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

I suspected that was the case

I suspected that was the case (except that I believed the author did it), but dismissed it because I mistakenly thought that "H3LL" was considered barely even marginally profane. But I edited the post and sure enough... My mistake. Keep on keepin on admins.

whaaaat ?!! , you need to

whaaaat ?!! , you need to read "Linux for dummies" !
Android can't and won't work with out Linux !

Choose your battles wisely

I don't see any way Forrester Research can fully recover from having it's reputation for integrity and accuracy destroyed by such a horribly obvious untruth.
I really hope for your sake that your company took a huge payoff to produce this and you're just a stooge, otherwise; Repeat after me: "Would you like fries with that?"
Always remember, when you go after FOSS companies, you also go after their users.

Troll Face!!!

Mike is a professional Troll!

But only gets 1/10... :(

Try again!

This just in: Success of

This just in: Success of linux in the mobile world means that linux is failed!

ROFL

ROFL. Android IS Linux dude!
And what about your set top box, your e-reader, your navigation system, your TV? Probably running Linux as well.
Linux is a kernel, its not an operating system!
Operating systems using the Linux kernel include Ubuntu, Fedora and the likes, but also Android and Chrome OS.
The desktop is (almost) dead! Just let MS Windows die together with the classical desktop.
Guess why MS is screwing up Windows with a metro interface? 'cause they see domination of Linux all around them. Guess why they choose loser Nokia for 'Windows Phone': because Linux (Android) is any where else.

there goes my forrester company contract

Seriously? Do some more research on what linux is and where it lives today....

Linux dominates the mobile

Linux dominates the mobile world, Linux dominates the server world, Linux dominates the high performance computing world, Linux dominates the embedded world. Linux does not, and will never dominate the desktop world, but that's highly unimportant.

you sir are a stupid head ;)

go read that wiki Linux page you linked to a little closer, then rewrite this precious article.

I think these so called "app

I think these so called "app developers" should lay off talking about operating systems. Google, Akamai and a hell lot depends on Linux, and there are a hell lot of puny app companies that depend on them. Think you get the idea, it's not for fan boys. It's for pros.(and this is not the Windows(R) professional kinda professional)

"Only A Sith Deals In Absolutes"

What is World Domination ?, even if we're talking about market share to bring that discussion to absoluts like "world domination" doesn't make too much sense for me. There are many other things to view, what about ROI of dominators versus ROI of small players ?, also note that Linux plays in several arena not only Desktop. From my point of view, you could write something similar for Microsoft and Windows just changing the title and few words here.

World domination is hyperbole

Roberto, I don't mean real world domination like Napoleon. It is just hyperbole to explain market share of operating systems across computer devices.

can you for a change do a hyperbole with Microsoft

Can you for a change do a "hyperbole" with Microsoft & its products.

- i have to agree that most of the desktops uses some flavour of Windows.
- same time you also have to agree that not all Windows products are successful (like Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows Vista and lot many more)
- you also have to agree that MS extended XP (suddenly) to the Netbook market, because it never had it for small screen
- I dont have problem in using Linux (meaning Ubuntu, Mandriva, OpenSuse etc) and even my 10 year old son feels it is faster than XP & Win 7.

Now I am seeing more people / students / business people / casual users / professionals / serious users have started using it and finding it more useful than MS products.

Maybe in another 5 years you will see more of the linux (mean all OS based on Linux kernels) in the desktop (if there is going to be still a sizable, growing desktop market) arena.

Thanks - for writing this article, and seeing so many of Open Source people reply to your off-the-cuff remarks (you escape by saying it as a 'hyperbole')

Are you kidding me?... your

Are you kidding me?... your blog is runing on a "Linux machine" (74.201.44.71... Connected to blogs.forrester.com . Escape character is '^]'. HEAD / HTTP/1.0 HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:02:46 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) X-Powered-By: PHP/5.3.2-1ubuntu4.5 ...) and you tell "Game over for linux" ?

It is amusing that this is

It is amusing that this is the distinction RMS fought so hard for: Calling the OS GNU/Linux instead of Linux, and keeping the moniker Linux for the kernel only. By and large, everyone ignored RMS and his ideas on intimate nasal experiences, and kept calling the OS "Linux", although that is confusing.

And lo and behold, a half-informed analyst gets confused between Linux the kernel and Linux (or should we say "GNU/Linux" or "KDE/GNU/Linux" and "Gnome/GNU/Linux" - well you get the drift) the OS, and as a result, declares that the use of the Linux kernel within the GNU/Linux OS is a winner for Linux the kernel; whereas the use of the Linux kernel within the Android OS spells game over for Linux the kernel.

You couldn't make it up if you tried. What an own goal all around.
Maybe now we'll see everyone jumping on the RMS bandwagon and calling the OS GNU/Linux religiously, just so analysts stop being so confused? Nawwww. Never'll happen.

Android does not spell game over for Linux

Thorsten,
My argument is that the mobile device market is rapidly changing. Blackberry was once the darling, now it is iPhone and Android. The point is that the mobile market is fragmented and in my opinion will continue to be. You have a Microsoft/Nokia deal that could result in Windows Phone 7 running on hundreds of millions of device. So, we can continue to argue about the deinfition of Linux or Linux kernel, you should be able to understand my opinion that Linux in any form will not dominate the mobile device market just as it has not dominated the desktop market. Servers, sure.

I think the jury's still out

I think the jury's still out on the mobile device market. By world-wide sales figures, Android - and with it the Linux kernel - has achieved world dominance. 43% vs. iOS 18%, Symbian 22% (must be those Europeans), RIM 12%, and "other". That's Q2 2011 according to that other research outfit.

By installed base in the US, it's 43% iOS, 34% Android, 15% RIM, and "other". With those sales figures, that's going to skew further, and the latest Android offering looks very strong.

I don't have world installed base figures, which of course will be the ultimate yardstick for "world dominance".

On the desktop: No. Not going to shake Windows, or OSX for those that want that sleeker, more walled-garden experience. Users have too much invested in apps to just up and move over. App portability has proved to be less than seamless, improvements in Wine notwithstanding.

If GNU/Linux desktop can ever offer full "run anything on here and it'll work" functionality, then we're in for a price disruption. I just don't see a business model that would make that happen. Windows royalties aren't _that_ onerous. Yes, system builders want an alternative, but the cost of building that alternative - well I don't see it happening.

There are a few strong reasons why Android - using the Linux kernel - can be successful:
- Disruptive pricing, and thus a huge selection of devices from multiple manufacturers, at any feature and price point you'd like to name: From "$10/month, handset free" pre-paid devices to more full-throated offerings.
- Professional development of the rest of the stack (aside from the Linux kernel), giving a "great" experience from the get-go, rather than a "clearly designed by a nerd" experience.
- No need for app compatibility to an existing, entrenched system. It's all about the apps, after all. One reason why GNU/Linux the OS in its various forms has such a hard time tackling the desktop is that most people have a significant investment into a whole slew of apps that work for them, and don't really care about the OS that much, even less about the kernel.
- No need for hardware / driver compatibility to existing systems - every system is "bespoke Android" or "bespoke other mobile OS". Also a marked difference to the desktop market.
- The chance to _become_ that existing, entrenched system where people have a significant investment into apps, both monetary and in the way of user habits.

Pads could disrupt that further, in favor of iOS and taking share from Android. I see no credible Android challenge to the iPad right now, though Samsung is making a spirited effort. In all the corporations I go into, it's "how do we support iPad, our CxO just got one"; it's never "how do we support xPad".

Even with that, I see Android as a very good contender for mobile "world dominance", and with it the Linux kernel. The game's far from over.

"My argument is that the

"My argument is that the mobile device market is rapidly changing. Blackberry was once the darling, now it is iPhone and Android. The point is that the mobile market is fragmented and in my opinion will continue to be. You have a Microsoft/Nokia deal that could result in Windows Phone 7 running on hundreds of millions of device."

I wasnt going to feed the troll.. but i couldnt help myself... you are earning good money a proper analyst could gain if you werent taking is spot.

Lets analyze this shall we? :)

- My argument is that the mobile device market is rapidly changing.
TRUE, FINALLY!

Blackberry was once the darling, now it is iPhone and Android.
OK. so far you didnt say anything, its like saying, so the sea is green and the sky is blue.
Doesnt make an "analyst" out of you.

- The point is that the mobile market is fragmented and in my opinion will continue to be.
Ahah, now we getting somewhere, lets check the "fragments"

a) if we count it as unix/minix derivatives:

iOS (unix derivative) (apple), android (linux distro), blackberry (unix derivative, qnx), webos (still exist) (linux distro), AND wp7 (windows)... so by this accounts, we have ALL unixs and ONE windows... with a <1% mobile amrket share... hmmm..... yeah.. i can see the fail all over...

B) if we count as KERNELS:

iOS (bsd?), android (linux), blackberry (qnx), webos (linux), wp7 (windows).

In a survey of "recent acquirers" of smartphones, market research firm Nielsen Mobile finds that Google, Inc. (GOOG) continues to eat everyone's lunch -- particularly Waterloo, Ontario-based Research In Motion, Ltd. (TSE:RIM) and Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft Corp. (MSFT).

In July, Nielsen placed the market share of Google's Android OS in the U.S. at 38 percent. Three months later, for the period ending in August, Nielsen finds that Android has risen to 43 percent of all active U.S. smart phones, a gain of five points. More importantly, among those who bought their phones in June, July, or August, Google had a formidable 56 percent market share.

Don Kellogg, Nielsen Director of Telecom Research & Insights, says this recent adopter figure is particularly important. He comments [press release], "The preferences of these so-called "recent acquirers" are important as they are often a leading indicator of where the market is going."

If correct, the market appears to be going towards Google and away from RIM and Microsoft. Overall RIM is clinging to an 18 percent market share while others (mostly Microsoft) hold a remaining 11 percent. However, in the last three months only 9 percent of buyers chose BlackBerry handsets (RIM) and only 6 percent chose "other" (a Windows Phone) handset.

Apple, Inc. (AAPL) held steady -- it had a 28 percent market share at present, and in the last three months precisely 28 percent of buyers, according to Nielsen, bought iPhones. In other words Microsoft and RIM are either stagnate or slightly shrinking in unit sales, Apple is growing unit sales at the same rate as the overall growth of the smart phone market, while Google is growing faster than the overall market.

Finally the gold sentence of a complete retarded rhetoric:

You have a Microsoft/Nokia deal that could result in Windows Phone 7 running on hundreds of millions of device.

So to prove your point that linux is going anywhere, although it has almost twice apple market share and 66x the market share of wp7 is that wp7 is the salvation??? oO

You know the trolling money doesnt compensate the public humiliation .. the webs never forget...

Fair analysis and more complete than mine

Paulo, Seriously, your analysis is excellent, better argued, and more complete than mine (if you delete the insults). Analysis is an interpretation of the facts that we have - a prediction. So, I think we can agree on the data and you have pulled extra data into the conversation. But, two people can look at the same data and predict a different outcome.

I agree that Android has momentum. You make a good case that it will continue. I acknowledge that. Mobile devices are changing rapidly and very user experience-centric. Because of this I think Apple is more likely to dominate than Android. However, I think that fragtmentation is likely. Nokia has a huge following of feature phones. If they convert them you Windows smartphone then Android and iOs have competition.

You should turn your comment into a post syaing that "Linux Will Dominate Mobile"

Mike

Again, comparing oranges to

Again, comparing oranges to apples... Blackberry is a phone.. Android is an OS.. Blackberry was the only user of its OS.. But, Android is currently used by HTC, Samsung, Motorolla and various other small and big mobile manufacturers.. So, the probability that it dies is incredibly low.. TRY THIS: "Android will replace the linux kernel.." People here are still going to put forth the facts to prove it false.

There is no line in your post that you can twist to justify your views.. and, If you haven't answered it already: When did "Linux" HOPE for "global" DOMINANCE?

New Rule

I can't believe Mike's still reading these. Gotta give him props for that. Jeez, I'd get sick reading (what looks like) cut and paste responses over and over and over again.

I think if you're gonna comment, at least read all of the previous ones first. That way you won't look so silly repeating the 50 people that come before you. (repeating yourself is okay)

END #internet.police

Mr.Mike Gualtieri I challenge

Mr.Mike Gualtieri I challenge you to spend a day without linux/open source powered devices/services.No linux powered machine,no linux powered tv,washing machine,car,toaster ,not to mention webservers ,telephone services etc.Probably then you would realize the power of opensource.

I understand that what you

I understand that what you are trying to say is that most of us are doomed to continue using Windows on our computers for the rest of our lives, and (GNU)Linux-based desktop operating systems are nowhere near changing this situation. We will see about that, in just a few years' time.

However, I would disagree with your premise that there has been some sort of "game" going on in which all desktop operating systems took part and recently Windows won once and for good. Somehow I can't envision Linux desktop users walking to the nearest Microsoft store to pick up the latest version of Windows, after they discovered that their modern "Linux" desktop operating system is far easier to use and maintain than Windows, installations and upgrades are a breeze, its simplicity and power are far beyond what Windows can dream of, and - they finally have the freedom of choice!

The "world domination" idea could apply as much to desktops as to the rest of computing devices, and there it pretty much has been achieved. Besides, it's a bit of an inside joke anyway and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Today's geeks prefer to work with open technologies and open-source software, and at some point it will become expensive enough to hire engineers to work with Microsoft software that companies will begin to explore alternatives. The shift to the cloud will only hasten the process as companies realize they don't need to spend small fortunes maintaining their Windows desktops.

What you should have pointed out instead is that Windows/Office is Microsoft's last stand, and it is already under heavy attack from Apple, Google and others. Microsoft spends all its creative efforts on defense and fails over and over to innovate and define new markets. The ongoing metamorphosis of Microsoft the software company into Microsoft the patent troll suggests a bleak future. Just like the old Soviet Union, which spent its oil export money on nukes and space, while its people lived in poverty. You know how that story ended.

Microsoft Windows/Office & Cloud

Hi Shiva, You make great point about Microsoft and also about Cloud computing. Even though Microsoft has been challenged by Google and Apple, they are still holding their own. Of course, mobile was a mess, but they have a good mobile OS now and the partnership with Nokia could revive things and put them into 3rd place. There are billions of people without phones. Those could be Nokia - not sure. I think you are right to point out that cloud computing could also be disruptive to all entrenched operating systems although some may also benefit. It will be interesting to see this play out in the next few years.

Nokia will also bring out

Nokia will also bring out some Android smartphones and wait..... Nokias MeeGo is based on Linux too....

Mike, Personally, I am of

Mike,

Personally, I am of opinion that the decision to adopt Windows Phone can prove fatal for Nokia. I will not be surprised to find Steve Elop gone by the end of next year and Nokia going full steam with MeeGo. Windows Phone does not bring anything exciting to the market that people would be dropping their wireless contracts for.

Also, remember all those companies bankrupted or badly damaged after partnering with Microsoft? And then there is sexiness/dorkiness issue, especially among younger customers, which Microsoft has no history of successfully solving. Fancy a brown Zune?

I'm not a regular reader of

I'm not a regular reader of your blog, but can I point out a few things about this article which would never have me returning to your blog.

These aren't matters of opinion, they are quite literally fact.

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

This statement bares no fact, what so ever, Android's activation rate is at ~ 500,000 per day, each one of those 500,000 devices is running Linux, it is running Android's user interface along with a slew of other details but it is at its core Linux. It's kernel is Linux. Although it is a different kernel than the kernel which ubuntu boots, the same could be said of any device which runs a different kernel configuration or loads different modules, take for example a pogo plug device.

"I do not think the open source community can muster the forces necessary to compete."

There are 3 major forces in the mobile community, Apple's iOs, Google's Android and to a smaller but becoming more significant Microsoft's Windows Phone 7.

2/3 are closed garden operating systems, but please do not say that Google's Android which is equaling if not excelling the Apple brand is not competing. I class Nokia's previous attempt with MeeGo as competing, but Android is one of the market leaders. Many argue that Android is not open at its source, but that was the Honeycomb release and all other releases have been released.

Please for your readership, and for the fair reviewal of Linux and the wider open source community, please get your facts straight.

The Mobile Landscape Is Far From Set

Thanks for comments Richard. We agree that Apple's iOS and Google's Android are major forces for smartphones and tablets. I called out iOS and Android as the major forces in mobile computing. Please also see that I said the Android is based on Linux, sorry I did not add the word kernel. It seems like you did not read those two key sentences in the post.

What I am also saying is that the mobile market is far from set. There is a lot of device innovation and disruption. New players such as Microsoft/Nokia may emerge further fragmenting the market. My conclusion because of this is the linux will not find its way on all mobile plats just as iOs won't and Windows Phone won't.

Appreciate the response, I

Appreciate the response,

I agree fully with what you are saying in that the mobile platform is not set, of course, it looks like we are stuck with iOs as the posh brand and Android as the consumer version of the iOs, pardon my phrasing.

But I have just one more bone to pick, I did read your post, but you seem to imply that somehow, Linux could exist on its own in the mobile platform, no matter what version of mobile operating system which is backed by Linux, you look at Android, Ubuntu Mobile, Gnome Mobile, Meego, any of the offerings are all linux powered but their failings ( or indeed success ) come in the form of their user interface.

The point I'm trying to get across to you and as far as I can see most of your commenting public is that although as you say iOs and Windows Phone 7 won't find their way onto all platforms, its because of the issue of them being closed source. Linux as a kernel may not find its way into the major mobile systems, but really it is not the driving force or the entire picture of any of them. As such the success or failure of linux on the mobile is dependant on that of the products which are using it.

I would say Linux is a success on mobile solely because of Android, as the kernel which powers the iOS is a success, but the notion of writing a post about why the iOS kernel is not going to rule the mobile market would seem a little ludacrious.

Thanks for taking time to read the comments.

Linux

I think you are confused. Please go back to school and learn what Linux, OS means.

Linux Powers your blog

FYI, Linux powers your blog.

This is really simple

Here's a system:
hardware > kernel > applications

Here's a LInux system:
hardware > Linux Kernel > applications

Here's an Ubuntu system:
hardware > Linux Kernel > Ubuntu tweaked applications

Here's an android system :
hardware > Linux Kernel > google tweaked applications

Ubuntu is owned by Canonical. Ubuntu is Canonical's Linux based system.

Android is owned by Google. Android is google's Linux based system.

Your points on Linux on desktop computers are valid. However, your complete dismissal of Android being a Linux system is completely wrong on every measurable level. Linux has completely taken over the mobile market and that is a fact. Not a single person has commented on this taking your side with that, and I think that should say something to you. You made a mistake based on your misunderstanding of the subject you were writing about and it would really be best for you to just admit it and move on.

So according to your

So according to your explanation kernel is in fact an operating system, while many of your fellow linux devotees insist that kernel is something other than OS. Can someone shed some light on that?

The kernel IS the OS base system!

From http://developer.android.com/guide/basics/what-is-android.html
"Linux Kernel

Android relies on Linux version 2.6 for core system services such as security, memory management, process management, network stack, and driver model. The kernel also acts as an abstraction layer between the hardware and the rest of the software stack."

The Linux kernel its upgraded from Linus Torvalds´s brain. He is the Linux Creator.
All base OS resides on kernel. Then, over kernel, in the top level, works the the Shell and the GUI (graphical User Interface). This manages the user interaction with the OS System.
There are many GUIs. And varies from OS to another OS.

No the Kernel is not an

No the Kernel is not an Operating system. The operating system would be the combination of the kernel and applications that allow you to access the hardware. I'm trying to simplify this as much as possible to the author so that he can understand that Android is simply a Google linux distribution in the exact same way that any other Linux distrobution is.

Open source as innovator

Seems a little skewed. I turn your attention to VLC and Firefox. Look at the impact they have had. Coupled with what Linux runs (ATMs, Phones, Routers and so on). I very much doubt it will die out. It has has been used by many users on the desktop for many years (Slackware is one of the earliest and released around Mid 1993). I think it'll be going for a long time to come due to community and passion.

As someone who hates mobile

As someone who hates mobile computing and the direction Windows 8 is taking, Linux distros are where I'll be turning to.

From the first time I tried Linux 7 or 8 years, where I couldn't figure them out then pretty much gave up, modern Linux distros (mainly Ubuntu based ones) are beyond simple. There is almost no to to plug things into the terminal, and when you do there is almost a guided step-by-step.

Just stay away from Cam's place from now on...

@author: You appear to have

@author: You appear to have completely missed the point.

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

This is only a problem if you plan to make money out if it. In pretty much every aspect of life there is a free alternative,( eg walking instead of taking the bus) for a paid service to work it actully has to provide some worthwhile advantage over the free one.

This also implies that established technologies should not be free, and that linux is not established. Being that it was important enough for you to write an article, I would say it was "established".

The term "linux" is used as an umbrella term for many things, but at the core it refers to the base linux kernel. A stable highly useable kernel, which will run on a huge range of devices, thus allowing a free base for anyone wishing to develop it is not designed to make profit.

To say android is not linux depends very much on your definition of "linux". In many peoples eyes it uses the linux kernel and thus is linux. Ironically your link to wikipedia definiton pretty much contradicts your statement that "It is not Linux".

I suggest you analyse something you understand.

"But the real end to Linux’s

"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 Linux."

If Android is one of the biggest players in the mobile market, and it is built on Linux, then how is that not contributing to world dominance for Linux? It is contributing to mobile market dominance for both Android and Linux, and world dominance for Linux (since Android does not yet exist outside of the mobile space).

A pure, Linux- (kernel) only phone is no more or less a Linux-based phone than a phone that runs the Linux kernel with other software bundled with it. After all, those servers you are referring to are not just running Linux, they are running Linux in addition to a boatload of other software. The only way I can make a consistent argument when comparing Linux market share in these two markets is to say that Linux dominates the server market and has a significant share of the mobile market, or to say that Linux has no share in either market (because distros like Android and RHEL are "only" built on top of Linux, and are not Linux).

My question is, what would it take for you to consider Linux as a viable player in the mobile market if Android is not a valid candidate?

Dominate?

Linux and Linux-based operating systems did not aim for domination. For me, they aim for making things available to everyone, without unnecessary licensing and "pay this to use this" stuff. Linux is the backbone for a lot of apps and devices!

"But the real end to Linux’s

"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 Linux."

if you look at it that way it would be impossible for Linux to be of any use since it has no purpose when it is on its own.

This guy is a joke...

This guy is a joke because how many times do people have to explain the difference between a kernel and an operating system to this jerkoff before he finally gets it and retracts his idiotic statements about Linux.

Linux has not only dominated the world, it laughs at your ridiculous attempt to dethrone it.

Linux is in almost every type of electronic device in the world...ATMs, routers, tv's, settop boxes, computers, servers, phones (smartphones and every other kind of phone), cars...if you can think of something that runs an operating system of any kind then that type of device is certainly running the Linux kernel in some way.

Linux is not "dominating" the desktop world (that isn't the point of the Linux kernel anyway) because of the greatest benefit of Linux is also the great downfall of Linux. Since Linux is FOSS it can be used by anyone and everyone in anything they want which means there are many many options which is why we LOVE Linux but that is also the problem with it as there are so many people fighting for Linux market share that one distribution dominating all other distributions is a daunting task and until that happens no single Linux distribution would be able to break the mainstream and gain "world domination" as you've put it.

Linux at its core is dominating everything (except desktops) because of the FOSS philosophy but desktop market share is giant mountain to climb and until one distributions tops them all that isn't going to happen but that is also a great thing because it means that the Linux desktop world will always be evolving and always be innovating. Speaking of innovating, you are a bigger idiot than we thought if you seriously believe that FOSS isn't at the forefront of innovation because without FOSS...OSX, iOS, Android, etc wouldn't even exist.

Android is the largest mobile operating system right now because it is a single brand backed by a gi-eff-enormous company funding it. (still Linux though) This single brand is not only backed by one of the largest companies in the world it has virtually zero competition in terms of "Linux" with the only competitor was WebOS which was a year behind and terribly marketed and positioned. So Android has ZERO Linux competition in the Mobile World and is backed by a ridiculously large company...it would be shocking if it didn't succeed. (if you are so stupid you don't understand why I am it disappoints me that he shares the same first name with me because he certainly is disgracing it right now.not referring to iOS as competition, it is because it is not Linux and we are talking Linux)

Linux Desktop Community has Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSUSE, Mint, etc with some backed by companies but none of them are backed by one of the largest in the world and the community has been around for well over a decade. So with all the competition in the Linux Desktop world how could one single distribution take off and take over Windows or OSX?

The comparison is illogical and you sir are an idiot.

I'll bookmark this blog

I'll bookmark this blog on my favorites...

THE BEST TROLL OF 2011 category.

Congratulations!!! You are the winner!!!

Cheers from South America

I really thjink you missed something..

First and foremost, you claim above that Linux is just one of the many pieces that make up Android. While following the link you cited tells us that it uses the Linux 2.6 Kernel as its core. Thats a pretty big piece don't you think? Central to the entire OS is its core without the kernel it is not going to exist.. Its like calling The US President, a guy who works for the government.. Doesn't quite do it justice..

Second, You cite less than 2% of desktops as if their market has always been the desktops. Its an apples and oranges comparison. Linux started out as and remained a OS geared towards system Admins, IT, and specialized operations requiring security, flexibility and performance. That is why Linux powers more than 90% of supercomputers and more than 60% of the server market. It can be scaled to run on virtually anything, which is why it runs Android... The desktop market in linux has been a relatively new venture and usually an avenue to get awareness to the linux environment in the communities. They did not plan to make a fortune selling desktop OS to the masses if they did they would start by charging for it. Recently there has been more development to make many linux distributions more user friendly, and desktop-centric, but that is as I said new, and usually to generate interest in their server and other platforms environments..

Incidentally i would just about guarantee your post of this article on the web required more than a few interactions with a linux powered system....

You article smell too bad!

If you actually live in 1992 and 1999, i think you are a Microbullshit writer, writing a lot of bad letters to the magazines and websites especialized in Computer Market, against Microshits`s competence .
You are the kind of person with Microshits arguments to destroy OS/2, Novell, Lotus, Wordperfect or Netscape.
But now you are demostrating pedantic and a lot of ignorance and, falling in your own trap.
Please READ CAREFULLY YOUR LINKS!
" Linux Kernel: Android relies on Linux version 2.6 for core system services such as security, memory management, process management, network stack, and driver model. The kernel also acts as an abstraction layer between the hardware and the rest of the software stack."
Certainly, YOU DON´T KNOWN NOTHING ABOUT KERNEL of ANY OS!!! IS THE MAIN AND MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT!
CONCLUSION: ANDROID FULLY DEPEND OF LINUX!
IS ANOTHER LINUX DISTRIBUTION!
And, are you know about Internet? And Web servers? LINUX RULES IN WEB SERVER MARKET! How do you browse, write, chat, mailing, transfer files, bank ops, twittting, etc, etc, etc WITHOUT LINUX WEB SERVERS?? HOW????

Amen

All of the above.

The correct conclusion given your own understanding...

But a still a completely incorrect conclusion, which is completely at odds with actual reality.

This construct you call "Open Source" is one created by people such as yourself, whose lives revolve around this thing called "business", which has the purpose of earning money for its owners.

The more enlightened people of the world don't really give a toss about the things you think are important, except where it threatens the genuinely worthwhile pursuit of bettering our lot in the universe.

Linux, and the tens of thousands of free software applications and libraries that work with it and other free software operating systems is perfectly fine. The free software community is a shared custodianship of a particular notion of knowledge which benefits humanity. The only possible threat to free software are people like you who believe that if something is valuable, then it should be interchangeable with money, and if it's interchangeable with money, then you'd better treat it just like money. People like you think that "Open Source" is just another name for free software, that software patents are essential (to maintain the interchangeability with money), and that unless someone "owns" that knowledge, it's going to somehow disintegrate and become useless.

Free software is forever, and the world of business and money, and "Open Source" is almost (though not almost enough) invisible.

Not a judgement on the value of open source

Thanks for your comments Paul. I am not judging the value of open source. I use it and have used it often in applications that I have written. What I would say to you is that "value" can come in any form. It can come from open source or from commercial endeavors, from government, or a single individual working alone in a small second floor apartment.

There is open source license and open source community. When it comes to Linux, there has been tremendous fragmentation. Because the mobile market is fragmented and moving so fast, I think it will be difficult for open source community to respond to the needs of the new devices and users. My conclusion is that Linux will not dominate mobile platforms the way Microsoft Windows dominated the desktop. I know the circumstances were different. I don't have a horse in the race. I am just making an observation.

Here is a post I wrote on why I think developers write open source software: http://blogs.forrester.com/application_development/2008/07/the-joker-if-...

First off, let's get your

First off, let's get your facts straight:

Unix-like: (Unix/BSD/Linux/MacOSX) 63 % server market share (and increasing)
Unix-like: (Unix/BSD/Linux/MacOSX) ~ 95% super computers use...

Android may not be PURE Linux, but it uses the Linux kernel, is tied to Linux/BSD open source, is/will be open source...

Your separation of Android and Linux shows how little you know.

The difference between the "applications" region of the operating system is that applications that users interact with in Android are within a Java VM.

Besides this point of distinction, I would disagree with your statement that Android is not a Linux operating system. It is a distribution of Linux, although that doesn't mean any interoperability. Generally speaking, any distribution of Linux does not "guarantee" interoperability. Reasons for this include content of their repositories, versions of libraries, directory structures, KDE/Gnome/Xfce/etc, etc. Generally speaking though, all things equal, any given Linux application stands a good chance of running on any distribution of Linux.