Takes 5 minutes to try a live session. Not much more time then you spent on this thread. Less time than you spent on Netflix watching a episode of this or that.
And now you’ve gone from ‘Install an alternate OS’ to ‘Buy a new computer that supports an alternate OS’.
This is kind of intellectually dishonest don’t you think? It both ignores the fact that Linux runs on the majority of hardware and invites us to pretend that Linux users are constantly buying random windows machines and hoping they work. It’s nice that Linux supports so much hardware that you can pick a random machine and have it probably work well but if you do decide to use on your PC logically when you do buy a new machine its apt—pun intended—to be something you picked explicitly because it’s supported.
The question is really just a question of whether the user prefers one environment or the other.
Given that you managed to miss what I said, I’ll reiterate: I know about Linux. Pretty-much everyone here knows about Linux. Evangalising about Linux is not useful. I’ve been running it, and making my living off my knowledge of Linux for over 25 years. At home, I have four computers and three of them exclusively run variants of Linux.
This is kind of intellectually dishonest don’t you think? It both ignores the fact that Linux runs on the majority of hardware and invites us to pretend that Linux users are constantly buying random windows machines and hoping they work.
No. You literally said “Nope I just buy supported hardware and software that works without difficulty which I’ve been doing since 2003.” in response to the very valid issue raised that Windows has better hardware support. I personally happen to disagree with that statement, I think the hardware support for older hardware in particular is much better in Linux than Windows. But for newer hardware, Windows drivers come before Linux drivers for very obvious reasons.
I also need to use Windows for work. My primary workstation runs Windows. This isn’t a matter of preference. There are many valid reasons for running Windows. And because of that, this headline is relevant to many people here.
Takes 5 minutes to try a live session. Not much more time then you spent on this thread. Less time than you spent on Netflix watching a episode of this or that.
This is kind of intellectually dishonest don’t you think? It both ignores the fact that Linux runs on the majority of hardware and invites us to pretend that Linux users are constantly buying random windows machines and hoping they work. It’s nice that Linux supports so much hardware that you can pick a random machine and have it probably work well but if you do decide to use on your PC logically when you do buy a new machine its apt—pun intended—to be something you picked explicitly because it’s supported.
The question is really just a question of whether the user prefers one environment or the other.
Given that you managed to miss what I said, I’ll reiterate: I know about Linux. Pretty-much everyone here knows about Linux. Evangalising about Linux is not useful. I’ve been running it, and making my living off my knowledge of Linux for over 25 years. At home, I have four computers and three of them exclusively run variants of Linux.
No. You literally said “Nope I just buy supported hardware and software that works without difficulty which I’ve been doing since 2003.” in response to the very valid issue raised that Windows has better hardware support. I personally happen to disagree with that statement, I think the hardware support for older hardware in particular is much better in Linux than Windows. But for newer hardware, Windows drivers come before Linux drivers for very obvious reasons.
I also need to use Windows for work. My primary workstation runs Windows. This isn’t a matter of preference. There are many valid reasons for running Windows. And because of that, this headline is relevant to many people here.