this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2026

107 points (82.0% liked)

Linux

68,653 readers

5,210 active

1,007 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 7 years ago

moderators

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

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

submitted 10 months ago by MattW03@lemmy.ca to c/linux@lemmy.ml

61 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

[–] markz@suppo.fi 19 points 10 months ago (16 children)

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.

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[+] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml -6 points 10 months ago (13 children)

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.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago

It doesn’t matter what people “celebrate”

Yes it does - because that is the point of this post.

If the question is if these operating systems are “Linux”, then yes, they are.

That is not the question as was pointed out to you.

parent

[–] markz@suppo.fi 8 points 10 months ago (6 children)

You misunderstood the point of the question. I already said that they are linux.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml -5 points 10 months ago (5 children)

You said "might" and asked if it should count. I gave you reason why.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] markz@suppo.fi 8 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Not every expression is meant to be read literally. Nobody else seemed to have trouble inferring it, so I think it was clear enough.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] markz@suppo.fi 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You misunderstood the point of the question. I already said that they are linux.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] mr_right@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 9 months ago

don't bother with him this isn't the first time he died on this hill

parent

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml -3 points 10 months ago

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

parent

[–] doodoo_wizard@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

This is what MIT license defenders have to deploy to mimic a fraction of our power.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] doodoo_wizard@lemmy.ml 1 point 9 months ago (2 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.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

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.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] doodoo_wizard@lemmy.ml 1 point 9 months 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!

parent

[+] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 2 points 9 months ago

“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.

why isn’t GNU/Linux a thing? Well, amongst the many reasons is that many Linux distros that are clearly “Linux” and even “desktop Linux” do not use GNU software. The most extreme is Chimera Linux probably but Alpine, Void, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Serpent, and others match this description to various degrees. And outside of RHEL, actual GNU software makes up a tiny fraction of the software even in distros that use it (like say Arch). Chimera Linux, Void Linux, and Arch Linux are all remarkably similar though they differ dramatically in GNU usage. They are all “Linux” but not GNU/Linux. Android is totally different from all of them despite using the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux is one of the least descriptively accurate terms you could come up with for any reason other than purely political.

parent