[azinman2]

Doesn't make sense from a business perspective. It's not like a Linux desktop is some new bet -- marketshare is small. Intuit barely supports the mac and even that is relatively new. Adobe has a disproportionate number of mac users for a variety of reasons, but that isn't the norm. With android and iOS already being 2 new platforms with little code shared, adding another platform that has little growth potential isn't cost effective.

[cestith]

It's a bit of chicken and egg. Marketshare is small in part because there's not a clear winner (or even two clear major leaders). People don't invest because there's no consensus on which to support. Because there's no consensus, there's no impetus to invest. Because there's no support for these apps that are Windows only or Windows and Mac only, the users aren't there to demand the support.

If a coalition (or cabal if you'd like to phrase it that way) of software vendors formed to select, build, or define a distro for the business desktop it'd become a more viable option.

If it was installed broadly at work, many people in turn would look for it for home use. It's how MS-DOS and then MS Windows became the de facto standard in a time of CP/M, Unix, Apple DOS, Atari DOS, GEOS, Amiga Workspace, OS/2, and MacOS. Having a single majority OS didn't happen because it was superior. It happened because of network effects.