Linux Now Has "Double" the Market Share of Windows

"Statistics are a matter of your viewpoint."

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/linux-windows-microsoft-android-ios,20220.html

 

Android's devs used some code from a somewhat old version of Linux kernel in the start of Android's development? Yes.

Can it be called Linux? No, it can't - even according to Android's own devs apparently.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/02/an-introduction-to-google-android-for-developers/

"Google engineer Patrick Brady stated unambiguously that Android is not Linux.”

So please. Let's stop denying the reality.

 

Nice comment on the flawed reasoning behind the use of stats from different markets to artificially create a stronger Linux image, BTW:

 

I'm not familiar with Linux or Android internals, but yes, the article is, more accurately, highlighting Android and Windows marketshare across computing platforms (fair comparison or not). The point about it not being a fair comparison may be outdated though, as the data seems to suggest.

Intel Believes That PC is Undergoing Transition to a Tablet

 

Some questions...

Lots of other reasons could be stated for that.

Where are them going to place the so called convertibles such as Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 13?

 

The only thing that officially carries the name Linux is the kernel (it is internationally trademarked as Linux) therefore anything that uses the Linux kernel can be called Linux.

That information is about 4 years old, Android is now based on a relatively recent version of the Linux kernel.

So please. Let's stop denying the reality

Cheers, nick.

 

Agreed. As this is an Apples to Orange comparison its hard to even use the stats as very high level figures.

Cheers, Nick

 

thank you for clearing that up Nick

 

It is flawed because Windows is not on the top?
Microsoft decided to go with "one for all" OS so at least for MS is not flawed at all.

Panagiotis

 

Nop. Windows 8 and RT aren't for smartphones. Windows Phone 8 is a different product, for a very different class of devices, despite some similarities.

 

Android shouldn't be called Linux. Calling Android "Linux" is not the same as calling Ubuntu (and other Linux operating systems) "Linux". Android, unlike Ubuntu, has a different and incompatible userspace.

Here is a more recent answer (13:38 on Fri Nov 23 2012) from another Google enginner, Robert Love:

Source: http://www.quora.com/Linux-Distributions/Is-Android-a-Linux-distribution

 

You will find they share a common core OS - kernel, components and API.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/20/windows-phone-8-and-windows-8-share-lots-of-code-nt-kernel/

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsphone/develop/jj681690(v=vs.105).aspx

 

I read that before. However, I don't think it's right to combine their market share. Windows Phone on a smartphone can replace Windows on a PC in a very limited number of tasks (and the same goes for Android on a smrtphone compared to Ubuntu on a PC, IMO). They are more like complementary products, but mainly used for different usage scenarios. The supplementary aspect is less relevant in most cases.

 

Fedora and Ubuntu user spaces are not compatible; does that mean Fedora is also not Linux ?

 

Agree with that, I was just pointing out the technical similarities.

 

So what?
IOS for ipad is different from IOS for iphone.
Android behaves very differently when in tablet and when in phone.
Do you believe that common folks when referring to IOS or android make a distinction between tablet and smartphones?

Panagiotis

 

Fedora and Ubuntu support the full set of standard GNU libraries. Android doesn't.

 

The distinction is remembered between iOS and MacOSX, for example. Windows 8 behaves well on tablets because it is designed for the new class of convertibles with multiple input methods and usage modes. The specific Windows OS for pure, ARM-based tablets is Windows RT. For smartphones, it is Windows Phone. They share technical similarities, but are different products for different markets.

 

Do you think the GNU libraries are an essential part of Linux ?

 

I just think that support for them is necessary to call an OS a Linux OS. Android IMO is a Linux-based OS, not a Linux OS. Android is simply too different and this bigger difference deserves to be semantically recognized in some way.

 

Here is what the GNU guys think:

From: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html

and from http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#linusagreed:

Cheers, Nick

 

Nick, you are not going to make this appear as I'm the only one holding this opinion.

From: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#linuxsyswithoutgnu

 

Wild Hunter,

No, I was just offering a differing opinion , offering counter examples not to disprove you (your opinion is backed by well founded information), but to show there is ambiguity from well known sources.
Not an easy thing to clearly define, what Linus says is Linux, what people commonly know Linux to be, then we get onto derivatives, contains etc :/

"Android contains just as much of Linux as GNU/Linux does" vs "Android contains Linux, but it isn't Linux" in the same paragraph, does not help to clarify things :|

Cheers, Nick

 

I agree.

People define Linux differently. There's the purists and then there's the pragmatists. Then, there's also the sandwiched. Forget Android, debate about what Linux means hasn't even reached an agreement within it's crowds. Add Android to it and you get pasta.

 

if the guy who created linux agrees that an OS only needs the linux core to be classed as a linux OS then i dont see room for debate.

maybe the OP should have rephrased the question like this to avoid confusion;

"The Linux Core Now Has "Double" the Market Share of The Windows Core"