Finally, a dash of realism. Linux was never designed to be a domestic OS, so I don't know why everyone was so enthusiastic about it.
For a long time, Red Hat has been trying to change Linux into a desktop machine, and Linux people have outright resisted it. Many people I've talked to refuse to recognize Red Hat as "Linux". I think Red Hat just got tired of the backlash.
Personally, I don't think Linux, as a GNU/XWindows package, will ever break into the desktop market. The technology was not designed with that use in mind, and the people who use Linux now have little, if any, interest in dumbing down the OS for normal people. Linux was created as a low-cost UNIX for college students, and many have used it as a programming and server platform. It will probably remain in that arena.
Windows95 with IE 5.0 was pretty good for functionality, if a bit crash prone. Most drivers could be installed by adding them manually with the Add New Hardware control panel, and most programs could be run right from the HD without needing an installer. If something was difficult, at least it was consistant so you only had to learn it once. I can re-install Win95 in a snap.
Once Microsoft started introducing wizards to do everything (including the annoying "Clippy" mascott in MS Word), everything really started getting frustrating. Every manufacturer has a unique way of doing things, programs won't run without registry keys, wizards galore ask you stupid questions that aren't needed, installers support pop-ups for all sub-functions, things have to be installed or pluged in a certain order for them to work, you HAVE to download critical updates regularly to patch the "automatic download" security holes... the list goes on.
Windows is at the end of its life cycle, and has really gotten out of control, so saying Linux is better than Windows really isn't saying much at all. It won't be long before the Explorer system is discontinued and replaced with something else. What bugs me is that many companies clone the Microsoft way of doing things, becuase MS has been so successful with it, so the next generation of OS's may not be better. Many Linux systems aimed at the desktop market are adopting Microsoft methods. Faster, more efficient, but not more functional. I'd have more respect for MacOS X if Steve Jobs wasn't devil incarnate. The way he runs that company is rediculous. No motherboard upgrades for G4 towers? Gimme a break.
And for OS4 or MorphOS, I need proprietary hardware. There's no way in hell I'm buying a new OS, for that much money, without trying it first, and I can't do that on my x86 box. They have unrealistic ideas of hardware platforms. The future of computing doesn't look too bright to me. No wonder Microsoft owns it all.
