Linux lost the battle. Linux won the war

The most argued about subject in the rather short history of personal computing, is "which one's better? PC or Mac". When it comes to numbers, Microsoft Windows computers still outsell MacOS computers at a rate of 1 to 9. However, Mac users are adamant that they use the better platform and its success in the premium laptop market is a proof. I won't get into this argument, mainly because I have an opinion about it: I am an atheist which means I don't believe in any sort of religion, even if its symbol is a bitten fruit.

There is a third platform as well, with an even fewer and more fanatic followers. And if Mac users feel they are unique because they are 1 in 10, imagine how an avid Linux user feels - he is one in 100. A Linux user will argue that his operating system is being used in the highest-end servers and supercomputers, that it's open, rock-solid, fast, efficient, highly customizable, has plenty of software packages and above all - it's free.

You cannot argue with a Linux fanatic. Not just because he feels really special, but because he is right. However, there is a reason why Linux users are a minority: they don't multiply. They are too busy finding drivers, compiling code and posting questions in support forums. While Linux systems are remarkably low-maintenance when configured properly, getting to this configuration is as easy as cross-country mono-cycling. Linux is not easy to configure and use for an advanced user, and it's close to impossible for a novice. The easiest and most popular Linux distribution Ubuntu is the closest thing Linux has to offer as a mainstream operating system, but in my experience it's still far less friendly for a power-user than Windows 7. So I am using Linux for my home server, but I rarely use it on my PC.

And yet, at the moment, I use more Linux-based devices than Windows-based devices. How is that possible? Well the fact is, we tend to confuse the terms "operating system" and "user interface". An operating system is actually a bunch of smaller programs, and user interface is just one of them, very much in the same way that a car's body shell is just one part, while the interior consists of chassis, engine, transmission and stirring. If we apply this analogy to Linux, then it has a brilliant chassis, engine and transmission. It's also very fast and very safe, but you won't buy it because it looks like a 1970s Lada.

When it comes to specialized uses, Linux is hard to beat. The fact that it's lightweight and open allowed developers to adapt it to both high-end servers on one hand and to devices with limited resources on the other hand. The fact that in Linux the user interface can be completely replaced makes it a perfect "embedded" usage such as in internet-connected devices, mobile phones, tablets and many others.

In addition to my home server, my media streamer in the living room runs Linux. My wireless router also uses a specialized version of Linux called DD-WRT. Both my phone and my ebook reader use Google Android, a Linux derivative. Hence, I use Windows on my desktop and laptop computers, but I use Linux on one computer and four different devices.

While Linux enjoys a decent success in the high end corporates and the embedded devices markets, Android is quickly becoming the major player in the mobile, Internet-connected industry. Recent studies show that it may already have the largest market share. And this figure should not be taken lightly, because according to another study, during 2010 more tablets and smartphones than desktop and laptop computers.

Linux is a great example for a products that its benefits overtake its faults and manages to carve a niche (or actually several of them) and become a major player in most of them. So you might not see it on your desktop, but you might hold it in your hand, read of it, or even be connected to it without even realizing it. Linux lost a battle, but it may win the war.