>What is the downside of an additionally-running Windows kernel? - You must pay hundreds of dollars to Microsoft - You must tacitly agree with Microsoft's ToS

>What is the downside of an additionally-running Windows kernel? - You must pay hundreds of dollars to Microsoft - You must tacitly agree with Microsoft's ToS/EULA - You must endure whatever Microsoft decides you need to (surveillance, forced reboots, etc.) In short, you're under corporate hegemony. Game-theoretically, it's pretty sad for you as the user[0]. You're shackled to this company not even due to the superiority of its products but the massive coordination problem that is that people collectively settled on an inertial default and the entire [consumer-facing side of the] industry sclerotically built up around that default. >Is it the usual everything-should-be-free-and-non-free-is-evil paradigm? TL;DR yes >What is exactly Linux Desktop? Isn't Linux Desktop = Linux Kernel + Mostly Free Software? I use tons of non-free software on Linux though (games, cloud software, etc.). To me, "Linux Desktop" means "desktop running a Linux distro". I assume parent's saying, "If people who would otherwise be burdened with dual-booting into Linux to do something like use Bash can now use Bash in Windows or Chrome OS, they'll stay on Windows and Chrome OS instead of Linux." ... I guess that's a valid anxiety. But if developers are encouraged by this to develop stuff that works on Linux because it'll now somehow work in Windows, to me that's a win -- Linux gets more dev-incentive. 0: https://youtu.be/pgY7qYaoMWQ https://youtu.be/pgY7qYaoMWQ