Put the Lexmark down and step away from 1998. Your 4 paragraphs detailing one area where Windows is better than Linux (and only due to market considerations, not technical considerations) is amusing but overall pointless. I've personally set up about 50 desktop linux installations for friends and family who want to use me as their "computer guy". You have a (very small) point in that you can't just pick up ANY hardware and have it work in Linux, only about 90% of it works immediately. You're completely wrong about people being too stupid to realize that they have to buy something that works with their computer in order to, ya know, use it with their computer. By your logic Macs wouldn't exist simply due to not being 100% compatible with your pet OS.
You keep on spreading that FUD, but in the meantime I'm going to enjoy the ease of maintenance on my household's 2 linux desktops, 3 linux laptops and my linux server. Hell, I've even completely replaced cable TV with internet video.
A quick re-read of your post basically comes down to this bit of logic: Linux is not ready for the desktop because a few hardware companies have not yet blessed it as ready for the desktop. Linux is inferior to Windows because Lexmark says so, and that's the bottom line, nothing you can do about it but not be good enough.
See how goofy that sounds? As it turns out, it's just as silly in practice, as none of the few vendors that are actually Linux hostile have a monopoly in their market, thus any part you need is available at a reasonable (for the item) cost.