Linux Users Drop to Under 1% In Latest Steam Survey

[wizzy555]

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.

 

[mruuh]

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.

 

[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.

 

[inmunitas]

This article. These comments.

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[footnote]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.[/footnote], you'll also note it's absence in the survey results.

 

[ForumSafari]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Charli]

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.

 

[ForumSafari]

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.

 

[inmunitas]

In the windows NT era Linux was used more than today

Well that's obviously not true.

 

[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.

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.

 

[inmunitas]

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.

 

[ForumSafari]

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.

 

[Ralancian]

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.

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...

 

[Itsuki93]

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.

 

[mruuh]

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?

 

[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.

Ok you are clearly unaware that 85% of microsoft's sales are to businesses.

 

[inmunitas]

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.

Ok you are clearly unaware that 85% of microsoft's sales are to businesses.

85% of the things I buy are from businesses, what's your point? That statement doesn't refute what I said.

95% of my body is water, how much do I weigh?

 

[Albino Boo]

85% of the things I buy are from businesses, what's your point? That statement doesn't refute what I said.

95% of my body is water, how much do I weigh?

I strongly suggest that you understand the difference between win 8 and win 8 enterprise. They are two different products for two different markets. Win 8 was aiming at andorid in the home market not the business market. Win 8 enterprise did not have the apps store. I assumed that you understood the microsoft product range but that is clearly not the case.

 

[inmunitas]

85% of the things I buy are from businesses, what's your point? That statement doesn't refute what I said.

95% of my body is water, how much do I weigh?

I strongly suggest that you understand the difference between win 8 and win 8 enterprise. They are two different products for two different markets. Win 8 was aiming at andorid in the home market not the business market. Win 8 enterprise did not have the apps store. I assumed that you understood the microsoft product range but that is clearly not the case.

You're just giving me percentages gramps, how about some real figures this time? You know as well as I do that a percentage without context is meaningless.

 

[Albino Boo]

85% of the things I buy are from businesses, what's your point? That statement doesn't refute what I said.

95% of my body is water, how much do I weigh?

I strongly suggest that you understand the difference between win 8 and win 8 enterprise. They are two different products for two different markets. Win 8 was aiming at andorid in the home market not the business market. Win 8 enterprise did not have the apps store. I assumed that you understood the microsoft product range but that is clearly not the case.

You're just giving me percentages gramps, how about some real figures this time? You know as well as I do that a percentage without context is meaningless.

$ 18 billion is what microsoft makes from business sales