I think Linux is just as if not more capable than Windows is, but the software library has some notable gaps in it. "It can't run Adobe/Autodesk/Ubisoft" That's not Linux's fault, that's Adobe/Autodesk/Ubisoft's fault. I don't think there's a technical reason why they couldn't release AutoCAD for Linux, for example.
so, due to those gaps, it currently can't do those things.
This argument boils down to "yes it could, if someone bothered to implement it". Well... nobody has, so it can't
I think this is a misrepresentation. What more can Linux really do to get companies like this on board? It already has pretty much all anyone would need to support the platform: GUI toolkits, graphics drivers, etc. As far as I can see, Linux provides all the same functionality that other platforms do to support this, and considering that plenty of other companies support Linux just fine (Zoom, Steam, WPS office, etc.), in my opinion, it's unfair to point fingers and say Linux is bad because other actors pointedly ignore it.
No one is pointing a finger and saying Linux isn't capable, they're saying it currently cannot run certain programs which is true. Why it can't is irrelevant, to the user it just can't.
lots of stuff that "windows can do" is due to 3rd party software too.
Thank you! Have my upvote
"linux is more capable but its just not capable of running anything"
yeah im more than capable to run a marathon. i have two legs. i am not able to run a marathon. having the means to run one doesnt put me in the same party as people that have ran a marathon.
aka linux users coping like usual
The point is, you COULD run a marathon if that's what you decide to do. But you would need to learn something new and frankly most people are too lazy to do so. And I can often fall squarely into that just like most. But I'm under no illusions that it's my lazy choice to not run a marathon.
At this point, that's kinda the wrong question.
I think Linux is just as if not more capable than Windows is, but the software library has some notable gaps in it. "It can't run Adobe/Autodesk/Ubisoft" That's not Linux's fault, that's Adobe/Autodesk/Ubisoft's fault. I don't think there's a technical reason why they couldn't release AutoCAD for Linux, for example.
so, due to those gaps, it currently can't do those things.
This argument boils down to "yes it could, if someone bothered to implement it". Well... nobody has, so it can't
I think this is a misrepresentation. What more can Linux really do to get companies like this on board? It already has pretty much all anyone would need to support the platform: GUI toolkits, graphics drivers, etc. As far as I can see, Linux provides all the same functionality that other platforms do to support this, and considering that plenty of other companies support Linux just fine (Zoom, Steam, WPS office, etc.), in my opinion, it's unfair to point fingers and say Linux is bad because other actors pointedly ignore it.
No one is pointing a finger and saying Linux isn't capable, they're saying it currently cannot run certain programs which is true. Why it can't is irrelevant, to the user it just can't.
This person is literally pointing a finger and saying Linux isn't capable lmao
lots of stuff that "windows can do" is due to 3rd party software too.
Thank you! Have my upvote
"linux is more capable but its just not capable of running anything"
yeah im more than capable to run a marathon. i have two legs. i am not able to run a marathon. having the means to run one doesnt put me in the same party as people that have ran a marathon.
aka linux users coping like usual
The point is, you COULD run a marathon if that's what you decide to do. But you would need to learn something new and frankly most people are too lazy to do so. And I can often fall squarely into that just like most. But I'm under no illusions that it's my lazy choice to not run a marathon.
aka most people in general