Why is Linux so popular on servers but dead on the desktop?

Stability.

Most of the productivity software for Linux is shit, Wine and Mono are far from perfect, and at some point, you'll just ask: "If I emulate Windows software to get anything done, then why am I on Linux?"
It's okay if you only wish to browse Internet, and watch vids though.

Not him, but I heard it's always about number of connection, lots of stupidity with licensing etc.

Attached: 06dae57f2f4b20231b991d94cab7e105_400x400.jpg (400x400, 24K)

For the same reason it's popular on routers and dead on the desktop.

>Linux is popular on servers
Which servers? I work in enterprise IT, and I've never seen a single Loonix server. Maybe it's popular in a couple of niche markets like the glorified calculators you call supercomputers and front-end web servers, but that's about it.

Because there isn't really a truly desktop-oriented Linux-based system. Gnome, KDE et al have come a long way, and there are plenty of distros that get you up and running with one of these quickly and easily. There are Linux desktops and workstations floating around in some applications, like healthcare (some MRI machines) and visual effects. But there are other optimizations and features that could be worked on to make Linux (GNU/Linux or otherwise) amenable to the desktop.

I'm thinking of things like battery life on laptops, enterprisy things like centralized desktop policy management, better optimizations for multimedia (audio and video), among other things. A lot of this stuff can be addressed, but companies like MS and Apple have entire teams working on the desktop environment. in Linux, most of the development pours into optimizing it for server usage, as there is a lot of demand. Power users (most Jow Forums types) probably don't mind this, and even prefer it this way.

Of course, Windows having momentum is also a challenge, which leads to lack of commercial applications on Linux people like. I think that if desktop Linux was addressed better, you'd see more apps ported.

What sort of shit company do you work at?

One of the big four.

I think Ubuntu has been desktop ready since like 2010. Most people just need a browser, and simple stuff like word processing, which Ubuntu has made all very accessible.
Of course, if you absolutely need to use a program that isn't on Linux, you can forget about it, but a large percent of people *could* near-effortlessly switch to Ubuntu (although I think KDE or Cinnamon would be easier for them to use) no problem, but there is no real reason for them to switch, and people hate change.

Riiiiiight

haha nice shots fired at apple haha nice man keep fighting the good fight haha

server is expensive, so free as in no pay OS is good enough if it does everything you need

desktops already come with windows, and full support. why bother installing another OS when it already works? also, learning curve (windows, despite its problems, is easy)

as just a drop in the bucket, consider if you use IIS you need to purchase a CLA license for every single individual user that is registered on your site.

Linux has been desktop-accessible for a long time. Ubuntu definitely made it more so, and you're right, a lot of people do need little more than a way to browse the web, and maybe an email client and music player.

The problem is the gap between those users and the power users. People who are doing something more involved, but don't need massive amounts of control over their system. Audio is a good example - on Linux you do have a lot of control, and you can get good performance if you tinker with it. It's more involved than the simple desktop usecase you mentioned, but it's not at the level of someone who has a whacky specific application (like some kind of specialized workstation like I mentioned). Now, in this case there are Linux distros that are specialized for audio work, but that's the thing - you don't really see that in a generalized distro like Ubuntu or Fedora. (I think Fedora's working on something like this, Pipewire I believe?)

The crummy thing is, this is both a strength and a weakness of Linux, because you do have a lot of control. It's a matter of how much you want/how much you think you want.

Are they... trying to stop people from using it? Why would they do that?

Attached: 1525625198888.jpg (288x288, 21K)

Incorrect. CALs aren't required for users visiting your website, just user accounts having access to the server.

>However, let’s say you are using Windows Server to setup an online store where customers can buy widgets. You have front end Windows Servers setup to support your website, and backend servers (e.g. commerce servers) setup so customers can check out and buy your widgets. The front end servers used to host your website would generally be considered as running “web workloads” and CALs or External Connectors will not be required to access these servers. Once the customer adds a widget to their shopping cart, creates an account and enters their credit card and shipping information to complete the sale – they are now authenticated via your back end commerce servers/application (non-web workload). Since users are accessing the backend commerce servers which web workloads are not running – CALs or External Connectors will be required for users to access these back end servers.

straight from the MS licensing team
blogs.technet.microsoft.com/volume-licensing/2014/03/10/licensing-how-to-when-do-i-need-a-client-access-license-cal/

The only correct response for that is "Your dad is poop". As a 12-year-old shitposting on Jow Forums thats the only kind of response he'd actually be able to comprehend.

There's no way any business would actually use IIS unless it's for some extremely specific niche reason, of which I can't think of even one.

You forgot about the mountains of ASP.NET software out there, kid.

You're comin at me with these words I don't understand and I don't have much of a choice except to assume you're talking shit

Attached: 1524811799823.jpg (240x240, 4K)

Consumer companies don't make linux binaries
If Adobe/Protools put out viable binaries this could shift but there is such little market share involved for them to do it so they won't
meanwhile on the server end linux dominates

>1.6% marketshare
>"I-it's not dead!"

Because linux is good and modular for stuff like that, that's mostly CLI's and keeping tabs on resources.
It's also has a lot of server software, both homegrown, and inherited from Unix.
>Most people just need a browser, and simple stuff like word processing, which Ubuntu has made all very accessible.
And this is where linux fags are wrong.
People actually need more than that.
If you only needed to check your mail, you could stick to almost anything.
Android x86, Haiku, Redox OS, anything.

99% stupid people

I recommended openBSD. It is best modern desktop OS ever i seen.

Attached: logo.png (242x208, 13K)

Because it's stable and secure. Linux is basically modern UNIX. It's not System V based but it's mostly POSIX compliant and does all the same stuff.

.t T1 helpdesker/MSPer

>If you only needed to check your mail, you could stick to almost anything.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. There is nothing specific to Linux (other than years put into ease-of-use) that people need from an operating system.

>jpg
FUCK OFF

people are using android and ios over windows or linux. mobile is taking over.

android is linux

linux desktop*

MacOS on servers was a thing in 2006?? How?

You don't need decent GUI designers to make good server software

>people need from an operating system.
Except people also need their popular, complex apps.
If that wouldn't be a factor, we'd still be using Meego and Windows Mobile 8.1, since those things are rock-solid.

Mac OS X Server predates Mac OS X. You can run it on Macs and Xserve computers

We don't have Linux servers either, but maybe.
I can't find any non-web-only server data where linux servers are even close to the number of windows servers. "web facing", "web servers", etc. where they leave out all other servers for some odd reason. Why don't you guys help me out unless it the truth that windows is completely crushing linux. Something with all data.

Attached: 2017 Server _ Database Brand Leader Mini Report.jpg (638x359, 46K)

Windows infrastructure is WAY more common than linux infrastructure. The main reason is the Active Directory. Companies have a domain for their employees, HR, etc, which organises data and resources for them, and then they throw up some windows server boxes for their website. Super common. I rarely see apache/nginx.

t. Expert

Roughly 70% of the web applications out there are IIS, m8.
Seriously, go to a few websites and check out their server response headers.

wow a graphic straight out of a shady microsoft anti-linux propaganda campaign

ironically showing exactly why microsoft is such a shit company

It's a lot more common to have Windows stuff in smaller businesses if only because Windows admins are much cheaper than Linux ones.

What makes MacOS so bad for servers?

well for one thing you have to run it on a mac

Enterprise stuff usually is windows. It's the nitty gritty backend data centers, computing clusters, niche purpose stuff where linux gets used the most. There are a lot of data centres, and they're all placed where land is super cheap in either really cold or really hot warehouses where I have to sit on the fucking floor freezing or sweating

This happened to me several times while running Mac OS X Server
>drive mounted as /Volumes/Drive
>drive unmounts, Drive directory stays
>data designated to drive starts filling the root partition
>drive is remounted as /Volumes/Drive 1
>data keeps going to root partition even though the drive is remounted
>try to switch directories so /Volumes/Drive is the actual drive
>system undoes it

Attached: 1491022738272.png (1680x1244, 112K)

A lot of it, yes. But Linux is quite a bit more common in larger organizations than in smaller ones, where they can afford the talents of people to make the most use of it.

ASP.net can be used with whatever OS and server you want.

>who do you perceive
now what about actual deployment?

Linux doesn't have a single good GUI toolkit.

If you ever used GTK+ or Qt then switched to WPF or the other way around you would know what I'm talking about.

2 major reasons.
Reason 1-command line. Nobody aside from autistic faggots want to get near that shit.
Reason 2-installation of software not found in repository. See reason 1.

And that's pretty much it. Linux DOES provide most everything a normie wants, but it's reliance on CLI makes it a general use nightmare for most.

>what is openstack

>reliance on CLI
If you really want to use Ubuntu or Mint without touching command line, you can do it 99.9% of the time(assuming you're a normie, at least). Even software that isn't found in the repositories usually has .deb packages, which you can run without CLI.

Not a single company on the planet is compliant with Microsoft's bullshit licensing. Why they run a model they know guarantees people dont follow is beyond me

It's legal blackmail. So long as the customer behaves and doesn't do anything stupid like trying to switch to linux they don't get the 'you haven't been paying the fees' hose.

You just showed what an enourmous normie you are..

Correct, and desktop users want new features constantly, which doesn't usually equal stability (just look at nvidia driver changelogs).

Exactly.
The threat of litigation is a powerful tool.

By "big four" I meant PwC, EY, KPMG and Deloitte, you dumbass.

>who do you perceive

You’ve never heard of ldap, expert?

Because almost everything can serve websites.
And why would you buy licenses and fall for the vendor lock-in in that case.

>normie

They charge per 16 cores. If you have 32 cores you need a double license.

Attached: ms-server.jpg (933x530, 183K)

Linux has no software apart from server software.

I use both Windows and Freebsd on my servers. Main server runs Windows cause of its client backup feature and software compatibility. It's remote access feature is nice to. Been stable as hell. One of my backup server runs FreeNas (freebsd) for it's ZFS file system and cause I can run it from thumb stick, freeing up a 3.5 bay. Another backup nas runs a variant of Linux (Zyzel)

Because Windows comes preinstalled, most people just roll with whatever comes preinstalled.

Spent 26 years as a *nix sysadmin. Worked at various large corporations in the US and at government levels. Every single place I worked had a heterogeneous environment. There are specialized programs on linux (or solaris when I started, yes I’m that old), just as there are on windows. Every place I worked supported a full enterprise level Unix environment (file servers, application servers, mail, ldap/nis, you name it). Desktops too. Almost all the servers were solaris or redhat. Desktops were some sort of redhat or fedora, with a lot of people moving to ubuntu. But the majority of desktops and daily business infrastructure was always windows. Dem’s the facts from my career.

[citation needed]

gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide/#monthly-201702-201802

Linux is the name of the kernel that Linus Torvalds developed starting in 1991. The operating system in which Linux is used is basically GNU with Linux added. To call the whole system “Linux” is both unfair and confusing. Please call the complete system GNU/Linux, both to give the GNU Project credit and to distinguish the whole system from the kernel alone.

Attached: 1518235149313.png (495x418, 287K)

Take a look at the prices.

If you want Microsoft SQL Server Enterprise which is required for TDE (Transparent Data Encryption) which is most likely required by GDPR's encryption of data in transit you'll pay a ludicrous sum per core to use it.

This not only applies for SQL Server, this also applies for most other enterprise MS Server components.

I'd like to repeat that this is per core.

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-05-26 16-08-32.png (1697x288, 29K)

Eat a bag of dicks

Because the people running desktops don't give a fuck if they need to reboot their computer or restart some program in the middle of the day because it crashed.

There's not a single DE for Linux that "just werks".
Also, no games.

Just in case you wonder why never anyone replied to you and won't do so in the future: Ur post dumb as shit.

>technically superior solution
>cannot natively run .exe files
Alright lad

servers literally just serves files, email, and mayber sql or the like, that's it. (Which is all Linux can really do) Most ERPs aren't even available in linux, not to mention the myriad of other software (not just games) that linux can't figure out.

>Of course, if you absolutely need to use a program that isn't on Linux, you can forget about it
soooo, 90% of the working force in any area that isnt code monkeying and basic office tasks?

or more likely, nobody can say he's wrong with a straight face and not being blown the fuck out

because we have ppl making stupid graphs like this. Look at that fuckin graph it's fuckin 10 year child level graph.

Linux is a kernel.

Windows servers tend to be used in local intranets for managing other windows based systems while *nix servers are used for handling basically everything else and public facing servers are usually *nix based.

If someone does the thread will stop to be replied and another thread will be created because this is just a circlejerk of microdick shills telemarketing team. I see that too often.

If one makes the presumption that the modern IT is all about the internet, then you have to ask yourself
'Does Linux even have a choice in this matter ?'

A modern computing system is not one that is run from the command line - it is a system that is tied in with the internet Cloud. Just have a look at Windows 10 with Cortana and OneDrive for an example of this done right.

You need the outlook to connect in with the mass of email flowing around us every day. And then there is document collaboration - the sharing of Wordfiles and Excels between users across state boundries ! Voice over IP, cloud enabled 'Surface' computing, and voice command interfaces - all tied together with .NET and the OneDrive.

The driving force behind this internet is the Microsoft Sharepoint Server - a central peice of systems software which connects all these end points together, in a synergistic kaleidoscope that achieves both balance and symmetry.

The smart Vendors know that in order to get ahead in the future IT, that means integrating with the Cloud.

Linux has nothing on the Cloud.

>*nix
What do you mean by this?

As a longtime windows user, and use linux occasionally, I admit it, it very easy to setup and tweak for server rather than windows.

Linux is just a kernel. Please be specific on which OS you use.

No GUI.

Eat a bag of dicks

LDAP is a part of AD, genius. There are unix implementations that work just great, but companies don't use them.