As much as I bash M$ the simple fact is they will always be the dominant OS. Not because of some crooked things or getting rid of the competition. The reason M$ will always be the dominant OS is because of ease of use.
The reason Linux will never be mainstream can be summed up in three lines:
$ ./configure
$ make depend && make
$ sudo make install
No. Mainstream people do not want to go to a command line to compile and install stuff. We want to click on a happy little icon, hit next three or four times, then hit finished.
Now I've been in the command line world. I know how to do it, I've done it before. There is no reason for it any longer with today's computers. Linux has GUI available, but still gotta go to the command line to install it or run it, then gotta go to the command line to install anything onto the GUI, then gotta go to the command line to remove anything, etc etc.
Until Linux gets away from requiring the command line it will never ever be mainstream.
I have the answer to this question. After 28 years of working with average users I find the answer to be obvious.
1. The average user only learns the function he needs to get his daily tasks done. He is ignorant of 99% of the operating system.
2. The average user doesn't know if his computer has a firewall or anti-virus protection. He has no idea that virus data files must be updated and/or his update license has expired.
3. The average user will click on anything and reflexively clicks yes at every opportunity.
4. The virus writing crowd concentrates on XP because most users use XP. The same is true for malware and adware/crapware writers. There is little point in writing programs that will never run.
Linux is a good desktop if you don't want to run the thousands (millions?) of programs that are available for the PC. Linux is reasonably fast, almost free to operate, and can do most office tasks adequately. The office suite software for Linux is acceptable, but not exceptional.
Linux is ready for the desktop, but not ready for the average user who doesn't want to learn anything and wants to play Doom and Grand Theft Auto.
I use Linux, but have to switch to my PC to run Exchange. Perhaps there is a kluge for that problem, but I don't know it yet.
This couldn't possibly have anything to do with the number of these systems in use relative to others.
Why must we get into these sorts of religious arguments on a Sunday?
Engineers work with the seven layer ISO networking model - physical, data link, network, transport, session, presentation and application. Each has defined functions and standards for how it communicates with other systems and with other layers.
Business has added three layers on top of these. They are not defined by any Swiss standards body and there are no RFCs that I know of that explain their functionality.
These three layers are:
Financial - How much will it cost and how does it get paid for. Linux is the superior product at this layer in terms of purchase price. In total cost of ownership terms, the jury is out. This is where the bean counters make their decisions.
Political - Who is for it and can they get it implemented. Microsoft’s marketing clout reaches for the hearts and minds of those of the top of the corporate pyramid. Linux will always be at a disadvantage here.
Religious - Is it a holy thing. This level is ruled by the technical priesthoods. Unfortunately this is where most techies (as opposed to engineers) make their decisions. The vendors strategies at this layer are to get the believers early in their careers and bind them to the order with certifications. The lesser acolytes, the CCNAs, MCDSTs etc. are trained to aspire to higher levels of certifications - MCSE, CCIE, OCM... Oooooo.
Trying to introduce Linux or Mac into an environment ruled by MCSEs can be akin to introducing the Latin Mas at a Ramadan celebration. It can result in holy war. There may be no rational reason not to support Linux in a business, it may be the most cost effective, stable server platform for your business but until the Linux priesthood overtakes the Microsoft priesthood don’t look for wide Linux acceptance in the enterprise.
Good read.
Despite that, Linux is still the best OS for servers.
Something I have been saying for many years. With the presence of cheap computing hardware (and also the virtualization software) it’s no longer either/or, but picking the right tool for the right job.
I can’t (easily) run Quicken on linux so I do so on Windows XP. At work there are a number of proprietary apps that run only on Windows. Software development, while possible in a Windows environment, is something that I have always done in unix/linux. Same goes for many of the server processes that I like to run in linux like apache, samba, sshd etc. High performance gaming is a mostly Windows phenomenon.
I don’t use Macs but obviously many swear by them. I bet movie editing on macs is superior to the other platforms.
There is no perfect platform, but there are many to choose from, and for a given tasks or set of tasks, there is probably one that makes the most sense.
It should be about getting stuff done, not about religious wars.
"Can't we all just ... get along?"