Many comparisons are available in the internet in which different operating systems like LInux, Windows and Mac OS X are compared against each other with the aim to identify weaks and cons. Instead of comparing the systems we have to go a step back and first ask what an operating system is in general. A look into the timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_operating_systems shows a large amount of operating systems which were developed in the last decades:
MCP Burroughs Master Control Program (1961)
OS/360 (1964)
CP/M (1975)
VMS (1977)
Apple Dos (1978)
MS DOS (1981)
Ultrix (1982)
AmigaOS (1985)
HP-UX (1986)
SunOS (1988)
Nextstep (1989)
Windows 3.0 (1990)
OS/2 (1993)
MacOSX (2000)
WindowsXP (2001)
iPhoneOS (2007)
Windows10 (2015)
Only this extract contains of 17 different operating system. In summary the list of all operating system is larger than 200. Does the list has some sort of structure? Yes, it's not a list of operating systems but a list of failed attempt in building such a systems. That means, the programmers doesn't know how to program such software as a result all of theses systems were used only for a short period of time and for a special need. The best example is the CP/M system which was state of the art in the late 1970s for a certain homecomputer type. Only 10 years later, the former known 8 bit microcomputer was obsolete and new sorts of operating systems were developed. The first thing is to understand that on the list no real operating systems are given, but the correct term for HP-UX, MS-DOS and iPhoneOS is “firmware”.
The difference is, that a firmware is developed by a single manufactorer, doesn't establish a standard, runs only a small number of devices and will become obsolete in less than 5 years. Most items on the list can be categorized as firmware.
This makes the search more easier because we can sort the items into two groups: firmware software and real operating systems. A typical feature of an operating system is, that it will run on multiple devices, is a standard for more than a single manufactorer and has a lifespan over 5 years. In the list at Wikipedia only one software matches the criteria of an operating system: Linux.
To check if this hypothesis make sense we have to ask the following questions:
1. is Linux a standard which is accepted by more than a single manufacturer?
2. Is the lifespan greater than 5 years?
3. Does it run on many different hardware?
The answer is always yes. So we can say for sure, that Linux is an operating system. This makes the software unique over all the other items on the list.
Instead of comparing individual software pieces against each other the more interesting question is to compare a the category of a firmware with an operating system. What is better? Suppose the conclusion is, that a firmware is the better caregory, as a result we can say that iphone OS is a here to stay, because it's a great example for a firmware.
The question is not if we need Linux, the question is, if the market has a demand for an operating system. According to the history list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_operating_systems the answer is no. The enormous amount of firmware systems (larger than 200) in contrast to the small amount of operating systems (1, which is Linux) it seems that the computer industry doesn't need operating systems at all. They are happy with developing firmware systems which has a small lifespan, runs on a single machine and doesn't provide a standard. Is that the reason why Linux was never a success?
Like i mentioned before, Linux is a real operating system. This makes the software different from all the other items on the list. iphoneOS, Windows10 and even OS/2 was installed million times in the history, in contrast Linux was installed never. It seems, that a firmware is a here to stay while the concept of operating systems is outdated.
Let us go back to the MS-DOS software. From an abstract point of view, it was a classical example for a proprietary firmware. It was running only on x86 systems but not on the Amiga500 or mainframe computers. It was maintained by a single company (Microsoft) and was not accepted as a universal standard. And the lifespan of MS-DOS was very short. The first version was released in 1981, the last version MS-DOS 6.2 in 1994 which is equal to a lifespan of 13 years. The surprising fact is, that MS-DOS was loved by Microsoft and by the customers. Lots of fanpages and books were created around the system and even today some enthusiasts have created MS-DOS emulators to play the outdated games on modern hardware.
How can it be, that a non-operating system was successful? It seems, that the market doesn't need a standardized operating systems. It seems, that a firmware is more interesting.