Not mine but sounds like a showerthought to me. TL;DR ChromeOS is the “wrong” version of Linux and has 4% while GNU/Linux has 3%
Y’all have some wierd showers.
Interesting read. I was genuinely surprised to read that ChromeOS has 4%+ desktop market share. It’s not popular at all where I am from. I’ve never ever seen one in person.
A lot of schools use Chromebooks for their students. They’re cheap laptops that are easier to administer than Windows.
And safer
I used to sell laptops. Most of my customers were elderly people who only needed to watch Netflix, do their banking, check emails, etc. Chromebooks flew off the shelves.
It was the College-bound kids who insisted on a proper laptop.
Probably for schools with chromebooks. I’ve never seen one in the wild either.
Extremely old and extremely young people get them
Chromeos isn’t counted with Linux’s marketshare.
TBF it is also not really a
linux experiance, tho i do see what you mean.You could say the same thing about other distros that hide the difficult bits, tbh. Is Endless Linux? What about Elementary?
The thing about Linux is that it’s extremely flexible, and there’s a lot of choices about interface and user experience.
So what is it about ChromeOS that makes it not Linux? Is it that it doesn’t have GNOME, KDE, XFCE or the hundreds of other DEs? Is it that you don’t need to use the terminal for anything? I mean, it’s not the kernel or the userland or even the compiler…
So what is it?
Generally, Linux as a term refers to the Freedesktop standards, Linux kernel, and GNU userland. ChromeOS fulfills the latter two, but it lacks the Freedesktop standards, which are an essential part of the Linux platform. Therefore, it is logical to distinguish ChromeOS from standard Linux distributions since it diverges significantly from them. This differentiation has nothing to do with the Terminal, as it isn’t necessary to use it at all on most distributions. Elementary OS and Endless OS adhere to the Freedesktop standards, they are parts of the same platform as other Linux distributions.
Forgive me, but I’ve been around the Linux/FOSS community for a couple decades and I have never heard someone mention the Freedesktop spec as a requirement to be considered ‘Linux.’ Considering that the Freedesktop spec is mostly targeted towards systems with graphical UIs, would that mean that any headless system running a Linux kernel and GNU userland is not considered ‘Linux?’ Furthermore, that kind of flies in the face of the idea of using Linux as a testing ground for alternative computing ideas.
Now, there’s been a lot of discussion around fragmentation, and I get the arguments towards enforcing standards, but to me this is a truly bizarre line to draw in the sand. You could just as easily say “Any systems not using SysV are not ‘real’ Linux.” Or any system that gets rid of /usr. Or any system that isn’t POSIX compliant (bye bye, NixOS…).
Seriously. I don’t get it. Please show me what I’m missing.
I don’t think you are missing anything except the creeping in scope of the term “Linux” to exclude what they don’t like. Embedded Linux works with 0 GUI, and dont conforms to Freedesktop standards (obviously), yet it’s ridiculous for anyone to argue that isnt Linux. Alpine Linux also do not use GNU land, yet saying it is not “Linux” is also asinine. ChromeOS imo is Linux, it’s locked down Linux, but Linux nonetheless.
Sorry for the late response. I mentioned Freedesktop in the context of the Linux desktop. Freedesktop is responsible for the desktop ecosystem typically associated with Linux, and it’s what application developers refer to when discussing Linux compatibility. Steam for ChromeOS is not referred as Steam for Linux for a reason, it’s an entirely different application. Of course, there are exceptions, such as NixOS and Alpine for example, but both of them still aim to be part of the “Linux desktop” ecosystem, whereas ChromeOS does not, and yes, it’s “Linux” under the GUI stack, but referring to ChromeOS as a Linux desktop would only confuse those less familiar with the topic or worse, mislead them.
It’s that we don’t like the company google probably. But also it could be a combination of the factors you listed.
It’s that we don’t like the company google probably.
A somewhat large part of it. Linux has certain ethos that I just don’t see reflected on ChromeOS. It may be linux and be a successful distro at the goals it aims for, but is is disjointed from the rest of us here at the foss world. I don’t say that to get faux superior points on the internet.
Like a certain copy pasta that replies to the GNU + Linux copy pasta, “If windows was compiled with gcc, would that make it GNU?”?
For those who want to read it:
spoiler
Its not GNU+Linux
“I use Linux as my operating system,” I state proudly to the unkempt, bearded man. He swivels around in his desk chair with a devilish gleam in his eyes, ready to mansplain with extreme precision. “Actually”, he says with a grin, "Linux is just the kernel. You use GNU+Linux!’ I don’t miss a beat and reply with a smirk, “I use Alpine, a distro that doesn’t include the GNU coreutils, or any other GNU code. It’s Linux, but it’s not GNU+Linux.” The smile quickly drops from the man’s face. His body begins convulsing and he foams at the mouth and drops to the floor with a sickly thud. As he writhes around he screams “I-IT WAS COMPILED WITH GCC! THAT MEANS IT’S STILL GNU!” Coolly, I reply “If windows was compiled with gcc, would that make it GNU?” I interrupt his response with “-and work is being made on the kernel to make it more compiler-agnostic. Even you were correct, you wont be for long.” With a sickly wheeze, the last of the man’s life is ejected from his body. He lies on the floor, cold and limp. I’ve womansplained him to death.
I think it’s valuable to make the distinction, whether it’s based on linux or not. Just like it’s valuable to make the distinction between unix and macOS.
Because despite all that sophistic nonsense, one of those allows an already too powerful corporation to extend its monopoly into the hardware realm, while reducing user agency.
Never understood why “market share” matters to so many Linux enthusiasts. It’s not like Linux is a product that needs to generate revenue.
Because the biggest practical downside of Linux is a lack of natively developed big name software. It’s annoying to find some great software that perfectly meets your needs and then discover than it can’t run with decent performance on Linux.
Market share growing means that Linux becomes a better and more accessible option.
So what’s the magical percentage of market share that gets Adobe to port their proprietary software over to Linux?
So what’s the magical percentage of market share that gets Adobe to port their proprietary software over to Linux?
Something more than what it currently is.
But as a linux-only user since 2007, it’s my opinion that this sort of thing is less and less of a problem for most (note I did not say all) use cases.
There’s very few things I have wanted to do with a computer (as a tech enthusiast since the 80s) that isn’t doable on Linux. At this point I find most things I personally want to do are easier on Linux.
Gaming is coming along nicely thanks to Proton, which is not as good as native support, but which is still such a turnaround from even 10 years ago that it’s pretty amazing.
Non-gaming applications usually (not always) have a Linux equivalent that requires nothing more than decoupling what you need to do from the software you think you need to do it. That’s a hard sell if your boss or your teacher tells you all your tasks MUST be done in tool XYZ, but for other things it’s not so bad.
99% of what a non-professional thinks they need photoshop for is going to be doable in Krita or Gimp for example. Inkscape and Blender are well regarded for their purposes even outside the Linux community, very few people are really doing something in Word that can’t be done in Libre Office Writer, etc…
This isn’t intended as a campaign speech for Linux - I’ve long ago realized that for various reasons it’s not a good fit for some folks, or it could be but they aren’t interested. That’s fine, IMO. However, for the vast majority of what people use a PC for these days, I personally am doubtful that Linux is an obstruction to completing those tasks so much as it might be a paradigm shift for folks to rethink how they intend to complete those tasks.
It’s been many years since I’ve even wanted to run anything from Adobe on Linux. YMMV.
If they support Macs then whatever these things’ market share is, I suppose.
Wikipedia is using this site as the source, and that site shows around 20% market share for Mac. Linux is at 3% and ChromeOS is at 4%, so if you combine them and double that it still isn’t at 75% of the market share Mac has.
This isn’t mentioning that dealing with Linux compatibility is more annoying than Mac or Windows compatibility. Macs are very uniform, Windows has a giant making sure everything is compatible, and Linux has 900 distros that will never agree to co-operate.
900 distros
Flatpak
Windows is also ridiculously good at backwards compatibility. Mac frequently just breaks old software and Linux is largely unconcerned because they assume anyone that cares will find a way. That backwards compatibility is over of the major keys to Windows success with developers.
But Linux is good at backward compatibility tho. Linus Torvalds leadership made sure that very few if at all any changes to the kernel will break existing userland. This means that if you have a program with their needed dependencies in the right version (which is easy with docker/flatpak/appimage) your programs will run flawlessly even if they are from the 90s.
Though Linux the kernel might be stable and considerate, Linux the ecosystem is not.
I’m pretty sure that’s just default userland and foreign packages still update frequently and kernel updates might’ve broken syscalls not used by default userland.
So Linux is actually 7% desktop share.
Awesome!
That’s the great news I needed to read tonight
Now to add to the distro wars as to ‘which distro is better than which’, we’re gonna have ‘what is real linux and what isn’t real linux’ on top of that eternal debate? Lovely…
Which distro is best?
Hannah Montana OS > mine > yours
We’ve already had that with Android
Bunch of goofy wordplay passed off as tech news. But while we’re here, how are they gonna say it’s technically Linux because it uses a Linux kernel but isn’t really Linux because of the OS on top of it when Linux is literally just the kernel?
Goofy.
When taking into account, how much of Windows has become Linux, the percentage should be much higher.
…how much of Windows has become Linux?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
- you did not have to say that 4 times lol
- these are SUBSYSTEMS. WSL is basically a very good virtual machine. WSA uses something called “intel bridge” which idk what it means but anyways most people agree that Android isn’t really Linux.
- Sorry, I had issues with my client
- Still, Windows benefits from Linux more than ever
It benefits from Linux a bit more than virtual machines
