And they say Windows is ready for the desktop?

[forrestcupp]

So will someone please tell me what Linux needs to be "ready for the desktop". What is the final piece of the jigsaw? Am I in blissful ignorance thinking that Linux can do all I want it to but actually missing the big picture. Or...?

Better support for gaming, multitask printers, and better ATI support would be nice. But these things don't keep Linux from being ready for the desktop. I had to reinstall Windows XP on my other partition, and I had to do more tweaking to get it running then I did on SL.

[joshb]

I installed ubuntu on my wifes computer and i didn't have to show her nothing. She has threatened my life if i change it back to windows or any other distro. Me... i'm going through my distro hopping phase. About to try SL for the first time, i love the look of it.

Reason i installed ubuntu on my wifes laptop??? Got sick of fixing it. She's a typical virus net. A few of my neighbors are now running linux also.... reason? "i know something that will solve all your problems..." Since then i haven't had ANY house calls.

[joe.pelayo]

Tabrown, nobody here doubts that Linux isnt ready for the desktop yet IMO. Sabayon, PCLos, SuSe, Mephis, Ubuntu, Pioneer, KateOS, Mint,...Gee, who did I miss... Are all ready for prime time desktop use, and in fact ALL OF THEM are far superior to anything M$ could even contemplate doing. Windows, and even moreso Vista, were designed for the sole purpose of relocating your money to someone elses pocket. For example, I installed my XP for the purposes of testing Qemu/KVM out and it installed fine, but it installed with absolutely nothing in the way of any type of useful apps. I couldnt even play DVD's because it doesnt preinstall the codec's --- No, you have to pay for those!

Office apps?.. Nope ($133.00 US for Office 2003)
Multimedia apps?.. Nope
Games?... Nope
Ok, how about special wallpapers or cool utilities...NOPE! Gotta pay.

You missed Fedora.