I'm cutting in on a thread that I haven't been too closely following, but I do have some observations that are contrary to your statements.
Corporate Environment: No one installs their own software anymore. It's done by someone in IT who responsible for everything working out correctly. Therefore, the process of installation, finding all the dynamic libraries necessary, and configuration of the network, is all entirely left up to the experts in question. No Secretary is going to take on this job in Linux or Windows unless they have a personal interrest to do so.
Home Users: I have not met a home user who is not quasi-sys-admin who is capable of installing very much on Windows. Have you recently tried to install a complete Windows OS without a ghost image? It's getting pretty damn difficult to accomplish! Furthermore, can you imagine a non-sys-admin type, who simply uses it for email and photos trying to install WindowsXP with all the fixings?
There is a very distinct difference, even under Windows today, between the User and the Administrator. What you have missed in your arguement is that the User under Windows does not install anything. It comes that way, preinstalled, out of the box. If I could buy the same thing under Linux, then it would be a far cry easier to deal with.
As for the User Interface. Windows is not a very good design, but we are all used to it. Personally, I use WindowMaker where I can because of it's exceptional speed and flexibility. I know that Suse is dominantly KDE, but the Desktop Environment is better appreciated on faster hardware than I have at my disposal.
Changing that paradigm from Windows to something else as a GUI is going to be harder to accomplish than anything else.
Point well taken. My basic contentions with the post to which I replied (read flame) is that it is now a time for Linux to come of age. Your absolutely right in your assertion that the majority of users have the system pre-installed and haven't a clue nor should they necessarily. And your other assertion that the present state of Window (XP) is not an easy task by in large to install. I have had a much easier time installing SuSE than XP. And even considering that 8.2's problem with the promise onboard ide controller I still had to attempt to install XP 5 times before it decided it was right and would run. My basic premise is this. Given that Linux/SuSE isn't pre-installed and more to the point of the thread, that Linux in general lacks a continuity regarding how a user would install their own apps is something that needs to be addressed - and the OSS community is more than up to the task. It's just a matter of desire more than anything else IMHO. Until Linux is pre-installed the distro's have to go the extra mile related to ease of use. I feel that on the installation side they have and are continuing to do so in a commendable fashion. Now the need to address a universal installer. One that affords the ease of use that the Windows "InstallShield" program does. Once something of this nature is accomplished half the battle is won. As I stated before. This is an important period for Linux and one that if done correctly will put it in a steady market position. Pair this with the fact, unlike Mac, that it runs on the common x86-ia32 arch and can be easily put on any common store bought computer then it's just a matter of catering to the OEM's and ISV's to enable them to produce products and software with a minimum of effort. And frankly, this is what scares the sh** (language filter) out of M$. Cheers, Curtis.