Linux Users Drop to Under 1% In Latest Steam Survey

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Linux Users Drop to Under 1% In Latest Steam Survey

steam linux

Linux and Mac OS's numbers dwindle even further in Steam's latest hardware survey.

Every month, Steam asks users to submit hardware information in order to compile it into this neat little data chart, giving us a handy cross section of exactly what kind of hardware PC gamers are using. Despite Valve's big push to have Linux on Steam, the results of the survey has shown that Linux Steam users have dropped to a dismal 0.94% of all users, down from 1.05% last month.

Mac OS's numbers are also down to 3.16%, from 3.32% last month. Windows is, on the other hand, up to 95.81%. Could these dwindling numbers be one of the factors behind Oculus Rift's decision to halt Mac and Linux development? After all, if such a minuscule percentage of your audience is using these OSs, it does seem like a waste of resources to develop for them.

Other changes heralded by this month survey include the continued increase of 4 CPU adoption. 44.07% of Steam users are now using 4-CPU processes, compared to 48.42% still on a duo-core system. Nvidia still maintains a heavy lead in the graphics card wars, with 52.39% of the total share, compared to AMD's 27.95%.

Source: Valve

Permalink

Dude...edit your damn article.

I realize it's self-fulfilling, but if you're gonna play games on a PC, anything but Windows is a second class experience. Tried it on Linux for a while, and even with Wine it was a horrible experience, especially with the drivers. Now I just use Linux for servers, Windows for gaming and desktop.

I've got one of those Linux on Desktop guys for a friend, refuses to run Windows or OSX (It's the Man, man!), but he couldn't deal with how bad Linux gaming was either, so now he games on consoles (and doesn't see the contradiction there). Probably what they're seeing here. Lots of good indie games on XB1 and PS4 now!

A lot of Linux users seem adverse to using Steam, DRM being a big part of it. Makes me wonder what GOG's numbers are, probably not much higher, but it would be interesting.

I switched to Linux shortly after building my first computer and haven't looked back. I've outgrown Macs (I was an avid Mac user in the past.), and Windows has always striked me as badly designed. I occasionally boot into Windows for gaming, but Linux gaming has been surprisingly smooth, usually everything "just works", which is weird because the big problem with Linux is having to fix the goddamned thing all the time, but at least a buggy game has never screwed up my OS install like Serious Sam HD 2 on Windows.

I think Valve has put Linux gaming on the back burner, to cook up some good ol' VR gumbo. I haven't heard anything new about Steam OS, Steam Boxes, Steam Machines, Steam turbines, or Steamed carrots in about 6 months. (And they flubbed the Steam Machines' "easier to optimize for" concept by letting any PC builder slap the label on their randomly configured products.)

That's the issue. Even when a company does try to break free of the MS stranglehold, they are unfocused and eventually lose interest. Almost no major game company really wants to waste money porting over their games to a barely used platform, and I don't believe WINE was ever even meant for games. We'll probably only see MS's market share drop below 90% if they ever make a really stupid mistake, like forcing GFWL(or rather an equally shitty successor) on everything or making the Windows license subscription-based.

If Valve truly wants Linux to be a viable alternative to Windows, they need to put some real money into ensuring quality drivers for graphics cards. That's the biggest weakness Linux has; the official drivers for graphics card tend to be incredibly sub-par. If they could remove that advantage from Windows then Linux would have a real shot at becoming a standard gaming OS.

MazokuRanma:
If Valve truly wants Linux to be a viable alternative to Windows, they need to put some real money into ensuring quality drivers for graphics cards. That's the biggest weakness Linux has; the official drivers for graphics card tend to be incredibly sub-par. If they could remove that advantage from Windows then Linux would have a real shot at becoming a standard gaming OS.

The problem with that is that Valve doesn't control the drivers, Nvidia and AMD make the drivers. You can't make a game developer/publisher responsible for something that is totally the manufacturer's domain.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:

MazokuRanma:
If Valve truly wants Linux to be a viable alternative to Windows, they need to put some real money into ensuring quality drivers for graphics cards. That's the biggest weakness Linux has; the official drivers for graphics card tend to be incredibly sub-par. If they could remove that advantage from Windows then Linux would have a real shot at becoming a standard gaming OS.

The problem with that is that Valve doesn't control the drivers, Nvidia and AMD make the drivers. You can't make a game developer/publisher responsible for something that is totally the manufacturer's domain.

They can't force them, no, but they can certainly offer a financial incentive to do so. That's why I mentioned only money and not time. They need to put together a contract that incentivizes AMD and nVidia to do so for them. After some predetermined amount of time they would then need to evaluate if the gains were worth continuing or not. In a best case scenario, the gains would become sufficient that AMD and nVidia would have their own incentive to continue updating their Linux drivers.

Wait wait wait! Linux is STILL a thing?! Wasn't it a stupid protest operating system from late 90s/early 00s for rich kids with too much allowance, 2+ Desktops and a desire to spend 8 Hours getting Starcraft to work at minimum settings?!
I could have sworn it was a legit system in the same way SCP is a legit government organization...

Silentpony:
Wait wait wait! Linux is STILL a thing?! Wasn't it a stupid protest operating system from late 90s/early 00s for rich kids with too much allowance, 2+ Desktops and a desire to spend 8 Hours getting Starcraft to work at minimum settings?!
I could have sworn it was a legit system in the same way SCP is a legit government organization...

I started using it because I was too poor for a legit windows key. I cut my teeth on slackware. It's still a fantastic OS, just not really made for gaming. might have something to do with amd and nvidia both having relationships with microsoft and no real benefit to making good drivers for linux

Despite what you haters think, Windows 7 AND 8.1 are actually good operating systems. Not great, but not bad either. They do the job provided. It has its GUI flaws, but that is all subjective. Linux users act all smug because they can customize, but when it comes down to it all they are doing is modding - it's the same damn thing you can do on Windows, and you have the benefit of having a functional operating system underneath it.

We need a new dedicated gaming operating system, but Linux most certainly isn't it. We need to get the most out of our rigs and Linux sure as hell can't do that without dedicated support, both external and internal. The fundamental concept of Linux means that it has no internal and that is a huge problem, and I am sure as shit that Valve is not going to be that internal. Hell, even if they were if we look at their previous track record they will either release useless updates every day or never release an update at all. After all, Valve does whatever the hell they want without listening to consumers.

Silentpony:
Wait wait wait! Linux is STILL a thing?! Wasn't it a stupid protest operating system from late 90s/early 00s for rich kids with too much allowance, 2+ Desktops and a desire to spend 8 Hours getting Starcraft to work at minimum settings?!
I could have sworn it was a legit system in the same way SCP is a legit government organization...

Pretty much the world's servers run off Linux and Android is based on it. It most definitely is a thing but shouldn't be within 100 yards of a gaming PC. So yeah pretty much everyone who is using it is shooting themselves in the foot for no good reason.

Take Windows 8.1 it's poorly designed interface if you don't have a touch screen...however you barely use that interface once in a game (or ar all if you boot straight to desktop). Yet people don't upgrade because of it sadly that's a shame because games actually run better on it than they do in Windows 7.

Ralancian:

Take Windows 8.1 it's poorly designed interface if you don't have a touch screen...however you barely use that interface once in a game (or ar all if you boot straight to desktop). Yet people don't upgrade because of it sadly that's a shame because games actually run better on it than they do in Windows 7.

Y'know something funny? Aside from there not being a start menu (which is something I hardly used since it first came out 20 years ago), my Windows defaults to the Desktop when I log in and all I did was use it once when I first installed 8.1. So that "poorly designed interface" doesn't even exist to me unless I hit the start button, which again is something I've never really used. I have most of my programs either shortcutted in a folder on the desktop, or the ones I use most are quicklaunched from the taskbar.
So yeah, people complain about the Start Menu interface but it really isn't a big deal if you're like me and never used the older version either. Personally I've ALWAYS found the Start Menu to be the weakest feature of Windows, yet that seems to be what people complain about most with 8.1. Its just an overlay and not perma-default...
Linux is too niche for people to use outside of tech circles, and poor for gaming. Sorry Linux users, its true.

I'm a little surprised that Mac users are so low. I would have expected it to be higher with so many games being released these days on Windows and Mac (and Linux, I guess, but I can't really say I remember ever meeting a person that used Linux). Than again, I guess a lot of Mac users got used to not being able to use our machines for gaming (tis why I got into console gaming, and I reckon that's the same for a lot of people). Even now a lot of shit gets released that I want to play that I can't cause I got a Mac and it's only coming out on Windows.

Ralancian:

Silentpony:
Wait wait wait! Linux is STILL a thing?! Wasn't it a stupid protest operating system from late 90s/early 00s for rich kids with too much allowance, 2+ Desktops and a desire to spend 8 Hours getting Starcraft to work at minimum settings?!
I could have sworn it was a legit system in the same way SCP is a legit government organization...

Pretty much the world's servers run off Linux and Android is based on it. It most definitely is a thing but shouldn't be within 100 yards of a gaming PC. So yeah pretty much everyone who is using it is shooting themselves in the foot for no good reason.

Take Windows 8.1 it's poorly designed interface if you don't have a touch screen...however you barely use that interface once in a game (or ar all if you boot straight to desktop). Yet people don't upgrade because of it sadly that's a shame because games actually run better on it than they do in Windows 7.

Err linux has slight edge in web servers (35.9% v 32.3%) but most of the world's servers are not linux. The vast majority of servers are running various versions of windows server O/S

LongAndShort:
I'm a little surprised that Mac users are so low. I would have expected it to be higher with so many games being released these days on Windows and Mac (and Linux, I guess, but I can't really say I remember ever meeting a person that used Linux). Than again, I guess a lot of Mac users got used to not being able to use our machines for gaming (tis why I got into console gaming, and I reckon that's the same for a lot of people). Even now a lot of shit gets released that I want to play that I can't cause I got a Mac and it's only coming out on Windows.

In the case of Macs its not the total user base which is the reason why things are released. Apple product user are more likely to buy and so have a higher average spend per user.

This article. These comments.
image

The survey results came out at the end of April. The survey picks a number of participants at random, to no ones surprise most of Steam users run Windows, so the likely hood of participants being Windows users is obviously going to be very high.

inmunitas:
This article. These comments.
image

The survey results came out at the end of April. The survey picks a number of participants at random, to no ones surprise most of Steam uses run Windows, so the likely hood of participants being Windows uses is obviously going to be very high.

What are you talking about, it's an ongoing survey from valve since 2013, it's measuring trends from people who opt in, not random. So maybe actually reply to a person's comment or post any kind of argument instead of just coming in, throwing up a stupid picture and calling everyone in the thread an idiot. If you think something is wrong prove it.

albino boo:
Err linux has slight edge in web servers (35.9% v 32.3%) but most of the world's servers are not linux. The vast majority of servers are running various versions of windows server O/S

Point being it's still pretty widely used just not in the desktop market. Alot of developers it and unix like systems(not Mac OS) are pretty much bread and butter for a lot of developers. Personally I've moved from Linux and Unix (C) to Windows (C#) and much prefer it for higher level programming but in reality most of the time it's about what's best for what your doing. When it comes to gaming you either want a dedicated console or a Windows Desktop anything else won't do the job as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Market_share_by_category

Ralancian:

albino boo:
Err linux has slight edge in web servers (35.9% v 32.3%) but most of the world's servers are not linux. The vast majority of servers are running various versions of windows server O/S

Point being it's still pretty widely used just not in the desktop market. Alot of developers it and unix like systems(not Mac OS) are pretty much bread and butter for a lot of developers. Personally I've moved from Linux and Unix (C) to Windows (C#) and much prefer it for higher level programming but in reality most of the time it's about what's best for what your doing. When it comes to gaming you either want a dedicated console or a Windows Desktop anything else won't do the job as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Market_share_by_category

So my 20 year career in IT is invalidated because you have changed to linux desktop. Hint a run a business that develops risk management tools for companies and I know what operating system business use in there own networks. This is what I wrote last week in this http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/538.875478-Linux-What-version-should-I-try-and-acclimitize-to thread.

albino boo:

BeerTent:
You are right, but I kind of feel that if Windows does go in the direction I think it's going, a lot of people are going to say, "Fuck this." and look for an alternative.

We've seen this already with the perceptions around Vista, 7 and 8 within the US education system. I've done some work in tech support for a company that sells educational products with a very strong market share, and I had to spend more time with Mac than with Windows as a result of some bad MS business decisions. It is a Glacier, and it isn't going to be stopped anytime soon, but they're making mistakes. And they've been making a lot of them. I can't be the only MS fanboy that's turned around and said "eeh, this... This isn't what I want."

But then again, the IT sector could be like the gaming community. Everyone could just roll over and take it. I could be completely wrong.

There is no difference between what Valve wants to do and what you think windows is trying to do. It costs real money to turn linux into something as user friendly as Windows and someone is going to want to make a return on that investment. The big advantage that windows has in the business market is active directory. That allows a relatively small number of people to run large networks, reducing the total cost of ownership. There are LDAP server client setups for linux but the only one that can compete with AD are paid for versions which you existing staff don't know how to use. Retraining costs time and money which makes them more expensive to run. Migrating from one version of windows server to another is relatively easy, going from windows LDAP to Red Hat or Suse LDAP is effectively starting from scratch. This again adds to costs. I have sat in meetings and gone through the list with detailed costings many times. By buying windows you are spending upfront capital costs to reduce human resources needed. You can go for the linux desktop which is free but the back end increased human resources more than than outweigh any upfront savings.

albino boo:
So my 20 year career in IT is invalidated because you have changed to linux desktop. Hint a run a business that develops risk management tools for companies and I know what operating system business use in there own networks. This is what I wrote last week in this http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/538.875478-Linux-What-version-should-I-try-and-acclimitize-to thread.

WTF? Did you even read what I wrote (I'm guessing not because your saying I moved to Linux desktop when I said I'd done the exact opposite)? Why are you even jumping down my throat? I wasn't disagreeing with you or invalidating your work history. All I was trying to make a point was that Linux is not a dead operating system read the original post I was quoting.

This is why I hate posting on the internet at times people have a go at you when your trying to make the same bloody point just because your slightly wrong about something.

Linux usage has been going up and down around 1% since it began.

Remember valve only started supporting it because they got scared the windows store would destroy their business model.

In the meantime, I have been running Linux-only desktop computer for many years now, and in last two years, I have more games waiting in my backlog than I have time for, and it's getting better and better.

I'm a happy camper.

Ralancian:

albino boo:
So my 20 year career in IT is invalidated because you have changed to linux desktop. Hint a run a business that develops risk management tools for companies and I know what operating system business use in there own networks. This is what I wrote last week in this http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/538.875478-Linux-What-version-should-I-try-and-acclimitize-to thread.

WTF? Did you even read what I wrote (I'm guessing not because your saying I moved to Linux desktop when I said I'd done the exact opposite)? Why are you even jumping down my throat? I wasn't disagreeing with you or invalidating your work history. All I was trying to make a point was that Linux is not a dead operating system read the original post I was quoting.

This is why I hate posting on the internet at times people have a go at you when you're trying to make the same bloody point just because your slightly wrong about something.

You statements are factually incorrect and no amount of obfuscation about how much you hate the internet will change the fact that windows server o/s are the dominant server o/ses. Linux has less than 5% of the overall server market. Full blown UNIX os/es are just as common as linux but in the large scale database segment. It's a tiny niche product and is not widely used.

Rednog:

inmunitas:
This article. These comments.
image

The survey results came out at the end of April. The survey picks a number of participants at random, to no ones surprise most of Steam uses run Windows, so the likely hood of participants being Windows uses is obviously going to be very high.

What are you talking about, it's an ongoing survey from valve since 2013, it's measuring trends from people who opt in, not random. So maybe actually reply to a person's comment or post any kind of argument instead of just coming in, throwing up a stupid picture and calling everyone in the thread an idiot. If you think something is wrong prove it.

It's a random selection every month, you get asked to participate each time you are selected. Currently there are around 125 million active users on Steam, there was around 65 million active users back in 2013, the survey has shown Linux usage around 1% the entire time, do the math. Also many Linux distributions are on a six month release cycle, with new releases generally coming out around April and October, the latest version of Ubuntu is 15.04[1], you'll also note it's absence in the survey results.

[1] The Ubuntu version numbers are the last two digits of the year and the month it was released, i.e. 15.04 is April 2015.

albino boo:

You statements are factually incorrect and no amount of obfuscation about how much you hate the internet will change the fact that windows server o/s are the dominant server o/ses. Linux has less than 5% of the overall server market. Full blown UNIX os/es are just as common as linux but in the large scale database segment. It's a tiny niche product and is not widely used.

I know that everywhere I've worked has been a core of Windows servers with peripheral Linux servers providing specialised services. I'd be interested to know whether a large number of businesses use Linux but don't let it access the Internet directly since that would tally with my experience.

EDIT: It looks like I missed the part where you write software that gives you an insight in to private servers. Colour me surprised, I always figured Linux would add up to a far higher number of servers just because of how it is deployed.

ForumSafari:

albino boo:

You statements are factually incorrect and no amount of obfuscation about how much you hate the internet will change the fact that windows server o/s are the dominant server o/ses. Linux has less than 5% of the overall server market. Full blown UNIX os/es are just as common as linux but in the large scale database segment. It's a tiny niche product and is not widely used.

I know that everywhere I've worked has been a core of Windows servers with peripheral Linux servers providing specialised services. I'd be interested to know whether a large number of businesses use Linux but don't let it access the Internet directly since that would tally with my experience.

EDIT: It looks like I missed the part where you write software that gives you an insight into private servers. Colour me surprised, I always figured Linux would add up to a far higher number of servers just because of how it is deployed.

In the windows NT era Linux was used more than today but with advent of AD, group policy and the small business server edition its just that linux is not competitive in the long run. I used to recommend for a small business using linux setup using samba and qmail installed as an all in one product. Then out came the small business server which did all that out of the box. Microsoft has been very smart with its positioning, its watch words is total cost of ownership. Its very much easier to integrate into AD's account management and permissions than doing it on a server by server basis. Its smart in two ways, you can show the beancounters costings and the IT departments have less work to do. Fundamentally, IT departments don't want to make hassle for themselves and keep as much as possible on windows on the SME market. In the high end enterprise market things are little different. Inside IT departments you get various empires fighting their own corner so you get linux/unix with an even chance. I've worked on various enterprise level databases and its much more common for the os to be non windows. Its the overhead of windows that starts to have a cost implication at that level.

The most common linux server are these off the shelf web hosting deals. They are linux/apache with a php script sitting on the front end. They are great at their jobs and linux is perfect for that role and to be honest I don't see anything else competing in that segment.

Silentpony:
Wait wait wait! Linux is STILL a thing?! Wasn't it a stupid protest operating system from late 90s/early 00s for rich kids with too much allowance, 2+ Desktops and a desire to spend 8 Hours getting Starcraft to work at minimum settings?!
I could have sworn it was a legit system in the same way SCP is a legit government organization...

Hey you want a fully functioning OS without the bells and whistles of Windows, it's a fairly nice, super lightweight way to breathe new life into like a laptop or something.

Sadly getting shit like Adobe's products and alot of games to run with it is a Herculean task at times.

Though there's no faster way to learn code out of necessity... The 6 months I had linux and nothing else taught me things. Ooooh did it teach me things.

albino boo:
Microsoft has been very smart with its positioning, its watch words is total cost of ownership. Its very much easier to integrate into AD's account management and permissions than doing it on a server by server basis. Its smart in two ways, you can show the beancounters costings and the IT departments have less work to do. Fundamentally, IT departments don't want to make hassle for themselves and keep as much as possible on windows on the SME market. In the high end enterprise market things are little different. Inside IT departments you get various empires fighting their own corner so you get linux/unix with an even chance.

I work in SMBs mostly and we've always run Windows for most things because of Active Directory and all that brings with it. AD, Group Policy, Exchange and the anciliary services like WSUS are on Windows obviously. Where I nearly always see Linux used is for things like network monitors and log servers because the offerings there are just plain better. I'm just surprised that Linux doesn't have a higher install base purely due to the fact that you can spin up as many installs as you want to sandbox services.

Oh and while SBS was a financially compelling product line I'm not sure I'd have ever recommended them, particularly if the business was in a field that was prone to acquisitions and mergers. I've been looking at roping together a raft of SBS using businesses into a single forest and the stuff you can do with SBS and no real IT knowledge is pretty puketastic.

albino boo:
In the windows NT era Linux was used more than today

Well that's obviously not true.

inmunitas:

albino boo:
In the windows NT era Linux was used more than today

Well that's obviously not true.

Sunshine I was working when windows NT was released in 1993 two years after linux was launched. It wasn't until windows 2000 server came out in 2000 that microsoft became dominant in the server market. Novell Netware even had an LDAP version in 93 but it wasn't backward compatible and couldn't run on the same network as older versions. Novell until 93 had 90% of the server market.

ForumSafari:

Oh and while SBS was a financially compelling product line I'm not sure I'd have ever recommended them, particularly if the business was in a field that was prone to acquisitions and mergers. I've been looking at roping together a raft of SBS using businesses into a single forest and the stuff you can do with SBS and no real IT knowledge is pretty puketastic.

Well when I was working in that area I was primary selling servers to small accountants and solicitors. I was selling a turn key solution based on linux as their first generation server, in particular with a backend for sage line 50. SBS came out and Sage improved their own network capabilities effectively killed the market I was in then. However you are right trying merge trees on sbs is pain the arse but most sbs installations that I come across were only accounts, email and file shares. Last year I did come across an SBS installation with a database running on an old dec vax so there are all sorts of weird setups out there.

albino boo:

inmunitas:

albino boo:
In the windows NT era Linux was used more than today

Well that's obviously not true.

Sunshine I was working when windows NT was released in 1993 two years after linux was launched. It wasn't until windows 2000 server came out in 2000 that microsoft became dominant in the server market. Novell Netware even had an LDAP version in 93 but it wasn't backward compatible and couldn't run on the same network as older versions. Novell until 93 had 90% of the server market.

Sorry gramps, but that doesn't make your statement true and Microsoft aren't going to continue to invest in research and development of an operating system when its users only care about the services they can run on it.

albino boo:

Well when I was working in that area I was primary selling servers to small accountants and solicitors. I was selling a turn key solution based on linux as their first generation server, in particular with a backend for sage line 50. SBS came out and Sage improved their own network capabilities effectively killed the market I was in then. However you are right trying merge trees on sbs is pain the arse but most sbs installations that I come across were only accounts, email and file shares. Last year I did come across an SBS installation with a database running on an old dec vax so there are all sorts of weird setups out there.

My current horror story involved several Access databases for legacy software, one written by a student that I had to update to Access 2013 from 95 (and not just replace, I did query this) and refactor a lot of very creaky code. In addition they'd enabled WSUS and not approved updates or set any auto-update rules, that was fun.

EDIT: Plus a MSSQL install for yet more legacy crud.

albino boo:

Ralancian:

albino boo:
So my 20 year career in IT is invalidated because you have changed to linux desktop. Hint a run a business that develops risk management tools for companies and I know what operating system business use in there own networks. This is what I wrote last week in this http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/538.875478-Linux-What-version-should-I-try-and-acclimitize-to thread.

WTF? Did you even read what I wrote (I'm guessing not because your saying I moved to Linux desktop when I said I'd done the exact opposite)? Why are you even jumping down my throat? I wasn't disagreeing with you or invalidating your work history. All I was trying to make a point was that Linux is not a dead operating system read the original post I was quoting.

This is why I hate posting on the internet at times people have a go at you when you're trying to make the same bloody point just because your slightly wrong about something.

You statements are factually incorrect and no amount of obfuscation about how much you hate the internet will change the fact that windows server o/s are the dominant server o/ses. Linux has less than 5% of the overall server market. Full blown UNIX os/es are just as common as linux but in the large scale database segment. It's a tiny niche product and is not widely used.

Now you're just being a dick yes I may have been wrong do you want a signed letter saying I'm not arguing with you on that point?

Your missing the point entirely just because it's niche in certain areas it's not a platform that's going away anytime soon. Most developers will come across it and have to develop for it at some time I'd say a majority of jobs still within the development industry ask for Linux experience and are actively developing on it.

Have a look at what I was originally posting about and ask if this is true.

Silentpony:
Wait wait wait! Linux is STILL a thing?! Wasn't it a stupid protest operating system from late 90s/early 00s for rich kids with too much allowance, 2+ Desktops and a desire to spend 8 Hours getting Starcraft to work at minimum settings?!
I could have sworn it was a legit system in the same way SCP is a legit government organization...

I've always said that Linux is to Windows what PC gaming is to consoles. One is easier for your average consumer to get into and the other is good if you want a high end experience. I use Linux as I hate using Windows (and have done since Vista was a thing) for various things including gaming and I am more than happy, no driver issues and plenty of games to play. I think the biggest thing that will make people start using Linux is having it pre-installed on PCs, but that won't happen. At least not for the foreseeable future. People like Windows and developers will continue to make it their priority. Just as developers will make consoles a priority over PCs.

Oh yes, Linux is totally a niche OS, with almost no penetration in any area. Oh wait...

Webservers:
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-unix/all/all
"Unix is used by 67.7% of all the websites whose operating system we know."
"Linux is used by 52.4% of all the websites who use Unix."

Supercomputers:
http://www.top500.org/statistics/overtime/

Seriously, there are so many resources out there to figure this out, instead of spewing biased anecdotes from your narrow area of work. Hey, I can add a biased anecdote of my own too: in my 15 years in corporate IT, I saw mostly Linux servers - be it for file or print serving, web, databases, SAP, weird custom in-house Java applications - all Linux, sprinkled with some Windows box here and there, which nobody liked, because it usually didn't play well with rest of the systems.

Of course, this is all irrelevant to the fact that on desktops, Linux is very much a no-show - but what do you expect, after decades of Microsoft dominance? Things will move slowly, very slowly, but in recent year or two, there has been lot of progress already.

Oh, and can we dispense with all this hate from you gamers? Or are you so tainted by console wars that you automatically view anything other than your precious Windows PC as something to hate?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here