This is really, really sad. I have been rooting for Linux and Desktop Linux since the 0.9x kernel. Linux on the Desktop had great potential, it is a real let down for me. I hope the kernel developers come to their senses and realize the serious need for the kind of work Con and his team were contributing as well as the desperate need for Linux on the desktop.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Con Kolivas did what was best for himself. I'm glad this talented guy has become enlightened about Open Source. Open Source has been a lie that millions of people have bought into without clearly thinking about it. Why would you want someone else to profit from your own work? The industry is suing each other to take possession of this intellectual property(ies) now.

Honestly, the real fight was never about OSes...it was about productivity. The linux community was steered in the wrong direction. Messenging and Office are what is keeping Microsoft moving. NT, XP, Vista stink but the applications are driving the adoption. Linux has a place in the server room but it will never get gain credibility on desktop...too much training and support required. The effort has been mismanaged by "Personalities"

Do you think in five years from now, processing power, and memory size will still be limited to the point where you have to separate server from desktop?

Now I am one of many, still few "elitists", who have tried another kernel its called Free BSD as a desktop and wow everything is snappier try it you may like it...

I suspect that with processors getting faster all the time, issues to do with smooth video playback are now non-existent. In fact when I read that stuff about video playback, I thought the writer must be referring to Windows, which often does jerky video.

Why did Con quit? Why didn't he go work for Cannocal or Textstar and the Ripper gang to make a truely unique desktop. Sure it wouldn't be pure linux but who cares another desktop that could rival Apple and Microsoft would kill both in their sleep and release it for free. He was trying to convinse the wrong people...

I think you are missing the fact that the boosting "interactive" processes is really just a band aid for deterministic response.

Maybe if you guys would care to look around you would find the Real Time patch which Ingo has been working on for quite some time. If used correctly it could be just a nifty as the SD scheduler for interactive tasks but is more generic in scope. As Ingo is currently in the process of merging in the RT patch into the kernel (and should be done by the end of the year) I think this really is a moot point.

I trust Torvalds to be the ultimate wisdom on Linux development. Not this guy Kolivas. Linux on the desktop is alive and well! I use Ubuntu and find it fast,secure useful. I can scale 5 to 7 movies on my screen playing simultaneously smoothly and perfectly with sound output from each. A true multimedia desktop appliance! Try that with XP or Vista.

> Why did Con quit? Why didn't he go work for ...

He's a doctor, the M.D. kind. Toying with Linux was just a hobby for him. With intellect like his, he doesn't need to write code for a living!

This is really, really sad. I have been rooting for Linux and Desktop
Linux since the 0.9x kernel. Linux on the Desktop had great potential,
it is a real let down for me. I hope the kernel developers come to
their senses and realize the serious need for the kind of work Con and
his team were contributing as well as the desperate need for Linux on
the desktop.
>
>
This is really,really *GREAT*. It means that the Amiga and BeOS fanboys finally are finally waking up to the fact that nobody really gives a damn about the crap they've been spewing ever since they managed to kill off *their* OS's of choice with their lame ideas and idiotic "marketing plans". So you guys finally went and pissed off the wrong people in the Linux world and basically got told to take a hike. BooHoo. I've told you losers to get stuffed *YEARS* ago.

I can't believe I'm taking this flame-bait of an article. But Con quit because he could not get along with his fellow developers. He was non-responsive to criticism and quickly resorted to name-calling rather than address issues others had with his code. It was hardly an issue of whether to concentrate on a desktop or on the server (whatever the author actually meant by that???). Lastly, I take issue with the statement that Linus tries to "promote within the enterprise". Give me a break. When have you ever seen him "promoting" to the enterprise? Looks like yet another author that failed to research his subject prior to actually writing about it.

Try reading a real article: http://kerneltrap.org/node/14008?page=1

A few points:

1) I use Linux on all my desktops. It's on all the desktops at work. And on my parents' desktop. And my sisters'. My kids use it at home. So Linux is perfectly viable on the desktop.

2) Linux is GPL'd. If you want to fork a "desktop kernel", go right ahead. No-one will stop you.

3) Petty (and not-so-petty) developer fights happen all the time. This is just another one. Software projects move on. Life continues. Big deal.

Funny, I said stick a fork in Windows, it's done ... 3 years ago when I flipped my machine to 100% linux. (PCLinuxOS more specifically.)

Outperforms Windows AND I'm far more productive on it.

Best part? No more pirated software on my computers. No more 3am searches for cracks loaded down with malware. No more updates that hosed my system. No more blue screens of death or fatal errors.

It just keeps on working. Only thing that takes my machine down is a power outage! Windows can NOT match that.

Fork? Why? You must be joking... "make configure" works just as well if you want to customize the Linux kernel to whatever your needs are.

FFS... are you an MCSE by any chance?

/P

Good grief. We're talking about the departure of ONE kernel developer who, despite some vigorous disagreement with the rest of the team, actually carefully qualified a lot of his criticisms in his parting shots.

If Desktop Linux really is dead, would you need to talk about it?

"Desktop Linux is dead" is the "Mac is dead" or "Desktop computing in general is dead" (my personal favorite) of this decade. There's plenty to criticize on Linux without flying off the handle about obscure drama on the kernel, much of which is unlikely to be seen by end users ... ever.

In fact, when I read these criticisms -- particularly relevant to real-time desktop performance -- my immediate thought was that they apply to Windows and Mac, as well. As a visual/music person, the OSes we have are far, far more sluggish than they need to be for these kinds of concerns. And ironically, the timing concerns for things like music and video production are actually often MORE time-critical than servers.

I think we're still early in computer development in general, far earlier than we think. We could benefit from a larger view.

Is it just me, or have we seen a huge upswing in attempts to generate public spats in the Linux community recently? BSD v GPL, PCC v GPL, and now some nonsense about forking the kernel rather than building different distros to support different userbases.

Anyone want to take bets that the business press will be announcing their amazing, totally unrelated and in no way scripted "discovery" that the FL/OSS community is fractious, with the sly implication that Linux isn't to be relied upon?

Linux's has problems as a desktop greater than performance.

KDE & Gnome have a long way to go to approach the usability of MacOS or Windows.

you stupid? linus thought about it once when it came to supporting smp's, he did the right choice not to fork - know why? because it makes the code strong! why'd you think that windows is so buggy? you can't even reliably develop on a desktop and deploy on a server when you have two possibly different behaviors (mostly at very subtle levels).

Must be written by a Microsoft Fanboy or someone who supports Apple. Maybe the person is using a false name and it is really Bill Gates or Mr. Steve Ballmer. Maybe the person is paid to spread rumors to discourage Linux. I just started to use Ubuntu so I could get a start using Linux. After time I will start to move more things over to use either Ubuntu or another flavor.

The author of this article clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Forking because of 1% optimizations, do what you want. But arguing that worked for other OSes too is nonsense. What the windows team is doing is pretty much this: code a generic system, and (at runtime!) see which parts of code to skip and which to execute. That'd work better, I guess.

Nevertheless, I really doubt there's much code in linux which is that principally "wrong" that it needs a fork. Everything Con argued about was just optimizations. And - well, can't that stuff just be configuration options? I mean, the scheduler, for example, could be a configuration, as long as a right amount of abstraction in the code is used.

And drivers - man, drivers! Modules, drivers, hardware support can't be forked. It's simply impossible. If you fork hardware support, nothing new will ever be supported. And guess what a kernel actually does...

: So I say it's time for the Penguin-huggers
: to face facts

We are, just not your creative interpretation of said facts.

Um. I must have just woken from a parallel universe or something. In the decade I've been using linux, it's only gotten better and better on the desktop. All that bitching about the "huge arrays of processors support" being important to the kernel developers, is EXACTLY why you get such great performance out of the recent multicore CPU's today.

The Ubuntu distribution applies hundreds of patches to the kernel they distribute to make it better for desktop users. You're own inability to find the right tool for the job is not the fault of Linus.

If You want a quick desktop, don't use RHEL, get a desktop oriented distro. If you want a real time OS, use the realtime kernel. Or ya know, roll up your shirt sleeves and patch it yourself.

98% of the criticisms I see about linux are from people who've never used it enough to learn what and why is different about it. If you like having windows question your every action, and demand your attention like a 3 year old with ADD, then stick to windows. As for me, I've got work to do, and thankfully my Linux desktop makes that possible without constant interruptions from the antivirus, antispyware, antimalware bullshit that keeps your windows machine limping along.

While you spend your time trying to figure out where MS put all your old friends in the control panel, or where they hid that control you used to use all the time in office on that new wiz bang ribbon UI, I'll be over here, tweaking a text file on occasion, in the same place it's been for the last 10 years, and I'll be writing my documents with formatting quickly in LaTeX, with whatever editor I choose.

I've been using Linux for over 9 years (now using Slackware 12 with Debian on my second partition) and gave up dual-booting to Windows about 7 years ago. Right now I have an older HP box with an AMD 2600+ processor with 512MB of RAM. I installed an nVidia 7600 with 512MB RAM & I play UT2004 & Doom3 & have played DVDs without a hitch. I can even watch TV fullscreen without problems. I've even run dual-montors & had varios applications running while running 3D games without problems. The kernel is fine. I've seen a recent Windows XP laptop play DVDs choppy at fullscreen. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Right now the desktop is dominated by Windows. Vista is being "pushed" onto consumers because it's preinstalled. HP, Dell & Lenovo are offering Linux preinstalled on systems so now consumers are given another choice beside Apple. There are constant improvements to make the installation to be as painless as possible.

The main setback for Linux isn't the kernel, it's the hardware vendors not publishing drivers for their wares. I respect the few that have, nVidia for instance has been a key to my "experience" because they've provided flawless 3D for gaming through their video card drivers which they themselves provide.

Now, if Con has left for whatever reason, the patches are part of the community and if someone else feels inclined to take up the fight then they are free to do so. Linux started with Linus releasing his code to the community and now 16 years later we have the option to chose what we run on our computers. I for one am pleased to use Linux as my desktop OS and to all that have made it this way I extend my gratitude for giving me the choice to use what I want on my pc.

This guy has no clue what he's talking about. Any linux kernel can be optimized for whatever you want. That's what ubuntu does with their desktop & server variants of their distro.

Last I checked, the kernel developers are well within their rights to do whatever they want with the kernel. If someone wants to fork it, that's fine. Do it. The reason no one has, is because it's not necessary. Jeryky video playback? What? That's NEVER happened to me, and I've been using linux on crappy hardware for years. shoot - I can play video back fine on my xbox running linux, and that's a 733Mhz Celeron processor!

The author of this article just wants to be noticed

I couldn't agree more. If Linus doesn't want the Linux kernel project to be forked, let him give us a commitment to making the Linux Kernel as responsive as possible for desktop users.

More importantly, Linus must come to understand the importance of user freedom. Linus Torvalds has offered us many reasons to doubt his commitment to user freedom and to doubt his qualifications for leadership.

More drivel from a know-nothing blogger and a cry-baby developer.

I hear tha the biggest problem is that kernel developers care little about stable ABIs and APIs.

Isn't it true that other Unixes (e.g., NetBSD and Solaris) just *win* here?

The fact is, by now, Linux has a mature PR machine. Have you noticed, these last few days, after the recent attriction with the OpenBSDD team, over the Atheros driver, the recent flurry of newsfeeds describing the virtues of the GPL and shining a positive light on Linux, from the enterprise perspective?

Unfortunately, PR is something that might be good for IBM and HP, but is just not so good for the open source community, which is really aabout technical merits.

Amazing stupudity.

"Why did Con quit? Why didn't he go work for Cannocal or Textstar and the Ripper gang to make a truely unique desktop."

Because he's a doctor that just did Linux stuff for a hobby (like me). He's not a formally trained programmer of any sort. Basically, a really expert engineer (Ingo Molnar) partly listened to Con's ideas and partly did different things, and Molnar's scheduler was far superior.

It's pretty cool that a hobbyist coder can make important contributions to the kernel of all things, but for the most part this stuff needs to be written by bona fide experts.

"If you want a real time OS, use the realtime kernel. Or ya know, roll up your shirt sleeves and patch it yourself.

98% of the criticisms I see about linux are from people who've never used it enough to learn what and why is different about it."

~~~~~~~~~

If I have no confidence in the commitment of the leadership of a given project, I'm not even going to waste my time learning about the arcane details of a dead-end project.

Either the fork has to take enough core developers to be a successful leadership coup, or another project must be the focus of my commitment.

The third option is that the leadership of the Linux kernel project gets their priorities right.

First make a commitment to never compromise user freedoms for some "Trusted Computing" or some hardware-based DRM scheme.

Secondly, reaffirm the commitment to defeating that obnoxious monopoly which plagues the world with bad software.

Last - make a commitment to a truly collaborative model for software development. I want to partake in a real meritocracy, not an oligarchy.

I want a kernel from a team which is committed to defending user freedom, and implicitly, that means beating Microsoft on the desktop.

Is the Linux kernel the wrong kernel in which to place our hopes of defeating Microsoft? If so, I don't want to waste another moment with the Linux kernel, as it exists today.

Do it ! Do it because it needs to be done anyway. for all of the obvious reasons it needs to be done !

STICK A FORK IN IT !!!!!

I hate to say this, but in the open source development world, this is an everyday occurance. There are always people with competing patches to give some new feature, improve some aspect of the software, etc, and one goes in and the other one doesn't. I hope the readers of infoworld can realize that this is the way it goes, life goes on, somebody's patch wins, and that's just the way it is. Ultimately, it's the best patch that usually wins. If Con truly believes that his patch is the best, then it is his responsibility to keep plugging it, keep working on it, and eventually it, or some derivative of it, will make it. Not working on it anymore is a personal decision he made. I'm not saying that there are political aspects of getting patches in the kernel, but generally speaking it is level enough that if he would have kept progressing and his was the truly better solution, his would make it in.

@David Legg, No matter how fast a processor gets, if the scheduling algorithm isn't correct, you will get bad video/audio playback. See this post by Larry Osterman: http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2007/08/28/windows-vista-sound-causes-network-throughput-slowdowns.aspx

It's not that the Kernel developers are "elitist pigs", it's that their purpose for the kernel is different.

Linux can be a desktop platform, but that's not the primary purpose for which Linus developed it. It was NEVER meant to be a replacement for Windows to the general public. If that happens, great. But that has never been its purpose.

I just don't understand why those things can be added in a convenient patch so the rest of us can cash in. Seems like a win-win all the way around.

Though admittedly a matter of opinion, I don't consider the Linux desktop dead, far from it. And fork the kernel? Surely you're joking Mr. Feinman.

Well, Con Kolivas and his journalist friends can say whatever they want. I'm quite satisfied with Linux on the desktop. It performs better than Windows in most aspects, which is good enough for me.

I have run Linux on my desktop for 2 years now, and I will continue to do so until a better alternative comes along.

I'm no kernel hacker. I design webapps and help with accounting, but Linux is just fine, thank you. It can always get better, but the new scheduler we're getting is probably going to improve things. Too bad Con decided to be an ass about his scheduler getting rejected in favour of another and go and do his "the-sky-is-falling"-thing.

Why do so many people here claim Linus Torvalds never wanted Linux on the desktop? He *always* intended Linux to be a desktop OS and has clearly stated this many times over. Just search YouTube for that Charlie Rose interview from several years ago.

This took way less time than expected by most. Firefox will get the fork next, probably within 36-48 months.

Jake Casper

Just because someone quit working on patches that never became adopted doesn't mean that there is not chance for the future of Linux on the desktop. Perhaps he realized that his efforts were in vain because multi-core processing is a new reality, and memory managment, while important, is not essential any more. I am not elitist snob, but I only use Linux on my main computer.

If you actually do your homework on the Linux kernel, you know that it was intended as a unix clone for desktop processors. It is perfect for so many of the every day fucntions that people preform, it's just that they are personally to lazy to actually take time and learn something about the tools that they use.

Perhaps if they invested some time on worthy persuits, the population would actually understand what is happening in their world

Windows doesn't use different code bases for server and desktop. The server version simply doesn't have as much junk turned on by default. I suppose the next claim is that XP embedded isn't really XP. Personally, I prefer to run Windows software on XP embedded or '03 server because I have more control and can turn off the things I don't want.

As far as sluggishness in desktops go, have a look at the amount of bloat in the desktop before crying about how slow it is.

What the author of this article - and a lot of other people - miss is that Linus was right to reject Con's scheduler. The situation was that there were two essentially equal schedulers being considered, and the one that was best support by its developer was chosen. I expect neither the author of this article nor most of the people criticizing Linux over this have actually read the relevant threads on LKML; if they had, this conversation wouldn't even be happening.

Con very much proved Linus' point about rejecting the scheduler by taking his ball, going home, then pouting to the whole world about it. I don't know who you want to write the scheduler that goes on your desktop, but if I wanted that level of pouty, whiny, holier-than-thou support, I'd be running OpenBSD.

As for the accusation that Linus is over-focused on the enterprise, it's hard to call that anything but a lie. Linus is most interested in the desktop and in embedded systems, as both his actions and his statements on those topics clearly show. Look it up; it's not hard.

That said, if anyone wants to fork the kernel, go ahead. It's something that has already effectively been done by many major Linux distributors, to the extent that they are distributing custom kernels with the their own patches that sometimes do and sometimes don't make it into the upstream source. So let Con go ahead and fork the kernel, too. One more fork won't hurt. If his scheduler is really as hot as he thinks, he might even find a lot of people using it, despite the whine. People use OpenBSD and qmail in spite of their authors, too.

Most likely, though, if Con forks the kernel, it won't be used by very many people beyond his immediate circle.

The problem with the Windows argument is... it makes for a poor desktop and server operating system that lacks real flexibility for various deployments and their respective mission requirements. Microsoft controls the code and all its essential pieces whereas the with Linux, the customer can make the choice to have control of the code and all it essential pieces. Vista is a prime example of the proprietary model gone sour when complexity continues to grow exponentially... the quality of Vista (or the lack thereof) reeks of that reality!

Yes its sad that Con left and yes Linux on the desktop is not the primary focus, but that's what distros are for.

As for the rest of this its just BLAH! FUD! BLAH! FUD! BLAH!

Boring.

Randall Kennedy - stick a fork in this article and InfoWorld. He's done.

"It's over. The magic is gone. The dream is dead."

I can understand (and sympathize) with the personal dismay over decisions made in software one cares about, but seriously, please drop the melodrama.

Reading that line made me feel sorta dirty, like I just snuck a peek at an 8th grade girl's secret diary.

Ubuntu (Canonical) should hire Con.

What jittery video? I sometimes watch full-length DVD movies on Linux in full-screen mode using open-source players (vlc or Totem), and not a jitter in sight.

Think before write this stupid articles.

As someone who has used Windows and Mac OS X, there's absolutely no issues with Linux kernel performance on the desktop. Multitasking and multithreading on Linux are absolutely amazing compared to those two proprietary operating systems. The way the kernel knows exactly how much processing time to give each process, and ALMOST NEVER gets it wrong, is magic to a humble end-user like me.

If there is anything that the kernel needs for the desktop, it's a stable ABI for proprietary drivers to use without having to be compiled against the kernel headers. I realise the security and ideological reasons why this isn't done, but why not have it as a compile-time option? We've been at version 2.6 for a long time, how much can the internals change for the foreseeable future? Having a stable ABI for desktop use would make Linux more attractive for hardware manufacturers who want to make Linux drivers, as it means less work when writing them (and less breakage on the user's side when they upgrade their kernel). If there's anything Linux kernel developers should be working on, it's that. Not fighting over a scheduler which is already a marvellous piece of work.

Fork ? What's stopping You ?! Just do it.

OK... two points jump out at me here...

Randall suggests this "fork" because it worked for Windows so it must be right. Erm.... correct me if I am wrong but Microsoft may have had two source base's at one point but come XP there was only ever one(the NT base) for all situations. So perhaps thats not the best example.

The second thing is that it seems to me after reading about Con, he threw his toys out of the pram. Linus and the full time kernel hackers know the kernel inside out. They have the overall interest of the kernel in mind when discussing what patch's make it in or not. Con was a (very capable and experienced) part time hacker who was submitting patches that interest him. From my understanding the issue was discussed at length and among the kernel community at large. Just because it was decided not to adopt Con's code doesn't mean it isn't of interest to people.

Perhaps instead of leaving the community in a strop Con could have started his own kernel tree. People could then have pulled the code if they decided it was better suited to their needs.

I believe Debian GNU/FreeBSD is available. It seems to me that it might be worthwhile to develop say, Minix as a full-fledged system; the various Linux drivers could be ported. This might result in a smaller, faster system. I'm not very knowledgeable -- there could be both technical and legal problems.

"Think before write this stupid articles."

I totally agree.

One developer departs from a cast of thousands and lo and behold, the sky is falling! Get a grip there Chicken Little, the Linux desktop is in a lot better shape than your reasoning skills appear to be.

While there might have been a coherent thought somewhere in this article the verbal flatulence surrounding it wouldn't allow for close inspection.

Next time leave the drama for yo mama cause this sort of dreck isn't doing anything for your credibility.

All this "Linux Desktop is Dead" is trash. Not sure how much M$ pays these guys to come up with this kinda crap but Hardware vendors should come forward to bring the Desktop Linux to the masses.

Huh?

We have been desktop Linux for a few years now with hp & dell boxes running Apple 30" Cinema monitors & Nvidia cards.
No problems here.
Jitter would be VERY noticable in our work.
This article had a lame premise.

Someone just as intelligent as kolivas will show up again... If someone does fork the kernel, they will be ridiculed immediately, by me at least...

So I read the CK interview on apcmag, and it seems he's just crying. "There's no crying in kernel development"...

It's too bad he decided to quit. Ppl that use his patch appreciate his work and that means something. If he's nursing a bruised ego, well...

"This guy has no clue what he's talking about."

I totally agree again.

Pretty easy to write a controversial article like this and have your viewer participation (and therefore advertising revenue) sky rocket. Desktop Linux is dead? I must be in heaven then as I'm surrounded by Linux desktops. Are you really implying that because one person is having a hissy fit (nothing new) that Desktop Linux is done?

I wish this crap of an article would be entitled "an idiot's spin of desktop linux".

Yes! Aren't these articles great!

It's just crazy propaganda.

This *is* Microsoft people going out in front of the Linux Restaurant and saying "This place is closed everyone! See, it's closed. Yeah, it's closed!".

No, no So sorry. The Linux Restaurant is not closed. So sorry about the annoying Microsoft people out front, do not believe them, the Linux Restaurant is not closed!

:) hehe

i want to know about your leaptop and how many rupees.please tell me just now.Thankssssssssss.

Please do stick a fork into your brain as well, sir, for the same reasons.

All this discussion is mere cursing in the rear view mirror. Since I perfected the 1k-bit code two years ago with my three SGI friends, all this 16bit, 32bit, 64bit twaddle sounds like babies screaming for their mama's milk from the playpen--in slow-motion.

Why in every article, do so many idiots have to bash MSFT products?

If you like the Linux flavor of the month, fine. You like Mac products, fine.

Give me Vista, with good drivers for my hardware, and I am happy (if you are stupid enough to get malware & spyware on a Microsoft OS, you can do the same on any other OS (see www.secunia.com)). I tried many of the distros, various OSes, etc, and the XP/Vista/2003 experience is good for me (and my customers).

Think about it, does MSFT really want other vendors to go away and have to deal with more legal whining again???

Penguin Huggers, find a better cause for your unnecessary anger. Save the planet or something.

Journalist have to submmit work on a dateline to keep their job so they will send material like this to meet their quota, how good the information is doesn't matter as long as it's read and generates a lot of comments, so the best way to stop this is to not comment anything on poor articles liek this one.

Steve Fox, Randall Kennedy;

I assume you are all reading these good responses from the experienced Linux masses and learning something. The article does come off like another thrice-removed from the source MS P-Ropaganda/FUD/Get-The-Facts piece.

Frankly this tack is getting old school and does not fool anyone who actually is intimate with Linux/OSS' or objectively working in IT.

A good chuck of my income comes from helping people work productively with Windows; BS, glitches and all. I am grateful for MS to provide such a good opportunity for income.

But as for me and my business, its been Linux for over 10 years. Why? I don't have the time for the care and feeding of my systems. I need to run a business and spend time with customers, friends and family.

Somehow they are all beginning to do the math for themselves. The sooner you write objective, truthful articles, the longer you will have an audience besides Gates and Co.

I can see it now!

Editor: "I see that you had over 100 comments on your recent article! Good work, we're going to give you a raise and a great parking spot!"
Randall: "Why, thank you sir. I do believe I deserve it for my masterfully written article."

And the part we all wish for...

A chorus: "Go read the comments."

Silly rubbish. I've been 100% desktop-Linux for 5 years. I've seen it evolve at alarming rates first hand - as opposed to Microsoft's snail crawl Windows project? You'd think that, for a company who survives only by sitting back and trying to clone what other people do successfully, Microsoft would at least be able to improve upon at least some of the ideas they don't have.

Vista's Red Screen of Death sounds kick ass.

And yet Ubuntu Linux, (whose goal is to move away from command line) is moving closer and closer to its goal and gaining users along the way. You sir "are" a Windows fanboy.

The Jack Tompson of the Computing World is Randall Kennedy

The Jack Tompson of the Computing World is Randall Kennedy

Saying about me, I am too regretted and hope the kernel developers realize better stuff for users.

Tell that to Asus, whose Linux-native eeePC is going out the door as fast as they can make it. While it's now available with XP, if you want to buy the 2G version and try to make it run MS Office out of it, go right ahead, I'll look forward to seeing your article. (hint: you'll have less trouble with Linux)

Wishful thinking that if Desktop Linux goes away, you won't have to learn yet another OS and UI isn't going to save you from having to learn Linux in order to stay in business as a tech journalist.

And a single developer who has a day job as a doctor exiting the kernel development team isn't going to save you from this.

I saw Linux on the desktop as the coming thing 3 years ago and decided I'd better learn it. I know it well enough now to sell how-to articles about it. While I don't recommend going Linux without being able to get in-person support to an average computer user, I managed it. (for an average user who doesn't need anything other than a productivity suite / web browsing / e-mail, it's probably ready NOW - it's the Windows power user who wants the same capabilities in Linux who will have problems)

If you are being paid to write about computers for a living, YOU are supposed to be far more sophisticated than an "average computer user". If you aren't, perhaps you should consider doing something else for a living. I'm sure MS's PR division is hiring, and the garbage you're writing would fit in just fine there. Go to work there and enjoy being surrounded with other Luddites. . . while you can.

umm, HELLO!!??
Mandriva, which is what I've used for 7 years;
GOTO Software Selection.
Desktop Kernel (vanilla), Desktop Multimedia Kernel, Desktop 64bit >4Gigs RAM Kernel, Laptop Kernel, Laptop Multimedia Kernel, Desktop Enterprise Kernel, Desktop Enterprise SMP >64Gigs RAM.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!