The author has a good point here:

". . . what lack of competition does to a product segment. Why doesn't IE have features like cookie management and popup blocking that consumers have to spend money for when Mozilla includes those features and more for free? Why did IE change so little between version 5 and 6 and why hasn't it been updated in two years? The vast majority of consumers uses whatever software they have on their computers and don't read open-source newsgroups or visit Slashdot.org and so they are unaware that better, freely available alternatives exist. Microsoft and Netscape made browsers free in their competition to dominate the web server application market so there's no financial benefit in Microsoft improving IE — they don't lose any money when a power user like me switches to Mozilla."

The author points out that most users do not know that there are alternatives to using IE on their Windows machines. They are unaware there is a better alternative.

So how can users be made aware of the better alternative? Mozilla is more than simply Gecko. Gecko could be used by AOL's oneline service and this would get many users using Gecko. This would be great and certianly would do wonders for helping improve web standards. But Mozilla/Firebird/Thunderbird is so much more than Gecko and there are users beyond AOL. How can we let the average user (not IT/programers/geeks who likely already know about Mozilla) know that there is an alternative to IE and that we feel it is better than IE?

It's all about control. IE keeps Microsoft in control, Mozilla lets the user be in control.

It's bound to get worse as Microsoft implements "security" in IE, or further digital restrictions management.

i've got a great idea: let's celebrate publicly whenever a user switches to mozilla. that would guarantee us a party at least once a year. i'm having visions of the "mozilla dot.party" turning into a religious rite in which an ie user is sacrificed, kicking and screaming, to the mozilla dot.deities...