What will Linux become?

[RetroTechGuy]

I can't even think of a single situation where something has a demand, but by producing more of it, we would reduce demand. The price would tend towards zero (which might reduce the number of suppliers)...

Ummm.. We have a semi-infinite amount of sand. Demand for sand does not decrease if more comes available on the market.

Computers are so plentiful that the price has gone down, but demand for them remains high (and increasing).

Cars? Cell phones? Gas? Nope. Can anyone think of an example?

You keep bringing price into the equation. Price is not there.

With a near-infinite supply more is not even noticeable. The number of computers is not yet near-infinite. Ditto cars, cell phones, gas.

But that fact that "more is not noticeable" (of a product, or material) in no way drives demand to zero.

Sand is near infinite, but by no means is the demand "zero".

Can you give an example for your hypothesis. And remember, you don't want price involved.

[jpeps]

It's the opposite. If a certain material or product is in abundance, people use it more because it's a cheap and readily available commodity. There are numerous examples.

An interest group isn't a cult, especially when the interest inspires individual thinking and creativity. But even if it didn't, it still wouldn't be a cult. Most linux users also have windows computers, and in fact probably know more about them then non-linux users. People not interested in computers are not likely to take time out of their lives to learn bash scripting.

[disciple]

People not interested in computers are not likely to take time out of their lives to learn bash scripting.

Unless they need to use it...

[cthisbear]

What will MS become.

http://www.businessinsider.com/look-who ... z1MXVSJUQ4

Chris.

[Aitch]

That's an appropriate question for all the knockers and fans alike, Chris!

Aitch

[disciple]

Forgotten, ideally.

Or transformed, of course - it would be nice if Microsoft actually started making good products.

[Bernie_by_the_Sea]

There are 32 Million Linux servers (yes, servers are "users" also):

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/d ... index.html

Apache 32,409,716 71.49%

You’re so steeped in cultism that apparently you are unaware that Apache does not mean only Linux. It could equally mean Mac, Solaris or Windows. Apache is an application that runs on a dozen operating systems. An Apache server does not imply a Linux OS. The Apache in that graph does not mean Linux only.

Apache is developed and maintained by an open community of developers under the auspices of the Apache Software Foundation. The application is available for a wide variety of operating systems, including Unix, GNU, FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris, Novell NetWare, AmigaOS, Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows, OS/2, TPF, and eComStation.

[Bernie_by_the_Sea]

But that fact that "more is not noticeable" (of a product, or material) in no way drives demand to zero.

Sand is near infinite, but by no means is the demand "zero".

Can you give an example for your hypothesis. And remember, you don't want price involved.

I did not say zero. Read what I said instead of imagining things. Tend towards zero does not mean zero. Learn some simple math.

Exactly what percentage of human beings demand sand? Do you demand sand daily? Do you stop by Home Depot and bring home a bag of sand every night? Do your neighbors have piles of sand in their basements or do they keep it in the back yard?

I have no hypothesis.

While it’s not near-infinite, the demand for bovine methane (cow farts) is low. While it’s not near-infinite, the demand for puppy poop is low. While it’s not near-infinite, the demand for ants, spiders and locusts is low. While it’s not near-infinite, the demand for seawater is low.

[Bernie_by_the_Sea]

It's the opposite. If a certain material or product is in abundance, people use it more because it's a cheap and readily available commodity. There are numerous examples.

Such as cow farts, puppy poop, ants, spiders, locusts and seawater? Who said anything about a commodity?

An interest group isn't a cult, especially when the interest inspires individual thinking and creativity. But even if it didn't, it still wouldn't be a cult. Most linux users also have windows computers, and in fact probably know more about them then non-linux users. People not interested in computers are not likely to take time out of their lives to learn bash scripting.

An interest group in itself is never a cult. People get together to discuss Pepsi, Ford and Ubuntu. Even saying that Pepsi is better than Coke, that Ford is better than Chevy, that Ubuntu is better than Puppy is not cultic. However, when some in the interest group preach their doctrine irrationally then you have cultic behavior. In most interest groups, including this one, cultic behavior is confined to a small but vocal minority who above all engage in Microsoft bashing and prophesying the the victory of David Puppy over Goliath Microsoft.

[Bernie_by_the_Sea]

now consider this Bernie BS....if it works on your mobile,
why can't it work on a laptop.

Time 4 medication Sonny Jim,
and I'll book the the nursing home for you shall I?
acute dementia is creeping into your off the wall statements.

Who said it won't work on a laptop? Are you hallucinating or just having delusions again?

The vast majority of the increase in Linux users is coming from Android sales where people don't even realize they're running Linux (and don’t care -- they are not converts to the cult). Desktop/laptop Linux users declined considerably in the past year.

All my children have Androids. My daughter is a computer professional who spent 10 years at Sun and who traveled to Munich, Paris, Brisbane and Sydney to teach advanced Solaris programming. My oldest son is a computer professional who spent a year as a creative supervisor at Microsoft and now works for a major defense contractor in charge of maintaining the computer system that bills the Defense Department for billions of dollars. Both these kids had no idea that an Android was running Linux when I told them. They basically said so what. Linux did not gain a sermonizing devotee. They just liked the pretty icons better than the Apple icons.

But then Android is not really Linux is it? While it is based on the 2.6 Linux kernel its developers deny that it’s Linux:

In fact, during a presentation at the Google I/O conference, Google engineer Patrick Brady stated unambiguously that Android is not Linux. (...) The problem with Google approach is that it makes Android an island. The highly insular nature of the platform prevents Android users and developers from taking advantage of the rich ecosystem of existing third-party Linux applications. Android doesn't officially support native C programs at all, so it won't be possible to port your favorite GTK+ or Qt applications to Android.

[Aitch]

Perhaps we should be looking at the OpenMoko philosophy/development into QI hardware...?

http://en.qi-hardware.com/wiki/Main_Page

or just modify Android

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=929087

or SHR

http://shr-project.org/trac

more

http://www.slideshare.net/sshreyas/choo ... esentation


but then, that's on mobile devices

Aitch

[RetroTechGuy]

But that fact that "more is not noticeable" (of a product, or material) in no way drives demand to zero.

Sand is near infinite, but by no means is the demand "zero".

Can you give an example for your hypothesis. And remember, you don't want price involved.

I did not say zero. Read what I said instead of imagining things. Tend towards zero does not mean zero. Learn some simple math.

Yes Bernie, I understand that you hope to intimidate me via your insult. But don't worry, that method doesn't work with me, Bernie... You should also note that I almost certainly know quite enough math to discuss this issue with you.

So lets get back to the topic, with the supply of sand semi-infinite, why has the demand for sand not tended towards zero? I've not seen a decrease in demand, and indeed I suspect that there has been an increase in demand.

Name something which once had a demand, but for which demand decreased with increase of the product or material -- and that the demand dropped _because_ of the increased supply.

When we started mining copper, the availability of copper went through the roof, yet the demand went up. When an economical method for smelting aluminum was invented, the demand for aluminum went through the roof, all the while the availability increased.

Exactly what percentage of human beings demand sand? Do you demand sand daily? Do you stop by Home Depot and bring home a bag of sand every night? Do your neighbors have piles of sand in their basements or do they keep it in the back yard?

I use sand based products daily. And yes, I do have a pile of sand in my back yard.

You likewise use sand based products daily: Electronics, glass windows, glass bottles, silica in your toothpaste, etc.

I have no hypothesis.

Yes, I can see that. However, you stated:

This is real world observation, not a theory, not a “law,

[RetroTechGuy]

It's the opposite. If a certain material or product is in abundance, people use it more because it's a cheap and readily available commodity. There are numerous examples.

Such as cow farts, puppy poop, ants, spiders, locusts and seawater? Who said anything about a commodity?

We should recall that this topic started here: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 750#522750

Supply goes up, demand goes down. Supply goes down, demand goes up.

But let's talk about Bernie's list...

Virtually any raw material can be a commodity. And if there is enough of it, and you can consistently supply it, someone will find a commercial use for it (and thus demand will INCREASE, and not tend towards zero).

Cow farts for fuel, poop (in general) through a methane digester for fuel, ants for food (many cultures eat them), spiders for insect control (my favorites are Wolf Spiders), locusts for food, and seawater for shipping, as well as a "raw material" for other processes (yes, there are processes where salt water is desirable. And in places with salt water and no fresh water, it is evaporated or otherwise processed to produce fresh water. And there is evaporation of sea water to acquire the metals and minerals which reside in solution).

Deep fried locusts, anyone? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... ood-crisis

The cultural repulsion and biases against such things as "food products" is the issue, more than the raw material itself. Much like those regions which raise rats for food (they're easy to raise, eat all sorts of garbage for food, and provide a good source of protein -- while being fairly safe to handle, and a convenient size for a meal, which is useful in regions with no refrigeration)

But I do find the acrobatics you perform on this topic amusing...

[RetroTechGuy]

There are 32 Million Linux servers (yes, servers are "users" also):

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/d ... index.html

Apache 32,409,716 71.49%

You’re so steeped in cultism that apparently you are unaware that Apache does not mean only Linux. It could equally mean Mac, Solaris or Windows. Apache is an application that runs on a dozen operating systems. An Apache server does not imply a Linux OS. The Apache in that graph does not mean Linux only.

Ah yes, how careless of me. I thank you for the correction.

Mac runs a *nix system, Solaris is a *nix system. Windows is not... Though I suspect that they are trying to migrate to such a system, while preventing user access to the system upon which they run (Mac has attempted the same).

So I have not found actual statistics (head count) for Linux servers, versus the rest, but:

http://www.serverwatch.com/stats/articl ... xpense.htm

The Linux Foundation conducted a survey of nearly 2,000 enterprise users and found that 76.4 percent of respondents are set to add Linux servers in the next 12 months. In contrast, only 41.2 percent of respondents indicated that they planned to be adding new Windows servers during that same period. The picture looks even brighter for Linux when looking at the five year view. According to the Linux Foundation's data, during the next five years 79.4 percent of enterprises will be adding more Linux servers, while only 21.3 percent will be adding new Windows servers.

This has some graphics, but little in comparative numbers, other than using these two (which we note, totals to more than 100% -- so it's not clear how their calculation is performed):
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details ... ux/all/all
http://w3techs.com/technologies/overvie ... system/all

What it does show is that Unix is running twice the number of servers as MS, and Linux is head-to-head with MS.

This hardly shows Linux as "dying"...

[jpeps]

It's the opposite. If a certain material or product is in abundance, people use it more because it's a cheap and readily available commodity. There are numerous examples.

Such as cow farts, puppy poop, ants, spiders, locusts and seawater? Who said anything about a commodity?

com·mod·i·ty
   [kuh-mod-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
1.
an article of trade or commerce, especially a product as distinguished from a service.
2.
something of use, advantage, or value.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commodity

[RetroTechGuy]

It's the opposite. If a certain material or product is in abundance, people use it more because it's a cheap and readily available commodity. There are numerous examples.

Such as cow farts, puppy poop, ants, spiders, locusts and seawater? Who said anything about a commodity?

com·mod·i·ty
   [kuh-mod-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
1.
an article of trade or commerce, especially a product as distinguished from a service.
2.
something of use, advantage, or value.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commodity

And a great many things become "commodities" when there is enough of the product or material to do something with, even those in Bernie's list...

Bernie's confusion about "free" and "of no value" is quite common.

It is not entirely dissimilar to the idea that public libraries are "free" -- when in fact, they do cost something to build and operate, but they are available at no cost to the user. In the case of Puppy Linux, our gracious devs donate their time to create a similarly valuable product, which may then be used at "no cost to the user".

[mickee]

It is not entirely dissimilar to the idea that public libraries are "free" -- when in fact, they do cost something to build and operate, but they are available at no cost to the user. In the case of Puppy Linux, our gracious devs donate their time to create a similarly valuable product, which may then be used at "no cost to the user".

exactly! I find value in Puppy Linux, because it meets a need I have. It is provided free, but there is a value applied to the development of Puppy Linux, (or any other flavour), because "I" give it a value. In fact, Puppy Linux does have a monetary value to me. Without using it, I would certainly have to buy a new laptop. Value is added to Puppy as new ideas are put into place and then can offer even more value to the user, (me).