For instance, the claim that the Linux packaging scheme doesn't work for proprietary, closed-source software. That's just plain wrong. No, proprietary software makers can't rely on distribution maintainers to package their stuff, however there is nothing preventing them from packaging it themselves, and making it available in a 3rd-party repository. Both deb/apt and rpm/yum have had this facility for ages, and it's how a lot of Linux users get either software not supported by the distro (like media stuff that Fedora refuses to include), or software that the distro drags its feet on updating. Proprietary vendors can easily use the same system to make their software available to users, and to allow the software to be easily kept up-to-date using the existing system instead of running a separate "update checker" constantly in the background like is common on Windows systems. The main problem is that there's more than one Linux distro out there, and they're not compatible with each other. But as Google does already with Google Earth and Chrome, for instance, it's not that hard to just target RH/Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu/Mint.
Another important point is libraries. They complain about the library dependencies all being different on different distros. But there's nothing stopping proprietary vendors from statically-linking everything, which is how they usually do it anyway, both on Linux and on Windows. Sure, it bloats up the binary, but it avoids a lot of library version and dependency problems, and with modern HD and RAM sizes, it's not that much of an issue.
It seems to me that they're proposing an enormously complicated and bloated system here in an effort to increase usage of desktop Linux, but this isn't going to help.