I've been reading through comments here and most just verify something few want to mention: Some folks are just plain GUI driven and were weaned on Windows and will always want what the MS environment does design-wise, and they want the Linux designers to mimic MS. (Developers, please, please don't do this....then I won't have anything to load on my machines any more... :0)
I don't have any problems whatsoever with Linux. If I have any problems *at all* loading, its always my fault. But that's rare. I do the research up front and make sure that I've chosen a hardware platform that's compatible with the Linux flavor I'm loading. I run 4 different flavors, currently, on various platforms with no problems at all. They all run smoothly, sometimes for days, and they all do *exactly* what I expect and want them to do.
There's plenty of compatible hardware out there, you just have to be smart about choosing a "late model" machine by a trusted vendor who hasn't monkeyed with EFI and what-not, vs a spanking new one with the latest hardware. But you might complain that you want the latest hardware...well...for what I do on a regular basis, the "latest" is way overkill and unnecessary. Which leads to the next point:
What do you really need? I mean, really? For someone who wants to play the latest super-sonic games and their systems are basically glorified toys, then buy MS and be done with it. If you're into Photography and graphic design, then buy a Mac.
But if you want to watch movies, surf the web, word process, web design, buy stuff, manipulate graphics, etc, then Linux works just fine with no hitches IMO. And you can even play some games if you want, LOL.
Now, I qualify what I've written with this: Unlike 98% of the people out there, I was born, weaned and raised on UNIX. I was in college when they were still teaching DOS and teaching how to network using 2 DOS machines. Windows was just coming out in (sorta) full bloom. After years working in Solaris, I finally left as an sysadmin, and then I was forced to use a spattering of MS for a short time, but quickly jumped to Linux as soon as I could and was soooo glad to be home, again.
So, I understand UNIX; I understand the simplicity (yes, IMHO, the simplicity) of the filesystem structure, the concept of the kernel and the point of Superuser and being able to boot into different modes to repair a system. I understand TCP/IP (not Unix but important to understand for any type computer IMO), the elegance of the command line to get things done, to include scripting and cron jobs and the beauty of modifying etc flat files, setting up routing and NFS and NIS and DNS and sendmail, etc etc (not all UNIX but were designed for networking/UNIX).
My husband is more used to the Windows environment, and although he freely admits that Linux works better than MS for what he wants to do, and admits that, over the years, he has come to hate Windows, he still *prefers* Windows functionality, because it is what he's used to. He's a "point-and-clicker" at heart.
But he's also fairly experienced in Linux. But still, he believes in his mind that Linux is harder to do stuff in, but when I repeatedly show him that this isn't true, then he says Linux is better, but then fades back into wanting it to work like Windows. Its a twisted sort of logic IMHO.
Hope this helps someone to see what I believe is going on.
My daughter has a MAC. I don't like MACs, even though they are based on BSD/Unix. Why? I simply don't like Apple's windows manager, and I hate being forced to use their environment whether I like it or not! With Linux, I can pick and choose whatever environment i want to use.
My 5 cents worth--