I wasn't trying to imply OS X or Windows are a "bed of roses" - frankly, they're not.
I agree with you that the euphoria comes with freedom of a linux distribution. That sentence was a bit of dry humor on my part.
But my point still stands, and it's not black and white. Windows and OS X aren't perfect at all despite being proprietary, and linux isn't terrible for being so open. In fact, I'd recommend every programmer be comfortable with linux and navigating the more complex advantages it presents, especially server-side.
But I really can't honestly say it's more convenient, or that the software you run on linux will typically be as well-designed and as useful as a proprietary system. It just isn't. And that's okay, but it's a self-perpetuating cycle because people don't want to break into linux and make it better without higher benefits and salaries, but those won't come without associating linux with quality, open software (and getting past the whole non-profit issue).
I agree with you that the euphoria comes with freedom of a linux distribution. That sentence was a bit of dry humor on my part.
But my point still stands, and it's not black and white. Windows and OS X aren't perfect at all despite being proprietary, and linux isn't terrible for being so open. In fact, I'd recommend every programmer be comfortable with linux and navigating the more complex advantages it presents, especially server-side.
But I really can't honestly say it's more convenient, or that the software you run on linux will typically be as well-designed and as useful as a proprietary system. It just isn't. And that's okay, but it's a self-perpetuating cycle because people don't want to break into linux and make it better without higher benefits and salaries, but those won't come without associating linux with quality, open software (and getting past the whole non-profit issue).