, But only a very few dorks run Linux as an OS ...
... I think this is where maybe someone who is an above average techie is confusing with the application of technology for the masses. I am aware of Linux but am also aware of the commercial difficulties it has had ...
If you mean as a Desktop or Workstation OS, yes it's just over 1% of the market. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not Linux "works". In fact, GNU/Linux runs on more architectures than any other OS. Microsoft won the market share through marketing strategy and business tactics dating back to the licensing of MS DOS. It's not a question of Windows being better. Because MS grabbed the desktop market more companies developed drivers for Windows first, making it harder to work hardware on Linux. More software for Windows was developed for the same reason and of course Windows took the PC gaming market also. No serious gamer to this day would use any other OS.
Does it mean hardware can't run just as well in Linux? No.
Does it mean gaming can't work as well in Linux? No.
Does it mean that software is not as good in Linux? No.
Is Windows a more stable, easier to use OS? No.
In fact, there is now nothing the average desktop user -- minus gaming -- can't do in Linux that they can with Windows.
There are version available of almost everything for Linux that you can find for Windows.
And I happen to find typing 'apt-get install chrome' (for example) and then forget about it easier than 1.) opening a browser 2.) typing a url or searching for chrome website. 3.) finding the download link for chrome. 4.) download and saving the .exe file. 5.) browsing explorer to find it 6.) double clicking then going through all the installer steps.
it was developed to fill a void (Web Server) left open by a poor M$ product (NT).
OTB
That's not WHY Linux was developed. Linux was developed because GNU had a bunch of software made but no working kernel (hurd, which is still not working to date) and AT&T stopped U of C from developing further on the BSD code with a law suit.
Torvalds even said himself if either of those kernels were available he would have had no reason to develop the Linux kernel.
The most popular web server up to 1995 was NCSA httpd 1.3 which Apache is based on. Apache was developed to replace it because the developer Rob McCool left the NCSA in 1994. IIS was released with NT 3.5.1 on May 30, 1995. By September 1995 Apache had 6% of the market. Microsoft had zero. IIS never once surpassed it...
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/category/web-server-survey/
Apache or GNU/Linux was never built to fill a void left by MS in the server market. There were plenty of server Operating Systems and software available.
As far as the Android market goes, you believe even if Google were to attempt to close the Android market to Motorola that would not be possible?
Since it is released under the Apache license, than yes in theory google could take the next release of Android and make it completely closed source if they wanted to; but any version released under the Apache License could still be used and further developed on by anyone, who could than do the same thing. But the Linux kernel is GPL, so any changes to the kernel HAVE TO BE open source, no matter what. So if google really wanted to make Android proprietary, they would have to develop their own kernel also.
This explains better than me probably:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-software-stallman
As for those other mobile OS, they were commercial flops, the look and feel of Android is a clear copy of the Iphone. Just my opinion but I had previously seen my friend's Iphone and when I first played around with my Android phone, it was clearly a copy.
They were not commercial flops, they simply did not capture a lion share of the market. Apple copied plenty of things from other mobile market before iOS, take a look at the articles I posted previously.
If your argument is that Android copied iOS because it has icons that you touch on a screen; well there was plenty of touch screens before iPhones.
It is also worth mentioning that without FreeBSD there would be no Darwin, no Darwin no OS X and consequently no iOS.
And any way, phone OS wars are old. The next big one is automobiles:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/12/automotive-os-war/
Now, just imagine waking up one morning and not being able to pull out of your driveway until you download an update!
