>>14460
>You don't take advantage of FOSS.
I do. All my everyday programs are FOSS, my Linux system has custom scripts and settings for me and I did things that are hard or impossible to do on an everyday Windows PC. Moreover, I'm gonna buy a small cheap ARM computer (and maybe even two) which will have full support of my everyday software. If the future is bright (or not so bright), I might be thinking of changing my computer to a RISC-V or MIPS based one without losing almost any of my software use cases, the switch will be seamless.

>You've never looked into the software to determine how it works.
I did. In fact, I do it on a constant basis and even when riddling around with Windows fuckups of others' I use methods I got with my Linux experience (like using strace).

>And Stallman is a foot-eating pedophile. Separate the art from the artist.
Stallman being a foot eating pedophile does not interfere with GCC and Emacs being great software since Stallman makes no fools of his code' users, just granting (and not forcing) them fruit of his work. He explicitly states the the user is free to use his code in every way possible if they respect the rights of other users, that's what the 4 freedoms are all about.
And here's Gates who sees himself ad a shepherd of the sheeple, always telling the others what to do and restricting their freedoms in one on another way, all while forcing his software through shady agreements, i.e. the school ones. That's what the shittiness of MS (besides managerial bullshit leaving lots of code that matters in unmaintained and unmaintainable state) is, not the public image, but the treatment of the customers.

>Windows is utilitarian with a focus on getting shit done.
If Windows would be utilitarian, it would have a decent shell and a whole lot of shell programs, at least boasting a BusyBox alternative. That's how shit is done. And even if it is "utilitarian", these gigabytes of RAM and hard drive storage eaten by Windows have to be explained, since no program that does one thing and does it well eats up that much. The thing is that most Windows parts were (and are) actually customizable (and they are under the hood), but the shepherds of the sheeple restricted most of that or either did a lot of settings no one actually uses, but the manager almighty wants. AFAIR, moving the panel in Windows 11 is now non-negotiable, something that even Windows 95 could do.
The very concept of "utilitarian" is intertwined to some extent with the UNIX concept of simple programs that do one thing and do it well. Yet a lot of classic UNIX programs boast configurability in the same package. Most of that configurability is done by the shell, while the other part is dictated by the users who code the software, not managers who use another OS at home and don't really care about their product. Each way UNIX systems win, (yet a simple do one thing and do it well approach is the thing that should be preferred, since there is the common glue - the unix shell).

>Imagine spending 10 minutes writing assembly code
Ever written assembly code? I guess you have no idea about the assembly. Why would you mention things you have no idea about?