Don't worry, Microsoft. 2009 won't be the year of the Linux desktop... nor will 2010, 2011, etc.

Depends on What You Mean By "Year of Desktop Linux"

A lot of the discussion about how well desktop Linux will compete with Windows is muddled because it confuses a shift towards Linux with replacing Windows as the dominant OS. For all of the reasons you mention, desktop Linux will not reach a 50% market share anytime soon. Even in server Linux is not a majority. For consumers and for Microsoft, the more important question is if it goes from 1% to 3% to 5%. At 5% it would be like Apple was a few years ago. It would mean that everyone would probably known someone who used it. It would mean that everyone would be able to purchase a new computer with it but it would be a bit of a hassle to do it. Buying a Linux desktop would still be unusual just as buying an Apple desktop is still a bit unusual. For Microsoft even this modest success for desktop Linux would be devastating. Apple competes on really nice features, the high end. Linux has some nice features but the primary reason the people in the near future who move the share from 1-5% will buy it is it costs less and runs well on less expensive hardward. People often point out that Windows XP has taken over the netbook market. But to compete with Linux Microsoft had to drop the price from roughly $50 to $15. This means for the low end of the market all of the features you describe as advantages of windows is only worth $15. For most users, including most enterprises, they only need an OS that works, that they or their employees are familiar with, and has access to the basic windows applications. They are not much different from low-end netbook purchasers. When Linux is a real option, Windows is only worth $15. This is a real problem for Microsoft. If Linux reaches a 3-5% market share then it becomes a real option for almost everyone. The exception are people/employees who have some special enterprise or other software that only runs on windows. Finally, manufacturers have a huge incentive to make Linux a real competitor. Netbook manufacturers only pay $15 for windows XP. Some of the reduced price accrues to the manufactuer as increased profit. They have a huge incentive to eventually offer linux as an option, not because they want to sell linux but to drive down the Windows price. The response by Microsoft to all this will not be to let Linux's market share grow to 50% but to keep dropping the price of Windows until they can retain a dominent market share. Windows will retain a dominant market share but selling it at a much reduced price

Change your perspective...

In reality, there wont be a "Year of the Linux Desktop", just as there was no "Year of the Windows Desktop".

All that will happen will be a broad 'encroachment' of Linux on more and more devices, web-tablets, MIBs, netbooks, smart-phones and low-cost PCs - enough to make most users comfortable with a non-Windows UI.

In time, this encroachment will constitute the bulk of the computing devices out there.

not exactly the same thing.

First, you assume that some company using Linux as it's base product is intending to 'compete' for marketplace share to begin with. While there are a few, such as Red Hat, Novell and Ubuntu, that offer Linux based OS's in a commercial vehicle, those companies do not represent Linux overall.

They represent their own business interests and the way they have chosen to package and present their Linux based software.

The Linux development community though isn't interesting in market competition. It exists solely for making Linux better. To improve on itself.

In terms of market share though, it's not likely that any one of the companies involved in providing Linux based software commercially is going to enjoy the contractual arm bending, the monopolistic leveraging and questionable business tactics a company like Microsoft was found to have used in a court of law, to gain said monumental marketshare.

As a matter of fact, in today's marketplace, it's highly unlikely that Microsoft could manage it a second time without having the benefit of already being an installed base.

Your position on marketplace share and competition is flawed.

NO software company could repeat what Windows benefited from to gain the marketshare it currently enjoys.

To insist upon 'competition' with MS and Windows, is not an apples to apples discussion as the 'competitors' are not on a 'level' playing field, one can only postulate and theorize as to the outcome. There is a lot of assumption involved in such postulating. Most of it based on emotional 'fanboy-ism,' On all parties accounts.
SO here's a better idea.

let's let Windows be windows and people will or will not use it. We can at the same time, let Linux be Linux and let people use that if they find it fits their needs.

The same can be applied to Mac and any other OS out there.

How about letting the schoolboy antics of "my dog is better than your dog' go?