Psalmist
Actually, the first desktop was XWindows, not Windows...   There are many desktops for linux available. Most of them top notch. I think you have a point about how things are done however. Linux users generally want to know what is happening under the hood, and sometimes can be obtuse about simple use. There are some Distributions that cater to those used to Windows however. The beauty of Linux is that anyone can create a distribution for any use. Most modern Distributions are quite easy to use, and very functional. If you have not tried Linux lately, give it a go.

Your comment on XWindows confuses the use of the term desktop. When people are talking about Linux (or Windows) on the desktop we are talking about people using it as a home/work desktop OS, not the actual rendering layer.
 
I work in IT, I have plenty of Linux experience, and that's where my assessment of it's status as a desktop OS. The design philosophy is just hard for many users (and organizations) to work with. Multiple distributions seems great to geeks but it confusing to a regular user. They discover they can't go and get "Linux" that there is in fact a bunch of different things that are "Linux" and the differences between them can be pretty extreme. Compatibility is also not great, you find things that really only want to run in their one particular flavour of Linux and unless you are highly technically skilled getting them to run in another one is impossible. The variability of Linux, which is highly desirable to the community, is counter-indicated for mainstream desktop adoption.
 
Likewise the focus on source code availability and distribution. It is core to what makes Linux what it is, but is intimidating to users. The concept of compiling software is alien and seems extremely daunting. Arguing that it is (or at least should be) simple doesn't change the perception of it. 
 
If Linux works for you as a desktop OS that's great, but you should recognize that is not the case for everyone. Also trying to argue it is a good enough alternative won't work for most people. If they have something they like, something else has to be a lot better to get them to switch. They don't care about political arguments, to them a computer is a tool, not a statement.

There are no professional audiointerfaces and no professional controller for Linux.
So Linux would only be a reason for a few amateurs.
You can play with Linux or make music. But not both.

THambrecht
There are no professional audiointerfaces and no professional controller for Linux.
So Linux would only be a reason for a few amateurs.
You can play with Linux or make music. But not both.

+1 to this.
There is no one Linux for something as complex as Sonar. Cake would have to double the devel staff just to support the various distros and desktops.
Every few years I try the latest and greatest Debian,Ubuntu or Mint. This goes back to about 2000 or so.
If you want to run a webserver...great!
If you want to surf the web, check your email, do office stuff...great!
If you want to make music...not so great.
I have had to compile various display, audio and network drivers for the build and hardware I was using a number of times.
I cannot imagine the devel/support nightmare a Linux version would create and for what... 0.1% or less of users.
I think the OSX version is a great marketing idea. Linux...not so much.

microapp
There is no one Linux for something as complex as Sonar. Cake would have to double the devel staff just to support the various distros and desktops.
Every few years I try the latest and greatest Debian,Ubuntu or Mint. This goes back to about 2000 or so.
If you want to run a webserver...great!
If you want to surf the web, check your email, do office stuff...great!
If you want to make music...not so great.
I have had to compile various display, audio and network drivers for the build and hardware I was using a number of times.
I cannot imagine the devel/support nightmare a Linux version would create and for what... 0.1% or less of users.
I think the OSX version is a great marketing idea. Linux...not so much.

 
+1 to the above.
 
I setup a Linux box to work as a desktop, as well as a VM host for various web server technologies, for my studies in web development. 
 
I thought, hey this is pretty cool, now let's see if I can run some DAW stuff on it.  So I spent a weekend trying to get various audio bits and pieces to work.
 
Afterwards I booted my Windows PC, loaded Sonar, and smiled.  It just worked
 
That said, I have pondered the possibility lately of someday seeing a Linux port for Sonar.  Especially since the MacOSX announcement.
 
I suppose it's theoretically possible since MacOSX and Linux are both Unix-like systems (MacOSX 10.5+ on Intel is certified as a UNIX). But there are still the different windowing systems, APIs, drivers, and on and on.  Not to mention that there are so many flavors of Linux to deal with, and developers making changes.
 
I believe that making music requires a stable environment.
 
But as mentioned above, support would be a big issue.  Think you have problems now with so many variations in a Windows PC hardware and software config?  Good luck with Linux, LOL!!!
 
The other issue is demand.  Desktop Linux users are a very small minority of the Linux world, even as Linux is eating the server world.  So there is little commercial incentive to port desktop apps unless there is a large enough user base to make it profitable.  Kind of a chicken or egg first question.
 
Don't get me wrong, I really think Linux has come a long way in the last 10 years, and I'm running the latest version of Linux Mint Cinnamon.  It is very smooth and polished, installation is even simpler than Windows.  Some of the things it does I like better than Windows.
 
But music creation isn't there yet, at least for me.  Media players work fine for playing recorded or streaming media.
 
But finally, here's an idea!  What if Cakewalk were to develop an Xbox style appliance for Sonar.  Plug and play.  With a walled garden approach, like Apple.  Use a customized Linux and spec the hardware to run audio. With full control of the hardware (including audio interface) tuned for Sonar, running only Sonar and approved plugins should be a cakewalk.  No support needed  (maybe, LOL)
 
Call it CakeBox!

No SONAR for Linux, please.
 
In a dream world it would be fantastic to have SONAR in Windows, Apple, Linux, Android, MS-DOS and CP/M, but it would get too laborous to maintain, develop, test and support for the company. 
 
 

+1 to the Linux port! There is no reason that the Linux desktop should be shunned. It may have a bit of a learning curve for windows users but what new app doesn't?
 
While some of the linux attraction is the large number of forks, that is also one of the things that is holding it back.  Personally, I think Linus should specify a linux base OS that includes various drivers and window API. This base would be what all other apps would use for development/compatibility testing. If someone wanted to fork the base then that company or developer would be responsible for the compatibility of the various apps for their fork. That would shift the onus of support and development nightmare from developers like Cakewalk to the linux distributors. It would also have the effect of stopping all the knee jerk changes that happen in the various forks or the desire to create more forks. If they refused to support the spec'd base then those branches would likely die on the vine.

There is a very good reason NOT to support Linux. There is an insignificant user base. For audio, it is essentially zero. I would much prefer Cake spend time on fixing bugs and adding new features.

microapp
There is a very good reason NOT to support Linux. There is an insignificant user base. For audio, it is essentially zero. I would much prefer Cake spend time on fixing bugs and adding new features.

Well it's never going to happen, so no worries really. 
 
No business case for it. 
 
It's just now making it to MacOSX.  We'll see how that works out.  Much larger user base of computer musicians there.

abacab
But finally, here's an idea!  What if Cakewalk were to develop an Xbox style appliance for Sonar.  Plug and play.  With a walled garden approach, like Apple.  Use a customized Linux and spec the hardware to run audio. With full control of the hardware (including audio interface) tuned for Sonar, running only Sonar and approved plugins should be a cakewalk.  No support needed  (maybe, LOL)
 
Call it CakeBox!

microapp
There is a very good reason NOT to support Linux. There is an insignificant user base. For audio, it is essentially zero. I would much prefer Cake spend time on fixing bugs and adding new features.

As "a box", Sonar will drift toward hardware "recording studio". And there is a problem: touchscreen support nor control surface support in Sonar are not on the level to avoid keyboard/mouse. On the other hand, bringing both to that level can help selling "normal" Sonar to people with tablets/notebooks with touch screen.
 
But "CakeLix", Sonar running live under some live Linux version (specially customized) not only can attract new users, F.e. with "Put THIS image on USB stick and reboot your computer. No installation required! Test amazing DAW without danger for your current system!", but also troubleshoot the system: if such live version can run on your computer, probably crashes/problems comes from other software.
 
Note that Sonar up to X2 can run under Wine in standard Linux. I have developed all my plug-ins there (running Linux native gcc crosscompiler). One day I am going to spend some time installing required for Splat MS runtimes...
 

microapp
There is a very good reason NOT to support Linux. There is an insignificant user base. For audio, it is essentially zero. I would much prefer Cake spend time on fixing bugs and adding new features.

 That was the attitude at Image Line as well.