3 ms·

Actually being "free/open/libre" software has had everything to do with the success of Linux. However, I've heard the high cost of UNIX licenses in the early 9

by qplex 10y ago

Actually being "free/open/libre" software has had everything to do with the success of Linux. However, I've heard the high cost of UNIX licenses in the early 90s was the reason why Linus decided to start his project. Also, Linux has never been "a failure" on the desktop: you seem to think that the definition of being successful is to have a complete monopoly.

coldtea 10y ago
>Also, Linux has never been "a failure" on the desktop: you seem to think that the definition of being successful is to have a complete monopoly. Complete strawman. First, I used the Linux advocates' own definition of "success": Linux overtaking MS on the desktop, and the fabled and continuously moving "Year of Linux on the desktop". Which never happened. Second, what "complete monopoly" rubbish, which I never alluded to? Linux has less of 2% on the desktop (by all browser-based stats). For a completely free OS, that's a failure. 10-20% would have been a great success.
- qplex 10y ago
  I get somewhat weary when I hear somebody say that "Linux is a failure on x because..." Anyway, where did you get that definition? It is the view of the Linux Zealot. To say that it some sort of general definition is just silly. You also seem to think that if an operating system is free (as in cost?) people would automatically go for it. That is simply false. In any case I think Linux will outlive Windows. Windows is pinned on one single player and Linux is has reach over many.
- qplex 10y ago
  And with "compete monopoly" I was referring to Microsoft who has abused its position on the market multiple times to thwart competition. You have to understand that "Linux" differs greatly from Microsoft Windows(R) because of its philosophical underpinnings of being "free as in freedom" software. BTW I've heard the market share of Linux on the desktop has steadily been rising for the past few years... just give it some time ;)

by qplex 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>Also, Linux has never been "a failure" on the desktop: you seem to think that the definition of being successful is to have a complete monopoly. Complete strawman. First, I used the Linux advocates' own definition of "success": Linux overtaking MS on the desktop, and the fabled and continuously moving "Year of Linux on the desktop". Which never happened. Second, what "complete monopoly" rubbish, which I never alluded to? Linux has less of 2% on the desktop (by all browser-based stats). For a completely free OS, that's a failure. 10-20% would have been a great success.

qplex 10y ago
I get somewhat weary when I hear somebody say that "Linux is a failure on x because..." Anyway, where did you get that definition? It is the view of the Linux Zealot. To say that it some sort of general definition is just silly. You also seem to think that if an operating system is free (as in cost?) people would automatically go for it. That is simply false. In any case I think Linux will outlive Windows. Windows is pinned on one single player and Linux is has reach over many.
qplex 10y ago
And with "compete monopoly" I was referring to Microsoft who has abused its position on the market multiple times to thwart competition. You have to understand that "Linux" differs greatly from Microsoft Windows(R) because of its philosophical underpinnings of being "free as in freedom" software. BTW I've heard the market share of Linux on the desktop has steadily been rising for the past few years... just give it some time ;)