This is the overall the most important metric.
When it crashes it's 100% a problem in kernel space. Driver issues, compatibility issues. It is NOT an app. The OS should not give the privilege to an app to crash anything else other than itself.
What you MEANT to say is Linux crashes less than before and likely never crashes for certain hardware.
OVERALL linux will still crash MORE than windows when you look at everything holistically.
Buy hardware designed for Linux and you will have no problems. Ideally, with preinstalled Linux.
All hardware on my system have drivers available from the manufacture SO ALL of the hardware is "designed" for linux. It's just like the OP said there is poor support. So there's bugs in the software because all bug fixing resources are aimed at fixing Windows issues. So basically even the THOUGHT of buying specifically designed hardware for windows is non-existent for windows because basically it ALWAYS works.
For windows the OS and hardware are designed to always work and that's all they care about. This is a major major feature that Linux DOES NOT have. Linux is inferior in every way on this aspect.
No user cares about the morality or the reasoning behind why this windows works with so much hardware. They are concerned with tools that help them achieve their objective. Linux is definitively worse than this on many aspects than windows OR OSX.
It's impossible to have good support for every available software. My Purism laptop works without issues for years. No crashes, no problems with WiFi or suspend. Just buy preinstalled Linux, like I did.
That's why linux is inferior. For windows I don't need to buy preinstalled. I can buy whatever I want.
>It's impossible to have good support for every available software.
Except windows pretty much does this. Yeah there's shady business tactics involved but at the end of the day users just want something that works. Linux fails at doing this. So I don't know why you're advising me to buy preinstalled. I can do that, but it just means Linux is FORCING me to do that because it is an inferior OS from a usability standpoint.
Buying preinstalled solves my problem but it only invalidates your point while validating my point.
It just means that the manufacturer received Windows certification. Similar thing exists for Linux.
> Except windows pretty much does this.
Did you just compare the Linux community with a trillion-dollar company?
I don't need certification. I can custom build a computer and pretty much not ever be worried about incompatibility with windows. Such certifications aren't really things a regular user needs to think about for windows.
>Did you just compare the Linux community with a trillion-dollar company?
I'm comparing Linux to Windows. And I'm saying Linux is inferior from a usability standpoint. So yes I am saying the Linux community built an OS ecosystem that is INFERIOR in terms of usability to an OS ecosystem built by Microsoft. That is a Fact.
It does not matter what you need. The fact is, 99% of computers (and of course their hardware) receive Windows certification, because it's the monopoly that everyone uses. There is practically no way to change that.
> I can custom build a computer and pretty much not ever be worried about incompatibility with windows.
See above why.
I wish Linux computers were sold in retail shops. I have no idea why they aren't.
This is irrelevant. The morality and ethics behind why something is the way it is doesn't matter. Users including me only want something that works. What I need matters because it's statistically representative about what most users need and therefore representative of what classifies as usability according to most users.
Linux is inferior from a usability perspective, and that is literally my only point. This point is factually true. The politics behind operating systems involve ideological battles that really only very few people care about.
If what you say is true and that this usability issue can't practically be changed then linux will always be doomed to be less usable than windows. This is the consequence formed from your logic.
In this case I see no reason not to buy preinstalled Linux. Typically, they buy preinstalled Windows, so I do not see any large difference here.
> Linux is inferior from a usability perspective
No, it isn't. Proprietary apps on Linux may be.
> If what you say is true and that this usability issue can't practically be changed then linux will always be doomed to be less usable than windows.
Yes, although this has been slowly changing for years. One can hope that it's not forever.
There are power users of computers who are not programmers who don't have a clue how to use linux. There are people who customize their gaming rigs and other hardware who are completely unwilling to deal with errors and issues with the OS.
The customization of a PC is made trivial with Windows. Literally anyone can plug in modules into slots on a motherboard and not have to debug a bunch of issues on windows. This is not so with linux. It is a huge difference. Tons of people love computers who CAN'T program. Just like how tons of people love cars and customizing their car but aren't car mechanics. Think of it this way. A lot of people like to tinker but they want that tinkering experience to be streamlined meaning they don't want to be hitting any unexpected or overly challenging issues.
Either way the streamlined experience is the experience you get when you build with a gaming rig with windows. Such is NOT the experience when you try to do the same with linux. In fact with linux, guaranteed something isn't going to work out on your custom rig without some actual troubleshooting. That's the keyword. People hate troubleshooting, but they love customization. Windows provides customization without troubleshooting, Linux provides both.
This is so with any OS for which the modules are designed. Of course, if you try to use something in an unentended way, you get into trouble. No news here.
Yes, most things sadly are designed for Windows now, because it's a monopoly. Not a fault of Linux, but it does make it less attractive.
Yes all hardware is designed for either windows or windows and linux, never both and linux is always an after thought. That is why windows is superior from a usability standpoint.
Yes, it's not the fault of linux. But in the end that's not really what matters.