Oh, these silly highly respected experts... (Score 1)

As a linux advocate, I do appreciate negative feedback... Illustrating flaws is a very important part of the improvement process. :-) However... Is it possible for an article to criticize linux without using the phrase "kiss of death" or "end of the revolution"? I understand how trendy sensationalism is, but come on... The author points out that despite his opinions, linux is very popular and becoming more so. Not to mention that the problems he cites as making linux unviable are: Ignorance (No one knows how to use it, no one knows how to install it, no one trusts "free software" because it is traditionally overpriced) Poor Development (REAL "Mission Critical" software like NT releases updates on a quarterly basis, and you are encouraged not to use them since they may damage your machine. Besides, fixing bugs isn't profitable.) Poor Support (Real tech support costs a few hundred dollars subscription, along with $245 "per incident", on top of the cost of an overpriced operating system; People in linux newsgroups and IRC channels can smell the Micrsoft residue on your Nick and just want to hurt you) Lack of software (Gnumeric, StarOffice, and mySQL are equivalent or better than their "legitimate" counterparts, and also free, which stinks of communism or something) Apocrypha (My uncle jimbo at HP says Linux is less stable than NT, costs more than NT, has a threatening, violent looking mascot, and causes cancer, blindness, hairy palms and communism in lab rats.) We can still learn something useful from this: If these are the most pressing arguements the Industry Experts can come up with, we must be doing a good job. ;-)