Again, a big article was written to support a false thesis:
“why hasn’t Linux on the desktop taken off?”
In it Maria Korolov trots out a long list of “problems” with GNU/linux for large businesses. Here’s an example: “a typical organization will have one application for every 10 users, and, today, about half of those applications require the Windows operating system”
That makes no sense at all. It means businesses, money-making organizations, are foolishly paying for far too many applications. The largest organizations on the planet are governments and as we saw in Munich, it is worthwhile to shed unnecessary applications and rationalize the rest.
Then, there’s training. As if using a desktop paradigm that has been around for two decades requires a lot of training for users familiar with XP! I have often handed a GNU/Linux desktop over to a visitor with no hand-holding and some are not even aware that it is not that other OS. Munich found it did not reach its budget for training even though they were formal about it. Networking amongst staff costs little, is a part of normal business and gets the job done without phoning IT.
Even money. TFA suggests that the savings in licensing are eaten up by higher support costs. Nonsense! What about the malware and slowing down and re-re-reboots and Patch Tuesday? That costs a lot. There’s huge saving in using a package manager such as APT to manage a fleet of PCs. Large organizations like the French national police, IBM, Google, Munich, have no problem at all saving money with FLOSS.
Get over it, Maria. The world does not owe M$ a living.
For a good laugh, read Why Linux is a desktop flop
The bottom line? Even if everything in TFA article were true, none of it applies to non-business use of IT which is huge. The same people who quote NetApplications as stating GNU/Linux is 1% of something have nothing to say when NetApplications shows the region around San Francisco, USA, has 28% GNU/Linux clients. That would not happen if anything in TFA were true.