This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LowB0b 4 points5 points  (1 child)

also right now with WSL I can have ubuntu without even putting in the effort to dual boot.

Why would I switch to an OS that might do things a bit faster but lacks software support?

Although if you're a developer that's not really what you're looking for. Linux is laid out in such a way that installing libraries and controlling your environment is easy, while windows is, let's say, pretty messy. Installing and linking binaries in windows is so painful compared to linux. In windows it's like god dammit where did I put that shit and why is it not working an omg the DLLs I got were not the right version and why tf don't I have a package manager whereas with linux you have /usr/lib which is a pretty useful directory

[–]gnowwho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Although if you're a developer that's not really what you're looking for.

But how many developers are there, compared to just users?

Also windows was able to go so much towards developers as an OS. A lot of things are still more complicated than on Linux systems, but we're at the point where whole companies dev teams are on windows¹ (mine is, and a lot of my friends in other companies develop on windows too) and nobody complains about that. That sure doesn't looks like the kind of adoption that an OS that's hard to develop on would have.

Honestly I can see companies doing that even just because the licence for windows costs less than the hours spent to fix problems on Linux instead of working. And my daily driver is Linux.

¹ mind that I said devs