In general, Linux is faster and more secure than most closed source alternatives, including Windows and macOS. In terms of moral "superiority," some users appreciate that Linux does not collect information about its users, does not install updates without permission, and is open source. There are downsides to Linux however, such as shorter battery life and a potentially harder user interface.
Your claim that supporters of Linux who claim superiority over competing tech are clueless and ignorant about the facts is not supported by evidence. Do you have any?
>In general, Linux is faster and more secure than most closed source alternatives, including Windows and macOS.
Not that I feel the need to prove anything about myself, but I have been using Linux since 1995, so I have had a fairly long-term experience with using Linux, and I personally have never found it to be faster. To that end, I will concede that the word faster is not a measurable metric. We'd have to define a workload - one that isn't biased towards an OS design, provide an argument that it is a reasonable workload to compare OSs with wildly different design goals, etc, etc.
>Your claim that supporters of Linux who claim superiority over competing tech are clueless and ignorant about the facts is not supported by evidence. Do you have any?
Yes. I've been reading Slashdot since it started. There isn't a single story about Windows or Microsoft on Slashdot that doesn't contain false information.
Your claim that supporters of Linux who claim superiority over competing tech are clueless and ignorant about the facts is not supported by evidence. Do you have any?