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 549996
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Marketshare"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Sure, but why is it there? Mostly for one reason. Android. That is the functional equivalent of saying that Android is dominant in the mobile space. There is no new information, and crucial context is lost.


Actually, Linux is dominant in the mobile market, the embedded market, the server market, the "cloud", virtualization, network infrastructure, the real-time market, the cluster and distributed computing market, mainframes and supercomputers.

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

In other words, everywhere except the desktop. Linux is indisputably the most widely used OS today, by far.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Marketshare
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:54 in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


In other words, everywhere except the desktop. Linux is indisputably the most widely used OS today, by far.


Another mainstream OS that blows chunks. Popular != good.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Marketshare
by cdude on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 15:04 in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Taken the shift away from desktop-workstations as mass-consumer devices and understanding them as legacy that is transforming its plausible no bigger changes happen there anymore. May the localized power-eating fat-boxes rest in piece while the new-age transportable identities replace them. Bye betamax, high digital world.

Edited 2013-01-23 15:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Marketshare
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 16:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Actually, Linux is dominant in the mobile market, the embedded market, the server market, the "cloud", virtualization, network infrastructure, the real-time market, the cluster and distributed computing market, mainframes and supercomputers.

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

In other words, everywhere except the desktop. Linux is indisputably the most widely used OS today, by far.


I take nothing away from Linux in that regard, I was commenting on the misleading nature of the figures cited in the article you submitted.

What you say may be true, but can you show me a break down of how all those sectors contribute to the chart you submitted? You cannot string loosely coupled facts together without some reasoning.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Marketshare
by henderson101 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 17:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

The LINUX kernel, yes. But a full LINUX distro? Kind of. But where does LINUX start, and a derivative work stop? Is Android a LINUX, or and OS using LINUX as a platform to run apps? The fact that Android Apps run (mainly) in a VM and that VM has been ported to countless other OS (Other LINUX distros, QNX, Mac OS X, Windows, etc) and those Apps run happily, with or without the underlying Kernel and OS services - what does that tell us? I know what you think as you've made that fairly obvious, but I'd say - LINUX was just a convenient platform to build Android upon. But really, it might have equally have been BSD or another OS, had one existed in a form that was useful and fitted the profile. Is WebOS LINUX? Is Meego LINUX? Not as most desktop users would consider the OS. I mean, some parallels can be drawn, but it's more of an analogue rather than an exact correlation. I think it's very easy to point at any project that uses the LINUX kernel and shout "another LINUX OS", but for me there's more to it. Or can we start pointing at the Dreamcast, XBOX, XBOX 360 and all of the Windows CE based devices (including Windows Phone 7 and 8) and say "Windows"? Can we look at all of the iOS devices and say "Mac OS X"? After all, it's a very similar situation. Cherry picking your definition is just a convenient way to cheat the figures, in my opinion (obviously.)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Marketshare
by abraxas on Thu 24th Jan 2013 00:15 in reply to "RE[4]: Marketshare"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

The fact that Android Apps run (mainly) in a VM and that VM has been ported to countless other OS (Other LINUX distros, QNX, Mac OS X, Windows, etc) and those Apps run happily, with or without the underlying Kernel and OS services - what does that tell us? I know what you think as you've made that fairly obvious, but I'd say - LINUX was just a convenient platform to build Android upon. But really, it might have equally have been BSD or another OS, had one existed in a form that was useful and fitted the profile.


You're right that the kernel could have been anything else. I think that's the point. It could have been anything but they chose linux.

Or can we start pointing at the Dreamcast, XBOX, XBOX 360 and all of the Windows CE based devices (including Windows Phone 7 and 8) and say "Windows"? Can we look at all of the iOS devices and say "Mac OS X"? After all, it's a very similar situation. Cherry picking your definition is just a convenient way to cheat the figures, in my opinion (obviously.)


It's not exactly the same. The windows CE kernel and the Windows NT kernel are not even close to being the same thing. Despite drastically different userlands, linux system share the same kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 2