Eh tak fair..I need to lay forth my opinion as well. Nobody's going to read this anyway and I have time. Actually I don't but I enjoy wasting time.
For a start, "software incompatibility" is nonsense. A proper term is "hardware incompatibility". Blame the vendors who don't support open software solutions. AMD has done a wonderful job here by providing the Linux community with _full_ documentation and relevant code for ATI in order for developers to be able to write drivers. That's how vendors should be. Nvidia is starting to act more politely, thanks to the informal standardisation of OpenCL (not OpenGL). For the record, the Linux kernel supports more hardware than any other operating system in the world. It will run on your oven and PS3, and even drive your car. If there were to be an operating system for guitars, it'd be Linux.
Game publishers are never considering OpenGL's capabilities simply because of DirectX's gimmicks and the number of retards gaming on Windows machines. Blame them again for lack of games on Linux/Mac. It's not that they have no market, it's just that they're ignorant and are lazy to turn their heads. They started on one platform, they continue with one platform.
Document-sharing problems? Blame proprietary standards. You chose to lock yourself to a vendor. There are open standards, so if the masses do not want to aknowledge open standards simply because of habits and laziness, it's not the software's fault for being "incompatible". PDF is a good example of an open standard. ODF is its editable counterpart.
Software available in Windows not available on Mac? It's habit. Everything needs retraining. We trained ourselves since DOS, between each MSFT releases. The software consumer's has been played around with to the point that you actually grow accustomed to a product. This is a technique of monopoly. Apple is not innocent either. And Linux is not based on BSD. BSD is based on UNIX, Linux is UNIX-like. BSD is often cited to be a better kernel for servers, and Linux is inherently different though it shares similar security benefits.
If your business model is proprietary and is reliant on proprietary standards, software, etc, then stay that away and remain locked. As long as the money flows. If not, you have options.
For Linux Audio in particular, we know it's not "user-friendly" in the common understanding of the term. But it _is_, technically. It's as user-friendly as a Mac. The problems stem from the design decisions of software itself, like where buttons are and what they should be called, what feature x should correspond to, and stuff like that.
There's nothing to learn here, you just pop in a CD and start things up. It's just that there hasn't been a proper distribution for pro audio yet - all of them just package the pro audio tools and that's it. Well, that doesn't suffice. Granted, we know it's not ready for Hollywood, but it's ready for professional production. By professional, I mean real professional. Like Harrison Consoles with their Xdubber running Ardour. SSL hired Ardour's primary developer to work on it for a while as well. That should speak for itself.
If you just do podcasts or simple mixes of your podxt and a drum sampler and some synths, then Linux will suit you fine. It suits only two ends of a spectrum, not the mids. On the highs, it'll suit those in need of control and those in need of no-nonsense production without software being a burden. Most of you are in the middle. For now, it's a little non-intuitive with regards to setup as there's no unified method. This is in contrast to the 3D community where Blender practically reigns to some degree. It has even got certifications now, to a point where it's a free and dangerous competitor to 3DS Max and Maya.
Anyway, now for some seriousness. What would you guys like to see from a Linux audio workstation?
