And I totally agree with you. I just lament that games and other made for Windows software is what's enabling that. People should just want a free and opensource operating system as a matter of self interest... but no. It's games and Windows apps. Yet another sign that our species is just sick in the head. :)
I'm with you that we need some deprogramming when it comes to how we're far too complacent with the privacy-ignoring and humanity-disrespecting behaviour of Microsoft. But at least personally I was always someone who accepted it with gritted teeth because the alternatives sounded like a downgrade in other ways.
Now that Linux is faster, smoother, more user friendly and compatible than ever, it made the decision to delete my Windows partition much less daunting.
And now if Linux does give me headaches (it's not a perfect experience!) I'm much less likely to immediately give in and reinstall Windows because I'm now accustomed to the aspects that I didn't realise were so important to me before.
Only reason I'm holding on to my Windows partition at this point is for rare scenarios like needing to reprogram my VKB stick, which only has a Windows executable. Other than that, I've not fired it up in months. And I'm a pretty rabid gamer.
I don't see it that way; it's a compatibility layer that enables Linux to run a wider amount of software. It would be better if all developers provided native Linux packages and provided the source code for anyone to compile, but because of Wine we don't even need that. :)
I'm no capitalist but I feel compelled to point out that there's money to be made from free software. Selling support or related services is one way, I think (even) Stallman gave the example back in the day of how he made money through selling physical copies of software (before online distribution was universally viable). The software was free and could be re-distributed, but a profit could be made from providing the service of doing the distribution.
On a larger scale (although they’re not so popular at the moment), historically Red Hat has been the go-to example for how to make money and in the spirit of free software. They fund and contribute to many upstream FOSS projects, and in return they can make a fortune out of selling commercial support for that software, while the software itself is still free.
Now, even Google are using FOSS for development, albeit in user-hostile ways that we should oppose at least as strongly as proprietary software.
Did I object to making money? No. I object to allowing the making of money to be the guiding principle of software development. Make something great? Want to sell it? Fine. But only write it for Windows because it will sell better? Burn in heck.
Did you think the burn in heck was for you? It wasn't. It's for people who only write software for Windows because it makes them more money. No one was being hostile to you. Seriously, what the heck?