That's a bad article, if you'd even go so far as to call it an "article".
I notice he recaps the linux on netbook story as "people bought them, didn't like them, returned them" but didn't mention the "monopolist gets a big fright, drops price radically (while enforcing odd limits on netbook specs), puts large amount of effort into getting Windows 7 running well on low spec machines" angle.
I find it a bit tragic that every time the free or open option gets close the incumbent just trims its profits in that particular area and/or ups its game and yet this win is trumpeted as a "loss" by the very people who are benefiting from the effects of this competition on their preferred supplier.
The only 'nix applications I use just run in bash. The windows applications I use, however, all require a windows desktop.
So it makes the most sense for me to just use Cygwin + Win7. I am happy with linux on Cygwin and my servers, but will probably never use it as my laptops OS.
Windows has vastly improved for programmers now that you can WinKey+[type] to access everything without using any icons or the mouse. I keep the taskbar on top above my program menus, have 0 pinned or desktop icons, and it is a great minimal interface I couldn't be happier with.
This submission is a throwback to the olden days. There is a meme on slashdot that goes back to like '01, where every year is "the year of linux on the desktop".
I think the definition of "mainstream" audience, in the first paragraph is the beginning of the problem.
If we continually redefine the "mainstream" audience to lower and lower common denominators, as the people who don't know and care about the technology they use, why should they ever care to use linux?
One of the biggest powers of free software is it's ability to teach people about computers and how technology works, lets start from there.
I continue to not understand why it matters if Linux "makes it" onto the desktop. Linux on the desktop already works for those who use it [no duh].
Is anyone out there really interested in writing software (for profit) on the Linux desktop? I assume that is why "Linux on the desktop" matters for some people. Otherwise, why not just let OSS people keep scratching their own itch?
Along the same lines, who writes software for the Any desktop these days? What was the last piece of software you paid for that ran on your desktop? v.s. how many times have you given out your CC on the web?
All things being equal people will stay where they are. So when software moved to the web there wasn't any incentive to move OS's. The only shift I have seen is the shift to Apple where there is a hardware incentive. But even then they buy an Apple laptop and just run Safari.
Edit: and even for linux heads OS X is pretty nice. I get git, gcc, apache, a command shell, Qt, emacs, vim, bash, webkit, etc. Even valgrind is on OS X now. Given that the software is close enough then looking at the hardware it caused me to get a mac laptop.
I can't speak for all Linux desktop users, but for me, better support from hardware vendors and other ancillary benefits of widespread usage are why I'd love to see Linux succeed.
Unfortunately, even a significant market share may not be enough to get good hardware support. OSX has a sizable chunk of the market, and there's still missing support from a lot of hardware vendors, especially when it comes to lower priced stuff. Certainly more than Linux, but it's still frustrating how often I come across hardware which is "PC only."
I agree with you mostly, but sometimes it does matter.
One could argue that even free software gets boosts from companies. If Linux weren't so popular on servers, we wouldn't have IBM, Novell, and tons of other companies contributing to free software there. If it got to a critical mass on the desktop, I'd guess Dell, HP, and others might see it in their interest to contribute to free desktop software.
More users brings a more vibrant space sometimes. I switch off between Mac and Linux and Linux is fine for most things I want to do (Hulu being a notable exception). But I can also see how much companies have contributed to free software in the Linux world and that it's mostly server-useful software because Linux has a critical mass of users on the server end. And the more users you have, the more people who might want to scratch their own itch.
