I think there are better words you can use to make your point.
Also note that Microsoft failed to stop Android even though they have been bullying all Android manufacturers too with their patent portfolio. The reason Desktop Linux never became a success cannot simply be attributed to Microsoft's bullyings. To them, it's probably just another source of income, not necessarily a means to stop free software or Linux.
What? Desktop Linux never became a success because nobody profits from it being awesome. That can't happen until you can distribute Linux on a PC without making some back room deal with Microsoft.
I'm sorry, but this issue makes me very angry, and I feel like most people are childish fools who pretend that it's the fault of hobby hackers making software that's difficult to use. No, it's because no matter how awesome Linux is, you can't distribute it without paying.
Also: Microsoft may have not stopped Android, but that doesn't mean they haven't hampered it. Without that stupid license every phone would be able to be sold $8-$15 cheaper.
I do get your point. But unfortunately that's the way the world works. Those who have patents bully others and make money of them. Microsoft is playing by the rules. I still don't think there is any point in blaming them for the lack of success of Desktop Linux.
The reason that Linux PCs didn't take off is manifold. First, they're unfamiliar to the user so the return rate is high when they find after taking it home that it won't run some app they need. Second, the price is the same or even more because the OEMs get paid a pretty penny for the preinstalled adware and bloatware. And all the support and the separate software tooling make it tough for the OEM to turn a buck. Not to mention that they're wary of showing it prominently on their site because in the past that lead to a lot of uninformed people buying them and returning them.
>No, it's because no matter how awesome Linux is, you can't distribute it without paying.
You're needlessly getting angry for nothing. What's stopping anyone from selling PCs with Linux? You can start a company today that does that, and Microsoft won't come near you until you're making hundreds of millions of dollars.
Are they paying Microsoft? Linux on the desktop is suffering precisely because of the points outlined in the article. If Linux was awesome, less people would've switched to OS X.
I agree with you, Linux as it stands is crap for the desktop. However, if you think no corporation wants to distribute it you are crazy.
If you want to make a coherent argument, use something besides System76. There will always be a niche market that panders, the problem is that no large corporation currently does with a small subset of their offerings.
Also note that Microsoft failed to stop Android even though they have been bullying all Android manufacturers too with their patent portfolio. The reason Desktop Linux never became a success cannot simply be attributed to Microsoft's bullyings. To them, it's probably just another source of income, not necessarily a means to stop free software or Linux.