So? Does it need more? Seems to be doing just fine.
Are we really doing fine? 4% linux market share? Windows is a default? 8 fellows and 28 “leaders”? That’s “fine”?
Not sure why people think the linux foundation should only do the kernel, it supports a wide variety of open source projects.
The maintainers are burning out, the developers are graying, there could be more tests, Rust could be a bigger focus, hundreds of positions from trainee and beyond could be funded, contributions via alternative means besides email could be supported, hardware support could be improved, support staff could be employed, lobbying for linux could be done (linux as a default for products, government OS default could be linux, etc.), and so much more directly related to linux could be done.
Are we really doing fine? 4% linux market share? Windows is a default?
I suspect that the issue hindering adoption is GNU and other user land projects, not the Linux kernel. Plenty of people use devices that pair a Linux kernel with an easy to use UI and popular software (see Android and Chromebook).
Many people would happily switch to a Linux based OS that had the exact same GUI as their current OS and ran the exact same software. That is not a realistic requirement in practice.
It is possible that Linux would have more adoption if they invested more money into having drivers for a wider range of hardware, but having Linux kernel develers write drivers instead of hardware vendors is not a strategy that scales well.
realistically, the linux foundation gets all its funding from corporations who have interests in servers, android and embedded. So all the funding goes to those things and not to the linux desktop.
Are we really doing fine? 4% linux market share? Windows is a default? 8 fellows and 28 “leaders”? That’s “fine”?
The maintainers are burning out, the developers are graying, there could be more tests, Rust could be a bigger focus, hundreds of positions from trainee and beyond could be funded, contributions via alternative means besides email could be supported, hardware support could be improved, support staff could be employed, lobbying for linux could be done (linux as a default for products, government OS default could be linux, etc.), and so much more directly related to linux could be done.
Anti Commercial-AI license
On desktop. On servers the situation is much different.
phones.
and pretty much every device thats not a desktop computer runs linux.
I suspect that the issue hindering adoption is GNU and other user land projects, not the Linux kernel. Plenty of people use devices that pair a Linux kernel with an easy to use UI and popular software (see Android and Chromebook).
Many people would happily switch to a Linux based OS that had the exact same GUI as their current OS and ran the exact same software. That is not a realistic requirement in practice.
It is possible that Linux would have more adoption if they invested more money into having drivers for a wider range of hardware, but having Linux kernel develers write drivers instead of hardware vendors is not a strategy that scales well.
realistically, the linux foundation gets all its funding from corporations who have interests in servers, android and embedded. So all the funding goes to those things and not to the linux desktop.