> Windows users would not switch simply because they didn’t need Linux.Not really. The author identified the real reason before that. Users wouldn't switch because most users don't even think about the choice of OS, which would mean switching. I.e. they only ever use what comes on the computer pre-installed, and that's it. They don't care much what it even is.
Therefore the main blocker wasn't the bad advocacy or anything of the sort, but the old and crooked stranglehold of MS on manufacturers. The only way to seriously increase Linux desktop adoption is for availability of Linux pre-instsalled computers to significantly rise. And MS use their heavy leverage of Windows pricing to prevent that.
> and the desktop itself became irrelevant
I hear this often, but it remains as wrong as ever. Desktop usage has its place, and it's not going anywhere in the foreseeable future.
> They still just want something that plays games and checks the Internet.
And Linux is good for that already. So, as above, that's not what prevents its adoption.
Not really. The author identified the real reason before that. Users wouldn't switch because most users don't even think about the choice of OS, which would mean switching. I.e. they only ever use what comes on the computer pre-installed, and that's it. They don't care much what it even is.
Therefore the main blocker wasn't the bad advocacy or anything of the sort, but the old and crooked stranglehold of MS on manufacturers. The only way to seriously increase Linux desktop adoption is for availability of Linux pre-instsalled computers to significantly rise. And MS use their heavy leverage of Windows pricing to prevent that.
> and the desktop itself became irrelevant
I hear this often, but it remains as wrong as ever. Desktop usage has its place, and it's not going anywhere in the foreseeable future.
> They still just want something that plays games and checks the Internet.
And Linux is good for that already. So, as above, that's not what prevents its adoption.