In StatCounter’s latest US numbers, which cover through October, Linux shows up as only 3.49%. But if you look closer, “unknown” accounts for 4.21%. Allow me to make an educated guess here: I suspect those unknown desktops are actually running Linux. What else could it be? FreeBSD? Unix? OS/2? Unlikely.
In addition, ChromeOS comes in at 3.67%, which strikes me as much too low. Leaving that aside, ChromeOS is a Linux variant. It just uses the Chrome web browser for its interface rather than KDE Plasma, Cinnamon, or another Linux desktop environment. Put all these together, and you get a Linux desktop market share of 11.37%. Now we’re talking.
Chromeos and android might technically count as linux, but should they really?
See, this shit is why insisting on “GNU/Linux” is actually important. It’s the copyleft and the end user freedom it provides that matters, not the kernel.
Sabotaged Linuxes like Android just don’t cut it and shouldn’t count.
The kernel is copyleft (100% of it). The majority (more than half) of the other software in a typical Linux distro is not copyleft. The most popular license is MIT. Apache 2.0 (the license that Android uses) is pretty common in Linux distros as well.
To top it off. the majority of GPL software has nothing whatsoever to do with the GNU project, starting with the Linux kernel.
Technically, sort of, but GPLv2 isn’t good enough. Stuff has to be GPLv3 (or AGPLv3) to fulfill the intent of protecting the end user’s right to control their machine. That’s the essential thing people are looking for when they choose “Linux” — if it’s a tyrant device like a smart TV that’s subverted to work against the user by showing ads or whatever, nobody gives a shit if it’s running a Linux kernel because that fact doesn’t actually help them usurp the manufacturer’s control.
Usurpation of control is what “GNU/Linux” implies. The fine details of which software has what license isn’t the point; whether the system as a whole delivers on the promise of user freedom is.
Not really You can’t easily just run your normal linux programs on them.
I mean you get unlock Linux terminal and application access on Chromebooks. I have installed GIMP and Krita on Chromebooks for students that were in art classes.
Does it kind of suck? Yeah.
You can. I believe that’s how Minecraft Java runs on android. Newer android versions give you terminal access
…in a virtual machine
In a sandbox.
In a chroot jail
Yes
So, Windows is Linux, because you can also run Linux on a VM on it?
Wut?
Android as well. These are operating systems distributing Linux Kernel, therefore they are Linux distributions. Nothing more, nothing less. From there, it depends what the use case is to classify an operating system. Is it a Desktop system? A smartphone system? Or specifically made for gaming? For IOT devices or for servers or for supercomputers? Does it use GNU tools? Where is the line when you stop saying it is Linux based operating system?
Linux is Linux. ChromeOS is distributing the Linux Kernel. Even if an operating system wouldn’t use the GNU tools and if you could not run the application that runs on your Desktop PC, does not mean it wouldn’t be Linux. I don’t care how people categorize it or arbitrary ignore Linux based systems.
why are you always like this you keep focusing on linux being only the kernel and not seeing the bigger picture, it’s like you keep staring at your nose that you keep hitting walls
What do you mean “always Like this”? I don’t know who you are. Linux is just the Kernel. What bigger picture are you talking about???
1- i remembered you saying the same thing in other similar posts 2- the bigger picture is that it isn’t. let’s assume that i agree with you and linux is just the kernel what does this change? android is the overwhelming majority in smart phones almost everyone has one so linux must be so popular but why we are still limited in software ( like there are not that many industry leading software running natively on linux outside the hosting stuff) how does this change our daily linux usage experience ,how would this change one of the most complaints we hear about switching to linux
the bigger picture is that we care about the linux desktop and the freedom it provides and you are stuck on technicalities and the literal definition of the word “linux”
The desktop is only one part of possible way of utilizing Linux. If you only count the desktop, then say you are only talking about the desktop. Linux is in every Android smartphone. Apps being compatible is not a thing because of the Kernel, but the entire operating system. Just because your end user software from Android phone does not run native on your “random” desktop Linux operating system, does not mean both wouldn’t use Linux as its core.
So you are? The entire topic is about the definition and counting what Linux is. Even the reply to what I replied is addressing this topic. What do you even mean by “literal definition”? What definition are you talking about, an imaginary definition the way you want it to define? Linux is the Kernel. And a distribution is the operating system around the Kernel, to access the functionality the Kernel provides and connects to the hardware.
ok fine let me ask you then why are we celebrating or even talking about this 11.37% what’s even the point of discussion? we already dominate the server space
I don’t speak for others.
You precious little thing. never change
The reasons people generally celebrate linux don’t really apply to these two, so I don’t see much point in celebrating these numbers.
You’re arguing entirely past that.
People need to learn the fucking say what they mean then.
ChromeOS and android are Linux. They arnt GNU/Linux. They are specialized system for purpose systems.
If you mean only desktop GNU/Linux then fucking say THAT.
“Linux” as it is used in the real world means “Linux distribution” which is a Linux based operating system that runs the ecosystem of applications and desktop environments common to the “Linux” ecosystem.
If people mean the “Linux kernel”, they say so. With few exceptions beyond trying to make GNU/Linux a thing*, people do not mean just the kernel when they say “Linux” on its own. Even the Linux Kernel Mailing List says “kernel”‘when that is what they mean. And you do not get the kernel from the linux.org website. Guess what you do find there—a bunch of information about Linux distros (real ones, not ChromeOS and Android).
People ARE saying what they mean because they know what the word Linux means. Swearing does not make you more correct.
If I say “United States”, only morons pop up to tell me that I need to say USA because otherwise people might think I mean United States of Mexico. Everybody in the world knows what United States means. Swearing and shouting “say what you mean” would be ridiculous. And nobody wonders if I mean the city or the country if I say Mexico. If I meant just the city, I would say so.
And people know what Linux means too.
It doesn’t matter what people “celebrate” (what does that mean?). If the question is if these operating systems are “Linux”, then yes, they are. Because they distribute Linux. That’s all to it. Just because a system distributes Linux does not mean it is compatible to each other. That is a completely different question, involving other tech and standards.
I am not arguing past that, I answer the question from the reply I answered to.
This is what MIT license defenders have to deploy to mimic a fraction of our power.
What an odd boast. What is it based on?
MIT licensed software outnumbers GPL licensed software two to one or more in most Linux distros and elsewhere.
There was more MIT code in the X server than there was GPL code in the world before Linux came along.
And even Linux will never be GPL3 or even drop its exceptions. So, while it is ironically the crown jewel in the GPL universe, it is not even really GPL.
MIT/apache/bsd are bad licenses and people that defend them are bad people. The effect of those licenses are bad.
Arguing that non free licenses are too popular is assuming nothing can change.
Arguing that the kernel isn’t free enough to count arbitrarily sets the goalposts up and kicks right through em.
Bad licenses are part of the infrastructure that allow the bad effects we see in the world to occur. Opposing them is good.
You can hate hippies for their smell and unwillingness to get with the fucking program but they do be handing out Ls sometimes.
Yes it does - because that is the point of this post.
That is not the question as was pointed out to you.
You misunderstood the point of the question. I already said that they are linux.
You said “might” and asked if it should count. I gave you reason why.
Not every expression is meant to be read literally. Nobody else seemed to have trouble inferring it, so I think it was clear enough.
OK, because you have trouble to understand my reply, here a short one: yes, we should count Android and ChromeOS as Linux. And I explained why. You might not like the answer, but it is what it is.
You misunderstood the point of the question. I already said that they are linux.
Windows contains WSL. It’s distributing the Linux kernel which makes it a Linux distro, right?
No. WSL contains entire operating systems. Embedding a distribution in an operating system doesn’t make itself the operating system… The OS is Windows not Linux. I’m not sure if you are trolling or not…
I’m being a little facetious to highlight that your “operating systems distributing Linux Kernel, therefore they are Linux distributions” comment is a bit silly.
Yes technically Android and ChromeOS are Linux, but that’s not really what people mean when they say Linux. It’s not the Linux kernel specifically that they want, it’s usually the freedom and openness.