Because, to a CTO, they're not (necessarily) viable options. Just
because these are OSes that can compete with NT as an OS, doesn't mean
they are "application platforms" in the sense that Windows is.
If your users are devoted to particular versions of shrinkwrap apps
on Windows, or even worse - if you have roll your own apps in your
company that are Windows based, you're locked in. Yes, there's WINE,
and some native apps (I've been using StarOffice for Linux -
it's amazingly good at managing windows formats - eg .doc, .xls,
.ppt - even activates OLE components in my ppt files) but for
a windows shop, current gen. linux still
doesn't give them the same experience as NT as an app execution
environment. It's getting there, but it still has a ways to go.
I think by far the funnier part of your quoted article was:
> > However, because Linux predates Windows NT and has problems taking
> > advantage of capabilities packed in current-generation hardware, Enderle
> > said he doubts the operating system will ever become a mainstream
> > desktop alternative.
That's patently the most ridiculous thing I've heard in eons.
I wonder if this Enderle guy has ever even been in the same
room with a Linux box, to make comments that uniformed.
Thanks for the laugh.