Are we really still arguing about the Linux Desktop?

I have written on this before, and I feel slightly bad for speaking on the topic again so soon.  This is far more out of frustration then a need for things to be further clarified, or points to continue to be pounded into oblivion.

After reading some recent stories it struck me how much people don't understand about using a computer as a tool. I think it is agreed, by all authorities on the matter, that there is a pronounced learning curve associated with Linux.  This is because things that make the computer happy, are rarely easily understood by the average user.

To reiterate a point further, Linux mimics the community around it.  If you compare the CentOS and Ubuntu distributions one thing that you should notice immediately, if you are looking in the right places, Ubuntu has far more available packages out of the box and far more diverse offerings installed from the start.  This is due to the community surrounding Ubuntu.  They are people that like to tinker, but may not yet have an in-depth knowledge of the system. So those that support the system spend their time thinking about what their users need to be happy with the OS.  

I have noticed quite a bit of the college classes that use Linux, use Ubuntu.  So this means that most of the scholastic packages that one would find useful have a binary built for Ubuntu, and in most cases, other distros based on Ubuntu and/or Debian.

In contrast the available packages for CentOS are focused around server and business productivity software, as that is the most common tasks associated with it's user-base.  I have added extra packages and built software for my particular CentOS 6 install, most of which would not contain useful functionality for those that are not working with the particular use-cases that I am.  Any one who would be using CentOS in the same way I am (media, file, and mail server with some rather persnickety scripting ) would install the needed software themselves and be capable of doing so and configuring it as needed.   Those that aren't would no so, and choose an out of the box solution. 

Though this may be bad for their freedom, it does give you a working product with a very small time investment, and in reality that is what people want. 

The really damaging thing to Linux on the desktop is the fact that anyone that is incapable of using the system in it's current form, for all but the most simple applications, wouldn't find the additional functionality that these systems offer useful -- since they wouldn't understand how to use it. 

Even the nerds among us download the easy to use application to get some work done and save time. This is not to say that is would be impossible for the average user to find value in using Linux as opposed to a proprietary solution -- especially if they are a student -- though they should seek out help from the community before they run into problems; a rarity.

In a perfect universe people would be interested in computing for the sake of using it as a tool, and would have the time to take such interest.  Though, again, this is not reality.  Rather people want to get a specific job done with as little understanding as possible.   So while Windows* is available and is the easier solution, that is what the majority of people will use.

So is Linux/Unix a better operating system than it's proprietary partners, of course!  Evidenced by the fact that it is harder to use.  It is like comparing a Formula1 car to the average minivan.  The level of knowledge/skill that you have to have to drive the Formula1 car is appearent, if not immediately by it's appearance, it is abundantly clear once you attempt to drive it.   Then again, you wouldn't want to be charged with modifying the Formula1 car to pick up the kids or do the shopping.

“UNIX is an operating system, OS/2 is half an operating system, Windows is a shell, and DOS is a boot partition virus.” — Peter H. Coffin.