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.

Well, it's their choice, I never said that companies are prohibited from disclosing their trade secrets. But also when you disclose a trade secret he ceases to be a secret, right? Just remember that many companies would like to make drivers for Linux but can not do it because:

a) To do so the developer may have to disclose proprietary methods over which he has no control and which may even be owned by third parties licensed to him;

b) If he can get to the point of producing and distributing the driver, he will have to be forever changing it because the API between kernel and drivers is a moving target, not all companies are willing to be spending money on this.

Sorry, I know the difference between restarting a service and a kernel. But, as I said before and I will say it again, we are talking about a desktop here, clueless one, and the Xorg is only one in a long list of things that can broke in funny ways on upgrade. Can you explain to me why the average user (not the super geniuses like you :-)) would switch from windows to linux due to one functionality (upgrade without having to reboot, which once again I say that is debatable) that he does not need because he is using a desktop and not a server? And even considering also that in exchange for this functionality he would have a desktop that is, at best, problematic?

Clueless one, you are showing here, for all, another reason for the lack of progress in desktop Linux: You see it as a server. And the Average Joe do not need a server.

I am sorry again clueless one, but your "almighty" ability to update without restarting[citation needed] is only relevant to servers. And I dispute the veracity of your claim, as for example the X window server needs a restart after updating it. After all, remember again that we are talking about desktop here, not a server.

footnote: I also know and use Linux for a decade now, so what? ;-)

I am sorry, but you, and only you are the clueless one, basement dweller... Linux is a good server OS and the Android (Linux based) is a good mobile OS, but on the desktop is not. And it will remain a clumsy experience as long as developers like you continue blaming Microsoft for your own incompetence, rather than simply put your hands dirty, forget the religious fanaticism and begin work on a stable desktop API that does not break compatibility on every update. When you stop blaming others for your own mistakes and create a stable API that application developers can use without fear of breaking each update (like Android), then maybe we can have the year of Linux Desktop.