WIth different punctuation it makes more sense, yes. But you're still not making a coherent argument. You need to start with facts and build a logical chain of arguments to a conclusion. We started off with this fact: Linux does not support all PC hardware. What doesn't follow is your assertion that, based on that fact, Linux is somehow unsuitable for general use and never will be. All you've said about Joe Whatever (a strawman that cannot be defended) is noise, and does not contribute to the discussion.
The average consumer is not some fucking phantom or strawman, its time for someone to open their minds and go look up some consumer studies. It is very much fact that the average consumer knows nothing about thier computer. Its a fact that the average consumer will do absolutely no research on sub $100 purchases.
Whether or not linux is suitable for general use is however debatable.
It's been my experience that most users do not alter their hardware, at least in terms of memory, video card, etcetera. From what I've seen, when they do want to add something like a webcam, they call a computer shop or their geek friend to help them out. These people can make appropriate hardware choices, regardless of the operating system in use. Linux hardware support, in my view, is good; I can't think of any category of device for which Linux doesn't have at least one hardware choice.
Sorry but 99.99% of the folks with experience in tech related customer service jobs will tell you your average joe is a fantasy. The type of guy that needs to call out a friend or even geek squad to install a webcam is not the type of person that could make an informed decision on what hardware to purchase, thats just silly. How can you know enough to make an informed decision on the piece of hardware and yet not know how to install it? Do you even see the enourmous contradiction there?
It is nice BTW to try and debunk the average joe argument by using your own version
Of course, the users I've just talked about are my version of Joe Whatever. Your vision of Joe is probably different than mine, which is the central problem in these sorts of threads. Joe Whatever is anything you need him to be to support an argument. Without hard data to flesh him out, he's a spectre, ghost, or figment of the imagination. Therefore, as I said earlier in this thread, Joe is made of fail and cannot be defended. Any argument based on him is pure opinion. There isn't anything wrong with that, but such things should not be taken too seriously. When you act like you have some sort of monopoly on the truth and start rolling virtual eyes at people with differing opinions, it makes you look silly. As does calling people "fanboys".
There is plenty hard data to flush out the average consumer. There are dozens of studies done year after year that continue to show a massive trend of ignorance.
I dont mind a disagreement but pretending a problem does not exist and then actually trying to convince others the same is the annoying fanboy shit.