The article's main premise isn't bad, but it's full of weird technical inaccuracies. At certain points he talks about syscalls, libc (I'm assuming glibc), PE v

The article's main premise isn't bad, but it's full of weird technical inaccuracies. At certain points he talks about syscalls, libc (I'm assuming glibc), PE vs. ELF, and an 'ABI'. Those are all different things, and IIUC all are fairly stable on Linux, what isn't stable is userspace libraries such as GTK and QT. So, what are we talking about? There's also statements like this, which, I'm not a kernel developer but they sound a little to good to be true: > A small modification to the "exec" family of system calls to dispatch on executble type would allow any Linux application to fork an exec a Windows application with no effort. He goes on to talk about Gatekeeper (which you can disable), Recall (which is disabled by default), and signing in with a Microsoft account (which can be easily bypassed, though he linked an article saying they might remove it). He also talks about "scanning your computer for illegal files", I don't know what this is referring to, but the only thing I could find on Google was Apple's iCloud CSAM scanning thing. That's not on your computer, and it got so much backlash that it was cancelled. There's plenty of stuff to criticize about these companies and their services without being dramatic, and the idea of Linux having more compatibility with Win32 via Wine isn't bad.