The Linux Usageshare

Linux is everywhere now. In the servers where it originally belonged and perhaps still belongs, in the desktop and now more recently even in mobile devices and tablets. But what has remained a mystery for a long time is exactly what the Linux market share is. Windows is touted as the most popular OS with over 90% market share. Mac OSX is said to have around 4-5 percent and Linux a measly 1-2% according to Wikipedia.

(Shown below are the relative market share of various OSes according to Wikipedia)

So Windows is the most popular OS. I think there's no controversy regarding that. What creates a controversy though is the market share of Linux. Now keeping a tab on Windows market share is relatively easy, since there is a definite sales figure (and perhaps tracking). But when it comes to Linux, because its free and no "buying issue" is involved, tracking the total number of users is extremely difficult. What complicates the problem further is the presence of literally hundreds of distros. Yes, Ubuntu is without doubt the most popular Linux distro (Distrowatch reports an overwhelming hits per day statistic in favour of Ubuntu), but its not the only one. Fedora is very popular among Linux users, and there is a dedicated fan following for OpenSUSE, Free BSD, CentOS.

(Shown below is a screenshot from Distrowatch showing average hits per day)

Tracking the growth of each of these distros requires an immense amount of coordination effort among companies and developers which unfortunately the Linux sphere has not seen in the past. Distro bashing these days is a favourite pastime for many and the importance of a collective effort to create a platform for collaboration and the bigger picture is missed altogether.

Canonical has recently brought a new tracking application to its distro Ubuntu which helps it to collect info about how long the OS is installed on the PC etc. As of now there is no detailed info about exactly what information Canonical is collecting and what it intends to do with it and as expected there this concern has been reciprocated by a few users. (See Slashdot and Phoronix more info on this)

So why is tracking all that important? Why is the marketshare such a hallowed statistic? Why does a normal user need to even bother about what percentage of users are using the same OS he's using? The answer has been eloquently given by Slashdot blogger Gerhard Mack who says:

"There are hundreds of conflicting estimates of how many Linux machines are out there. Knowing how many people are using Linux is important because larger numbers provide leverage when we go asking for drivers from hardware manufacturers, apps from software makers or try and convince OEMs to bundle Linux."

(Source: TechNewsWorld)

Linux needs more support from hardware manufacturers and drivers support to improve the "Linux experience", if I may say so. The only way to convince manufacturers and developers to do that is to give them hard data. Thats a fair argument I think, as long as the user is aware of the info that the company is collecting.

After all for most (if not all) Linux is much more than just an OS.

Chrome OS...what the hell is Google trying to achieve?

Image by niallkennedy via FlickrAnd here comes another OS...Google Chrome OS! (cant they think of any better name than that for an OS?)

Anyway, coming to the point, as of now Chrome OS is very much in development and currently the version thats "leaked out", seems to be a dampener.

First up, you require a constant internet connection to do stuff (even to log in to your OS, you need a net connection). Apparently your username and password are the same ones which you use to log in to your google account. Secondly, there are loads of google apps on this OS and all of it runs in the guise of the Chrome browser (hence the name). Although google apps are seriously cool, they still leave a lot to be desired when it comes to offline activities and privacy concerns. As of now, there's no provision for installing extra apps apart from Google ones (hope this will change by the time the final version comes out). So basically its more like icloud installed on your desktop! I seriously dont want to be in a situation where I have Chrome OS installed and find myself unable to connect to the internet!

One thing that this OS will definitely do is bring much needed attention to Linux. Hopefully we'll find better drivers, softwares and codecs for Linux if Chrome OS becomes a success. However I dont like an open source platform being used by corporate honchos like Google (oh well, thats my way of looking at it).

But, here's wishing Google Chrome OS all the luck! Hope it turns out to be something really useful.

The Piratebay Showdown

Image via WikipediaThis is undoubtedly the hottest topic amongst many users of torrent sites across the world. Piratebay.org, one of most prolific and popular torrent portals on the internet is being sued into legal waters by many gaming companies, movie studios, etc. for promoting and helping piracy. The three musketeers of Piratebay are as always undeterred even though the preliminary court ruling has gone against them.

The Piratebay trial is not just a trial anymore, its a revolutionary episode which is going to redefine we view the term "copyright". I was watching a business programme on CNN and Richard Quest put up some convincing pro-copyright arguments. It is true that the software engineers who dedicate their heart and soul to make a software or an OS deserve to get paid handsomely. However, it is also true that unless a released product becomes widespread, there's no way its going to be a success. Microsoft Windows is such a popular OS only because, like it or not its the most available one! And perhaps the most easy to access, every other person has the CD and its very tempting for many to simply make multiple copies of that for personal usage.

Now, we talk about bridging the Digital Divide in many countries and then we release some of the really expensive softwares and OS, expecting people from even the poorest families to buy them. Needless to say, an absurd expectation and a very flawed concept altogether. Softwares should have revised rates for every single country they want them to get released after taking into account the present per capita income and buying power of the people. Some may argue, that is too complicated a process to be followed. Hell yes! No one claimed that releasing a software was a matter of joke and its time companies started realising that. There's no point charging one universal rate for a software throughout the world, irrespective of the financial abilities of poeple. Unless such steps are taken, "patching" of softwares or applying doctored serial keys will continue to be the most popular way of using softwares for millions around the planet.

Like it or not, in the 21st century file sharing has become one of the most favourite pastimes of netizens. And the thought that the entire thing is "supposed to be" illegal doesnt cross the mind of most people, simply because there are so many out there doing it! Now, many people even have problems with the term "copyright". They argue, if anyone's releasing anything on the internet, he/she has a responsibility of making it available to each and every person who wants to use it. After all, the internet is virtually a free platform. Convincing argument? Hmm....maybe not. But food for thought, definitely.

It is however true, that using the internet's enormous ability to reach out to millions is forcing politicians (remember Obama's campaign? Using free alternatives such as Twitter etc. was a revolutionary idea itself!), musicians and of course some authors as well to release their views, albums and ebooks on the net itself. Let us consider a scenario where albums are released by a musician for free over the internet for the fans. The obvious question is how is the musician supposed to get the revenue for it? The obvious answer is advertising of course! How to do, when to do that, etc. are questions whose answers can be figured out in due course. If a company like Google can support itself mostly on adverts, why cant the others?

Finally, does it all boil down to something sinister? Are the companies tring to bring in the extra bucks just by suing a torrent portal? Are they trying to send out a message to those millions who are still using torrents across the world, irrespective of caste, creed, race, and sometimes across all financial and social segments? Is it after all, all about the moolah? Is the distribution and popularity of a software the last thing on the minds of many, compared to the money earned from it ? Tough questions...but one cant argue with one point, till date a whole range of movies, softwares, albums, etc. are only popular because of the existance of the file sharing network. Whether its illegal, whether its ethical and whether its causing substantial damages to a company are questions whose answers will be debated everywhere.

Image source : www.thepiratebay.org