Why Hasn't Open Source Won? [video]

Management of a large project, like windows, is a management juggernaut - it has tiers of assorted projects/managers/subordinates = all paid and tasked. Apple is the same $$$. Open source Linux is many projects that various groups get interested in and pursue. Red Hat is a parallel, but smaller, management juggernaut, as they saw this same need and built it. And there many smaller groups, drawing on the open sources that make sub-types of Linux. Microsoft spends billions, Red Hat a lot less and all the smaller groups are spare time, or lightly funded. Want to defeat Microsoft/Apple, add start 10 years ago, add $2 billion/year and a three horse race will emerge

What would it mean for open source to "win?" I mean, in 1990, there were dozens of unix workstation vendors, and dozens of flavors of unix...but they were just exterminated by linux.

FOSS is still much harder for normal people.

In theory Desktop Linux should be a major competitor, but it isn't. I'll give an example, I wanted to try other Desktop environments on Manjaro. For reasons I'll never understand Deepin broke KDE. It was fixed once I uninstalled it.

This is a really weird video though. If PHP cost money or had a revenue split, Facebook would of used something use.

For everyone Facebook theirs a million college kids who gave up after 3 days.

I want more MIT/Apache licensed code. Ideally Amazon monetizes an open source project and then contributes back.