I beg to disagree.

Journalist stunts like this obviously feed the insightful notions of how dumb people generally are, and get remembered the most.

But please, computers aren't yet cars in terms of the minimal technical knowledge required. As much as I wished to argue that this should be so for whatever idea's sake, I clearly see that this is the case rather often than not.

Whoever nowadays owns a computer, is at least of sufficient means to afford one, and is necessarily sufficiently smart not to waste the money. Even those fairy-tale people who only use their PC for email are told to sit on their hands before they click, and the reasons why. If they go out into the internets at large, they very darn quickly learn to exercise discretion (after a visit to their nearest guy who earns his small wage fixing computers). Most importantly, online banking is really the way to go, with due amount of caution they learn to observe, even more quickly. Credit cards, amazon, anyone? Let alone the fact that any `grandma' has a `grandson,' who is very likely to care about mom's PC if she doesn't.

So perhaps those "50% of people [who] don't even know what Windows is", are either a gross overestimate, or they know nonetheless to check their bank's URL begins with https: regardless of what their OS is.

And, I have a lingering distrust towards people who never fail to no note that so much of our fellow citizens need improving, but that's an altogether different matter.

My take on the whole story is just that: Neelie the Bringer of Gold for the EU sees the fine, as well as the browser ballot requirement, as yet another means to tell MS that they are not really liked here in Europe. And if they keep wearing out their welcome, fine (reminiscent of what I see in Brighton buses: "Don't have a valid ticket? Fine").

There is, also, a rather nuanced, largely unspoken of directly, intuition that goes with NK's message to be taken across the pond. By way of example, recall poor Floyd Landis and the litigation he had undertaken, in 2006 and onward. What he had striven so hard to achieve was, "to prove his innocence", and do it the American way, i.e., in court. In all appearance, he has conceived it and carried it out right, and as Armstrong would say afterwards, in honest belief he was not guilty--except that, as some other riders opined, litigation just isn't a proper way to prove anything in cycling.

Likewise, by imposing this fine or that requirement EU doesn't want MS to change, be it to assure a better competition or obey EU rules or whatnot. Seeing Linux take ground wherever local people find themselves able and willing to take local (up to municipal, in Munich) IT operations in their charge, and seeing perhaps less and less reason to assume the end-user role as the American way of life paints it, Europeans are only logical gradually to rid themselves of MS.

And if MS doesn't get that nuanced message, let them pay.

quickly and reliably? choose one.

Agh. I'd rather forfeit my modding points in this lucrative thread.

I think the major reason people dont use linux is
Linux is as complicated as it gets, or as root has deemed it to be. If a casual user (those fictional grandmas, or the "most people" referred to above) doesn't want to care to the fullest extent, let them have their PC managed by someone who's competent and willing to -- or let them stay with Windows, or buy them a Mac. And care they so obviously should, because no Canonical nor any legislature nor any court ruling can make a kilobyte be 1000 not 1024 bytes to suit the complacency of the 'casual'. If the current state of PC playground (as compared to Macs) is so rough, there will be malfunctioning hardware, upgrade issues, compatibility issues, data loss issues at a scale no Canonical can insure against. Have a competent man manage a Linux install, and *only then*, in every individual case, your grandma will be happy.

It has been said, although in a low and wary words, that with the advent of Ubuntu the Linux user base at large has grown, and is growing, dumber and less competent. Many have moved to tinker with Ubuntu as a cool addon for Windows, and have brought with them all the sloppy and arrogant ways and manners of Windows users who didn't pay for it. They have flooded the fora with babble of all sorts that's become a pain to search through when it comes to consulting the (google-assisted) community knowledge.

I dont think linux really needs any marketing.
I do by all means concur.

(oh my, look at the flame the next post has started with "Ubuntu has really removed the need for a terminal."...)

... in a non-aggressive, easy way, I mean: ignore windows. Or, let them be but prohibit them to connect to the Internet. Not clear yet? :}

Remembering a most preposterous occurrence of a game key stealing trojan on a flash-drive that got lifted to ISS, and the more recent one of a hospital's IT succumbing to some other malware.

How smart-alecky one would look if he takes on this problem thusly: Let all the windows ecosystem die its natural death and take all the botnet scum with it. Or does it take an ueberinsightful, astutely daring sci-fi fellow to see it as one efficient remedy to the dullest problem of modern age?