Amelia_

Corporate adoption is Linux is absolutely a completely different discussion. Users of corporate devices are not the owners of their device, they have no expectation of control or freedom, and the tasks completed on these devices are typically simple and restricted. So yes, very little of my initial comment applies to that.

As for your other arguments, I would agree that the general everyday public with very little knowledge of Linux or the differences from Windows should have little expectation of switching over unless they decide to investigate for themselves. The main target my complaints are those people who come in to threads like these who do have the technical understanding to complain about Windows and understand that Linux is different, but constantly whine that they could never switch because this reason or that reason and oh won't those Linux nerds please just accept that Windows is better even though we're talking in the eighteenth thread full of people who hate it.

You're completely right, but there's a good reason why this happens. Why are people so insistent on trying to find fixes and workarounds for a broken system?

It's absolutely the same mindset as boomers complaining about technology these days because they don't want to learn how to download a mobile app. These people grew up with Windows and are too stubborn or insecure to learn something new, even if it's consistently better in multiple different ways. Yes, there are a few exceptions to that argument, but for the most part the arguments against switching to Linux are flimsy excuses, or outdated, or both.

gosh yes! Mint plus the upgrades to Proton are what finally got me to move from Windows.

Ubuntu just had a bunch of tiny annoying problems that wouldn't go away, that Mint either solves out of the box or offers simple GUI options to pick a preferred behaviour.

12/10 very cute bean with a very cute setup

^w^^h^^a^^t^^'^^s^ ^w^^r^^o^^n^^g^ ^w^^i^^t^^h^ ^m^^i^^n^^t^^?^ ^:^^<^

My point is that corporations cannot be victims because they're not people, they're a legal construct. They cannot be victims any more than a table can be a victim when I spill my drink over it. The term "victim", whether intentional or not, is an emotive word that invokes ideas of injustice and suffering.

Marketing teams and corporate executives convinced people and legal systems that corporations are people in an attempt to engender sympathy, personification, and to avoid responsibility for their own failures, like the case in this article where managerial and procedural failures by those in charge led to the ability for this ex-employee to be able to do what he did.

It’s their own fault if they didn’t take the reasonable precautions that anyone should be aware of when going in to business for profit.

Yes I did.

It's their own fault if they didn't take the reasonable precautions that anyone should be aware of when going in to business for profit.

Notice how in my original comment I added "through improper security" and "improper practices".

If you are running a business and get robbed without security cameras, insurance, and other reasonable protective and preventative methods, then you are at fault.

victim blaming

Can't tell if this is sarcasm, but corporations are not people, they are soulless, for-profit enterprises that will, for damn sure, abuse and exploit any one and any thing they can in the name of profit. They don't get the defense of "victim blaming".

If they open themselves up to malicious actors through improper security, or lawsuits due to improper practices, then that's their own fault.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Yep! It's only job is comfy movies on the projector so I just went with the easiest option

I had to prove it's a Unix OS! I took this, grabbed snackies and put it full screen, I promise <3