I am brand new to Linux. I've been working in tech since 1990, oracle, unix, blah blah blah... but had been running M$ on my personal desktop until 2 weeks ago. In the last two weeks, I've played around with fedora, white box, knoppix, debian, and mandrake. Each distro has its own quirks on my system. Either audio works, or ethernet works, but never both... depending on the distro. With knoppix, video didn't work. I guess my hardware is just to new for linux (asus mobo, marvell on-board gigabit, fx 5700 video).
My point in saying all this is that the pundits are right... linux is not ready for the personal desktop of the average consumer. I may have the background to be able to trudge the road of uncertainty, but my mother isn't going to be running linux anytime soon.
I would have to say that the pundits (and you) are wrong. My mother runs FC2 just fine and she knows less about computers than my kids do. For the most part, most people will only use a Browser, Email, and Instant messenger. My 4 kids and my wife all use FC2 with no problems, I can control their access to more things with it than I can with Windows and I never have to worry about random crashes/viruses/trojans/etc. I suppose you don't recall the madness with Win95 when it shipped and especially Windows 2000 when it shipped having to check the Hardware Compatibility List? I run a multitude of Linux boxes across several different makes and models, most of my own build. I have most of the devices you have (except the marvell onboard GB), but I run GB at home and have no problems with the Intel Cards.
The bottom line is, I do believe the desktop is right for some consumers who rely on basic functions. Office, email, and web browsing.
-- Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.
Mark Haney Network, Database and Systems Administration DoctorDirectory.com Inc.
