Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious what drivers you've had to compile? The only ones I've ever had to compile were GPU drivers for very very recent cards. On my current laptop, the only thing that doesn't work is the fingerprint reader (which doesn't even have a driver, makes me sad) - everything else is built into all the distros I've tried (Ubuntu, Fedora, NixOS). I am pretty curious in what places is the driver story behind?
Drivers for virtualized hardware is one big one. Parallels tools have to be recompiled for pretty much every new kernel version because Linux refuses to stabilize the kernel API. Often I have to edit the drivers by hand (example: replacing "sem" to "lock" for kernel 5.8 because apparently driver compatibility isn't as important as catering to kernel devs who don't know what a semaphore is?). In case you don't think v…
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Parallels comes with dkms module and while the process of installing involves compiling under the covers, it's just part of installation. It's not the late 90s "compile that driver yourself completely manually" situation.
If Parallels doesn't work with new kernel, that's their compatibility issue, but being able to fix the driver yourself just gives you more options. Linux -> you can fix the driver. MacOS -> you can on new macos, with annoying extra signing and other steps. (if the source for macos is even published - for parallels that's a no) Windows -> basically wait until the vendor produces an upgrade.
Parallels says for macos 12: "Productivity and integration features are not available to this VM yet." Even if you wanted to fix it manually - you can't. (https://kb.parallels.com/au/125561/)
Basically, you get the extra option to upgrade faster than your vendor is ready on Linux - if you use that path, why show it as "I had to do manual work to make things work", rather than something positive?