I doubt that this is true, and here's why. There is no one in the Linux space with the economic incentive to get it up to par and keep it on a par with Windows and Apple OS. Making an OS both flexible and easy to use is a very expensive undertaking. Keeping it integrated with leading edge technologies such as speech and handwriting recognition is even more expensive.
Open source efforts such as Linux work well to replicate technology that is already well understood. But by it's nature, open source is not good at innovation. That implies that commercial operating systems will probably keep their lead on Linux for implementation of new technologies such as speech and handwriting, not to mention better integration of new peripherals.
Couple that with the fact that the people who gain the most from open source are highly technical types, and are not representative of the user community. That means there is no appreciation of the things the typical, non-technical user wants, or even the understanding of what that non-technical user needs. How are such people ever going to produce software that appeals to the non-technical user?
I'm happy to see Linux (and Apple) doing well in certain segments. Microsoft does much better when they have competition. They tend to get sloppy when they don't (which is why Internet Explorer stagnated so long). But that needs to be tempered with a realistic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of open source.
One of the major advantages that Linix and Free-Source have is that they really do follow the traditional hacker ethic where the free and unimpeded flow of information is the goal, and the ego and recognition that comes from a good "hack" or developement is the goal. The traditional hacker ethic from the old TX-0 and PDP-1 days is still alive and well. The problem is that right now the developers are more interested in adding functions and control, not at simplifying. I believe that this is just a stage however. Remember that interactive computing was first embraced and developed by the same type of mentality. Open source efforts such as Linux work well to replicate technology that is already well understood. But by it's nature, open source is not good at innovation. That implies that commercial operating systems will probably keep their lead on Linux for implementation of new technologies such as speech and handwriting, not to mention better integration of new peripherals.
Overall, open source is okay at innovation, but I would agree that this is one of the weaker links at this point. Take a look at open source projects such as Mozilla and OpenOffice though, and you will see that while office applications and web browsers have been around for a long time, the open source versions tend to have significant usability improvements over their commercial counterparts. Take Firefox for example, not only is it more stable and secure, it also has elements such as tabbed web-browsing and the structure necessary for pipelining web downloads -- both of which are valuable features not found in the leading commercial ventures. Couple that with the fact that the people who gain the most from open source are highly technical types, and are not representative of the user community. That means there is no appreciation of the things the typical, non-technical user wants, or even the understanding of what that non-technical user needs. How are such people ever going to produce software that appeals to the non-technical user?
That is indeed a problem, but one that has been showing definate signs of change. Take a look at old 6.x versions of Red Hat and then compare them to the newer versions of Fedora, and you will see that some definate simplification has occured. One thing about technical guys is that once the thrill is gone, nothing frustrates them more than repeating pointless tasks. RPM package installers for instance are an example where up-close control has given way to automation.
As things progress and more companies change over to Linux environments, you will see a rush of Administrators and Help Desk people clamoring for ease of use enhancements so that they don't have to keep dealing with the "end-users". Inevitibly this will lead to change. I'm happy to see Linux (and Apple) doing well in certain segments. Microsoft does much better when they have competition. They tend to get sloppy when they don't (which is why Internet Explorer stagnated so long). But that needs to be tempered with a realistic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of open source.
So am I. Competition breeds innovation, and makes quality and robustness a more primary consideration. Apple has done a great job of "dumbing-down" their operating system while at the same time adding more functional control simultaneously. In terms of the Browser Wars, Microsoft won with Internet Explorer, and it's taken awhile for new competition to come out with innovative advantages and to start challenging market share. With the surging popularity of Firefox, it is safe to assume that we will be seeing a new IE sometime not too long from now. If Safari were to be released for use on Windows, it would further erode market share, and put even more pressure on Microsoft.
Linux is communism based. Everyone works for the heck of it. Windows is capitalist based.
Let's see. Which will win over time. hmmmmmm...
So far I've heard the 'Linux will be easier than Windows' talk for about 10 years now. Maybe Linux needs to run on 5 year plans.