I’m curious to hear thoughts on this. I agree for the most part, I just wish people would see the benefit of choice and be brave enough to try it out.
I’m curious to hear thoughts on this. I agree for the most part, I just wish people would see the benefit of choice and be brave enough to try it out.
It’s not Linux’s job to run software designed for another OS. It’s great that it sometimes does (thanks to wine/proton), but as a litmus test it seems a little odd.
I’m with that guy. It’s exceptionally easy to run Linux full time these days for anyone who wants to. (Have been doing so since 2007, and it was already easier then than it was for the trailblazers.) It requires almost no thought to ensure the hardware I buy will be fully supported.
I don’t care in the least if someone chooses something else to run on their computer, and I’m years past the point where I can even understand why I’m supposed to.
LOL it is the job of an operating system (ANY operating system) to be able to run the software you need/want. So in that regard, it’s not “odd” at all.
Go run a Mac binary natively on Windows and let me know how that goes for you.
I don’t care whatsoever if someone wants to use Windows for any reason at all. I take exception to this notion that Linux has some responsibility to be compatible with everything in the world while Windows only has to be compatible with Windows though.
Just make your choice and be open about it, don’t manufacture requirements that are not universal.
Well this is a point you’ve fabricated in your imagination because no one thinks that. Windows and Mac will both run whatever software a typical user needs. Linux often does not. That makes it not suitable for most users. It’s as simple as that.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that the success of Linux is tied to the needs of the mythical “average user”, in addition to thinking that Linux is somehow responsible for the fact that MS doesn’t make Office binaries for it, or Autocad doesn’t make binaries for it, etc.
We don’t need to agree on either of those, and as I said earlier, I’m years past thinking there’s any reason to “convert” you or anyone else.
I find your premise to be flawed, and that’s my only objection. However, I don’t even care about your flawed premise enough to continue this discussion. You can go have an an OS argument with someone who feels like having one. I’m sure it won’t be hard to find.
Nope. You’re once again just fabricating statements that no one is making.
Linux is not a business so “success” can be measured in a myriad of ways. One of which could be the number of people adopting it as their main desktop/laptop OS. For that, it has to be able to run the software most people are using.
This is also the topic of discussion that you seem to be missing entirely.
More things you’re just making up. No one thinks Linux is responsible for those things. If you want to have an argument with yourself, feel free to write it down on a piece of paper or something.
You clearly don’t understand what my premise even is, so you couldn’t possibly.