Re:I agree (Score 1)

Even if all these problems are solved (such as the GUI, ease of configuration, etc.), there still remains an insurmountable (or so it would seem) obstacle to the success of Linux on the desktop: the HUGE installed base of Windows-only applications. When it comes right down to it, people depend on those applications, whether they be Microsoft Office, Quicken/QuickBooks, or whatever. IMHO, to be successful on the desktop, Linux (or any other would-be alternative to Windows) must be binary-compatible at the application level, which is to say that it must seamlessly install and run ANY existing Windows application. And, practically speaking, that's just not going to happen for a lot of reasons, technical, legal, and otherwise. Mind you, I'm not saying that Windows is better; I'm merely stating the obvious -- if Linux (or any other alternative) is to be successful and induce people to switch in significant numbers, then application compatabiltiy is an absolute prerequisite. When it comes right down to it, it's the applications that control the desktop, not the operating system. I think Microsoft understands this, and consequently isn't worried about losing desktop market share -- to Linux, the Mac, or anyone else.