One thing for sure: that completely lets out Barry O'Bama.

Today, as a matter of fact.

This morning I received the Administration's response to a petition to update the ECPA, agreeing that the law is seriously in need of updating and that the Administration is, "...encouraged by the strong bipartisan support for updating this legislation in both chambers of Congress..." and that they're looking forward to having the law address today's needs correctly.

It may be possible to install software without root access, but it won't be able to do any damage to your system files, or have access to lots of other stuff that malware likes to modify.

You just pay again when you buy your next computer.

But why should you have to buy a new computer just to run the latest version of your OS? Why should the hardware requirements increase that fast? Granted, I don't buy pre-made computers because I have a friend who's a much better hardware tech than I'd ever be even if I were interested in those things (I'm a software geek; he's hardware.) but I've gone through several upgrades of my distro (Fedora) without needing to buy any new hardware, and don't expect to need a better computer for years. Why do people accept so easily that upgrading Windows includes upgrading their hardware?

Linux doesn't offer a compelling reason to change, it didn't 20 years ago, it didn't 10 years ago, and it doesn't today. Not to more than about 1.5% of desktop users anyway.

There's one that I've found gets people's attention: Linux is free, as in beer. Every time there's a new, expensive version of Windows released, I get more people asking about Linux. Not many change, but at least they consider it.

Then you have the issue of "do my programs run on it". If your answer is, "no, but similar programs do", then you've lost, you might as well give up.

Or, you make sure that Wine is installed and for the most part, you can say, "Yes, they will."

I've seen that complaint many, many times before, and it was always used as an excuse not to use Linux, with the implication that the lack of OSS drivers was caused by the devs not providing them rather than putting the blame on the OEMs as is right and proper. If the OP wasn't doing that, it's the first time I've ever seen it.

Key- and screen-loggers? Pretty standard stuff I believe. All that's required is the wrong virus or trojan sneaking on to your machine somehow.

I presume, then, that you're not that familiar with Linux or how people use it. Aside from the fact that almost all of the virus/trojan programs out there won't run directly on a Linux machine, you still need root (Or, in Windows-speak Administrator.) rights to install new software. Not only that, most Linux users get their software from their distro's repositories and nowhere else. I won't say that it's impossible to infect a Linux box if you try hard enough, but I will say that it's exceptionally hard to do without the user assisting you. I know; I've had malicious websites try to slip in a drive-by download and all that happens is I get a dialog box asking me if I want to download the file and if so, where to put it. And, since most main-stream distros use SELinux, it's next to impossible for a program like that to do any damage to the system files.

The problem is my employer requires an account with that bank.

If so, just use it as a transfer account. Let your employer use it for direct deposit of your paychecks, then transfer the funds to a different account at whatever bank you prefer, leaving only enough money behind to keep the account open. There's no reason your employer needs to know, and nothing that they can honestly object to if they do find out.

All it takes is someone filming your keyboard and screen while you log in and your security is completely bypassed.

And how are they supposed to do that? Magic? I only access secure sites from my PC desktop, at home. It doesn't have a web camera attached and doesn't run Windows.

And who's fault is that? It's not the Linux devs because they've wanted to write OSS drivers for those cards ever since they came out, but alas, the OEMs won't release the specs. I'd suggest that you check the facts before you post such drivel, but I know that people like you are only interested in spreading anonymous FUD.

However that assumes that the majority care.

It also assumes, I'll admit, that the majority are aware that there's a choice, and that the other choices work as well as, or better than what they're used to. As long as people make fun of "The Year of the Linux Desktop," people are going to be afraid to try it because they think it's hard to learn. I have a friend who's a computer columnist among other things, and he still thinks that you need access to a Unix guru to run Linux because that was true twenty five years ago when he first looked at it. I've tried to get him to understand that for most people, they need no more tech support with Linux than with Windows, but he's in his eighties now, and a bit set in his ways.

The point of my comment was to suggest that things like that will drive more and more people away from Windows so that eventually, only those users who can't or won't think for themselves will be left with it.

But the Year of the Linux desktop is right around the corner amirite? :P

I don't know about anybody else, but that came for me over eight years ago. This is strictly a Linux household, and the only time I ever run under Windows is at a private social club I belong to where they have some Windows boxes for gaming. I used to be a Windows-internals geek back when I did tech support. Now, if one of those gaming boxes has problems I ask somebody else for help because I've happily forgotten all of that.

...if I'm doing multiple reinstalls in a single day...

...you've got major problems with your OS. Why do you keep reinstalling the same borked version of Windows when you know it's not going to work for you? That's pretty much the classic definition of insanity!