Recently I was at lunch who two fellow developers.  The discussion focused on various technologies and the future of technology as it seemingly always does when a group of nerds gather.  The discussion somehow meandered it's way to Linux, where I admitted that I didn't understand or get it and ask both developers to explain Linux to me.  Both were happy to talk about Linux from the different distributions to why Linux is so neat.  Still a few weeks later and after it was passionately explained to me, I still don't get it.

For home users Linux must meet or exceed current Windows functionality.  Windows has long been the operating system of "choice" in the home.  The (un)fortunate side effect is that you can buy any peripheral or software for your computer and most likely it will work.  The same can't be said of Linux.  I don't see Linux breaking into the home market for quite some time, if ever.  Here's an article from Joe Brockmeier on the subject, he states:

"Linux isn't a direct Windows replacement, and users seeking a drop-in replacement for Windows often come away disappointed. Not because Linux is unusable as a desktop, but because it just isn't Windows. A lot of people, though, don't really need Windows. They just need a system that handles basic functions and doesn't cost an arm and a leg."

Joe seems to get it.  Linux may be better in many ways but it's worse in one, it's not Windows.  Users are used to Windows.  If Linux is too different, people won't switch, if it's too similar, people won't justify the move for something so similar.  Further there's the stigma that only the über-technical work in and with Linux.  The "basic functions" that Joe speaks of is what Apple has in it's iLife package.  Apple has been running the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" (getamac) commercials for awhile now, hammering home the "we just work the way you do" mantra.

According to Wikipedia, Linux has 1% desktop market share.  Every now and then a new Linux distribution will pop up purporting to be the answer, first it was Red Hat, then Suse, and now Ubuntu.  If after 15 years (Linux dropped in 1992) there is only 1% adoption, I wonder if a meaningful market share will ever be realized, regardless of the distribution Linux is packaged in.  There are articles that say that 2008 is the Year of the Linux Desktop, which is sharply but in check when Joe reminds us:

"Yes, yes. I know — we've all heard this before. If I recall correctly, 2001 through 2007 have also been" the year of the Linux desktop,"

Other articles are more accurate when they say Linux Desktop is More Popular Than Ever.  But while that may be true, it's not hard to have great growth when you're small.  Similar to the day the number of subscribers to my blog doubled.  Sounds pretty impressive until you find out that there were only two, which doubled to four.

Linux has support which is evidenced by it's strong, ardent community. That community however is mostly comprised of developers and the techno elite.  Until that community starts reaching out to the people that "need a system that handles basic function and doesn't cost an arm and a leg" Linux will remain a enthusiast OS.