But what is wrong..?

The approach taken by distributions as mentioned is to provide lots of functionality in an easily downloaded package, that can be installed on most PCs, though it wasn't always like that, indeed even today installing Linux is still not for old aunt Annie.

I think the problem is, that concurring the world one download at the time just isn't going to make any real difference. Granted there has been some "success" stories about whole towns and medium sized companies switching, but as it stands today the installed desktop Linux base is still small and fragmented between a huge array of distributions.

In any venture which the goal of changing the world, the most critical issue is to convince the ones who can make a difference the they should change. Lots of effort has been made in convincing CTOs and CIOs and other CxO people, that Linux is the way forward. Mostly the cost of Linux has been promoted as the winning reason for why they should change. Obviously any CEO worth his salt will listen to such an argument, but as most CEOs are not IT experts, they often refer the question to their IT staff. And that is where I believe the answer lies!

The real decision maker is not the CEO, but the IT staff!

IT staff are usually not made up of geeks the likes to tinker with the OS on their PC, but are make up of professional people that has a specific problem to solve. If a solution comes along that solves a current problem better than the solution they already have, most of them will switch to that new solution. The problem for Linux on the desktop is, that it doesn't solve a current problem better than the solution the IT staff currently have, and as long as that is the case, ubiquitous Desktop Linux will remain a wet dream of the fans of the penguin.

Linux on the desktop - status

Over the last few years there has been a lot of talk of "linux on the desktop", however it seems like not a lot has happened, despite all the talk and all the promises that "this is the year when it will take off", Linux on the desktop is still only on the enthusiasts desktop.

In the beginning the reason given for the lack of uptake was that it was too difficult for the average user to install and to use and the switch from Windows was too complicated. But in the last couple of years we have seen Linux distributions that actually are quite user friendly and that I would expect even non-tech savvy users would be able to install and use. Ubuntu being the prime example of this type of distribution. Surprisingly at the same time, it seems like the calls for near Linux world domination has quieted down as well...

The focus of most distributions has been to add functionality and to look as much as Windows as possible (while adding it's own unique feel) to make the transition transparent and to prevent expected complaints of "why can't I do in Linux what I can do in Windows". While this approach is understandable and to a large degree necessary it is also unambitious. For me it begs the question of why would anyone switch if I don't get any more than I already have.

The converted will reply that you do get more: No viruses, it is free, masses of software, the ability to run on older hardware etc. But to be honest is that enough to start the revolution (an a revolution is needed!) of switching users from Windows to Linux in numbers that are meaningful?

I don't think so...