They don't have to compete - they have a license from ARM. But why not compete - it's not like any advances they make won't be useful elsewhere in their product mix.

The problem with any "strong arming" is that it would be the same as if, say, Illinois went bankrupt (now estimated at ~20% over the next 5 years). The Feds aren't responsible for bonds issued by the state of Illinois.

The goal wasn't to yank anyone's chain, but to point out that the problems that hinder linux acceptance have been around for more than a decade, and nobody is really addressing them.

FreeBSD has about a 77% market share with OpenBSD and NetBSD accounting for most of the rest. There's nowhere near the same level of fragmentation that you see in the linux world. This means far less wasteful duplication of work, and less confusion as to "what is a standard BSD system."

Linux? ~1000 distros, none with a majority of the market.

Most of the comparisons of Win7 are against Vista, not XP. Here are the minimums:

XP:
Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk

Vista (other than Home Basic):
-gigahertz (GHz) 32-bit (x86) processor or 1-GHz 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB of system memory
Windows Aero-capable graphics card
128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
40-GB hard disk

Windows 7
1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

Windows 8
1 GHz or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

All the systems after XP required a minimum of 4x the cpu and 4x-8x the ram. People I know who triple-boot (linux, xp, win7) say that xp is by far the fastest, and the most stable. Looking at the minimum requirements, it's obvious why.

BTW - Wine is nowhere near ready to handle everything. Looking at the WineHQ database, there are more Garbage ratings than Platinum ones. Worse, what works on one distro isn't repeatable on another.

I appreciate that you have an axe to grind, but when you bring up Android we have to have a separate discussion about kernels and userland and desktop environment, and what is fugly and what is comparable to BSD and what is not. Frankly I suspect neither of us are qualified to entertain such.

It's not an "axe to grind." Android, is not an operating system, and anyone who thinks otherwise has been drinking the Oracle Koolaid. When I wrote multi-threading servers in c/c++, the difference between linux and bsd was one include extra file for bsd, and a conditional compile for one small section of loadable module code, so I think I have some insight into the practicalities of writing applications for both environments.

Now, when you write:

it should be a foregone conclusion that any OS stable enough to be used on millions of servers should be stable enough for desktop use

... that's just plain wrong. Servers for the most part run headless. They also usually run a very limited number of services, and few if any other peripherals. Desktops? A gazillion different printers, cameras, sound cards, scanners, digitizers, and just about anything else that can be plugged into a motherboard slot or a usb. And then there's video cards.

And that's before we consider the software ecosystem, which is much broader for a desktop.

So no, you can't expect a server OS to work just as well as a desktop.

And that's why I'm saying that, for servers, stick with BSD, and for end users, if you can get a mac then more power to you, otherwise for the foreseeable future, you'll probably save time just running Windows until (if ever) the linux distros get their collective act together, because a desktop is more than just a kernel.

Better watch yourself - the followers of the cult of the foot-cheese eater do not like heretics, just like they don't like witches ;-)

Speaking of bad UI decisions, I blame the tablets. Metro is the absolute worst thing Microsoft has ever made, but the latest Gnome, contrary to what SJVN claims, is awful.

Attempts to turn the desktop into some sort of "dashboard", whether its MetroPoop, (dis)Unity or Gnome, are misguided at best.

If netbooks are dead, [ARM-powered] tablets killed them, not cheap laptops.

The decline of netbooks preceded the current tablet craze. Cheap x86 laptops cannibalized the market, not anything from ARM.

I've never heard anyone complain about a laggy interface on a smartphone/tablet.

android laggy screen returns over 4 million results. It's been a problem from the beginning. Of course, if you're not running android, you probably don't have the same problems.

Or maybe I decided that my time is worth more than having to distro-hop because every distro eventually turns to crap, same as everyone else I know has abandoned linux.

You have a problem when people who have been defending you for a decade or more get fed up. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nyah-nyah-nyah-i-can't-hear-you" or otherwise denying that linux today isn't even where xp was a decade ago ... well, that's just fine and dandy.

Just like all those "WORKS_FOR_ME" and "WONT_FIX" responses to bugs. Keep it up, and one day you'll find that everyone else has either moved on to a mac, gone back to windows, or sideways to freebsd.

5 years from now, the only piece of gpl code in RedHat will be the linux kernel. Think of what that implies for a minute.

And yet Microsoft makes more profit in one day than all the linux businesses in the world combined in one year. Actually, Microsoft made more profit last quarter ($5.11 billion) than the total ANNUAL REVENUE of all linux vendors.

But even that paled next to Apple, at $11.6 billion in profit for the quarter.

Windows is only "niche" when compared to Apple, and even then it's a bit of a stretch to say so.

Now if you were to say that Windows 8 is the worst product Microsoft ever made, I would agree. But end users don't care - they'll just stick with Windows 7 (or even XP, even after it goes EOL on April 8th, 2014) and see if Windows 9 is any better. Or they'll buy a mac. Or an ipad. Or an iphone.

When netbooks came out, a single-core laptop with 512 megs of ram, 60 gigs hd and a cd-rom was $679.

Today, you can buy Core i5 2.5GHz, 8gig DDR3, 640gig hd, dvd burner, and 64-bit Windows for $30 less.

Price compression like that is why netbooks are dying. For less than $400 you can get a laptop that runs rings around any $300 netbook. People would for the most part rather pay the extra $100 and get a much more capable machine.

Hi, welcome to the Internet. It runs on linux.

And 20 years from now, it will be back to running on a variant of BSD. These things go in cycles. So what's your point?

You're still using a desktop? How cute

Thank you. Glad you realize that tablets and smartphones aren't nearly as flexible. They don't have twin 26" displays, they suck at multitasking, they can't just be left alone to do a job for days at a time, they are more limited in terms of storage, they have relatively crappy sound, and they tend to get lost easier.

Did you know that for some unexplained reason, linux is required to do everything that any other OS does in addition to having its own software? Weird, right? Most of the time this involves no support from device manufacturers or other software developers, and usually there's no money in it for the linux dev.

So change the license to a more friendly one, like BSD. Oops, you can't - so linux will reach a peak and go no further. It's already happened on the desktop, where linux went from a peak of 2.5% about a decade ago to 1% today (and most of that 1% also dual-boot into Windows, so it's really a fraction of 1% overall). It's only a matter of time before it also happens in every other market, because manufacturers just don't need the hassles of dealing with raving freetards like RMS - or have you forgotten about his anti-android, anti-gpl2 fud? And how he was trying to claim that Android and Linux should switch to GPLv3 (if Linux ever *did* switch to GPLv3, Google would release a FreeBSD version of the Android stack, just like they will if Oracle ever wins anything significant).

Contrast that to FreeBSD. Apple built Darwin atop it, and continues to pay FreeBSD devs for code (not to mention contributing back that code). People are willing to pay a premium for quality, whereas you can't even GIVE linux away. I know - everyone I gave it to, including other devs, has abandoned it. I was the last.

Really it makes so little sense that the best explanation for people using linux on their desktops is that they're experiencing a mass hallucination. I'm sure you'll agree.

Not a "mass" hallucination. Remember, linux desktop market share has dropped by 60% from its peak, while the FreeBSD derivative just keeps growing. And why you have to hide the linux fugliness from the end user with Android.

It's pretty bad when none of the latest linux distros is anywhere near as stable as plain old XP+SP2. SP2 was released in 2004. Here we are 8 years later, and no linux distro (not Debian, not OpenSuse, not Fedora, not any one of the others I've used over the last 15 years) is as fast or as stable.

And of course, the range of software (which is what it's all about in the end - without software, any os is pretty much useless) is much greater than linux.

And yet, the cpu you used as a baseline, AMD X2, has noticeable lag running KDE (Vista runs better - which tells you something about just how much bloat has crept into Linux distros lately).