1. Linux needs a market share to succeed.
This assumption is false. Being free open source software, Linux exists outside of the market forces that define success for Microsoft and Apple. Success for Linux is measured by whether it is useful for somebody. As long as those who use it are happy using it, it is successful, and is perfectly alive and well, not dead by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn't matter how much market share it has. That has no relevance to Linux.
2. Linux needs to be tweaked more than Windows to be useful.
Back when Windows Vista was first introduced, I purchased a new laptop. Vista seemed unstable, and did not recognize my printer and other hardware. So instead of buying new hardware, I bought a copy of XP. After installing it, many things just plain didn't work. It had no drivers for my laptop's hardware. I had to plug my laptop into a hardwired internet connection, search out the appropriate drivers, install-reboot-install-reboot-install-reboot-etc., and then purchase or download all the software that didn't come with Windows and do the install-reboot dance again. It took forever to get it all put together. Linux, on the other hand, installs cleanly, comes with most drivers built-in (for both new and old hardware), and finds drivers it didn't come with for you, and installs everything with minimal effort, and very little rebooting. It comes with tons of software preinstalled. With a bare Linux install, in a very short time you get a really well-put-together OS with minimal fuss, compared to a bare Windows install. Where most people get this stupid misconception is that Windows comes preinstalled and neatly optimized on most machines. Guess what: Buy a machine pre-installed with Linux, and you get the same nice configuration and optimization.
3. Everyone has the same OS/software needs.
The way I use my computer, Windows would be a dismal failure. It annoys me, and I cannot get anything done on it as cleanly and efficiently as I do in Linux. In fact, after using Linux for a number of years, I personally cannot find any reason at all to use Windows, although I do have Windows 7 on a separate partition. LibreOffice meets my needs just as much as MS Office ever could, and I like it better and would have it installed anyway, no matter what OS I used. I'm not a gamer. There are great audio/video/music creation tools that run nicely on Linux and do exactly what I need at a much better price (free as opposed to many hundreds of dollars). The lesson here: USE WHAT WORKS FOR YOU! If Linux works great, awesome! If Windows works great, perfect! If MacOS works great, wonderful!
4. Ubuntu defaults define Linux.
Each Linux distribution is designed with a certain use in mind. Ubuntu does ok for many, but its biggest reason for being so popular isn't because it's good. It's because it's got name recognition. Try other distributions that are tailored to what you use it for. I highly recommend Linux Mint as a good transitional Linux for a Windows user. That said, I personally wouldn't recommend Linux Mint 12, just because it's in a sort of flux due to all the desktop designers scrambling to move their design to the mobile/touchscreen world. I'd stick with LM 9, 10, or 11. I wouldn't recommend Windows 8/Metro for the same reason.
Basically, you're advising people to steer clear of Linux, without knowing their needs or level of experience. You are using falsehoods based on relatively little personal experience on the platform (30 days just doesn't make anyone an expert on anything). You are bashing an OS you have little real experience with for reasons that are mostly invalid, based on your own limited usage and bias.
While I don't use Windows or MacOS (although I have in the past), I will not say that Windows sucks or that Apple is evil. That's just not true. But they are run from a completely different philosophy and business model than Linux, and therefore cannot be compared like you have compared them.
I want to ask you the following:
1. What purpose does it serve to impose market force measurements on something distributed for free?
2. When you want to use MacOS, you have to buy Apple-approved and MacOS-compatible hardware. I prefer to think of Linux in the same way. I wouldn't purchase MacOS and expect it to run nicely on my Gateway laptop without some amount of difficulty. Why would you expect Linux to be compatible with hardware that is not specifically made for it (like you iDevices) instead of being happy that it is indeed compatible with a TON of hardware anyway?
3. What is the purpose of this article other than to unfairly berate an OS you obviously don't like, or to invite flaming from the Linux fanboys who will tell Windows sucks and Apple is evil? Other than that, I see no purpose for this article.
I understand that you intend this article to steer people clear of "headaches" from trying Linux. But rather than trying to give concrete things to look out for should they try it, which would be fair and acceptable, you simply bash it unfairly, and belittle those who use it. That is not acceptable.
This article, and the content on Net Work in general, is aimed at business use of technology: SMBs, IT admins, IT decision makers.
I agree with most of your points. Linux is "successful" as long as those who use it are happy with it. I think it is a perfectly suitable OS for the those who think its a perfectly suitable OS--and apparently the market for hackers and hobbyists who think its a perfectly suitable OS for the desktop is somewhere around one percent.
For business use, Linux is a great server OS and I highly recommend it. But, as I state in the article, I don't believe Linux should be considered as a desktop OS replacement for a business.