We are heading very very fast into a circular argument.
The main bit is, Linux (or rather OS software (again I strive to differentiate)) is at times, and in places, difficult [for your average user] to install, configure or run, and this is due to its design, having not been designed to be "user friendly".
This is mainly because the majority of people have not had any training or previous experience with "non-user friendly" computers.
They can either a) get training/experience b) pester and wait for a devloper to make a gui (either official or privatly) or c) pay/persuade someone with skills to fix/work for them.
Perhaps, even with the mass of schools now having "nice" and "comprehensive" computer training, but these computer training being mostly Windows based, "Office" skills (not nessicarilly Microsoft Office but text editors, spreadsheets, basic database) they will continue to be coddled into a "userfriendly good, console bad" mind set.
And the other problem, perhaps we all stop developing programs RIGHT NOW ok, and everyone wirtes a gui interface for them (of some sort) so EVERYTHING in the OS domain has a gui.... then tommorrow when we start programming agin, its all going to have no-guis.
There will always be a slection of code which dosnt have a gui, and that stuff is going to be the most recent releases.
Who wants to install an old version of software? i mean the new ones where written for a purpose.
Should we be pestering examination boards to put "installation and configuring and familiariastion of different platforms" onto their sylabus.
J