I remember that. As I recall the most commonly cited reason for their return was that people didn't like that they couldn't use their existing Windows software (in particular MS Office & various games) on them.

I guess it's useless to try to debate more with you, it give me the impression to talk to a wall.
You decided that Linux isn't good enough for desktop, just consider it doesn't fit for you (because, yes, even a good thing cannot fit to 100% peoples) and that's all.
I know lots of peoples having no problems with Linux and if you don't consider the resistance to change because it's very hard to get lambda users accepting to change their habits, it's perfectly usable for most of the usage excepted some pro softwares (ERP and so on) at the moment only developed for Windows, but which could as easily be written for Linux for the new one. Especially if you consider that the most used language is Java at the moment which, even if I don't like this language, is perfectly multi-platform.

No, you do it wrong, you try to ignore the consistent reality since 1.5 decades: & [url=http://de.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/1u5vgf/steam_survey_linux_at_111_172_008_variance_with/]1.72% Even if linux is good enough for the developer/geek type of user (I assume your personal experience), this means completely NOT that it is good enough for the customer kind of user, the majority of people. Accept the usage numbers as authentic feedback: Linux fails for the PC use-case, where Windows, Android and MacOS works fine.

"easily" [citation needed]

And this isn't the case with Windows? I haven't done anything on my Dad's computer in a couple months. And he's doing just fine maintaining it. Whereas with Windows, I know that I would have been doing the work.

It's clear that you haven't actually used Linux in many, many years, because this is simply not true.
Stable? Are you serious? You had to reinstall XP every 6 months or so due to registry bloat and general instability. That is unless you never installed any new software and certainly didn't uninstall it.

You would have a point about the Linux update system if MS didn't regularly hose things with improper updates due to not knowing what exactly was being done by 3rd party apps. Linux apps for the most part aren't allowed to do that. The repository has a pretty good idea of what's in there. So, yes there's the occasional breakage, but it's a lot easier to repair than it was with Windows.

I'm sorry, but this too is complete bullshit. Spoken as somebody, who unlike you, has actually used Linux, *BSD, OSX and just about every other significant OS of the last 30 years, the only reason why MS is still getting their software preinstalled is because of inertia and their past abuse of their monopoly. And the only reason why most people use Windows is because it's preinstalled on their computer and it's just good enough. The software does only 1 thing that other OSes don't, rely upon a huge library of software. The UI isn't particularly different from what you get on Linux, the update system is a mess, if I want to reinstall, which is often the preferred fix for unknown problems, it's a serious hassle as the profile directory is so tightly integrated into the individual install.

In other words, Windows is flat out not as good as the competition, I know that the Windows fanboys who haven't actually used it recently have a hard time grasping it, but Windows isn't a good OS.
LOL, you just posted an entire diatribe of bullshit and now you're demanding somebody provide you with a citation?

I think I was the only one in this heated debate who provided links to authorative sources at all, e.g. Debian Founder Ian Murdock... ;) Spreading FUD and personal attacks will not help the cause of linux, that is clear.

Indeed, you describe the PC use case: OS separated from apps, ISV provided apps, installed by the user themself . Which is a model used by ALL successful platforms: MacOS, Android, iOS and Windows, yes. So, if this a known model for success since decades ("People don't really care much about operating systems; they care about those application programs that the operating system makes possible. [...] And therefore the most useful operating system is the one that has the most useful applications."), why linux keeps sticking on the outdated distro model, known to scale not well with the apps?

I would the say the inertia and conservatism is on this side....

Show me WHERE you can buy a computer pre-installed with Linux at a reasonable price (because the very rare places where you can buy them are overpriced). And even if you find it, it'll only be a part of the problem which will be solved : remains user resistance to their habits, and I've perfect example at home with my family : Office 2003 and OpenOffice/LibreOffice are 95 to don't say 99% similar for a casual use. My mother still think it's different…of course, the icon and the name are different, but the mainstream usage is really the same.
A test I personally would like to do, but that is impossible as I don't know someone I could ask this :
find someone who never used any computer of its entire life on a Linux computer. So this person would never had any habits at all nor strong opinion before using it. And see the result. From what I can hear from different places, it's not really a problem and users use it without any problem.

That's the main problem : the lambda user don't look for changes, dislike changes, because computer is just for him an useless tool, a piece of **** he would like to deal without but can not. So they don't do even a little
effort. "It's different, it's too complicated, give me back what I previously had". And that's all.

And I'm pretty sure that if you're more than 25/30 years old, even maybe 20 you will have noticed that when peoples at their works had the obligation to use computers while they were working without before. Changing of operating system is exactly the same deal.

Change habits is hard. And even harder when it's against people's wishes.

PS : We had very good examples here in my country when government asked to some public organizations to use OpenOffice/LibreOffice or when some private companies try to do the same. They encounter high resistance to this change. And it's only for a simple text processing software or spreadsheet.

How many peoples still think that "Internet is the big blue 'E' on my desktop"…

Have you already written a single piece of Java code? Even if I hate this language, it's today the most used one in the professional environment.
Look for Java on the editor website, wikipedia or what do you want : "Write it once, run everywhere". No need to more comments.
For my personal preferences, C[++], Python, or some others languages are fine in addition with Qt or GTK if you prefer it.
Even .net, thanks to Mono.

Talking about Android/iOS/Windows Phone system, and even Mac App Store and new Windows store, you don't see some similarities with the ease of use of repositories? I see them as the ease of use is the same. At two exceptions (or three) : Applications are packaged instead of using built-in systems and libraries while repositories manage it well. It's not free to use. Owners restrict their usage (controls, and even some obligations for example for the Mac App Store because of their sandbox).

Extracts from the Movist app on the MAS (https://itunes.apple.com/fr/app/movist/id461788075?mt=12) :

• Movist 1.2.1 or later supports App Sandbox in OS X 10.7 or later. App Sandbox supports better security but, some features are not allowed for security. Followings are not supported any more in OS X 10.7 or later (still works in 10.6):
- Digital audio out in QuickTime decoder.
- Keyboard backlight off in full screen.
- Media Keys support.
- Shutdown, Log out, Sleep in playlist end-job.
- Sleep by press and holding PLAY/PAUSE in full screen navigation.

Yes, you red well : they had to REMOVE features because of stupids Apple's rules on their MAS, which will never have happened on Linux.

Other sources of problems on theses stores :
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/08/textmate-2-0-goes-open-source-in-response-to-os-x-restrictions/
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/08/odgaard-i-will-continue-working-on-textmate-as-long-as-i-am-a-mac-user/
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/02/windows-phone-marketplace-bans-the-gpl-and-the-app-store-should-too/

Ubuntu for example provide now a software-center which is pretty much the same. Without lots of these restrictions.

And about distros ? Distros are the choice for everyone to have the OS which perfectly fit to its wishes. I myself use Archlinux but never will give it to a beginner because it's not user friendly. But they can perfectly use Ubuntu, Fedora, Mageia, Mint, Debian…

Not the greatest selection, but here. Add to it that e-shop has had quite a few financial difficulties in the last few years, and you should be able to find something equivalent in your country as well. Also included are computers with Free Dos installed, not sure if that counts as Linux or not.
Computers with linux installed are out there, the question is if the customer wishes to buy a computer without Windows on it.

Do ask if you wish me to search for French shops selling computers with linux pre-installed.

It's only 6 models on Linux (and one is really old), as FreeDOS in often used to say "shipped without OS" – at least it's without Microsoft's tax. But the prices seems to be in the average compared to what we usually have here (don't know about greece prices, maybe it's a little bit cheaper usually?). Because most of the websites I know which sell with Linux pre-installed are at least 20% more expensive if not more. But some like LDLC are selling laptops without any OS pre-installed inside Clevo frames.

I usually buy bare hardware (spare parts), assemble them and install an OS myself. But there are a few places indeed where you can buy a computer preinstalled with Linux. The problem is that they are a minority, and one has to search for them (but it's not impossible). When most common folk come to buy a computer to a local retail store, there are high chances that preinstalled Linux won't be available there.

For laptops, which can hardly be manually assembled, there are vendors like this which sell computers without an OS installed (so you don't pay Windows tax): http://www.powernotebooks.com/

Isn't the beauty of Linux in self-assembly? I think buying a pre-made OS defeats the purpose, but that's me.

Nah, for desktop computers, most of peoples just go to supermarket buy cheap bad computers. When you build it yourself it's often without OS.

But more than desktop, I've laptops in mind. And it's a bit more complicated.

Wow. This website was just able to hurt my eyes. <_<

Not everyone is up to assembling a PC. I'd expect only a minority to do that. But there are vendors who do that for their customers (according to the selected specs) and can preinstall Linux as well. But as I said, there aren't many of them around.
Too many colors, or biting prices?-)

Hurting flashing colors, text everywhere and so on.

From the Internet shops I know from my country, here is another bad example similar to yours :
http://www.cdiscount.com/

Better ones, not hurting eyes from everywhere :
http://www.ldlc.com/
http://www.materiel.net/
(Even if they begin to have very big sales advertisements on the home page now, but on the other pages it's fine)

This meme from the 90s needs to die: Pre-installation is NOT the core problem of linux, it's just an excuse.

No it's not. Your mother is right. A user who achieved competences and mastery in a specific application, knowing the quirks in and out... for them the so called alternatives are enourmously different. Why is the expertise of a user treated so low? Why it is expected from them: "adapt, re-learn usage patterns, all short keys, rewrite all your scripts..." No, it's not realistic and not respectful. If there are existing de-facto standards, only way for alternatives and clones is: 100% compatiblity. And LibreO/OO has not achieved that. (Beside, it is horrible slow and crashy)

That's true. But there is no use in bickering about only way to handle it is acceptance. If a defacto standard is set & existing, it needs to be respected. Linux has to accept that, users will never become hackers & geeks following the path of unix. NO WAY.

I know what you talking about, 2 weeks ago one of my students was showing me a diagram where the big E was used as sign for ethernet... horrible.
I have, and I know many of the big promises of Java from the 90s were not delivered. WORA is one of them, cross-platform comes not for free or by itself also not with java. I tend now to follow Torvalds here and would use plain C for maximum portability in a app.

While I see the comfort in package management for the core system, it's completely bogus to deploy system and apps integrated. By that the characteristics are worse and even more centralistic and "walled garden" than e.g. the Android App store or the open platform Windows. To say it very clear: centralisitic distro repos are walled gardens like e.g. iOS! for instance, if debian refuses to integrate an app (they regularly do), bad luck. (And if you integrate an external repo all advantages of the one distro repo are lost, like security, well tested experience, integrated updates etc.) By being built around this central repo the user freedom on app selection is taken away. For comparison, the windows ecosystem offers million of apps, Android hundredthousands, a distro repo only 10,000 (at best).

No, apps selected by an user are the way to customize an OS for your need... not reinventing the wheel again and again by the creation of countless slightly incompatible OSes. The complete distro system is bogus, it limits the progress and needs to go away! :(

shaddim: This isn't a meme, it's a fact, you can't escape it. Preinstallation is the first barrier for adoption. It was and it will remain so. We can talk all we want about having an OS choice and options for blank PCs, but most consumers not only aren't ready to assemble a PC, they aren't ready to install any OSes and will use only what's preinstalled, no matter what that is.