Was this directed at me? If so I should point out that I have been aware of and using Linux almost as long as I have Windows and I am certainly aware of the differences, having used both as a gaming/development platform, and having used my Linux install as a web/ftp server for a time.
I was merely comparing usability of both systems for non-computer-literate persons.
---EDIT---
In fact after a bit of a read of that site (bored), I find that I truly dislike it.
I am quite against unoriginal people always going for a car analogy, no matter how apt. But that site also propagates mis-information e.g. "Linux doesn't have viruses" (not letter for letter), and also gives the impression that the applications that come with your distribution are part of the OS, which to my understanding is not strictly true.
And I found the myth of "user-friendly" section quite appalling, I'd say the concept goes beyond the familiar, I wouldn't say something is not user-friendly because it is not the way MS do it. I have seen many original features in Linux that I had never seen before but could easily use, such as the virtual terminals and multiple desktops, but compiling apps from source is not user-friendly from anyone's angle.
The same goes for Windows (just to show I'm not victimising Linux), when my family got their first Windows computer ('95), I had to run games from DOS, and I can tell you neither myself nor my Father (who was a little familiar with Unix) could work out how to do it, it was not user-friendly, there were certainly no man pages in DOS. We also had to create different DOS boot disks that gave you different memory settings etc to run different games. Nobody could truly call that user-friendly...
My point is, it is a concept, not a comparison. </rant>