> straight up bad faith.
You do not know my motivations, so kindly do not question them.
> Google is a tech giant with immense marketing capabilities.
So?
So is Red Hat, for instance.
> They sell laptops which obviously outsell anything like framework/purism/system76/pine64
[1] Wrong: not only Google sells Chromebooks. In fact I submit that it is a minority vendor of Chromebooks.
[2] Obviously outsell etc.
Why is this obvious? What do you feel is obvious here, and why?
> they would even if the product was garbage.
Evidence, please? On what basis do you make this claim?
> mechanical consequence of what google is
What is a "mechanical consequence"?
> they happen to have a product running it
"happen to have" is bogus. This took years, major effort, and the people behind it had to fight for it.
> it doesn't say anything about chromeos.
It 100% does. It says that Linux is ready for the desktop, and that it has been for years. It outsells the only other rival product to MS Windows; how much more ready can anything be?
The year of Linux on the desktop came and went and the Linux world was, as ever, too busy squabbling and arguing with itself to even notice.
Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of consumers are happily running Linux laptops and Linux phones and just use it, all day every day...
And all the distros are a rounding error.