Strange that someone would make such an article. Like people are scared that Linux is becoming a threat to Windows...

It isn't, but I wish it would.

Run Arch, use the arch wiki. In fact, the reason I use Arch is because I found I was using the Arch wiki so much troubleshooting other distro's, that I might as well try Arch.

I'm not a fan of command line installing/configuring. Sure, if I were a network administrator or something along those lines, it could be a lot more efficient... But I'm not.
Note:
- I didn't say that everything on Linux needs command line.
- I also didn't say that 'bad' GUIs don't exist.
....
And I didn't say that Linux is bad. Did I cover all my bases? Sensitive topics these are. Trolling the topic starter is, as usual.

When using audio interfaces for music production... MacOS often provides a better experience than Windows. Because it's better suited for it? (CoreAudio) Perhaps, but not necessarily: see RME.

Ah, ok. You mean it never fixes any issue raised, only focuses on its proprietary components, can’t provide changelogs, is quite small compared to the big boys on the market, has a fraction of the availability of other platforms, doesn’t support old operating platforms, and tried to push its parent companies microtransaction online only software? Take a nail, if you want it in, or you want out...

Technically, pulse audio is optional. I use ALSA. Auto-mute is selectable via a standard mixer control. See attached.

Note that I actually agree with you about outdated, distro-specific, and outright wrong (even if it works) advice out there, and the fact that it's impossible for people just looking for quick answers to tell what's good or bad. Ubuntu's help "facility" is one of the worst offenders. It even sometimes affects me, and I've been using Linux since kernel 1.0 was new (and UNIX before that).

Should I comment on the crappy article as well? I'll just leave it at "90% of what it says is outright bullshit".

edit: One more thing: if you're used to X, you won't see the benefits of Y because you really just want to continue using X. That's why a Windows person saying Windows is better than Linux will not ever convince me, since I see things I think are critical to my computing experience missing from Windows, making it a non-starter.

Opening your post with why X is better than Y is always going to factionalise. You should have started with something like positives and negatives of the various operating systems. For instance, I am a long time user of windows, dos before that amongst others. However a fair few of the systems I use at work are Linux back ends, and prior to that unix. There is nothing wrong with them windows.
The worst thing to do is to push users towards something. If a user is used to windows, the keep using it, the fiction of incompatibilities is due to a few things back when. Me,I don’t have time to properly learn a new OS for the benefits it may give me, windows does what I need and more, so I will stick with it. If others have more time and want to learn Linux, good for them.
I use a right handed hammer to bang nails in, someone else uses a left handed one to do the same...

Honestly I think you are flogging a dead horse with microsoft.

I have seen what windows 10 has done to the small business I work for, and in case you haven't experienced it for yourself, EVERYTIME there is an update it breaks functionality across the board on the software in use.

EVERYTIME, defaults gone, settings changed. TIME WASTED.

Perhaps you consider it progress when an operating system to which you dictate direction as you see fit somehow becomes more useful as a service model that now dictates to the user on how operations should proceed on the whim of updates that cannot be controlled?

People like you are scary, defending models that are counter productive.

I can control the OS i use at home, and I will certainly not be progressing past Microsoft windows 7.

Here is my analysis of the points here:

1 (Lack of Software). Of the examples given, there's only two that I would actually use. For Outlook, many e-mail providers (including gmail) provide webmail services, and aside from that, there's clients like mutt and kmail that can be used. 7-zip is easily available on Linux (so that shouldn't have been on the list here), plus there's the fact that, on Linux, .tar.gz archives (or .tar.xz, which kernel.org uses) are more common than .7z.

2 (Software Updates). This isn't something I've encountered. In particular, I believe software like Python and Rust get updated in a timely manner. Also, some users *don't* want their software that updates constantly, hence why you get distributions like Debian and Alma/Rocky Linux which only give security patches. Also, note that updates to software in the repositories is specifically the distribution's responsibility. Also, one major advantage of Linux is that it makes it *much* easier to update everything at once. (Also, the OS distribution looks *very* different if you look at servers, where I believe Linux dominates.)

3 (Distributions). The many Linux distribution is a positive. The article cites a total of around 600, but in practice there aren't that many that a newcomer needs to consider. (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, *maybe* Arch for the adventurous, and spins of the above, and that's all (and the choice of spin only affects the initial installation).)

(Posting now to avoid data lost in case the post gets eaten.)

To be fair, that is more the delivery,Odell than the operating system. M$ have decided that win 10 will be the operating system and will periodically update it rather than releasing new versions. I personally don’t like this, and can see why others don’t. Unfortunately I think you are going to see that far more in the future across the board on everything, control is not being taken away from the user so much as freely being given back by the user. Just look at subscription everything, smart tech dealing with everything under the hood, social media and AI analysing everything. Alexa please expunge my bowels for me...

I'm surprised you answered. This is an obvious troll thread, from the title (which you noted), right to the comment of 'no trolling pls, even if you are a Linux fanatic', to no real comparison of the pros and cons of the two OSes (again, as you noted). This forum dweller always takes a shot whenever Linux is mentioned.

4 (Bugs). Linux has one advantage here. With Windows, only developers employed by Microsoft, or who have been given permission by Microsoft, can fix bugs in the OS. Because Linux is open source, any user with the required technical knowledge can dig into the code, fix a bug, and send a patch upstream.

5 (Support). There are plenty of forums, and different forums with different rules, some of which are actually noob friendly. Plus, if you have a big budget and need paid support, you could use a distro like Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which for a substantial fee provides the needed support.

6 (Drivers). I believe Linux had USB 3.0 support before Windows (and before USB 3.0 became common). That aside, with Windows, drivers for older hardware are often abandoned by the companies that make them. On Linux, drivers are typically upstreamed into the kernel, and will hence continue to be maintained as long as some kernel developer (and remember, you don't need to be employed by a specific company to become a kernel developer) has such hardware.

Ha, there are those who call me a troll as well. I don’t really care, if I want to answer something I will. We all have out bugbears (cyberpunk!!), it doesn’t matter at the end of the day.

true
I just gave it the same name as the article after it didn't let me post first, probably cause of the link.
Yes switching to a new thing only good if the advantages outweigh the switch cost.

True enough. :)