Looking at the official numbers of desktop Linux installed systems looks like it.

Why would we take that one, narrow specific segment of software taken as an example of the success or value of open source as a whole? It would be as useful as comparing web server software market share as an indicator of whether Microsoft has succeeded as a company.

Moving goal posts here? I thought the subject was desktop software.

Yes, Linux won the server side, it is hard to fight against free beer.

Now getting desktop software companies to invest in such market is another story.

I guess I must have fallen into a time machine since I just purchased Photoshop last month.

That would be which logical fallacy? Something where you take something I said to a nonsensical extreme? I certainly never asserted that people did not pay for software. My point is that free software is very proven as a development, distribution, whatever method by now.

>My point is that free software is very proven as a development, distribution, whatever method by now.

Yes, it is indeed proven that when you pay people to develop software, it works great. (Linux, FF, Chrome, Photoshop, Windows, etc, etc). The license doesn't seem to make much of a difference.

When you don't - (your typical freeware on download.com) - they have to figure out a revenue stream after the fact, and the choices they end up making cause them to be on the front page of HN where people line up to call them "scum".

Obviously this is not about hobbyist/part-time developers with a github repo, who are already getting paid through an external job, etc.