Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (Score 1)

Now look at all the things that Windows 2000 doesn't have that Linux has

Well, as always, Linux has all these features - that are in beta.. Don't be so quick at bashing people who use Windows. You are acting like these up and rising GPL advocates who are defending territory like there was a war on. Before I go on, keep in mind that I've been a Linux user since 1998, and I am not using Windows for anything these days. But Linux is, for many, even like myself, a crossroads while we're waiting for something better comes along. With it's /usr/local's and /var/log's and X on to of "DOS" state that never seems to go away, it is just good enough until somebody finally manages to create an OS which is fast and lets you get on with your stuff without getting in your hair first. Now lets move on to your points.

1. Out-of-the-box driver support for just about everything (only exceptions are ATI/nVidia graphics cards, but some distrobutions now include them)

Windows 2000 also had this, for 2000 era hardware. And the stuff that didn't come with the OS was easily installable from CD/Floppy. I don't think this really is a point, unless you compare Linux to Syllable or some system like that.

2. Central package management system

This is not a good point! I'd love to have Windows' method of installing apps in Linux. Really I would. I don't want to hear your arguments about shared libraries and messy system folders, really I don't. One of the biggest problems common users have with Linux is the packages - and that they can't easily grab some installer off the app developers' website. Everything is fine as long as you play by the distro rules, but immediately when you go to a page with a "linux" download (which happens to be an rpm) and try and install it in Ubuntu, you run into a wall.
Please keep your package manager away from Windows, BeOS, AmigaOS, etc. They are all fine with the solutions they have.

3. 3-D effects

Linux has 3d effects that crash and some times locks up the computer - or kills your window manager. On some of my machines it works. But I'd turn it off for most people, as I wouldn't want to fix all the problems they'd get with it running. Still, Xorg is more stable with regular desktop setups - but compiz is not problem free.

4. Support for all major filesystems out-of-the-box

This is a plus, but for most windows users, it is quite ok to just buy an app that gives you access to a given file system if you need it. Besides, for most users, this is not a big deal. (And please, if we are talking about us nerds, can I access my AROS affs partition in Linux without a linux recompile? What about SFS?)

5. Support for all major filetypes out-of-the-box

This point is granted. Linux has a lot of software included from when it first boots. But the whole point with the argument here is that Linux has so much included that it has become a bloat fest. Please, give me a linux distro that has a DE alike AmigaOS 3.x, Windows, BeOS, MacOS9, heck even GEM. They were lightning fast, did all your file management, application launching, customization.. on less than 60mhz. Windows 2000 ran on slow hw - Linux DE's do not. Why do you think I put BeOS Max on this box instead of Linux? Linux has become a bad performer the last few years, and it isn't stopping because nobody is acknowledging the problem.