You know, reading through your replies in this thread is kind of just sad. You selectively pick only tiny parts of comments to reply to, while ignoring the points that are made and the plethora of very, very common issues highlighted.
Sadly, it's also a very expected answer from someone who probably likes Linux a lot. No matter what argument is made, no matter what examples or proof are included, irregardless of the number of such things, it's all just user error in the end.
When the argument is that Linux only _properly_ supports a small subset of devices for _desktop computing,_ and the counter-argument is that it does, yet a person mentions very, very incredibly common issues . . . Is the proper response to say, to effect, you're the one at fault by not using the right hardware? No, no it's not. Given that so, so, _so_ many experience these kinds of basic UX problems means that either Linux doesn't actually properly support a lot of different hardware (despite what many obsessed Linux users screech/preach) or it supports them perfectly fine and the tons upon tons upon tons of people who experience these issues are all the ones at fault and in no way, shape or form does Linux lack from a well known general UX problem.
Even worse is this, honestly, moronic take:
> 2. It seems you're using hardware designed for Windows. It's like trying to install Windows on a Macbook: You're on your own here. Don't blame Microsoft or Apple for your issues.
If I wasn't before convinced that you aren't completely out of touch, I am now. The primary subject of _desktop_ users _are_ Windows users with Windows machines. Goodness gracious, I honestly do not understand this take. Most of Linux's not-always-optimal desktop hardware support comes from a plethora of formerly Windows machines.
It's honestly just so weird to argue that installing Linux on a Windows machine is in any way shape or form as bad as installing it on a Mac.
Even more, Linux-only devices, as in Linux-first devices, are more of a newer thing. There have been initiatives before, that have fallen through or not gained a lot of traction. It's not until relatively recently that companies making Linux-first devices for _desktop_ computing became a real thing. And even then, the Steam Deck blows them out of the water by mostly _removing_ the desktop-part of Linux and replacing it with a homebrewed one. Although you can still use a regular desktop "mode." And yet, even with such companies, Windows machines stand for a massive section of the Linux desktop computing userbase.
Ironically, this is exactly the kind of argument I'd expect from an obsessed and out of touch Linux user. Because it makes no sense, disregards the points other potential users make and doesn't even properly address them.