Not "evidence" (a legal term anyway) but techonomic theory: In technology, businesses strive to commoditize aspects of their competitors tech stack. As this occurs across all tech stacks, all are eventually commoditized - often in the form of opens source. Hence "open source always wins".
In what sense did the Linux kernel "win"? Microsoft continues to make a lot of money from Windows Server. Nobody but Red Hat makes any money off the Linux kernel.
>Nobody but Red Hat makes any money off the Linux kernel.
You forgot about Canonical.
But the real point is, in the wild, the Linux kernel predominates.
Every Android user is a Linux kernel user. Every Chromebook user is a Linux kernel user. Every iOS user is a Unix user. Every Google server is a Linux kernel installation.
The fact is, Linux/Unix rules. Except for the corporate desktop, where Windows predominates, at least for most (uninteresting) instances of "corporate".
Nobody makes money on Linux by selling it as a stand-alone product, obviously. Even RedHat sells support, not software. But Linux makes some of the world's most successful companies possible in the first place: Imagine either of the FANGs if they had to pay Microsoft a license on every server.
I'd say that's a win. (But agree that Linux hasn't necessarily won over Windows in any general sense).
That you mistake a monopoly for a victory and not a market failure says a lot more about your values than about the relative merits of open source vs closed source.
> That you mistake a monopoly for a victory and not a market failure says a lot more about your values
One, insulting others on this forum isn't productive. Two, our broader discussion is about Chinese technological policy. I doubt anyone in Beijing is concerned about victory by way of market failure.
Zero evidence of this claim at any level.