I come from an environment where we have a reasonable number of Linux workstations; approaching 2000 in the company I work for, and more in the wider field. >

I come from an environment where we have a reasonable number of Linux workstations; approaching 2000 in the company I work for, and more in the wider field. > Being a UNIX replacement with a full X11 server and all the rest was what made it compelling and practical in the first place. Yes, here as well. We have big apps, small apps, legacy apps, remote apps, all doing real work. For the enthusiast user base, who mainly live within the distribution's ecosystem, this sort of churn in the platform is exciting and interesting, or feels like progress. The platform is the end result. For us, the platform is just that -- a platform on which sits a lot of vendor applications and custom tooling assembled over decades with its idiosyncrasies carefully accommodated. This churn isn't good. Anything short of 100% compatibility is going to prompt a risky re-evaluation of what's out there on the market -- risky because Windows is in the strongest position, not Linux. Linux is already in a weakened position than it once was as a workstation OS. My colleagues will be enticed by a Windows platform which has an emerging Linux compatibility; and a tried-and-tested build of most of the vendor-driven GUI applications and GPU drivers, too.