107
11.37%. Now we're talking. (www.zdnet.com)
submitted 10 months ago by 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
[–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 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!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent