Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 21:28 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Linux "If you consider NetApplications' data set, then Linux owns only about 1 percent of the desktop OS market and Windows has almost 92 percent. But if you consider all computing platforms, including mobile, than Windows has only 20 percent and Linux has 42 percent - and that would be in the form of Google's Android alone." No more or less legitimate than claiming Windows owns 92% of the market. It's all a matter of perspective.
Thread beginning with comment 549965
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Linux is a kernel
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 01:45 UTC
0brad0
Member since:
2007-05-05

Except Linux is a kernel not an Operating System. Ubuntu/Debian/Red Hat, etc. are Operating Systems and are not the same thing as Android. The various other embedded devices that are based on the Linux kernel are their own unique Operating Systems. Trying to lump them all together is ludicrous at best. There are hundreds of Operating Systems which are referred to as "distributions" based on the Linux kernel.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Linux is a kernel
by galvanash on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 01:56 in reply to "Linux is a kernel"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Except Linux is a kernel not an Operating System. Ubuntu/Debian/Red Hat, etc. are Operating Systems and are not the same thing as Android. The various other embedded devices that are based on the Linux kernel are their own unique Operating Systems. Trying to lump them all together is ludicrous at best.


Unless you are trying to measure the marketshare of Linux... Which as you quite clearly pointed out, is a kernel and not an Operating System. So how do you measure the marketshare of a kernel? You count all the Operating Systems using it...

Do you consider statistics of marketshare by browser engine "ludicrous"? Knowing the total number of browsers using WebKit is far from useless information... Same exact thing.

Edited 2013-01-23 02:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Linux is a kernel
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 03:31 in reply to "RE: Linux is a kernel"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Unless you are trying to measure the marketshare of Linux... Which as you quite clearly pointed out, is a kernel and not an Operating System. So how do you measure the marketshare of a kernel? You count all the Operating Systems using it...

Do you consider statistics of marketshare by browser engine "ludicrous"? Knowing the total number of browsers using WebKit is far from useless information... Same exact thing.


But that is comparing marketshare of an OS vs a kernel. Apples vs oranges. Doesn't make any sense.

When someone says Linux they're implying it is a Operating System which it is not. Android uses the Linux kernel but it is NOT a Linux "distribution" or what is really an Operating System.

No, I don't consider it ludicrous. But when measuring marketshare like that it is quite clear that they're referring to the engine or the browser and not spinning the numbers to mean something they're not. Browser marketshare is measured for each browser as in Chrome / Safari, etc. not WebKit even though they're all using WebKit.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Linux is a kernel
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 02:39 in reply to "Linux is a kernel"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Except Linux is a kernel not an Operating System. Ubuntu/Debian/Red Hat, etc. are Operating Systems and are not the same thing as Android. The various other embedded devices that are based on the Linux kernel are their own unique Operating Systems. Trying to lump them all together is ludicrous at best. There are hundreds of Operating Systems which are referred to as "distributions" based on the Linux kernel.


Linux (the kernel) and GNU/Linux (the operating system) Has over 90% of the supercomputer OS market share.

http://www.unixmen.com/linux-share-in-supercomputer-os/

Linux accounts for as much as 94.2% share as Supercomputer OS!

Linux has a near-monopoly in embedded devices, such as TVs, DVD players and the like:

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linuxuniversal/

Linux is dominant in the server market (60%) and also the cluster and distributed computing market (66%).

Linux is dominant in every market except the desktop. None of these operating systems are the same (as complete operating systems) ... the machines involved in these markets are nowhere near as homogenous as the desktop market.

Nevertheless, a significant majority of the world's computers run Linux. Globally, over all computers, as a rough estimate Linux would run on over 65% of machines.

The fact that the OSes running are different on different machines does not mean that we cannot make this statement.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Linux is a kernel
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 03:22 in reply to "RE: Linux is a kernel"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

People call me a Microsoft shill, but I can only hope to be half as good as lemur2 is at shilling for Linux and KDE.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux is a kernel
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 03:38 in reply to "RE: Linux is a kernel"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

The fact that the OSes running are different on different machines does not mean that we cannot make this statement.


And that is creating bogus useless statistics. Yes, they're all using the same kernel but they're all different Operating Systems.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Linux is a kernel
by winter skies on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 10:25 in reply to "Linux is a kernel"
winter skies Member since:
2009-08-21

Except Linux is a kernel not an Operating System. [...]
Trying to lump them all together is ludicrous at best. There are hundreds of Operating Systems which are referred to as "distributions" based on the Linux kernel.


So what about Windows CE vs Windows NT, which don't even share a kernel?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Linux is a kernel
by henderson101 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 17:32 in reply to "RE: Linux is a kernel"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Let's be honest here - is Windows 95 really Windows? It doesn't use the NT kernel. It uses a similar API, but the actual underlying code base is not the same. Is Win 3.1 Windows? Same. Is Windows CE Windows? Again, same deal - however the kernel was implemented, the programming interface is extremely identical. Porting code to CE is more about the fact the device is lacking specific hardware one might expect in a full desktop, rather than anything overly dramatic.

Reply Parent Score: 3