That's bullocks, you're just changing definitions to suit your needs.
Android is a mobile phone OS and as suchhas a marginal market share on desktop. Windows still has over 90% market share on desktop (http://www.netmarketshare.com/)
Desktop computing doesn't really matter that much anymore. I'm also coming down harshly on Linux here - they tried to be a better desktop OS rather than skate to where the puck was moving to.
The vast majority of actual 'personal computing' is phones and tablets. PCs are content creation devices.
Asides from Android obviously not being the traditional stack - no glibc, no KDE or GNOME - AOSP isn't very useful compared to semi-proprietary Android. We could also say that CMU Mach / FreeBSD won the desktop because iOS and OS X use them.
>Desktop computing doesn't really matter that much anymore.
For whom? Companies might make more money selling mobile devices compared to desktop/laptop PCs but that doesn't equate to the inane statement oft repeated that "desktop computing doesn't really matter that much anymore".
Desktop (including laptops of course) is where 99% of the world's actual office, accounting, design, writing, programming, editing etc, computing based work is happening.
">>> Desktop (including laptops of course) is where 99% of the world's actual office, accounting, design, writing, programming, editing etc, computing based work is happening."
Agreed. Try typing out a dissertation on a tablet (no external keyboard or mouse to compensate) which has an approaching deadline.
Is an email "content"? Is a blog post? A HN/Reddit/whatever comment?
I don't think the old stereotype of "consumers" as some sort of purely passive livestock is especially useful any more. Clay Shirky's old but very readable "Here Comes Everybody" makes a similar case at much greater and more articulate length.
> Desktop computing doesn't really matter that much anymore.
BWAHAHAHAHA!! Thank you. I needed that laugh.
Laptops and desktops will always be more powerful than mobile devices, therefore there will be users who want the option of having said extra power. Even if you could, say, run AAA games on a mobile device, the interface would be awful for most of them (eg FPSes).
So, what exactly is your definition of a desktop system? If we're going to have this discussion we should get the agreement or disagreement over that definition out of the way. To me, it is a desktop computer. I'm inclined to include laptops in that definition as well. Basically, it's the kind of computer I'd use to get my computer work done at a desk, with as little regard to what exactly that work entails as possible.
I haven't used Windows 8, but it still seems to have a greater market share on desktop systems than Android. Judging by the above link, Windows 8 alone has a greater share of the desktop market than the category of systems based on Linux in its entirety.
So, if I have a keyboard on my tablet that is running Android?
I think the point here is that "desktop" as a location has no real meaning - it's the use case that defines it rely. By desktop system one really means a day-to-day used system that is used for word-processing, web browsing and other standard domestic/work uses (photo editing, spreadsheets, games and such). That's the stuff a desktop system has always done and now you can do that on a phone, phablet, tablet, laptop, desktop or whatever. The hardware form is just about convenience it [no longer] describes a logical difference or significant processing ability [eg my phone has about as much processing power as my desktop (ignoring the GPU), some phones definitely have more]
If you're using your phablet paired with a keyboard for the same uses as others use their [traditionally defined] desktop for then what use is the distinction?
Android can be used on the desktop, but IMO it's not tailored for that and so shouldn't be described as a desktop OS.
The whole "year of Linux on the desktop" thing is about market-share as much as anything; as other have said many people have been using it as a desktop OS for plenty of years.
> The hardware form is just about convenience it [no longer] describes a logical difference or significant processing ability
What exactly is a logical difference in this case, and how is it relevant to the discussion? Is my decision illogical if I consider the ergonomic implications of using a particular hardware/software platform?
Aside from ergonomics, I'm not sure what is so controversial about assuming that the different user interfaces will (and quite obviously do) cater to different use cases. What I can realistically do with a keyboard and a 24" monitor is certainly different from what I can do with my mobile phone. What I can realistically do with Debian is certainly different from what I can do with iOS or Android. These differences alone convince me that the distinction between desktop computer and phone/tablet/crablet is still meaningful, regardless of the literal meaning of "desktop computer". Manufacturers, retailers and consumers generally understand this, no matter how much anyone pretends that a tablet is equivalent to a desktop computer.
> "year of Linux on the desktop"
People have been using [insert any relatively obscure OS] as a desktop OS for plenty of years. The fact remains that Linux doesn't hold a significant share of the desktop market, which is what the idea of "year of Linux on the desktop" has always been about.
I wasn't suggesting you choice was illogical, I was expressing that the ability of a phablet, say, to process data and run computing operations has a logical equivalence (in the processing sense) in a "desktop"; and then mentioning that whilst the processing power may generally differ there is substantial overlap (eg phones having more processing power and RAM than some desktops, etc.). The "logical" part was to contrast the physical differences.
You can use a smartphone with a bluetooth keyboard to write business docs with wordprocessing apps or construct spreadsheets (you could use the on-screen keyboard if you're a masochist). Different physical interfaces target different use cases as we've both noted but the distinction is more about marketing than ability of a system.
Going back to where this all came from I doubt this discussion is fruitful.
I'll give you points for tenacity, but Android was never intended to be used on desktop computers. The link you give is just a hobby project, nothing more.
And since we're being pedantic here, let's talk about definitions. A mobile operating system is one that has been designed primarily for devices intended to be carried on one's person, such as a phone or tablet. A desktop operating system is one that has been designed primarily for devices that are large enough to be stationary during use (e.g., workstations). Both form factors have unique requirements and capabilities, and need vastly different user interfaces.
Further, you seem to be arguing that the kernel (and only the kernel) is what defines an operating system. If that's the case, then Android can only properly be described as a fork of Linux, not Linux itself.
To play devil's advocate, I can't think of a single mainstream distro that doesn't fork and patch the kernel as well.
And one of Android's original use models was a non touch screen connected to a keyboard (mainly for Blackberry style smartphones before they were sure that slates would take off, but still...).
Define "desktop" and we'll tell you. You can run Android on a base system that is connected to a standard desktop monitor, printer, mouse and keyboard.
Yep, that's what I do. I even have an Android X86 running in VirtualBox in my Linux box - and several apps installed. No problem with keyboard and mouse, emulated full HD display, audio... even Google voice recognition works!
Of course I use it mostly to play around and do tests.
> Because on desktop Windows still has a ~90% market share.
This is only true for _PC_ desktops but not for the overall desktop situation.
Consider Windows 10. It derives from the mobile Win 8 desktop which is made more suitable for PCs so that people can use office and spreadsheets and other classic software in the traditional Win 7 way. But you can do many of these things right now on Android devices. For instance, gaming and office:
Both "static" and mobile desktops are continually merging together. Soon we will have mobile desktops which can turn into PC desktops instantly by just plugging the device into a docking station which is connected with a large display, keyboard, and mouse.
So when we define "desktop" as the sum of all traditional desktop applications then Android has really overthrown all other OS. The current office versions of Android are yet just not as convenient as PC desktop versions. Soon it will make no difference if you write your letters on a PC or on a mobile device with docking station. Of course this doesn't count for productivity software (software engineering, CAD etc.) which still requires a lot of PC horse power.
Android is a mobile phone OS and as suchhas a marginal market share on desktop. Windows still has over 90% market share on desktop (http://www.netmarketshare.com/)