Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Jan 2012 22:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 503297
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-24
As should be pretty obvious to you, the meaning of the term "Linux" is dependent upon context, as are so many terms in most natural languages. In this context, it is obviously the summation of systems using a Linux kernel. It is both convenient and proper to use the term "Linux" to refer to that set. Please don't try to confuse the issue with all that silly Stallmanesque "Linux is just a kernel" rhetoric. It is both irrelevant and unbecoming.
Anyway, please refer to the linked statistics. If Linux is at 0.75% of desktop usage, none of the *BSDs register at all.
That's not intended to be a jab at the *BSD distros. But it's something I must point out in order to properly address your post.
The *BSDs face many of the same problems that Linux does. But obviously, the two sets are not absolutely identical. No doubt the *BSD's are doing some things right that the Linux world, by and large, is doing wrong. But the Linux strategy, as a whole, has apparently been more effective at conquering the desktop. Though it should be fairly obvious by now that that is not saying much.
Edited 2012-01-13 20:47 UTC