Haven't found that to be the case. And I'm an old UNIX hat, using SUN OS, HP UX et al in the early nineties and Linux from around 1998. My two observations:
1) Linux, even the most modern distro like Ubuntu, is a huge time sync for anyone that's not just content to browse the web and check mail in a system setup for them.
2) More users that we think are in that category (besides the proverbial "grandparents" perhaps).
You got a video from your wedding you need to edit? Might or might not work. You got a hobby that requires you to use a specific peripheral (like a soundcard) or software? Do you feel lucky? You got a new phone you need to sync? Prepare for an adventure...
1. "I need to do X in Linux." Web search for software.
2. Try to install it. Find out I need Gnome 3.44 and I'm not running Gnome at all.
3. Find something else. This doesn't seen Gnome.
4. I try to install it. Wait, I need a newer version of a library.
5. I grab the latest version of that library. Wait, idiot, that version is TOO NEW!
6. So I find the exact version and install it and oh son of a cow now everything is broken.
And at each step there's a different sub-community telling me I'm a complete idiot. ("Why don't you use Gnome?" "Why don't you use package manager X?" "Why the fuck are you using that package manager???!")
The sad truth is that most software sucks, regardless of the license, there's just a lower barrier to entry, use, and discoverability with OSS so it's more visible. At least with OSS we can fix the issues instead of just accepting the suckage.
After a year I find the only advantage of OSX are browser with touchpad gesture experience and windows edge handling. Haven't tried any distro ever since switching to MBP, wayland might have a better chance of replicating the experience. Hoping for the camera driver to be done.
In Linux everything else is better, fuller implementation of base tools, customizability, no crap like /var/folders..
This is entirely subjective; it is not a wise comment to make because it is better FOR YOU, not for everyone. For me, I liked the configurability in Linux desktop land but there comes a time when you want to sit in your office and get stuff done instead of spending all the time moving the furniture around and decorating; OSX doesn't let you do any decorating or move the furniture, so you're forced to do work (to some extent).
I daily use Linux, yet my day-job is to write software on OSX and Windows, so I get to use every system every day. They're all pretty much a muchness.
Great for servers.
Basically, each to their own. None is "better".
My reply to that has always been that Windows is only $300 if you don't value your time. (Preserving archaic cost of Windows to match JWZ quote.)
The implication that the one system is free and time-consuming and the other moderately in price but not time-consuming is entirely false. At the time, for many requirements, configuring and administering a Windows machine would have been more time-consuming than for Linux. It's also glossing over the fact that you can't horizontally scale your $-per-cpu/server solution once you do have the configuration worked out, without going back to the well for more money.
This amusing and glib quote also deliberately glosses over the "freedom" part of free software, which is essential. For example, I wonder if Google would exist today if not for a free unix workalike.