The comment I replied to didn’t source their claim that it’s the users’ fault, but I notice you didn’t ask them to source their claims.
Perhaps you could explain why your skepticism is so selective before I answer your question.
And perhaps you could be more specific about what claim you want “sourced”. That the switch to linux has a lot of friction? That it’s difficult? That Microsoft has deliberately cultivated that friction? That users aren’t simply failing to consider it? That blaming the users isn’t the solution?
I didn’t notice or care about their comment, it was meaningless bs. Yours is something for which it’s feasible to provide evidence, it’s a novel claim, and I saw nothing to back it up other than hostility.
That the switch to linux has a lot of friction? That it’s difficult?
Everyone mostly agrees on this, not interesting. Also you didn’t even directly claim this in your post, so obviously I wasn’t asking about this. You’re just seemingly using this hostile badgering approach to stifle the conversation.
That Microsoft has deliberately cultivated that friction?
This is the interesting claim. After all Linux deliberately shoots its legs off every few years, why does Microsoft need to help?
Honestly your original question was so vague and terse I almost didn’t reply, it just seemed so pointless. If you don’t want hostility, don’t come with an attitude like that. Do the work to make yourself understood the first time. And don’t just demand citations - you’re not my professor. Just ask questions like a normal fucking person. Ask for information.
Given you’re asking for evidence of Microsoft’s sabotaging of open source projects including Linux, I’m going to have to assume you’re coming from a place of actual curiosity and not bad faith. It’s actually one of the most famous examples of anticompetitive behaviour in history. Start there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
The comment I replied to didn’t source their claim that it’s the users’ fault, but I notice you didn’t ask them to source their claims.
Perhaps you could explain why your skepticism is so selective before I answer your question.
And perhaps you could be more specific about what claim you want “sourced”. That the switch to linux has a lot of friction? That it’s difficult? That Microsoft has deliberately cultivated that friction? That users aren’t simply failing to consider it? That blaming the users isn’t the solution?
What exactly do you want me to source?
I didn’t notice or care about their comment, it was meaningless bs. Yours is something for which it’s feasible to provide evidence, it’s a novel claim, and I saw nothing to back it up other than hostility.
Everyone mostly agrees on this, not interesting. Also you didn’t even directly claim this in your post, so obviously I wasn’t asking about this. You’re just seemingly using this hostile badgering approach to stifle the conversation.
This is the interesting claim. After all Linux deliberately shoots its legs off every few years, why does Microsoft need to help?
Honestly your original question was so vague and terse I almost didn’t reply, it just seemed so pointless. If you don’t want hostility, don’t come with an attitude like that. Do the work to make yourself understood the first time. And don’t just demand citations - you’re not my professor. Just ask questions like a normal fucking person. Ask for information.
Given you’re asking for evidence of Microsoft’s sabotaging of open source projects including Linux, I’m going to have to assume you’re coming from a place of actual curiosity and not bad faith. It’s actually one of the most famous examples of anticompetitive behaviour in history. Start there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish