I think it's good that Linux is for geeks. I mean, what other options are there for geeks? I would much rather have Linux optimize for geeks and leave the fluff for OSX and Windows.
Well, remember that Linux is just the kernel. In my post--and I assume others' posts as well--I used Linux as a synecdoche for Free Software. In reality, it could as well be BSD or Hurd--it's just that (as far as I know) neither is quite as suitable for mass consumption as Linux.
However, just because Ubuntu--which happens to use the Linux kernel--becomes popular with the general public does not mean other distros have to change at all. Even now Ubuntu is not that much better for "geeks" than OS X or Windows--other distros and environments offer much more customization and power. You can still use Arch, or Gentoo, or Slackware or with whatever environment you like however you like. And since "Linux" is really a loose confederation of Free Software, nothing can change that.
That said, there are some immediate benefits for everyone if Linux gets wider adoption. From a purely selfish standpoint, interacting with and supporting my less-technical friends' and relatives' computers would be much easier if they were on Linux. Also, large companies would be much less likely to disregard Linux when releasing drivers and software. And on a less selfish note, I really do think--and it matches my admittedly anecdotal experience--that non-technical people are themselves better off on Ubuntu than on OS X or Windows. If all you do is browse the internet and some casual document/multimedia stuff, Linux is great (as soon as you sort the hardware out, of course). There is also the philosophical justification of Free Software I won't get into here.
So really, you present a false dichotomy: Linux for casual users and Linux for power users are not mutually exclusive; if anything, you can't force Linux to only fit one mould. And since we could benefit both power users and casual users by making Linux more accessible and wide-spread, we really should.
However, just because Ubuntu--which happens to use the Linux kernel--becomes popular with the general public does not mean other distros have to change at all. Even now Ubuntu is not that much better for "geeks" than OS X or Windows--other distros and environments offer much more customization and power. You can still use Arch, or Gentoo, or Slackware or with whatever environment you like however you like. And since "Linux" is really a loose confederation of Free Software, nothing can change that.
That said, there are some immediate benefits for everyone if Linux gets wider adoption. From a purely selfish standpoint, interacting with and supporting my less-technical friends' and relatives' computers would be much easier if they were on Linux. Also, large companies would be much less likely to disregard Linux when releasing drivers and software. And on a less selfish note, I really do think--and it matches my admittedly anecdotal experience--that non-technical people are themselves better off on Ubuntu than on OS X or Windows. If all you do is browse the internet and some casual document/multimedia stuff, Linux is great (as soon as you sort the hardware out, of course). There is also the philosophical justification of Free Software I won't get into here.
So really, you present a false dichotomy: Linux for casual users and Linux for power users are not mutually exclusive; if anything, you can't force Linux to only fit one mould. And since we could benefit both power users and casual users by making Linux more accessible and wide-spread, we really should.