If a migration to Linux on the desktop occurs at the workplace, but the UI is indistinguishable from Windows, who wins? A client recently engaged me in a serious discussion of a migration to Linux on the desktop. The obvious goal was financial, which certainly doesn’t guarantee the viability of the technology, but the realization that it is feasible to do so was tangible.We discussed OpenOffice vs. MS Office, integration with the existing MS Exchange implementation (Thanks Ximian), and the migration of back-end systems. Most of the battle of the desktop has been one-sided. The proverbial object in motion is quite the juggernaut, especially in penetration. The Windows look and feel is the most prevalent computing interface on the planet.So why not ease the transition? The XPde project creates a user interface that is identical to the Windows look and feel. If implemented properly, many users may never realize the difference. The training impact is negligible. Great idea? I’m somewhat of a mixed mind on this issue. The benefits are obvious, but the detriments are veiled. Too often choices are made to achieve limited short-term benefits while missing the chance to reap great rewards further down the road. I’d prefer to have the tooth removed before it’s necessary, and save myself the pain.By moving in the direction of simulating Windows to gain acceptance, we give the Windows UI tacit approval. While there are definitely worse interfaces than the Windows shell, there are better interfaces out there as well. Evolution is slow, revolution is fast. To truly change the landscape of computing, open source operating systems must become more than just different code with the same appearance; the change must be obvious.Apple has just recently done this. The Mac OS X interface borrows from Mac OS 9 in the body of the Finder, but almost every other aspect of the UI has changed; even the Apple menu is a shadow of it’s former self. Apple has been more successful with OS X than anyone thought, including Apple. They jumped the ravine, so to speak, and have landed safely. Now, if they can only keep the dogs at bay…Any attempt to generate a major shift (i.e. 20-30% market penetration) in x86-based computing environments in the consumer market must be motivated by the concept of more bang for the buck. The average consumer couldn’t really care less about the internals of the computer, they just want to send email, download images from their digital camera, play games, and so forth. OSS operating systems must be able to do this better and cheaper than Windows to succeed. Another way to achieve acceptance at the consumer level is by penetrating the corporate markets. A user that uses Windows XP all day is likely to want Windows XP at home. Keep it simple. Thus the quandry. If a migration to Linux on the desktop occurs at the workplace, but the UI is indistinguishable from Windows, who wins? I happily use the Ximian desktop on my main workstation, the Windows UI on Windows 2000, XP and Server 2003 systems, the RedHat BlueCurve themed Gnome2 desktop on a few laptops, and Mac OS X on the only laptop that I can truly say I love. I’m not even statistically relevant, much less in the majority. I would love to see true competition in the corporate and consumer desktop space; true innovation requires it. Whether Apple’s OS X blossoms further — they’re introducing the first-ever Enterprise IT track at the WWDC in June — or the slow-but-steady Linux adoption rate increases, doesn’t really matter. The reality of the majority of the wired humans on the planet moving beyond an 8-year-old UI could be spectacular.