" 

 == Biased article == 

 This whole article seems very pro-Linux to me. Lets remember, Linux is so bad that they're having trouble giving it away for free, with the majority of computer uses preferring to pay money for other OSes. It was written by tens of thousands of different people, all having their own idea over what's best, making it the ultimate designed by committee piece of software. It was also written by experts, who wrote most of the time for themselves, making it very difficult for non-experts to make any headway. Yet look through the entire article, and see what has been said that is even remotely negative about Linux? There's very little there.    

 :Wikipedia is not about presenting points of view, it's about providing info from reliable source, I don't see you presenting any reliable source for inclusion, only an irrelevant personal opinion. As for ""so bad that they're having trouble giving it away for free"" that's a misconception, First of all there are million of users, so I don't see it as a big problem, second, not everybody needs Linux, and of course because Microsoft monopoly many programs are available only for Windows, most of the people are interested in programs, not in operating systems  however this plain fact doesn't have tell anything about ""how bad"" or ""how good"" an operating system is. Oh, by the way, if you think you found a platform in the talk page let me disappoint you, not many people read it, usually only editors of the page and editors usually know a bit about operating systems. Oh, and by the way many people who use Linux can get Windows for free, they still don't use it, what does tell you? But, since you are the one doing the complain here what specific thing in the article is presented in too positive light? I'm curious.   

 "