A counter-example doesn't disprove a general point.
You're describing a strong tie-in in your work environment to specific commercial software articles that are unavailable on Linux. This does not characterize most people (or even a large enough minority).
Now, you could make the argument that people interact with others using MS-Office documents, and that support for them in LibreOffice is insufficient. One could argue this both ways (as support has improved over the years and is by now passable IMHO), but that's not the same as what you're using.
In general, it _is_ true that people use the Operation System that came installed on their system. Most people are unable, or feel unable, to install an OS themselves and would not feel comfortable taking responsibility for choosing a different OS for their computing. Most do not even see this as a choice they are making.
Finally, the "foreign ecosystem" argument is circular. If you get a computer preinstalled with some operating system, and you learn how to use that, than other systems seem foreign. Few people get a Mac as a present then try to install Windows on it because it's a "foreign ecosystem"
> Doing a fully functional ports of software people use under Windows would've
It's the commercial companies which sell this kind of software that can port it.
> In general, it _is_ true that people use the Operation System that came installed on their system. Most people are unable, or feel unable, to install an OS themselves and would not feel comfortable taking responsibility for choosing a different OS for their computing. Most do not even see this as a choice they are making.
This suggests that, if given the option, people would buy a computer with Linux preinstalled instead of Windows. Yet, when such things were tried, people did not. Windows is pre-installed because it is the OS people want and need, not the other way around. There are an uncountable number of specialized applications for niche workflows available on Windows that are not available on Linux.
As briefly mentioned by the parent, a large part of the problem is how Linux approaches software: no real binary compatibility, for instance, means that you need this army of maintainers and packagers to keep software working. Who is going to do that for these niche pieces of software? I know that to many developers the idea of not-constantly-maintained software being used by people is an existential career threat and therefore a high crime, but the rest of the world has work to do and is totally fine using VB6 applications last compiled in 2004 because it allows them to actually get things done.
> This suggests that, if given the option, people would buy a computer with Linux preinstalled instead of Windows.
No, what I said does not suggest that.
> no real binary compatibility, for instance, means that you need this army of maintainers and packagers to keep software working.
It's a smaller army than the army you need in order to keep Microsoft Windows working, and even smaller compared to the army you need to keep the Windows software equivalent to what you get as part of a Linux distribution.
> There are an uncountable number of specialized applications for niche workflows available on Windows that are not available on Linux.
A counter-example doesn't disprove a general point.
You're describing a strong tie-in in your work environment to specific commercial software articles that are unavailable on Linux. This does not characterize most people (or even a large enough minority).
Now, you could make the argument that people interact with others using MS-Office documents, and that support for them in LibreOffice is insufficient. One could argue this both ways (as support has improved over the years and is by now passable IMHO), but that's not the same as what you're using.
In general, it _is_ true that people use the Operation System that came installed on their system. Most people are unable, or feel unable, to install an OS themselves and would not feel comfortable taking responsibility for choosing a different OS for their computing. Most do not even see this as a choice they are making.
Finally, the "foreign ecosystem" argument is circular. If you get a computer preinstalled with some operating system, and you learn how to use that, than other systems seem foreign. Few people get a Mac as a present then try to install Windows on it because it's a "foreign ecosystem"
> Doing a fully functional ports of software people use under Windows would've
It's the commercial companies which sell this kind of software that can port it.