I can only talk about the ones I've tried to tell if it's harder or easier than Windows, that's why I mentioned Ubuntu specifically. I agree that they actually relate it because of familiarity, but in their minds it's "easier", because they are used to it.Well, most people don't even know Android is Linux-based - Android doesn't advertise it, and it really doesn't have anything in common with desktop Linux distros. Nevertheless, the popularity of Android brings more interest in Linux, it has shown Linux works great as a base for a mobile OS, inspiring the creation of several other Linux-based mobile platforms, so it's not all bad.
Not sure why you specify Ubuntu there though, there are actually many distros that are just as easy to use. Ubuntu just has that kind of reputation of being "a noob-friendly distro".
And I don't think it's really the ease of use that people relate to in windows. It's the familiarity - people perceive it easier to use because it's what they're used to (the so-called baby duck syndrome). But since windows 8 breaks that familiarity, the advantage is lost, and in comparison, moving to any "noob-friendly" Linux distro probably isn't any more difficult than moving to, say, from xp to 8.
That's a stupid move from them.Win32 is available only for microsoft's own apps on ARM windows - ie and office and such. All other apps have to use the winrt API. So that might be one more reason why there seems to be no interest in developing for winrt devices - although the biggest reason is probably that no one is buying those devices...
I wonder what would this mean to cloud lovers. A few days before of the NSA-gate, I had an argument with a friend (two friends, actually, but the other one shared my view) who wanted the world to go completely to the cloud, I mean, process the most you can and storage on central servers owned by x company and having only thin clients on the market, and I told him that then he doesn't ever know what happens to his data. My other friend didn't even need the privacy argument, but instead the intellectual property one: if I'm doing research, I want my data to be safe within *my* hard drive, so information doesn't leak before I get to issue a patent for my discoveries. If your *all* of your data is in someone else's servers, they can take it, and you have no way to prove that it's *your* research in the first place.Well, most average people still think there's no alternative to using windows, and that installing an alternate OS is a daunting task - which it pretty much is now, thanks to "secure" boot. And no, I don't think anyone is "quitting computers" altogether - and not everyone is going to do anything about it, but at least there's now active discussion about things, people are more aware of the issue, and people concerned about NSA spying are no longer labeled as tinfoil-hats. And I've personally seen at least several people who have basically said, that the NSA-gate opened their eyes to the poor state of privacy and prompted them to research ways to keep their important private communications safe.
I think, even if the only effect of the NSA scandal is that more people are aware of the issue, if just the political atmosphere shifts so that privacy becomes a more mainstream issue - which is already happening, to an extent, then that can already have a positive influence on things in the future. We might have hope of avoiding a total surveillance society still. If enough people care about something and make enough noise, it can actually change the outcome of things.