Let's make a few points clear.
Everybody seems to understand this already, however little known its major implications can be:
Linux in itself is a kernel, not an OS. Its main project is centralized but, as mentioned, not an OS, which's maintained otherwise.
Thanks for the reminder! Too many people don't know or care about that detail.
It's 2017, I don't have time or nerves to input noodles of commands that could be a matter of few simple clicks. I've had enough of that crap with BASIC and MS-DOS...
If you think Linux is about using the terminal all the time, then you're wrong. You can do things via the terminal, but you certainly don't have to. Where I live high schoolers get a laptop with Ubuntu on it, and only those who want to use the terminal. Most forget it's even there, since they never touch it.
Exactly - you HAVE to do a research. Windows is so much easier to live with.
I always look up anything I buy in advance, as I don't like unnecessary trips back to the store. So, to me, checking whether or not a computer works well under Linux is just one item out of my list. Not saying my method is the best or anything here, just explaining that I'll do research at any rate.
But anyway, you must've not paid attention while reading my previous comment. I said that hardware that does not come with documentation is going to have poor support.
Imagine a famous writer who decides to write their book in Uzbek only: is it our job to learn that language, or is it up to the writer (or editor, or whomever's in charge) to release an English translation? I think the answer is quite obvious.
Now, let's go back to computers: you can't demand that open source devs systematically make drivers (from scratch, no less) during their own free time. You like Windows better and you got your own reasons. That's totally fine. What's not fine though, is going around blaming the Linux kernel for the manufacturer's own shortcomings. They're the ones who need to make a Linux driver.
Moreover, it's not always about buying and having time for research.
E.g. I've surrendered using Linux on my notebook, because it was simply killing the whole idea of a mobile computer.
It made huge problems with many projectors I've come accross, with connecting phones.
There was simply no way to connect via a 3G modem I got from my employer (and a following research confirmed it wasn't compatible...)
But the biggest problem was the battery life.
Despite spending days on optimizing everything I could, I got only slightly above 3h of battery life (from both Debian+Xfce and Arch+Openbox).
That notebook came with a Windows XP and 4.5h battery life. Imagine the shock when - after upgrading to W10 - I once again had over 4h of battery life.
How can Linux have such an appalling power management? :/
Perhaps your laptop has a crappy BIOS/UEFI? I have a Dell E6420 running Manjaro, and battery life is great, the WWAN card works perfectly (I picked the plasma edition) and I've always been able to make it work with projectors at work. I could say the same about a Toshiba C50D (I can't be bothered to dig it to get the full model name) and an Asus A6Vc, minus the WWAN as those two last laptops don't have a WWAN slot. I could use my phone's tethering function just fine though.
I could also say that the Asus didn't have drivers for certain components under Windows 7, and, weirdly enough, going back to Win XP for testing, I found out that a couple just wouldn't work with either the drivers from the Asus website or third party websites (I did try... Hell, I even resorted to looking up drivers on softpedia). Still, no dice.
Lastly, I could also list all the laptops that have got good battery life at school, which would be over a dozen models (probably more in reality, as the project itself started in 2010 and I didn't work there back then).
I can't stress it enough: some manufacturers make crappy BIOSes and UEFIs (or anything other non standard piece of software, really) and we, the end users, have to suffer because of it.
