Linux has nearly half of the desktop OS Linux market

https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/18/linux_desktop_debate/

by stockerta • 3 years ago

113 147 3 years ago

theregister.com

Zambyte3• 3 years ago

The word they're looking for is "GNU".

coldtea2• 3 years ago

Why, if I run with musl and MIT/Apache userland, eg. rust replacements for coreutils, it's not Linux?

Zambyte3• 3 years ago

That doesn't make up half of the desktop marketshare of Linux-based operating systems.

awestroke• 3 years ago

kryptiskt• 3 years ago

How long will they insist that we genuflect to them for the few pieces of legacy software that they bring to a typical Linux system?

Y_Y2• 3 years ago

I think the naming debate is silly, and I just say "Linux", but (with notable exceptions) tons of the core software on an average Linux system is part of the GNU project, e.g. glibc, GCC, coreutils, make, emacs

AndrewStephens• 3 years ago

Forever, and furthermore they request you spell it ge-gnu-flect from now on.

jimrob4• 3 years ago

Gen-gnu-flect

gsliepen• 3 years ago

You mean the rock solid userland foundation and the state of the art compiler? (Insert a modified "What have the Romans ever done for us?" sketch here.) I'll happily acknowledge their work I enjoy every day, GNUflecting doesn't seem a high price to pay ;)

yjftsjthsd-h• 3 years ago

for the few pieces of legacy software

Linux is just one piece, and also quite old; by your logic we should really just call it a GNU system. In fact, from a user perspective, a GNU/HURD or Debian GNU/kFreeBSD system far more closely resembles what you're calling Linux than, say, Android which literally uses the Linux kernel.

pantalaimon2• 3 years ago

ChromeOS, unlike Android, uses glibc and other GNU userland.

Zambyte3• 3 years ago

Exactly. By using the word "GNU", it makes it clear how silly the distinction is. Their use of the word "Linux" does not help their point, because as you point out, there are distinct operating systems (GNU, Android, and Alpine for example) which all use Linux in the same way.

It's nonsense to argue that Ubuntu and Fedora are "Linux" and Android is not. It is not nonsense to want to put Ubuntu and Fedora in the same bucket, which does not contain Android or Alpine. That bucket is GNU.

When we use the words to mean what they are (not using Linux to mean software other than Linux) the point that the author is trying to make becomes obvious.

CodeCompost• 3 years ago

Linux has nearly half of the desktop OS Linux market.

I don't understand this headline, was it written by a bot?

jakobnissen• 3 years ago

Read the article.

nicce• 3 years ago

Usually title should be understandable without reading the article. The point of the title is to summarize the article.

nerdjon3• 3 years ago

No...

Sorry but this is rewarding bad behavior by giving the article a click instead of pointing out how this is a bad headline.

We should not be excusing headlines like this by simple saying that the article has the answer.

NoraCodes• 3 years ago

The point is that there is a semantic quibble about the word "Linux" in data gathering contexts.

top_sigrid• 3 years ago

I guess, reading the linked article would explain this, it's what the article is about.

We feel that a more accurate reckoning would be that Linux has now reached 7.23 per cent of Statcounter's usage figures, with ChromeOS at just over half: 57.4 per cent of the total.

fouc• 3 years ago

I guess that's more Chromebooks (laptops) than true desktops.

CivBase• 3 years ago

The article is about whether ChromeOS counts as a "Linux desktop OS".

olalonde• 3 years ago

The author used a deliberately confusing title to make the point that ChromeOS should be considered as a Linux OS rather than a distinct category. The actual stat is "Linux (excluding ChromeOS) has nearly half of the desktop OS Linux market".

lnxg33k1• 3 years ago

I feel that it could have been made clearer by writing "GNU/Linux has nearly half.. [etc..]", maybe?

ghaff3• 3 years ago

It's The Register being pedantic and a bit argumentative.

There's a reasonable argument that Chrome OS is Linux--or at least more so than Android is. But it's not so much that it's "the wrong kind of Linux" according to purists as the article says but that it mostly addresses a different use case than installing Fedora or Ubuntu and therefore, IMO, it generally makes sense to treat them separately unless your point is that some form of Linux (and *nix generally) has a pretty large market share on both desktop and mobile.

_hypx• 3 years ago

Pretty soon, SteamOS will be separated out. Then Linux will makeup an even smaller portion of the "desktop Linux market."

ranting-moth• 3 years ago

It's a "we checked the Linux desktop share and you won't believe what we found out!" type of headline.

hn8305823• 3 years ago

The headline is just a bit of British humor

BossingAround• 3 years ago

The whole article seems confusing, and as if it's written by a bot. Not really what I'd call quality journalism.

PurpleRamen5• 3 years ago

But that's not the case for ChromeOS. Underneath its unique GUI layer – which, unlike the one in macOS, is open source – it's a relatively standard Linux which can run standard Linux apps, out of the box, on both x86 and Arm.

How? Last time I looked at this, I needed to install a dedicated Linux-Environment, which came with its own hiccups. That's not really what I would call out-of-the-box. The Android-Integration made a better impression.

CrampusDestrus3• 3 years ago

ChromeOS is an immutable Gentoo installation. The offered additional Linux environment is, understandably, based on Debian in order to allow for the most compatibility with .deb packages. Of course you can't natively install .deb packages on Gentoo and especially so if you don't have the rights to install spurious packages on the system, so Google "has to" offer the Linux experience in a roundabout way.

Of course, they could base ChromeOS on Debian directly and be done with it, but then they'd lose the incredible ease of custom tailoring to the hardware that Gentoo offers.

PurpleRamen5• 3 years ago

Yes, but that's the reason for the distinction. The linux-user experience is coming from the debian-cointainer, with limitations which are not comparable to the user experience of a full debian installation from my understanding. The core is isolated from the user, and irrelevant.

In the same way one should ask, are ChromeOS-Installations also counted for the android-marketshare? Do WSL-Installations on windows count to the desktop-linux-share too? Does wine-usage count for windows-installations? They all are important, but also a bit special on their own. How do statistics handle them?

asdigonationio3• 3 years ago

It can't. There is a compatibility layer. It is limited and works shockingly badly.

MattPalmer1086• 3 years ago

I think the article makes a good point. ChromeOS is very much a Linux desktop in most ways. Over 7% of desktops is a much nicer number too :)

Y_Y2• 3 years ago

Ignoring all the commercial Unixes as they are effectively all dead now,

Ironic that this article would ignore Mac OS, a somewhat notable commercial Unix.

helsinkiandrew• 3 years ago

Which has nearly 34% of desktops in the US! (world wide only 22%)

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/united-st...

ghaff3• 3 years ago

Those numbers don't look right. IDC says it's more like 10% worldwide which seems more believable. (It's presumably higher in the US and it is growing faster than the overall market.)

https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS50031623

felipetrz2• 3 years ago

That while including Linux in the list, which is not a Unix.

_ea1k• 3 years ago

"Is that running Linux?" is a question that's becoming harder and harder to answer.

Have an Android phone? Technically yes. It runs the Linux kernel but not GNU (probably, unless you've installed a layer with gnu).

Have a Chrome OS device? It runs GNU/Linux and most have a user layer that can run Debian.

Have a Windows device? wsl exists and is quite nice. Lots of developers use it.

Is Windows Linux too now?

nonameiguess• 3 years ago

Don't forget Alpine Linux, which almost everyone will call Linux because it has "Linux" in the name, but also doesn't use GNU, instead running the Linux kernel with musl and busybox as the C library and userspace system utils. It seems technically less "Linux" by this metric than Chrome OS and equal to Android.

I don't think this is principled really beyond the fact that Google chose to use different branding whereas FOSS distro vendors actually called what they distributed "Linux." Sort of how Hyenas are phylogenetically feliform but most people consider them dogs.

tssva2• 3 years ago

Sort of how Hyenas are phylogenetically feliform but most people consider them dogs.

Do you have some reference for this? I just did a quick survey of the people in the horse barn I'm typing this from and none of them consider hyenas to be dogs. I imagine some people do consider them to be dogs since in some cases they can have a passing resemblance, but I'm dubious that most people consider them dogs.

therapee• 3 years ago

"Is that running Linux?" previously meant "Is that running Linux?"

Now, I think most people mean "Is that running something that markets itself as Linux, at it's core?"

Even that disambiguation isn't great, though.

jonahrd• 3 years ago

I develop cross-platform desktop software. I have one backend/set of build flags for Linux binaries, and another very distinct one for ChromeOS. For me, it makes sense to differentiate the two.

hollerith5• 3 years ago

On ChromeOS, does the software you develop run in Crostini?

jacknews• 3 years ago

Sure, linux (the kernel, the ABI, etc) is at the heart of many things, but I think to be 'a linux' you have to be free, open, malleable, etc, and chromeOS just isn't, really. And the fact that it's more successful than 'real' linuxen is kind of damning of the whole relationship commercial entities have to FOSS.

otterpro• 3 years ago

If it has Linux kernel, then it is Linux. And if it is Linux and has a GUI on top of it, I consider it a Linux desktop. I definitely think that ChromeOS is Linux desktop and even the Android should be considered a Linux desktop.

quicklime• 3 years ago

The only reason I care about Linux market share is because that’s the metric that hardware manufacturers and software vendors use to decide whether to provide Linux support.

This is why android and chrome os don’t count. Those operating systems are different enough from my fedora workstation installation that proprietary drivers and software won’t be useful to me.

On the other hand someone using another distro like Debian or Arch does help.

zokier3• 3 years ago

But Android and ChromeOS do pull in lots of open source driver code too; the situation is not so black and white.

paleface• 3 years ago

Do the ARM, POWER/PowerPC, MIPS, or RISC-V architectures, also count, to this mystical, and seemingly gate kept definition, of the “Linux Desktop”?

Because when you write about about hardware manufacturers, and software vendors, “supporting” Linux - it is seemingly apparent, that “Linux”, consists of only computers of the “Intel” variety - from my experience.

akyuu6• 3 years ago

ChromeOS seems very interesting to me because it has managed to achieve a degree of security that no other desktop OS (Windows, macOS, and of course other desktop Linux, which are the least secure of the bunch) can even approach. It has been designed from the ground up to be secure: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/sec...

- Verified boot backed by TPM.

- System services are heavily sandboxed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/san...

- New userspace is written in Rust: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/dev...

- Web pages loaded on Chrome have no access to the device's filesystem, nor to user files.

- Android apps run inside a restricted container.

- Linux apps run inside a VM, which leverages KVM and a custom Rust VM monitor.

I think it'd be great if someone made a de-Googled fork of ChromeOS without all the Google telemetry and bloatware, because it'd be the perfect Linux distro for security-conscious individuals.

packetlost• 3 years ago

Yeah, ChromeOS is actually pretty good for nearly everyone. Perhaps most importantly, they're incredibly popular in schools right now and have been for a few years. Google has definitely been working towards a long play with shifting the younger generations mindshare towards ChromeOS and away from Windows for productivity. It's interesting because it does actually have some of the necessary holes punched through to allow for serious power/dev usage, but is also secure by default and as usable as the websites you go to.

JohnFen3• 3 years ago

ChromeOS is actually pretty good for nearly everyone.

It's been a while since I've given it a try, but I dislike ChomeOS for the same reason that I dislike MacOS. They make me feel like I'm wearing a straightjacket and get in my way.

And, of course, any OS that requires me to have an account on any other server is not fit for purpose (to me).

autoexec• 3 years ago

ChromeOS is actually "pretty good" for someone who only looks at websites like facebook and reads email. It's also extremely confining and spies on you which makes it unacceptable for a lot of people and it's a sin that students are often stuck with them.

pjmlp2• 3 years ago

US Schools, they are almost unseen in the rest of the world.

bitslayer• 3 years ago

The article mentions Chrome OS Flex, which is a version that doesn't require the Google security chip so it runs on a regular Intel PC. That is "de-Googled" I suppose, though I am not sure about the security implications that you mention.

jasonvorhe• 3 years ago

Has been bought out by Google though and it's now part of their enterprise products to install ChromeOS on non-Chromebooks.

fruitreunion13• 3 years ago

De-googled as in not tied to a Google account and its web services. Look at something like ungoogled-chromium.

surajrmal• 3 years ago

You lose secure boot when using ChromeOS flex. It's also not "degoogled".

tjdetwiler• 3 years ago

FYI Android apps are also in a VM now.

https://chromeos.dev/en/posts/making-android-more-secure-wit...

fruitreunion13• 3 years ago

The system design is unique and interesting. It's a shame that the user experience doesn't align with how I want to use my computer, so I'll keep using desktop Linux and implement a bit of sandboxing myself. For the average consumer it could probably replace Windows for a lot of use cases and improve security due to its strict locked down and hard to exploit nature.

hooverd• 3 years ago

Sadly ChromiumOS still requires Google. ChromeOS to me feels like an attempt to make laptops more like smartphones. The security is there to protect what's running on your machine from you than you from bad actors.

fruitreunion13• 3 years ago

I feel a bit similarly. I'm torn these having very cool and interesting security properties but this way of using computers, for a lack of a better description, is just not what I'm after.

asdigonationio3• 3 years ago

A rock is also pretty hard to hack.

The hard problem of security is giving the user the power of a general-purpose machine without exposing them to the risks. "Don't run your favorite software lol" is not a valid approach to security. ChromeOS remains totally unsuitable for even casual usage, let alone anything serious.

Someone will, I'm sure, claim that the use of virtual machines is a solution. It isn't. The layers of virtualization in ChromeOS lead to atrocious performance, reliability, and functionality. I am not willing to tolerate half my programs living in a different universe from the other half, nor am I willing to tolerate uptime measured in hours.

sangnoir• 3 years ago

Secure, performant, execute any code - choose 2. You have to choose an edge on this triangle.

fatfingerd• 3 years ago

I'm not sure what you mean by uptime measured in hours, it seemed fine to me in the years where I used it.. It also provides all of the common computing including all of the browser debuggers, etc, the state of common computing might not be that impressive but that is Windows, OSX and Linux' fault.

One could argue that anything you can't do on a ChromeOS machine (or an equivalent Firefox one if that project were more complete) without running a VM is proprietary garbage. The other Apps you will run will work on some percentage of machines, the device you use have incomplete drivers, the window environments they developed for were not worth standardizing such that a browser has to provide the standards layer.

jrm45• 3 years ago

How, pray tell, are you getting to "Desktop Linux, the least secure of the bunch?"

akyuu6• 3 years ago

https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux.html

https://privsec.dev/posts/linux/linux-insecurities/

https://bjornpagen.com/en_US/desktop%20linux%20is%20insecure

AussieWog93• 3 years ago

Is security an actual practical concern for desktop users savvy enough to know what a container is?

The only people I know who've had any sort of malware infection at all in the last 15 years are the ones who download and install random .exe files from spam emails and pirated TV streaming sites.

hollerith5• 3 years ago

I think it'd be great if someone made a de-Googled fork of ChromeOS without all the Google telemetry and bloatware, because it'd be the perfect Linux distro for security-conscious individuals.

Since such a thing is currently unavailable, I'm inclined to try running ChromeOS, then having a headless Linux box next to it in the hopes that my customizing the headless Linux box will satisfy my need to customize my software environment.

For example, I'm inclined to try to keep most of my personal files on the headless Linux box.

fultonb• 3 years ago

I agree with the author here, and quite frankly as much as I like GNU/Linux it is a long way from being a usable operating system for my parents and other non-technically inclined people (to the point that I'm writing this on a Mac because I'm in uni and I don't have time to deal with getting the some of the software I have to use to work) I personally hate Chrome OS, but it is a Linux desktop. Now do we want a FOSS GNU/Linux desktop? Yes, and this isn't it. But it is a Linux desktop and should be credited as such.

mistrial9• 3 years ago

personally setup an Ubuntu LTS for the worst offender class -- daily email, zoom calls, attachments with important documents.. doesnt know what a folder is, doesnt know what browser they have, doesnt quit get the difference between RAM and disk space.

three years+ daily solid operation, no tech support problems except very rare microphone problems.

If you do not change the peripherals, and the client uses a browser mostly, then "long way away" is just false in 2020s.

olyjohn2• 3 years ago

Right, my dad could barely use his iPhone, but never had problems using his Ubuntu desktop. He used Ubuntu for like the last 10 years and was never technically-minded. He was a two-finger typer even.

Like, click Firefox to browse the web. Click the folder to see your files. Click OpenOffice to write a document. Click yes to run updates. He even somehow installed Zoom himself and set it all up to make calls to his doctor.

Getting him to learn how to swipe, click the hamburger menu, and do basic shit on a smartphone was a pain in the dick.

badrabbit• 3 years ago

It's different because the userspace experience is differnt and incompatible. It's an operating system on its own kind of like how MacOS is Unix based but an OS of its own.

This is a "ship of thessius" problem. At what point does the ship become a new ship? When it is no longer recognizable as the old ship.

pie_flavor• 3 years ago

The experience of using Linux is extremely similar across Ubuntu, CentOS, and Arch. The level of required knowledge and skill per distro varies, but the overall idea remains the same. That experience, and the experience of using ChromeOS, and Android, and MacOS, and Windows, and a Nintendo Switch, are all mutually distinct to about the same degree. The people saying 'Linux market share' are not talking about the kernel. They are talking about the degree to which the Linux Experience is a palatable one that the average consumer chooses to engage in. There is nothing Desktop Linux about ChromeOS. It uses the Linux kernel because writing their own would have been annoying. You can say that there is a definition of 'Linux computer' that includes ChromeOS, but it's not a definition that's useful for anything except feeling smug for inscrutable reasons.

NB: I dislike Linux.

Linux has nearly half of the desktop OS Linux market

Related Stories