• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    810 days ago

    While it does feel like that from a Windows user’s perspective, you’re comparing running Windows executables on Windows with running Windows executables on Linux - no wonder it’s not as simple on Linux. Do you know what else is not that simple? Running Linux executables on Windows. In order to do that, you have to…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      110 days ago

      I understand all of that.

      It doesn’t change the fact that to execute a file you can’t double click the executable file.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        410 days ago

        You mean a Windows executable file. There are executable (Linux) files on Linux that start with a double click.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          Which OS has more executable files written for it that a regular user would regularly click on to open and not have to do an hr of troubleshooting?

          I use Mint and jump through hoops daily to do things that don’t require reading documentation on Windows.

          These are unfortunately the kind of things that prevents people from changing OSs

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            210 days ago

            Which OS has more executable files written for it

            Windows, of course, that’s out of the question. And yes, the problem wouldn’t be as annoying if proper corporate solutions were developed for Linux, as well - which is an investment, and they look at the proportions between the two, and choose the one with the larger user base. Which sucks as well, because the Linux user base is small exactly for the above reason (among others).

            Again, I’m not debating the whole issue at all - I just didn’t find the initial comparison fair, that’s all.