Originally Posted by Plan9
How does it disagree? Please point me to which argument I made that those figures disprove? Because all you've done is completely ignore everything I've posted and replied with a complete tangent.However, let's humour your statistics for one momemnt:
If proves that support for windows will be better, simply from a large knowledge base perspective, and Microsoft has a phone # you dial. Plus built in help files, and in the newer versions of windows, it can take you to a online support specialist.
All market figures prove is market figures. Markets figures do not prove how easy something is to install. It does not prove how good support services are. It just proves market figures.
What's worse, is market figures can themselves be wrong. Let's take the desktop market for instance:
* nobody really knows Linux's exact market share as you rarely find Linux prebuilds,
* you rarely buy Linux install CD/DVDs
* and you rarely register your Linux install.
* Windows, on the other hand comes pre installed on nearly every laptop - so anyone who runs Linux in it will ultimately register as a Windows sale.
* and finally, market figures don't take dual booting into account. So someone who uses Win7 and Ubuntu (for example) will normally just register as 100% Windows user.
So while market figures do provide an interesting approximation of the use of an OS, it's far from an accurate gauge and definitely not a proof of anything I'd raised in my previous post.
I don't own any Apple products so never had any experience with official Apple support. so I'd have to take your word on that one. However you're missing the point I was raising about community support - it's often the 1st port of call when something fails and it's pretty much even across all the platforms in terms of ease of finding a solution online.
the online phenomenon of help for linux users is largely non exsistent, and god forbid you actually run into a unique problem like say a real software bug. May as well just pack it in, unless its on a commercially funded OS and software ecosystem. At least with the windows software ecosystem, bugs do get fixed, and to be honest, and I know this is gonna piss off the linux fanbios, windows software and the os itself, is largely less buggy, as a OS. Kernel for kernel, hard to say.
Sorry, you've lost me here as I'm a little confused why you're discussing server and mobile OSs in the same sentence.
becuase andriod, is linux done right for the end user.
Linux is quite a way ahead of Haiku in a great number of areas. Not least of all with hardware and application support. It has a long way to go before it's a production ready desktop OS (in my opinion at least). There's a lot of other projects that's roughly on a par with Haiku which, if we're talking alternative OSs, deserve a mention too - AmigaOS, MorphOS, OS/2 and lets not forget the various desktop BSDs. Granted the former two are designed to run on PPC CPUs as opposed to x86. However with the advances with ARM, I wouldn't be surprised if a decade from now, ARM laptops are common place so I'd like to think (hope) that Morph and AROS are considering porting to ARM, even if AmigaOS never leaves PPC. There's also RISC OS, which is already available for ARM too - not used that in a while though so can't recall how complete it is.
These claims of being more advanced, are largely unfounded, in some ways in term of complexity, linux is ahead of Haiku, in all the areas that matter, is like comparing windows 3.0 to windows Beos, not even a fiar comparison. Its also a cohesive system, with a great overall design and lots of thought put into useability.
Anyhow, my point is there's a whole plethora of OSs out there - Haiku isn't really all that special (aside being based on BeOS, which was simply awesome <3 )
I never said Linux support was better. You're now making assumptions that I will automatically argue that "Linux > *
" simply because I defended the platform in a Linux forum.
What I actually said is Linux is on a par for all but high-street support.
Haiku is actually better then BeOS now, it has a more preformance capable kernel, is less buggy, crashs less, has more drivers, supports more software and is even more posix compliant. In fact why they have yet to release, is completely beyond me, they drove by beos r5 like 3 years ago and didn't even noitce.
Completeness and integration trump features every day, a bunch of half implemented features, done poorly, no matter how many of them you glue together, does not make linux more advanced, its just more abstract and less complete per line of code