The debate about whether the open-source operating system will ever become a major player on the client side is heating up again this week, in the wake of Nick Petreley's "pro" argument, Why Linux Will Succeed On The Desktop and my earlier piece, 7 Reasons Why Linux Won't Succeed On The Desktop.

Our own Serdar Yegulalp also added his own intelligent twist to the discussion, when he pointed out that Linux Doesn't Need To Look Like Windows to have a reason to live.

Okay, so now you've heard from these three people, who get paid to write about this stuff. They've blathered on about the relative merits of this GUI or that, the importance of pre-installs, and the maturity (or lack thereof) of fanboys. It's time (again) to hear from some real people, the users whose opinions matter far more than a bunch of pundits.

Indeed, Nick's article seems to have smoked out an unusually intelligent round of responses. Linux versus Windows, Round 10, has also inspired a new stream of comments to my "anti" Linux article. So let's go to the videotape.

There's apparent widespread agreement that an inability to support and manage large deployments of Linux desktops is the biggest impediment to adoption. That sentiment was summed up nicely by someone who self-identifies as Rambo Tribble (what, Stallone meets that guy from Apple?):

"[This article] overlooks what may be the single greatest obstacle to the adoption of the Linux desktop in the enterprise. That obstacle is almost a complete lack of qualified, certified desktop support personnel. Desktop users need support. Organizations need to know the support staff they hire is qualified. A lack of such personnel has been a stumbling block for Apple and it is a deal-breaker for Linux."

Commenter "SpiedUpon" agreed with "Mr. Tribble":

"RT hit it right on the head. Until Linux and its desktop entities are as easy to configure as Windows was, it will be a nightmare for corporate help desks to manage. Imagine a helpdesk worker in [an offshore call center] trying to help the average person (your mother or brother in law?) configure a Linux firewall, network connection, mount problem or SAMBA."

Here's how "Kevin_CIO" nicely summarized it all:

"You are severely underestimating the switch from Microsoft to Linux on the desktop. Linux can't be managed as well (easily) as Windows. Active Directory and Group Management aren't perfect, but they do a far better job than Linux can. User management is severely lacking and just will not perform as well as Microsoft.

When the day comes that I can manage Linux like I manage Windows, and software vendors develop open-source client-server applications, then I'll switch. Until then, I'll keep listening to blowhards who like to pretend that Linux is a good desktop OS. It isn't unless you are a techie or have access to a techie."

Finally, there's some sentiment that the continuing debating over the viability of Linux on the desktop is being beaten to death already. Here's how "Mark-IT" framed that one:

"Please stop writing articles about Linux taking over the desktop and Linux dominating the server space, or why the next release of Linux will be the answer. I wish I could go back and produce all the articles that were written about these topics over the last 15 years and it still hasn't happened. I have nothing against Linux, it just isn't being adopted by the market and history proves that. We need to get over it, use it where appropriate and move on."

I confess that "Mark-IT" makes a good point. However, my answer is no. Arguing with fanboys is too much fun.