Talk:Usage share of operating systems/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Why is the Fedora bar larger than Mint?
...under the Linux section of Desktop share. The Fedora bar appears to take up more space than Mint, even though Fedora has 1.4% market share, and Mint has 1.7%. From what I understand, the sizes of those bars are proportional to their percentages, and are automatically calculated based on them. If this is true, is this a bug? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaos-Industries (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 August 2017 UTC (UTC)
- The bar chart appears no longer to have separate bars for particular Linux distributions (other than Chrome OS if you consider it a distribution), so problem solved. :-) Guy Harris (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
IBM's z/OS is categorized in the summary table as in-house
IBM's z/OS is categorized in the summary table as in-house because it is only Unix via a layer for "compatibility" and not as the design of Unix philosophy which would entail the entire substructure.
Indeed it is "certified" with what it does but "Unix" means much more than that.
This has been the consensus across Wikipedia including the Unix: article, picture, template, relevant talk pages... Altanner1991 (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- That makes sense - it was developed in-house (dating back to OS/360), and its primary APIs (again, dating back to OS/360) were developed in-house and are not at all Unix-like. Guy Harris (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, I am thrilled to see Wikipedia living up to its reputation of being one our greatest icons in the field of destroying something what used to be great. This article is as useful as a tarantula when I am trying to whack off. A little over 50% of the operating systems shipped are "Other?" I wonder how much of that other is comprised of Unix/linux operating systems. Can you imagine it? What if the most distributed OS is the NIX group of Operating Systems? NIX=Unix+Linux. What if Android and MacOS are both built with unix/linux. I will spare you the mystery NEWS FLASH NIX OSs comprise the vast majority of OS. I bet the reason you guys have fucked a dog on this one the same reason most of Wikipedia sucks now. Influence of brain damaged leftists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c1:c200:d480:7174:58ab:fe91:318f (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- 2012 devices is at the bottom of the "device shipments" table but it's not the most recent. For the latest stats I see ~20% "Other" compared to the rest which is NIX/Windows where "Other" is mostly embedded systems would be my guess. Basically Android did replace other mobile OS's since 2012. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Comparing the popularity/market share for mobile operating systems, versus desktop/laptop operating systems makes zero logical sense. These are entirely different devices, made and used for entirely different reasons.
For example, saying that, "Android is more popular than Windows globally" is the same logically as saying "An airplane can fly higher than a car." It's not even apples to oranges, it's apples to flashlights.
Operating systems should be classified and compared by device type - Desktop/Laptop, "mobile computer" (such as tablets), and finally smartphones. Direct comparisons between widely different classes of computing devices serves no purpose but to confuse the reader. Looneybunny (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Very blurry lines nowadays: I agree to some extent for pre-2015, but since then millions more people are now using Chrome OS, iOS/iPadOS and Android in many form factors including desktops, laptops, phones and tablets, they often run the same software apps and websites across them, many plugged into big screens when at an office or home. 12think (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Entirely different devices"? No, they're all on a continuous spectrum of devices of varying degrees of portability. It might make sense to separate servers from end-user devices, but desktops/laptops/tablets/smartphones are all just computers with a user-friendly UI, and classifying by device type doesn't make much sense.
- And since most servers use the same kernel as most smartphones, I don't think it makes sense to separate even them; though I can appreciate that reasonable people might disagree on this one. Insulation2 (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, I second that. For example, check what Granter use as definitions of that 'grey zone' for their recent years surveys: https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/ultramobiles As you see, under the common category of 'ultramobiles' they distinguish three sub-categories, some of which fall more towards 'computers' while others more towards mobile devices. Svilenov 12:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)