But it would be just fine with me if the Linux-on-the-desktop people--at least the ones who leave TalkBack responses to my columns on seemingly any topic--would please go away. Read someone else's column. Harass that person for a change.
THESE DESKTOP LINUX people are just like the adherents to any concept that has failed in the marketplace of ideas: They don't know when to let go, and make fools of themselves as a result.
The commercial Linux community, as represented by Red Hat Chairman Bob Young, has come to the conclusion that Linux on the desktop is a non-starter. Further, the controversy and distraction the issue creates takes attention from Linux as a server OS, where it really shines and provides a real alternative to Microsoft products.
I encourage those of you who are willing to share my pain to check out the reaction to my Monday column, "Try a Mac? Why it won't hurt as much as you think." Reading between the lines of some of the TalkBacks, I see a five-letter word: CHEAP.
YES, DESKTOP LINUX is almost free and doesn't require tithing to Microsoft. But soon the desktop Linux folks won't have the free StarOffice to throw at me as proof of their platform's superiority and zero cost of entry.
According to published reports, Sun Microsystems, which bought the German-built multiplatform productivity suite a few years ago, is going to start charging for versions adapted to non-Sun platforms.
This means Sun has given up on the idea that giving away StarOffice would mess with sales of Microsoft Office. Sun now wants the program to pay its own way. StarOffice is a decent enough suite and is certainly worth the $50 to $100 Sun is expected to charge for it.
BUT I WONDER how many desktop Linux zealots will be willing to pay for StarOffice? My guess: not many. My perception of these folks--and it's very likely I am describing only a vocal minority, so if this isn't you, I apologize--is that they don't want to spend a dime on software and consider themselves deserving and even superior because they possess the high level of technical skill required to make Linux work.
How you build a vibrant computing platform when nobody is willing to spend money on it escapes me.
Running Linux on servers is different, mostly because the Linux that's available today is clearly capable of doing that job quite well. Server Linux is also becoming something the big systems companies seem to throw in as a way to sell expensive hardware, expensive server applications, and expensive services contracts.
MAKE NO MISTAKE: Linux servers are a cause for concern in Redmond and a source for happiness in data centers worldwide. Desktop Linux, on the other hand, is rapidly being assigned to the trash pile of computing history. Like scientific socialism, it will go down as an idea that sounded good on paper but didn't work in the real world.
If the proponents of desktop Linux are really honest, they will move to a Unix platform that has all the things Linux lacks: a great user interface, a large number of applications, support of a profitable major vendor, an industry guru who's taken extremely seriously, and even the cover of Time magazine.
I'm talking about buying a Macintosh, of course. But running OS X would actually cost these Linux geeks money, and that's something I am not sure any of them are willing to spend. Still, if these people hated all things Microsoft as much as many of them proclaim to, you'd think rallying around Unix-based OS X would be the best way to advance their cause.
But only if they're willing to put some money where their much-too-loud mouths are.
Do you think that Linux on the desktop is a lost cause? Why or why not? Would a Mac be a happy destination for the desktop Linux crowd? TalkBack to me here.
