ArchAngel,
Okay, we can agree to disagree. I fully see your point that it's not prudent to spend money on something that is not a sure thing or immediately profitable. From a vendors point of view, that is absolutely correct. From a users point of view, though, more choice is better, right? My friends want to switch from Windows to Mac, but can't because their favorite software (games) only run on Windows. Same deal with Linux. From the "tech market's" point of view, Microsoft is not very fair or equitable in their role of market leader and controller. Linux would fix this, by ensuring a level playing field for all applications vendors. You pointed out WordPerfect having "limited market and continu[ing] to scramble to try to keep their heads above water". Did you know that they had 90% + of the Office Suite market before Microsoft started giving out free office CD's every time you bought a Dell? Similarly, Netscape ruled the browser market until Microsoft included IE free with every copy of Windows. The Microsoft monopoly isn't good for application vendors, since there is the distinct probability that Microsoft will introduce their own product, include it with the OS, and annihilate the competition. What if the new MSMoney includes realtime charting capability, with good technical analysis capabilities? Bye bye Equis, bye bye Tradestation. Both WordPerfect and Netscape are at about 2% of the market share right now. And they've both ported their stuff to Linux, hoping Linux will catch on and they can compete fairly and evenly again. But what it will take is for MANY companies to port their stuff and CAUSE Linux to catch on. It will, if there are apps for it. Would you still use Windows if there was NO software for it, and it was all for Linux? No, of course not. Likewise, the more software is ported to Linux, the stronger competition Linux will be, and the less leverage Microsoft will be able to use on their competitors, the OEMs, and their customers. But until that time, Microsoft will continue expanding into other markets, leveraging their wealth and monopoly to destroy the competition until they're all dead. And when they hit trading software, I hope everyone likes the Microsoft offering (complete with copy-protection, IRS backdoors, huge pricetag, and viruses that corrupt your data), because that's all there will be left.
My point is that as a Windows, Mac, and Linux veteran and a paid Network Administrator, I have seen the rise of Microsoft, the fall of Apple, and the underground revolution waiting to happen that is Linux. Microsoft is incredibly entrenched right now, and they've been improving their products greatly with Win2000 and XP in response to Linux and MacOSX. However, as a person who uses all these platforms on a daily basis, if I had my choice, I would choose Linux, and not just for religious, but technical reasons. No, I'm not the average user. BUT - my mother is, and she runs Linux. She didn't know it wasn't Windows98 until she called me, terrified about the Klez worm, and I told her that she was immune and could just delete it when it showed up in her mailbox. If she can do it, anyone can. And being free, Linux will catch on, just like Microsoft's free IE and free Office CD's caught on. I'm living proof of that. And just wait until Palladium.
I'll keep supporting Linux, and you keep using Microsoft. That's cool with me. Hopefully, in five years or so, I can make an argument to you based on Linux's improvement and attributes that will encourage you to switch over. Until that time, I'll work on making Linux better, and getting software ported over, so that there can be even competition in the software markets again. If people based all their decisions on buying only the market leader, there would be no improvement in any market - we'd all be driving Ford Model T's (or horses) and using typewriters, which once ruled the desktop.
But this is starting to sound like a Slashdot post, so I'd better stop here.
