Linux won't take off on the desktop until there until more familiar commercial software is available on that platform and better drivers support for gadgets like printers, cameras and scanners. What good is a free OS if I can't buy software for it or install the software that came with my new camera?

The big difference between the Mac OS and Linux on the desktop is the availability (and choice) of purchasing commercial packages like Microsoft Office, iTunes, etc. Yes, Adobe Flash and Java are available for Linux distros, but many of these nice, free, plug ins like Flash aren't bundled with the netbooks sold these days. What precisely is the problem with vendors such as Dell or HP bundling commercial drivers or packages on Linux? Why can't these netbooks give users the full experience out of the box without the pain?

I, for one, don't mind paying for and running commercial software on a free OS if this software was available (yes, I know I can purchase Oracle or DB2 for Linux, but what desktop users need them?). I don't have a problem with it it all. It certainly beats waiting for someone in the community to do it themselves.

Ultimately, the notion of unlimited use of any resource is unsustainable. Why should Internet bandwidth or cell phone minutes be any different? People will simply think of ways to use the resource more and more, as we have with the Internet with uses as varied as Twitter, which use the resource lightly, to streaming movies which gobble it up.

If AT&T and other Internet and mobile phone providers simply charged a reasonable rate per GB in addition to a fixed per account administrative fee to cover per account administrative costs, the need to cap usage would go away. Big users would find themselves paying much more than users that use it more sparingly, giving them incentive to use less of the resource. This sort of fee structure would be more transparent and resemble the fee structures utilities have been using for years.