Interesting that they are counting chrome os separately since it is Linux based. That's another 2%. So 6% of the desktop market is running some form of Linux. There's another 6% unknown, which I bet might include some Linux users that are a bit savvy about configuring their browsers to not leak information. The Unkown line seems to climb faster than the linux line in the graph; which is interesting as well.
I'd imagine it's only as much Linux as Android and FireOS are, which might be argued aren't desktop OSes. But for that matter, ChromeOS might in turn be arguably closer to Android than what would be considered desktop Linux.. (disc: have not used ChromeOS)
I use ChromeOS (Flex on a Lenovo). I believe not counting it as "proper" Linux is more ideological than technical.
Regarding WSL, I have used that too, and happily so. But it's more understandable to count it as not-linux, because of many factors including the Kernel and the file system.
It runs a linux kernel, which makes it a Linux based OS. It probably integrates a lot of linux stuff too, and it of course comes with virtualization support (leveraging the support for this in linux) to run proper linux applications and development tools, etc.
It's big enough to be worth counting separately though. Interesting that regular linux now has twice the market share of Chrome OS.
It still isn't GNU/Linux, and if ChromeOS virtualization counts as Linux, so does WSL, as the technical approach to run GNU/Linux inside its own VM is quite similar in both OSes.
Normal ChromeOS users only have a browser based userspace.
Semantics. GNU/Linux is a subset of linuxes. Chrome OS runs a linux kernel, includes lots of libraries and other things from linux, which, like it or not, makes it another (and pretty significant) subset of linux. Which is why it is counted separately.
Do you think normies are using GNU software on Linux desktops? Or do you think they use software like Dolphin, Nautilus, Steam, Chrome, Firefox, Plasma, etc. A desktop environment doesn't expose GNU/Linux. It requires people to open a terminal to get to it. ChromeOS has its own terminal that uses bash and has its own set of coreutils for people to use.
ChromeOS started as a very weird thing, but increasingly they're moving toward being a reasonably normal GNU/Linux as we know it, with Wayland. And of course a good Android environment.
thing is, on chrome os you can enable debian app support(in two different ways), you basically get both linux apps and android apps, on android it's not that straightforward. Idk how is this done under the hood, but from an user POV chromeos is closer to a windows with wsl2 support with friendlier experience
In fact I would argue that FreeBSD is better as a desktop than server (where you may want package stability). FreeBSD update policies such as choice between quarterly (much like Ubuntu, but twice as often) and rolling puts its into nice balanced spot between Arch-like and Ubuntu-like system.
The problem is however poor hardware support. They still do not support Alder Lake iGPU, you'll need to hack the kernel source to make it working. But once up and running it gives you nicer experience than many distros. Fells like a more stable sid.
Oh not you again, i already explained to you that FreeBSD supports old versions ~5 year's of important software like postgresql/php etc. for example postgres 12-16, redis 6.2-7, python 2.7/3-3.9, openjdk 8-22.
BTW many rolling and stop-rolling Linux distros do the same. I don't understand why you try to bullshit others.
I think with your fanboi attitude you should not participate in public conversations. Your style of communication is immature and does not belong to places like HN.
Now having said that, for someone like you, who is unable to understand the reason for LTS distros, like Debian and Redhat derivatives, I am explaining again: if were actually running FreeBSD machines (like I do on some desktops), you would notice it constantly receives small updates, like (random examnple) dav1d codec got updated recently, although I do not really need such an update much, which is absolutelyunacceptable in many server usage scenarios: you want to have stable, stale software with known bugs, you know very well and learned to love; the only thing you want is security updates.
Many, many people in FreeBSD community seem to fail to understand that~5 years of support of "old" postgres is not the same as what is done in say debian; you do not want even minor of minorest changes of the version of the package, not even bugfix unless it is a critical or security bugfix.
It is how it is in most server scenarios, deal with it.
What kind of "bubble" are you talking about? Vast majority of servers run either Redhat derivative or Debian derivative and both boast long term support for even old systems. Ubuntu 18 afaik still receive security updates, so does Debian 10. So there is an apparent and understandable need for LTS distros.
This is how it is today. As I said, deal with it.
Debian has package freeze half a year before cutting a new stable release. A stable release is thoroughly tested and guaranteed to have no breaking issues. "The magic of patching" is there to keep this guarantee for 2 years. Often new packages can have disastrous bugs (such a recent bug in inkscape) and you do not want that on your daily driver and willing to sacrifice freshness for stability and lack of surprises, both good or bad. If you really need fresh one or two packages you can either compile it yourself, install from backports or install a flatpack.
My free course into LTS systems is complete. There will be no further replies in this thread.
