the most common meaning of the word, the one 
    that 99% of all people who read it are going to 
    think is computer criminals. Perhaps PBS 
    should consider the power and pervasiveness of 
    the common tongue before writing articles.

No -- but you can blame them for:

1) failing to read the article, which is about development rather than breaking into things

2) insisting that their definition is correct even after it's been pointed out that PBS wasn't using the word that way

3) getting defensive/upset that other people would dare correct their ignorance

"OMG hacker news? So do you like...break into banks and stuff?"

sigh.

(I do recognize the silliness inherent in asking this question on _Hacker_ News)

Depends on who you are, I guess. Not to conflate or compare the examples in any way, but consider: the ratio of blacks to whites in the US is close enough to the quoted comment's sphincterrific, if probably low, 95%. (It's actually 75:12, per Wikipedia; ~6:1 isn't quite 20:1, but it's still a pretty vast majority.) I can think of a word or three in that neighborhood where the majority's preferred meaning is, while perhaps not wrong, at least in the sense you use the term, not exactly what I'd call right, either.

It's kind of like car hot-rodding. There are always people who drive hot-rodded cars on public roads illegally, and that colors public perception of the term.

I really don't think it matters as much as people seem to think it does.

I did an AOL News article analyzing pages and pages of Sarah Palin comments for trends a month or so ago and it was one of the more mind-numbing things I've done in my life. (Most interesting trend: Commenters were across-the-board Palin supporters who only got mad when Palin didn't support one of their candidates.)

My finding is that comments on large Facebook pages tend to devolve into large, cordial (because names are attached) flamewars.

Amusing read nonetheless. Reminds me why I'm very thankful for the friends I have with similar interests/lingo. Not that I introduce myself as a hacker, but the word comes up in conversation—any non-programmer immediately thinks I'm talking about some crazy Neo wannabe.

It's interesting how different vocabularies can really set people apart.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.