Of the publicly available sources I think CloudFlares Radar is one of the better ones. Silver linings of having such wide dragnet on the internet. It puts Linux market share at 3-4%, with some regional variance
This was probably a lot more true in the past but Linux users tend to be more privacy conscious and do things like spoof their user agent, so this is almost certainly an undercount. You basically used to have to do this to browse the web before Firefox became one of the dominant browsers.
This is the reality - most people won't spoof until they figure out it's the way to make a specific site work; and then they'll likely spoof for everything.
I'd also like to add that we forget that we're doing it, or at least I do. Once you set something up like that, there's never any reason to get rid of it; nobody is positively discriminating towards Linux.
I love when a ruleset (firewall, for example) has a "comments" field because I inevitably forget why I added something and then Chesterton's fence means I leave it forever, lest I spend hours a year later wondering why something broke.
Every time I try to change my user agent with a FF extension I get hit with brutal cloudflare captcha loops. How are you changing your user agent in a way that this is not a problem?
Actual reason: SBC retro handheld consoles now run Linux and people are using them to play steam indie games. The China holiday had some blow out pricing.
Non primary devices more likely to run Linux. Primary still windows.
Used to be worse. Something happened in the last year and I'm seeing way way less random captchas for regular use from a residential IP. In '22-'24 it used to be extremely common, now it's an event when it happens. Also went from mint to plain ubuntu so that might have something to do with it?
It's a good thing too, because when I see the Cloudflare captcha I try it once and if that doesn't work then I just close the tab and add it to the list of non-functioning websites.
Cloudflare captcha = infinite loop of captchas (if it doesn't work on the first try). You can give up the moment that happens, because you will never get to the website itself.
Privacy minded Linux users probably also know, spoofing your user agent is likely to increase fingerprint entropy and actually decreases privacy. It may have been true in the past, but I don't think anyone even recommends it anymore.
There's still plenty of web sites that check the OS and if it's not Mac OS, Windows, or Andoid it's no service for you. Faking your UA is not always about privacy, it's about defeating stupidity.
You should only do this on websites that actually require it otherwise you're almost certainly going to cause more problems than you'll solve.
Messing with the UA header is going to get you flagged by every bot detection tool because when you change your header from "Firefox on Linux" to "Chrome on Windows" your fingerprints don't add up anymore and you look exactly like a poorly written bot. You're likely going to see more captchas, you might get blocked or rate limited more often, and get placed under increased scrutiny, orders held for verification, silently filtered or shadow banned, etc.
The only websites that really do this anymore are ones that are delivering native code for those platforms or those that require DRM that only work on those platforms.
Even when that is the case (what is a minority of the time), just because I'm using Linux, it doesn't mean that I don't want to download some Windows software.
But well, I haven't had to spoof my browser's UA for a few years. If some site refuses it, I'll just move on. (Including some that started doing it after I brought thousands of dollars worth of stuff from them.)
Browser yes, but OS? Rarely, I have issues with Firefox, but never had Chromium not working, too.
It any case, it would be silly to assume services measuring OS popularity would put up such limitations. And more likely than not, people are changing their UA as a work-around on a case-by-case basis than make it a default, since that's gonna cause trouble.
In the last decade, the only time, I actually had to touch the UA is when breaking ToS with curl :D
The EFF's "Panopticlick" paper was published in 2010 [1], together with Firefox/Tor research that knowledge became mainstream. Therefore privacy guides don't recommend it. The Arch wiki linked above has this warning in bright red:
> "Changing the user agent without changing to a corresponding platform will make your browser nearly unique."
Sorry, I am not sure, if arguing about nuanced reality is the battleground, where I see you thriving.
OnlyOffice claims that additional terms fall under section 7 of AGPLv3, which explicitly allows adding such terms. I think the point of contention arises from the interpretation of section 7 and more specifically this sentence:
> When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it.
> In other words, AGPLv3 does not permit selective application: a recipient either accepts AGPLv3 in its entirety, including all additional conditions, or acquires no rights to use the software.
> Any removal, disregard, or unilateral “exclusion” of conditions imposed under Section 7 constitutes use beyond the scope of the granted license and therefore a breach.
That's about adding permissions -- not adding restrictions. There are a list of allowed restrictions in section 7, lettered A-F, and then the statement:
> All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
Yeah, b) does provide for attribution, which could be a valid claim here. But b) does not prohibit rebranding, nor does it require the use of branding to be used in any trade capacity as described under e).
Referring to a brand in the capacity of providing attribution is entirely different than using a brand in the capacity of trade. Attributing someone is not the same as using their trademark. Ever write a "works cited" at the end of a report in school? They aren't full of logos, they don't imply that you are the author, (they state the opposite) and they certainly don't violate any trade laws. They are literally just lists of attributions.
e.g. "This software is copyright OnlyOffice", or similar, is an attribution that does not violate any trademarks. It satisfies both b) and e). (although I will note that the license says "or" for each of those, but this probably isn't the intended interpretation)
I think you're confused by the term "permissions". You can give more freedom to the license and a copier can remove them as long as it doesn't remove the freedom that are in AGPLv3. The OnlyOffice team claim comes from the next paragraph of section 7:
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may [...] supplement the terms of this License with terms:
> b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
This is what they did and what the other part stripped from their blatant copy. So no, removing the logo or the OnlyOffice terms therefore seems forbidden by the license itself, revoking it for the other part, thus they are now making a counterfeit.
“Making exceptions to conditions” and “adding additional conditions” are literally opposed concepts, and the AGPL explicitly distinguishes between “additional permissions” and “further restrictions”. So, were OpenOffice bound by the original license without its additions, that would be problematic.
Author attribution, legally, doesn't refer to brands or logos. They're different things... e.g. the difference between [the disney logo] and "Copyright 2026 The Walt Disney Company"
> > Intel and some iteris chipsets are well supported.
> Intel chipsets categorically do not support AP mode
This is not true.
Intel chipsets do support AP mode; what they don't support is 5 GHz AP.
You wouldn't want to run a 2.4-GHz-only router for any kind of real-world long-term use, but if you just want to start a quick-and-dirty 2.4 GHz AP for testing/hacking/reverse-engineering, Intel chipsets are very good for this because they have out-of-the-box support for channel-hopping to support simultaneous client+AP operation.
I have had good luck with intel in the past but it was only a very specific version. Don’t recall the exact specifics as it was a little while ago now.
As others have already noted, using decimal notation as a base here is problematic in many ways. I'd suggest seximal (base 6) instead. I'd also shift the digits by one, so have 1-6 instead of 0-5, because having empty ring for 0 is not good. The rings also need to be rotated by 30° relative to each other so that "2"s do not overlap like they do now.
60 in base 6 is 140, so in theory you'd need three rings for both minutes and seconds. But because that highest digit can only be 0 or 1 I think there would be other ways to represent it, so you'd manage with two rings. One option is to reverse the colors (/fill the ring).
I deeply dislike this framing of mega corps vs volunteer devs. It conveniently ignores the huge amount of open source being developed by regular salaried devs as part of their job. Imho that is what we need more of instead of trying to redirect some money to these individuals which to me seems inherently unstable approach.
To make that happen I think companies should be more willing to develop and publish their own patches instead of relying on upstream for anything. Overall I think in the open source world the idea of (centralized upstream) "project" has gotten way overinflated.
But why bother running Ubuntu at all just to jump through hoops to avoid snaps? Snaps are obviously Ubuntus the thing, so feels counterproductive to run Ubuntu and fight against it.
https://radar.cloudflare.com/explorer?dataSet=http&groupBy=o...
Fun tidbits, Finland is at ~10% (!), and Germany at 6.3%.
reply