We are posting at very nearly the same time so if what I say seems out of synch that would be why.
I guess I'm as guilty of projection as anyone else--- I just assumed(bad word I know) that folks kept machines for testing based on what the code in question would run on. It just never occurred to me that this wouldn't be the case. Having said that, your reply forces me to examine that assumption; and frankly I find it pretty faulty. Why would you want to cripple a spare machine(if you have one) with something like Windows? First of all as was pointed out by runrig
some people prefer not to pay for something they don't want?
Which same actually makes two points. It is unwanted, and it costs money. In self-defense, it is not that I want it, it is rather that my customers use it. Second I tend to forget it's cost since upgrades are reasonable; worse I forget from the other side that Linux is free. In addition, I am guilty of thinking that everyone else thinks the same way as I do. Which in retrospect is damn silly, but it has been a lifelong failing. Face it, I don't understand why you haven't gotten the feedback from the windows side of things. I don't mean the criticism, I mean the bug reports, the suggestions and all the rest that makes the sacrifice of free time worth while. While I make no claim to being typical, I've never hesitated to email with either problems or suggestions. They have invariably lead to interesting connections and incremental changes for the better along the way.I think what this comes down to is that good programmers deselect themselves from the group I was ranting about.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing...it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."