Windows junkies often toss around the rhetoric that Window$ has support available, therefore it is more fitting for the individual user. Assuming that can be taken at face value, is it not indicitave that Window$ shortcomings demand a massive support network? But that may not be a fair assessment as any sufficiently complicated system can require such assistance. I think the real confusion arises from the failure to distinguish between different types of support presence.
Proponents of this argument erroneously use this definition interchangeably to describe both enterprise support and end user support. I wonder if they know that they’re being disingenuous or if they really just fail to see that they’re ascribing two different meanings. This description, for example:
Comparing Windows vs. Linux support is hard. Windows offers paid professional support as well as access to clear documentation and tutorials. Its popularity also drives the market of third-party support vendors and result in many tutorials and answered questions on the forums. On the controversy, Linux relies on community support, where regular users help each other out through forums and issue trackers. Results are often confusing - but from a broader perspective, the Linux community usually provides more detailed and “designed for humans” information.
How many home users of Windows have been able to receive human assistance from MS with a phone call? No, they end up dredging the depths of Goolag search or finding their way to the MS community support forum. The paid support that they speak of is actually pertaining to enterprise solutions, not Joe Sixpack. And support contracts are not unique to Window$, by any means, as similar can be had among the various Linux vendors. So if the author above wanted to make an honest comparison it should either be between home user support vs home user support or between enterprise vs enterprise.