> True, but that also means you're going to end up with a lot more botnet nodes out there because people will never update. Or they'll never update and still complain things are not working.

Or people update when it's convenient for them vs when it's convenient for the OS.

> > Astronomically lower probability of catching a virus.

> Yes because nobody uses consumer desktop Linux. With higher market share the malware will come.

Linux has a higher server market share already, and its virus problem there is still not as bad as Windows'.

> > No bullshit forced updates when the OS feels like it.

> True, but that also means you're going to end up with a lot more botnet nodes out there because people will never update. Or they'll never update and still complain things are not working.

Today, Windows has forced updates and Linux doesn't, and Windows hosts are more likely to be part of a botnet than Linux hosts.

> distros won't distribute nonfree drivers by default, for ideological reasons.

True but misleading. For example, Ubuntu doesn't install nonfree drivers by default, but all you have to do to install them is check the checkbox when the installer asks you. Way easier than dealing with drivers on Windows.

1. There are nearly a million Linux gamers on Steam alone. https://www.gamingonlinux.com/index.php?module=steam_linux_s...

In fact, the latest versions of Proton are so good, the only games I haven't been able to get to work with regularity are the ones that require EA Origin, and honestly, I've had similar problems on Windows. In fact, sometimes the Proton version of the game works better than the Linux binary. So, if gaming is holding people up from switching (which is a common excuse), that's not as much an obstacle these days.

2. Any time there is an update, it's an opportunity for something to break. If a user has no choice when a computer updates, they risk interrupting important, time-sensitive work. So, a user must ask themselves, are they more worried about their machine possibly used in a botnet, or are they more worried about it rebooting right in the middle of a meeting or video call? Or taking 20-30 minutes to update after an unexpected reboot, such as a power failure? I would rather have the choice, and deal with problems caused by updates only I want to, when I have the time. Also, many zero-days are for software that's over a year old. As long as a user has done an update in the past year, which is a reasonable expectation, the risk of compromised security is much lower.

3. Facebook downtime and the incapability to launch any third-party application at all are two very different problems. Further, Gatekeeper is not the only source is potential problems. Windows Defender has been known to quarantine DLLs and executables that are perfectly harmless, but fixing problems caused by an overzealous update to (and application of) Windows Defender definitions is often beyond the capabilities of the average user.

4. The Linux kernel absolutely supports non-free drivers. Inclusion of non-free driver "blobs" is a common argument.

In fact, I would like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as "ideological Linux", is, in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux...