Apple actually finally abolished the one-button mouse over a decade ago with the introduction of the Apple/Mighty mouse- better late than never - and I agree that one was just dumb. That said, any Mac user with a little bit of brains would have simply used his or her own two-button (or more) mouse far sooner than that anyway since those were perfectly usable and compatible for a long, long time.

So yeah, anyone who keeps touting this one as a criticism against Macs these days (and even before that) is just misinformed.
Wrong. See above. ;)

No. Games are not an OS, and none of my games gathers my data to sell to third parties (i'm as careful with what games i play as i am what OS and Digital Download platforms i use).

Linux is a great OS (free and open)
GOG is a great digital games download service (DRM-free and thus open for the end user to fully own their games)

It is just a shame Linux is not a better or more popular gaming platform as i could give up Microsoft completely.

I still find it interesting they've kept the idea alive for so long.

Well, look at it this way:
Wikipedia has 1799 entries in their list of PS4 games.
Steam lists 4683 Linux games right now.

As someone who could only afford one console per generation and went with a GameCube I can tell you that Linux is awesome for gaming. It's just that Windows is better (especially if you're looking for a specific game/genre).

WSL is intended for cloud-focused developers to have a similar environment on their own machine, that somewhat integrates with their familiar Windows environment (Windows drives are mounted under /mnt/<driveletter> without you actually configuring anything... and that's pretty much it). You don't have access to other Windows functions such as registry or whatnot (I'm uncertain as to whether you can see and modify Windows processes from inside WSL), and you can't run Win32 binaries from within the Linux environment (unless you install an XServer and Wine). While graphical applications are not officially supported, you can install a separate XServer (there are a few for Windows) and run both local and remote applications in X.

WSL is in fact NOT Linux, it's almost everything from a common GNU/Linux-based system, except the actual Linux kernel. You can think of it as similar to Wine, though as I understand it, really only in a rather simplified sense.

Yeah. I'm a bit of a games connoisseur (getting my start back in the 80's), and really we can blame MS again for Linux being as behind (vs Windows) as it is in relation to gaming. MS knew what they were doing.

Like i mentioned, if i didn't love PC gaming as much as i do i would not need an MS OS. I could 'get by' with just Linux games, but i've experienced too many great games down the years to be able to do that.

Actually, as someone who started in the 80s myself, if you simply enjoy great games, the jump to Linux might actually be easier. A few years ago I started to appreciate the quality of Indies a lot more as opposed to AAA, where many publishers need to play it somewhat safe. Linux is fairly well supported in that regard. I know it sounds weird (especially since you can have the same experience on Windows), but I actually enjoy gaming on Linux more.
If you have a lot of interest in AAA or simply want to check out all of the big titles, Linux is suboptimal, yes. We do have enough quality to likely keep you busy, though.

I think the jump is probably harder for people with very narrow and focused tastes. Especially if that taste is something like MMOs or fighting games.

Easier, actually. With things like Dosbox Game Launcher, Wine, and many other solutions for running old games, especially PowerPC, Win16, Amiga, and so on.

One more thing I like about "Linux" is that as far as I can tell, it isn't controlled by one company or party. While that can also be a weakness (no clear direction), it allows me to jump ship within Linux, if I get annoyed by a certain distro or the company behind it.

This has haooened twice. First I got interested into Fedora, but realized at some point it isn't the Linux for me because it is apparently a "beta-release" of Red Hat. Meaning, when I use it, it is always somewhat (or awfully) buggy and I am just acting as a beta-tester for Red Hat. And when finally a Fedora release appeared to become stable and problem-free, the support for that release ended (because Red Hat wanted to release it as a Red Hat Enterprise Linux) and I was supposed to move to the next buggy Fedora release. No thanks.

So I wanted something more stable and where the main target was home and common users. Ubuntu seemed to fit the bill and there were lots of users for it, but at some point the company behind Ubuntu (Canonical?) went into the same "tablet UI frenzy" as MS did with Windows 8, and changed the default user interface to a stupid "touch-friendly" UI. Also I think Ubuntu started having some Amazon "spyware" pre-installed, IIRC.

So I jumped ship again. Linux Mint was my choice (it appears to be basically Ubuntu, but with a more classic desktop interface), and I have been happy with it ever since. And within Mint, I specifically chose XFCE desktop because it feels clean and uses the least resources (the Cinnamonss and MATEs just feel gimmicky to me, having stuff I don't need).

In Windows I don't have similar options. When MS introduced the stupid Metro UI in Windows 8 or 8.1, the only way to avoid it was to stay in the older Windows 7. If MS starts pushing e.g. Windows Store more and more to the users and bit by bit abolish Win32 support so that people would favor UWP apps instead, there's not much I can do. I can't jump to some other non-MS Windows release which I like more and has different plans.

In a way Linux is like using browsers (within any OS). I originally used Netscape, but at some point Internet Explorer became better IMHO. At some point that changed and IE was seriously lacking behind and MS was trying to make IE incompatible with other browsers (so that web pages would favor IE), so I moved to e.g. Opera and Firefox. I liked especially Opera, but at some point it became shit with its new user-interface, so I started using mostly Firefox.

All the browsers basically do the same thing, but I can pretty easily jump ship between them if I like. I feel similar freedom within Linux distributions, but not with Windows. With Windows, I just pretty much have to put up with what MS wants, or leave Windows altogether.

Sometimes I hear some (non-Linux) people complaining it to be a nuisance that there are so many desktop GUI options for Linux distros, as if it would be better if there was only one option that everyone used. I don't find that as an issue at all. As far as I can tell, the way some Linux application works is not determined whether I am running it in e.g. XFCE or Cinnamon desktop.

Besides, Windows users themselves have become accustomed to MS overhauling the desktop completely. Just think how it has changed XP => Vista/7 => Win8/8.1 => Win10. I use Win7 at home and Win10 at work, the GUI and experience is quite different, yet that doesn't really affect the Windows applications I run on each Windows release. Yes. I've had to re-learn many things in Windows 10 (where can I find what etc.), just like I had to learn lots of things when moving from XP to 7.

As a programmer who actually has modified code without access to the source (albeit only a couple of times, and both times very small changes), it is *much* easier to make changes if you have access to the source code. In fact, I would say that only a small minority of programmers have the capability to modify a program without the source code. (Actually doing this requires a good debugger and knowledge of assembly language.)

That's because you are presuming that when they say it is "so moddable", you think they are referring to the user they are saying it to modifying it, but they're not.

Non-programmers can get it modded to their liking by doing other things like convincing a programmer to do it, paying a programmer to do it or contributing to a bounty to do it.

Just because it can be DIY, doesn't mean it has to be.

It largely relies on how open the program lays itself out. Sure, modifying the way a program actually functions can be a little less than easy, and once you hit 3D models, that can be complicated too, but I've seen games that all but lay their program bare.

because its way more configurable than windows, if you are geeky enough. Also eat less resources and run old games better (thanks to wine)

Not quite.

First, free has two meanings when it comes to Linux. Yeah, it's free, as in, it doesn't cost money. But it's also free, as in, it has no encumbrances. I can run Linux on whatever hardware I want, and I can use whatever components I want. Don't like Firefox? Don't install it. Don't like Thunar? don't install it. Don't like systemd? No problem, you can still use init. Now, let's look at Windows - don't like Internet Explorer or Edge. Too bad. They're an integral part of the OS. Don't like Windows Explorer? Too bad. You don't have to use it, but you can't remove it. This is where Linux is truly free.

The assessment of whether or not it's "good" is too subjective. Linux is very good at certain things, but if those things don't interest you, Linux probably isn't "good" for you.