When some thing that sells for nothing and can't gather more than 1% percent of the market, there's no interest in it
and when you explain it by saying it's not in the market because'it's free' you just sound really juvenile and do nothing for your argument.
If something i free and said to be as good if not better than MS and yet can't be given away, then there's something that the consumers don't like. You can have the greatest widget in the world, but if the world doesn't get them, then it's worthless and useless.
Actually, I'm a Debian based KDEer, and I prefer Kwin's 3D capabilities because they are well integrated into KDE-- But on to the quote.
I've contributed to several Free as in Freedom (and Beer) software projects and one of them was even 'high profile'.
Desktop and laptop market share is basically irrelevant. The only real notions that matters in Free and Open Source software is the notion of a contributor, how easy a project makes it for people to contribute, and the ability to get that software onto a given platform. The high profile project I worked on basically worked on everything-- Linux, MacOSX, the BSDs, and Windows-- When you tracked the actual downloads they worked in the reverse order: Windows, MacOSX, then Linux (though it was packaged for Linux distros and the numbers would fail to reflect that). The funny thing is that the actual contributions to the project went Linux, MacOSX, Windows, with the annoyingness (Irrational demands, failure to read, thinking people could be fired, etc.) of users going in download order.
Linux and MacOSX both have their fair share of irrational fanboys. The differentiator is that the Linux fanboy is beholden to nobody, and can actually meaningfully contribute-- Code, art, documentation, translations, web design, bug reports and triage, announcements, etc, and if the project is free software as opposed to open source or closed source nobody can ever take that away from you. If you're a Mac fanboy that's all you can ever really be, and you're beholden to that company's continued success.
That fun fact is augmented because if you're a skilled Linux guy you can parley that into a Linux Admin job, or any other proper *NIX or BSD variant. If you're a core developer of a core project some big company will hire you to do what you do. I say this as somebody who makes their money in *NIX land... Picking up Linux in the 90s was the bast thing I ever did in my life, career wise anyway. Fark my formal education... Forget the desktop-- Everything really small and interesting runs something POSIX like, and everything big and interesting runs a POSIX and a *NIX. (And don't even get me started on the app store, it's conditions and where the money goes, and the ridiculously closed nature of apple hardware.)
Even if WoodPeckr never contributes anything more than general advocacy-- If Canocal goes broke, or Ubuntu jumps the shark, he can shrug and switch to his new favourite distro. As far as Linux being 'hard' goes, as somebody who was there in the 'bad old days' it's more than fair to say that if you can't install and figure out *any* major Linux distro you're not fit to install any OS or software ever. Now when people say 'hard' they mean different-- That's the same thing that killed Vista (but that's a different story involving a different userbase and tech people).