2 ms·

> Open source without commercial companies contributing would be much more of a fringe thing. My conjecture is that open source is polished enough for most cus

> Open source without commercial companies contributing would be much more of a fringe thing. My conjecture is that open source is polished enough for most customers to use when there are commercial interests implied. Linux on the server is a resounding success, Linux desktop not so much.

jillesvangurp 2y ago
Even on the server, the commercial distributions dominate. Probably because of things like support. And I wouldn't agree Linux desktop is unsuccessful. It's actually growing quite a bit in the last few years. And of course ChromeOS is also Linux based and capable of running Linux software. Likewise, MS bundles Linux with Windows and it is widely used by developers using Windows that way. But even without that Linux Market share is now 4.5%. Quite a few gamers are discovering Linux works pretty well lately. With ChromeOS included it's closer to 6-7%. Linux on the Desktop is bigger than ChromeOS. I'd say it is getting better.
kalaksi 2y ago
I disagree about the desktop not being a success but I guess it depends on how you define success. It's true that it's not as popular as some other OSes.
pjmlp 2y ago
Even on the server you're better off with the custom cloud offerings than using an off-the-shelf image. That is the thing, what really won on server and embedded was UNIX/POSIX, and while GNU/Linux is the cheapest and more flexible way to achieve that, it isn't the only one, and the best experience is anyway with vendor custom distributions with their special sauce, not the pure FOSS one.
- kalaksi 2y ago
  What benefits do the vendor distros provide? The downsides include at least increased vendor lock-in. I think one can attribute many things to the success of Linux (incl. POSIX) but it's not about one single thing and the whole shouldn't be discounted.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Integrations with the hyperscallers infrastructure not available out the box in regular distros. It is no different than using managed Kubernetes, or doing everything from scratch instead.

jillesvangurp 2y ago

Even on the server, the commercial distributions dominate. Probably because of things like support. And I wouldn't agree Linux desktop is unsuccessful. It's actually growing quite a bit in the last few years. And of course ChromeOS is also Linux based and capable of running Linux software. Likewise, MS bundles Linux with Windows and it is widely used by developers using Windows that way. But even without that Linux Market share is now 4.5%. Quite a few gamers are discovering Linux works pretty well lately. With ChromeOS included it's closer to 6-7%. Linux on the Desktop is bigger than ChromeOS. I'd say it is getting better.

kalaksi 2y ago

I disagree about the desktop not being a success but I guess it depends on how you define success. It's true that it's not as popular as some other OSes.

pjmlp 2y ago

Even on the server you're better off with the custom cloud offerings than using an off-the-shelf image. That is the thing, what really won on server and embedded was UNIX/POSIX, and while GNU/Linux is the cheapest and more flexible way to achieve that, it isn't the only one, and the best experience is anyway with vendor custom distributions with their special sauce, not the pure FOSS one.

kalaksi 2y ago
What benefits do the vendor distros provide? The downsides include at least increased vendor lock-in. I think one can attribute many things to the success of Linux (incl. POSIX) but it's not about one single thing and the whole shouldn't be discounted.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Integrations with the hyperscallers infrastructure not available out the box in regular distros. It is no different than using managed Kubernetes, or doing everything from scratch instead.