The slashdot crowd will have a meltdown, but the WSJ's Mark Golden is right: Linux on the desktop just isn't ready for most people. Heck, I've come to the conclusion that most people can't safely run Windows on the desktop, due to the constant need to play sys-admin. The answer isn't Linux though; it's Apple. The problem is the level of effort required:

What I found was that for some people, Linux systems may do just fine. But they still are largely more appealing to computer hobbyists who would like to see Microsoft face more competition. Specifically, while the installation and simple functions worked well enough, the systems couldn't handle all the multimedia applications I needed. And getting some of the systems to work required more time and effort than I was willing to exert.

The last sentence is the kicker. It's not that you can't get various things working on Linux as they do on Windows - it's that it takes more effort (and expertise) than most people are willing (or able) to expend. The sad truth is that the same thing is true of Windows, but not in the same way. Everything "just works" out of the box, but things aren't safe. I've yet to encounter a non-technical person running Windows whose machine wasn't infected - often with multiple things.

You can run Windows or Linux quite well if you're a technical user, and willing to play sysadmin. If you aren't, then a Mac is almost certainly your best bet. The premium you pay up front will be more than made up for by the lack of "wtf??" moments you'll end up having.