Obviously, a bit of clickbait. Sorry.
I just got to work and plugged my surface pro into my external monitor. It didn't switch inputs immediately, and I thought "Linux would have done that". But would it?
I find myself far more patient using Linux and De-googled Android than I do with windows or anything else. After all, Linux is mine. I care for it. Grow it like a garden.
And that's a good thing; I get less frustrated with my tech, and I have something that is important to me outside its technical utility. Unlike windows, which I'm perpetually pissed at. (Very often with good reason)
But that aside, do we give Linux too much benefit of the doubt relative to the "things that just work". Often they do "just work", and well, with a broad feature set by default.
Most of us are willing to forgo that for the privacy and shear customizability of Linux, but do we assume too much of the tech we use and the tech we don't?
Thoughts?
No, I don't think so. There should be an expected difference between Windows (for example) and Linux as far as "it just works" goes, simply by virtue of the fact that one is actively developed by a company with eleventy-bajillion dollars and the other is developed by lots of hobbyists and a handful of profitable companies.
If Windows doesn't work, it's not unreasonable to expect that it should. If Linux doesn't work, it is unreasonable to expect that it always will.
To be fair, a big portion of the work that goes into Linux (at least the kernel) is done by paid developers working for big corporations.
That's true, it's not just hobbyists. I meant that the paid effort is relatively small potatoes compared to giant companies like MS.
Pls stop giving billion dollar corporations so much credit.
The difference comes from windows dominant (home pc) market position meaning that almost all software and hardware is specifically made to work with it, with even things that officially support linux being afterthoughts.