While away speaking at a conference, I overheard someone emphatically explaining why they felt Microsoft was more popular on the desktop than Linux. They had it so wrong I felt it was important to write about it. Please read on.

This person was explaining that the reason Microsoft rules the desktop because Linux is "just not ready". Sadly, this kind of opinion is out there - I've heard it before. But it is not why Microsoft rules the desktop. Microsoft rules the desktop because:

1) They still benefit from timing

When PCs first arrived. There were limited choices available. Microsoft DOS, and in time Microsoft Windows was good enough, at the right price, and well marketed. It was debatable whether it was best - possibly not. However, Microsoft did a pheomenal job making people aware of their product in in fact going so far as that many people thought computers = DOS/Windows.

If today's Linux distributions were available back then, there's no doubt the story would be different.

2) For many people, Microsoft Windows is "free"

How many people actually go out and consciously buy Windows? I suspect it is probably less than 1%. Instead, it comes with the computer without the customer getting a practical choice, and furthermore - for those that don't buy it, as one of my friends said yesterday - they just download a pirated copy for free. Thus, to most of the people running Microsoft - it is "free".

3)  Inertia

People are stubborn animals. We prefer to keep doing what we're doing until we have a compelling reason to change. Compelling reasons are often heavily laden with emotional content, motivated by greed, or similar. For most people, switching to Linux or Mac just isn't a compelling argument and thus they run what they're given. In this case, Microsoft's distribution channels and marketing rule the roost and people get Windows by default today. This is a difficult thing to overcome.

4) What did we learn from betamax

There are many examples of how technical superiority lost in the market. Betamax is a famous one. Fans of HD-DVD claim it was superior to blueray. The list is too long to note here. The point is that technical superiority may win the sophisticated customer over. The rest of the world doesn't care - they just want the thing to work, be cheap, and to be the same as everyone else has so they don't find themselves isolated. People are herd animals.

There are many more reasons of course. If it were possible to summarize in a short blog precisely how Microsoft came to become a multi-billion dollar company, then anyone could do it. Clearly this is not the case. My point in sharing is that very little has anything to do with Linux's readiness or lack thereof on the desktop.

For the record, I run Linux on my desktop and laptop. Aside from some minor pain pulling data from Microsoft's proprietary formats from Outlook, I am quite pleased. In some cases, especially around development, software management, interoperability, security, and robustness - I personally find it no contest that Linux provides a better experience. But, as I've said above, that's a tiny piece of the puzzle.