Obviously, a bit of clickbait. Sorry.
I just got to work and plugged my surface pro into my external monitor. It didn't switch inputs immediately, and I thought "Linux would have done that". But would it?
I find myself far more patient using Linux and De-googled Android than I do with windows or anything else. After all, Linux is mine. I care for it. Grow it like a garden.
And that's a good thing; I get less frustrated with my tech, and I have something that is important to me outside its technical utility. Unlike windows, which I'm perpetually pissed at. (Very often with good reason)
But that aside, do we give Linux too much benefit of the doubt relative to the "things that just work". Often they do "just work", and well, with a broad feature set by default.
Most of us are willing to forgo that for the privacy and shear customizability of Linux, but do we assume too much of the tech we use and the tech we don't?
Thoughts?
No, I don't think so. There should be an expected difference between Windows (for example) and Linux as far as "it just works" goes, simply by virtue of the fact that one is actively developed by a company with eleventy-bajillion dollars and the other is developed by lots of hobbyists and a handful of profitable companies.
If Windows doesn't work, it's not unreasonable to expect that it should. If Linux doesn't work, it is unreasonable to expect that it always will.
Additionally much software (and hardware even more) primarely targets windows as a platform. The way printers mostly "just work"™ on Linux still amazes me, because printer vendors have all the incentives to make their stuff work for the most used platform, which sadly isn't Linux right now.
And let's not forget that printer vendors historically bungle even that much. That they work at all on Linux is a testament to the various Linux devs.
Also a testament to how much of a benefit it is when the vendors just get out of the way and don’t feel the need to add their own Special Sauce^TM^ to the drivers.