You didn't read again.
I asked you why it had to be "either-or"; i.e., why can't I run Windows AND Linux...
Think of it this way... I have three computers in my home. I've paid for Windows OS's for each of them. Why, then, if I also want to run Linux (which I haven't paid for), do you say I am "preferring" Linux?
I've not paid any money to support Linux, yet I have paid indirectly to Microsoft when I bought my computers with XP on them. If I've paid Microsoft and not Linux, how is this preferential to "whacko leftist Stallman"? You know he gets none of my money, right?
Obviously because you chose Stallman's clone of Unix over bonafide Unix like Solaris for Intel. You could dual boot that, or even run in it a VMWare virtual machine like I do, all free of charge. But Nooooooo, you prefer the whacko leftist option, and argue for it and in defense of Stallman endlessly instead.