From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
It seems to have plateaued and increasing more slowly. Combining data from Steam and Statcounter reveals this:
The year of the Linux desktop: any year now for the past 10 years.
I'm waiting for the day someone who isn't a nerd and regularly uses Linux.
Possibly controversial point, but I don't want Linux to go mainstream.
I like that there are very few viruses developed for Linux. I like that most countries don't regulate Linux in the way that MacOS or Windows are regulated (I live in the EU, so I know a thing or two about regulations). This could potentially make some linux distros unsupported in some regions due to being none-compliant.
And most of all, I like that Linux apps are mostly Free as in free beer, and a labour of love for all involved.
All these things would go away if linux were to reach 10-15%+ market share. Is it really worth it to invite all this scrutiny for a chance of having hardware companies make hardware run better on linux?
How do you see Linux being regulated if it grows? I imagine that Windows and MacOS are regulated because they’re for profits that e.g. harvest our data, create proprietary limitations on apps, and so on. Genuinely curious how regulating Linux would look similar - or how it might differ.
Well, the first thing that comes to mind would be some sort of "security features" that the regulatory body might believe linux should have in order to be a mass consumer product, that the linux community might not agree with/have the structure to keep up with.
Another would be, if the EU goes ahead the introducing backdoors in encrypted communications (hopefully not), what implications could that have for the current spyware-free linux distros we use?
Overall, my concern is that more eyeballs on Linux might mean increased regulation even when it's unwarranted because some bureaucrat needs to justify his salary. I'd rather avoid that.
I'm qute happy with where Linux is ATM. 4-5% market share means there's enough of a market that things can develop, but not so much that regulation is used to force Linux to be a particular thing.
We can argue that Cannonical and Red Hat do force Linux in a certain direction of course, but that's another matter entirely.
I see - but given that Linux isn’t one thing, couldn’t we instead see regulation of for-profit distros (or distros managed by for-profits), while volunteer-based, open-source remains largely unregulated?
Sadly when the EU regulates, it's the same for everyone across the board.
It's a mess. They require that small, one-man operations or simple corner stores treat personal data with the same diligence that banks do, under the GDPR.The concept of scale is something that is foreign to the EU.
I have a few friends that work for the government in their countries and they say GDPR requirements is destroying their local municipalities.
The only regulation from the EU that I've seen makes a distinction at scale, is the Digital Markets Act.
Fair point - bureaucrats aren't always good at nuance. :/
Although I still hold out hope that with Linux, there's room for the open/volunteer approach + a for-profit model that results in investments/profits going back into the volunteer community. After all, Linux isn't controlled by a corporation for proprietary purposes, like Windows is by Microsoft. We'll see...or we won't, if Linux never reaches any kind of mainstream status. :)
Decade of Linux desktop.
We're getting up there.
It honestly doesn't take much more for the snowball effect to take hold.
Could be interesting to see how proprietary platforms respond to increased adoption. Maybe they'll start removing their ads and surveillance, or even giving their operating systems away altogether (minus the source code, of course.)
Windows is already basically free using the user as a product
And yet they still charge people for it.
They charge only those who are not technically literate enough to transfer to Linux. Cracking Windows is a piece of cake but if someone can't do that they probably will not switch.
May be similar to the 3d software world where autodesk created a monopoly and could charge around 5k USD for something like Maya, and then go the adobe route and only rent once innovation dies off. Only when Blender started getting more hype and attention did autodesk start offering cheaper indie versions and licenses.
Believe it or not that initial wave of consolidation brought prices down. A license of SGI Power Animator cost over $30k in the 90s. softImage was not far behind. 3ds Max basically took the fight out of them, at which point Autodesk started going on a buying spree.
Yes, but we're talking about 2 different moments. 3D software was in it's infancy in the 90's. Things were evolving rapidly, and you're paying a premium for basically developing prototypes. Every innovation, additional competitor, or even merger will likely bring prices down.
More comparable to today's desktop/software market, is after autodesk gobbled up the market in the 2000's. They might offer discounts on bundles after acquiring a new software, but then they'd often stagnate or abandon development shortly thereafter and they gradually made moves to spend very little on dev while continuing to charge customers. So autodesk's actions were hardly a consumer (prosumer?) victory. I'm simply saying they were increasingly hostile to their customers until blender became competitive.
It seems to have plateaued and increasing more slowly.
Look like 1 year "growth then plateau", like 2021-01 to 2022-01. But 2022-05 to 2024-09 linear growth again. Analysis/forecast of human behaviour not easy.
Also combine data of different source not easy, please handle with care.
Good point, thanks. The way I modeled the adjustment was by assuming that most usage is captured by Statcounter but there's movement back and forth to a reservoir that flies under its radar, in bursts, with zero net movement in the long run. So I used a geometric mean of the source data scaled by the square root of their averaged ratio.
plateaued since when? if you look at the second half of the graph, 2022 forward, it looks more steep to me.
I take it 'geometric mean' is the geometric mean of 'statcounter' and 'steam'? What's the specific source of those latter two measures? For instance, when I look at linux usage on the statcounter website I get more like 1.5%, not 4%.
