With Linux, I can change just about everything. If I want a real-time kernel, I can switch. If I want a different desktop environment, change. If I want more control from my keyboard, Linux has my back.

As much as I agree with the sentiment of the article, this is a terrible reason and more likely to scare people away from Linux rather than get them to install it.

If you know what a "real-time kernel" is, you're probably already using Linux and you are a highly technically literate user. Any "normal person" user is going to look at that and think "Oh, I guess I need to understand technobabble in order to use Linux". Normal users care about easy, preset defaults, not customization.

Once again, Linux adoption is kneecapped by its own users, who forget what normal people really care about.

The computer savvy folks don’t need to be reminded. The non savvy folks who don’t have time to learn Linux are stuck with windows/apple.

One of the biggest things keeping me from jumping into Linux as my primary OS is because of nvidia's performance issues, particularly with DX12 games on Linux. I'd be taking like a 10%-30% performance hit. I know the games will "run" but I want them to run well, that's why I spend so much money on my GPU.

Real-time Kernel?

Like my popcorn?

Desktop environment

Jimmy I work in an office. What are you talking about?

• Your average Windows user... Probably.

I just wish games worked fine on Linux.

The first one (MS account) is so weird to me...

I mean, I get it, people are just allergic to "anything MS", but it's just silly.

Set up a "burner" MS account. Use it to set up the OS, get your BitLocker recovery key and the OS license backed up automatically for easy use. Create your regular local account, switch, remove admin rights from the MS account, never use it again.

Job done, problem solved.

The third one (better performance) is disingenuous. Better performance... where? On what hardware? Nvidia drivers are notorious for causing issues. Many games, even on Proton, run like crap or just... don't run.

The last one, security, is also a bad reason. Linux is not inherently more secure than Windows, it's just less attacked due to a lower desktop market share. What Linux does have, however, is that it's massively easier to break by a clueless user, especially when following online advice when something isn't working - and that's going to be a common occurrence, especially with freshly-switched newbies. Windows will prevent noobs from breaking or exposing a lot of stuff.

The urban legend that Linux is more secure than Windows needs to die.

Holy shit, ZDNet is still a thing?

Security: Linux doesn't need antivirus, just don't install infected software. Riiiight? Sorry, but this is silly.

Linux doesn't really have better security. It is actually worse from a purely security perspective.

The key difference is privacy and freedom. A high security prison might be secure but you probably don't want to be there.