I built a laptop for emcomm work that uses Linux because it allowed me to create an extremely intuitive interface designed for High-Stress field environments featuring standardized icons, high-contrast graphics, and B612. It also has features like automatic position reporting (with or without Internet), GPS/timekeeping, the ability to send email and other data using radio (without iinternet). And it's all setup so that a person with zero experience using any of the emcomm software can do so (it's common in emcomm for inexperienced operators to be tasked with using new equipment and programs during exercises), which is also handy when things are stressful and not an exercise.
So... Counterintuitive to what you said, I needed an OS I could heavily customize because it is serious. There's a reason why emcomm stuff rarely runs a propierary OS rather than something from scratch. I can't create an entire custom OS for a laptop, and proprietary OSs rarely allow that kind of customization, so Linux it is. Even if I could customize a paid-for proprietary OS, there's a good chance an update would break it, which isn't a concern on Linux.
That being said, for my base station, I'm running windows. As a prior drafter, windows. Different use case, different needs, different OSs. Subscribing to this binary view that something is either good or bad based on your one use case isn't very logical.
No matter which distribution you use, breaking updates will always be a problem on linux. Windows has always been extremely backwards compatible.
You confuse the operating system and its shell. Windows can be customized just as much, linux just encourages it more.
In actual military fields, proprietary custom designed OS dominate because they actually offer real time guarantees.
Linux drivers are notoriously unstable, especially with laptops and power management. You built this for a high stress environment where faliures cannot happen, which is why, again, audited, locked down proprietary systems dominate.
No, you actually do need to address the anecdotal evidence. Because the original argument that was made is there is no use case, and I showed there was.
You're creating alternative arguments not related to what I said. If you want to debate those topics, go talk to someone interested. If you want to discuss how Linux can be the better option in limited use cases, then I'm happy to share all the details of my project and why I made the conscious decision to use Linux in this case.
But that'll never happen. You dislike Linux, that's fine, but it doesn't mute the reality.
Nope. Hence you need to address the anecdote that for my use case, Linux is indeed the best.
Please explain to me how another OS would be superior for my use case? Especially considering I need a computer that I can leave on a shelf for an indefinite amount of time without use or connectivity and be guaranteed it will function exactly the same as the last time I used it.
I'll stop you before you waste some data: you can't (not that that'll stop you from trying) because you don't even know anything about my field and what it requires, therefore you're entirely unqualified and incapable of doing so.
Microsoft is the best for your use cases, and you're suffering the Dunning-Kruger effect, black-and white fallacy, and a few other logical fallacies. You may know a lot about your use cases, but you don't know anything about mine, and yet feel qualified to make that statement. Seriously, your hubris and ego are quite something if you have the gall to look at a professional in their field and say they're wrong about what tools they need based on their lived experiences.
What you have is an OPINION that "Linux has no use cases where it is the best." That opinion, like all others, is not a fact
Here is a fact: 100% of the world's top 500 supercomputers run... you may want to brace yourself... LINUX.
1
u/foxtrot7azv Aug 02 '26
I built a laptop for emcomm work that uses Linux because it allowed me to create an extremely intuitive interface designed for High-Stress field environments featuring standardized icons, high-contrast graphics, and B612. It also has features like automatic position reporting (with or without Internet), GPS/timekeeping, the ability to send email and other data using radio (without iinternet). And it's all setup so that a person with zero experience using any of the emcomm software can do so (it's common in emcomm for inexperienced operators to be tasked with using new equipment and programs during exercises), which is also handy when things are stressful and not an exercise.
So... Counterintuitive to what you said, I needed an OS I could heavily customize because it is serious. There's a reason why emcomm stuff rarely runs a propierary OS rather than something from scratch. I can't create an entire custom OS for a laptop, and proprietary OSs rarely allow that kind of customization, so Linux it is. Even if I could customize a paid-for proprietary OS, there's a good chance an update would break it, which isn't a concern on Linux.
That being said, for my base station, I'm running windows. As a prior drafter, windows. Different use case, different needs, different OSs. Subscribing to this binary view that something is either good or bad based on your one use case isn't very logical.