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.
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.
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.
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.
You misunderstood the point of the answer. I already explained why we should count them as Linux.
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.