Every time I see a discussion on /g/ in which linux distros are compared to both old and new windows versions, I can't help but observe that their users very often resort to lying. Most of them repeats the same old lies like "linux is totally ready for the desktop" or "you will get hacked instantly after using old windows version". Both statements aren't true. Linux still has inferior software support, mediocre hardware compatibility, lacks basic features that were already present in Windows 98 and its community would rather argue over politics than fix the actual issues they have. Most linux users also fail to understand the basics of computer networking and they completely ignore that fact that your computer with good old Windows 7 is completely unreachable from the outside world to any chink botnet equipped with some old SMB exploits. And then, when you point out that most linux software is heavily dependent on one's internet connection, because most programs on linux need their dependencies to be downloaded from the internet, they start mumbling that its the same for Windows (its not), as if piracy and offline installers were never a thing (they absolutely are). You can have a huge collection of software on a single USB stick and use it to re-create your entire workflow on Windows 7, or even modern windows, completely offline and locally with no extra conditions, meanwhile its (almost) impossible to do on linux. Why its all the case though? My best best is that linux users simply need to lie, because they know that their fragmented, divided and incompetent community will never be able to gradually get enough attention on its own, therefore they need to groom people who struggle to deal with software into becoming their fellow abominations.