What exactly does the media it is "distributed" on have anything to do with GPL? As pointed out above, there is plenty of GPL'd software written for Windows and yes the license is OS agnostic as it should be. So what exactly is your point here?

If security is not part of the equation (and if they are still on IE6 then it isn't) then staying on XP seems a good choice. As a military contractor I can tell you that we spent a fair amount of money to upgrade systems for Vista. Most if it was to allow systems to run comfortably and was based on what we were told was the minimum footprint. Some of that money wasn't really all that necessary, but the video cards had to be changed. Thats a cost that can be avoided by staying on XP. Couple that with the cost of upgrading specialized apps that depend on IE6 and it seems like staying with XP is a no brainer--at least for those who had the brains to tie their app to IE6.

Better security.

if the criticism's were constructive then perhaps you should get away with calling the post a differing opinion. It is not. It is instead just another in a long line of similar derisions offered by people who see this as a competition between MS and Linux, or between closed and open source, and they've decided (or been paid) to champion closed source. These people exist for open source as well and they like their closed source cousins mostly fail to add value to the discussion.

You are correct not to use obscurity as the sole excuse. The rest of the picture is likely fewer users running in an administrative role and fewer opportunities to install something if the user isn't in that role.

He didn't say he installed in on his Mom!

Actually the real problem is that you start with "Linux sucks because" not because you are criticizing someone for Linux not being open to your specific criticism.

Understanding the depth of the issue is a big problem for Linux users, and that means it is a huge problem for anyone supporting an application or distribution. The paradigm shift necessary to offer criticism is a barrier to understanding--even amongst enthusiasts. I've seen discussions get mired in one developer not understanding the basic concerns of another for his reputation.

“I simply believe the problem is that users' requests should be driving the development. Some way has to be found to make this feasible for Linux to be successful.”

It isn't as if that isn't happening.

I often wonder why my experience has been so different from others and then I read things like “Here is a simple question, why on earth when I have multiple applications that need the sound card have problems sharing the sound card? Who on freaken earth thought that one out...”

To be sure, I've encountered the attitude experienced above--most of the time I was partially responsible. Thats not an excuse for the pompous twit that treated me that way--I was only asking a question about Windows version numbers.

We all know these people exist--and they exist wherever we go.

No it didn't really change that attitude, it just allowed more people into the club.

X was not then what it is today and was part of the problem. Whether window management is a better approach to computing is at best questionable--it is for desktop users who don't want or need CLI power.

Quite to the point here is the approach that Ubuntu has brought to this argument. People would do well to note that developers are not the only people who are making changes to Linux in general these days. The days of the technician centric approach to desktop Linux are largely being pushed behind us.

And thats why it is hasn't changed one bit over the years. Sarcasm intended.

I don't think most Linux guys do #3, more like #2. Its the Windows folks that tend to do #3, then they run back to Windows.

No, again, you're missing the point. Nobody is asserting that you need to only buy hardware spec'd for Linux. The point he's making is that if you want to run Linux, you need to confirm your hardware works with it. Your analogy doesn't work here either. The one I used earlier might work better--if you own a set of wheels and go buy a car without first checking to see that your wheels will work, do you blame the car manufacturer, the dealer, or yourself? We aren't talking about cars though so that one is imperfect. People are use to the idea that things will just work. While it would be nice if the hardware manufacturers would make drivers for everything, we know they won't. Is that Linux's fault? No. Is it their problem? Yes. Is it the users fault? Yes, they should have checked first just like they should if they are moving to Vista.

No, he's making the problem out to be one of users not checking the hardware compatibility list--something you need to do to upgrade to Vista, and to move to Linux.

No it doesn't work when you stick it into your Windows box--like he said. If you think every piece of hardware out there works with Windows out there then you don't have enough experience yet.

A good point--if over generalized--until "Sometimes people actually want to get something accomplished and not just play with their OS." I don't tend to spend time playing with my OS, but then I use Gnome. KDE can sometimes be option centric--and some like it that way.