Mobile Proliferation Killed Linux Hopes For World Domination

Poor Linux. It struggled so hard to dominate the world. It was the little open source engine that could, but it didn’t. It never even came close to Microsoft Windows on the desktop, with less than 2% share of desktops. The bright spot for Linux is that 60%+ of servers on the Internet run Linux.

But the real end to Linux’s hope for world dominance came when mobile platforms iOS and Android cleaned clocks in the mobile market. Sure, Android is built on top of Linux, but Linux is only one of many piece parts of the Android mobile operating system. It is not a Linux distribution
 
The mobile platform space is extremely fluid, and I do not think the open source community can muster the forces necessary to compete. Open source never seems to be the innovator. Instead, it seems to disrupt pricing power for established technologies.
 
Game over for worldwide dominance. But server dominance is nothing to sneeze at.

Comments

Defending double standards?

Nice! Defending your double standards is quite incredible.

"So, on desktop or mobile it becomes a component of another operating system like Android, but in my opinion it is not correct to say Android = Linux."

Why are you then bunching Linux on desktops together and calling Ubuntu, Debian, Mint and other distributions Linux, while Android is not Linux? While on the servers it stays just Linux and not component of the larger system?

But again, if you want to have your "analysis" taken seriously apply the same rule across the board.

"Now, if Linux had all the spiffy features needed for a mobile operating system, then we would all have "Linux" phones."
It does. That is why Android is using it, N9 is using it, Bada is using parts of it, the upcoming Nokia's Meltemi OS is going to use it.

"When run an operating system

"When run an operating system on a server you call it it Linux (various flavors)"

Exactly! And Android is just another such flavor! Do you get it now? NONE of the other OSes are "Linux", they ALL just use the Linux kernel!

"So, on desktop or mobile it becomes a component of another operating system like Android, but in my opinion it is not correct to say Android = Linux."

Yes! It is also not correct to say that "Ubuntu Server" is Linux, it's incorrect in the same way as saying that "Android" is Linux ... but it is commonly used like that nonetheless, do you understand it now?

It is completely equivalent to say that your server is running Linux when you're running "Ubuntu Server" or "Red Hat" and saying that you phone is running a Linux when you're running "Android" - it's really simple ;) confusing but simple!

Until now I read comments and

Until now I read comments and hoped that you have slightiest idea what you are writing about. I haven't read such hokum in a long time. "it becomes a component of another operating system like Android"

Really, Linux isn't providing

Really, Linux isn't providing the server technology any more than it is providing the technology for mobile phones.

However, it also isn't providing it any less.

Linux has not been able to innovate enough on the server to stand alone. That's why it needs projects like Apache.

So, on desktop or mobile it becomes a component in a LAMP server, but in my opinion it is not correct to say LAMP = Linux.

Now, if Linux had all the spiffy features needed for a server operating system, then we would all have "Linux" servers.

Damn Hippies!

innovative...

GNU/Linux OSes are innovative solely for being what they are, i.e. open source OSes that challenge the monopolizing market strategies of commercial enterprises.

Thanks to Linux, GNU and the teams that build distributions and open source applications, the market of pc's is being democratized and revolutionized.

You shouldn't just focus on the traits of an OS's dektop an/or window manager and novelties regarding tools - although there IS a lot more to be said about that as well, but to the overall concept. And the things is: GNU/Linux has been revolutionary/innovative since its onset.

kind regards,
AS

Don't comment on things you don't know about.

You obviously don't know this subject area very well, so please, don't embarrass yourself by commenting.

60%+ of the server market is true, however 95%+ of the critical infrastructure server market is true too and 97% of the supercomputer market is also true.

You do realise that Linux is just a kernel, right? So Android is just as much Linux as the Kindle's OS is (which is built on top of Android) and just as much Linux as Ubuntu or Redhat or any other use of Linux?

Here, take a look at this: https://github.com/torvalds/linux
That's Linux right there. That is in billions of devices worldwide. World Domination? Hell yes. I think what you're referring to when you say "Linux" is the open-source movement and to an extent you are right. But then, both iOS and Android rely on open-source tools. iOS has an open-source kernel (borrowing large chunks from FreeBSD), for example, and OS X has tonnes of open-source software included in it.

So please - get a clue before you start making all these wild statements. And go back to management or finance or whatever the hell you overpaid idiots do.

Either Mike Gualtieri failed

Either Mike Gualtieri failed at being sarcastic in his article, or has a really bad sense of humor, or has lost his mind...

All major systems cannot function without integrating Linux somewhere. Everything from web server, to software development, hardware development, mobile operating systems... I cannot think of a single area where Linux is not just needed, but an essential part of... whatever!

Mike woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. That's all. Linux will never have a game over... you know why? Because the Linux kernel was used to create the game. All operating systems are based on what UNIX started in the first place. Linux is the alpha... everything else comes from creative thinking.

I don't disagree

I don't disagree that Linux has made great strides. I just think that mobile devices are the new game for operating systems and that people won't be buying Linux phones.Do you disagree that the Linux community had aspirations to displace Windows? Linux tried but couldn't.

People already are choosing

People already are choosing linux-based mobile OS. Just look at Android. It's based on the Linux kernel.
Linux is not an OS.
Android is an OS.
Android is based on Linux (its core, the kernel, is Linux).
Android is winning more and more mobile market shares.
So, in a way, people are already buying more and more "linux-based" phones (android phones).
Your blog post and answers fail.
Don't mess around with concepts you do not understand and mix up without any clue.
Regards.

Clever wordsmithing

I think you and other comments are wordsmithing to distinguish between kernel and complete operating systems. That facts are that, to use your language, the Linux kernel has not made significant strides on the desktop. Do you disagree with that? Further I agree with you that "Linux is not an OS. Android is an OS"

#facepalmmyself

#facepalmmyself Ubuntu is Linux as much as Android is Linux ... They are not Linux itself but use the kernel. nuff said. There is no clever wording. I hope I can help clarify in a non intrusive manner but, Google provides patches to the Linux Kernel and the Mesa graphics stack for us guys who use Ubuntu. Why? Google is in the Linux community now. Why? Because Android is a linux based OS. Ubuntu is not Linux or a Linux flavour, but a distrubition of Linux with other programmes that allow you to use it as a Desktop environment. The difference between Android and Ubuntu is that Android has subjected its "package manager" to only allow users to install Android applications. Much like Fedora and Ubuntu have different package managers. Also Android has not distributed many open source applications to create its own community.

Also note that Chrome OS is also Linux in as much fashion as Ubuntu and Android are linux. The reason why i cleverly word this is because NO distrubition in itself is Linux. Linux is just the kernel. Therefore your reasoning for why Android is not linux is the same reason why Ubuntu is not linux.

I think you are refering to the desktop environments on the Linux community. You should have aimed this article to either non-proprietory non-server Linux Distributions, that is the only seperation of Android and Chrome OS from the Linux community. So perhaps Debian / Red Hat? Or perhaps GNOME / KDE / XCFE / Unity etc etc

Talk about wordsmithing...

Come on man...

Time to admit that you were wrong and just give it up. Because now you are arguing against yourself depending on which post you are responding to. The major point of dispute is this one...

"But the real end to Linux’s hope for world dominance came when mobile platforms iOS and Android cleaned clocks in the mobile market."

And the major response is that whenever you talk about Linus not gaining a foothold on Mobile platforms because Android got there instead you're just splitting hairs.

1) You report that 60% of servers have a Linux kernel therefore Linux has a foothold.

2) A statistically insignificant number of platforms in the desktop market run an OS based on the Linux kernel.

then...

3) A significantly significant number of systems in the mobile computing environment maybe run an OS based on the Linux kernel but in the case of this platform we're going to used a different yardstick. Namely "Is Linux a complete operating system in its own right" It is not therefore it has lost and the contribution it makes to the Android OS should be disregarded.

You can't make the argument of the significance of the kernel to the OS in case 1 and case 2 and then claim that you are right in claiming a different standard to make your premise in case 3. If you do then you are either wrong (logically) or are intentionally using a rhetorical trick of changing a definition in mid-argument in order to support a conclusion that you prefer over the one that follows from your earlier facts.

>>I think you and other

>>I think you and other comments are wordsmithing to distinguish between kernel and complete operating systems.

And you thought he didn't get it!

It's not exactly clever wordsmithing, it's being literal minded. In the context of this arguement, it's just nitpicking.

>>That facts are that, to use your language, the Linux kernel has not made significant strides on the desktop. Do you disagree with that?

That's too vague to disagree with, but what you said was that Linux NEVER WILL make significance strides on the Desktop. What you said was: GAME OVER. You can put me down as disagreeing with THAT.

As they say, Linux is not a business, so it can't be put OUT of business, The only safe prediction is that It's going to be here in another 20 years. The game is going to to change many times during that period. How much the desktop will matter in 20 years is anybody's guess, but the future is wide open. There is no expiration date on history.

...aaaahhh, I see what you

...aaaahhh, I see what you did there.

You have to be the worst person at being sarcastic. Because if you're being serious, then I think it's time for you to retire.

Mike, discrediting Linux from Android is like discrediting a car for it's motor.

You want to start a debate similar to ''what is really important, either the car's wheels, or the motor?''.
If you take away the wheels then, what good does the motor serve?

It's all integrated. Android Mobiles are the new game, yes.
And people will be buying it because it has Linux. Because if it didnt, then they wouldnt exist... at all.
It'd be something else.

And always and for ever the aspirations of the Linux Community is to displace windows.

Have Windows and Ubuntu in a race. But this race consists of voluntary downloads. Windows is stuck in every computer you buy. But switch it up... have people buy a computer, and have those computers contain no OS. People would have to choose either to download Windows or Ubuntu. Windows will never have the advantage.

Do you realize you're posting this stuff using a server that's running Linux? The gear that's running you're internet, it's running Linux... yes, right now. That ATM you went to the other day, it's running Linux.

You can't get away from it, Mike.

We'll all understand you're just having a bad day today....

Talk about something you know.

Linus isn't commercial success, it's not about dominating the world. It's a community project, community software. So, as long as the community believe and work for the project, it isn't dead.

Ok Linux isn't dominating the "Desktop World". But it has more than 50% of the "Mobile World" with Android. More than 70% of the "Web World" is ruled by Linux Servers. Amd 95% of the websites on top500.org are running Linux too.

So if your world doesn't contains any WEB or MOBILE resources, you're probably right, Linux is dead (and you too BTW). Otherwise, be a real journalist, and research a bit before telling stupidities.

Sincerly yours.

Linux could not displace Windows on the desktop

Linux could not displace Windows on the desktop because operating systems that people interact with directly are far more complex than file systems, memory management, networking, etc...

So, that's all I am saying. The Linux community aspired to displace Windows. It did not happen. In my opinion, it won't happen on mobile too. That is my prediction. I understand how some may disagree.

M$ had something to do with it...

Sure, GNU/linux has not yet displaced mswindows _on the desktop_, ok.
Do you have any clue about all the dirty tricks MS has been using for years to keep their dominant position? Do you?

No, clearly, you don't. Or MS pays your salary, which wouldn't be all that strange.

Wanting to provide a capable,

Wanting to provide a capable, free, open desktop model so that users have choice is much different then having a marketshare goal.

Linux on the desktop

"Linux could not displace Windows on the desktop because operating systems that people interact with directly are far more complex that file systems, memory management, networking, etc..."

So really you are saying that the complexity of the User Interface is greater than the complexity of the programs that route your packets via the internet? Really? Sure you want to make that claim?

Clearly complexity is not the word you are looking for. Perhaps "ease of use" or simply "friendliness" are the concept you are searching for? But Linux fans are going to point out that a majority of users in the desktop market are: 1) Content with whatever OS their platform ships with and aren't likely to acquire the skills necessary to change it; 2) More likely to evaluate an OS based on its name recognition than they are on its technical merit or lack thereof.

So the desktop OS market is won by MARKETING either to vendors or marginally end users. And Linux, as a community project, has spent little effort on marketing.

You asked in a different response (to paraphrase you ), if Linux didn't WANT to dominate the desktop market. I'd say for the most part that answer is "No". The vast majority of Linux distributors don't care if they win a popularity contest or not. Many of them aren't even distributed in a "for profit" market. They wanted to put together a combination of parts that fit there own needs and put it out on the "market" as "I did a lot of hard work on this and figured someone else might like it or find it of use".

The most utilized Linux distributions (as opposed to the largest number of distributions "flavors") certainly have been commercial ventures. They do targeted marketing that is much cheaper than buying commercials during the Super Bowl and is much more technically directed, to server clients, router manufactureres, and similar venues. And there is value in selling to a market share that has much higher dollar value per sale and lower support costs per sale. And they've used a lower initial cost open OS as a key component to get a higher ROI. These kinds of platforms are a lot less likely to need to explain where they "any key" is. I guess it's a case of right sizing your OS to fit a particular niche in the OS market and playing to your strengths.

You are missing the point

Linux was not created with the intention of dominating the desktop market, how could it?
Linux is not an operating system. Linux is a tool used to build an operating system. Very successful operating systems.
Your post is like stating that you think the hammer is dead because it can't keep up with the housing market.
You have an awkward perception of what Linux is and you are generalizing about Linux distributions.
It just seems you are ill informed and making predictions about a tool having failed its purpose when in fact it thrives. Though it may seem like your not seeing tux the penguin on any mobile devices the kernel is still extremely useful and will remain relevant for many generations of devices to come.

Do you honestly think the

Do you honestly think the Linux community cares at all about competing with Microsoft and Apple? Linux is not a giant corporate brand... it is a community of extremely talented people who think outside the box. It's open source, free for the entire world to use. Don't go comparing it to Windows or any other major operating system because you will accomplish nothing but making a fool of yourself.

I think you should really take to heart the comments being made on this blog post and not try to create such an ignorant outlook on something you clearly don't understand.

Ironically, you are writing

Ironically, you are writing your post on an ubuntu server with apache :D

LOL, but not ironic

Hi Matt, Not ironic. Read the entire short post. I fully credit Linux success on servers.

Maybe you post was talking

Maybe you post was talking about "Linux-based desktop operating systems"? Such as Ubuntu Desktop, Fedora, and such?
Time for an edit, I think. I could agree with you even if I'm writing from an Ubuntu machine and my whole family, not excluding my mother, is using Ubuntu.

But being the first desktop OS doesn't mean "ruling the world", in terms of OSes. Neither do in financial terms, as Apple shows with their 7-10% of desktop share, still being the richest company out there.

Apparently forrester.com site

Apparently forrester.com site is running on Linux server. Even worse, Ubuntu Server! So not only the vague reference to Linux as a desktop OS is wrong (you could name a lot but Linux itself - as GNU/Linux - has general meaning), but stating that mainstream distributions are near to death means somehow that forrester.com should rethink the whole IT stack quickly! :D

I am not mentioning Linux versions and desktop packages

Sure. I could list all the Linux versions and desktop combinations. I thought that I didn't have to because people would get it. I'd like to hear what part of why post you disagree with and why.

The whole post is very poor

The whole post is very poor written, most of all since you switch from one meaning of "Linux" to another in a very deceptive (or at least misleading) way.

Either you're talking about Linux-based desktop distribution, so your whole post should be rewritten so that it's clear that "The world" is the world of desktop PCs, OR you're talking about Linux itself, but this second case invalidates your statement, since Android, 80% of servers and non-personal computers in the world, as well as half the mobile market is running on Linux (kernel).

Again, this very assertion: "Linux is only one of many piece parts of the Android mobile operating system. It is not Linux." says in short: "Linux is not Linux". If you're trying to write ironically, you failed. If not, you should really improve your writing style or take a deeper knowledge of the domain you're talking about, IMHO.

In the end, as I already wrote, I could broadly agree with you on the desktop thesis, if not for the idea that world domination was in Linux agenda or that world domination could be achieved by crowding desktop PCs market.
If you can't help but feel the urge to find something similar to this idiocy somewhere you could take a look in the todo lists of a bunch of radical GNU enthusiasts, not Linux ones.

In the end, I find this post useless, if not to promote your personal vision, and poorly written (I explained why). I won't tell you that you should be fired as someone stated. Instead I invite you to put more understanding in the domain you're talking about or at least a bit more words to make your point stand out without being accidentally misleading. :)

HTH. Thanks anycase to be here replying. This deserves my respect. :) Bye

(PS: I'm not an English native speaker so I hope I didn't wrote something offensive. If so, it was not my intention.)

Because you did happen to

Because you did happen to list Linux versions of mobile devices and then proceeded to use that argument as proof of Linux's demise.

Linux kernel is to an operating system what the vital organs are to the body (more or less). You can have all sorts of people, but the same vital organs that are interchangeable by type.

Fun...

Wow....either you were fishing for nerds or you are not sharpest spoon in the shed - what with all the poking of one of the most active and passionate communities in the world.

I am just making an observation

Wow is right. I was looking at some data one day and it occurred to me that most desktops still run Microsoft Windows. I remembered all the predictions about how Linux desktop operating systems would displace. It didn't happen. I extended the thinking to mobile and rendered this opinion. I thought I was stating the obvious.

I'll feed the troll, too.

Android is a Linux based Operating System. Without Linux, Android would not exist. They would have had to build a new kernel otherwise.
This means that Android dominance in smart phones == Linux dominance.
Troll fed.

Fair enough - your logic is flawless

Simon, It's the DNA argument - that if it is part it goes along for the ride. I don't have a problem with that and I appreciate you providing a real argument instead of attacking me.
Cheers

DNA argument?... That doesn't

DNA argument?... That doesn't even make sense. I will not continue because you are making inane statements and in general being very troll-like. I will cease feeding you.

Not sure if You are trolling

Not sure if You are trolling or just out of sync with reality.
Android is "Linux" in the same way Ubuntu, SuSe, Red Hat or any other distribution is, and the kernel is a huge part of the operating system.

You obviously are not counting all the Linux and almost fully open source powered devices around us.
Most of us have a DSL-modem, router or wi-fi-box at home running Linux. You might also have a TV, internet radio, GPS navigator, car, etc running Linux and hundreds of open source software on top.

And once you step out of that, there are POS-systems, gas stations, internet kiosks, UAV drones, planes, trains, etc.

The reality is, Linux, maybe not GNU/Linux, but just Linux in fact has already dominated the world.
Most processors capable of running anything like Linux, do.

The server part is just a small fraction of that.

Are you saying that the Linux

Are you saying that the Linux don§t dominate in desktop and mobile market by now, than the competition is over?? Starting from tomorrow all linux desktop distros are shut down? lets talk about this topic in few years!?

Poor Mike

You still have a hard time grasping what almost everyone here has told you. Yes, Android is Linux, much more than iOS is BSD. Much, much more. It is in the same way Fedora or Ubuntu are Linux. Ask Google if you don't believe me.

Linux on the desktop has ONE company struggling for "world domination" (that would be Canonical). The rest of the Linux desktop world is just happy making COLLABORATIVE efforts for their own good. When that's not a business, you can't argue they didn't get any meaningul market share. It's just not their goal whatsoever. Please, read this: http://steve.savitzky.net/Doc/Linux/business-model.html

As for innovation, a blanket statement like yours doesn't really deserve further comments. File systems alone is a place where Linux innovation shines. On the desktop, it's too early to declare Gnome Shell or Unity a failure.

Thanks for giving us, your repliers, the opportunity to remind the world what Linux is and what Linux is not.

Don't forget the desktop app

Don't forget the desktop app store is also a Linux innovation.

If I were your boss, I would

If I were your boss, I would fire you. And if any of my employees agree with your post, I'll fire them too. I don't want people who doesn't even know what exactly linux is. Even a 6th grades knows that Android is built on Linux. No Linux = No Android.

Sorry, You got it all wrong

Mike, You got it wrong.
Think of it this way:

Ubuntu is not Linux, Red hat is not Linux, MeeGo is not Linux and webOS is not Linux.
Just as Android isn't Linux either.
Linux is just a kernel. Its what all the above operating systems are built upon.

Your statement, "Poor Linux. It struggled so hard to dominate the world. It was the little open source engine that could, but it didn’t. It never even came close to Microsoft Windows on the desktop", is simply wrong.

You could say: "Many open source operating systems struggled so hard to dominate the world", but not "Linux". Because Linux is not an OS.
Your server is not running Linux either. It is running a OS based on Linux. Just as Android is based and built upon Linux.

If you want to use the word "Linux" for "Linux based operating systems", what many people do, you have to include Android as well. Android is just as much based on "Linux" than Ubuntu, Red hat, MeeGo and webOS.

So you statement is just silly. And I would be embarrassed if I wrote such nonsense.

Kind regards,
ARN

Mike, just admit and save face

Mike, as other said, Linux is NOT an OS. It is a Kernel. Obviously you're not understanding the difference and you shouldn't write on things that you don't understand. It beats the purpose and makes you look like a fool. It is OK not to know something. But it is NOT OK to put blatantly wrong, bold statements on something you do not know. Just admit that you did not know the difference and that you meant "Desktop OS's based on Linux" and not "Linux". Because, if you take of your glasses of arrogant ignorance, you'll see that Linux is NOT meant only for desktop OS's and it is in fact everywhere.

how to fix this article

This article can be /somewhat/ more valid if you substitute 'linux' for 'open source desktop'. Linux's market share is doing fabulously, and it's here to stay. It's the open source desktop world that has really struggled to gain mainstream acceptance. Even worse you try to defend your position by comparing it to osx/unix. What? no. neither of those is a kernel ( and therefore actually comparable to 'linux'), which you would know if you had any grasp of what you were talking about. Which you do not, obviously. As the title of this article is written, it could not be more false: mobile proliferation is the penultimate achievement of linux.

This article's position and terminology are at best dishonest, and more likely trollbait.

Now, let's say you fixed the article so that it was actually in some way a tenable argument, that the oss desktop world is failing. From an oss perspective, I'd STILL say you were wrong. The oss desktop fails in exactly one circumstance: when there are no longer enough developers to maintain progress. 2% of desktops is still a huge #, just not as a percentage. And those users are by and large quite happy with it, many continue to contribute to it, and it gets better every day. When everyone stops contributing and there are no new commits to gnome/kde/xfce/lxde, when libreoffice finally stops releasing new packages, when the last debian repo closes, then the oss desktop will have failed.

A better article for

A better article for you:
---------------
Mobile Proliferation Killed Winnt's Hopes For World Domination

Poor WINNT. It struggled so hard to dominate the world. It was the little closed source engine that could, but it didn’t. It never even came close to linux on phones with less than 2% share. The bright spot for winnt is that 90%+ of deskops run winnt.

But, the real end to winnt's hope for mobile dominance came when mobile platforms iOS and Android cleaned clocks in the mobile market. Sure, winnt runs windows, but winnt is only one of many piece parts of the Win mob7 operating system. It is not windows.

The mobile platform space is extremely fluid and I do not think the closed source community can muster the forces necessary to compete. Closed source rarely seems to be the innovator. Instead, it seems to disrupt pricing power for established technologies.

Game over for worldwide mobile/server dominance. But, desktop dominance is nothing to sneeze at.

You shouldn't compare Unix on

You shouldn't compare Unix on a Mac OS X and Linux on a Linux distribution.

Mac OS X uses a proprietary derivative of Mach as it's kernel that is not Unix but one that resembles it. Apple just uses the name Unix misleadingly on their marketing.

Linux distributions use Linux as their kernel. If you use the same logic that Apple has, you could say that Linux distributions are Unix.

Linux and GNU tools are a huge part of the operating system and provide a framework for developing all the device specific drivers etc.
Android without Linux and GNU tools would have not been a success. If they would have chosen another kernel or built their own, the resource requirements to maintain just the kernel would have been too high.

Linux is evolving all the time and new features are being released. Android and other distributions are using this to their advantage and bringing these to the masses. Open source is a great innovator but most of the awesome stuff happens behind the scenes, and only us who develop the final products get to see and understand that.

It's not about the OS, it's about the $deals

Mike, I can see you are taking flak from all quarters. Firstly, thank you for showing grace in your responses. It's a pity my Linux brethren can't find the same degree of humbleness to do likewise.

As far as I can see, the Microsoft v Linux desktop debate is a moot issue, because MS counts its success by how many licenses it sells through dealers and hardware manufacturers. As nearly all Linux distributions are free, the comparison (as we all know) is like comparing a Tortoise to a Hare. One is so far ahead of the other, but then again, the race is not even a race due to the contrast of the extremes.

Don't be fooled by thinking a 'game over' scenario between MS and Linux being based on overall usage, when one market is monitored, and the other is not. You might be able to obtain market share stats from Ballmer and co, but do we actually know what the download stats are for all the distros of Linux over any period of time (notwithstanding distrowatch.com, who are but one channel)? It might actually pay to compare like with like.

Microsoft's dominance is in the Corporate/Office environment. We all know that. It's really the only 'game over' scenario you should be touting, as Office dovetails easily with things such as MSSQL Server, Sharepoint etc. Linux and it's applications less so. Away from that, MS does not have the dominance it thinks it has. Not sure why MS is even dabbling in the mobile phone market for instance. It will get bullied from pillar to post. That's not its bread and butter, and as for the Server market, well we all know it's not leading that marketspace either.

Game Over? Far from it. Many Corporates operate from the bottom line. IF MS Office licenses continue to climb, it would make much sense to ditch hundreds of thousands of dollars in license fees and move to something that is similar and costs nothing. Thi has been gradually happening worldwide. But do you read about it? No, not really, it just happens without a whole bunch of brouhaha and fuss.

Then, as far as Linux is concerned, it's Game On!

You seem to be a bit misguided...

Your comment:

"Sure, Android is built on top of Linux, but Linux is only one of many piece parts of the Android mobile operating system. It is not Linux."

Do you know what all goes into Android... Let's see:
GCC - Open Source
THE LINUX KERNEL - Open Source
Some Custom Kernel Modules - Majority Open Source
Not to mention the numerous and ever so abundant libraries that the OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY CREATED

"Open source never seems to be the innovator. Instead, it seems to disrupt pricing power for established technologies. "

Hahahahaha:

Apache - Open Source... The largest installed Web server...

It is blog posts like these that misguide individuals. It also discredits the open source community...

Linux dominance ...

... in my world.
Of the ten computers in my immediate family, only three run a version of Windows (and one dual-boots to LinuxMint.) LinuxMint and Bodhi reside on the others. My own laptop came with Linux installed as the sole OS.

It doesn't matter

Who said Linux want to dominate the world anyway?

1.

Game On!

In my house all 4 computers have Linux OS.
In my neighborhood converted 5 people to use a Linux distribution.
The public agency of Brazil's support of free software and even in many states are adopting the implementation of free software on your network.

For me Linux is "Firme e Forte na parada!".

Reality hits you hard, bro.

Mike, you can not escape from linux, it's everywhere and you can never ever escape from Open Source software, someday you'll die, but not Open Source. Cuz it's not just one company or one person managing it. Highly talented programmers around the world are the back bone for open source communities. I doubt if you even know how to write a program in language of your choice to print hello world. Without linux or open source, you won't be able to write this thing either. YOU ARE DEPENDING ON OPEN SOURCE AND LINUX, now stop the bull shit and get fired.