I'm also of that perspective.

It's sort of worth noting though that when Microsoft is presented with an option for blocking out Linux installation: they take it.[0]

When Apple are presented with an option for allowing Linux, they take it.[1]

The major difference here is OEMs, and that Apple has no OEMs.

We're essentially giving Microsoft the moral high ground even though they do nothing to earn it.

[0]: https://www.mickaelwalter.fr/linux-on-surface-rt/#:~:text=Al...

[1]: https://asahilinux.org/about/#:~:text=Apple%20allows%20booti...

Nobody said anything about Microsoft here, so I don't understand the comparison. Just like Apple is better than Microsoft in that they don't actively prevent people from running the software of their choice on the hardware they bought, there's other companies that are better than either of them. There's hardware component vendors like AMD, Intel, and Realtek that employ people to maintain and upstream Linux kernel drivers for their hardware rather than leaving it up to the community to reverse engineer everything and develop new drivers like Apple does. Then there's PC companies like Lenovo, Dell, and System76 that will build a computer with these components and sell it to you with Linux preloaded. No dealing with Microsoft is required.

> I would never pay it for a machine that does not properly run Linux.

I find comments like this a little puzzling. Apple products run MacOS. The operating system is part of the package. And yet someone always shows up to say they would never buy it because of the operating system… it would be like me showing up on a post about an android phone and saying I would never buy it because it won’t run iOS.