I think I big problem with getting people to switch to Linux is games. The big games nearly always use DirectX which means Linux is a no-go area. I've see that some games are coming to Linux (UT2004 for example) but gamers are going to want 'doze for those which don't, which in turn doesn't encourage the game developers to write in OpenGL or the graphics/hardware manufacturers to support anything else. NVidia seem to be putting effort into making in easy for Linux users though. (Despite what I see on mailing lists about difficulties I found it a smooth install)

This is quite true, but now you can have great, nice, smooth games running on a Linux box thanks to proyects like loki installers for linux gamers and Cedega (a.k.a. WineX) --ok, Cedega doesn't run as smooth as I would like-- and some games come with installers for Linux like Doom3 and UT2004, as mentioned before, which both run better in Linux (freaking much better!!) than in windoze. I also have installed UnrealTournament (the very first one, the best to me) on my Linux boxes and runs pretty nice with OpenGL.

raska- thanks for that link to loki! I had never heard of it before...

That's quite true, but you're also looking at a specific target audience - gamers. The only reason I still have Windows is to play games, but really I don't need it for anything else. I've just been working out how much it would cost to upgrade 20 computers to Windows XP Pro with Office (in my article), and the price is scarily high - so just imagine what it would be for Vista (including all the new hardware you'd need to buy). I certainly won't be upgrading, that's for sure...

I wish the article was true. I really do.

However, there wasn't a massive move to Linux when Microsoft introduced XP and its widely criticized authentication schemes. It also had greater system requirements that 2000Pro, Me, or 98SE. People complained, but then companies and individuals bought their new computers with XP preinstalled and that was the end of that.

Although I agree that now is a good time to move to Linux and avoid Vista for a variety of reasons, the reality is that no IT manager will lose his job for recommending Vista. However, if the same person recommends Novell's desktop Linux (the example in the article) and Novell drops the ball (as they have before), the situation will not be so pretty. I think that very few corporate professionals will take that risk. The consumer market will not be much different. They will buy their new computer and take whatever OS is provided. If Dell or some other company puts Vista in the box, well, that is what they will be using. Regarding the enthusiasts that build their own computers and install their own OSs--I suspect that a large percentage of them are gamers. Unfortunately (as has been mentioned) Linux is not the way to go in a gamer box.

of course it is!! All the games I have run on Linux (no emulation please, natively) run much better, smoother and nicer than on windoze xp, you should see how Doom3 takes less of the half time to load than on windoze and with 5+ FPS (I'm not joking).

I'm expecting to buy a nice, expensive, new machine on May 2006; not to install that buggy, restrictive, slow, resource-hungry "Vista" operative system but to install the latest stable slackware version (not a distro war here) with the latest stable compiled-by-myself 2.6.x kernel and I shall see how smooth the games can run specially on UT2007

I think one of the biggest issues is getting IT Managers to realize Linux is an alternative. In the govt. agencies I've worked, they have so much invested in MS that they see no other option. For example, our CTO has deemed us an "MS shop". Pretty much sealed the fate that none of our 30,000+ desktops will ever go Linux. (except mine ;-))

I have Doom 3 running in my PC on both the XP and Linux sides. I have not checked the timedemo (I can do so, of course), but I have noticed that the sound in Doom 3 is not as good in Linux as it is in XP, since the sound drivers are not as good in Linux. Still, being able to run an id game (or UT) in Linux does not make Linux a gamer's OS. It could be, but it is not now. For one thing, most titles use DirectX. The number of OpenGL games is small, and perhaps even dwindling. For example Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike: Source, Day of Defeat: Source cannot be run in Linux. (If they can, let me know and I will gladly change my tune.) The reality is that most of the new titles run in XP quite well, but finding a new, cutting-edge game that runs in Linux or even on an Apple is not that easy.

I personally don't see many people switching to Linux. With the current ipod craze and the switch by Apple to the Intel platform, Mac OS maybe the biggest gainer if Apple can get their act together and the pricing right. There are already a lot of people switching to the Mac because they like the look of Apples products. Sure Linux may gain some new users, but as long as there is a lot of FUD out there saying that Linux is not ready for the desktop, then for some people it may not be an option.

and FWIW, Novell's dumping of KDE will drive users from SuSE to Mandriva.

What goes around, comes around.

$.02

OK. If we say of games, then we say of linux as a home desktop, isn't it? Yes.
If you say of a Win32 price, it is more fit for a commercial linux applying.
I see everyone suppose Win32 is too expensive. But it is not thus for a usual
Russian gamer. I know them alot, for I am from Russia myself. We have a piracy
of a huge scales. Do you think it is hard to get an illegal copy of any soft?
We have these discs everywhere. In Russia it is hard to find a legal copy
One could do it visitting a computer supermarket or something like that. But...
There are too many places where one can buy soft! Any marketplace. Almost
every subway is a place where one can buy a disc for $2 only with... E.g.
WinMe, MS Office and many other stolen applications. Do you think WinXP costs
about $200? No, arrive Russia and you will get it for $2 only!

And in addition. I tried to find a new linux distro for one my aquaintance. We
have asked alot shops What could we find? Mandriva (or Mandrake 10.0) almost
everywhere. We have been looking for a great Russian distro ASPlinux. It is a
really good one. But there is nothing concerning linux in our shops!? If one
come into a 2ndfloor software supermarket and can hardly find about five linux
discs (that are definitely distros), what would he choose? Cost are equal!
WinXP and Mandriva costs about $2! No, there is more. One can get WinXP on
a single CD, but what is a Linux distro from a 1 disc? Sure it is not
appreciated. One should either buy at least 3 disc box for $10 or seek for a
DVD. Does anyone argue with that, that DVD is more expensive comparatively with
a CD?

Price comparation is not a good matter for prooving Linux above Win32 in
Russia.

I do not know whether the same condition in other countries, hope no.

Indeed they're not, though there's some piracy here (The Netherlands) it isn't that much. If you want to buy Windows here it'll cost you 100EU for an OEM version and about 130EU for an Retail version. And this is XP Home. Professional is around 150EU for OEM and 250EU for Retail. So that's much more expansive than buying yourself a cd-r and put on a free and legal downloaded version of eg. Debian net-install.

They have just backtracked (articles are appearing on the net). KDE will still be available on NLD & SLES but GNOME will be the default. KDE will remain as the default on Suse/OpenSuse.

reddazz, that's great news!!

It's about the same here, at Mexico. Most patented, so-called-protected, license-requiring software can be get by piracy at 30 mexican pesos per CD (around $3 USD) and DVD's at twice. Of course the problem is when you want something which comes with a lot of CD's, specially games (UT2004 had 6!!!, and you needed them all).

I know not any shop at Mexico where you can buy, pirated or original, a Linux distro, it's not pretty popular here (mostly, linux users here are considered weird-freaking-geeks from outer space) so you need to download the ISO's and burn them.

Albeit, there are also lots of places where you can find, "properly priced", Micro$oft products, pre-installed windoze systems with expensive but unworthy machines. Whether you want it or not, when you buy a computer it comes with windoze and of course they charge you for it ... damn bastards.

I think that one of the reasons that i've moved to linux is because I didn't like the feel of using hacked and crack software.
The fact that Linux is a part of an open-source community removes entirely the necessity of using an illegal, hacked by who knows who software, on a street or on the web from places you don't sure of.

Moreover as you use more and read more about windows you come to understand that the way windows is built is MS's way of pulling out more money from us as much as they can.
For Example the many features that where divided between different editions.
By the way for those who didn't know the Vista release will include something like 4-5 different editions (starter, small networks, big corporations or maybe it was gold edition, platinum edition and super-extra-full-professional-netwoks included-got it all build in- edition)
The more features you'll want the more you'll pay...
See this for details

So in the end you ask yourself is it worth paying for an OS that, from my point of view, is mainly build to supply a corporation's main goal which is sustaining itself and getting more money. And it does not metter if it's 2$ or 200$.

On contrary linux was build to supply security and stability and now it's aiming for user-friendly. There is not even one motive behind it for a sleazy way to make money.

....While the code is being built there is no financial considerations.