To me, the article comes across as a request to the linux community for solving the linux desktop problem. In other words, when given a viable chioce, the author wants linux on his desktop.
The author's complaints seems confirmed when looking at the trends [1] in market share for contemporary os's.
>Desktop Linux has to be made somehow profitable for companies to start investing more heavily in it...
I also believe that this is the major issue when trying to make linux successful on the desktop. So, what to do about it?
Android seems to be an example of a Linux-based operating system becoming successful partially because of its importance to hardware vendors. Could Linux distributions in general benefit from a hardware vendor becoming the goto vendor for Linux-running laptops and/or desktops?
Android isn't successful because of Linux, it's successful in spite of Linux. Google chose Linux as a base on which to build what is essentially a new operating system (much like Apple chose BSD to build iOS on).
This is what a cellphone looks like when it's developed entirely by the open source community: http://www.openmoko.com/
Android certainly is successful _because_ of Linux (the kernel), because that let Google concentrate on the upper layers, being able to use a mostly finished kernel.
Android is a different story. Even though it's based on Linux and is supposedly "open source", Google's still the driving force behind its development. So the problems the article points out with the linux development process won't really apply to Android.
Canonical partnered with Dell for a while to get Ubuntu on a few systems (Dell had been looking for an alternative to windows and had gone to Apple to try to license OS X; Apple refused). Turned out customers didn't really want Ubuntu, and mostly installed (pirate?) Windows and wiped out Ubuntu. You can't just wipe out iOS and install Android on your iPhone (well you can on an original iPhone, but it's not as easy as installing a desktop OS).
System76 is an Ubuntu-only computer vendor, but for most linux geeks they just buy any PC that works with the Linux flavor they want and put linux on it. Most non-geek linux users had linux put there by a geek linux user and don't know any better.
I think companies (yes companies) like System76 are the only real way forward for Linux On The Desktop but I think that they tend to get ignored in this discussion. Linux already has prominent commercial backing (Red Hat, Canonical, IBM, etc.) for server-focused systems and applications. And indeed, in this arena Linux has been very successful. Where these sorts of complaints should fall are directly on system builders (the Dells of the world). When someone hears about Linux, it should be possible for them to go to a store and maybe check one out.
Think about the last time you bought something. Did you go to a shop and kick the tires a bit? When I wanted an Android phone that was unconnected to any particular carrier, I was lucky enough that Best Buy was partnered up with Google. I could hold a Nexus S and see if I liked it before I bought one. This hands-on experience matters. Your local LUG is trying to get the word out, but they're volunteers. We need more businesses who have a vested interest in selling Linux to regular users. When they are, then the product will be a better fit for those users. This is the difference between 'The Spirit of St. Louis' and American Airlines.
Full disclosure, I bought a System76 machine and I'm very happy with it. It's good hardware and it all worked (and not just "works for me", but really worked). Getting a product like this is a good fit for a certain type of computer user. I have owned and bought computers before. It's refreshing to get a new computer that doesn't have layer upon layer of crapware pre-installed and I wasn't in need of some fetishistic unboxing experience; it came in a box that, when opened, it worked out of.
You said it is "good hardware". Do you mean that the build quality is good? Is it on par with a MacBook or a ThinkPad? I have heard recently that their laptops are fairly plasticky and battery life isn't great either. Comments?
My two complaints are that the keyboard isn't the sort that I like, it's of the chiclet variety, and they only offer shortscreens (16:9 rather than 4:3). On the first complaint, this is really just my preference on keyboards. I'm a dvorak typist and so I'm a bit picky about keyboards; from my point of view, every laptop keyboard is bad, but I'm holding out hope for Thinkpads. On the second complaint it seems, unfortunately, that no manufacturer makes 4:3 laptops in 12"-15" sizes.
I have one of the ultra-thin models "Lemu1" and the body is plastic while the inner chassis is metal. It reminds me of the build on an iBook G4. It does feel a bit flimsy, but this model is about the size of a MacBook Air and so I figure some of the flimsiness is partly just physics.
The author's complaints seems confirmed when looking at the trends [1] in market share for contemporary os's.
>Desktop Linux has to be made somehow profitable for companies to start investing more heavily in it...
I also believe that this is the major issue when trying to make linux successful on the desktop. So, what to do about it?
[1] http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9