You must log in or # to comment.
I don’t know specifically about 10%, but in general:
More Linux users means more developers porting their software to Linux, and this encourages further migration to Linux, since users would have one less reason to say “I’d like to use Linux, but
$softwareis Windows only”. So I think it’ll snowball.Microsoft might let it be, given I don’t think it makes a lot of money from home users. But that would be a mistake, because it creates cracks in the walls of its walled garden: the person using Linux at home is the same one bugging their boss “I’d rather use a Linux machine, I’m more used to it than to Windows” in their work. And that might synergise with the political landscape, given Linux is by no means as government-tied as MS is to USA, and… really, anyone should be avoiding USA software, even the folks living in territories controlled by USA. Governments are slower to move but might follow fashion.
Or alternatively Microsoft might fight back. I think it’ll do it through multiple fronts: FUD (“Loonix is vyrus” tier), EEE (embrace, extend, extinguish; hard to do with Linux since it’s a headless beast), political bribing, so goes on. And perhaps even making their system suck less, but there’s a limit it can do it since it needs to show its shareholders “we’re now an agentic OS!” and crap like that.
EEE (embrace, extend, extinguish; hard to do with Linux since it’s a headless beast)
If Microsoft bought Red Hat, they would control a massive chunk of the Linux ecosystem. Even if everyone starts forking or replacing the Red Hat-centered components, it could certainly deal a heavy blow.
A heavy but not a mortal blow. Main damage would be from multiple forks splitting efforts and fighting each other; but that seems unlikely in the face of a clearly hostile move. People in Red Hat for ideological reasons would call it quits, form a non-profit, fork the software, and business goes on as usual.
Plus Microsoft is all about cost vs. benefit. Red Hat was bought by IBM by 34 billion dollars in 2019; by now it should be worth more, and MS would need to give IBM an offer meaningfully above that in order to get IBM to sell it. So let’s say 50 billions? It would be hard to justify to shareholders they need to buy Red Hat.
My guess: Microsoft caters to power users more. Apple doesn’t care. Android OEMs try to integrate better with Linux since there’s a cross section of users. Android doesn’t have the Apple ecosystem, so working with Linux distribution makers makes sense.
The magic-number, in human-population tipping-points, is 1/5, aka 20%.
Less than that in representation, and one has only “representation” ( any power-minority ).
More than 80% representation, & suddenly the alternative doesn’t matter, politically.
Also showed-up in the college-being-devalued-by-male-culture: once the 80% threshold is crossed of being women-only, then suddenly male-culture contempts there could be ANY validity in college & that’s that.
20%-threshold crossing would suddenly force Linux into being valid in legislators’ eyes.
Until then, Microsoft can push that the OS MUST be the identity-police, as a means of forcing-into-being-illegal all Linux distros which can’t do that.
You’ll notice that they’re acting rather pre-emptively, even enforcing that systemd has the required code to be participating in being age-police surveillance…
Legislative-validity’s the thing that’ll change, & that either happens at 1/5, XOR it happens when some tuxhead gets into power, somehow, making Linux legislatively valid.
_ /\ _
10% of desktop systems, yeah?
I don’t think 10% is any kind of magic number. I’m sure as Linux share increases, more companies will try to horn in and somehow enshittify the Linux ecosystem to try to milk people for money. But I doubt 10% is any special threshold.
