MS Windows popularity insures that it is "here to stay".

This is likely true. Nintendo is probably also "here to stay". However, I like computing so I choose a computer with a powerful operating system, not a lowest-common-denominator piece designed for "everybody".

Linux is quite positively here-to-stay because of its open-source nature (Linux cannot possibly be put out-of-business).? It is a standard selected for countless projects that are not going to go away, and some of them are quite "mission-critical". Try the International Space Station, for which Linux is the operating system (http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue59/3024.html).

Plus, never underestimate the strength of the Linux community.

But LINUX may fork into many different systems ...

This is a typical argument of the type spread by those specializing in the marketing tactics known as? "fear, uncertainty and doubt" (FUD) [about the competing product].

"Forking" in this context means "branching a computer program", so as to create parallel "subversions" of the program, and consequently fragment Linux.

There is very little (if any) evidence of harmful forking of any software that constitutes the typical Linux distribution. Where forking did occur, it has always turned beneficial. Quite possibly, this is because although there are no artificial barriers to fork software under Linux, there are also no artificial barriers to merge the best pieces back.

The theoretical background on how forking software can be good for its development might have been actually given quite some time ago by the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), with his concept of dialectic development. E.g., in "Phenomenology of Spirit", Hegel concludes: "... the schism incipient in a party, which seems a misfortune, expresses its fortune rather."

Linux is a cult

The Linux community has repeatedly been labeled "religous zealots" by journalists whose well-established computer magazines received massive feedback? after they had published highly unfair artiticles on Linux.? So yes, the Linux community is numerous, well educutated, and willing to express their opinions. And many computer journalists/magazines know that Linux means less money for them (users pay less for their use of computers while expecting more). Does this explain the "zealots"?

Face it, you salespeople pretending to be journalists. How many words on Linux did your PC Magazine (or whatever) publish by 1999-01-01? Wasn't Linux at least an interesting technology by that time? It surely was, yet you selected to keep your readership in the dark, selling your journalistic integrity for money. And then, after Linux has surfaced in the mainstream (non-computer) media, you keep writing misleading articles about it saying "yah, but it will/cannot ...." whatever (trying the "fear, uncertainty and doubt" tactics to kill it). And adding "Microsoft is already ...", continuing to write about the MS vaporware and the future paradise in the face of the increasingly unstable, pricey, architecturarly unsound computer platform, whose greatest achievement has been exhorting unheard-of-before money by denying interoperatibility, and killing any existing or proposed standard (by "embracing" and then proprietary-extending it).? Whom do you serve? Surely not your readers.

I worded it pretty strongly. Am I a zealot? Or am I just trying to voice my disapproval for the self-serving actions of the computer "powers-that-be"?

You think "self-serving" is ok in business? How pathetic your business must be!? I always thought that business was a social contract in which we exchange good values, for a mutual benefit.? As I read history, societies use to hang / gillotine / electrocute those members who really persisted in their self-serving business. Well, times have changed. A bit for the better, a bit for the worse :)))

The total cost of ownership (TCO) of Linux is high

Nobody really knows how to count the "total cost of ownership", right?? So a good lawyer + accountant can prove whatever point they are paid to make.

Let me try a simple estimate of how much is the total cost of ownership of MS Windows. Let's add the fortunes accumulated by all the MS Windows software makers. Add all the salaries of all generic Windows programmers, consultants, support and training personnel, IT management,? etc. Now, add the losses customers must surely have suffered while the software corporations were twisting each other's arms so as to achieve their current monopolistic status. Divide this figure by the number of years (whatever timeframe you selected), and the number of MS Windows users (only in the countries in which software is normally paid for).? Here is the TCO of MS Windows. However you count it, it will be many thousands of good US dollars per average joe per year. You didn't pay that much money? Well, you must have, it has just been hidden from you.

How much did Linux cost? Hardly anything. Number of users is much lower, too, but you will be hard pressed to come up with $10 per user per year.

Yet, in my opinion, the total cost is not what matters the most. What value did I receive for my money?? You would have to calculate the total value of ownership (TVO?), then subtract it from the total cost of ownership (TCO) to obtain the "net benefit".

I guess accountants only talk about the TCO for software "necessary for doing business", and thus skip the issue of value and benefit. There is no value in their normal commercial software, it is just the necessity for doing business these days.? Well, Linux satisfies my computing necessities at zero monetary cost, and the personal pleasure and learning value is just great.

Linux is idealistic "dreaming"; it is business that rules the world nowadays

Think of Linux as a consortium.? A few businesses get together to address a common need or problem.? They may chip in some money, hire a technical leader, or otherwise cooperate to make Linux address their requirement. The solution is totally theirs for keeps, and it does not have to cost a lot--they can re-use the pre-existing Linux software pieces. In the process they may bypass a corporation which perhaps turned suckers on them, or a dishonest consultant--only too many of those in the software business. The parties may even cooperate to overcome the advantage that a big "industry leader" may have and use against their interests.

Linux is an end-product of activities of many such loose "consortiums" formed either by companies or individuals, who "scratch their needs". So Linux is a business, but it is not necessary about selling software--it is about access to reasonably-priced software that truly matches your need.

Linux sux etc.

Then do not use Linux. You are not doing anybody a favor by using Linux. GNU/Linux is free and powerful software, but only for those who like or need it. There are alternative operating systems for you to choose from and they may better match your requirements.

In this context, it maybe worthwhile to briefly summarize Linux strengths and weaknesses: Linux is owned by its fans (your piece of ownership comes free with your free subscription to the fan club), definitely very powerful and feature-rich, highly configurable, as flexible as you want it to be (comes with complexity), low on the cost of hardware, comes with any networking bell-and-whistle known to man, requires a computer literate administrator, some essential desktop applications are still quite a bit behind commercial offerings on other platforms (e.g., spreadsheet and word processing), a number of excellent end-user applications come "standard" and free with the operating system, graphical user interface is very nice but still not as polished as Apple or MS offerings, Linux is highly standard (UNIX, POSIX), open file formats used all along, thousands of programs available for free download (although the ease of use and quality of these varies vastly). And most of all, Linux is enjoyable!