Thank you for an interesting, thoughtful reply.

> You selectively pick only tiny parts of comments to reply to

Yes, I nitpick on some smaller things when I know the poster is wrong on that matter (and I feel it's sufficiently important).

> while ignoring the points that are made and the plethora of very, very common issues highlighted

It doesn't mean I think there are no issues at all. Often I just don't have anything to add to them. Do I always have to say "it's true" to everything else? I never said "and therefore you're wrong about everything".

> Linux only _properly_ supports a small subset of devices for _desktop computing

This is true. However what you conclude from this may differ. It doesn't mean that Linux is a lost case and everybody should use Windows. It doesn't mean that companies can't switch to Linux. Very often they choose the hardware for the next upgrade and nothing prevents them from choosing a known supported hardware, however rare it could be.

Also, in every Linux thread there is always a large number of people with vague, unhelpful Linux bashing like "I'm trying Linux every other week and there are countless issues every single time". This is not actionable, it doesn't help anybody to choose the hardware. It's just a shallow dismissal, which is against the HN guidelines. I don't understand who upvotes that.

> Is the proper response to say, to effect, you're the one at fault by not using the right hardware?

This is not exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that you should manage your expectations when using random hardware with a free OS. Not only the Linux developers weren't paid to support every hardware in world -- in many cases, the hardware vendors actively fight against this. Statistically, it must be a really large number of devices reliably working. How else could Linux reach >5% without anything sold in stores?

> either Linux doesn't actually properly support a lot of different hardware

Yes, this is the case.

> Even worse is this, honestly, moronic take

I stand by what I said. You can't demand any OS to work on every piece of hardware in the world; not even mega-corps can achieve that. You have to keep in mind the reality, otherwise this is a Nirvana fallacy. I would understand if someone said "I'm unlucky, Linux doesn't work on my hardware". Instead, they say "Linux barely works on a limited set of hardware that it was designed for" or "Linux on the desktop failed and will never succeed" (actual quotes from this discussion).

> The primary subject of _desktop_ users _are_ Windows users with Windows machines.

This is very true, and it's a sad state of affairs that for Linux to grow it has an impossible task of supporting all those different Windows machines. I recommend every Windows user to try installing Linux. At the same time, I do not guarantee that it will work, but there is a good chance. You will likely loose some features like suspend, but your machine will be faster, more secure, private and supported for the lifetime if you're lucky. Also you should be able to pay somebody to fix your problems, which will fix them for every other user. This is not true for proprietary software btw.

> It's honestly just so weird to argue that installing Linux on a Windows machine is in any way shape or form as bad as installing it on a Mac.

This is not what I said. I said that you're misplacing the responsibility here. The user should accept their responsibility for buying a "Windows-certified" hardware and not blame their problems on volunteers. They should thank the volunteer when it works and understand the reasons when it doesn't (and consider helping to fix the issues, too).

> And even then, the Steam Deck blows them out of the water

What are you talking about? Most users buy it as a separate device to play games, just like a console. It does help Linux to grow, but the comparison to Linux-first general-purpose devices doesn't seem relevant here.