Better ask why not to install Linux for non-tech people. Assuming they need something installed - i.e. they're using an older computer which needs an OS refresh, their hard drive just crashed and they need help to get the thing up and running again, they bought a machine without an OS - it is much harder to defend installing Windows 11 than it is to install Mint or Debian or Fedora. It is clear those non-technical users will have a better user experience with a simple Mate or Gnome desktop than they'll have with the intrusive mess which is Windows 1X. These non-technical users will most likely want to use the web, probably mail, some chat thing and some office stuff. They'll also want to do something with media (photos, video, audio, etc). All of these are par for the course on those Linux distributions.
Linux has been ready for the desktop for a long time. Windows is getting less and less ready for the desktop with every release. What it has gained in stability it has lost in being actively hostile against personal computing. Where Gates spoke about information at your fingertips Microsoft now seems to interpret this as your information at our fingertips.
Unless you need software that only runs on Mac / Windows you get a more efficient, faster OS, not stricken with bloatware. Mainstream distros running on compatible machines tend to 'just work', so the myth of having to be a hacker to use Linux just isn't true now.
Open source is also an amazing beautiful thing and it's nice to support that as much as possible. It's a revelation to most people that they don't have to be under the control of Apple and Microsoft.
My local library installed Linux on all of their desktops when a refresh cycle was needed. Basically prevented them from buying all new computers at 10s of thousands of $$$.
Makes old computers faster, less marketing, or curiosity.
For me, I switched in 2016 because Microsoft borked my upgrade from Windows 8.1 to 10, and I was mad enough to switch to the only competitor I knew of that would run on my hardware. Start menu stopped working, icons would disappear at random, even ctl+alt+del didn't always work.
Supposedly it happened because I selected the "keep my files and programs" option, but my question is why they offered the option to begin with if it wasn't going to work?
Coincidentally, Linux actually converted me into a techie
I've installed GNU/Linux (mostly by Mint distro and Mate desktop) to both of my non-tech parents home laptops like 10 years in a row now. Non-tech in this case means browsing, banking, printing, email, docs and sheets, video conferencing (mostly MS Teams), etc. I keep these machines updated remotely ~once in a month.
After Windows XP/7 family originated support requests have declined like 95% being only 1-2 per year for past years. I don't give all credit to Linux/Mint/Mate/apps but to the fact installing any unnecessary bloat to an average Linux requires a bit more than just clicking "Install me" button on any web page and then (generously instructed by the browser) run that .exe in admin privileges.
Yes there are Flatpak and friends and I'm already a bit scared they will evolve easy enough to install bloat increasing family originated support requests to Windows days.
Is it still the case that Windows 11 will only run on devices with TPM 2.0 available?
That alone will give many small organisations such as the library mentioned up thread the choice to adopt Linux or to find money to replace perfectly serviceable PCs.
More secure, doesn't annihilate your privacy the way Win11 does, doesn't force features down your throat, and has pretty dang good (tho I'll concede not perfect) Steam & game compatibility.
I installed it on my grandma's laptop to keep her safe from shady malware and scammers, and to keep things simple. Was notably faster than Win11, too.
