When something goes wrong on our personal computer and Windows XP hangs up and forces a reboot, every single one of us, at one time or another has cursed Bill Gates and the gang at Microsoft.

Now if you are running a flavor of Linux and it encounters a problem that results in a crash, how many of us actually curse Linux? And with the possible exception of Linus Torvalds, just who CAN we yell at? For the record, crashes DO happen in Linux.

If you read print or Web articles on the popularity of Linux you get the impression it is a major, major success. Presented statistics show it is "exploding" in popularity and will eventually rule the operating system world - just give it a bit of time.

Only a funny thing is happening or should I say, not happening. That is, here in the real world, I don't see Linux - SuSE, Red Hat, Mandrake, you name it - steamrolling over Microsoft the way it has been made out to be. It isn't like Linux is anything new; having been around now for several years.

Now before you Apple-turned-Linux fans begin spamming me with hate mail, wait just a minute! I am not, for a second, saying Linux is "bad," "inefficient," "impractical" or anything negative whatsoever. I'm just not seeing it take off like others are claiming and hey, my operating system clock is ticking, ticking, ticking.

My point is, it is now mid-2005 and if Linux isn't happening now, when will it? Or will it always have a "second string status" aura?

A few weeks ago, I attended a Microsoft media event in Toronto. It was sponsored by Microsoft who had commissioned national system integrator Compugen to compare Windows 2003 Server against similar Linux enterprise level offerings from SuSE and Red Hat. After putting the systems through 14 tasks, the conclusion their testers reached was "Windows Server 2003 provided better functionality and greater usability than SuSE Enterprise Server 9 and Red Hat ES 3.4."

They also found "Configuring any if the Linux variants at the enterprise level was difficult because there were no standards-based configuration file formats or standards for the syntax used in those files."

The study showed there were other issues with Linux, including ease and speed of configuration; lower functionality levels, questionable end user experience and lack of vendor support.

The actual report can be found at http://www.compugen.com/Tuesday/jdapda/Microsoft-linux%20test%20report.pdf and a blog on this topic was created at http://blogs.technet.com/Barnaby_Jeans. Readers are encouraged to add their comments and yes, I know you Linux fans will say the study was "rigged" and infer there was something sneaky going on.

On one hand, there is a lot to like about Linux and you have to think it is going to improve in all areas. Just remember the following points:

1) It isn't free and it isn't intuitive; meaning the learning curve is surprisingly steeper than you first thought.

2) Support for third party hardware, strange printers and company specific software is poor. Not non-existent; just poor.

3) Functionality, especially in terms of remote access or connecting from outside the network is questionable.

4) The person who sets it up is the person who is going to fix it when it breaks. So be prepared to have that person around at all times and if not, be prepared to pay a lot more for somebody to parachute in and fix it.

Bottom line: Are we there yet with Linux?

No. Not yet.