Is that not the point here? Labeling something a "trope" isn't a self-contained argument. The reliability of Linux systems is terrible for certain contexts: modern gaming[1], universal hardware compatibility, taking advantage of bleeding-edge software updates (the analogue to which doesn't exist on Windows), etc.
IME, there's a lot of talking past each other when it comes to OSes. The vastly superior experience that Linux fans describe requires a couple of one-time boxes to be ticked, like constraining yourself to known compatible hardware platforms and stable software versions. There are plenty of people who don't realize this dynamic exists and trip over it, and it's not dodging the question to make them aware of these limitations and let them decide whether the cost/benefit fits their situation. Eg, in my case, I like Thinkpads, don't game, and need a stable, reliable, and performant system that I can be productive on. The pitfalls of Linux don't affect me personally, and I obviously can't meet the needs I describe with a Windows system (or to a lesser extent, OS X).
[1] I hear this is getting much better with things like Valve's Proton, but I assume that Linux is still far worse than Windows for a dedicated PC gamer that wants to play new games.
I think you make an excellent point. Many of the posts admonishing Windows speak to the loss of freedom but, as you pointed out, you have to willingly give up a great deal of freedom if you want stable Linux.
I'm not trying to bash on Linux, merely point out that for everything it does right there's just as much it does wrong. The same is true of Windows and MacOS.
No arguments there! It's a pretty good rule of thumb that the no-exceptions maximalist view is wrong, on almost any topic over which there's meaningful disagreement.
I never said they were doing it wrong. I said the distribution matters. If, for example, you are running Arch Nightly and constantly pulling in the latest and greatest features, you're likely to see some stability issues. If you're using something like Ubuntu LTS, you'll miss out on a few new bells and whistles, but you'll get a very stable OS.
Saying "linux" has a poor update process or stability issues is meaningless.
> If, for example, you are running Arch Nightly and constantly pulling in the latest and greatest features, you're likely to see some stability issues. If you're using something like Ubuntu LTS, you'll miss out on a few new bells and whistles, but you'll get a very stable OS.
"You're doing it wrong, if you did it right it would work"
That's true of software in general. You can use (often older) more stable tech and lose access to some newer features, or you can used the latest and greatest and get a few more features and accept a reduction in stability in exchange.
