[simonh]

To be viable as a general desktop environment for non-technical users, that has to be true not just for some users like yourself, but for all but about a few in a thousand users across a very wide cross section of available hardware.

[AsyncAwait]

> across a very wide cross section of available hardware

This is a sticking point I just cannot get behind. When you're purchasing a computer running Windows, it is optimized for Windows. When you're purchasing a Mac, it is optimized to run macOS.

So it should logically follow that if you want hardware optimized to run Linux, you should purchase that specifically. Expecting Linux to work flawlessly on any random junk is a feat you're not expecting of any other OS.

Therefore by that logic, for Linux to be good enough on the desktop, it has to ascend to places no other OS does.

[breakingcups]

What? When I'm purchasing a computer, any computer, I know with (near) 100% certainty it will run Windows flawlessly. I definitely expect Windows to run on any random junk.

[AsyncAwait]

> What? When I'm purchasing a computer, any computer, I know with (near) 100% certainty it will run Windows flawlessly. I definitely expect Windows to run on any random junk.

So do you expect Windows to run flawlessly on a Chromebook? I'd guess not. When you're purchasing random hardware in a store it most likely comes per-installed with Windows and has been made for and tuned for Windows.

It's just that Windows has such marketshare that the vast majority of computers are per-installed with Windows and have drivers primarily for Windows.

[kkarakk]

same difference, if chromebooks weren't actively hostile to windows they'd be running windows too.it's easier

[AsyncAwait]

If certain Windows laptops weren't actively hostile to Linux, they'd be running it smoothly out of the box too, what's your point?

[simonh]

If the point is that this is a problem for vendors to solve, not the Linux desktop community, then that's fine. I can live with that.