Linux Users Drop to Under 1% In Latest Steam Survey

[Lightknight]

You don't seem to be able move past a world from 20 years ago, Linux was never a competitor, it took 15 years for Microsoft to figure that one out. Linux is just technology, nobody owns it, there is no business or marketing strategy behind it, it's yours to do what you want with. If you don't need to use it, fine, but it's not something you should be afraid of, it's just a tool to be used.

I think another interesting statistic (I doubt it will be massive) is the amount of servers bought with windows server and have it immediately replaced with another O/S. I know for a past time we bought servers with Windows with no intention of actually using it (not exactly the brightest thing to do).

I work with international corporations that own their own server farms. Windows is the gold standard of O/S and will continue to be for some time. Sure, you do get the companies with IT staff that swear by Ubuntu or Red Hat or whatever. But that seldom results in a better best practice and the moment that guy leaves the company they find the labor replacement to be a far higher cost. Especially depending on how customized the environment was compared to standard setups.

Windows has the majority of the market share. That doesn't mean it is the best but does mean, by far, that you're going to see most software companies catering exclusively to it and you're going to have a far easier time staffing your IT with Microsoft OS employees than anything else. The product is standardized and if you worked with it in one company that knowledge should transfer to any other company working with the same Microsoft server OS.

Do Linux operating systems have their benefits? Absolutely, it's the fastest performing OS with the smallest resource footprint. That's basically what you want a server to be. That's why Linux has replaced unix in the vast majority of super computers. But as far as compatibility with other software and OS's and reliability? Sorry, that goes to Windows every time by a significant margin.

Will that change? I hope so. I think Linux OSs are beginning to be used more and more. I think the companies building those operating systems are getting better at what they do and we should start to see some more legitimate competition. Apple is really far behind both Linux and Microsoft to the point it's left out of the conversations.

But if Linux can get better then I think Microsoft will start responding better in turn. Their 2012 OS made a lot of positive changes in resource management and eventually they should get to a point where them and Linux are close enough in performance to make them the better choice. Otherwise, Linux will eventually overtake Microsoft as long as the performance and price gap are as severe as they currently are.

But you're talking server. On a user workstation? That goes heavily to Windows right now. That whole compatibility aspect matters far more on a client workstation than on a server where few applications are installed and are individually vetted. This article and all the talk about Steam regarding Linux? It isn't about Server OS's. It's only about client OS's and that's a drastically different talk than what I just posted above. Windows Vista (1.95%) has a larger market share than all Linux OSs combined(1.52%). If I were a development studio I wouldn't even consider Linux as an option unless it was incredibly easy and nearly free to consider.

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

I'd consider the 91.02% Windows machines before anything else and then I may consider the 7.36% Mac OSs.

But here's the thing. That survey includes old OSs that are currently still in use. However, I think Microsoft's move to a software as a service is going to burn their smug little assholes. None of us wants to pay an annual fee for operating systems that we can't even own. Someone is going to make huge strides during the Win 10 generation in my opinion. But for right now, if you're considering Linux you either made promises to do so or you're wasting your time.

 

[Janichsan]

? 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%.

This poses so many question? What do these numbers actual convey? How big was the sample size? Are these changes actually significant or are they below the margin of error? Is there a trend visible or is this just random fluctuation?

How have the absolute numbers changed? Are there really less Mac and Linux users or has there been an influx of Windows users, for instance caused by the recent release or certain popular [http://store.steampowered.com/app/271590/] games [http://store.steampowered.com/app/292030] that (currently) are only available for Windows?

While we are at it: How meaningful are the given percentages of 96 % Windows user, 3 % Mac users and 1 % Linux users really? Do these numbers represent individual accounts? How are Mac/Linux users counted that dual-boot? In how far does a person that plays ten games under OS X and a single game under Windows influence these numbers?

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.

And the questions don't end: In how far does the apparently minuscule size of the audience translate into minuscule sales numbers? How much money do Windows users spend on Steam in average? How much do Mac and Linux users spend? In how far is support for Linux driven by buying into the belief that SteamOS (aka Linux) is The Next Big Thing In Gaming?? Who actually profits from the Mac and Linux sales? The original developers or the third-party porting companies (e.g. Aspyr, Feral, Virtual Programming) that produce most of the Mac and Linux versions of the more notable games? How big is their actual profit?

Questions after questions ? but not a single answer in sight.

 

[Vivi22]

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.

If you think this has a significant impact on the results for Linux and Mac OS then you don't know much about statistical sampling.

 

[votemarvel]

The issue linux has to being a true competitor to Windows is that there is just so many distributions. I started back with JAMD (a RedHat variation).

It's not only easier to find help for Windows issues for a novice user but they tend to far more accepting for 'stupid' questions than I've ever seen on a linux support forum.

it'll take someone like Valve to put put the money into making a linux as idiot friendly as Windows is.

 

[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.

That's not even remotely Valve's responsibility or area of business. They have nothing to do with graphics card drivers.

I use Windows instead of Linux because my hobby is gaming, not tooling around with a computer to try and get a game to work.

If Valve is serious about Linux being a real alternative to Windows as a gaming platform, then it very much -is- their responsibility. They may not develop drivers themselves, but they could pay AMD and nVidia to develop them. They certainly aren't required to, but without proper driver support Linux has no chance of becoming the viable gaming OS Valve has claimed they wish it to be.

 

[Chefsbrian]

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.

That's not even remotely Valve's responsibility or area of business. They have nothing to do with graphics card drivers.

I use Windows instead of Linux because my hobby is gaming, not tooling around with a computer to try and get a game to work.

If Valve is serious about Linux being a real alternative to Windows as a gaming platform, then it very much -is- their responsibility. They may not develop drivers themselves, but they could pay AMD and nVidia to develop them. They certainly aren't required to, but without proper driver support Linux has no chance of becoming the viable gaming OS Valve has claimed they wish it to be.

The problem is deeper than that though. Its not just developing a linux driver for all the modern graphics cards, its also updating that driver with each and every game release that comes out. I cannot recall a single major game release that did not coincide with a major driver update. Keeping it up to date can be just as costly, and even then just making a driver doesn't make it easy for the developer to suddenly make a Linux version.

Developers don't declare linux support because not alot of people game on linux, as steam stats (and likely other overall usage studies) confirm to them that gamers are either A) Using windows/OSX exclusively, or B)Have a windows install anyways in a dual boot setup. Seeing this, the devs don't declare linux support. When Nvidia and AMD roll around to get their hands onto the source to make a driver, they have a limited window between the game going gold, and making it work with their cards. They never bother with the linux driver because its not supported. The cycle continues.

However, I think Microsoft's move to a software as a service is going to burn their smug little assholes. None of us wants to pay an annual fee for operating systems that we can't even own. Someone is going to make huge strides during the Win 10 generation in my opinion. But for right now, if you're considering Linux you either made promises to do so or you're wasting your time.

Couldn't agree more. If Microsoft decides to ask a yearly fee for windows 10, Business will certainly balk at it, and alot of consumers, me included, will just buckle down with windows 7/8.1 and wait for them to panic from the bleeding losses. Only thing in ten that interests me is multiple desktops and DX12, and I can wait on both of those matters.

 

[inmunitas]

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.

If you think this has a significant impact on the results for Linux and Mac OS then you don't know much about statistical sampling.

Clearly that is the case, I presume that's why you are going to follow up with a detailed explanation of what it is that I've got wrong.

 

[Vigormortis]

? 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%.

This poses so many question? What do these numbers actual convey? How big was the sample size? Are these changes actually significant or are they below the margin of error? Is there a trend visible or is this just random fluctuation?

How have the absolute numbers changed? Are there really less Mac and Linux users or has there been an influx of Windows users, for instance caused by the recent release or certain popular [http://store.steampowered.com/app/271590/] games [http://store.steampowered.com/app/292030] that (currently) are only available for Windows?

While we are at it: How meaningful are the given percentages of 96 % Windows user, 3 % Mac users and 1 % Linux users really? Do these numbers represent individual accounts? How are Mac/Linux users counted that dual-boot? In how far does a person that plays ten games under OS X and a single game under Windows influence these numbers?

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.

And the questions don't end: In how far does the apparently minuscule size of the audience translate into minuscule sales numbers? How much money do Windows users spend on Steam in average? How much do Mac and Linux users spend? In how far is support for Linux driven by buying into the belief that SteamOS (aka Linux) is The Next Big Thing In Gaming?? Who actually profits from the Mac and Linux sales? The original developers or the third-party porting companies (e.g. Aspyr, Feral, Virtual Programming) that produce most of the Mac and Linux versions of the more notable games? How big is their actual profit?

Questions after questions ? but not a single answer in sight.

If you find any answers to these questions, mind sharing with the class?

Inquiring minds would like to know...

 

[Janichsan]

If you find any answers to these questions, mind sharing with the class?

Inquiring minds would like to know...

Now, if there were only something like a journalist writing for a gaming website and getting paid to research such things around?

 

[Lightknight]

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.

That's not even remotely Valve's responsibility or area of business. They have nothing to do with graphics card drivers.

I use Windows instead of Linux because my hobby is gaming, not tooling around with a computer to try and get a game to work.

If Valve is serious about Linux being a real alternative to Windows as a gaming platform, then it very much -is- their responsibility. They may not develop drivers themselves, but they could pay AMD and nVidia to develop them. They certainly aren't required to, but without proper driver support Linux has no chance of becoming the viable gaming OS Valve has claimed they wish it to be.

It's just too big of a project for Valve to undertake with too little chance of any return on investment. What's more is that the odds of development studios even bothering to optimize for Linux drivers will still be very little due to the trivial consumer base. Let's be honest here, people that are capable enough to dick around with Linux are far more capable of pirating games than the average Windows users.

So then whose responsibility is it? Not sure it's anyone's until the consumer market becomes viable.

 

[raindog469]

All these discussions about server and business desktop use are a big red herring. I run Linux on my desktops (well, laptops) as well as my servers. I didn't run Windows at all for 12 years and change, do all my work professionally on Linux servers, prefer the command line ever since my first exposure to Unix in 1986 and my first paid gig doing Unix stuff in 1989-90. My girl and I both have Steam on our Linux laptops, for well over a year now.

Yet when it was time to build a gaming rig last winter instead of buying a PS4/XB1, even I went with Windows 8.1.

Why? Because two of the games we were most interested in playing on the PC, Fallout 3 and NV, are on Steam for Windows, not Linux/SteamOS. And a huge number (not a majority, but a huge number) of the Humble Bundle games we've gotten are Windows-only. Almost every game we play is proprietary software, and we're both console gamers, so we're used to not having complete control over our gaming rigs. So, Windows is just not that big a deal for this one use case. It's not that big a deal for most gamers, period. If you're playing even indie games, you're supporting proprietary software, and most people don't have a problem with that despite the efforts of the FSF and others. Sure, I could write a basic "download and install DRM-free Humble Bundle games using only a controller" interface in like a day, but Big Picture Mode is already there, looking and working great, allowing us to use the PC from the couch with far less pain than any previous interface we've tried.

Now, we're not particularly happy about having a Windows box in the house. We have a ton of bloatware on our gaming rig, only some of which we've been able to remove and have it stay gone. (Say what you want about Linux on the desktop, but we haven't had to deal with malware or the often-spammy tools to deal with it for over a decade. Same with OSX, though my only experience with that is professional.) We have a bunch of stuff installed to make up for Windows' weaknesses: Classic Shell, Taskbar Tweaker, Cygwin, etc. We've also had our first if-not-malware-then-damn-near experience when she downloaded a mod manager (from a link on its official site, no less) and got drive-by adware installed which proceeded to hide itself and download dozens of other adware packages faster than we could remove them, necessitating a system restore and start from scratch. Not dealing with Windows for a decade has made us very rusty, and during that ordeal we thought about a retreat to console gaming.

But we're putting up with it anyway. Why? Well, apart from modding Fallout, which we love, it's because we want those two apps (well, more now; we bought some Lego games on sale recently too) that only support Windows. Same reason every Linux desktop migration I've been party to in the business world has ultimately been reversed.

There is a ton of Linux (and other Unix) in the business world, not just enterprise but small business. Just depends on which consultants or sysadmins you hire when setting up or reworking your systems, but there's been no shortage of work for nerds like me. There's Linux on our phones and tablets, hidden behind a slightly janky Java-based UI that nonetheless gets the job done. On gaming PCs, though? Unless and until Valve actually gets serious about SteamOS -- as in "shipping products" serious, "paying for updated drivers and ports of AAA games" serious, etc. -- I'm afraid it's Windows or you're the one who's not all that serious. We weren't part of that survey, but if we were, it would show we've played a few hours of Steam games on our Linux laptops versus hundreds of hours on our Win8.1 box. Wish it were otherwise, but that's the way it is.

The game streaming works pretty nicely, though, as do the Steam games that do run on Linux.

 

[Vigormortis]

Now, if there were only something like a journalist writing for a gaming website and getting paid to research such things around?

Ooohhh... Is THAT what journalism is?

I thought it was penning click-bait-y articles with misinterpreted half-truths and analytical bias, often accentuated by vague, nebulous proclamations or questions meant to 'stoke the flames'.

Man...all these 'news' sites have been lying to me all along! My world is shattered.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Joking aside, some of the recently released data is quite interesting.[footnote]Like the most common video card being Intel HD Graphics 4000 and the most common amount of VRAM being 1 gig.[/footnote] And I'm wondering if some of the numbers are due to the recent influx of users from the Asian and South American markets.

 

[SomeGuyOnHisComputer]

Wow, there are a lot of people here who are super adverse to Linux. Must be all the Windows bashing and the "elitism" that some Linux users project. All I have to say, don't judge the whole OS family on a bad Ubuntu experience. Ubuntu actually sucks a lot.

 

[Lightknight]

Wow, there are a lot of people here who are super adverse to Linux. Must be all the Windows bashing and the "elitism" that some Linux users project. All I have to say, don't judge the whole OS family on a bad Ubuntu experience. Ubuntu actually sucks a lot.

The problem isn't necessarily which OS you use. It's that most software isn't being made for Linux and if you want to get a particular application running on your Linux system you typically have to tweak things to get it to work and even then it may never really work well.

If you can afford a Windows OS then Linux is far too costly time-wise. Am I adverse to Linux as is? Yes. Would I be adverse to Linux if it became user-friendly and widely supported by the industry? Nope, that would be fantastic.

 

[Worgen]

Ok, so, is no one else thinking critically about this article? This just gives % which probably means that number of linux users isn't down, there just isn't as many joining steam. Which would show the % of them is lower, despite the fact the number isn't.

 

[Lightknight]

Ok, so, is no one else thinking critically about this article? This just gives % which probably means that number of linux users isn't down, there just isn't as many joining steam. Which would show the % of them is lower, despite the fact the number isn't.

It's a survey of existing users who took a survey, not new users. For example, I was asked to take the survey last month but declined since I was at my work computer and my specs wouldn't be reflective of me as a demographic.

The percentage being lower shows a decline in market share even if the actual number is the same. However, in my experience these numbers change every month. It's nearly pointless to discuss them individually as far as I can tell.

 

[Worgen]

Ok, so, is no one else thinking critically about this article? This just gives % which probably means that number of linux users isn't down, there just isn't as many joining steam. Which would show the % of them is lower, despite the fact the number isn't.

It's a survey of existing users who took a survey, not new users. For example, I was asked to take the survey last month but declined since I was at my work computer and my specs wouldn't be reflective of me as a demographic.

The percentage being lower shows a decline in market share even if the actual number is the same. However, in my experience these numbers change every month. It's nearly pointless to discuss them individually as far as I can tell.

Actually, the article doesn't tell us if it is existing users over new users, then how does it define the difference between new users and existing ones? All we know is that these are percentages and it doesn't show us user numbers, so its likely that more and more people are doing the survey, which just means the number of linux users isn't growing as fast as windows ones. Which makes sense, because users are much more familiar with windows.

 

[Lightknight]

Ok, so, is no one else thinking critically about this article? This just gives % which probably means that number of linux users isn't down, there just isn't as many joining steam. Which would show the % of them is lower, despite the fact the number isn't.

It's a survey of existing users who took a survey, not new users. For example, I was asked to take the survey last month but declined since I was at my work computer and my specs wouldn't be reflective of me as a demographic.

The percentage being lower shows a decline in market share even if the actual number is the same. However, in my experience these numbers change every month. It's nearly pointless to discuss them individually as far as I can tell.

Actually, the article doesn't tell us if it is existing users over new users, then how does it define the difference between new users and existing ones? All we know is that these are percentages and it doesn't show us user numbers, so its likely that more and more people are doing the survey, which just means the number of linux users isn't growing as fast as windows ones. Which makes sense, because users are much more familiar with windows.

The steam survey is a known entity that recurs regularly. So the article doesn't need to explain the methodology for the same reason an article on home foreclosure results doesn't.

What you've got to understand is that we're dealing with proportions here. If more people take the survey then the proportions should still remain the same. So if your Linux users are 1% of your population, then if you get 100 people to take the survey then one should be a Linux user and if you get 1 million users to take it then 10,000 should be Linux users.

The number of the sample size should not impact the proportion unless you had a sample size that was too small to be representative. In this case, the numbers are well above the minimum threshold for legitimacy.

 

[Worgen]

Ok, so, is no one else thinking critically about this article? This just gives % which probably means that number of linux users isn't down, there just isn't as many joining steam. Which would show the % of them is lower, despite the fact the number isn't.

It's a survey of existing users who took a survey, not new users. For example, I was asked to take the survey last month but declined since I was at my work computer and my specs wouldn't be reflective of me as a demographic.

The percentage being lower shows a decline in market share even if the actual number is the same. However, in my experience these numbers change every month. It's nearly pointless to discuss them individually as far as I can tell.

Actually, the article doesn't tell us if it is existing users over new users, then how does it define the difference between new users and existing ones? All we know is that these are percentages and it doesn't show us user numbers, so its likely that more and more people are doing the survey, which just means the number of linux users isn't growing as fast as windows ones. Which makes sense, because users are much more familiar with windows.

The steam survey is a known entity that recurs regularly. So the article doesn't need to explain the methodology for the same reason an article on home foreclosure results doesn't.

What you've got to understand is that we're dealing with proportions here. If more people take the survey then the proportions should still remain the same. So if your Linux users are 1% of your population, then if you get 100 people to take the survey then one should be a Linux user and if you get 1 million users to take it then 10,000 should be Linux users.

The number of the sample size should not impact the proportion unless you had a sample size that was too small to be representative. In this case, the numbers are well above the minimum threshold for legitimacy.

It doesn't give us numbers so we don't know, there could have been less people than the last time they issued it, we just don't know. Percentages are almost worthless by themselves and the difference if % is so small it could easily be explained by just not as many linux users doing the survey.

 

[Janichsan]

Ok, so, is no one else thinking critically about this article? This just gives % which probably means that number of linux users isn't down, there just isn't as many joining steam. Which would show the % of them is lower, despite the fact the number isn't.

As I tried to point out earlier [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.875877-Linux-Users-Drop-to-Under-1-In-Latest-Steam-Survey?page=2#22029226], this article in fact doesn't say anything.