> You quoted "I would argue that linux would need to be installed by default for that to change dramatically." and then wrote right afterward "I disagree", whic

> You quoted "I would argue that linux would need to be installed by default for that to change dramatically." and then wrote right afterward "I disagree", which did make it sound like that was the thing you were disagreeing with. ..because it is? The statement asserts that being installed by default is a requirement of increasing Linux adoption 'dramatically', whereas I assert it is possible without installing it by default everywhere. > I think that one of the implicit assumptions of "linux would need to be installed by default for that to change dramatically" was "without any other significant changes happening" I don't see how it could reasonably be read that way: "Absent any changes except the one I propose, nothing will change unless my proposed change occurs" is a tautology. Not to mention that that interpretation disregards the context of the rest of the post, which very much makes it sound as though parent believes there are no significant barriers to adoption and the only reason people don't choose Linux is that people by and large don't really choose at all.