Linux Web Usage Almost Doubled, Now At ~2%?

[blackiwid]

But BSD is successful because it accomplished what it set out to be.
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.

Yes it has some success, but only on companies site, they love to restrict the freedom of their users, so bsd is the better tool because it allows more evilness what bsd people then call freedom, the freedom to harm others...

But even on the companies site linux is more successful attracts more engagement of developers paid from companies for their work...

So if a company chooses now which os they use for stuff lets say a wii, they only choose bsd because it allows them to be evil and restrict people, if linux would allow that too they would use all linux.

Of course here and there some stuff works better in bsd for some time... like the oracle-fs or whats its name... but its a dieing think forked they cant get the patches from newer versions. And in the long run or medium rum btrfs will be the better choice.

But I did not want primary bash bsd, I wanted only to show what many people if they realize it or not like about linux is their freedom.

[carewolf]

You're delusional if you think this is anything but chromeOS. A chromebook has been the best selling laptop on Amazon for over a year. A $200 machine that does everything 80%+ of the general population needs, is there any real surprise that it's so popular? I've purchased one for most of my family members and they still use them.
Bonus points in that the x86 versions run coreboot/seabios so you can install your favorite linux distro easily if you're a power user.

ChromeOS/Chromebooks have come a long way and 2014 will be extremely good for the chromebook with the upcoming new lenovo/samsung/asus chromebooks.

I think it's interesting how fast tech-savvy users forget that most users just want to browse random websites, send emails, and maybe edit a few documents. These people make up a MASSIVE majority of the market share, and chromebooks do what they need. Chromebooks are essentially Mac "it just werks" on a new level.

ChromeOS is measured it is mentioned in the article they make up 0.2% of the market, or 1/10 Linux users.

[blackiwid]

Wow, what a jerk you are. Glad to not be part of your special little douche club.

(FYI lots of us have PhDs. ;D)

I said MAYBE, so I never said that I think that it is like that, I just thought what COULD be reasons for that. Ok maybe that I only think of this posibility is a insult ^^.

But you dont had to be feeled to be addressed ^^

And even if I would have wrote that I mean it is so, then of course I would have meant in average, not that every single one is dumb.

I mean the distro that 3rd party people got installed most from their pc guy because they cant install any operating system at all in the last 5 years or so would be ubuntu right... so to be not able to install a ubuntu yourself is one sign that your IQ is not the highest at least.

[tuubi]

so to be not able to install a ubuntu yourself is one sign that your IQ is not the highest at least.

I don't think that computer literacy has much to do with intelligence. Personally I know several people I consider more intelligent than I am whose interests lie elsewhere, and who are simply not interested in learning more than the basics of computing. Not like you'd need to be a genius to install Ubuntu, or indeed many other distros with a usability focus. I'd say it's at least as simple as installing windows.

[rudregues]

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.

Where did you get this information? I already knew Chrome OS was based on Gentoo but never seen anything related to profiles.

[WorBlux]

Where did you get this information? I already knew Chrome OS was based on Gentoo but never seen anything related to profiles.

I can't exactly remember, I think I pulled it out of some Pwn2Own news/commentary. It's probably not "the" hardened profile you'd get of the base systems eselect profile, but something fairly close.
"

[ssokolow]

Kind of like my server machine should be called screen/ncurses/gnu/linux?

My opinion it's GNU/Linux until llvm supplants it if it ever does.

I believe I recently saw some slides about a patch-set, currently being merged into both the kernel and LLVM, which allows the kernel to be compiled via LLVM.

Also, the compiler has nothing to do with the name of the OS. Would you use the name GNU/MacOSX for pre-LLVM versions of OSX? What about BSD/MacOSX because of the userland they copied? Not even Stallman thinks that way.

He wants it called GNU/Linux because his definition of "the OS" is comprised of glibc, GNU packages like bash and coreutils (ls, cp, mv, rm, cat, mkdir, rmdir, chown, etc.), and the Linux kernel. (Like I said, the stuff you need to pull console Emacs from your package repo and get work done.)

All I'm saying that, given the prevalence of desktop GUIs, since it's easier to replace glibc while preserving the ABI than X11 and X11 contributes more total code (especially for desktops like Ubuntu where GCC isn't installed by default), you can't justify that it should be called GNU/Linux unless you admit that X11/GNU/Linux is a more appropriate name... and nobody is going to use that as the actual name just like nobody refers to ABS plastic as Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene in common speech.

It all boils down to Stallman not wanting to admit that the GNU operating system is a dwindling part of the Linux OS and it's Hurd's fault for being obsessed with perfectionism over practicality during the window when they could have captured the market.

Given that we don't call it Samba/Linux or CUPS/Linux, glibc is really the only reason the GNU in X11/GNU/Linux is justifiable so I'm really hoping that, once musl libc completes the remaining peripheral features like iconv (currently UTF-8 only), people will switch distros to it for reasons of technical superiority and kill off "GNU/Linux" as a side-effect.

I suppose you could use an acronym like LAMP, since it worked for OSX, but the most obvious one (XGL = X11/GNU/Linux) sounds too much like an OpenGL derivative.

[blackiwid]

I don't think that computer literacy has much to do with intelligence. Personally I know several people I consider more intelligent than I am whose interests lie elsewhere, and who are simply not interested in learning more than the basics of computing. Not like you'd need to be a genius to install Ubuntu, or indeed many other distros with a usability focus. I'd say it's at least as simple as installing windows.

I dont say that somebody who dont care about his computer is always stupid, but its a sign its more likely that he is dumb. or at least has not high iq. A sign not a proof or something. There are always exceptions.

Its at least a weakness, of course some people are not guilty that they are dumb because they have a stupid job what steels them most of their time or something like that.

But again beeing unable to install ubuntu is not the same as beeing no geek or something. Of course you dont have to be a computer-geek to be intelligent.

And I cant hear the comparsion "its as simple as installing windows" ok you used "at least" before but it still sounds to equal to me. To install windows is 100x more complicated and it takes like 5-10 hours till you have it on a state like Ubuntu is after the fresh installation.

Its this Widnows is the default and we have to reach its good state, that was the goals 10 years ago on some aspects today linux is in most aspects way better than linux, not on the same level but way better.

Of course there are some aspects like the availibility of games it is still behind but where its way better we have to name that.

Installing windows is a horror, to even create a usb-installer is way more complicated or install it on a externel usb-harddisk etc, all creates way more problems, and if you have old hardware you get way more problems etc... And even all your hardware is supported its install routine is 10 years behind ubuntus installer.

EDIT:

ok if you have a empty harddisk its good enough still it takes very long to install it and if you are done, you have to install manuelly 1000 software-packages like office and even drivers if you are not happy with 2 year old drivers etc...

[blackiwid]

it starts with that you cant download any iso file or such stuff from the website, even they dont sell the iso or the cd they sell the lisence + key.

activation etc... so come on installation of ubuntu is way waaayyyy less problematic than installing windows.

[tuubi]

[...]

I intentionally avoided saying one operating system is easier to install than another so this wouldn't launch another pointless flamewar and derail the topic even further. My point was that even very intelligent people might simply not care about which operating system they're running as long as it adequately serves their purpose, certainly not enough to replace it. Thus you cannot infer anything about the intelligence of the user from the operating system on their computer.

(My experience has indeed been that most mainstream Linux distributions are indeed easier and quicker to install than Windows, barring the increasingly rare case of incompatible hardware.)