Peter Ross <Peter.Ross@bogen.in-berlin.de> wrote:
The later point may become mute in the future: More and more people get more exposed to other platforms, particularly tablets which running "the same stuff" than their mobiles.
I think the dominance of Microsoft has already ended, but traditional desktops will be their last holdout. Linux has become increasingly widespread on servers, in super-computers and (in the form of Android) mobile devices, as well as a variety of embedded systems. It also seems to have a following as a development environment and for desktop uses among UNIX enthusiasts and people who are dissatisfied with the alternatives. It's possible that there won't be a single dominant operating system in the next several decades, which would be a return to normality following the rise and fall of MS-DOS/MS-Windows. I expect Microsoft to continue to be a large participant in all areas of operating systems and in office applications, but the trend, at least for now, is decidedly downward. It's also possible that, ultimately, there will only be phones/tablets on one side and servers on the other, with everything in the middle (laptops, desktops, workstations) relegated to history. This could have nasty implications for software freedom, depending on what happens in the evolution of "mobile" operating systems and the extent of consolidation in the server industry. Linux might therefore "win", while simultaneously the conditions that have enabled and so contributed to its development are undermined, viz., the freedom to write software from the operating system level upward on one's own machine, without seeking permission from anybody, to publish it and to collaborate with others in its further improvement. "Secure boot" and denial of root access to mobile devices by vendors are the signs of trouble on the horizon. I would expect free software advocates and proponents of open-source to oppose lock-down and lock-in strategies. It may be that having a thriving development community with no barriers to entry is seen as sufficiently valuable commercially and in public policy to avert the threat, but the outcome is far from settled.