Sam O'Var writes:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-1653198.html

Unless dramatic changes occur in the world of Linux, it will never be a
significant threat to Windows or a serious option for the vast majority of
computer users. The musician in the article typifies the problems with the
OS, and one can see generally that the more intensively a user uses his
computer for real work, the more problems Linux presents.

Linux is fine for geeks who do not actually do work with their computers, as
they can afford to fiddle with the OS endlessly--they have nothing else to do.
And people who use their computers for only one or two things, such as surfing
the Web and reading e-mail, may find Linux acceptable. But for everyone else,
it's just not a solution.

Linux is not really moving in the right direction to change this, and some
fundamental problems with Linux will prevent it from doing so. For example,
Windows includes components licensed from other companies that are not free;
Linux can never include these components unless it also includes a licensing
fee for them, and then it won't be free any more (and it will become a lot
more complicated if it goes that route). That's one reason why the musician
might not be able to find all the codecs he needs.

Of course, if you start paying for Linux, most of its advantages over Windows
evaporate. It is not more stable or secure, despite claims along those lines.
The vast number of "distributions" are actually different operating systems,
that share only a small core of common code that isn't enough to ensure
stability or security itself.

There are just many, many problems with Linux. I'd welcome a drop-in
replacement for Windows that could effectively provide some degree of
competition, but Linux isn't it, and the way things are going, it never will
be.