Yes. In n the main it will always remain an interesting distraction for nerds. It has no driving force, no focus, no point other than to 'be Linux'.
You must have noticed the irrational fascination of the Linux community to get Linux to run on anything with a cpu.
Yes, yes, very interesting, but does that fix the dog slow desktop and video performance that's not even as good as Win98. No.
Just accept that Linux is a tinkerers hobby that can be made to do things for free, with some time and effort.
I try my best to show Linux to others. Even people who are techno savvy have huge problems getting it to work acceptably. Primary hurdle being terrible vesa-esque video performance, even with correct drivers.
The nvidia/ati closed source drivers are both dog turd for 2d. Assuming a new user can install them without error.
Then comes the usual problems getting Wireless to work, then educating them that it's not Windows. Then you tell them that none of their games will work acceptably well. It's a tough sell.
I can't say I agree with anything you've said in the slightest. I've been using Linux for maybe 8-10 years now, and when installing Ubuntu, OpenSuSE, or any other popular distro, the graphics in 2D terms are equivalent, if not better than Windows. Sure, 3D is a different story, but there's many explanations for that that lay outside of the scope of this debate.
I've installed Linux on a plethora of systems, from SFF Compaq systems that where built in 2000, to C2D Systems. The desktop performance has always been great, and I'd struggle to find a distro that didn't work with the onboard graphics chipsets supplied by the majority of motherboard manufacturers.
Of course, if I was using a 295, there may be problems. But then, there would be in Windows. If using Windows, I would have to download and install the latest drivers, and even then would still expect bugs/flaws. The problem is that Linux does not have that support. I could not Google "Nvidia 295 drivers download Linux" and go straight to a download page as I would with Windows. Instead I would have to invest time and effort in reading through various forum post's and how to's, with the possibility of it never working.
In short, I disagree with the statement "Yes, yes, very interesting, but does that fix the dog slow desktop and video performance that's not even as good as Win98" categorically, and would ask you to provide evidence to support such a claim. Of course there are exceptions, but in this debate (i.e. discussing why Linux isn't proving popular for Netbooks), I would argue that it is simply not true. Most Netbooks use common graphics chipsets that are fully supported by the Linux kernel, so that simply can not be the case.
However, a point that others have made that is certainly pertinent is the willingness of the user to accept change. John and Jane Doe, have for a long time used Windows, and may not have ever even heard of Linux before, let alone thought of it as a replacement to Windows.
So, for them, Linux is a change. A change from normality when it comes to their expectations with using a computer. Even if Windows XP crashed every so often or a program becomes unresponsive, for the past ten-years they have experienced the same thing, and so have come to expect it and know how to deal with it (i.e. reboot or task manager). If the same thing happens in Linux, they are out of their depth. They don't know what a terminal is, nor what a PID is, nor how to use the kill command.
The general populous do not like change and do not want to feel out of their depth. They prefer normality. In most instances they prefer comfort over a learning experience.
They already know how to kill a process using Task Manager within Windows, so if they then have to learn a different process to kill a program within Linux, they will deem Linux to be inferior for not doing it the same way. "Oh, well, I always did it this way in Windows".
To speak briefly about your other point, that being that Linux is forever to be a nerds pursuit, I would have to disagree again. Microsoft has taken twenty years to build up the general populations knowledge of Windows. Linux is still in it's infancy when it comes to widespread use. Just look at how many more people are now using Linux since the relase of distro's such as Ubuntu. Sure, the numbers won't nearly approach that of Windows, but there is significant growth shown.
I remember watching a webcast not so long ago that included an interview with Steve Ballmer (it was by the 'trend measurers' company, the name escapes me). In the interview the host showed a graph of OS usage, and Linux made up a tiny number, smaller than OSX and another enterprise-centric OS if I remember rightly. Steve Ballmer openly admitted that Linux was the OS that Microsoft was keeping a close eye on.
Finally, as for why Netbooks with Linux installed are being returned, there is no doubt a multitude of reasons:
- As stated above, the user feels out of their depth, and does not like or is not willing to accept change.
- Microsoft have skewed the results to their advantage.
- The general population are stupid. And I mean that. They see the Xandros minimalised desktop, and think "where's the Internet Explorer icon? This thing is rubbish".
- They have one bad experience that they have never come across with Windows (i.e. Flash playback, or video stuttering because of a poorly configured driver etc) and realise that they've never had the same problem on Windows, "it just works". As such, Linux appears to be a waste of time.
Etcetera etcetera.
To summarise, Linux is good, and has a foundation in something good, that is, the free software movement. Time is what it needs.
Wall of text, HOOOOOOOOOO!
Apologies to the OP.
See above as my answers relate to the same matter.