I keep seeing this thread and am going to put in my 2 cents. I do not think that less choice would make Linux any more popular. I also do not think that people starting out with Windows or MacOS has that much effect on peoples choices either. What makes Linux less popular is bugs and regressions, that's not saying that there are not bugs in Widows or the MacOS. Linux distros keep pushing out new technology before it is mature enough for the masses. Imagine if Microsoft or Apple posted a list of known issues with each new release of their operating system. Microsoft and Apple both manage for the most part to keep hardware compatibility and show stopper bugs under control. Again, software is not perfect and you can find flaws in just about anything if you look hard enough.
I am by no means defending Microsoft or Apple, I can not say I care for their business practices. I have to use Ubuntu as an example simply because they are currently the most popular Linux distribution. Ubuntu releases on a 6 month cycle, the release goes out weather it is ready or not. Plymouth does not work out of the box with proprietary drivers in Ubuntu, it never has, so the first thing you see is a black screen or one that is not set for the right resolution as soon as you install the drivers you need for opengl support. Using Plymouth makes a bad impression right from the start and they do not fix it. Graphics drivers are horrible in Ubuntu and no it is not the hardware manufacturers fault at all. Ubuntu always has to use the latest xserver and if I were a hardware manufacturer I would not want to completely re-write my drivers every 6 months either, it's ridiculous.
Multimedia playback in Ubuntu is hit and miss and the major reason is the immature graphics stack. I think choice is the only thing that keeps Linux popular at all because there are a couple of distros that manage to maintain good hardware support and put basic functionality before bells and whistles. The company I work for was considering going to Linux, they looked at Ubuntu 8.04 because it was an LTS release. They decided to stay with Windows. I asked the IT manager why they did not go with Ubuntu, he said; "Ubuntu looked more like an alpha release than a final product". I think this is how most people view Linux in general. Sure, we can fix and work around a lot of the bugs and we do but why are so many bugs present in the first place?
Choice is the thing that keeps Linux alive because different distributions do things different ways. Ubuntu does not provide updates to the popular applications that people want and use everyday, they say it could make the system unstable. Now, how is providing the latest version of your web browser or office suite going to trash your system? Imagine if Microsoft or Apple said you could not run anything higher than Firefox 3x in their operating system, it would be ridiculous of course, yet that is what Ubuntu does. Ubuntu's claim just reinforces to the user that the system is not very stable in the first place, at least that is how I read into that.
How many people end up trying distro after distro until they find what works on their hardware? Without choice many of us would not be able to run Linux. Linux is said to be for geeks and people that like spending their time fixing things, very few distributions can prove this wrong. I do not mean to single Ubuntu out in this post, they are not the only distribution that makes Linux look bad. Ubuntu has done a few things right, they just need to learn what a finished product is and what people actually want.
There needs to be choice in Linux.
Edit: I tend to get like this after I find that the latest Ubuntu release that I hoped would solve my issues doesn't, again....