[jheriko]

> It's clear that Linux 'won' in the marketplace

it depends a lot on what you mean by won and which marketplace you are talking about.

as a desktop os linux is essentially non existent with an ever shrinking 1.5% of the market share or so as more and more regular joe consumers get machines with windows or os x preinstalled at a much faster rate than expert-level geeks are installing linux.

as a software developer targetting the mainstream it is rare that targetting linux is a profitable venture, because nearly no customers use it and those that do don't spend money on software in the same way as some one living in the Microsoft or Apple ecosystems. OS X also has a tiny market share (around 4% iirc) but people who are willing to pay over the odds to have a pretty workstation seem also not afraid of spending money on software.

as a server platform Linux dominates despite the best efforts of MS and Apple to try and market slightly uglier versions their consumer level desktop OS as a server product. its easier to use remotely, and can easily be configured to not rely on heavy UI features - there are even flavours that cater better to business philosophies on 'stability' (i use that term loosely) like RHEL and CentOS - also stability and open source go hand in hand, because you can fix bugs, or pay people to fix bugs allowing you to throw money at problems to fix them in a way which is impossible with the mainstream OSs

as a software developer it makes sense to target linux first for your big expensive server product. if you don't then you are cutting out your customers...

i don't think either of these situations has much to do with the underlying technology. its much more to do with the OS and what it provides than how it is built to achieve those aims.

[hristov]

Chromebooks (which use linux) accounted for over 5% of laptop shipments in Q3 of last year. They also grew at an astounding rate of 67% quarter over quarter. I have not seen data for Q4 of last year yet, but considering the chromebooks' growth rates it will probably be even higher.

So, no desktop linux market share is not non-existent and it is definitely not shrinking.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/chromebook-shipments-leap-by-67...

[kalleboo]

Don't forget that Android also runs on the Linux kernel and there are more Android phones than desktop PCs running any operating system.

[digi_owl]

Given the way Google is steering Android these days i am not sure i want it on a "desktop" any time soon.

Back during early 3.x it had a spark of potential. But since then Google has done quite a bit to lock it down so that it is basically a media consumption terminal.

[Zigurd]

> But since then Google has done quite a bit to lock it down so that it is basically a media consumption terminal.

It remains possible to choose to install, or not to install Google play Services and Google's app suite on aftermarket Android installations, and still be running Android, and running most 3rd party Android apps.

Any app developers who wants to run on Amazon, Jolla, Blackberry, CyanogenMod, and on the embedded Android in cars and appliances, and all the Android variants in China is going to have to take care to make use of Google Play Services optional, and to correctly use Intent filtering to make of of and respond to high level IPC messages to and from other apps, no matter if they are the "official" Google apps or not.

So, while Google could be more open without risking much if any advantage, Android hasn't been locked-down. Google has little chance of doing an "embrace and extend" on Android ISVs. You still have a wide range of choices.

[digi_owl]

That is pretty much ignoring the driver issue, or maybe myopically focusing on the Android API layer.

Look at the changes to file system permissions, and the introduction of the storage access framework in 4.4.

And look from the perspective of joe user, not from hank hacker.

[lern_too_spel]

This comment is exactly the opposite of reality. 3.x was the most locked down Android ever. Its source was never released. Since then, AOSP has gotten strictly more functional with every release. The proprietary Google apps built on top have gotten wider distribution on the devices that have Android installed, but that doesn't make AOSP itself more locked down.

[digi_owl]

From a user perspective, Android has gotten more locked down. This in that while previously one could access the file system directly, now on has to go via a sub-system that can deny or hide access arbitrarily.

[lern_too_spel]

You're talking about a security issue where one app could read and write another app's data. That's like saying Android is locked down because you can't read another app's heap.

[ke7ofi]

That’s the nature of any consumer-oriented product, though. Unless someone starts making a phone for hackers, they’re all going to be designed for media consumption.

With that said, you’re right about the locking down. It’s a good thing that we’ve CyanogenMod and Replicant.

[WorldWideWayne]

Also don't forget that Android OEMs must pay Microsoft for the privilege of using that OS, so I'm not sure what Linux has won here.

[justincormack]

There are few "big expensive server products" now - people are running SAAS, or open source products that may or may not have expensive support contracts. If you run SAAS you can run anything you like, look at Whatsapp with their Erlang on FreeBSD stack.