Why linux can never replace windows

I have rather jumped into murky water talking stuff about Linux. I am a Luser myself and I still stand by everything I said about Linux. Allow me to present my views on why Linux would never replace windows as a desktop favorite.

My theory is When things are going fine, people would rather not have a choice. This is kind of a fairly obvious observation. Imagine you are really thirsty and you go to a juice shop to have some orange juice and the person taking the order goes like this, "Do you like your orange juice organic or regular, with or without calcium, or with minimal or maximal pulp, Do you want it with regular sugar or low calorie sugar?..." and the list is endless... I have been through circumstances where I just felt like yelling "ANYTHING... As long as it looks orange in color and is served in a glass(which need not necessarily be transparent may I add!).

This is the same thing that happens with Linux. The same flexibility that made it such a big hit on the server side is putting off novice users. Why else do you think IE still happens to have 60% of the share? I agree a lot of people don't know, but they don't want to, because IE works and as long as it gets work done, people don't care..

This is precisely the point I tried to make in my previous entry. Just look at the installation process. For every layer, I have to choose out of 6 or 8 alternatives that look and sound similar and all of them make absolutely no sense to me. I cannot be sure if something that works for someone else works for me. Go to any Ubuntu forum, that is what you find. It puts off people. Then there are dependencies, fancy libraries, and worst of all desktop widgets. Unless all the distributions agree upon some basic guidelines to make the installation and running the basic system easy, Windows is going to rule.

PS: No more Luser posts from me.