The problem with the ms vs linux conversation is the fact that by taking
this approach, your effectively alienating those very people you want to
convince of the virtues of your chosen platform.

When I talk with people about MS as a company (non-tech guys), their eyes
tend to glaze over. Even if I started into anti-consumer laws,
anti-competitive behavior, yada yada yada. They simply don't care. They
know that their Windows computer at their house can do everything they
need (internet, word processing, some games, etc..) and connecting to the
Internet might cause them to get a virus, popup ads, whatever -- but thats
ok, because they made an investment into antivirus software, popup blocker
software, etc.. and the more problems they have and the more $$$ they
shell out, the more tied into the operating system they are (escalation of
commitment).

By having a MS vs Linux debate, your message gets across to these people
as --> "your stupid buying MS -- you made a HUGE mistake HAHAHAHA Linux
RoOOOlZ!!" As a result, these people take your argument as a direct
personal hit on their 'decision' and become defensive ("oh yah? well if MS
sucks so much, why is there so much software out there for it? why does
everyone use it? why can't I use xyz on Linux? etc..etc..etc..)

I tend to think that separating the two is much more effective. Ie
"Microsoft: The present and future" which will discuss issues of DMCA,
CBDTPA, UCITA, FUD generation, US vs MS findings of fact, changes in EULA,
future platform design changes that satisfy RIAA and other entities, etc.

Then as a second separate discussion, "OSS: What it means for you". This
could discuss what open source software is, what the entire Linux movement
is about, what is available, what it looks like, perhaps throw in a
Knoppix plug so people can download it and try it out (or perhaps even
attempt to do some CD burning and distribute at various computer stores,
etc..)

By splitting the conversation, you effectively are able to argue on the
side of the consumer (ie MS might have been ok, but look at what they are
doing to cause you harm now!) but not in such a way to make them defensive
('augh, Linux guy is attacking my platform of 'choice'!').  Also, it shows
that Linux/OSS can stand on its own. Does OSS REALLY need to be compared
to MS? I tend to think that as a platform, if it cannot stand on its own,
then perhaps there should be more work done in the community before trying
to convert MS users. Seriously. First impressions are very important.
Knoppix is getting there (whats better than popping in a CD and having a
fully operational system?) but I think there are still quite a few
problems (too much stuff in menus, default wallpaper too techie/busy,
printer autoconfig, LAN auto detect, etc..)

Of course, if a discussion topic is "ms vs linux" attempt to demonstrate
WHY linux is better (from an end-user perspective) instead of taking a
position of "use linux because MS is evil".

Having said that, I plan on listening to the show to hear what you have to
say. :)