50 Places Linux is Running That You Might Not Expect

[zridling]

Far from being a fringe OS, here are 50 Places Linux is Running That You Might Not Expect divided by categories.

[Stoic Joker]

Interesting, but only 49 "surprises" ... Novell doesn't count - Not since they switched to (/jumped/bought) Suse because their own OS was too arcane to survive on the new hardware (no DOS drivers for SATA == byebye Novell). So They damn well better be dog-fooding that puppy.

[40hz]

Here's 391 more....

Linux is also running on 78% of the top 500 supercomputers as of last November according to an article over at InternetNews.com

And if you add in the all the commercial NIX variants, such as Centos and Suse enterprise editions, it climbs to something like 88%.

Linux dominates top 500 supercomputer list
By Sean Michael Kerner on November 16, 2009 2:47 PM

From the 'Beefy Penguin' files:

The latest Top 500 Supercomputer list is now out (see my colleague Andy Patrizio's story on InternetNews.com), with the top rig doubling its performance to 1.75 petaflops.

Of particular interest to me is the fact that while multi-core CPU's are the hardware components enabling the fastest computers, it is Linux as the operating system the powers the software.

Just over 78 percent of the top 500 supercomputers run some type of Linux.  The official Top 500 Supercomputer site lists 391 of the top 500 supercomputers as using 'Linux'.

Digging a little deeper, there are 32 additional machines that identify themselves as running some version of Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. There are some 16 that identify Red Hat Linux or one of its derivatives including CentOS.

So doing a little bit of math, at least 88 percent of the list is using some form of Linux, generic or otherwise.

That's astounding. The only other operating system that is even noteworthy beyond Linux is IBM's AIX Unix at 22 systems (or just over 4 percent).

It's also interesting to see how the list has changed over the past nine years.

Back in November of 2000, Linux (generic) represented nearly 11 percent of the top supercomputer list, while AIX dominated at 42 percent. Times do change.

Article Link: http://blog.internet...-top-500-superc.html

Stats Link: http://www.top500.org/stats/list/34/os

[JavaJones]

Hmm, I'd say only about half of those are any surprise at all. I mean come on, Google, Amazon? *shock* At first I thought "Well maybe the list is made for the less informed "average user"", but then I realized that pretty much anyone using Linux would probably know that Google uses it.

I thought it was interesting that US Navy submarines apparently use Linux though...

- Oshyan

[zridling]

Despite its mini status on the desktop, Linux is certainly all around us, in phones, cars, planes, embedded devices, toasters, robots, etc. It's a great thing to be able to select which parts of the kernel you need only to run your particular device. No marketing campaign, it just works.

[f0dder]

Despite its mini status on the desktop, Linux is certainly all around us, in phones, cars, planes, embedded devices, toasters, robots, etc. It's a great thing to be able to select which parts of the kernel you need only to run your particular device. No marketing campaign, it just works.

-zridling (March 24, 2010, 09:35 PM)

I wonder how much of linux' success can be attributed to it being "free" and how much is because it's gratis...

[Deozaan]

At first I was a little surprised by the company names, and then I realized that quite a lot of those are just server clusters, which you should just expect to be some form of Linux.

[40hz]

Despite its mini status on the desktop, Linux is certainly all around us, in phones, cars, planes, embedded devices, toasters, robots, etc. It's a great thing to be able to select which parts of the kernel you need only to run your particular device. No marketing campaign, it just works.

-zridling (March 24, 2010, 09:35 PM)

I wonder how much of linux' success can be attributed to it being "free" and how much is because it's gratis...

-f0dder (March 24, 2010, 09:45 PM)

I'm sure that being 'gratis' plays a part in Linux being considered. But I very much doubt it's a major factor when it comes to Linux being chosen.

Especially when you look at the technical acumen and the financial resources behind many organizations that do choose to go with Linux.

Virtually all of them can well afford any operating system they want. And that remains true even if they don't mind "paying a little less" get it.

Having a stable, powerful, unrestricted and fully adaptable OS is the main goal.  

Not having to pay for a license to use it is just icing on the cake for this crowd.  


------------
Note:

I think one of the things that creates a perceptual problem when it comes to Linux is that people tend equate the Linux kernal with GNU/Linux. This is probably because most people are so familiar with the monolithic approach to operating systems that Microsoft uses, that they assume all operating systems must work the same way.

The thing about Linux that almost always gets overlooked isn't how much Linux brings to the table - it's how little.

Linux itself is fairly small. Most of its increase in code size over the years comes from adding support for new hardware. But the real beauty comes when you realize you can strip out everything you don't need, add only what you do, and go from there.

And the fact you can do that is Linux's main selling point when it comes to critical system design.


Quasi off-topic follows. feel free to ignore!  

Spoiler

Linux vs GNU/Linux

In a way, it's kind of funny...

 When the Linux kernal first got wedded to GNU, Richard Stallman (GNU's brilliant but difficult project leader) insisted on calling it GNU/Linux in order to call attention to the fact that what most people think of as "Linux" is actually made up of two major components: a small kernal and some ancillary code named "Linux" - and GNU, which is everything else.

Stallman believed this was an important distinction that needed to be maintained and, for a variety of reasons, felt the name should reflect that.

Linus Torvalds didn't object to any of this. (Some versions of the story say Linus's reaction was more along the lines of him saying "whatever.")  But "GNU/Linux" didn't roll off the tongue as smoothly as "Linux" did.  So over Stallman's protests, the general name became Linux.

Despite his many misgivings (and a long fruitless attempt to get the public to use the name GNU/Linux) Stallman eventually capitulated. Much like when Federal Express finally stopped insisting on being called that and ultimately went with FedEx, the name its customers bestowed on it.

Vox populi, vox dei, as the saying goes.

So if there's public confusion over exactly what constitutes Linux, we have only ourselves to blame.

Looks like Stallman was right about it after all...