I think a sideproduct of that is the support for alternative architectures as well. I have been considering a Carputer as a free-time project for a while, and I have no doubt that I will run Linux on it, but the decision is really x86 or PPC? And unfortunately it seems more and more that the x86 architecture has stiffled support for other architectures. It was widely heralded as a good thing when Google released the Beta of Google Earth v4 for Linux. But, its a shell script which runs an installer, and is all packaged up in a binary format. They don’t say that you have to be running x86, but when you are running something else, you begin to understand to look for that i386 early on. Its unfortunate, because there is a lot of hardware that isn’t supported, but that little detail right there makes it easier for Windows Converts. But, any company which supports multiple platforms will definitely be more highly regarded. Even if they choose to use a crippled licensing version but to allow the source that can be built on platforms they don’t have access too, (Alpha, etc.)

As far as the GUI goes, I don’t see why that is an issue, There are two main DEs, which will work well for most anyone. This is my oppinion, but if you are more familiar with the Mac style of DE, then you will prefer Gnome, and if you are a Microsoft User, then you will more than likely prefer KDE. The benefit to the DE scheme that Linux has in place is that you can have any DE you want installed, and from the login screen (thats where users like my mom will get into trouble) you can choose whichever one you want, and the other ones won’t be affected by this choice.

I agree that a major retail chain needs to stock Linux based computers, but I just don’t think that is going to happen. I think that Macs have a hard enough time in that environment.

As a sidenote, I was looking at the top of the line Dell XPS Starfighter or whatever it is, and noticed a little link, definately not calling attention to itself on the bottom of the page, to “Build Your Own” or something like that. Basically you pay the same amount of money, and they just ship you the parts, and you assemble it yourself. Well, its the same amount, but there are pieces missing, which isn’t that cool, but what is cool is the only OS offered in that configuration is FreeDOS. A $0 OS that “will not utilize the hardware in the computer”. Seems like though they know people are going to pirate their MS OSs on it, they are making small steps towards allowing people like me not to have to buy Software I don’t want.

Mergers are not the answer. The answer comes in standards implemented by many companies. As Mr O says “… there is no all encompassing OS solution for everyone and every situation.” As an example, the Microsoft monopoly has homogenized and hurt the tech industry, shutting down new technologies with their threats or with their buying of new and competitive technologies. We need an open industry, which Linux companies brings to the table, where a company competes on the merits of their products, not the force of their monopoly or threats by their lawyers.

Moving from that argument to the argument about Linux becoming Closed Source, or Proprietary software, it will never happen. Very simply, the GPL forbids it. And, if it were to do it, it would inherit the same problems that every other Closed Source Operating System has. With Linux, the community can come together to diagnose and fix problems in the code. Take for instance the quick response that was seen when Coverity released their findings of over 900 flaws in 32 open source projects, and they were all fixed within two weeks. This level of response has never been seen by any closed source system. And the reason is that the resources aren’t there. With open source, the code is out there so that anybody can check it, verify its integrity, and repair it. You know that Linux will never “Phone home” without telling you because if it were to do that, somebody would find it in the code and point it out. That option is not available in a Closed Source system. Now, don’t take my comments the wrong way and assume that I don’t think developers should be paid for their work. Rather the opposite, I think developers should be compensated, and should be compensated well. And by producing varifiably good code, they will be. However, I think the business model of Linux is better. The business model used by Redhat is a great one in my oppinion. They have a product that they sell, at a minimal price, but the real bulk of their income comes from supporting that product. And, their symbiotic relationship with the Fedora product is interesting, because they have offloaded their R&D costs to the community, who gets minimal support for their efforts, but is backed up by the large corporation. By going with Fedora, you arguably get the bleeding edge products, in a potentially unstable system, but there is no cost involved. If you want support and proven stability at the expense of the bleeding edge features, then the appropriately priced Redhat System is for you. The biggest detriment to Open Source Software is the way that the US Patent Office hands out patents for software, and the way that it stiffles innovation. By leveraging the patent office, big business can keep the smaller open source developers from actually coming out with new code, which is one of the reasons that Corporations like IBM, Redhat, and Novell are essential to the success of Linux. It is their power in the world of patents and protecting Open Source software that will accellerate it beyond what is available through other providers.

I will conceed that the situation of documentation is a place that severly needs help in the Linux world. However, I will draw version control away from that argument. I feel that the version control in the Linux/Open Source world is far superior to anything from Microsoft/Apple, and mainly because applications can usually be upgraded from version to version, with very little effort. In fact, on my Ubuntu system, I meerly have to do a single terminal command (accessible through the GUI if you want) to upgrade every piece of software on my system. “sudo apt-get upgrade”. And, that is benefitted by the fact that the Linux world has so much software that its very difficult to find a task for which a piece of software doesn’t exist. The big three distributions have repositories of software, usually precompiled for the common systems (x86), ready to be installed over the net for free with just a few mouse clicks. That is far superior to the idea of going to a store and spending tons of money to get software. I am not against paying for software, but I would love to see some sort of repository based internet install come around for Microsoft/Apple. With the permeation of Broadband, I think that would really help any system.

I will just disregard the comment about “reliance on browser based front ends” because I don’t think that is in any way a Linux issue. Maybe clarification would help, but I think that is a problem / benefit of any system. I am considering GMail as a viable example of the way it can be good. But, I also see Windows Explorer as a bad implementation of the same thing but tethered to the local machine. And, for what its worth, I don’t think that any system has ever come close to matching the excelent column view found in OS X. When that gets added into Gnome or KDE, then there will be a real winner there. Which I should comment on. In the multititude of Distributions, there are also a variety of Window Managers, with the two prevelant ones being Gnome and KDE. There are also more lightweight ones which are useful for older machines. I do think your idea of merging is a good idea here. I would like to see both Gnome and KDE fork, with their respective offshoots merging into one Window Manager that would be able to present itself to the new user. And, as the WM is the first, and more than likely only thing that a new user will really see, this helps to make any of the Linux Distrobutions differences more transparent after the switch.

In the next 5-10 years, I think that Linux will make significant growth into the desktop market, more and more as people like my mother begin to switch to Linux. I think that Microsoft’s bloating OS’s and unrealistic minimum system requirements are going to help drive this to some degree. And as it moves into the home sector, people will become more willing to accept it at work. I think that it would be a stretch to say that the majority of the market share will move, but I think that advances in Open Document formats is helping, and the continued expansion of government utilization of Open Source Software alternatives will help to expand the market. I also think that in the next few years, we will see another killer virus (not that I will have anything to do with it, nor do I advocate it at all), that will help to put Microsoft onto shakey ground. I think in this position, they will make significant advances in security, exceeding the changes in Vista, but I think that it will shake consumer trust enough to give other systems a look.

I have tried to answer most if not all of your comments, but, I am sure something probably slipped through. I hope I haven’t come accross as a “Linux-Fanboy”, but if I did, oh well. And, if I didn’t mention it, while I used to think that the abolishment of Microsoft was a good thing, I don’t think it is. Without the competition, I don’t think any system will become better. I do however wish that some of Microsoft’s practices would change, but I think the same thing for practices of Apple and Linux as well.

At the end of the day its about solutions. Money solutions, time solutions, tech admin solutions, client usage solutions. I believe there is no all encompassing OS solution for everyone and every situation. For some Linux is affordable and easy, however a MCSE, Novell admin, or a Apple admin may not agree. Further more the opposite may be true for others. A couple examples of products with different types of users and strengths come to mind.
OpenOffice or Microsoft Office
Tivo or MythTV

Many tools with many solutions, choose your path.