I don't even really understand what your point is here. Probably an obvious troll I should have avoided, but whatever, you've piqued my interest.
Performance is but one of the thousands of factors that determine success in this industry, and if you really think it's so much better than the alternatives on the market, why do you think its marketshare relegated to dev boxes and servers?
Don't get me wrong, I use Ubuntu for dev work at home and used to use fedora extensively in my old support job, but I can't think of more than a handful of friends I would ever think about recommending them to. User experience is still butt-fuck terrible with most distros relying on community support and rockhead linux developers creating long convoluted setup processes that expect the user to go WAY out of their way just to get things like audio and wireless functioning. You and I can handle it, but my dad would flip his dick if he brought home a new box and had to sit on bsd forums all night trying to figure out why the only native resolution available is 800x600.
I used to have hope back in high-school that the star wars future was possible, where you can hand a hydro spanner to a princess and she'll get right to work putting the hyperdrive back together, but lets face it, the reality is that we're moving headlong into the star trek future where 98% of people can't get shit done unless the computer talks.
Is that such a bad thing? We'll still have experts, and you'll ALWAYS still have a dev-OS that you can hack around in, but why try and force it on the 98% of the population that just wants to check their twitter feed without having to go root to get on their wifi?
Is linux better in terms of its basic design and performance? yes.
Does it have ANYTHING AT ALL else going for it? no.
|