Linux on the Desktop — Fact, Fiction, Fantasy?

Slashdot carries a story about whether Apple is sentencing doom for desktop Linux.  Look it up here and see what you think. I’ll tell you my take.  Linux on the desktop is beset by a few problems which seem to have been around for a bit of time and the idea of Linux and how people could possibly use it has been blogged ad nauseum.  Here are my new ideas:

Killer Applications – there needs to be a killer application that people would want to use and guess what?  Its only on Linux.  Is there such a thing?  What one application would you choose to leave the OS of your choice for?

Integration – not just apples and Orange Juice.  But the pieces must fit seamlessly together into the whole.  Its not just Beryl or Compiz Gee Whiz Bang, folks.  Things need to be tightly bound.  Fonts, display, how the desktop apparatus manages power, themes, skins, etc.

Portable uses – Yes people will want Linux on portable or embedded devices and they already do.  But on a laptop, challenges remain.  To me, the laptop must be fully supported and be able to do the things that make it a laptop.  Is this the case now?

Finally, Critical Mass must be defined or not.  Does it matter if there is no battle?  People will use Linux and I do also; but I also choose and pick the tools I want to use.  If I feel like using Windows XP, I’ll just use it.  I like Linux and Ubuntu and Debian just as well; but I stopped feeling warlike some time ago.  Consider what you feel are the compelling reasons to use a thing. Does it satisfy a need?  Does it make mundane tasks special or special tasks mundane?  Why do you use it?  You are in love with free (as in speech or beer) software?  I’m interested in the why of it and always have been.  I know people that confine their use because they feel that XX or YY operating system is beneath them.  They believe they have a quality of life to maintain.  Yay for them.

I’m a habilis though and I’m interested in statements like these from the article above:

It’s not hard to understand why Linux has failed to live up to the promise of being a viable desktop alternative to Windows. Linux’s problems are many. For example: Apple has Microsoft Office, Linux doesn’t; Apple has Adobe Creative Suite, Linux doesn’t; Apple has easily accessed and easy to use service and support, Linux doesn’t; Apple is driven by someone who has some understanding of end-user needs, Linux is not.

Consider what the article is attempting to say here.  Does it make Linux an influence or casualty?  Is Apple truly to blame or is the passage of time?