Not nearly in the same magnitude as for-profit software.
Point taken.
Reading about it,
Reference.com kernel and OS are essentially synonymous. So that's kinda the end of that train. The way I see it, Linux is an operating system (since it alone satisfies that definition) and a "distro" is that operating system with a collection of software for it packaged alongside. If you put it in terms of Windows, Microsoft simply forces shipping and running those two things together while Linux takes a more modular UNIX-like approach by separating the two. Linux retains its ability to forego the need for the software a distro provides, too.
the collection of software that directs a computer's operations, controlling and scheduling the execution of other programs, and managing storage, input/output, and communication resources.
And no, I'm not comparing it to XP... that's my whole point. You brought XP into this discussion and I'm trying to tell you why it's irrelevant today. :p
Okay...
You're right; point taken. But to say that Linux is at the 'forefront' is also pushing it a little – the forefront in this case is Valve, who is adding a bunch of closed-source components.
It still utilizes the Linux kernel regardless. So, it is Linux. Granted Linux with a big closed-source crap taken on it, but still Linux.
Linux is not the only system based off of Unix principles.
What other system has as significant a presence using those philosophies than Linux, then? I find Linux to be the only relevant one that follows the Unix philosophy.
Unix philosophy is also not gospel, and I have reservations with some of its 'Rules', like the Rule of Economy.
I wasn't insinuating that it was, sorry if it came off that way.
If Linux has 'market share' as a goal (which once again, it doesn't), yes it does. The FSF also doesn't dictate the requirements for a modern-day OS in terms of functionality nor does it remotely have any influence on the particular direction of any distro.
Acknowledged.
That's what I'm getting at – consumer-grade and enterprise-grade are entirely different beasts, and you were comparing consumer-grade with something that's mostly associated with enterprise-grade.
That's what out-of-the-box Linux distros are meant for. They're something your average tech-literate person (i.e. can do a Google search and has basic problem-solving skills) can work through.
My main point is, Linux and most any distro are undoubtedly more efficient than Windows. XP comes close but is ancient so doesn't really count. The whole thing about Microsoft's market share amounts to the fact that they snagged de facto status for all the companies and big whigs who know nothing about computers and got a foothold in, because the only reason anyone
needs Windows at the moment is for software compatibility. Besides that there is support, but even Linux distros provide that – see RHEL. If Microsoft didn't get that foothold they'd be good as gone for average Joe, and who knows what would've taken their place? My guess is OS X and Linux personally. It's more than likely Linux would have a larger userbase because for everything except X video game and Y old piece of legacy junk program, they don't need Windows and would probably switch simply for hearing that it "works better." Which it does in most ways. And if that happened Linux would get the de facto "market share" Windows has simply by virtue of Windows not being there, and so on and so forth. I don't think consumers really care too much if a business backs an operating system or if a mission in the name of free software does and no person is in charge. Only enterprises care about having an authority that answers to them when something doesn't work right, and even then the approach Red Hat takes to providing just that is also a thing. And if they do – say you're right and every OS with market share needs an owner of some kind – there is the hypothetical OS X. Which I imagine would be a lot more lenient towards developers working between it and Linux than Windows is, judging from how much more similar the two are in reality compared to either one and Windows.
But all that never happened. Point of that is, Windows is just here now and there's not a whole lot we can do about it. It's jammed the door open for itself, so to speak. Which kind of sucks because it's not the most efficient or modular thing ever, and is largely a one-size-fits-all shoe figuratively speaking.
