[redial]

> Linux desktops could catch on in the mainstream market just fine if they had the marketing budget, brand recognition, and vendor support of Google

The problem with Linux on the mainstream is Linux, it has nothing to do with not having a huge brand like Google's nor with marketing, just ask Dell. Linux offers exactly what the enterprise market needs and it is a huge success, far bigger than anyone in the 90s ever imagined. Linux does not offer what the mainstream market demands and no amount of marketing or brand recognition can change that.

[rileyphone]

Linux isn't the problem: with enough money and time, you could build an OS around Linux that a user can use just like MacOS or Windows. Sony built an operating system around FreeBSD for the PS4 that noone recognises as such. The problem is that open source software (which Linux necessarily attracts due to licensing and reputaion) is designed by people with a fundamentally different view of ergonomics, and the number of disparate HW components (audio, graphics, etc) create a similar number of software components that make integrating them cumbersome and frustrating.

[pjmlp]

The PS4 has very little from FreeBSD beyond the kernel.

[nkristoffersen]

Obviously time and money aren’t the problem. Look at windows phone. Microsoft wasn’t being frugal in marketing

[dfaigonio]

Linux can do whatever it damn well pleases. You can take Linux and turn it into the most feature-poor "easy-to-use" toy on the planet, as Google has demonstrated. The UI has little to do with the underlying technology.

The problems with the Linux desktop that I can see are poor driver support and a limited software selection. OEM support solves the driver support problem and Chrome OS demonstrates that people are willing to use a system with no software at all. What else makes it unsuitable for most users?