That's is own opinion. The first computer my mum used was a linux box. She's unable to use a windows machine. As far as I can remember, in 95, most people hadn't a clue how to use a windows computer and were spending a lot of time trying to get things together. It's just that now they are used to windows, and not that linux is more complicated than windows. Let me take as an example macintosh users. Why arent't there more macintosh users ? Just because most people don't know how to run a computer, but they know how to run a windows computer. Quite a difference indeed...
Nearly three years ago one of my companies computed our new license and support costs across $soft and two other $ vendors. We looked at the numbers and decided to do a linux migration evaluation pilot. I was charged with leading the pilot. I did NOT want to do this as it meant a lot of extra work on my part - which it was. At the end of the pilot I was amazed at how well the open source systems had evolved. Not too long after that we started converting systems of the $ vendors and one day I gave the order that the entire company (we were less than 100 employees at teh time) switch to the Gnome desktop, open office and custom replacements. We basically duplicated our $soft environment for free. Everyone managed and prospered. If we could do it anyone can and they can save a lot of money. FYI: everyone complains about CUPS and other printer support systems in Linux - it is one of the places that there needs to be improvements .. however it does work.
That is nonsense. I have seen many cases of similar problems with windows. Don't forget that $soft has many peripheral manufacturers lined up with all kind of means REFUSING to even publish data about their interface controllers. This situation is highly artificial and could change over a rather short period of time. Further, this has nothing to do with intrinsic merits of the OS concerned. In fact, UNIX/Linux is much superior and advanced in the design of its driver architecture. Drivers can be loaded and unloaded dynamically. (Let's better shut up about "The Registry" and its popular "cleansing agents" for dirty hives! )
Well, we can all argue about it until we are blue in the face, but the market has spoken and will continue to speak. The market-share numbers don't support a huge adoption of Linux, just a gradual creep up. And I don't see a catalyst for a big upswing in the Linux numbers. I don't know why Linux fans can't have an objective discussion about the OS market without bringing up how wonderful Linux is. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW WONDERFUL IT IS. (ask a Mac user) I agree with you that Linux is in most ways a superior piece of technology. You don't have to convince me!
Ballmer seems to see things rather a bit differently than you! http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=2042 also: http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2005102000126OSBZKN Remember "cheap" NT's climb of a only few years ago? NT used to be peanuts in servers next to IBM, Sun, DEC. But when the leading trend is in servers, the rest follows. That's why Ballmer is getting restless. What Agyar sees is unimportant. Not so long ago, many guys used to have IBM, DEC and Sun engraved on their eyeballs.
Exactly: When I started in the Microsoft solutions channel in 1992 there were no Microsoft servers and the desktop was just starting to catch on .... Everyone said that NT server was garbage - and it was then but it got better. Same with the first version of SQLserver/ Sybase server. Look at where it is now. When I worked for DOE we used a DEC mini system: it was ubiquitous. ... Long gone ... Beleive me, the peanuts in Linux are turning into a river - the equation is based upon cost, nothing more.
$softs driver architecture design is IMHO designed only to eliminate competition: it will fail on that attempt as well.
It sounds like you have never heard of the monopolistic position of Microsoft.... Once you take that into account, all you just said is a non-sense... People don't really have a choice. Let me take an example : how many job ads have you read were it was written : "knowledge of openoffice suite" ? We have left M$ grow on its monopolistic position for too long, it is quite normal that now it takes a longer time for people to discover that other things exist...but they will...with time. We are just the first to have seen the light....and usually the ones who knew what was a computer....before M$ developed windows 3.1.
I'll disagree with you again here. I've been a DBA and a developer on both SQL Server and Oracle systems. Compared to Oracle, SQL Server is still garbage in my opinion. SQL Server has Oracle beat hands down as far as ease-of-use, but unlike on the desktop that doesn't matter nearly as much for a database. Data integrity, scalability, and uptime are a BIG DEAL for a database and MS still isn't there. I haven't tried SQL Server 2005 yet though, so maybe my opinion will change. Oracle 10g running RAC on a Linux cluster is about as much fun as a database geek can have.
Would this be a bad time to say that Open Office 2.0 released today. Just downloaded it. Do I really need M$? Slowly but surely, I'm moving away.