I still don't agree with you 100%. Even if you never ever leave the command line, administration tools and system configuration are very relevant. And why give advice for users who only use the CLI? I use the CLI a lot, but the GUI makes sense for a lot of apps. 98% of users will want to use X-Windows in some capacity.
I don't use linux for any graphical features. As far as font selection and general eye candy, its difficult to surpass a well configured windows 2000 desktop.
For example, for many years, SuSE is admin'd through CLI yast (and now yast2). yast isn't great, but it was one of the first integrated administration tools for Linux to ship. SuSE also has had an easily-scripted firewall interface to ipchains for a long time as well (this was added only in Red Hat 7.1). And I think SuSE's firewall scripts are still more flexible than RH. Not everybody wants to cook their own ipchains/iptables rules. It's advisable to definitely understand firewall issues, but if you had to cook your own, Linux use would be forever reserved for geeks. And even if you're a geek, why cook your own firewall rules (which might have vulnerabilities) when the distro ships a well-tested one scripted by a qualified engineer?
In my situation I just prefer to use my own that I know I can trust... Didn't 7.0 come with that interface?
Another example is package management. One of the primary reasons people like Debian is apt-get. Until very recently, apt-get (or functional equivalents) is not available on any other distro. I don't use Debian because I need a more compatible distro (with commercially supported apps), but I really wish RPM had an apt-get (I know these features are now being worked on by various OSS developers).
I don't really use many items other than apache, openssh and vi... so I plead ignorance on this debian apt get feature that people seem to enjoy.
So I'm sorry but your opinion is too simplified. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but to extend your opinion, I could say use any Windows OS. They are mostly similar, and accomplish the same work. But like I say in my last post, some OS's in the same family are better than others. Sometimes, they are even vastly different from an end-user standpoint (and not a developer's source code standpoint).
I don't think you can compare the history of windows to the various linux distros on the market. The various windows represent various points in microsofts developmental history. 1.0? to 3.1 to 95 to 98/98se to ME/2k to XP... What would you call red hat and what would you call mandrake? 2k vs. ME? I don't understand the comparison. 2k is light years ahead of ME... 2k is everything NT should have been from the start... 3.1 and XP have nothing in common... I don't see how you can compare microsoft's operating system history to linux distributions.
For example... I can load apache onto any linux distro that I've used and with some customization I can get a very powerful webserver. however, I cannot install IIS or apache on every windows operating system and get the same result.
Apples and oranges really.