"Failure of Linux" is exactly what happens when a tech narrative takes over -- actual facts be damned.
Linux is the most popular OS today -- and there's nothing close.
"But what about desktop Linux?" is always the rejoinder.
Why is desktop so important when desktops aren't even our primary devices anymore -- some of us only use smartphones?
But okay. Microsoft bundles Linux with Windows -- therefore desktop Linux has happened.
Can we all go home now?
Nope, this will have to be a thread 🧵
2/ Obviously, many people believe that Windows can't count as Linux because... reasons.
I'm sure you all have your reasons.
But let's just pretend you're right.
Even without Windows, Linux commands over 5% of the desktop OS market.
That's probably a conservative estimate because there's a further 5% of computers for which we can't account for -- and a good many probably running Linux.
"But that doesn't count because so much Linux is just Chromebooks!"
Thus goal posts get moved...
3/ I will go ahead and allow that Chromebooks can be interpreted as "not Linux" (even though they are) because some people don't like Google's proprietary license for Chrome OS.
(Even though it is functionally similar to Chromium OS, and Chromium OS is open source.)
There are in fact more "Linux" desktops in the world than Chromebooks.
Surprising, I know.
Please distinguish between Linux-the-kernel and Linux-the-desktop-platform. The latter is basically Freedesktop standards and projects, DEs like Plasma and GNOME and so on.
Who cares if the kernel is actually Linux-the-kernel or something else.
@post Nope, I'm not going to change goal posts because facts are inconvenient to some.
I already acknowledged some people don't want to count Chrome OS. Nevertheless, I am.
OK, be aware many use the term "Linux" as short for the desktop platform, not for the Linux kernel; it is a figure of speech.
Personally I don't understand which user can care if Android, ChromeOS or some embedded device uses Linux kernel or something else, it only matters to IT professionals or equivalent.
As an engineer who used only Linux distros as his desktop OS for 12 years, the only peculiarity I know about Linux kernel is that it has cgroups and namespaces that power containers that I use a lot.
Who cares, Bash is a shell like the others; with "Linux" we mean the desktop OS opposed to Windows and MacOS. You must look at this from desktop computing perspective, not the definition of OS by informatics textbooks.
@post Then don't refer to "Linux". Refer instead to whatever DE that you fancy.
So sure, KDE is less than 1% of the Desktop market.
Are you happy now?
KDE is a community, not a DE, the DE is Plasma... and the platform is mostly Freedesktop with X11, Wayland, DBUS, Flatpak and so on. Plasma is just a Freedesktop-compatible DE.
BTW using the name of the kernel as the name of the desktop platform is something that just happened: it's how language works.
@post You have wildly inconsistent views on language. But I'll bite.
There is a desktop environment called KDE. It stands for K(ool) Desktop Environment, and it was introduced back in 1996.
KDE continued as a popular desktop environment until it was renamed.
Thus, while K(ool) Desktop Environment might not be actively developed it nevertheless exists.
Which means I was also accurate when I said it was less than 1% of the desktop market.
So yes, KDE is a DE.
I wish you the best bro
@post Chrome OS doesn't just use the Linux kernel. It has full Bash support as well.
And no, a CLI is not a "kernel".