bitcrafter

I am not so sure that "rulers of the past" were quite as concerned about whether their subjects were happy as you are making it seem they were.

I love that Eratosthenes was able to estimate the circumference of the earth with the amount of math we had in his era.

Not only that, but he was much closer to the right answer than Columbus was, yet Columbus is the one to get a day named after him, even though Columbus would have died due to starvation as most people had predicted he would if he had not gotten lucky and run into a continent that no one knew about except for the people that lived there and the Vikings and the Chinese and other people that didn't count! It just proves the principle that the key to success is not to be smart but to be lucky.

Confusingly, no, they are completely unrelated things, despite how similar the names look. (This confused me as well until somewhat recently.)

Agreed; I was only arguing against the proposition that increased market share would not eventually make a difference.

I think that if Linux had a 50% market share then it would be considered a very valid alternative, even though that is obviously not very realistic (at this point, at least). My comment was more about why a high market share would be desirable than about how realistic it would be to get there.

Having said that: I think that if Linux were to get to a 10% or 15% valid market share, it would be a sign that a lot of things had changed that would have made it a more valid alternative in the process.

That's completely fair!

Just to be clear, it's not that I think that Linux is without problems or idiosyncrasies, but rather I think that they are more like the experience you are describing than evidence that Linux is fundamentally broken compared to Windows.

Incorrect. You did not just say that some things were "suboptimal" about Linux; your thrust was that Linux offers a "frustrating experience" overall compared to Windows as a result of all of these supposed "paper cuts":

There are so many of these paper cuts I think Linux would be quite a frustrating experience for many people even if if had Windows-level hardware support.

Think of it as being a different way of saying "anxiety scrolling", because "doom scrolling" is primarily referring to the experience of being driven by anxiety to compulsively consume a never-ending stream of bad news.

For example, I had to cut myself off from following what is going on in Los Angeles earlier today because I recognized the signs of going past the point of merely keeping tabs on it to stay informed and compulsively anxiously reloading the page to see if there were any new updates.

No, bad for you for asserting that your experience was universal, and then getting grumpy when someone disagreed and cited their own experience as being different.

You may be lucky enough to use Linux for your fault work, but some of are forced to use Windows because it is the industry standard. If Linux were widely enough used that I could use it at work then that would be a huge benefit to me.

I don't think that editing fstab is a necessary step in this process, going by the first set of instructions here.

Could you be more specific about exactly what about Linux makes it so difficult to use that a typical person would not be able to use their computer at all if it were installed on it?