I wish it were so. For most PC users, Linux is a dead duck.
"The thing that'll bring Windows converts to Ubuntu 11.04 – due on April 28, as the company is expected to confirm on Thursday – is its new Unity interface."
I wish this were so but I'm afraid it's just a pipe dream.
No matter how it's dressed up, Linux--the less than 1%-er--will always remain so because it's not Win-API compatible or even operationally close to Windows, thus for the great unwashed masses of Windows users it'll always remain too hard to convert to (at least so on the PC).
Using a dressed-up Linux on a smartphone is another matter altogether as the operational paradigm--user environment/experience--is considerably different, furthermore, there's millions of dollars involved to ensure Android's success and to iron out and hide its ugly UNIX heritage. Simply, an enormous gulf separates Android from its raw (and free) Linux/Ubuntu origins, thus comparisons are essentially meaningless--at least as far as the user is concerned.
A lesson from ancient history illustrates this point well (the paradigm being nearly identical to the Windows/Linux one except the situation is essentially reversed). About 30 years ago, the Tandy TRS-80 computer--the prized high tech toy of its day that reigned almost supreme--came with its native disk operating system, TRSDOS. TRSDOS, like Windows, did the job adequately but it didn't offer extended features that many users wanted. (A TRS-80 with disk drives invariably came TRSDOS in the same way as a laptop today invariably comes with a copy of Windows.)
Into this TRS-80 O/S market came a feature-rich competitor to TRSDOS called NEWDOS-80. NEWDOS-80 was not only fully operationally (functionally) compatible with TRSDOS but it was also API compatible as well as being packed with many very useful extensions not found in the former O/S. As it was both easy to use--no retraining necessary and as all programs would fully run without modifications--the outcome was obvious and immediate, nerds and the cognoscenti saw it as a no-brainer and in droves they hastily switched to NEWDOS-80 despite it costing considerably more than TRSDOS. Almost total compatibility was the fundamental key to NEWDOS-80's success--but it's something still fundamentally lacking in Linux.
Most objective analyses of Linux/Ubuntu conclude that it's better technically than Windows, however for the average Windows user that's far from being a significant issue; to them, UNIX-like O/Ses suck big-time in just about in every conceivable way.
For example, one just can't install Linux/Ubuntu over Windows and expect everything to continue on as normal as was the case with NEWDOS-80. Disruption is guaranteed and there'll be months--if not years--of pain before the new Linux O/S is fully bedded down and its user completely comfortable. This is just observable fact.
Fundamentally, no matter how Linux/Ubuntu is dressed up to look like the Windows environment, it remains vastly different. Existing Windows programs won't continue to work on Linux, its filing system is different, its directory system strange and hugely frustrating for Windows users such as there's no direct equivalent of Explorer because of the 'peculiar' Unix/Linux 'root' system and the way disk drives are integrated into it.
To a Windows user, even installing programs in Linux/Ubuntu seems absolutely arcane and bizarre and the UNIX permissions system becomes a first class enemy whenever he/she tries to copy system files or copy to the 'root' to store a file etc.--things that every power user of Windows does naturally and with ease in Windows quickly become nightmares in Linux. Maddening annoyances pop up from everywhere to block and delay the way. Simple Windows commands and concepts give way to geekish Linux jargon such as 'copy' is no longer 'copy' but an obfuscated abbreviation sent to annoy the user. Moreover, most Linux O/S instructions seem so illogical that they've no connection with any normal reality let alone the clarity of English and done with seemingly little or no justification other than the nerdy UNIX community deliberately did so to keep outsiders away.
In essence, the various UNIX-like O/Ses (Linux/Ubuntu etc.) are perceived by Windows users as the complete antithesis of Windows--complicated, deliberately obfuscated, totally incompatible with Windows, obsessed with security  and extremely nerdy. As an IT manager, over many years I've tried many times to introduce Linux into the work environment and except for some exceptions such as servers and niche technical areas, Linux was quickly killed off by frustrated and annoyed users--so annoyed that they'd even go en mass to the CEO to have it removed and Windows reinstated.
From long experience, it's become very clear to me that unfortunately Linux will remain a niche product confined to servers, technical institutions and universities etc. Especially so as dyed-in-the-wool Linux users are just as entrenched with Linux as it is, selfishly they've absolutely no desire to see Windows-like enhancements introduced to their cherished operating system even if its already tiny user base were to fall.
I say this with sadness as I'm a long-time critic of Microsoft and I'd dearly love to see its O/S monopoly broken which would vastly benefit millions of users.
Frankly, it ought to be obvious to even the most blinkered Linux users that the MS monopoly will never be broken until another 'NEWDOS-80' comes along to provide Windows users true competition by providing fully seamless operational and technical compatibility--or, alternatively, until the PC becomes obsolete or redundant in its present form. And that's highly unlikely to happen anytime soon as there is no contender on the horizon, and the chances of Linux branching off a regurgitated API-compatible clone of Windows are nigh on zilch.
Whilst to some extent the smartphone and book reader etc. are making inroads into the traditional PC arena, it's the direct descendants of the original IBM PC that are still very much in control at the core of personal computing. Ipso facto, so will Windows.
 Many Windows users consider Linux security as excessively restrictive and cite it as a major reason for not adopting Linux--'can't do anything without being blocked this way and that'. Unfortunately, this very prevalent attitude amongst Windows users was forged by MS in the early days of Windows and is still very much alive and well. It mitigates strongly against their adoption of Linux as for many if not most Windows users, ease of doing something far outweighs security considerations.