>>23203
>of fucking course Linux needs a way to run some of it if it wants to be appealing.
No, it doesn't. Linux is a different OS from Windows, so of course it's going to have a different experience and different applications than Windows. Why don't you focus on that instead of effectively telling people that they should just be using Windows?
>And the point of Linux is that it's free (as in freedom) so if Windows decides to be retarded (they already are, you yourself admit as much since you won't use anything after Windows 7), then people have an alternative.
People have
HAD an alternative for nearly 30 years, yet you're still complaing about how people would rather use Windows (
ANY version of Windows) over Linux. Perhaps you should re-evaluate what the actual "problem" is.
>but most people are gonna need something that's actually up to date to newer hardware and software.
And until you idiots pull your head out of your ass, they're always going to be using Windows, and you'll always be complaing about how these people are using Windows. How about you stop caring about Windows and focus on developing your own fucking OS? There is
ALREADY a successful OS on the market that sells itself on the tagline of "
At least it's not Windows", and that is MacOS, a Unix OS ironically enough.
What does Linux have?