Given that more android devices are sold than windows, iOS and OS X combined, I would say it is a mere observation of fact that the past few years every year has been the year of linux. Linux on the desktop on the other hand...
If we combine BSD and Linux, it's actually not so bad.
* Globally, Android pretty much owns the mobile market. Android is a Linux.
* Most servers run some flavour of Linux or BSD.
* Although Windows still dominates the desktop market, a healthy share of the laptop market belongs to OS X, which is (partially) based on BSD.
This isn't exactly how the Open Source crowd envisioned "Linux on the desktop", but if the goal was to marginalize Windows in flavour of open source based *nixen, much of that goal has been accomplished.
Of course neither Android nor OS X are Free (as in freedom) and OS X is only partially a BSD, but you can't have everything.
That table is global market share. The source article for the 2013 data[1] shows Apple in third place for 2013Q4 market share within the United States:
Firm (4Q13 US Market Share)
HP (26.5%)
Dell (22.8%)
Apple (13.7%)
So while Linux users can feel happy that Android is Linux under the covers, really, the real reason it is so popular is that it's so different from Linux. For an average user, thankfully it doesn't have any traits of Linux. Like, when I install Android on my machine, I don't have to go and manually edit the xorg.conf file so that the machine knows my monitor can take 1280 x 800 resolution and not just 640 by 480, after being clueless for a long time ... or that even in today's time I have to go and make an application 'executable' from the command prompt after downloading it from the internet. There are some solid reasons Linux "as is" is not successful even today.
I do get your point, generally, but your specific example is kind of dated - I have been using GNU/Linux on my desktops for about 14 years now, and I do remember how much editing xorg.conf / xfree86.conf sucked. But it has been years since I have had to do that. The last time I checked was in Ubuntu 10.04, where xorg.conf consists only of a comment that says that xorg can detect the hardware and configure itself, making manual configuration unnecessary nearly all of the time.
Yeah. The xorg.conf file was a little old example. Though I keep coming back to Linux every few years to check, and the 'making executable an executable' problem is still there from my very recent experience (like 3 to 4 months back). Right at the time I was being impressed by how easy it was to isntall Ubuntu from my Windows partition, I couldn't believe when one of the professional products we use in our office had these official installation instructions for Linux: "1) Download the file, 2) go to the command prompt and make it executable by typing <whatever>" ... Now I understand it might be that the product makers haven't updated themselves, but it's definitely a turn of for a lot of people.
Yes, when I and the vendor both know it's supposed to be an executable. What a smart question. Also, an application is only as dumb as the OS allows it to be.
Here's how I installed Chrome/TeamViewer/VirtualBox/SublimeText3/etc:
I went to the website, downloaded a .deb file, double-clicked the downloaded file, clicked the big install button in the Ubuntu Software Center window that it spawned, entered my password, waiting a few seconds aaaaand it's installed. I can now run the application by clicking the big Ubuntu button on my sidebar (or pressing the Windows/symbol key) and typing in the first few letters of its name. I can optionally drag the icon to my sidebar for quicker access.
Here's how I installed the last couple of applications that didn't have a .deb file (mostly development builds of games and developer-targeted applications):
I went to the website, downloaded the .tar.gz/.tar.bz2/.zip file for my platform, double-clicked the downloaded archive to extract it to a new folder in my home folder, opened the folder and located and double-clicked the executable.
Perforce, one of the very famous Source Control Systems tells us to install its software like this (Hint: making the executables 'executables'. On Windows it's a direct executable): http://www.perforce.com/perforce/doc.current/manuals/p4sag/c... . I remember because I did it very recently.
Thousands of other software do the same. Examples (compare the installation instructions for Windows v/s Linux/UNIX for all these pages below):
To be fair, that's because you're buying a phone/tablet with limited, non-replaceable hardware and the software has been customized by the manufacturer to work with that hardware.
Android's base source is released under Apache 2. Is that not free as in freedom? Cyanogen Mod (among many other distros of Android) would not exist if it wasn't.
Will happen when Microsoft's ability to strong-arm hardware manufacturers using restrictive OEM licenses is diminished.
MS actually seems to prefer a scorched earth policy (destroying the laptop/desktop markets entirely) to allowing Linux to gain anything more than a token foothold.
We can see this by the way they scuppered 'desktop linux' by co-opting and ultimately destroying the netbook market in 2007 (by enforcing OEM licensing terms that crippled netbook specs - prohibiting giving them anything more than 2GB of RAM for instance).
We can see it again by the way they pushed UEFI / secureboot on manufacturers - a clear attempt at creating Windows lock-in that largely worked.
2007 would have been the year of the desktop were it not for this anti-competitive behavior by MS.
Often installing your own os or rooting your phone requires utilizing a security hole discovered by someone else. This arguably violates the DRM anti-circumvention bits of the DMCA.
As most android devices are handheld, "the desktop on the hand" is now a thing in my mind. It makes sense - so much communication and scheduling happens on the handheld device.
Android just uses another type of input than classical keyboards and mice. But you can also use keyboards and mice here. There are x86 implementations of Android, and you can root into the Linux system, and you can use Linux features within your Android device. Terminals for instance:
That's bullocks, you're just changing definitions to suit your needs.
Android is a mobile phone OS and as suchhas a marginal market share on desktop. Windows still has over 90% market share on desktop (http://www.netmarketshare.com/)
Desktop computing doesn't really matter that much anymore. I'm also coming down harshly on Linux here - they tried to be a better desktop OS rather than skate to where the puck was moving to.
The vast majority of actual 'personal computing' is phones and tablets. PCs are content creation devices.
Asides from Android obviously not being the traditional stack - no glibc, no KDE or GNOME - AOSP isn't very useful compared to semi-proprietary Android. We could also say that CMU Mach / FreeBSD won the desktop because iOS and OS X use them.
>Desktop computing doesn't really matter that much anymore.
For whom? Companies might make more money selling mobile devices compared to desktop/laptop PCs but that doesn't equate to the inane statement oft repeated that "desktop computing doesn't really matter that much anymore".
Desktop (including laptops of course) is where 99% of the world's actual office, accounting, design, writing, programming, editing etc, computing based work is happening.
">>> Desktop (including laptops of course) is where 99% of the world's actual office, accounting, design, writing, programming, editing etc, computing based work is happening."
Agreed. Try typing out a dissertation on a tablet (no external keyboard or mouse to compensate) which has an approaching deadline.
Is an email "content"? Is a blog post? A HN/Reddit/whatever comment?
I don't think the old stereotype of "consumers" as some sort of purely passive livestock is especially useful any more. Clay Shirky's old but very readable "Here Comes Everybody" makes a similar case at much greater and more articulate length.
> Desktop computing doesn't really matter that much anymore.
BWAHAHAHAHA!! Thank you. I needed that laugh.
Laptops and desktops will always be more powerful than mobile devices, therefore there will be users who want the option of having said extra power. Even if you could, say, run AAA games on a mobile device, the interface would be awful for most of them (eg FPSes).
So, what exactly is your definition of a desktop system? If we're going to have this discussion we should get the agreement or disagreement over that definition out of the way. To me, it is a desktop computer. I'm inclined to include laptops in that definition as well. Basically, it's the kind of computer I'd use to get my computer work done at a desk, with as little regard to what exactly that work entails as possible.
I haven't used Windows 8, but it still seems to have a greater market share on desktop systems than Android. Judging by the above link, Windows 8 alone has a greater share of the desktop market than the category of systems based on Linux in its entirety.
So, if I have a keyboard on my tablet that is running Android?
I think the point here is that "desktop" as a location has no real meaning - it's the use case that defines it rely. By desktop system one really means a day-to-day used system that is used for word-processing, web browsing and other standard domestic/work uses (photo editing, spreadsheets, games and such). That's the stuff a desktop system has always done and now you can do that on a phone, phablet, tablet, laptop, desktop or whatever. The hardware form is just about convenience it [no longer] describes a logical difference or significant processing ability [eg my phone has about as much processing power as my desktop (ignoring the GPU), some phones definitely have more]
If you're using your phablet paired with a keyboard for the same uses as others use their [traditionally defined] desktop for then what use is the distinction?
Android can be used on the desktop, but IMO it's not tailored for that and so shouldn't be described as a desktop OS.
The whole "year of Linux on the desktop" thing is about market-share as much as anything; as other have said many people have been using it as a desktop OS for plenty of years.
> The hardware form is just about convenience it [no longer] describes a logical difference or significant processing ability
What exactly is a logical difference in this case, and how is it relevant to the discussion? Is my decision illogical if I consider the ergonomic implications of using a particular hardware/software platform?
Aside from ergonomics, I'm not sure what is so controversial about assuming that the different user interfaces will (and quite obviously do) cater to different use cases. What I can realistically do with a keyboard and a 24" monitor is certainly different from what I can do with my mobile phone. What I can realistically do with Debian is certainly different from what I can do with iOS or Android. These differences alone convince me that the distinction between desktop computer and phone/tablet/crablet is still meaningful, regardless of the literal meaning of "desktop computer". Manufacturers, retailers and consumers generally understand this, no matter how much anyone pretends that a tablet is equivalent to a desktop computer.
> "year of Linux on the desktop"
People have been using [insert any relatively obscure OS] as a desktop OS for plenty of years. The fact remains that Linux doesn't hold a significant share of the desktop market, which is what the idea of "year of Linux on the desktop" has always been about.
I wasn't suggesting you choice was illogical, I was expressing that the ability of a phablet, say, to process data and run computing operations has a logical equivalence (in the processing sense) in a "desktop"; and then mentioning that whilst the processing power may generally differ there is substantial overlap (eg phones having more processing power and RAM than some desktops, etc.). The "logical" part was to contrast the physical differences.
You can use a smartphone with a bluetooth keyboard to write business docs with wordprocessing apps or construct spreadsheets (you could use the on-screen keyboard if you're a masochist). Different physical interfaces target different use cases as we've both noted but the distinction is more about marketing than ability of a system.
Going back to where this all came from I doubt this discussion is fruitful.
I'll give you points for tenacity, but Android was never intended to be used on desktop computers. The link you give is just a hobby project, nothing more.
And since we're being pedantic here, let's talk about definitions. A mobile operating system is one that has been designed primarily for devices intended to be carried on one's person, such as a phone or tablet. A desktop operating system is one that has been designed primarily for devices that are large enough to be stationary during use (e.g., workstations). Both form factors have unique requirements and capabilities, and need vastly different user interfaces.
Further, you seem to be arguing that the kernel (and only the kernel) is what defines an operating system. If that's the case, then Android can only properly be described as a fork of Linux, not Linux itself.
To play devil's advocate, I can't think of a single mainstream distro that doesn't fork and patch the kernel as well.
And one of Android's original use models was a non touch screen connected to a keyboard (mainly for Blackberry style smartphones before they were sure that slates would take off, but still...).
Define "desktop" and we'll tell you. You can run Android on a base system that is connected to a standard desktop monitor, printer, mouse and keyboard.
Yep, that's what I do. I even have an Android X86 running in VirtualBox in my Linux box - and several apps installed. No problem with keyboard and mouse, emulated full HD display, audio... even Google voice recognition works!
Of course I use it mostly to play around and do tests.
> Because on desktop Windows still has a ~90% market share.
This is only true for _PC_ desktops but not for the overall desktop situation.
Consider Windows 10. It derives from the mobile Win 8 desktop which is made more suitable for PCs so that people can use office and spreadsheets and other classic software in the traditional Win 7 way. But you can do many of these things right now on Android devices. For instance, gaming and office:
Both "static" and mobile desktops are continually merging together. Soon we will have mobile desktops which can turn into PC desktops instantly by just plugging the device into a docking station which is connected with a large display, keyboard, and mouse.
So when we define "desktop" as the sum of all traditional desktop applications then Android has really overthrown all other OS. The current office versions of Android are yet just not as convenient as PC desktop versions. Soon it will make no difference if you write your letters on a PC or on a mobile device with docking station. Of course this doesn't count for productivity software (software engineering, CAD etc.) which still requires a lot of PC horse power.
I guess this either means that you either think that those 85% are running Android on their desktop computers, or that you have a different idea of what a "desktop system" is than anyone else. Android isn't a desktop system except for a select few masochists.
Personally, I want my desktop system to be a real power horse, and despite being built on top of GNU/Linux, Android doesn't seem like a particularly open environment and it obviously wasn't developed with desktop users in mind.
I guess with "desktop system" you actually mean PC desktops. In my definition a desktop system is a system on a desktop. In the past decades this meant PCs but in the last couple of years many users chose tablets as their favorite desktops. They just replaced their PC desktops by mobile desktops for gaming, surfing and emails.
On the PC desktop world Windows is still leading with Win7 and XP, followed by OSX, followed by Linux and others. Linux won't get leadership here but who cares? Linux is a very good PC desktop system anyway, absolutely competitive to Win 7.
OK, since your definition seems remove every aspect of "desktop system" that makes it a meaningful distinction, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. As for linux on PC desktop, competitive in what sense? I prefer a good Linux based OS over Windows any day, but in terms of market share, it's just a ridiculous thing to say.
It's not built on top of GNU/Linux, but on top of Linux. If you count using GCC and binutils as GNU part then we should start calling things Intel/Linux if someone uses ICC and other funny things.
I think we should differentiate between desktop and other uses.
If it is just (any flavour/use) of Linux vs (any flavour/use) of Windows, then I think the vast majority of people use Linux more than Windows. Routers, TV-decoders (and most of the streaming servers they use for on-demand content), NAS for home use, phones, etc all use Linux.
