Windows was beyond most people at one time, and DOS before that.
The difference is in the delivery... Apple and Microsoft recognize this, and maybe even some Linux folks do, but without the central 'authority' to manage that delivery it all goes "wonky" - that's a tech term<G>!
I started the software engineer portion of my career on Sun workstations using their version of Unix. I later became a consultant and had to learn the HP and IBM varients. And then along came Linux and I figured in for a penny...
Early attempts at Linux system management could be confusing to downright painful, even for a dinosaur like me. Recent adventures suggest that they are really close to having it all together, if only they knew how to tell everyone about it.
Thing is, as Jim points out, the more user friendly it becomes, and the more hardware it supports, the more it loses some of the implied advantages.
I really like pretty much all the package managers, for example, but I don't want to have to be fluent in all of them. And there is hardware, and software that I do not wish to abandon, heck, there are a couple of Mac only tools I'm still considering...
Choosing a computer based on the OS makes sense for a handful of folks, choosing a computer for the hardware makes less, choosing a computer for the company (and yes, that's Apple bashing, but hey, they are really good at it) makes good sense for some.
Most of us pick the applications we want to use, and the peripherals we want to use, and then we hope that they all work with one platform!
I'd love to see all my favorite tools support Linux - not just for the "free" OS (although that is attractive) but more for some of the research related tools that are only available on Unix. And for the ability to build a system just for music production. If you want to get an idea of what's involved in customizing a Linux distro for music production check out Planet CCRMA!
Yup, I'd love to see it, but I'm way too old to think there is a good business case for that... pity!