Re: I thought @Adair
Whilst it is quite true that there is representative software that runs on Open Source operating systems, it is not one-for-one compatible.
Don't get me wrong, I'm an Open Source advocate, and have been for a long time, but Open Source application software is often only as good as the time and effort it's writers put into it, and this is often not enough to make it completely functionally equivalent to commercial software, This leads to interoperabillity problems.
Now, for ordinary individuals or SMBs, that is probably OK, but just wait until you engage with another organization that is still wedded to commercial software. and you can suddenly find that for some application types, the fact that a document does not render quite right, or the macros that are used either error, don't work at all, or produce the wrong result, and it becomes a serious issue, possibly risking the viability of the business. This is why most organizations toe the line, and use the dominant offerings.
Big businesses like the control that is available via things like Active Directory, and often Open Source alternatives do not have anything like group policies that make marshaling large estates of desktop PCs easier, and that's ignoring cloud-based modern applications.
And then you have the bespoke applications that are specific to certain technologies. If they are only available on Windows, you have no choice (and please don't talk about emulation - its unlikely to be supported by the vendor and it's fraught with problems, and VMs are a sop that still encourages locked-in application/OS links).
What we actually need, and I've said this over and over again, is for application writers to realize that an Open Source OS does not necessarily mean Open Source applications. Commercial software can be delivered on Linux without having to open up the application source (as long as you abide by the LGPL). But we need either a standardized or dominant Linux environment, so that the Linux support requirements are affordable to software companies. That's just not happening, and the landscape is getting poorer (see the Canonical news about reducing ambitions over the last few days).
The Linux community is, unfortunately, letting the very opportunity offered by unpalatable licensing conditions in other application platforms slip through their fingers. The best we can hope for at this time is something like the Chromebook model to provide an alternative, but in a toss up between the New Microsoft and Google, With these choices, I'll take the third option, almost without regard to what it is.