Actually you happen to be wrong.

Already around 2003 - 2005 I was running MS Office 2003 Professional in Linux and it ran much better than in Windows XP on the same computer on which I was dual-booting Linux with Windows.

I was quite surprised by the better performance under Linux, but I suppose that the Linux file system was faster than the NTFS of Windows XP.

To install MS Office 2003 I had used Crossover, a Wine derivative. I had to pay a small fee for it, but it was worthwhile because previously I had to reboot the computer many times every day.

Then MS Office alternatives improved while MS Office got worse user interfaces, so with later versions of MS Office I no longer had the need to make them run on Linux.

Yes, I completely agree with everything you wrote. Those are precisely the reasons why I have bought two Xperia Compact until now (an X Compact 2 years ago and an XZ2 Compact with SDM845 this year).

While many people seem to like large smartphones and small laptops, I only use large laptops and small smartphones (small enough to fit comfortably in a shirt pocket).

I am always looking for good small smartphones, with up to 5 inch screen size, but I was not able to find any acceptable alternative to Xperia Compact.

I am using them for exactly the same activities listed by you, plus a few high-resolution photos & movies from time to time.

I do not use Google services, I do not have a Google account, but I use only the applications which came with the phones plus a few others written by myself and loaded on them with adb.

Xperia Compact are perfectly adequate for that and I have been very content with them.

Now I might buy another XZ2 Compact, to have a backup for the case when they would decide to discontinue the Compact line of products and no other vendor would offer something similar.

Sorry, the only revisionist history is in the phrases written by you, e.g in "Romania was not occupied by the USSR until the Soviets made their final push through Europe to Berlin", which contains two lies in a single phrase.

1. A large part of Romania was occupied by USSR in the summer of 1940. The Russians waited until the Germans completed the defeat of France, which was the last remaining ally of Romania. Immediately, a week later, the Russians invaded Romania. The official reason was that they want to reconquer a region that was occupied for one hundred years by the Tsarist Russia in the 19th century, after a war with Turkey, but even that reason was a lie, because the actual territory occupied in 1940 by the Russians was much larger than that ruled for some time by the Tsars.

My mother was 6-year old in 1940 and she escaped the Russians by being carried by a 20-year old cousin during the night, through some forests and marshes, across the new border, before it became impenetrable.

About 40 to 50 relatives that remained in the occupied lands were sent to Siberia a few months later, during the winter of 1940 to 1941. Russian colonists were brought and they received the houses and the lands of the natives. The Russians have lived in those houses ever since.

After one year, in the summer of 1941, Germany broke its former alliance with USSR and attacked it. Only at that point in time, Finland and Romania made a deal with Germany, to fight together against Germany, in order to get back their territories occupied by the Russians one year before.

2. There is a second lie in your phrase, Romania was not occupied when "the Soviets made their final push through Europe to Berlin".

In 1944, after Normandy, it became obvious to anyone that Germany will lose the war, sooner or later. Then Romania attempted to obtain better conditions at the end of the war. They broke the alliance with Germany and became allies of USSR and USA.

This allowed the Russians to pass through Romania without fight (not counting various robberies, rapes and murders of the civilians). Then Romania fought together with USSR until the end of the war and the war effort of Romania against Germany in 1944-1945 was actually about equal to the war effort against USSR during 1941-1944.

Nevertheless, that effort was useless, because the Western allies accepted the Russian wish and refused the cobelligerant status to Romania, even if that status was given to Italia, which was much less entitled to it.

That allowed the Russians to continue to steal a huge amount of goods during the next 20 years as "war reparations".

While Romania was not occupied until the end of WW2, the Russian army remained there at the end of the war as "allies". In the next 2-3 years, the "allied" army succeeded to install a puppet government after fake elections, which lead to complete dependence of the USSR, as in all the other Eastern European countries.

If you are serious when you say that "Finland was a WW2 ally of Hitler" and "they fought against the USSR" as if there would have been anything wrong about those actions, then you know nothing true about WW2 and all that you know comes only from deceitful propaganda written by those who have won the war.

USSR was as guilty for starting WW2 as those who are usually incriminated by UK & USA, i.e. Hitler, Mussolini & Japan.

During the first 2 years of WW2, while Germany was occupying many of its neighbors, USSR was doing exactly the same, occupying the Baltic countries and parts of Poland, Finland and Romania.

Moreover the Russian occupation was far more oppressive than the German occupation, because a large part of the civilian population from the occupied zones was sent to work camps in Siberia, where some were murdered and many others have died from diseases caused by cold and hard work. Very few have succeeded to return.

These are facts that I know directly, having 2 grand-grandfathers murdered by the Russians in 1940, one because he was a school teacher in a village school and the other because he had an insignificant function in the local public administration of the village, but nonetheless, both were distinguishable from the majority who were peasants and any such people were the first to be sent in Siberia to die there.

The people of USA, UK & Western Europe have bought their freedom after WW2 not with their own money, but with the money of the people of Eastern Europe, who were offered to the Russians to be robbed, for the alliance between USA, UK & USSR to be able to defeat Germany & Japan.

Finland and Romania who were previously victims of the Russian aggression, have tried to use the war between Germany and USSR as an opportunity to recover their own territories from the Russian occupation.

Of course they failed because they did not foresee that USA will enter WW2 and change the balance of power.

So the Russians kept after WW2 the occupied territories and their propaganda continues until now to claim that whoever tried to protect their properties and the life of their relatives against the Russian invaders were fascists, "Hitler allies" and so on.

If your profession is to spread Russian propaganda, e.g. about Finland being guilty of having been a "Hitler ally", then good for you.

But if you sincerely believe such junk, I can only pity you.