Why Linux is a desktop flop

<http://www.networkworld.com/news/20...4.html>
But on the desktop, Linux's numbers barely register. Gartner
predicts that Linux penetration on the desktop will remain
below 2% for the next five years.

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:...
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.

In addition, the free versions of Linux are only supported
with free fixes for about a year, says Michael Silver, an
analyst with Stamford, Conn.-based Gartner group.
...
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."

Compatibility:
But the single biggest disadvantage Linux has on the desktop
is in applications ... Where substitutes are available, he
adds, most are not supported, or don't have the full feature
sets of the commercial variants.
...
Other large-scale examples of Linux deployments tend to fall
into one of these two extremes. Either employees use their
machines in very limited ways -- such as bank tellers, for
example, or store clerks -- or in very sophisticated ways
where they often write their own applications and need the
power and control that Linux offers.

In the big middle ground, however, the applications rule, and
companies choose the platforms that give employees the
software they need to do their jobs. That means Windows for
general business applications, and Macs for specialized
graphics work.

Very much what I have been telling the herd for some time - though the
article does not go into the usability issues of Linux itself very much.

* cc was unable to post a set of data that went back to 2007.
* cc is unable to post an Excel Workbook or otherwise back his claims.
* cc failed to show any sigma depiction I called wrong that was not.
* cc could not list a single step missed in making a linear trend line.