Which one is better? macOS, Windows, or Linux

@Moon -_-

10 chars

@Wabz 

no words eh

@Moon im saying that its not true

please read this: https://wearedevs.net/forum/t/16756

@Wabz no

Cleary linux is winning yes 

GNU/Linux is definitely the best operating system there is to date.
This is because of multiple factors all adding up into one, I will be discussing privacy, security, customizability, performance, support, curve of development, and freedoms/availability of software.

So, first off, let's jump into privacy. This battleground for Windows and macOS is lost before it has even begun.
The way that GPL and GNU software operate is quite clear, they are all open-source and maintained by usually not a company but by groups of contributors that do not necessarily have to have ties with the software in question in order to be developers for it, open-source software that grants you the right to modify the source code and redistribute it (one of the rights of libre software). Yhis means that it is absolutely meaningless for privacy holes, backdoors or anything else to be malicious within the actual code of the software. It simply makes absolutely no sense, this is why GNU/Linux without proprietary software is absolutely guaranteed to be free of whatever malicious features it would otherwise have.
Well, what about MacOS and Windows? Not a chance at privacy.
Your personal privacy is violated for the sake of telemetrics, analytics, usage reports and advertising (which is a big money-maker these days for the scummy companies willing to adopt such practices).
Both Windows and macOS have integrated telemetry, although Windows is the main violator here, as you can't even toggle any of these services off.
What can you do about these issues in proprietary software? Legally, absolutely nothing. What you get is what you get and you have no right to modify the software or in a lot of cases even reverse engineer it.
Without being able to view the source code of certain services and applications, oftentimes you are not even aware of the fact that they may be bugged or designed for malicious uses in the first place.
So, GNU/Linux - 1, proprietary operating systems - 0.

Security is also largely on the side of Linux, although MacOS manages to trail along to some extent. Security can no longer be viewed from the perspective of malware that was engineered by illegal third parties, this is a large misconception amongst the technologically illiterate these days. You are to value security against not just those that engineer malware but also against bioluminescent African-American federal agents.
Windows here has absolutely no say in this, it is singlehandedly the most targeted platform for malware, not just due to its market share but by the amount of vulnerabilities that it has, that combined with the mostly non-existent permissions and infinite ways to elevate privileges. As well, Windows is known to harbor backdoors in features such as Bitlocker ("Enterprise-level Microsoft Windows disk encryption feature" introduced back at Windows Vista, on details on the backdoor see _NSAKEY), killswitches within the operating system to render it useless and to even silently apply patches to the operating system without needing updates or even prompting the user (Already confirmed to have happened in Windows XP and Windows 7, thus making Windows an extremely unsafe platform from any federal, governmental or corporation-level attack.
macOS has one side semi-control. macOS is known for its extremely strict permissions system which is a tradeoff as you have to compromise application ease-of-programming and overall operating system capability. That doesn't mean that malware does not exist for it, it truly does, it is just harder to implement, has way fewer permissions than Windows, and is easier to notice for an everyday user. macOS does not however resist the hypnotization of the bioluminescents, and it's currently being investigated by people for potential backdoors that act like kill switches.
Linux? No antivirus software even exists. All software is most often downloaded directly from source repositories or compiled, those that don't come in binary form from trusted repositories before being checked thoroughly.
No backdoors or privacy-breaching features exist, and they cannot at all exist. On a lot of distributions, you may only ever need to touch libre software. Vulnerabilities are found and reported by the community, fixed by the community. Nothing goes under the radar for long. Hardened kernels exist, encryption features are strong and open source.

Customizability? Large topic, but once again, Linux wins. Both Windows and macOS are built around having only modular software. On Windows, most you can do is maybe get Wallpaper Engine, make your taskbar transparent, perhaps stick a few widgets on your desktop and get Rainmeter. macOS is just lego bricks. Linux allows you to change every aspect of your user interface, with different desktop environments, window managers, you can have your desktop appear Windows-like, MacOS, like, you can ditch all of those for something brand new like tiled window managers, possibilities are endless and there are endless amounts of customization freaks who have likely already coded something interface-wise that you would enjoy. Doesn't exist? You can always create it, as the operating system is modular, open-source, and well documented. If anything Linux installations look much better than Windows or macOS ones. See /r/unixp*rn for what some people come up with and are willing to share. Software customizability? Alternatives exist for every application and standard. Remember - GNU/Linux is a collection of software, not a singular entity, you can swap parts out, code your own, replace with whatever you find, and as long as you do it right and by the book, everything will work.

Performance on Linux is also unmatched by any other operating system. To say that Linux scales well is an understatement, in one form or another it will run on anything you want it to run on. The Linux kernel is compatible with not just x86_64 and x86, but also ARM, RISC-V, OpenRISC, MIPS, PowerPC and many more (Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux-supported_computer_architectures), the Linux kernel is fast, lightweight, well-engineered, GNU/Linux distributions and installations can be configured or set up in a way that runs well on pretty much any system, even if decades old, while still retaining new features and software support. Libre software can be compiled from source, ensuring that it will work on any architecture, provided that the source is available. This also covers the support category, Linux is MUCH more optimized and supported on a lot more machines than Windows or macOS is. It is also something to get used to that GNU/Linux installations will consume much fewer system resources, whether that's your RAM, storage, CPU, or even GPU for system graphical effects.

The curve of development is and will always be on GNU/Linux's side. The operating system / software collection is always being developed, unlike Windows and macOS, scaling across different platforms and hardware is a focus and necessity, you can be assured that your GNU/Linux installation will live on and receive support for an indefinite amount of time, as opposed to Apple's horrible practices of denying older devices updates, leaving them dead in the water, and Microsoft's needs to create new operating systems then charge people for them.

Now the big shocker, software availability. Once again, massive amounts of misconceptions and misunderstandings amongst primarily Windows users, which claim that Linux lacks support for software. And that's just the most stupid thing you can ever imagine, because once you try to recite what they stated, what they mean is that Linux lacks support for Windows software. Which is, well, great? Linux has alternatives for about anything that you'd want and have on Windows, except it's usually a non-proprietary form that does not hope to make cash off of violating the privacy and security of individuals, oftentimes being better, just less heard of around the world.
Games? A lot of new games developed by companies that practice their business well have native Linux support, those that don't will likely support a compatibility layer such as Steam's Proton or WINE.
Applications? Either native support, alternatives, or as a last resort, WINE. Like, yes, sure, you cannot run some mainstream application, such as say 'Genshim Impact' but would you really want to? If the application does not work even with a compatibility layer, that explains a lot about the practices of the company that developed it in the first place. You can run most things, not being to run a couple of Windows-only malware applications is just the whining of a windoze poweruser that does not recognize how brainwashed they are by their operating system.

In short:
* More private
* More safe and secure
* More trusted, cannot betray you
* More customizable both software and interface level
* Supported by most platforms and most hardware
* Much less bloated, less resource usage, better performance
* Rolling releases, no need to create new versions, will always be there.

If you don't want to waste ur time typing up command after command in a dark CLI window, choose Windows.

Why are you even thinking of setting up a hackintosh... You wont receive any more updates after Apple roles out M1.

For me Linux was a time waster. Always in terminal typing up commands and reaching dead ends.

Maybe try dualbooting a distro like Kubuntu, experience how it goes for you... If you had no problems adapting to it then just delete windows and live on with it. 

@NemesisX Stating that Linux nowadays is only about command-line interfaces or stating that they are still the major part of distributions is false and misleading.

@Texas

wrd is full of essay makers jesus