I've gotten so used to open source that I guess I've gotten the mindset that if it runs on Windows, there's money involved and sharing the app with me would be a infringement of some sorts.
PMJI, but my own brand of Linux evangelism compels me to do it.<g> I believe that when we're trying to make a point, it's essential that our arguments be unassailable because if someone who actively opposes our opinion spots the least little error, our credibility is compromised on everything else.
I frequently see the pro-Linux argument that it's free and people must lay out big bucks for Windows software. In fact, though, there is plenty of free-of-charge Windows software out there now, so I don't think that argument is very compelling. Examples: OpenOffice, Gimp, Picasa, Irfanview, Firefox, SeaMonkey, Opera, Thunderbird, Paint.Net, Audacity, Scribus,, antivirus and antispyware programs, bunches of games and utilities. Most new Windows PCs come with a full version of Microsoft Works, not a trial version, and it supplies basic calendar, word processor, spreadsheet, and database programs that are all many users need. Then you have the stuff that comes with the OS, such as Media Player and CD burner utility, browser, e-mail, news, an RSS client, picture viewer and organizer. So I don't think the argument that Linux gives you free what you have to pay for in Windows is either persuasive or totally accurate.
Better to stress choice, stability, freedom from malware both by design and by obscurity, and the sheer fun of it, not to mention the great communities like the one we have here.