Network World: Why Linux is a desktop flop

<http://goo.gl/0ntcg>
It's free, easier to use than ever, IT staffers know it and
love it, and it has fewer viruses and Trojans than Windows.

It's already ubiquitous on the server side. Plus, there are
now alternatives to the most popular software packages out
there -- again, for free -- and new software releases often
have Web-based interfaces, making operating systems
irrelevant.

Sounds like what we hear in COLA. But, then the article asks... and gives
reasons for:
So, why hasn't Linux on the desktop taken off?
...
So, what's the problem? It's not just corporate inertia --
companies are quick to move when there's money to be saved.
But when it comes to desktop Linux, the cost savings turn out
to be problematic, there are management issues, and
compatibility remains an issue.
...
Cost: Let's get the money question out of the way first. Yes,
Linux is free, and so is the open source-software that often
comes with it -- OpenOffice, the GIMP photo editing software,
the Thunderbird email client.
...
First, Windows itself isn't that expensive when you get it
bundled in with new desktops and laptops. The cost savings to
run Linux on the same hardware is minor.

For example, the Dell Latitude 2120 with Windows 7 Home
Premium is $494, while a similarly-loaded Ubuntu Latitude
2120 is $434 -- a savings of just $60.

What? The boogieman has not prevented Dell from selling a similarly equipped
machine with Linux? How is that possible? The COLA herd tells me the
boogieman makes secret deals to stop this. But the article goes on:

The idea that Linux is free and companies can save a lot of
money by switching is a myth, he adds, one of many myths
surrounding Linux deployment. "This has been a typical
understanding, but a lot of organizations that have explored
that have found that there's more to it," he says.

As a result, Gartner hasn't been seeing much interest in
switching to Linux on the desktop, he says. "We get a lot
more questions about switching to Macs than switching to
Linux at this point, even though Macs are more expensive."

There has been more interest in open source software and
operating systems in Europe and Latin America, Silver says.
"But even that has been tapering off."

Wow. That is not what the herd says at all.

Compatibility: But the single biggest disadvantage Linux has
on the desktop is in applications, says Patrick Gray,
president of business strategy consultancy Prevoyance Group.

"Traditionally, Linux has been a bit more difficult to
install, use, and manage, but much of that has been assuaged
with variants like Ubuntu," he says. "But despite narrowing
the usability gap, Linux still lacks many commercial-grade
applications."

Where substitutes are available, he adds, most are not
supported, or don't have the full feature sets of the
commercial variants.

Gee, who in COLA has made such comments? Oh yeah: pretty much anyone not
tied to the herd.

I do think the article underestimates the problems of usability, though the
context is business use where there is generally a pretty limited set of
tools needed... the issue is not as big there as it is for the home user.

So what does Slashdot say of the story... some pretty techie folks there...

<http://goo.gl/oof00>
How I am even supposed to begin to recommend Linux for the
average user when there are 100 different distros, each with
its own quirks and issues? Hell, even I don't have any clue
where to begin on which one to recommend. And I sure wouldn't
know how to support each one if they had problems.

At least with Windows, I can say "Use Home Premium at home,
Professional at work." Even simpler with Macs. With Linux, I
guess I would recommend Ubuntu, but a lot of Linux fans are
even starting to bitch about that.

If you want simple users, make it simple to use. Linux is way
too fractured right now for the average user. Get a consensus
down to a single home distro, a single business distro, and a
few specialized distros and then start from there.

It would probably also help if you could get Linux users to
stop fighting amongst themselves over every little goddamn
thing. Outsiders are really turned off by what looks like a
bunch of squabbling geeks fighting over their favorite Star
Trek series (which we all know is DS9, anyway). Average
consumers *do not* like stepping into the middle of a fight
which they don't even understand. That's one of the reasons
they like Windows and OS X (all the fighting over those is
kept behind the scenes, for the most part).
Also; Quality, easy of use, availability of (commercial)
software etc are the better selling points. Frankly, free is
one of the shittiest selling points for corporations. The
cost of OS licenses is ridiculously small compared to
everything else. Hell, employers have to pay almost 100x the
price of Windows/Mac license to one employee per month, with
taxes and benefits. If things work better with Windows/Mac
then it's a no-brainer. With servers the cost are much
higher, and Linux been used with them a lot more and has
better compability, so it's less of an issue. But even still
Linux has only managed to get about half and the other half
goes to Windows Server, which admittedly is used more in
internal-facing servers.

"Free" just isn't good selling point for companies. The time
you need to waste with Linux costs a lot more than something
that just works. Hobbyists might value their time less, but
employee hour for a company costs A LOT.
And then there's the problem of distros breaking on upgrades,
and the prevalent WORKS_FOR_ME && WONT_FIX responses towards
bugs, the really lousy bug-reporting scheme (I tried it with
KDE, my cpu went to 100% and never even loaded the desktop,
requiring a reinstall from scratch).

Then there's the lack of social skills among the
"self-anointed." Plus their childish insistence on labeling
it GNU/linux (do you call it a Firestone/Mustang)? Or M$.
Yes, we see what you did there, and no, after the 5,000th
time, it's just stupid.

Pointing out the problems invariably gets you labeled as a
shill, an astroturfer, or worse.

Pointing out the problems with the GPL - or worse, pointing
out that the GPL doesn't even respect the 4 freedoms listed
on the home page of the FSF - brings out people who blindly
repeat what "everyone who really is a true believer knows."

It's not a religion or a cult, but you could have fooled me.
-

Back to the Stallman group being very cult-like and having absurd views of
what "freedom" means... and breaking its own rules. Yup, herd members...
the world is out to get you... me, others in COLA, Linus Torvalds, Mark
Shuttleworth, Jim Zemlin, and the rest of us "Linux-haters".

What a whacked out world view you have.