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.
After that, it's all details. Windows has spyware. Linux has apt-get. But users don't care.
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.
Now that is user-friendly; you must spend the best part of a day removing nagwares and spywares from a brand new computer.
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.
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"
That said, friendliness is not incompatible with "hacker-friendly."
What I'm getting at is that everyone seems to think Linux has to succeed on the desktop. Perhaps that was a good goal in the Windows XP days, but it's not as big a deal now.
I don't see why Linux needs to be a mainstream OS.
It's like being forced to think about breathing.
But, then, I don't install crap. Most people do, but most people who do also don't care so much about whether they see those popups or not. It doesn't register to them. So, yes, there is an edge case here where you can install crap and then be offended by said crap's tendency to annoy you...but personally, I rarely see it.
You change the motherboard after it fails, now Windows needs to re-validate, then if you don't do that right away, Windows Security Essentials starts counting down to when it won't work anymore?
And the Windows re-validation process fails for unknown reasons every time, so it keeps telling you "this copy isn't genuine" even though it's a 100% legit retail version (and prompts again each boot).
Which I installed to get rid of the -crap- the hardware vendor installed. And then on top of that, the -only- stuff I installed was Java, Flash, Firefox and Reader. That's -it-.
I don't even use Windows -- this is my wife's computer. Linux never bothers except for security updates.
And in the last year, Windows got infected twice, requiring re-installs when MalwareBytes and AV could not disinfect (hence, perhaps, the validation problem).
It takes more effort to keep the Windows machine going than the other 5 Linux boxes in the house (each running a different distro no less).
I've gotten revalidation prompts, but never failures; I know they can happen but it's never been an issue for me.
Seriously, I honestly don't know why so many people have trouble with it, but I have had a pain-free experience since installing Windows 7. Even Vista was pretty much problem-free, although MSE wasn't around then and I did get occasional AV nags.