Not true. I'm sitting here looking at a 4 years old, PII 64MB RAM IDE 40MB disk drive on which any version of windows has been installed and runs flawlessly. However, even the tech support people at RedHat could not get Linux 7.2 running on this system. I was forced to purchase another computer for my Linux work, and even on that computer Linux would not recognize the on-board LAN.
Linux is a good geek OS but I would never try to use it as the desktop OS in a business environment. The vast majority of clerks, secretaries, and others who view their computer as ancillary to their work experience would never be able to cope with Linux.
I'm sure this dose of reality will evoke flaming responses and personal attacks from the Gates haters and Linux fanatics out there. However, their emotional response to practical experience is of no consequence to people who actually have to earn a living in this field.
You cite problems with installation and configuration then assert that regular users would not be able to cope with Linux. How many of these regular users could install Windows on their own? How many have to?
The fact is that in an enterprise environment, installation, configuration and maintenance are all taken care of by (hopefully) professional administrators. All the end user sees is pretty windows with menus and buttons, and this is as it should be.
As for the problems you experienced with your installs, you should have contacted the FR geek cadre first, we're good and we don't charge anything. In the future, if you have questions on Linux give your pals here a chance to help out.
However, their emotional response to practical experience is of no consequence to people who actually have to earn a living in this field.
Let's compare experience: I have almost seven years of experience with Linux. How much do you have? I have three machines running Debian, one running an ancient Red Hat, and two machines running OpenBSD. Installing Linux is a snap, because I have enough experience to know where to look when there's a problem and how to work around most problems in the default install program. Windows admins learn the same skills for the same reasons--things don't always work perfectly and (an important distinction) don't always work the way you expect them to. The latter is especially true if one's expectations are formed after years of experience with a totally different operating system.
Would it be fair of me to try to install Windows XP Pro, fail, then trash it because of that limited experience? I think not. The fact is, Red Hat has been (until the most recent release) a server-oriented distribution, not well-known for being friendly to new users. I'm certain that you would have had much better success installing Mandrake. The last time I installed Mandrake (8.1, if I remember correctly) it detected all my hardware (including sound card) and installed and configured the kernel modules so that there was no further configuration required.
40 MB disk???? No offense, my friend, but I think you might want to check that again - while I believe that you could probably shoehorn an absolute bare-bones install of Windows 95 onto a 40 MB disk, I have serious doubts that any later version of Windows would fit at all...
However, even the tech support people at RedHat could not get Linux 7.2 running on this system.
You mentioned one flavor of Linux that won't run on that system, while the article says "in one form or another." You cannot draw conclusions about the veracity of the statement based on one experience. It does NOT say "every form of Linux can run on any hardware."
An aside...clerks and secretaries shouldn't be configuring or installing operating systems, as a general rule. Depending on what the business needs are, Linux can serve as a reasonable desktop OS in some cases. That's why Sun is going to sell Linux desktops, I would presume.