>People often overestimate what will happen in the next two years and underestimate what will happen in ten.
2016 may not be "year of the GNU/Linux desktop" but it may take over Windows within the next decade
Wrong, it's Bob Grates, founder of Michaelsoft
It's gaining in popularity, though. People have been sick of Windows 8.x and 10, and Macs are expensive.
Really, the only thing keeping most people back is
>much adobe/games/other software
If Linux survives the systemd trap, the software sabotage and the present anti-Linux propaganda by Microsoft, and the vendor lock-in caused by BSD licenses, then might have a chance along the decade.
Even if linux gains a larger market share then microsoft and windows is no more.
All that will happen is linux distributions on domestic pc will be broken and disjointed like android is.
Linux will become everything you hate in it quest to destroy windows
>It's gaining in popularity, though.
No it isn't.
The number of Linux dweebs posting on /g/ is no measure of the actual number og Linux desktop installs in the Rewal World.
If the number posting here was any sort of indicator of usage then Microsoft would have been driven into obscurity years ago.
But they haven't. They still own the desktop.
Probably always will. There's a lot of inertia in tech.
One of our major public hospitals has a virus attack in their hundreds of Xp PCs. Why Xp? Because of legacy software, that's why. Sadly, nobody in the FOSS arena is interested in writing/supporting new commercial-grade software, so they'll probably migrate to 10 and run the app in a VM.
Not bloody likely, considering the rate of progress during the last decade.
Linux will still be around and used on routers and servers though, And a few developers will use it on desktops but as the desktop and laptop both become deprecated the cost of them will rise exponetially due them becoming a niche item.
This is only the preparation for the Linux desktop, Intel has enabled a feature called VT-d on all of their Skylake CPUs, this allows a VM near-native performance and control on a peripheral or pci-connected device.
Windows can be virtualised and run safely from the Linux host, those allowing easy access to Windows applications, such as Adobe products and 3D video games.
>People who erroneously think “Linux” refers to the entire GNU/Linux combination get tied in knots by these facts, and make paradoxical statements such as “Android contains Linux, but it isn't Linux.”
>Absent this confusion, the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, Android and GNU/Linux are mostly different, because all they have in common is Linux.
What I don't get is why people talk about "Year of the Linux desktop/tablet/whatever" but they say Android doesn't count. Why does it matter what the OS is if you want the kernel to be popular? If it's not the kernel you want popular, why do you only mention the kernel? Would you be satisfied if say Ubuntu switched to the kernel of BSD and overtook Microsoft? What is the real goal of the "Linux [sic] desktop?"