Brazil, you only have 3G connections in large cities and in an unstable manner, 4G is still only in the promise. Short version, you can not depend on internet access here because is too erratic.

But this is exactly the problem: So far no one is forced to use. But for how long?

I know, my patience is running out for this hype. And my fear is that this gets to a point where applications you need to work (or operating systems) begins to stop working without "cloud" services and reliable 24/7 internet connections that simply do not exist everywhere in my country. And I will not even get into the subject of the serious security breach that is trusting critical data to third-party "cloud" servers on which you have no control.

Enough. No, I do not want "Cloud" services, thanks. I want my good old desktop with local applications that do not need be connected to the internet 24/7 to work, not everyone have a fiber connection available all the time for this.

Wireless controls on a plane? I understand your argument, but this is simply too fucking dangerous.

I assume because a few hundred mobile phones moving at several hundred km/h can overload or confuse ground stations

I'd love to do it just to see the face of technician when he is called to solve the "problem".

Thanks for showing that most people here were not taken by fanaticism.

Uhh... Can tell me the name of one of then that can do more than 30% of the work? P.S: Without crashing and without the command line, after all is a desktop :-)

Clueless one, you are incredible! you really are THE ONE clueless! :-) (someone call Neo and tell him he was fired, we found a new The One)

I know what is a service, my clueless friend. I know that desktops and servers have services too, despite your naive attempt to put words in my mouth. But, not wanting to bother you, do you not notice you did not answer my question? I'm really curious to know why the Average Joe would use Linux instead of Windows based only on the fantastic ability to upgrade parts of the system without having to reboot[citation needed] (And do not forget that our friend Joe would receive in exchange a desktop that would be at best problematic to use in the long term. Remember, he is not a super-genius like you to fix it! :-)).

Footnote for anyone following this interesting discussion: Do you see now why the year of the Linux Desktop is currently actual_year + 1?

I see that you failed to understand what I meant.

To begin, you need to read the text of the parent (the one mistakenly marked as "-1 troll"), which makes it clear that one of the reasons for not making a Linux driver is that to be able to do so the developer may have to reveal company trade secrets in the process, like a proprietary and non-obvious way to do an video operation (and without which the driver can not work) on their hardware. or to the driver work he will need to incorporate a technology that his company has licensed from third parties and can not be included in the open source as free software.

Short version: The driver itself is not a trade secret, the methods and knowledge inside him is that may be trade secrets.