They know the services, and they're easy to use. Being the product means that there are SRE teams keeping the services up, and it funds development.
You can't host your own services and expect everyone else to do the same. You'd be asking the "I hate technology" crowd to learn what to do from the very ground up. As in, a lifetime of experience that they didn't invest in.
Google is attempting to remove the freedom of viewing HTML the way I want to view it from my own devices. While they're free to run their website the way they want to, the principle of attempting to remove your freedom of choice is not only a bad look, but violating.
These two things are different, and one does not negate the validity of the other.
Would you be able to fill this 60 TB beast with games?
Why would you do that? You can only play one game at a time. You'll really only enjoy a few games at most a day. Just keep the game data on the Deck that you plan to play.
This is like keeping every website you know open in a tab, just in case you plan to visit it.
The bloat most people will care about in terms of Linux is facing down a software update prompt with 1000 packages and feeling anxiety over the last such dialog box destroying the use of their favorite apps.
This would be a bug in packaging. File a bug with the distro.
This doesn't happen as often as you think on a properly-configured system.
Imagine a world where people say "I would use Linux, but I'm going to stay with Windows because Linux is too bloated."
I don't know where the recent surge of not wanting package dependencies is coming from. Folks even not wanting dynamic links. We're acting like Linux distros are somehow suddenly broken or impossible to maintain, yet there are hundreds of successful distros doing just that, and for decades.
Docker is a success in some ways, but it's not a silver bullet. It's a great way to make a 800 KiB program ship in a complex 300 MiB box.
If you had an entire operating system built with static links, it would be giant and ugly. You have to stop and think: if it's such a great idea, then why does pretty much every distro supply packages with dynamic links?
When shipping your own software, yes, you certainly want control over your own runtime. If you rely on an OS-supplied Ruby, for example, then when Ruby 3.3.0 comes out, your gems will need to be rebuilt, and it'll happen by surprise. A runtime and shipping stuff to your own infra is much different than packages responsible for running the operating system.
They know the services, and they're easy to use. Being the product means that there are SRE teams keeping the services up, and it funds development.
You can't host your own services and expect everyone else to do the same. You'd be asking the "I hate technology" crowd to learn what to do from the very ground up. As in, a lifetime of experience that they didn't invest in.