Windows became popular with Windows 3.0 that came out 1990, And the Linux kernel came in 1991, but the first distro which is a better comparison came in 1993.

So Windows had a 3 year advantage.
But that wasn't the more crucial thing, the real advantage was DOS compatibility, which everything legacy ran on. So with Windows people and companies could still run their old DOS programs, they could even run them better than in an old fashioned DOS system, because Windows was brilliant for multitasking DOS programs.

That's kind of true, but MacOS and Mac OSX are 2 different things. What is based on BSD is the MAC OSX that came out in 2001 AFAIK.

And BSD was interrupted for 2 years because of copyright disputes with AT&T. If that hadn't happened, BSD would be the longest continuous OS today, and probably way more significant than it is.

I don't consider MAC OSX as part of BSD, just like Android isn't part of Linux Desktop, but only uses the Linux kernel. OSX took parts of BSD and shielded it behind a proprietary wall, because the BSD license offer no protection from that. So they become separate projects the moment they enter the Apple domain.

Problem here is when people mix up the use of the word Linux as an OS with Linux the kernel. I am 100% sure OP meant Linux as a Desktop OS like GNU/Linux or something like Free desktop according to freedesktop.org. Using his experience with EndeavorOS as an example.

But you are right, it can be said Unix/BSD has an even longer running time, but it has been somewhat problematic and interrupted because of AT&T and SCO and Novell.

Yes it is absolutely cool. 😎
I tried Linux earlier, but didn't find it really useful until 2005 when I switched to Linux as my main OS, but games were a huge problem, so I had to dual boot for a couple of years, before I dropped Windows completely.

Yes it literally has come a long way, all the way from 1991 to 2024, I think the only other OS that has managed that is Windows.
I know that's not quite what you meant, it was just a thought I came to think of reading the headline.

But apart from that, it's also become quite good, but IMO it has been for more than a decade now.

Yes, that was very weird to read, repeating the same thing twice for the same CPU?

IMO the high end Mediatek SOCs are getting pretty good. They are very close to high end Snapdragon, Snapdragon however tend to have the edge on slightly lower power consumption.

But if you can get almost equivalent performance for less, I don't really see the Mediatek chips as a significant downside anymore.

it's great we have Mediatek for competition, otherwise Qualcomm would be a near monopoly outside the Samsung Sphere.

I've used Manjaro for many years now, and it works very well for Steam IMO. When I chose Manjaro I checked ProtonDB to see if there was a trend where some distros had higher success rate for Proton games on Steam, and it seemed to me there was, and Manjaro was one of the best.

But maybe if I had checked other games I'd have other results IDK. But generally if a game has good score on ProtonDB it will work for me with my Radeon RX 6600 XT.

I would imagine most distros work well with Steam today, it is after all mostly similar libraries they all use.

It's not like anything he says is a secret:
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/ 900 open source projects 3M+ developers trained
It's right there on the front page.

Linux foundation never supported desktop development, and I suspect they have their reasons. Maybe that a GUI is a very subjective thing, there are dozens of desktops, supporting one would probably cause major wrath from everybody else, so if Linux Foundation were to support the desktop, they'd have to support all. But Gnome has often shown to be hostile to outside influence, so maybe they don't really care to mess with that. KDE is based on QT, and maybe the QT dual license isn't within the scope of Linux Foundation to support? So with the biggest desktops being somewhat problematic, maybe it's better to just leave it alone.

The real question IMO is why Linux desktop doesn't have better support from other foundations? Why aren't any of them able to attract more financial support?

Personally I liked Gnome 2, and I think Gnome did a lot of harm to Linux when they deprecated it before Gnome Shell was ready, and I think Gnome alienated many users with the design decisions of Gnome shell.

Then the problem is that almost every GUI Desktop on Linux is based on some flavor of GTK which is under Gnome, or based on QT with the dual license.

Personally I don't mind the dual license of QT, but many Linux developers are very idealistic, and don't like it.

I absolutely recommend my preferred flavor of Linux to friends that don't run the same distro I do.

I'm confused, is the image about Linux? I don't see it says Linux anywhere in the red circles. /s

Dammit, yes my bad.

AFAIK Next OS was discontinued about 30 years ago. Although some of it was used in OSX.