mitigation the path used to get into kernel.org is closed for good. Next attack will have to come in by a new vector completely. Lot of other Mitigation was set up at kernel.org.

    Brillo by the way one of the reasons why I like postgresql over mysql is the fact its has extra flaw Mitigation options.

    I could assemble a long list of Microsoft breaches as well.

    Kernel.org redesigned to system after its breach. It was running with most of Linux Mitigation turned off.

    Brillo
    “Linux does not guarantee stability or security above any other operating system.”
    Any other is wrong the line should read.
    “Linux does not guarantee stability or security above any other operating system properly design for security.”
    At times Linux is worse than the proper secure made OS’s.

    Windows and OS X have not been designed or constructed to be secure. The options to perform flaw mitigation in both OS’s is either completely missing or broken in the form of lacking features so cannot be used it mitigate. UAC is classic example of this with the number of holes to bypass it.

    UAC like putting up a gate to let the cattle in and out of the paddock and forgetting to put up a fence around paddock the cattle and wondering why the cattle you had in that paddock are gone because gate stops cattle. Security is does take building fences in the OS.

    This kind of flawed logic is all over MS Windows mitigation options. MS Windows is part a virus plague because Windows popular but Windows also part a virus plague because it mitigation systems don’t work.

    Android is also having trouble because the mitigation option goggle is using is may times too weak.

    Anti-virus scanning is not mitigation.

    Brillo you can pull example after example of Linux failing somewhere but that does not change the fact that Windows is lacking key features to build a secure operating system.

    Reality we need to be trueful. If Windows had fully working MAC and in OS virtualisation and all the other pieces that are normal to a trusted class OS. You would be able to claim that Linux is not better than it.

    I do give just because using Linux does not equal secure. Using Linux + its mitigation is about equal to the best out there. Linux without its mitigation system still beats windows because sudo is correctly done.

    Brillo the true fact of the Matter the Market does not care about security because if it did Google Android, OS X and Windows would not sell because there are far better items to use. So there is really no reason to lie about it. Linux is mostly used as lower cost.

    http://selinuxproject.org/page/SEAndroid SELinux Android or equal everyone would have on their phones if people truly did care about security.

    Brillo
    http://archive.arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/03q2/ms-hack-image.html
    Of course people like you want to forget that Microsoft themselves has been broken into many times by hackers as well. Difference here kernel.org did a public audit, Microsoft did a internal audits that were not reviewed by third parties.

    Brillo glass house don’t throw stones. The list I can dig up on Microsoft own breaches is quite large. First one was 1994. Every about 3 to 4 years something of Microsoft’s gets breached.

  9. Brillo says:

    Hmmm… My two comments are still awaiting moderation. Should I put them on pastebin instead?

  10. dougman says:

    Warning: This is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any financial instrument.

    ch, I posted the values of MSFT a few articles ago, for your benefit here they are:

    M$ valuation of $620.6 billion back in Dec. 30, 1999, today M$ is at ~$260 billion

    One thing I failed to mention, Apple is not the biggest or most valuable company in history—not by a longshot. Due to inflation, It takes $1.38 in today’s dollars to equal the same value as one 1999 dollar. That means Microsoft’s peak market cap in 1999 was actually about $856 billion in constant dollars, $235 billion more than Apple’s current market cap.

    If it were me, I would ride the crest for another 6-months, but these patent suits will reflect negatively upon Apple. Some think they can squeeze another $400 billion from the market by 2014. I am not so sure about that.

    Here is a chart showing a comparison between AAPL and MSFT, see where M$ has already peaked and now stagnant and Apple is now just peaking? Those are signs one should sell.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/charts?s=AAPL#symbol=aapl;range=my;compare=msft;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

  11. Brillo says:

    that other OS and M$ itself was compromised thanks to the great complexity and number of exposed surfaces of their systems.

    Read your own link. The exploit you cite there involves forging an entire certificate (which is OS-agnostic, by the way, in case your plentiful of experience pushing raw signals through wires back in good ol’ 70s fails you) with a collision attack. Do you think anyone can easily acquire the resources to do such a thing?

    I personally have never met anyone who has used a UNIX OS other than GNU/Linux and it’s not a certified UNIX OS. Even the people to whom I introduced GNU/Linux certainly weren’t fanatics of FLOSS.

    “Personally”? That’s kind of a crop-out, isn’t it? A crop-out that excludes who is obviously a *nix and FOSS fanatic right here in this blog.

    Also, *nix != certified Unix OS. Look it up.

    Even the people to whom I introduced GNU/Linux certainly weren’t fanatics of FLOSS. They only knew it worked and was fast.

    Or, more accurately, they only knew that you claimed it would work for them and was supposedly very fast. Remember – we are talking about people who had even less a clue than you did on the subject matter. For them to turn to someone who had no built-up of knowledge or experience from the past twenty years, their situation had to be desperate, and I doubt an awful lot of competent IT professionals are looking for long-term “career” opportunities managing school computers in Manitoba.

    Why would anyone dual-boot in this day of virtual machines?

    This is by no means a conclusive survey, but let’s have a look anyway at some Linux forums:

    ubuntuforums.org – threads tagged with “dual boot”.

    fedoraforum.org – threads tagged with “dual”+”boot”

    forums.opensuse.org – thread tagged with “dual boot”.

    Why would anyone indeed!

    It was usual to pave over that other OS after it had crumbled for the umpteenth time rather than restoring it from backup.

    It’s usual for a *nix fanatic like yourself to pave over a Windows install at the slightest excuse with some ugly Linux distro, but I doubt it’s a common practice outside of your own little circle.

  12. Brillo says:

    I guess that’s why US NSA recommends GNU/Linux and the US military uses it, eh?

    You call that “irony”? This is irony.

    Brillo completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of such compromises are inside jobs, really stupid administrators, weak passwords or stolen passwords.

    What is so “inside” about the Fedora incident? Or is it that the Gnome project just so happened to have used a weak or “stolen” password (and of course there would never be any explanation on such “stolen” passwords by RP and other Linux apologists alike)? Maybe Linux kernel devs are really “stupid administrators”? Excuses, excuses, excuses…

    Brillo completely ignores the vast majority of GNU/Linux systems that were not compromised.

    The majority of Linux systems just soil their own pants over and over at the same old bug without any user intervention. Now imagine the reaction from the media if Windows was at fault.

    GNU/Linux has never had a wave of malware racing triumphantly through every version as that other OS has had repeatedly due to poor design.

    The best example you have for such “poor design” is network-propagated malware such as the Sasser worm and the Blaster worm, which has essentially nothing to do with any design per se and can be easily remedied with a properly configured firewall.

    GNU/Linux has never had rational users deciding to disconnect from the web for protection

    Neither has Windows. (Don’t you just love weasel words like “rational”?)

    GNU/Linux has never had more than a tiny percentage of malware aimed at it because that would be a complete waste of time by malware writers.

    I concur. Targeting a minute population of desktop users scattered all over the world would be a sheer waste of time. What you are going to get from these cheapskates anyway?

    There’s no reason to think GNU/Linux servers have any intrinsic vulnerability given that the vast majority are not compromised.

    You mean “no reason” as in “I don’t see no reason to base my conclusion on actual evidence”? Then maybe you have a point there.

    As a wise man once said, “I reject your reality and substitute my own!”

  13. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon

    “Financial and IT industry trade press fails to report on it as well. What a shame that so much effort has to be expended to hide the shining light of Linux!”

    In fact Financial and IT industry trade press do report it. Munich that you pick on. French Government migrations. Stock exchange migrations and the list goes on of successful 80/20 Linux/Windows migrations all mentioned in trade presses. Basically you have not been paying attention Clarence Moon.

    There are very few true surveys. Its not just Linux that is lower.

    Apple in some fields could be higher.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_analytics read Web analytics methods Clarence Moon.

    Problem here is more secure systems. Firefox sandboxes tracking cookies disappear. Then add in NAT and proxy solutions. This is the problem 100 users of Linux could appear to be the same 1 user to the stats.

    “Web stats don’t show it due to spoofing by users”
    Spoofing by users is only 1 of the many defects in webstats. Home users are more likely to be counted because they are unlikely to have there web browser in a sandbox that clears tracking information or other security options turned on either. Also they are likely todo stuff that requires Internet usage. Lot of business operations are internal. Also Linux does not have a unique id to extract either.

    You cannot count sales because of the pave over problem. You cannot use web analytics because they are unstable and known broken.

    We lack ground surveys like we have for mobile devices.

    Note I said no data to back 10 of times. If Linux is 1 percent is a max of 100 times.

  14. Clarence Moon says:

    they don’t show in web numbers

    Ah, once again a reference to the incredibly stealthy massive Linux market. Linux is being kept out of the public eye by so many means!

    Web stats don’t show it due to spoofing by users or, as is said here, lack of internet access by tens of millions of corporate users. Financial and IT industry trade press fails to report on it as well. What a shame that so much effort has to be expended to hide the shining light of Linux!

    Thank goodness that I’m so small and don’t have to worry about the news leaking out. I feel sorry about you world masters who have to do all the work! lol

  15. oiaohm says:

    Brillo in technical merits of design of OS for security Linux loses to a lot of OS’s. Problem is MS Windows is not one of those.

    Brillo
    “1) For every Linux user, there are tens of times more Windows users in home and business environments.”
    No data to back this statement anywhere. Ground studies required that have not been done.

    “2) Many Linux users are either *nix or FOSS fanatics on the domestic front.”
    This is also a interesting one. Most Linux people are in fact using it in there work. Most people are fanatics to have there home use the same as their work.

    Clarence Moon
    “If it ever were the case that the Linux users would band together and loyally patronize vendors who were directly addressing their needs, then it would be a whole different marketing scenario. But that does not seem to occur.”
    Depends what level market.

    http://linuxcoe.sourceforge.net/ This is HP solution for high end companies. So we can custom order what ever distribution we want on the hardware.

    Reality Linux is mostly for Desktop usage targeted at large enterprise where 80/20 split can work.

    So particular Linux Users are supported directly by vendors. Clarence Moon at enterprise level were you can provide you own custom image to be deployed Dell HP…. are all equal for Linux users. In fact its a simpler process to order 1 000 Linux machines with custom image than what it is to order 1 000 windows machines with custom image.

    For your smaller businesses and home users were 80/20 split is not a functional option Linux disappears from a lot of vendors.

    Clarence Moon basically you are too small to see the complete picture. The complete picture is not a black and white as you are trying to push. Size of company decided if you can order Linux Desktops or not in lots of cases.

    Clarence Moon there are 3 major desktop markets. Large Enterprise, Small business and Home User. These three major markets every major supplier provides different offers and options to each. So in some sections of the Desktop market Linux is fully supported.

    Also interesting fact is Home user is the most represented in web numbers. Small business and Large Enterprise most staff don’t use the Internet from work computers so they don’t show in web numbers.

  16. Brillo ranted, “Many Linux users are either *nix or FOSS fanatics on the domestic front.”

    I have never met one in the thousands of GNU/Linux users I have known. Where are they hiding? I personally have never met anyone who has used a UNIX OS other than GNU/Linux and it’s not a certified UNIX OS. Even the people to whom I introduced GNU/Linux certainly weren’t fanatics of FLOSS. They only knew it worked and was fast.

    Brillo begs for belief when he wrote, “Even among them there are those admittedly dual-boot between Linux and Windows on their machines.”

    Why would anyone dual-boot in this day of virtual machines? I did dual-boot many years ago but not because I wanted to use that other OS. My employer had paid for that other OS and wanted subsequent/other employees to have access to it. I cannot remember the last time I made a system dual-boot. It was usual to pave over that other OS after it had crumbled for the umpteenth time rather than restoring it from backup. Besides, dual-booting is a way to make GNU/Linux vulnerable to the fleas/malware that other OS carries/transmits.

  17. Clarence Moon says:

    What’s not massive about millions of users?

    If you are talking about the Linux users, then the answer is that they do not concentrate themselves into any addressable niche.

    As it is, they are scattered about the general population and occure as anomalies that satisfy themselves in much the same way that you yourself do, namely by obtaining products via the Wintel distribution mechanism and “paving over” with whatever floats your boat.

    If it ever were the case that the Linux users would band together and loyally patronize vendors who were directly addressing their needs, then it would be a whole different marketing scenario. But that does not seem to occur.

    There are vestiges of such behavior, but Linux-oriented suppliers come and go with the tides, it seems to me. I think that one problem that Linux suppliers have with their “market” is that a Linux user is, generally speaking, an odd duck that is somewhat shunned by the rest of the flock and also has the same sort of minimalist self-reliance that you espouse, Mr. Pogson.

    That is noble on the face of it, but it is death to the commercial sales of Linux and FOSS products. You like to say “free as in freedom”, but you are always crowing about “free as in beer” when it comes to showing why a school or government or even company might want to select Linux in place of Windows.

    So there may be millions of Linux users, but that is still not a Linux market that can be served profitably by any sort of organization.

  18. Brillo wrote an impressive list of compromised GNU/Linux systems followed by a rant, “Linux does not guarantee stability or security above any other operating system.”

    (begin irony)
    I guess that’s why US NSA recommends GNU/Linux and the US military uses it, eh?
    (end irony)

    Brillo completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of such compromises are inside jobs, really stupid administrators, weak passwords or stolen passwords. Certainly little will protect a system from that stuff. Brillo completely ignores the vast majority of GNU/Linux systems that were not compromised. GNU/Linux has never had a wave of malware racing triumphantly through every version as that other OS has had repeatedly due to poor design. GNU/Linux has never had rational users deciding to disconnect from the web for protection. GNU/Linux has never had more than a tiny percentage of malware aimed at it because that would be a complete waste of time by malware writers.

    There’s no reason to think GNU/Linux servers have any intrinsic vulnerability given that the vast majority are not compromised. OTOH, such compromises are daily occurrences for that other OS and M$ itself was compromised thanks to the great complexity and number of exposed surfaces of their systems.

  19. ch says:

    “There are two reasons Linux dominates the server market”

    Except that it doesn’t: Linux leads on web servers, but Windows still leads the overall server market.

    “Apples Operating system is based on a 100% free open source operating system called Darwin, look it up.”

    You really believe we don’t know that?

    “You are just paying for a set of apps and a pretty GUI stacked on top.”

    “Just”? That shows how little you understand. Apple took the part that is least important to them – the OS core – from OSS and added what’s important to them: A great GUI, thus creating an appealing product. To Linux fanboys like you, that’s “just a pretty GUI” – to Apple users, that’s the difference between the half-assed usability all too common in the land of the penguin and an UI that is actually easy to use.

    “There are much better operating systems than Windows.”

    I wouldn’t say that MacOS is that much better today.

    “And they are free, safe and secure.”

    Oh, so you are not talking about MacOS, after all. So which OSes do you have in mind? It can’t be Linux since it’s definitively not a better desktop OS than Windows. So is it one of the BSDs? Or Haiku? Or are you still hoping for ReactOS?

    “M$ lost 2/3 of its revenue since 99”

    Now you have really, truly lost it.

    MS revenues in 2001 (couldn’t find older values): $23,84 billion
    MS revenue in fiscal year 2012: $73.72 billion

    “Both are actively filing patent suits and rather waste time and capital, instead of inventing new products.”

    And after writing that, you paste some ranting against the newness of Metro. Really very consistent. And Apple isn’t inventing enough new products for you? Do they have to come up with something like the iPod, iPhone and iPad every year?

    Oh, and it would be nice if you inserted a link to whatever article you cite.Sure, I found it, but a link is just more convenient.

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/251490/windows_8_survey_half_who_have_tried_the_os_wouldnt_recommend_it.html

    BTW:

    “The transition from the new interface to the traditional desktop environment is awkward.”

    No, it’s actually horrible! You know, you have to click on the “Desktop” icon on the start screen!! It’s so terrifying!!!

    “It takes one 10 minutes just to figure out how to turn the damn computer off,”

    Blessed are those of us who remember Alt-F4 😉

    Oh, and why didn’t you quote the following part, too?

    “It takes some getting used to, but once you’ve learned it, it is easier to use, faster, more intuitive, and easy to customize,” one respondent said. “It’s shaping up to be not only the most radically different Windows ever, but also the best. We aren’t in Kansas anymore, Toto.”

    “I am blown away. The PC just became fun to use again,” another fan said.

  20. ch says:

    Mr Pogson,

    thanks for again avoiding the real issues and focussing on a tangent. “In Europe, a lot of people drive rather small cars” and another lot stick with their gaz guzzlers. BMW and Mercedes are doing well, and not just for their A-class types.

    “What’s not massive about millions of users?”

    Obviously, that depends on what they are using: When those millions use Windows Mobile or Windows Phone, it logically follows that WM and WP are massive failures since other systems sell tens of times more. However, when those millions use Linux on their desktops it’s “massive” – never mind that a certain other OS sells tens of times more. Using double standards is of course a main ingredient to PogsonLogic (TM).

  21. Brillo says:

    Tell that to the businesses and user’s of Linux. There are two reasons Linux dominates the server market SECURITY AND STABILITY.

    Disclaimer: I did not compile the following list, but someone needs to put it here before anyone gets misled by dougman’s blatantly false advertising and suffers from financial losses as a result:

    Red Hat
    https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2008-August/msg00012.html
    http://www.techeye.net/software/fedora-hacked

    Sony
    http://twitter.com/lulzsec/status/76422624024080384
    http://pastebin.com/5KAnWPXX

    Gnome
    http://www.geek.com/articles/news/gnomeorg-compromised-by-malicious-hacker-20040324/

    kernel.org
    http://lwn.net/Articles/457142/

    linux.com/linuxfoundation.org
    http://lwn.net/Articles/458414/

    github.com
    http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/03/hacker-commandeers-github-to-prove-vuln-in-ruby/

    mysql.com
    http://techie-buzz.com/tech-news/mysql-com-database-compromised-sql-injection.html
    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220295/MySQL.com_hacked_to_serve_malware
    http://www.ehackingnews.com/2011/12/mysqlcom-hacked-by-d35m0nd142-using-sql.html

    PHP
    http://www.php.net/archive/2011.php#id2011-03-19-2

    Nasdaq
    http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/05/technology/nasdaq_hacked/index.htm

    WordPress
    http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/13/hacker-gains-access-to-wordpress-com-servers/

    See also:
    TJ Maxx, Zappos, LinkedIn, Last.Fm, eHarmony, Steam, HB Gary Federal, Gawker, CitiGroup and WashingtonPost.

    As long as there is software, a computer system, Linux or not, is always vulnerable to attacks. Linux does not guarantee stability or security above any other operating system. Any such alleged superiority is neither substantiated by conclusive evidence nor endorsed by the majority of security researchers and thus at best MISLEADING or at worst FALSE.

  22. Brillo says:

    What’s not massive about millions of users?

    It’s not massive when you consider that:

    1) For every Linux user, there are tens of times more Windows users in home and business environments.

    2) Many Linux users are either *nix or FOSS fanatics on the domestic front.

    3) Even among them there are those admittedly dual-boot between Linux and Windows on their machines.

    4) Aside from total nutjobs, No one believes smartphone OSs are in any way the same as a desktop OS.

    When you are looking at a picture of hundreds of million users, a few millions (provided that there actually exist that many Linux users) are nothing more than statistical noise. Linux, thus, is nothing more than statistical noise in the desktop scene.

  23. Clarence Moon, ignoring the realities of Ubuntu GNU/Linux and Android/Linux, wrote, “Linux and the clumsy applications that clone popular programs is never going to be seen as an adequate replacement by the mass market.”

    What’s not massive about millions of users? You should go talk with confused people living on “the street”. They would understand your reasoning immediately. I do not.

  24. dougman says:

    Re: Also, there is nothing even remotely capable of satisfying customer requirements in the FLOSS field.

    Tell that to the businesses and user’s of Linux. There are two reasons Linux dominates the server market SECURITY AND STABILITY.

    There is a reason that over 95% of the super computers in the world run Linux and nearly 95% of Fortune 1000 companies use IBM’s Information Management System (Linux)

    Linux is anything you want it to be, take Android for example.

    Apples Operating system is based on a 100% free open source operating system called Darwin, look it up. You are just paying for a set of apps and a pretty GUI stacked on top.

    There are much better operating systems than Windows. And they are free, safe and secure.

    Same thing can be said about M$ and Apple, as they are falling behind on on customers needs. M$ lost 2/3 of its revenue since 99, Apple is just now reaching it’s revenue peak, if you have shares perhaps you should consider selling while they are at the top.

    Both are actively filing patent suits and rather waste time and capital, instead of inventing new products.

    Windows 8 Survey: Half Who Have Tried the OS Wouldn’t Recommend It

    Common Complaints

    Some of the most common complaints about Windows 8:

    The transition from the new interface to the traditional desktop environment is awkward.

    Metro apps mostly display full-screen, wasting valuable screen real estate.

    There’s no simple and obvious way to shut down Metro apps.

    Even a task as basic as shutting down your PC is obscure and takes too many steps.

    “It’s like working on two different systems, like one native OS and a virtual PC, ” one respondent said. “If Microsoft had tried to adapt the Metro interface to the desktop and Explorer, it would have been great.”

    “It takes one 10 minutes just to figure out how to turn the damn computer off,”

    “The disconnect between Desktop and Metro is … awkward. It’s odd having to deal with two window and task management metaphors,” another preview user said.

    Clarence, clone popular programs? All the popular programs I use are cross-platform compatible, which ones do you infer?

  25. Clarence Moon says:

    That suggests M$ has certainly been abusing markets since P3…

    I don’t see how that conclusion can be reached from your tortured cite, Mr. Pogson, but it is immaterial in any case. Your assertion was that the consumer would surely seek alternate suppliers as a result of distaste for such “abuse” and my point was that the consumer does not recognize any such “abuse”. Your obtuse “proof” does nothing to show that there is any such recognition, without which no such actions would be taken. Also, there is nothing even remotely capable of satisfying customer requirements in the FLOSS field.

    Linux and the clumsy applications that clone popular programs is never going to be seen as an adequate replacement by the mass market.

  26. Clarence Moon wrote, “From the customer’s point of view, the history of the “IBM PC” with Microsoft has been a never ending progression of better and better performances at lower and lower prices. They certainly do not feel any abuse, Mr. Pogson, as much as you rant about it.”

    Hmmm… M$ wrote, “current PC technology is totally sufficient for most office tasks and consumer desires and that any performance bottleneck is not in today’s PCs but in today’s COM pipes. This in itself might slow down replacement cycles and life time shortening until we find true MIPS eating applications- a priority not only INTEL should subscribe to.”

    That suggests M$ has certainly been abusing markets since P3, more or less. The most shocking evidence I have encountered personally besides malware was a PC running XP SP 1 sitting in an office for years with no connection to the web. It was snappy until I did the full upgrade to SP 3 and installed new applications. It dragged butt… The number of running processes increased, RAM usage increased and swapping increased. That’s some sales-tool, that M$’s updating system.

  27. ch wrote sarcastically about energy conservation, “Yeah, that’s why nobody is driving gaz-guzzling SUVs, all cars outside on the street go at least 100 miles per gallon, sure …”

    It’s interesting that phenomenon is purely a USA phenomenon. In Europe, a lot of people drive rather small cars some being diesel just to ramp up efficiency. Here, in Canada, most cars I see are definitely of the “compact” variety. Tiny boxes are everywhere made by Kia, Toyota, Ford, etc. There are even quite a few electric vehicles and hybrids. BTW, my wife bought a hybrid that’s an SUV. It does guzzle gas but the performance is outstanding and it’s much less than a big SUV. The other day I was getting 40 miles per US gallon on the highway. Her average, including about half city and half highway is 26 miles per US gallon. The thing will push you back into the seats even with a light pressure on the accelerator and it will corner very well. We can haul 1000 pounds in it… and attach a trailer.

    Mercedes Benz in UK:
    “The A-Class offers a range of specially developed petrol and diesel engines, each blending impressive power with remarkable efficiency. All feature energy saving measures such as ECO start / stop technology and CO2 emissions are as low as 98 g/km – the lowest ever produced by a Mercedes-Benz.

    A choice of three 1.6 litre and 2.0 litre petrol engines includes the A 250, which produces 211 hp (155 kW), 350 Nm of torque and sprints from 0-62 mph in around 6.6 seconds. Advanced fuel injection and turbo charging technology ensures power is maximised while fuel consumption is kept remarkably low.

    Two diesel versions include the A 180 CDI, which lays claim to the road tax-free 98 g/km and achieves up to 62 mpg. Whilst the A 200 CDI, produces up to 300 Nm of torque yet emits just 118 g/km with a combined cycle of 62.8 mpg.”

    Those are UK/Imperial gallons, but still, those are impressively efficient power-trains for a mass-production/consumer-friendly vehicle.

    So, you should ask why USA is bent on squandering a huge resource for making plastic by burning oil when they could change technology and make the resource last much longer.

  28. ch says:

    sgae -> sage
    Si -> So

  29. ch says:

    “Consumers have already been educated
    •by global warming,”

    Yeah, that’s why nobody is driving gaz-guzzling SUVs, all cars outside on the street go at least 100 miles per gallon, sure …

    ҉ۢPCs slowing down,
    •PCs re-re-rebooting,”

    What are you talking about? Oh yes, it’s still ’95.
    (And you still don’t have a clue about administrating Windows.)

    “•prices not reflecting the real cost of technology,”

    So tell me, oh sgae of sages, what exactly is the real price of technology? Let me guess: “Everything must be for free, and must have all the features I need and must have no bugs!” Guess that sums it up?

    BTW, MS and Apple (like Novell in it’s hayday) have profits about 1/3 of their revenue. Si if they were to forfeit all profit, they could lower prices by 1/3. If they settled for 10% profit, it would be ~20%. Would be nice, but not exactly earth-shaking.

    “•M$ and Apple and Oracle suing the world rather than competing.”

    They are not sueing Joe Average, so how is he affected in any way he is likely to notice? BTW, MS has been sued much more often than they sue someone (except for cases of mass piracy). Apple, OTOH, has sued a lot over the years.

  30. Clarence Moon says:

    IDC apparently still has faith that the PC will continue to be a cash cow

    Still haven’t read the Boston Consulting Group’s grid paper, Mr. Pogson? Take some time out from your busy schedule and do so. It will vastly improve your knowledge and perhaps your prose along with that.

    You can only abuse customers so long before they find alternatives and right now, hundreds of millions of people are preferring to buy a small cheap computer running */Linux than their next Wintel PC.

    So much to go awry in a single sentence!

    From the customer’s point of view, the history of the “IBM PC” with Microsoft has been a never ending progression of better and better performances at lower and lower prices. They certainly do not feel any abuse, Mr. Pogson, as much as you rant about it.

    Also, the people buying the smart phones and tablets continue to buy conventional PCs as your own cite here describes. Where do you get the notion that such devices are replacements and not simply augmentations to what they have and are keeping?

    Finally, your slavish devotion to trying to get some of the luster from the Android effort by Google to rub off onto your tired old “Gnu/Linux” product is unbecoming of any serious advocacy. Try to make it look like it’s standing up on its own. There’s no likelihood that will lead to any success either, but it is more dignified.

Leave a Reply