As a fellow traveler that adopted Linux a bit later in 1995 I used it as my main desktop at the university. For my needs back then it was a foot fit and it was

As a fellow traveler that adopted Linux a bit later in 1995 I used it as my main desktop at the university. For my needs back then it was a foot fit and it was damn fast compared to the undergrad Sun terminals at the labs. (They had nice servers, there were just far too many people using them) (People scheduled a lot of things for the middle of the night as well). (no dialup) So, my firat year of Linux on the desktop was 1995. I have never been an OS fanboy. I use what is most convenient. UNIX on the desktop has been done already with macOS. It is great. Linux on the desktop is done with Chromebooks at least originally. Not so great. Linux inside Windows fits somewhere in there but I dont know where. I wish Microsoft had kept the WinNT 4 architecture to implement a Linux sub system. However, the "Year of the desktop Linux" is not a question of "being able to" but of mass adaptation. IMHO Linux is stil not ready for that. I still have significant hassles getting Linux to work well with all parts / systems of a laptop. Yes, I can buy a laptop specifically made for Linux and it will be much easier. But bow we have reached the point where "Linux on the desktop" means getting normies to buy a very specific new laptops to run Linux well out of the box. I use Windows1 + macOS my laptops and desktops. (Often with a few Linux and FreeBSD virtual machines) I run Linux and OpenBSD on servers. I would like to have Windows Server on a couple but $$$$$ I think that >""Linux runs all top 500 super computers, billions of personal devices, most >servers on the Internet, on all continents, on all oceans, in the air, in orbit, >and on Mars. Oh, and in the air on Mars. All big corporations use open source in >some form."" Is a detractor for Linux on the desktop. Nearly all huge financing of Linux comes from giant corporate entities that deal with 100.000s (millions?) of computer server farm in data centers. Their priorities are extremely and even conflicting with the needs of a a desktop Linux for normies. There is also investment in Linux on smartphones, routers etc. The priorities here are also conflicting with what a regular desktop user wants. Ubuntu and some others are investing in Linux on the desktop but its tiny sums and efforts if you compare them to the efforts above. Let us just be happy with macOS for regular desktop users. Why should a single OS dominante all markets at the same time? I think that is frightening more than anything else. I want many more operating systems to choose from. (Not yet another Linux distro)