Linux Other 1,817 M 0.80%
k I am maybe in that... still double the amount of people than ubuntu users.
And some of this total "Others" are some linux systems too, so you have 0.4% of ubuntu users and 3% others / other linux users that is totaly unclear what maybe linux distro they use... so that says not much...
The other thing to consider is that Mint AFAIR stopped using it's own independent user agent and instead started telling the server it's running Ubuntu after a point
Originally Posted by blackiwid
"other" is chromeos.
Originally Posted by blackiwid
rofl so you cannot even say that at least 14% of linux clients that use wikipedia use ubuntu, that would be true if you see 0.4 / 2.8%
Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf
So even if you think that the users of all the distris use ubuntu on the same degree that says nothing ^^
k we know then that shurly at least 14% of the wikipedia visitors use linux Mint or Ubuntu ^^
Another Point even if Ubuntu would get used much, it would not matter that much... who has 70% or so market share microsoft is windows therefor a good and secure system you should use? No.
k I started it, but my intention was more to show a progress that one plattform looses users not about how much they really have total, and I think for that Distrowatch is not the worst source out there.
I never said that I belive that I belive that it gives you the real relations or % market share, but at least less people are excited about ubuntu than in 2006 and more about mint and fedora and even debian.
That you can say to some certainly out of this data. (sorry if I violated here english?) ^^
A lot of times
Big jumps like this usually happen when the method used to count is revised. Often, these stats are weighted by country, and they'll decide to change the weights up to more accurately reflect population growth, and all of a sudden it looks like there's been a massive shift when in reality nothing has actually changed.
Kind of like my server machine should be called screen/ncurses/gnu/linux?
Originally Posted by ssokolow
My opinion it's GNU/Linux until llvm supplants it if it ever does.
again, if you let your hate against rms beside and your belive in opensource > free software.
RMS startet to write a operating system he got the c-compiler and everything but the kernel basicly back then. Then Torvalds made the kernel. first it wasnt that big thing with 1 trillion developer helping out there. So it was a pretty small kernel.
You would maybe agree that in this time gnu programmes/libs was a very big contribution, most likely bigger than the kernel, but ok lets pretent for a moment even then the kernel was bigger, at least it was maybe sexier ^^, so would you call dos-kernel + dos-tools as system dos-kernel or something like that. or take bsd, its freebsd its a os, nobody call it as os bsd, if you say bsd you most likely mean only the kernel.
Yes there is bsd in the name like in GNU/Linux too, if you have problems with the big letters of GNU because your penis is to small maybe gnu/linux would be a compromise for you. And yes there are GNU/Non-linux btw, look at debian: http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/
Also the gpl lisense was a big contribution and at least for now, bsd failed hard on desktop even in comparsion to linux because of this lisense. all this linux-developer could have also contributed to bsd if they would have felt that their work is protected or not protected like they wanted it, most did not...
lets see other examples:
Unix is that the name of a kernel? No!
Android, name of a kernel? No!
IOS, name of the kernel? No!
Freebsd, name of the kernel? No!
Windows (xp/2000/7/8/vista...) name of the kernel? No!
You get it btw totaly wrong. RMS made no programm with the name GNU, where you can now messure how much loc it has compared to the kernel or something. so the comparsion with X11 is wrong. X11 was never conzipated as a name of a operation system, you can say you dont like the operation system name GNU but at least its a operation systen name, like Unix but not
If at least somebody maybe Linus would had suggested a name for a OS you could call it that way, or if the kernel would have got another name.
But if you call the hole os exactly the same than the kernel you get articles like that, who everbody udnerstands something different.
If you really so full of hate against rms and gnu, at least call it linux (kernel) vs linux (os), at least everybody would understand the same when he reads such articles.
Yes pre-android it was not that big of a problem, WHY? Because linux in 100% of the time meant GNU/Linux.
No we have 2 aspects of course we have the "linux" meaning gnu/linux and non-gnu/linux, but sometimes people are interested in non-dongeld non-nsa-root-kit-enabled so non-android linux numbers. like this article means, but calling that than linux is to unprecise.
you should understand that and even linux (os) would not help in this.
if you really hate rms that much you could maybe write non-android-linux if you think thats a more clever way or use a acronym like LIG (Linux is GNU ^^) because a not would make no sense but if you want to make yourself redicules call it LING for Linux is not gnu, at then at best make efforts to remove gnu else the name would make no sense.
Haha the funny part is you maybe also called it more likely linux only because you think that works better for marketing, but now it backfires, linux does not mean freedom but total unfreedom like in android today... ^^ at it becomes synonym for bad software (android) that sucks like hell and is even crappier than IOS or Windows Mobile...
But hey its cost-free kind of even that means that you sell all your data to google, and have no control over nothing.
That would at least then fork the operating system, I would not switch to a less free operating system, so would many people think. Maybe less than 50% we have no numbers about that. Maybe more... at least it would hurt both communities double the work to get your software compiled to one more plattform.
Originally Posted by nightmarex
I am not even shure, that even Linus would want that, he maybe disagreed to GPL v3 but from GPL v2 -> BSD is a astronical difference. its a totaly different view on freedom. AS far as I remember Linux never wrote bad stuff about gpl v2, so yes he is good with stuff like android to reach more users and conquer new markets, but if he really would vote (if somebody even asks him) to try hard to remove every peace of gpl software out of linux and make a fork of the operating system for desktop, not from companies but from the community itself. I would doubt that.
Lets be practical whats the gain... to split this communities? That you loose your sexiness, that (Linux) itself becomes a lockdown android?
Why did linux succeed, yes the desktop took long but linux even made it impossible for companies like valve to ignore it, because it was always technicaly better? No then MacosX would have won against windows ages ago. Because it was cost-free? No, why woudl then bsd not been successful?
Because of the mascot? Maybe, but really do you think that this big movement is all about a good sympatic mascot? More Freedom in contrast to MS, Yes thats it.
I could understand all this buzz, if the question would be to call it gnu vs linux, but its GNU/Linux vs Linux... I even would not have any problem if you call it because of lazyness most of the time only linux, but at least in articles where you want to say something about non-android linux -> gnu/linux.
Last edited by blackiwid; 02-21-2014 at 10:58 AM.
ChromeOS is hardened Gentoo + some other crap thrown in on top. So yes it really is GNU/Linux, unlike android which tried to avoid everything GNU where it can.
Originally Posted by sarmad
But BSD is successful because it accomplished what it set out to be.
Originally Posted by blackiwid
It's not as successful as Linux, but you don't rate success like that. It's like if I got 1st in high jumping it's not considered a success because someone else got first in long jumping which I was also competing in.