Linux on the desktop is a failure because of its own lack of innovation and imagination.
Really? Because other than the availability of applications for it, can you name even one thing that Linux itself actually lacks? I'm betting that you can't. Can you further explain how the lack of applications being developed for Linux is anything other than a reflection of the fact that not many people use it in the first place, which itself is a direct consequence of the fact that the applications that people want aren't found on it? Of course, it's a vicious cycle... but that's not the operating system's fault. Before Visicalc came out, for instance, there was almost no practical reason whatsoever for any non hobbyist or professional computer programmer or computer scientist to ever own one of these new-fangled home computers. Visicalc's success was not because of any technical merits of the computing platform it was developed for, it was because it was software that did what people actually wanted, and so people went and bought it.