Strangely, my grandmother isn't terribly concerned by these issues.
Why are you listing open sourceness and man pages as a reason that Joe Average User should use Linux? Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with Joe.
Open-sourceness isn't an unfriendly feature by any measure, and the features I list are useful whether on a server or a desktop, that's the point. Man pages might be the only thing in that list that can genuinely be considered unfriendly, and that's still highly subjective. In contrast, license keys and online software registration are inherently unfriendly features. No subjectivity is required.
I didn't make that point explicit only because I didn't want to seem too confrontational, as j_baker's comment was clearly well-intentioned.
> Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with Joe.
I know lots of Windows users. They're each very different, but not stupid and frequently surprise condescending nerds with their capacity to figure things out. The most technophobic person I know, someone who uses their home computer ONLY to browse the web and check email (who probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between windows XP and gnome) once ranted to me for several months about various productivity hits caused by their office's migration from a terminal-based mainframe system to windows NT workstations. Most windows and mac users I know are particularly proficient with several applications. Whether it's Photoshop or Excel or Matlab or Finale or Final Cut Pro or Revit or ProTools or LaTeX, using the software effectively typically requires a lot more technical knowledge than "Joe Average User" requires to browse the web and check his email.
The original linked article covers this issue effectively in section #5, The myth of "user-friendly"
Here's why the average Joe should use Linux instead of Windows: it's $200 cheaper. If all you are going to do is connect to Wifi and run Chrome... guess what, you don't need a Windows license.
After that, it's all details. Windows has spyware. Linux has apt-get. But users don't care.
Here's why the average Joe should use Linux instead of Windows: it's $200 cheaper.
Except that it's not true. We had Windows Vista Home Premium (IIRC) + Works refunded once from Dell, because Ubuntu was used. The refund was 80 Euro.
In fact, they say it inflates the price of PCs barely, because the relatively small OEM Windows fee is compensated by installing tons of adware, browser bars, etc. from 3rd party vendors.
It takes about twenty minutes on a Dell (which tend to be among the biggest purveyors of nagware). Forty minutes or so if you just saw screw-it and reinstall the OS, plus whatever time it takes for Windows Update to do it's thing. I get that you're a partisan, but can we not be completely hyperbolic?
I really like that when I install the evince pdf viewer, it doesn't try to install the Yahoo search bar browser plugin like Adobe Acrobat. I even use evince on windows.
Right, but you can extend that logic to other software, and in general the tradeoffs are very similar. Photoshop vs GIMP, MS Office vs Libreoffice, Scribus vs InDesign. It adds up after awhile.
You don't have to switch to linux to take advantage of free software, but it's usually easier and regardless, many of the Linux issues raised in the original article apply to the FOSS alternatives as well.
Why are you listing open sourceness and man pages as a reason that Joe Average User should use Linux? Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with Joe.