Normal users don't know what build number of Office they have. Normal users generally do know what build number of OpenOffice.org they have.
The "Market version" of FS/OSS projects is generally also the build version. Not so with MS products.
But that is neither here nor there. The main article has quotes like "...the FOSS world has gone mad and is hurling itself..." and "...that open projects are susceptible to these kind of non-technical pitfalls,..." throughout. The article fails to point out that closed source, proprietary software projects also use version numbers differently than the next. The article therefore implies that the problem is only present in FS/OSS projects.
My point was to show that the problem discussed is not unique to FS/OSS projects but is prevelant throughout the software industry no matter the development model.
Your point simply re-enforces mine. The "Market version" is not even the "Real version" so more confusion can result.
I actually find the article a bit silly. There is no way you will get every FS/OSS project, let alone all the closed source ones, to use version numbers the same way. It's like complaining that every retail store should use the same font, color, size and placement. Different version numbering schemes are part of the technical culture. Users have to learn it because it is not going to change.