13 ms·

Linux has nearly half of the desktop OS Linux market

113 points by stockerta 3y ago

Zambyte 3y ago
The word they're looking for is "GNU".
- coldtea 3y ago
  Why, if I run with musl and MIT/Apache userland, eg. rust replacements for coreutils, it's not Linux?
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    That doesn't make up half of the desktop marketshare of Linux-based operating systems.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      No, but "so, it's not necessarily GNU" was the point. It's basically "Linux proper" (whether is the GNU libc/musl + GNU/whatever userland breakdown) vs "Linux that's a backend for Google's ChromeOS GUI and for which Google could replace the Linux part and noone will be any wiser". Rare or not, the exotic combination I mentioned would still qualify. Besides, I'm pretty sure ChromeOS still has the whole GNU userland installed.
- awestroke 3y ago
  No
- kryptiskt 3y ago
  How long will they insist that we genuflect to them for the few pieces of legacy software that they bring to a typical Linux system?
  - Y_Y 3y ago
    I think the naming debate is silly, and I just say "Linux", but (with notable exceptions) tons of the core software on an average Linux system is part of the GNU project, e.g. glibc, GCC, coreutils, make, emacs
    - felipetrz 3y ago
      The article is basically saying that a non-gnu Linux distribution, like Alpine, is less linux than ChromeOS, just because it uses GNU. And while being pedantic about this, they still called Linux a Unix (which it's not) while ignoring the commercial unixes because they're dead (which, as much as I'd like it to be true, it's not in the case of MacOS). The person who wrote this article was dishonest or ignorant in so many levels.
      - GabrielTFS 3y ago
        > they still called Linux a Unix (which it's not) Uhhhhhhh, on what basis ? The only arguments I can see for this would be either of: - Pedantry, as technically the Linux kernel itself isn't UNIX certified by the Open Group, who owns the trademark - though multiple distributions have been certified to past standards, with no meaningful changes necessary. As an additional note, if you want to only count implementations conforming to the latest standard as being "real UNIX", then AIX is literally the only UNIX in existence. - Purity, as Linux doesn't directly use any of the original code from AT&T-created UNIX OSes. But by that standard, it seems like modern BSDs wouldn't qualify as "UNIX", given that all of the AT&T code was stripped out a long time ago, and MacOS would qualify even less given it uses a non-AT&T kernel and only a few parts of some BSDs in the userland. Also, if including AT&T-produced code suffices to be "UNIX" then I must ask whether a Linux distribution that comes with ksh qualifies (...or even if Windows with UWIN or Cygwin+ksh qualifies). Generally though, the argument just reeks of ancestor worship to me. ...and neither of them are satisfactory to me.
  - gsliepen 3y ago
    You mean the rock solid userland foundation and the state of the art compiler? (Insert a modified "What have the Romans ever done for us?" sketch here.) I'll happily acknowledge their work I enjoy every day, GNUflecting doesn't seem a high price to pay ;)
- pantalaimon 3y ago
  ChromeOS, unlike Android, uses glibc and other GNU userland.
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    Exactly. By using the word "GNU", it makes it clear how silly the distinction is. Their use of the word "Linux" does not help their point, because as you point out, there are distinct operating systems (GNU, Android, and Alpine for example) which all use Linux in the same way. It's nonsense to argue that Ubuntu and Fedora are "Linux" and Android is not. It is not nonsense to want to put Ubuntu and Fedora in the same bucket, which does not contain Android or Alpine. That bucket is GNU. When we use the words to mean what they are (not using Linux to mean software other than Linux) the point that the author is trying to make becomes obvious.
CodeCompost 3y ago
> Linux has nearly half of the desktop OS Linux market. I don't understand this headline, was it written by a bot?
- jakobnissen 3y ago
  Read the article.
  - nicce 3y ago
    Usually title should be understandable without reading the article. The point of the title is to summarize the article.
    - frereubu 3y ago
      If the title is confusing, the least someone could do before taking the time to write a comment with a basic question is to read the article. The point of the title is not always "to summarize the article".
      - boarush 3y ago
        And that is one recurring problem I see across HN in recent times, where people merely make comments/claims based on only reading the title and completely disregarding the contents of the article shared. It might be that the title may be clickbait-y, but that is I guess to be expected in this day. Someone reading has the choice to just not interact if that title is too much bait.
        aCoreyJ 3y ago
        I have been on HN a lot more since ditching Reddit recently and somehow I think it's actually worse than Reddit with commenters not reading the article
        pc86 3y ago
Thoeu388 3y ago
[flagged]
PurpleRamen 3y ago
> But that's not the case for ChromeOS. Underneath its unique GUI layer – which, unlike the one in macOS, is open source – it's a relatively standard Linux which can run standard Linux apps, out of the box, on both x86 and Arm. How? Last time I looked at this, I needed to install a dedicated Linux-Environment, which came with its own hiccups. That's not really what I would call out-of-the-box. The Android-Integration made a better impression.
- CrampusDestrus 3y ago
  ChromeOS is an immutable Gentoo installation. The offered additional Linux environment is, understandably, based on Debian in order to allow for the most compatibility with .deb packages. Of course you can't natively install .deb packages on Gentoo and especially so if you don't have the rights to install spurious packages on the system, so Google "has to" offer the Linux experience in a roundabout way. Of course, they could base ChromeOS on Debian directly and be done with it, but then they'd lose the incredible ease of custom tailoring to the hardware that Gentoo offers.
  - PurpleRamen 3y ago
    Yes, but that's the reason for the distinction. The linux-user experience is coming from the debian-cointainer, with limitations which are not comparable to the user experience of a full debian installation from my understanding. The core is isolated from the user, and irrelevant. In the same way one should ask, are ChromeOS-Installations also counted for the android-marketshare? Do WSL-Installations on windows count to the desktop-linux-share too? Does wine-usage count for windows-installations? They all are important, but also a bit special on their own. How do statistics handle them?
    - CrampusDestrus 3y ago
      ChromeOS is quite literally desktop Linux. If instead of a custom immutable Gentoo distribution they chose to base on Fedora Silverblue would it be any different? They would still need to offer Debian software through a layer of containerization and the user would still not have root level access. Since ChromeOS is for casual users who will never need to install tools system-wide, I don't really see that much of a limitation in being able to only use things as non-root.
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
I think the article makes a good point. ChromeOS is very much a Linux desktop in most ways. Over 7% of desktops is a much nicer number too :)
Y_Y 3y ago
> Ignoring all the commercial Unixes as they are effectively all dead now, Ironic that this article would ignore Mac OS, a somewhat notable commercial Unix.
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago
  Which has nearly 34% of desktops in the US! (world wide only 22%) https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/united-st...
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Those numbers don't look right. IDC says it's more like 10% worldwide which seems more believable. (It's presumably higher in the US and it is growing faster than the overall market.) https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS50031623 https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS50031623
    - zokier 3y ago
      Macs and PCs might have different lifecycles that might explain some of the difference; if Macs are used on average twice as long as PCs then 10% of shipments might turn into 20% of running computers. Furthermore I suspect far more PCs end up in places that never browse web and become counted by statcounter but are counted in shipments.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        Or the customers of websites that use statcounter are more likely to use Mac, distorting the results.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        i highly doubt that the average mac users keep their devices twice as long as PC users. based on spending habits i'd rather suspect the opposite.
_ea1k 3y ago
"Is that running Linux?" is a question that's becoming harder and harder to answer. Have an Android phone? Technically yes. It runs the Linux kernel but not GNU (probably, unless you've installed a layer with gnu). Have a Chrome OS device? It runs GNU/Linux and most have a user layer that can run Debian. Have a Windows device? wsl exists and is quite nice. Lots of developers use it. Is Windows Linux too now?
- nonameiguess 3y ago
  Don't forget Alpine Linux, which almost everyone will call Linux because it has "Linux" in the name, but also doesn't use GNU, instead running the Linux kernel with musl and busybox as the C library and userspace system utils. It seems technically less "Linux" by this metric than Chrome OS and equal to Android. I don't think this is principled really beyond the fact that Google chose to use different branding whereas FOSS distro vendors actually called what they distributed "Linux." Sort of how Hyenas are phylogenetically feliform but most people consider them dogs.
  - tssva 3y ago
    > Sort of how Hyenas are phylogenetically feliform but most people consider them dogs. Do you have some reference for this? I just did a quick survey of the people in the horse barn I'm typing this from and none of them consider hyenas to be dogs. I imagine some people do consider them to be dogs since in some cases they can have a passing resemblance, but I'm dubious that most people consider them dogs.
    - hungryforcodes 3y ago
      I consider them to be "dog like". Mind you I'm not in a horse barn.
- therapee 3y ago
  "Is that running Linux?" previously meant "Is that running Linux?" Now, I think most people mean "Is that running something that markets itself as Linux, at it's core?" Even that disambiguation isn't great, though.
jonahrd 3y ago
I develop cross-platform desktop software. I have one backend/set of build flags for Linux binaries, and another very distinct one for ChromeOS. For me, it makes sense to differentiate the two.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hollerith 3y ago
  On ChromeOS, does the software you develop run in Crostini?
jacknews 3y ago
Sure, linux (the kernel, the ABI, etc) is at the heart of many things, but I think to be 'a linux' you have to be free, open, malleable, etc, and chromeOS just isn't, really. And the fact that it's more successful than 'real' linuxen is kind of damning of the whole relationship commercial entities have to FOSS.
otterpro 3y ago
If it has Linux kernel, then it is Linux. And if it is Linux and has a GUI on top of it, I consider it a Linux desktop. I definitely think that ChromeOS is Linux desktop and even the Android should be considered a Linux desktop.
quicklime 3y ago
The only reason I care about Linux market share is because that’s the metric that hardware manufacturers and software vendors use to decide whether to provide Linux support. This is why android and chrome os don’t count. Those operating systems are different enough from my fedora workstation installation that proprietary drivers and software won’t be useful to me. On the other hand someone using another distro like Debian or Arch does help.
- zokier 3y ago
  But Android and ChromeOS do pull in lots of open source driver code too; the situation is not so black and white.
- paleface 3y ago
  Do the ARM, POWER/PowerPC, MIPS, or RISC-V architectures, also count, to this mystical, and seemingly gate kept definition, of the “Linux Desktop”? Because when you write about about hardware manufacturers, and software vendors, “supporting” Linux - it is seemingly apparent, that “Linux”, consists of only computers of the “Intel” variety - from my experience.
akyuu 3y ago
ChromeOS seems very interesting to me because it has managed to achieve a degree of security that no other desktop OS (Windows, macOS, and of course other desktop Linux, which are the least secure of the bunch) can even approach. It has been designed from the ground up to be secure: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/security/chromeos_security_whitepaper.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/sec... - Verified boot backed by TPM. - System services are heavily sandboxed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/sandboxing.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/san... - New userspace is written in Rust: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/development_basics.md#Rust https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/dev... - Web pages loaded on Chrome have no access to the device's filesystem, nor to user files. - Android apps run inside a restricted container. - Linux apps run inside a VM, which leverages KVM and a custom Rust VM monitor. I think it'd be great if someone made a de-Googled fork of ChromeOS without all the Google telemetry and bloatware, because it'd be the perfect Linux distro for security-conscious individuals.
- packetlost 3y ago
  Yeah, ChromeOS is actually pretty good for nearly everyone. Perhaps most importantly, they're incredibly popular in schools right now and have been for a few years. Google has definitely been working towards a long play with shifting the younger generations mindshare towards ChromeOS and away from Windows for productivity. It's interesting because it does actually have some of the necessary holes punched through to allow for serious power/dev usage, but is also secure by default and as usable as the websites you go to.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > ChromeOS is actually pretty good for nearly everyone. It's been a while since I've given it a try, but I dislike ChomeOS for the same reason that I dislike MacOS. They make me feel like I'm wearing a straightjacket and get in my way. And, of course, any OS that requires me to have an account on any other server is not fit for purpose (to me).
fultonb 3y ago
I agree with the author here, and quite frankly as much as I like GNU/Linux it is a long way from being a usable operating system for my parents and other non-technically inclined people (to the point that I'm writing this on a Mac because I'm in uni and I don't have time to deal with getting the some of the software I have to use to work) I personally hate Chrome OS, but it is a Linux desktop. Now do we want a FOSS GNU/Linux desktop? Yes, and this isn't it. But it is a Linux desktop and should be credited as such.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  personally setup an Ubuntu LTS for the worst offender class -- daily email, zoom calls, attachments with important documents.. doesnt know what a folder is, doesnt know what browser they have, doesnt quit get the difference between RAM and disk space. three years+ daily solid operation, no tech support problems except very rare microphone problems. If you do not change the peripherals, and the client uses a browser mostly, then "long way away" is just false in 2020s.
  - olyjohn 3y ago
    Right, my dad could barely use his iPhone, but never had problems using his Ubuntu desktop. He used Ubuntu for like the last 10 years and was never technically-minded. He was a two-finger typer even. Like, click Firefox to browse the web. Click the folder to see your files. Click OpenOffice to write a document. Click yes to run updates. He even somehow installed Zoom himself and set it all up to make calls to his doctor. Getting him to learn how to swipe, click the hamburger menu, and do basic shit on a smartphone was a pain in the dick.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
_8j50 3y ago
It's different because the userspace experience is differnt and incompatible. It's an operating system on its own kind of like how MacOS is Unix based but an OS of its own. This is a "ship of thessius" problem. At what point does the ship become a new ship? When it is no longer recognizable as the old ship.
pie_flavor 3y ago
The experience of using Linux is extremely similar across Ubuntu, CentOS, and Arch. The level of required knowledge and skill per distro varies, but the overall idea remains the same. That experience, and the experience of using ChromeOS, and Android, and MacOS, and Windows, and a Nintendo Switch, are all mutually distinct to about the same degree. The people saying 'Linux market share' are not talking about the kernel. They are talking about the degree to which the Linux Experience is a palatable one that the average consumer chooses to engage in. There is nothing Desktop Linux about ChromeOS. It uses the Linux kernel because writing their own would have been annoying. You can say that there is a definition of 'Linux computer' that includes ChromeOS, but it's not a definition that's useful for anything except feeling smug for inscrutable reasons. NB: I dislike Linux.

113 points by stockerta 3y ago

Zambyte 3y ago

The word they're looking for is "GNU".

coldtea 3y ago
Why, if I run with musl and MIT/Apache userland, eg. rust replacements for coreutils, it's not Linux?
- Zambyte 3y ago
  That doesn't make up half of the desktop marketshare of Linux-based operating systems.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    No, but "so, it's not necessarily GNU" was the point. It's basically "Linux proper" (whether is the GNU libc/musl + GNU/whatever userland breakdown) vs "Linux that's a backend for Google's ChromeOS GUI and for which Google could replace the Linux part and noone will be any wiser". Rare or not, the exotic combination I mentioned would still qualify. Besides, I'm pretty sure ChromeOS still has the whole GNU userland installed.
awestroke 3y ago
No
kryptiskt 3y ago
How long will they insist that we genuflect to them for the few pieces of legacy software that they bring to a typical Linux system?
- Y_Y 3y ago
  I think the naming debate is silly, and I just say "Linux", but (with notable exceptions) tons of the core software on an average Linux system is part of the GNU project, e.g. glibc, GCC, coreutils, make, emacs
  - felipetrz 3y ago
    The article is basically saying that a non-gnu Linux distribution, like Alpine, is less linux than ChromeOS, just because it uses GNU. And while being pedantic about this, they still called Linux a Unix (which it's not) while ignoring the commercial unixes because they're dead (which, as much as I'd like it to be true, it's not in the case of MacOS). The person who wrote this article was dishonest or ignorant in so many levels.
    - GabrielTFS 3y ago
      > they still called Linux a Unix (which it's not) Uhhhhhhh, on what basis ? The only arguments I can see for this would be either of: - Pedantry, as technically the Linux kernel itself isn't UNIX certified by the Open Group, who owns the trademark - though multiple distributions have been certified to past standards, with no meaningful changes necessary. As an additional note, if you want to only count implementations conforming to the latest standard as being "real UNIX", then AIX is literally the only UNIX in existence. - Purity, as Linux doesn't directly use any of the original code from AT&T-created UNIX OSes. But by that standard, it seems like modern BSDs wouldn't qualify as "UNIX", given that all of the AT&T code was stripped out a long time ago, and MacOS would qualify even less given it uses a non-AT&T kernel and only a few parts of some BSDs in the userland. Also, if including AT&T-produced code suffices to be "UNIX" then I must ask whether a Linux distribution that comes with ksh qualifies (...or even if Windows with UWIN or Cygwin+ksh qualifies). Generally though, the argument just reeks of ancestor worship to me. ...and neither of them are satisfactory to me.
- gsliepen 3y ago
  You mean the rock solid userland foundation and the state of the art compiler? (Insert a modified "What have the Romans ever done for us?" sketch here.) I'll happily acknowledge their work I enjoy every day, GNUflecting doesn't seem a high price to pay ;)
pantalaimon 3y ago
ChromeOS, unlike Android, uses glibc and other GNU userland.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  Exactly. By using the word "GNU", it makes it clear how silly the distinction is. Their use of the word "Linux" does not help their point, because as you point out, there are distinct operating systems (GNU, Android, and Alpine for example) which all use Linux in the same way. It's nonsense to argue that Ubuntu and Fedora are "Linux" and Android is not. It is not nonsense to want to put Ubuntu and Fedora in the same bucket, which does not contain Android or Alpine. That bucket is GNU. When we use the words to mean what they are (not using Linux to mean software other than Linux) the point that the author is trying to make becomes obvious.

CodeCompost 3y ago

> Linux has nearly half of the desktop OS Linux market. I don't understand this headline, was it written by a bot?

jakobnissen 3y ago
Read the article.
- nicce 3y ago
  Usually title should be understandable without reading the article. The point of the title is to summarize the article.
  - frereubu 3y ago
    If the title is confusing, the least someone could do before taking the time to write a comment with a basic question is to read the article. The point of the title is not always "to summarize the article".
    - boarush 3y ago
      And that is one recurring problem I see across HN in recent times, where people merely make comments/claims based on only reading the title and completely disregarding the contents of the article shared. It might be that the title may be clickbait-y, but that is I guess to be expected in this day. Someone reading has the choice to just not interact if that title is too much bait.
      - aCoreyJ 3y ago
        I have been on HN a lot more since ditching Reddit recently and somehow I think it's actually worse than Reddit with commenters not reading the article
        pc86 3y ago

Thoeu388 3y ago

[flagged]

PurpleRamen 3y ago

> But that's not the case for ChromeOS. Underneath its unique GUI layer – which, unlike the one in macOS, is open source – it's a relatively standard Linux which can run standard Linux apps, out of the box, on both x86 and Arm. How? Last time I looked at this, I needed to install a dedicated Linux-Environment, which came with its own hiccups. That's not really what I would call out-of-the-box. The Android-Integration made a better impression.

CrampusDestrus 3y ago
ChromeOS is an immutable Gentoo installation. The offered additional Linux environment is, understandably, based on Debian in order to allow for the most compatibility with .deb packages. Of course you can't natively install .deb packages on Gentoo and especially so if you don't have the rights to install spurious packages on the system, so Google "has to" offer the Linux experience in a roundabout way. Of course, they could base ChromeOS on Debian directly and be done with it, but then they'd lose the incredible ease of custom tailoring to the hardware that Gentoo offers.
- PurpleRamen 3y ago
  Yes, but that's the reason for the distinction. The linux-user experience is coming from the debian-cointainer, with limitations which are not comparable to the user experience of a full debian installation from my understanding. The core is isolated from the user, and irrelevant. In the same way one should ask, are ChromeOS-Installations also counted for the android-marketshare? Do WSL-Installations on windows count to the desktop-linux-share too? Does wine-usage count for windows-installations? They all are important, but also a bit special on their own. How do statistics handle them?
  - CrampusDestrus 3y ago
    ChromeOS is quite literally desktop Linux. If instead of a custom immutable Gentoo distribution they chose to base on Fedora Silverblue would it be any different? They would still need to offer Debian software through a layer of containerization and the user would still not have root level access. Since ChromeOS is for casual users who will never need to install tools system-wide, I don't really see that much of a limitation in being able to only use things as non-root.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago

I think the article makes a good point. ChromeOS is very much a Linux desktop in most ways. Over 7% of desktops is a much nicer number too :)

Y_Y 3y ago

> Ignoring all the commercial Unixes as they are effectively all dead now, Ironic that this article would ignore Mac OS, a somewhat notable commercial Unix.

helsinkiandrew 3y ago
Which has nearly 34% of desktops in the US! (world wide only 22%) https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/united-st...
- ghaff 3y ago
  Those numbers don't look right. IDC says it's more like 10% worldwide which seems more believable. (It's presumably higher in the US and it is growing faster than the overall market.) https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS50031623 https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS50031623
  - zokier 3y ago
    Macs and PCs might have different lifecycles that might explain some of the difference; if Macs are used on average twice as long as PCs then 10% of shipments might turn into 20% of running computers. Furthermore I suspect far more PCs end up in places that never browse web and become counted by statcounter but are counted in shipments.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      Or the customers of websites that use statcounter are more likely to use Mac, distorting the results.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      i highly doubt that the average mac users keep their devices twice as long as PC users. based on spending habits i'd rather suspect the opposite.

_ea1k 3y ago

"Is that running Linux?" is a question that's becoming harder and harder to answer. Have an Android phone? Technically yes. It runs the Linux kernel but not GNU (probably, unless you've installed a layer with gnu). Have a Chrome OS device? It runs GNU/Linux and most have a user layer that can run Debian. Have a Windows device? wsl exists and is quite nice. Lots of developers use it. Is Windows Linux too now?

nonameiguess 3y ago
Don't forget Alpine Linux, which almost everyone will call Linux because it has "Linux" in the name, but also doesn't use GNU, instead running the Linux kernel with musl and busybox as the C library and userspace system utils. It seems technically less "Linux" by this metric than Chrome OS and equal to Android. I don't think this is principled really beyond the fact that Google chose to use different branding whereas FOSS distro vendors actually called what they distributed "Linux." Sort of how Hyenas are phylogenetically feliform but most people consider them dogs.
- tssva 3y ago
  > Sort of how Hyenas are phylogenetically feliform but most people consider them dogs. Do you have some reference for this? I just did a quick survey of the people in the horse barn I'm typing this from and none of them consider hyenas to be dogs. I imagine some people do consider them to be dogs since in some cases they can have a passing resemblance, but I'm dubious that most people consider them dogs.
  - hungryforcodes 3y ago
    I consider them to be "dog like". Mind you I'm not in a horse barn.
therapee 3y ago
"Is that running Linux?" previously meant "Is that running Linux?" Now, I think most people mean "Is that running something that markets itself as Linux, at it's core?" Even that disambiguation isn't great, though.

jonahrd 3y ago

I develop cross-platform desktop software. I have one backend/set of build flags for Linux binaries, and another very distinct one for ChromeOS. For me, it makes sense to differentiate the two.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hollerith 3y ago
On ChromeOS, does the software you develop run in Crostini?

jacknews 3y ago

Sure, linux (the kernel, the ABI, etc) is at the heart of many things, but I think to be 'a linux' you have to be free, open, malleable, etc, and chromeOS just isn't, really. And the fact that it's more successful than 'real' linuxen is kind of damning of the whole relationship commercial entities have to FOSS.

otterpro 3y ago

If it has Linux kernel, then it is Linux. And if it is Linux and has a GUI on top of it, I consider it a Linux desktop. I definitely think that ChromeOS is Linux desktop and even the Android should be considered a Linux desktop.

quicklime 3y ago

The only reason I care about Linux market share is because that’s the metric that hardware manufacturers and software vendors use to decide whether to provide Linux support. This is why android and chrome os don’t count. Those operating systems are different enough from my fedora workstation installation that proprietary drivers and software won’t be useful to me. On the other hand someone using another distro like Debian or Arch does help.

zokier 3y ago
But Android and ChromeOS do pull in lots of open source driver code too; the situation is not so black and white.
paleface 3y ago
Do the ARM, POWER/PowerPC, MIPS, or RISC-V architectures, also count, to this mystical, and seemingly gate kept definition, of the “Linux Desktop”? Because when you write about about hardware manufacturers, and software vendors, “supporting” Linux - it is seemingly apparent, that “Linux”, consists of only computers of the “Intel” variety - from my experience.

akyuu 3y ago

ChromeOS seems very interesting to me because it has managed to achieve a degree of security that no other desktop OS (Windows, macOS, and of course other desktop Linux, which are the least secure of the bunch) can even approach. It has been designed from the ground up to be secure: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/security/chromeos_security_whitepaper.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/sec... - Verified boot backed by TPM. - System services are heavily sandboxed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/sandboxing.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/san... - New userspace is written in Rust: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/development_basics.md#Rust https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/dev... - Web pages loaded on Chrome have no access to the device's filesystem, nor to user files. - Android apps run inside a restricted container. - Linux apps run inside a VM, which leverages KVM and a custom Rust VM monitor. I think it'd be great if someone made a de-Googled fork of ChromeOS without all the Google telemetry and bloatware, because it'd be the perfect Linux distro for security-conscious individuals.

packetlost 3y ago
Yeah, ChromeOS is actually pretty good for nearly everyone. Perhaps most importantly, they're incredibly popular in schools right now and have been for a few years. Google has definitely been working towards a long play with shifting the younger generations mindshare towards ChromeOS and away from Windows for productivity. It's interesting because it does actually have some of the necessary holes punched through to allow for serious power/dev usage, but is also secure by default and as usable as the websites you go to.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > ChromeOS is actually pretty good for nearly everyone. It's been a while since I've given it a try, but I dislike ChomeOS for the same reason that I dislike MacOS. They make me feel like I'm wearing a straightjacket and get in my way. And, of course, any OS that requires me to have an account on any other server is not fit for purpose (to me).

fultonb 3y ago

I agree with the author here, and quite frankly as much as I like GNU/Linux it is a long way from being a usable operating system for my parents and other non-technically inclined people (to the point that I'm writing this on a Mac because I'm in uni and I don't have time to deal with getting the some of the software I have to use to work) I personally hate Chrome OS, but it is a Linux desktop. Now do we want a FOSS GNU/Linux desktop? Yes, and this isn't it. But it is a Linux desktop and should be credited as such.

mistrial9 3y ago
personally setup an Ubuntu LTS for the worst offender class -- daily email, zoom calls, attachments with important documents.. doesnt know what a folder is, doesnt know what browser they have, doesnt quit get the difference between RAM and disk space. three years+ daily solid operation, no tech support problems except very rare microphone problems. If you do not change the peripherals, and the client uses a browser mostly, then "long way away" is just false in 2020s.
- olyjohn 3y ago
  Right, my dad could barely use his iPhone, but never had problems using his Ubuntu desktop. He used Ubuntu for like the last 10 years and was never technically-minded. He was a two-finger typer even. Like, click Firefox to browse the web. Click the folder to see your files. Click OpenOffice to write a document. Click yes to run updates. He even somehow installed Zoom himself and set it all up to make calls to his doctor. Getting him to learn how to swipe, click the hamburger menu, and do basic shit on a smartphone was a pain in the dick.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

_8j50 3y ago

It's different because the userspace experience is differnt and incompatible. It's an operating system on its own kind of like how MacOS is Unix based but an OS of its own. This is a "ship of thessius" problem. At what point does the ship become a new ship? When it is no longer recognizable as the old ship.

pie_flavor 3y ago

The experience of using Linux is extremely similar across Ubuntu, CentOS, and Arch. The level of required knowledge and skill per distro varies, but the overall idea remains the same. That experience, and the experience of using ChromeOS, and Android, and MacOS, and Windows, and a Nintendo Switch, are all mutually distinct to about the same degree. The people saying 'Linux market share' are not talking about the kernel. They are talking about the degree to which the Linux Experience is a palatable one that the average consumer chooses to engage in. There is nothing Desktop Linux about ChromeOS. It uses the Linux kernel because writing their own would have been annoying. You can say that there is a definition of 'Linux computer' that includes ChromeOS, but it's not a definition that's useful for anything except feeling smug for inscrutable reasons. NB: I dislike Linux.