Reading your answers you seem unhinged. Calm down mate. > Of course in the unicorn land of Linux cultists it "works" too, but then you open any Linux related f

Reading your answers you seem unhinged. Calm down mate. > Of course in the unicorn land of Linux cultists it "works" too, but then you open any Linux related forum and multiple threads about something not working anymore are posted daily. As opposed to Windows where nothing ever breaks? That doesn't make any sense. It's a known fact that Linux users report way more problems than Windows users because they are simply more technical, more in line with the open source spirit and dig deeper. When I had issues on my Windows, it was extremely hard to find any solution online. Nobody goes to r/Windows for their troubles. From the few answers I've found, pretty much all of them ended up being "re-install Windows" or "re-install parts of Windows". > People choose to run an actual OS with the ability to create and run third-party software for at least a decade, in the case of Windows for up to three decades. Sorry but, that's simply not true for the average person. I'm not talking about the typical HN user here. The absolute vast majority of users *do not choose an OS*. Surely you can't argue with that, right? > Continue to OVERLOOK all of that No. I'm well aware that there are many things to improve on Linux (especially desktop linux), but my whole point is that it's utterly irrelevant until people actually get to choose an OS. Linux could have zero issues and work flawlessly everywhere and it would still have almost nobody using it outside of our tech savvy bubble. If Linux as a whole was as bad as you say, it wouldn't be used in the majority of computers in the world. It's only desktop Linux that suffers from your complaints, and it's simply because it doesn't have companies with infinite money and monopolies behind it making it more seamless for the average user while forcing vendors to support it.