Linux

61050 readers

557 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

nooter692@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

108

11.37%. Now we're talking. (www.zdnet.com)

submitted 3 days ago by MattW03@lemmy.ca to c/linux@lemmy.ml

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] doodoo_wizard@lemmy.ml 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

MIT/apache/bsd are bad licenses and people that defend them are bad people. The effect of those licenses are bad.

Arguing that non free licenses are too popular is assuming nothing can change.

Arguing that the kernel isn’t free enough to count arbitrarily sets the goalposts up and kicks right through em.

Bad licenses are part of the infrastructure that allow the bad effects we see in the world to occur. Opposing them is good.

You can hate hippies for their smell and unwillingness to get with the fucking program but they do be handing out Ls sometimes.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

MIT is a “free license “ and software that uses it is Free Software. See the Free Software Foundation website for details.

My only goalpost is accuracy.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[–] doodoo_wizard@lemmy.ml 1 points 47 minutes ago

Here you have retreated to the definitions of words to try and fight a last valiant stand in defense of checks notes companies ability to build closed work on open.

Surely it’s me who is embarrassing themself.

Rather than quibble over definitions, why not mount an opposition to my argument!