PC sales Suffer Biggest Slump in years

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant

And Redhat has made billions SELLING Linux.

And embedded systems manufacturers have made billions and billions and billions and billions and billions selling systems running Linux.

There are almost certainly far more Linux systems in the world than Windows. Windows has only ever been a major player on the desktop, which is now a declining market.

Links? Actual numbers?

Originally Posted by wizwor

Links? Actual numbers?

http://investors.redhat.com/released...leaseID=660156

Second paragraph suggests that they had over $2 billion in revenues between 2011 and 2012. Given that subscription revenues are slightly lower, I think it's fair to say that RHEL generated billions in revenues over the past 3 years.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant

Windows has only ever been a major player on the desktop, which is now a declining market.

first set of numbers i found from a search

Specifically, IDC found that "Linux server demand was positively impacted by high performance computing (HPC) and cloud infrastructure deployments, as hardware revenue improved 2.2% year over year in 4Q11 to $2.6 billion. Linux servers now represent 18.4% of all server revenue, up 1.7 points when compared with the fourth quarter of 2010.

Its competitors? "Windows server demand subsided slightly in 4Q11 as hardware revenue decreased 1.5% year over year. Quarterly revenue of $6.5 billion for Windows servers represented 45.8% of overall quarterly factory revenue, up 2.6 points over the prior year's quarter."

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sourc...hrinking/10616

ahh here's some current numbers http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24136113

Linux server demand was positively impacted by high performance computing (HPC) and cloud infrastructure deployments, as hardware revenue improved 3.4% year over year in 1Q13 to $2.5 billion. Linux servers now represent 23.1% of all server revenue, up 2.5 points when compared with the first quarter of 2012.

Microsoft Windows server hardware revenue declined 4.2% year over year in 1Q13 with quarterly server hardware revenue totaling $5.7 billion representing 52.2% of overall quarterly factory revenue, up 1.9 points over the prior year's quarter.

[Dulin's Books]

as for pcs (copied from posts i made at Engadget)
according to the charts "unit shipments are in thousands" which means these are actually millions

lenovo q1 11,700 lenovo q2 12,619

hp q1 11,997 hp q2 12,378

dell q1 9,010, dell q2 9,230

acer q1 6,150 acer q2 6,22

asus q1 4,363 asus q2 4,590

over all declining market? sure but its the "off " brands that are having the worst of it

33,075 in q1 and 30,589 in q2

Above is worldwide figure but US PC sales are up q1 - q2 also

Q1 US Total 14,197

Q2 US Total 15,650

sources
Q2 charts here

Q1 charts here

[rkw]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

as for pcs (copied from posts i made at Engadget)
according to the charts "unit shipments are in thousands" which means these are actually millions

lenovo q1 11,700 lenovo q2 12,619

hp q1 11,997 hp q2 12,378

dell q1 9,010, dell q2 9,230

acer q1 6,150 acer q2 6,22

asus q1 4,363 asus q2 4,590

over all declining market? sure but its the "off " brands that are having the worst of it

33,075 in q1 and 30,589 in q2

Above is worldwide figure but US PC sales are up q1 - q2 also

Q1 US Total 14,197

Q2 US Total 15,650

sources
Q2 charts here

Q1 charts here

Those last two posts (posts not referring to just the links above, i know the nit pickers lurk ) were great, thanks. Shows that the market is not shrinking really just not currently increasing as once upon a time. Made even more obvious in the face of more and more computing options which did not exist even a scant decade ago. To my eye the market seems very stable and fine, just at a lower growth rate which seems logical and inevitable over time.

Have you noticed that in the way business are run today there is a tendency to report a failure to accelerate growth year to year, or year over year as most tend to state it, is reported as LOSING money? A company can still be making profit and even worse still be growing but just not growing with the accelerated growth rate of the previous year. Basically meaning that in shareholder reports and quarterly reports making a profit and even profit combined with growth are no viewed as a success anymore. Today they expect the company to constantly accelerate that growth rate.

How can companies expect to sustain that with a finite number of customers? I guess they expect to move into emerging markets to sustain the acceleration but that still is finite. Odd that profit or even profit that is still growing though lower though at a lower rate the the previous quarter or year is satisfactory. The only way I can see this as possible, in the short term, is via a model with constantly accelerating prices where the mark-up is also accelerating. In my thinking this is auto-inflationary, especially in the eye of ever dwindling wages of today.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by rkw

Have you noticed that in the way business are run today there is a tendency to report a failure to accelerate growth year to year, or year over year as most tend to state it, is reported as LOSING money? A company can still be making profit and even worse still be growing but just not growing with the accelerated growth rate of the previous year. Basically meaning that in shareholder reports and quarterly reports making a profit and even profit combined with growth are no viewed as a success anymore. Today they expect the company to constantly accelerate that growth rate.

How can companies expect to sustain that with a finite number of customers? I guess they expect to move into emerging markets to sustain the acceleration but that still is finite. Odd that profit or even profit that is still growing though lower though at a lower rate the the previous quarter or year is satisfactory. The only way I can see this as possible, in the short term, is via a model with constantly accelerating prices where the mark-up is also accelerating. In my thinking this is auto-inflationary, especially in the eye of ever dwindling wages of today.

I have noticed this too; you're not the only one.

Company X makes 10 billion in 2010.
Company X makes 11 billion in 2011; up 10%
Company X makes 12 billion in 2012; up 9.1%

"Company X is doing worse than analysts expected. It seems 1000 people will need to be fired to sustain growth rate and profits."

WHAT? You just got MORE profit, you got BIGGER, but you need to FIRE people because you didn't get as much bigger as the year before? How surprising. NOT.

To sustain even the *same* growth rate, you will need to earn more than the year before. If you earned an extra 1 billion, you'll need to earn 1.1 billion extra the year after, just to sustain the 10% rate, let alone make that rate grow. And accellerating your growth, like 2%, 4%, 7%, 11%, 16% is even harder, if not almost impossible.

At some point, it is just not possible to keep growing at the same speed, let alone increase your growing speed.

To do that, you will need to get more and more customers, people will need to spend more and more on your products, buy more products (which implies that life expectancy and/or life cycle must go down), and they must *not* buy competitor's products or your growth rate will slow down.

This is the entire problem of our current day economy. There are too many rich companies and people who just CAN'T GET ENOUGH. Running a company like this will, at some point, make it fall to pieces. If, at the end of the book year, you *have* all the money your customer's are able to spend, you can't get any more next year, and then your revenue will stagnate. Your stockholders will get grumpy, and sell all their stock. People will see your company is in "bad weather", and buy less of your brand. Revenue will get smaller, stock holders will sell even more stock.... and you can see where that goes.

Look through history. It happened time and again. People start a company... it becomes bigger... it runs well... it becomes a bit bigger still... it goes to the stock market in an effort to raise money to expand even further. And that's the beginning of the end, because the stock holders demand:

Grow, GROW, GROOOOOWWWW, GROOOOOOOWWWW you ****!!!

*BOOM*

No company anymore. At best, just a brand name owned by another company that's following the same path. You can't inflate a balloon indefinitely. You also can't inflate a market or a company indefinitely. (Some people, especially the very richest, make a sport of that; growing and earning all the money as stock holders, busting the company in the process.)

Post WWII is the fastest growing time of humankind (according to my old history teacher), with regard to knowledge, technology and wealth, but we seem to be at the end. It seems some of our top economists are slowly, very slowly starting to realise that we have inflated our economy to the breaking point in the last 50-60 years, and that in 2008-2009 or so the economy balloon has said "BOOM". As a result, it must deflate.

And probably, after a new balloon is acquired, it begins again.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

There are lots of reasons to NOT run Linux.

One of them is the fact that there are many programs for which there is no decent Linux alternative available. There is a lot of hardware that does not fully work under Linux.

Many people who think that Linux is the holy grail, go the wrong way about computing. They do this:

"I am going to run Linux."
"I want to do A, B and C, and X, Y and Z."
"What programs on Linux are available to do that?"
"What hardware do I need, that runs on Linux?"
"Hm... okay... so I need to use an open source driver that only supports SOME functions of my hardware... and I need to run a Windows program using WINE, which will cause a few functions not to work."
"No matter, I'm still running Linux, and that's the only thing that counts. I'll make do."

You should be doing this:

"I want to do A, B and C, and X, Y and Z."
"What hardware do I need?"
"What programs are the best ones?"
"Which operating system can run BOTH the hardware AND the programs, without having to *** around to get it to run?"

In my case, I'll give you an example.

"I want to play chess against my computer on a real board."
"I need a DGT USB chessboard."
"The best user interface is the one from Chessbase."
"The board is only officially supported on Windows."
"Chessbase is a Windows program."

Therefore, I will run Windows. Yes, there are workarounds to get the DGT board running on Linux or the Mac, and there are non-Chessbase chess products, but most of them are inconvenient, incomplete, or unsupported options.

A friend of mine is a guy who does a lot of stuff with media.

"I want to compose music and edit images."
"I need a Midi Keyboard."
"At work, we use Logic for music, and Photoshop for images, so I'll use them at home too."
"The MIDI-keyboard will run in Windows, Mac, and Linux."
"Photoshop will run on Windows and Mac."
"Logic runs only on the Mac."

Thus, he will use a Mac.

There can also be reasons to run Linux, such as wanting to mimic a hosting service's setup for local development of websites, or to write an open source program that will run primairily on Linux, with Windows and Mac being second choices. (One of those programs is The Gimp, or RAWTherapee, for example.)

Know what you want to do. Choose your hardware and software. THEN choose your operating system. Doing it the other way around causes you problems. If you need multiple operating systems to do your task, then you can use multiple computers, or virtual machines (if possible).

And what do you do when Windows won't run Windows software?

[cortman]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

There are lots of reasons to NOT run Linux.

Whoa, first off, my aim was not at all to start a flame war here.
@Katsunami- if you read the post I quoted, and what the poster is lamenting about losing in Windows you will understand that my recommendation of Linux specifically addresses those laments. I would prefer for people to run Linux (from both a pragmatic and philosophical standpoint), however I am happy for anyone to run what works best for them.
A lot of your perceptions about Linux (as I understand them from your post) especially regarding software are a bit dated; certainly it was the case when many FOSS applications could not compete with their nonfree Windows/Mac alternatives, but that is becoming increasingly uncommon.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Let's face it: you can get good software in many categories for Linux. LibreOffice may not be Microsoft Office, but it certainly performs the task beyond many people's capabilities. The same can be said for graphics design. It may not be professional grade, but the tools still perform the task beyond the capabilities of most users. Of course, Linux is also on par with Windows for many software categories. That ranges from general use (e.g. web browsers) to specialized applications (e.g. software development).

Choosing the OS first in those cases may make sense for some users. If cost is a constraint, you don't have to worry about buying a license for Linux or most of the software that runs under Linux. Put another way, you don't feel compelled to buy Photoshop (or even Photoshop Elements) just because of its branding. You don't feel compelled to buy Microsoft Office just because of its branding. You don't feel compelled to buy Visual Studio just because of its branding. License restrictions are also another thing that you don't have to fret over. You can legally run Linux, LibreOffice, GIMP, Eclipse, etc. on every computer that you own. You can also do so without a second thought. You also don't have to be concerned with the restrictions placed on the use of cheaper home editions of software, such as Microsoft Office or Visual Studio Express.

Well put, and I would add to that list of benefits- no EULAs. This is a huge deal in my opinion; I don't have to worry about misusing software and getting in trouble for it, or agreeing to some buried point that transfers ownership of my eternal soul to the software company.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Actually, they kinda do both. If I recall correctly, the distribution of RHEL is restricted based upon proprietary components (mostly trademarked materials and such). So if you want to use RHEL, you have to pay up or wait for the release of something like Centos.

RHEL sells both the system and the support; CentOS is the community clone of RHEL (Community Enterprise OS).

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by cortman

A lot of your perceptions about Linux (as I understand them from your post) especially regarding software are a bit dated; certainly it was the case when many FOSS applications could not compete with their nonfree Windows/Mac alternatives, but that is becoming increasingly uncommon.

Yes, so everybody tells me. It may be true for the "casual software", but certainly not for professional desktop stuff. There will never be a *true* alternative for something such as Photoshop, LightRoom, Maya, 3DMax, AutoCAD, MathLab, Chessbase (yes, this is a professional program), CuBase, Native Instruments, and more.

Of course, there are alternatives. We have GIMP, RAWTherapee/DarkTable, Blender, FreeCAD, SID Database... but each program has serious shortcomings compared to the industry standards. Yes, I use GIMP now, mainly because I detest Adobe's subscription service for Photoshop, but I am just a hobby photographer. If I was a professional, I can mention at least 5 functions that I would *NEED* that GIMP doesn't provide.

Same goes for all the others.

These programs are just too big and too expensive to develop as a community effort. They require too much research. Nobody is going to do all that for free, for the love of software only, and if they do, development will probably be slow. GIMP still doesn't have 16-bit color editing and adjustment layers. Users are asking for that for like... oh... 10 years now? Same sort of stuff can be said for other programs.

===

On a server, I'd choose Linux in a jiffy. It seems that most development effort concentrated there. On the desktop, the devs are just fighting.

Display... Xorg is too old! We make Wayland! No. Wayland is crap. We at Ubuntu create Mir!

Desktops... Hey, while we're at it, lets splinter the development of the desktops too! Split MATE and Cinnamon from Gnome 2, because we hate Gnome 3. WHAT! Keep plodding along on Gnome 2 code? NO! For Ubuntu, Unity it shall be. Never mind KDE, XFCE, LXDE, LMDE, and all the others.

Audio... Shudder. OSS. Old, but needs to be supported still. ALSA, a mess. Multiple different sound servers on top of that, such as ESD and ARTS. PulseAudio, trying to replace everything under the sun.

Even booting. InitV, UpStart, systemd; maybe others. People can't even make up their minds how to friggin' boot Linux.

Believe me. I *know* Linux. I've tried to run it as my primary system for 12 years or so, sometimes switching as long as 6 months to full time Linux use (Last time was about a year ago). On the desktop, there's always something that will make it impractical, if it's only the sheer amount of time one sometimes needs to get stuff running, in case you want or need to use a certain piece of hardware, of need to set up stuff that is not in the distro's repository.

===

It's not funny to support Linux as a desktop software developer. I've tried. It's not fun. It changes at the drop of a hat, and it changes often. You have to support multiple completely different setups. No two systems will be the same. No developer wants that.

While at this point, Ubuntu is just another distribution, "doing things differently" and contributing to the splintering, at some point it will be an operating system seperate from Linux. If the Linux community doesn't stop splintering and fighting amongst itself, then "Linux on the Desktop" will become "Ubuntu", and Ubuntu only. If it keeps this up, we will have Windows, OSX, Ubuntu, and Linux. Linux then be as it always was, while Ubuntu will be the "Microsoft of the open source world".

(And of course the BSD's, but they are even less suited for desktops than Linux.)

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And what do you do when Windows won't run Windows software?

That's no problem. I run Windows software back to 1998 without any problems. Baldur's Gate from 1998 is the oldest piece of Windows software I run, and except for some compatibility settings, it doesn't make a fuss. That game was written for DirectX 6 on Windows 98, and it now runs on DirectX 9 (installed alongside 11) on Windows 7 x64.

I run many programs and games created between 1998 and 2012 on this same computer, directly in Windows 7 x64. The OS provides at least 15 years of compatibility.

If I need or want anything that's even older than 1998, such as a DOS-program or game, then I run it in DOSBox, or if I really need to in case of 16-bit Win3x program or some stuff that *REALLY* doesn't want to run, then I pull out a Virtual Machine running FreeDOS / MS-DOS and Windows 3.11 or Windows 98. That hasn't happened lately as I don't use any Windows 3.x software anymore, and everything else I have runs either directly in Windows 7 x64, or in DOSBox.

Originally Posted by cortman

...agreeing to some buried point that transfers ownership of my eternal soul to the software company.

This is meant as a joke, making a parody of EULA's:

The terms of service were updated on April Fool's Day as a gag, but the retailer did so to make a very real point: No one reads the online terms and conditions of shopping, and companies are free to insert whatever language they want into the documents.

Also, at least in Europe, NO software EULA goes above the law. They EULA can state that the company is entitled to burn down your house at any point, but it will have no meaning. If it's not allowed by law, it's not binding in the EULA, even if you sign it.

[cortman]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Yes, so everybody tells me. It may be true for the "casual software", but certainly not for professional desktop stuff. There will never be a *true* alternative for something such as Photoshop, LightRoom, Maya, 3DMax, AutoCAD, MathLab, Chessbase (yes, this is a professional program), CuBase, Native Instruments, and more.

Of course, there are alternatives. We have GIMP, RAWTherapee/DarkTable, Blender, FreeCAD, SID Database... but each program has serious shortcomings compared to the industry standards. Yes, I use GIMP now, mainly because I detest Adobe's subscription service for Photoshop, but I am just a hobby photographer. If I was a professional, I can mention at least 5 functions that I would *NEED* that GIMP doesn't provide.

Same goes for all the others.

These programs are just too big and too expensive to develop as a community effort. They require too much research. Nobody is going to do all that for free, for the love of software only, and if they do, development will probably be slow. GIMP still doesn't have 16-bit color editing and adjustment layers. Users are asking for that for like... oh... 10 years now? Same sort of stuff can be said for other programs.

It is true that these programs are very large; I'm not going to posit at all that FreeCAD is a perfect replacement for, say, Autodesk Inventor, which I use all day at work.
Personally, I find the crowdfunding approach to development extremely interesting- I think top notch professional quality software could easily be developed through this method.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

On a server, I'd choose Linux in a jiffy. It seems that most development effort concentrated there. On the desktop, the devs are just fighting.

Working on different projects, even different projects meant to accomplish similar purposes, is far from "fighting"- many projects even borrow code from each other.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Display... Xorg is too old! We make Wayland! No. Wayland -*-. We at Ubuntu create Mir!

Wayland is a good idea; an attempt to replace an adequate piece of software (X) with a better piece of software. It's what development is all about.
Ubuntu's choice to create Mir after working on Wayland for years is... confusing, at best. Then again, Ubuntu has been making some extremely strange decisions in the last couple years. Different subject.
Desktops... Hey, while we're at it, lets splinter the development of the desktops too! Split MATE and Cinnamon from Gnome 2, because we hate Gnome 3. WHAT! Keep plodding along on Gnome 2 code? NO! For Ubuntu, Unity it shall be. Never mind KDE, XFCE, LXDE, LMDE, and all the others.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Audio... Shudder. OSS. Old, but needs to be supported still. ALSA, a mess. Multiple different sound servers on top of that, such as ESD and ARTS. PulseAudio, trying to replace everything under the sun.

Pulse is pretty solid. Audio is a weak point; but I must admit I have never had problems with it on any of my machines.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Even booting. InitV, UpStart, systemd; maybe others. People can't even make up their minds how to friggin' boot Linux.

Again, multiple development processes- explore multiple ideas. I seriously doubt any OS publisher picks one method during the development and dogmatically sticks to it without considering any alternatives. The difference is that in Linux this development is open and public, whereas among proprietary systems it is locked up and hidden.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Believe me. I *know* Linux. I've tried to run it as my primary system for 12 years or so, sometimes switching as long as 6 months to full time Linux use (Last time was about a year ago). On the desktop, there's always something that will make it impractical, if it's only the sheer amount of time one sometimes needs to get stuff running, in case you want or need to use a certain piece of hardware, of need to set up stuff that is not in the distro's repository.

Again, I think your statement here is somewhat dated, but this really depends on one's hardware- like I said, hardware issues for me have been absolutely minimal, and easily fixed in almost every instance.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

While at this point, Ubuntu is just another distribution, "doing things differently" and contributing to the splintering, at some point it will be an operating system seperate from Linux. If the Linux community doesn't stop splintering and fighting amongst itself, then "Linux on the Desktop" will become "Ubuntu", and Ubuntu only. If it keeps this up, we will have Windows, OSX, Ubuntu, and Linux. Linux then be as it always was, while Ubuntu will be the "Microsoft of the open source world".

I agree with you about Ubuntu; they are on the verge of wasting all their early success on an attempt to become the new Apple-of-software (IMO).

Originally Posted by Katsunami

This is meant as a joke, making a parody of EULA's:
Also, at least in Europe, NO software EULA goes above the law. They EULA can state that the company is entitled to burn down your house at any point, but it will have no meaning. If it's not allowed by law, it's not binding in the EULA, even if you sign it.

Of course it is; but it's also a relatively powerful demonstration of the subtle "power" of EULAs- indeed they must comply with law, but there are quite a number of things that comply with the law that I still would be uncomfortable about (harvesting my data for corporate or, if the case arises, government reasons).

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by cortman

It is true that these programs are very large; I'm not going to posit at all that FreeCAD is a perfect replacement for, say, Autodesk Inventor, which I use all day at work.
Personally, I find the crowdfunding approach to development extremely interesting- I think top notch professional quality software could easily be developed through this method.

The problem with crowdfunding development is the same as crowdfunding books, you have no idea if the final result will be any good until it is finished (By which point you can't get your money back). Write it then sell it.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by cortman

<snip>

It may seem I am against Linux; but really, I'm not. To be honest, I *WANT* it to become a major force in the market. I would *LOVE* to have Windows, OSX, Linux and maybe some desktop version of Android to split the OS market at 25% each.

If developers would then create and use platform-independent stuff (which already partially exists), then software could run basically everywhere. It would be best for everyone. 4 majar players, going from "Build Everything Yourself" (Linux), up to "Get everything done for you" (Apple), with Windows and MS in between.

The problem is that, if it comes down to it, no-one really wants to cooperate. They all just want to be the biggest, the richest, and if possible, the only one.

Linux will not become a major force on the desktop if there isn't some unification of distributions and the way of doing things. Choice is good. People care about the big choices. The choices they can understand. Which desktop do I want? Have KDE for the Windows-like feel, Gnome for the Mac-like feel, and one or two lightweight desktops. Make them compatible, so every software package works seamlessly in every desktop. There is enough choice in browsers, mail clients, and media players and that sort of stuff.

Too much choice is paralyzing, and Linux gives you choice on *every* level. Nobody except the biggest nerds care about the display server, the audio server, the driver model, the file system, the startup daemon or the version of "ls" that's used to list files. These things must just work, and work well.

Apple did it. What is OSX, basically? It's a BSD Unix, powered by the XNU (MACH-type) kernel. It's called Darwin. You hardly see it, if ever. Apple stuck a nice GUI on top of it (Aqua), shoved some nice (al be it a bit power-limited) hardware under it, and it helped them to skyrocket from the ashes up to one of the richest companies on earth.

Unify all that Linux stuff that is "under" the desktop. Put a desktop layer on top of it which *every* desktop adheres to. Then tell people: "*THIS* is Linux, and you have several different ways of working with it (show 4 desktops, shipped by default). No matter which desktop you choose, all programs will always work and look like they should in your chosen desktop."

I think you'll see Linux take off like a rocket.

Ubuntu is trying to do it, but IMHO, they are doing it in an antagonistic way.

[cortman]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

The problem with crowdfunding development is the same as crowdfunding books, you have no idea if the final result will be any good until it is finished (By which point you can't get your money back). Write it then sell it.

That is a good point, maybe having a set of prerequisites and performance values would help, but I do see the problem.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

etc

Don't want to hijack the thread, but I'll conclude my comments- I use Linux and it works great for me. The thread I quoted- it sounded like it would meet their needs as well. Whether Linux is suitable for a professional graphics designer, an architect, a civil engineer- I'll leave that up to the graphics designers, architects , and civil engineers to decide for themselves.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Too much choice is paralyzing, and Linux gives you choice on *every* level. Nobody except the biggest nerds care about the display server, the audio server, the driver model, the file system, the startup daemon or the version of "ls" that's used to list files. These things must just work, and work well.

You're supposed to let the distribution make that decision for you. If you're thinking about such things, you're either one of those "biggest nerds" or you're doing things wrong.

Apple did it. What is OSX, basically? It's a BSD Unix, powered by the XNU (MACH-type) kernel. It's called Darwin. You hardly see it, if ever. Apple stuck a nice GUI on top of it (Aqua), shoved some nice (al be it a bit power-limited) hardware under it, and it helped them to skyrocket from the ashes up to one of the richest companies on earth.

Plenty of us interact with that BSD Unix. It is no more and no less hidden from the user than it is under a desktop Linux distribution. If you want to tweak settings that Apple didn't expose, you have to use the shell to make tweaks. This is no different from Linux.

The big difference between the big three operating systems is culture. You hear more about the technical side of Linux because it is dominated by users who are technophiles. If you poked around the OS X or Windows world, you'd find similar discussions about similar things.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

You're supposed to let the distribution make that decision for you. If you're thinking about such things, you're either one of those "biggest nerds" or you're doing things wrong.

I'm one of those biggest nerds; sometimes. If I need or want to be. Normally, I'm not.

Plenty of us interact with that BSD Unix. It is no more and no less hidden from the user than it is under a desktop Linux distribution. If you want to tweak settings that Apple didn't expose, you have to use the shell to make tweaks. This is no different from Linux.

My primary command-line shell on Windows is Cygwin. So, shoot me

Yes; I actually prefer a Unix-type shell over Powershell, as I know much more about Unix-type shells than I do about Powershell. I just prefer the Unix command line over the ones in Windows since I encountered Cygwin in 1999.