There's the ubiquitous, badly-educated, pro-Microsoft, anti-Linux screed:
Why Linux will not displace Windows
to which, amidst a buttload of considered and more enlightened opinions, we have the following gem of a response (emphasis added, although I'm not sure I really have to draw your attention to the funny bits):
I dont see how this will happen at all.
Vista is far more powerful than windows XP, and runs twice as fast. It is also much harder to pirate, and this point more than anything else has the Linux crowd in a panic.
It wont be long until Windows XP is no longer supported, and when that happens, what is Linux going to do ?
Linux will have to find a way to work under Vista from here on, since it wont be able to rely on XP being readily available anymore.
Which inspires the following rebuttal, undoubtedly from someone who's not quite sure he read that correctly:
Jerry, you seem to be very confused by Linux. It doesn't run on XP, Vista, 98 or anything even remotely related to Windows. A Gnu/Linux distribution is a complete operating system, not some piece of software running under Windows. It has its own device drivers, its own bootloader, its own kernel, and a variety of window environments to go with it. It also has tons of free (yes, FREE) and legal software that can do everything you can do in Windows. I'm not sure why you assume Linux users must be pirates; I haven't pirated anything by installing Linux on my desktop, since it does not use any components of Windows and therefore doesn't need a Windows license
Sadly, Jerry, completely unaware that he is now as hysterically famous as, well, this guy, just keeps digging:
You are kidding arent you ?
Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?
That sounds preposterous to me.
Any further commentary would be, I suspect, unnecessarily cruel.