> I have to admit I'm surprised to find that anyone is still trying to make desktop Linux work for normal people, i.e. non-programmers who aren't free-software fanatics.
As far as day to day use goes, modern desktop Linux environments are just as usable by end users as Windows.
The main impediments to adoption tend to be:
1. Software that they need that only runs on Windows or OS X
2. Syncing to devices like iPods or iPhones
3. Lack of easily accessible support infrastructure for when things go wrong, major version upgrades, etc. You can generally take a Windows machine to Best Buy or some other local computer store, or a Mac to an Apple Store, and they can deal with it, but there's little accessible support for the complicated cases on Linux unless you have a friend or relative who's into Linux.
4. Lack of support by IT departments.
So if you have a situation like in the original story, where someone is willing to provide that support voluntarily, and you just need a home computer with internet access and no specialized software, a modern Linux desktop will do just fine.
> My guess is that GNOME 3 and Unity require roughly as much CPU power and RAM as Windows 7.
Lightweight desktops like LXDE and XFCE can run fine on older hardware, and are much lighter weight than Windows 7. If you read the article, you would see that it was running LXDE, not Gnome or Unity.